The Commonwealth. — 1866-08-11 (London, England)

LOVE AND VENGEANCE.  Ann Coney, a buxom young woman, apparently about 18 years of age, and of decent appearauee, was charged before the magistrate at Worship-street, with attempting to commit suicide by swallowing a quantity of copperas, at her home in Hart-street, Bethnal-green. The evidence was that at half-past 12 o'clock on the night of the 2Sth ult, a loud shriek was heard to proceed from an upper room of the house in questien. and that the prisoner was found lying ,on a bed there, manifestly in great pain and excitement. A little girl who was present pointed to an empty cup, and said that "Ann had drank something from it." Banks, 100 H, was called in, and it being evident that the prisoner had swallowed some corro,ive liquid, he sent for Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon. Meanwhile a packet of copperas was found in the room. 'the medical gentleman arrived, and applied the stomach-pump, which elected apparently to her great saUsfaction and relief, a quantity of fluid strongly impregnated with copperas, and after five minutes' insensibility she admitted having mixed and swallowed it. Subsequently she became very ill, but the quantity taken was not sufficient to occasion death. The constable was given to understand that she 'cad had a quarrel with her young man." The magistrate asked her if it was so, and if so, whether that hadinduced her to attempt eelf-deetruction. Prisoner looked round the court, and only replied, "Oh, he is not here." When given.to understand that she must be remanded for the purpose of hearing good words from the chaplain of the House of Detention, she became again excited, and, while leaving the court for the cell, called to some girl in the body of the court, "Sally, tell him I'll have vengeance for what be has done to me. I'll have his life.  MR. GLADSTONE AND LORD DUNKELLIN'S AiIIENDMEIVT. At a meeting of the East Kent Liberal Regietratiou, held on Saturday at Canterbury, for the purpose of considering the conduct of Sir E. Daring in voting against the late Government upon the rating question of the Reform Bill, the following letters, which had been sent to Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen. were read "11, Carlton-honse•terrace, S.W., July 30. "My dear Hugessen,—l have received your letter, inclosing a copy of one addressed by Sir Edward Daring on the 16th of July to Lieutenant-General Williams; and, as you have asked my opinion on the case, I shall consider, your request as my warrant for commenting on a matter which is indeed of great public interest, but in which I have no title whatever to interfere. "I cannot say that Sir Edward Daring's reasons for voting with Lord Dunkellin have, in my view, any weight. He says it was not proposed by Lord Dankellin, or by any one else, to substitute a .£7 rating for a .C 7 rental. But I apprehend this very thing was proposed by Mr. Cave, the gentleman selected to second the metion. The mover, I think, stated his preference for a ..-ed rating, whieh would have excluded a large.number whom he had proposed to enfranchise. Sir E. Daring will recollect that the speakers for the amendment.were gentlemen opposed either•to the hill or to the franchise clauses. He says the Government. shcrald have proposed a rating franehise of an amount not higher than the rental franchise. Now, as .E 6 rating would have been materially higher, he must apparently mean that we might to have proposed a XS rating franchise. But this, the next lowest figure, would have given an enfranchisement materially larger than that of the bill. I wonder Sir E. Denng dues not sea that if we had done this we should for the first time have given colour, and even more than. colour, to the charge which has from the beginning been urged against us with such persistency and such gross and palpable injastioe,—the charge of having disregarded the fears and scruples of the moderate, and of having leant to the doctrines of extreme politicians. What he recommends as the obvious and easy remedy for the dilemma was in our view wholly inadmissible. "Bat it is one questi.,n whether the vote, or ttel reasons given for it, are good, and it is another whether I, if I were an elector of East Kent, should withhold my support from Sir Edward Dozing on aecount of it. It ought, I think, now to be the great object of all who are interested either in the Liberal party, or in the subject of Parliamentary Reform, to bring about such an union of sentiment in the party as may obviate all risk of the repetition of the late unhappy events, and may secure a speedy and satisfactory settlement of the question. I give entire credence to any declaration proceeding from Sir E. Daring; and, examining his letter, with the view I have described, I find its meaning unequivocal, especially where he says that by proposing an equivalent enfranchisement in an altered form we should, .if beaten on that vital point,' have 'put ourselves in the right and our opponents in the wrong.' This proves, without entering into minute criticism, that Sir E. Dering was friendly to the substance of our measare. On that ground, without in the least degree qualifyin.g my opinion as to the particular vote, I not only, if I were one of your, brother electors, should not vote the eyseaand e hsir Ipeot tretr as andif atahcaetp ohties hdeactilanroa! against Sir E. Donn& but I should coutinue to afford ttenns,giinvethe spirit of confidence, and not in the spirit him exactly of saspicihn. We, the supporters of the hi l, who have had occasion to feel how the spirit of enspicion poisons the atmosphere of politics, and renders hopeless what otherwise, though difficult, was practicable enough, should, I think, set an example of discarding it and of interpreting and treating others as we wish toe treated and interpreted ourselves.—l remain, my de* Hugeesen, sincerely yours, W. E.