The Sun. — London, England, 1862-02-11 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAM EN T HOUSE OF LORDS—YESTERDAY. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack to the usual hour. POLAND. The Marquis of NORMANB Y presented petitions from Nottingham and Bolton, expressing sympathy with Poland, IMPRISONMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS, The Earl of CARNARVON said he was most anxious to put a question to the noble earl opposite, relative to the notice which he had given him previously. On Friday last he had referred to the imprisonment of a Canadian subject, under a warrant from Mr. Seward. Since that day he had lamed that three other British subjects; had been detained in a Federal fortress, and that all liberation was denied until the oath of allegiance to the United States was taken. He thought if such was the fact the Government ought to take the most energetic steps to prevent such seizures for the future. The names of two of the parties were Charles Reed of Savannah from Liverpoool, Andrew Low, and an other person, whose name he did not at the moment remember. Earl RUSSELL said—l think the noble earl can hardly have read the papers that have been laid on the t able of the house by command of her Majesty. There has been a cor respondence between Lord Lyons and Mr. Seward and be tween the British and American Governments on this sub jeat, and in the statement the noble earl has made I think he has hardly taken into account the very critical circum stances in which the Government of the United States was placed. In the spring of last year nine States of the Fede ration declared war against the Federal Government. Now, it has been usual for all Governments in such circumstances to imprison on suspicion the persons of those who they con- Bider are taking part in the war against them. Not many years ago, in 1848, when a conspiracy existed in Ireland for the purpose of overturning the authority of her Majesty's Government, the Secretary of State applied to the other louse of Parliament for a suspension of the habeas corpus, and, consequently, the power of arresting persons on sus picion of treasonable practices. After that date there occur red two cases in which American citizens were arrested in Ireland by order of the Secretary of State. On those two cases representations were made to her Majesty's Govern ment by the Government of the United States. Lord Pal merston replied, that with regard to those two persons, the British Government had full information that they were at the time engaged in an attempt to subvert the authority of the Sovereign. Those persons, I believe, were never brought to trial; I never heard of their having been tried. They were arrested, and detained solely by the authority vested in the Crown by Parliament. No doubt complaints have been made by certain British subjects in America that they had been arrested on suspicion, only on the order, and by the authority of the Secretary of State of the Federal Go vernment. I directed Lord Lyons to represent these cases to Mr. Seward, and, as especially with regard to one of them, it appeared that there had been very light grounds far the suspicion, I. thought an inquiry into them ought not to be delayed. I do not vindicate the act of the American Government in any of these cases ; whether it had good, or only light grounds for its suspi cions, lam not here to say. It is not my business to un dertake the defence of the American, Government in this house. But it is contended that the constitution of the United States gives the President a power, under certain circumstances, to arrest persons on suspicion and confine them in prison during his will and pleasure. This question has been much debated in America. Some high legal autho • rities say that the Act of habeas corpus cannot be suspended by the President alone ; but, on the other hand, lawyers have maintained the contrary opinion. I have received within the last few days a pamphlet written by a gentleman at the head of the bar of America, in which it is argued, with much ingenuity, that the writ of habeas corpus can be sus pended without the assent of Congress, and by order of the President alone. The question has been brought before Congress itself; a resolution was proposed that the act of the President should be sanctioned by the Legislature ; but it was contended that such a resolution was without any precedent to support it, and a majority decided that the question should not be discussed. With regard to the par ticular acts which Mr. Seward, under the sanction of the President, has authorized, in the arrests of British subjects, as well as American citizens,' am not here to defend them. Bat I think the authority to make such arrests is one that must belong to some person in the Government of the United States, if it believes that the parties are engaged in a treasonable conspiracy against it, either by furnishing arms to the enemy or acting as spies. As to many of these cases, I believe there has been what was very likely to occur—some unnecessary suspicion and same ill-treatment. But Ido not find that in any of these cases there has existed any disposition on thepart of the American Govern ment to prevent the British consuls from having access to prisoners, or to prevent them from stating their complaints to Lord Lyons ; nor do I find that Lord Lyons has been slow in representing them to the American Government. I understand that attending to those cases has taken up a great part of his time. Nor can I say that Mr. Seward has refused to listen to those com plaints. Whether these parties were or were not engaged in treasonable practices against the Government is a ques tion upon which we cannot enter. The noble earl says the arrests were illegal, and that the present detention of the parties in prison is illegal. That is more than I can ven ture to say. I cannot venture to say that, supposing these persons were engaged in treasonable practices, the Presi dent has not the power to arrest them. That is a stronger denial of the opinion of the law officers of the United States than I can venture to give. We all know that since the time when the American States were divided much sym pathy has been shown in this country, both with one side and the other. Some have shown a strong sympathy with the North, while others have displayed an equally strong sympathy with the South. It is quite impossible for the Government to say, without knowing the circumstances, that these persons were not connected with the Confede rates. In some of these cases I shought it quite evident that the persons arrested had not been engaged in any conspiracy. One gentleman happened to be partner in a firm the other member of which had great connexions with the South and had Southern sympathies. But the gentle man himself was always a staunch supporter of the Union, and his arrest was induced merely by the circumstance of letters having been sent through his firm. I thought that very arbitrary and unjust. Mr. Seward said he thought the circumstances were sufficient to create suspicion, but as soon as it was ascertained that there was no ground for the suspicion this gentleman was released. A mere release however, was far from being adequate compensation to him, because he was a p erson i n a most respectable position,, and for such a perso n t o b e arrested and kept ina close prison for several days is a grievance of which any Government has a right to complain. Beyond the right of complaint, however, and beyond the constant interference of Lord Lyons, whenever cause is shown to him, I do not know in the present state of things what further course is to be taken. The noble earl mentioned three cases, and among them was that of Mr. Green. This gentleman stated that he desired no action to be taken by his friends in England with refer ence to his arrest, as Lord Lyons was possessed of the lead ing facts of his case, and in due time they would receive in vestigation. The result of the whole matte: is that there have been many cases of arbitrary imprisonment, and that these cases have occurred when the Government of the United States are engaged in a civil war, perhaps one of the most serious and formidable in which any country was ever engaged. It is not for us to decide the right or wrong of the case, but I think we must admit that all the arts which are used by civilised nations against each other in time of war are open to both the belligerents here. With regard to these arrests, I believe that to whatever it may be owing— whether to the novelty of the thing in North America, to the inexperience of the persons intrusted with the duty of I exe cising this power, or to the circumstance that arbi rary power can never be safely intrusted to any one, and if so in trusted is sure to be abused—however this may be, I believe there has been much abuse of the power of arbitrary arrest. (Ilear, hear.) This I can only say, that every case where an appeal has been made to the British Minister has been sedu lously attended to, and has been brought before the Ame rican Government. In every case also where reasonable cause of complaint can be shown I shall be always ready, if necessary, to instru c t L or d L yons to b r i ng t h e ma tt er un d er the co nsiderati on of the United States Government. Lord Lyons has never been wanting in that duty. Ho has shown himself, I think, respect, a vigilant British Minister, and I tru s t that your lordships will not be of opinion that these cases have been neglected by the Government of this country. (Rear, The Earl of DER hy earl is not able to he,l am sorry to find that the noble answerthe statement made by my noble friend, and that ha e v e i m n ed b t o east some censure upon ray noble friend for strop this subject to your lordships' attention with a g to the illegality of these arreststg exprestion of opinion as it wa s difficult to listen to the statemNow, I must say that noble frit nd without being excited to the high est e d n e t of my degree of indignation at the gross outrages thus inflicted upo n British subjects. (Hear, hear.) lam willing to admit that every allowance should be made for the circumstance s of ditnew-s y y which but I must sa the American Government is placed a n d the exrglene of the civil war in which they are engag e d ; that the course they have pursued respecting British sub jrcts in America, notwithstanding the remonstrances from time to time addressed to them by Lord Lyons —and lam sure no thought was further from my noble friend's mi n d than to cast the slightest censure upon Lord Lyons, wh o seems to have performed his difficult duties at Washington with firmness and with prudence—(hear)—l say that the treatment of British subjects by the American Government has been such as highly to try the patience of this country. (Hear.) I think we are justified in using strong language upon the course thus pursued by the American Government, coneidering more especially that on some former occasions her Majesty's present advisers have not been slack to assert or slow to vindicate the aye's _Romanus doctrine professed by th e noble lord now at the head of the Government. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) In this instance, however, the civic Roman us does not appear to have derived a great deal of benefit from his citizenship. (Laughter.) In the course of his correspondence with Mr. Seward the noble earl seems to have invoked against these proceedings the protection of American law, declaring that he bad no right to re- zw.4% sist, with regard to British subjects, that which the law sanctioned with regard to American'citizens ; bttt the ques tion was, did the law sanction these proceedings ? The noble earl, however, acquiesced contentedly when the Ame rican Secretary of State replied that he did 11 feel bound to accept from a British Minister his explanation of tha American Constitutict. Now, I wish to a-k a question, raised by lay noble friend, which the noble earl very con- Veniently thought it unnecessary to answer. He states that Congress had passed a resolution affirming the course taken by the President in suspending the habeas corpus. [Earl RUSSELL—Virtually affirming it.] Well, virtually affirm ing it. No law can be shown to support the President's exercise of the power, and a number of the most learned and able judges in the States have denied that he possesses any such power, although the action of the judges at the present moment is subject to rather unusual restrictions. (Hear, and laughter.) At present therefore there exists no appeal with respzet to the law of the United States, but the noble earl says that virtually Congress has affirmed that the Pre sident possesses by the constitution, whenever he thinks fit, the power of suspending the habeas corpus without reference to Congress or to any authority other than his own discre tion. Certainly, for a very free Government and pure de mocracy, I do not think that is a very happy state of law to live under, and it does not seem to afford a very strong illustration of the superior happiness which the American people enjoy over those whose lot is cast under the old monarchies. (Hear.) The noble earl has shown that in Ireland the habeas corpus has been suspended by the autho rit y of Parliament, and that the Lord Lieutenant has exor cised the right thus conferred upon him, even in the case of American citizens. But what I want to know is, can he show rs any British or any American precedent where upon su h an arrest it has been required as a condition, not of release, but of being brought to trial, that the person ar rested should forswear allegiance to his own country. (Cheers) The noble earl has not denied that this indivi dual was called upon, as a condition of being brought to trial, to forfeit his nationality, and that he was only laughed at when he stated that he was a British subject. Even admitting that we have no right to question the American interpretation of American law, admitting the doctrine that the President may at any time, under circumstances of suspicion, exercise the power of suspending ,the habeas corpus without the sanction of Congress, I think the noble earl will be at a loss to point out any law or precedent by which a person may be called upon to forfeit his nationality and swear allegiance to another country before he enjoys the privilege of being brought to trial. (Hear, hear.) Earl RUSSELL—What has fallen from the noble earl renders necessary a word or two of explanation from me. I stated that a motion had been brought before Congress, declaring that under the existing circumstances the exer cise of this power could not be refused to the President, even without the sanction of Congress. I am not versed in the forms of Congress, but I believe that this motion was laid upon the table, and it was resolved to pass to the order of the day, That amounts to a virtual confirmation of the power, and I do not know that we can look to any other authority. The President exercises this power, and Congress declines to interfere. With regard to the three cases mentioned by the noble earl (the Earl of Carnarvon), I did not, of course, know that he would refer to them, or I would hake taken pains to inquire into the facts of each case. I do not, however, recollect any instance in which a person was called upon to take the oath of allegiance to the United States, except one in which the person arrested had given notice of his intention to become a citizen of the United States. The form, I believe, is that the person who wishes to become a citizen of the United States must give three months' notice of his intention to do so. When that time arrives he must take an oath, not only of fidelity to the United States, but he must also forswear all other allegiance, and more especially allegiance to Queen Victoria. (Hear, and laughter.) The gentleman who was arrested made an application to the British consul, to whom the reply of Mr. Seward was, " This gentleman on account of whom you write has renounced all allegiance, and especially allegiance to Queen Victoria." The matter was further inquired into, and it was found that Mr. Seward was wrong in his facts —(hear, and laughter)—that this gentleman had not given notice, and that although he had stated in a court of justice he intended to forswear his allegiance to Queen Victoria, yet the requisite forms had not been completed, and there fore ho remained still a British subject. Lord Lyons re marked, if that were not so, the gentleman would be placed in such a position as to be debarred from seeking the protec tion of the United States or of his own Government. The Earl of DONOUGHMORE would like to know whether the noble earl proposed to remonstrate with the United States Government against a continuance of pro ceedings such as were complained of. He would also ask whether the noble earl approved the practice of tendering an oath of allegiance to a British subject as a condition for his release or for his case being inquired into. For his own part, he could conceive no greater insult than to make such an offer to a British subject. Earl RUSSELL--My answer is that as far as I know, the American Government never tendered the oath of allegiance to the United States to a British subject, knowing him to be a British subject. Mr. Seward, when told by Lord Lyons that this person who had been arrested was a British sub ject, said that he was quite unaware of that fact, and he would take care that the oath of allegiance was not put to him. I repeat, that I believe the oath of allegiance to the United States has never been administered to a British subject when he was known to be such. The Earl of DERBY—My noble friend's question re ferred to the alternative that was given of taking an oath of allegiance or of not being brought to trial. (Rear.) THE AMERICAN BLOCKADE. The Earl of MALMESBURY—I have given notice to the noble earl that I would put a question to him respect ing the papers which he proposed the other night to lay upon the table. In asking whether among those papers we shall find any accounts from the admiral on the station, or from our consuls at the various ports in America, as to the exact state of the blockade of the Southern ports, the noble earl may be sure I am not asking in any spirit of cavil at the policy which he has pursued, and I am glad to add my humble tribute of anrobation, and to say, what my noble friend behind me said the other night, that I think the noble earl has carried out that policy with great judgment, and has fully maintained the honour and dignity of this country. I am the more anxious not to be misunderstood upon this point, because, in the strangest manner, my noble friend near me (Earl Derby) has been misunderstood and misrepresenied by the leading journal, both to- day and on a previous day ; and although my noble friend gave that journal an opportunity - of retracing its steps by explaining what he meant in his speech the other night as to the ques tion of the blockade of American ports, yet this morning there is an article warning the public against the advice 1 given by my noble friend upon that occasion. My noble friend never used a single expression that could be con strued into a deeire to press upon the public mind the de sirability of breaking the blockade. (Hear.) Nor would I do so, for it would be inconsistent with what I conceive to be t t r a u k e e p tht ol a ie7 to say one word to induce t he Government to course one moment before they thought that it should be taken. I t must be a question of time and judg ment with the Gov ernment, and therefore I wish to to repeat that nu person on this s id e of the house are pressing the Government to pursue any other line of conduct than that which they seem now to be pursuing. But I wish to know what are the real facts, and what is exactly the state of the blockade. Possibl) there may be a great deal of exaggera tion in the statements we hear, but I have been told—for I have not the honour of knowing the gentleman—that Mr. Mason, who, as we are all aware, has recently come over here to represent the Southern States, openly declares that no less than 600 or 700 ships have broken the blockade and passed in and out of the Southern ports. It is desirable therefore that Parliament and the country should be pro perly prepared to form some judgment upon the matter. As I said, it is a question of time and judgment for the Govern ment, knowing the facts, when they shall feel called upon to vindicate international law. I am aware that under the particular circumstances of the case, and seeing what events might soon follow, perhaps putting an end to the struggle altogether, it would be impolitic to hasten our steps with regard to the blockade, but still we should know the real facts. It is evidently impossible, after a certain time, when the opinions of all the great Powers of Europe has been strongly pronounced, speaking of the blockade as not legal according to international law, and after the state ment of Mr. Mason, if true—it will bo impossible for the whole world to continuo to suffer the inconvenience which the present state of things exposes them to.- I would ask the noble earl whether among the papers we shall have en exact account of the state of the blockade as given by the admiral and our consuls. Now, a great deal has been said about the Declaration of 1856. I am sorry that Lord Clarendon is not present, as I do not like to speak upon a subject of this nature in the absence of the person who I believe originated the Declaration, but it may be remem • tiered that at the time I expressed my opinion as to the policy of that Declaration. I think, too, that if we were to look back to the debates of that period we should find that the noble Earl, now Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in some degree at least coincided with me. I did not believe that any article of that Declaration would be carried cut when a great war takes place. I warned the country that although it was extremely creditable to the Christitin feeling and philanthropy of the noble earl who originated that Declaration, yet we could not rely upon its being ad hered to in time of war. I did not think you could lay down that strict rule of blockades, and now we find that it is a wise policy not to enforce that part of the Declaration. Neither do I believe yon carry out the declaration as far as it relates to privateers. I do not think that a great mari time country should be bound by such a declaration ; but at all events I am certain that in a!great SI ar circumstances would be t oo s t rong for an adherende to it. Supposing that that e two Wa great m ar iti me Powers of England and France were ha r, and th e events which have before occurred were to happen again, that the English fleets destroyed the greater portion e Teater portion of the Preach in th e i r ports war navy, and bl o ck a d e d the re mainder, could it be b e li eve d th a t th a t war like people, being brought ervatt? bay, would not have recourse to the law of self- pre. drive away the hostile fleet l a c T from adopt other mean s to rm their coa s t s ? Th e on ly means would be to issue letters of marque all over the world, to prey upon our commerce and compel us to with draw our ships to protect our trade. Then, how far we can rely upon the principle 1 :i we know . eluded in the Declaration of 1856. W e know that'll:l ' l l l in we tried that principle—to prevent war by intermediation,l had the honour to be in office at that time, in the Govern ment of my noble friend, and I know that principle was con stantly appealed to by the great Powers, but human pas sions were too attong, and Austrians and Italians were too angry to listen to mediators. I mention these things because I think it is well to bear them in mind at the present time. Before I sit down I will take this opportunity of asking the noble earl another question, of which I have given him notice—viz., whether he has received any information re specting the assassination at Pisa of an English gentleman named Dr. M'Carthy, who appears to have been stabbed in his own house by an Italian porter, the murderer making his escape through the alleged gross negligence and indif ference of the police authorities. Earl RUSSELL—In the first place, I must say that her Majesty's Government are fully sensible of the support which was given them by the noble earl opposite, who spoke on the first night of the session in regard to the conduct they have pursued in relation to the United States. It certainly does give a great additi ona l we i g h t to the course taken by this country when all political parties agree in supporting the line adopted by the Government--(hear, hear)—and the British nation must derive great confidence from a know ledge of that fact. Nothing could be more fair and candid than the course followed on Thursday night by the noble earl . As to this questi on o f th e bl oc k a d e, i t i s as the no b le earl says, one of very great importance and I will not presume to enter at this moment into so grave a discussion. I gave orders early in the contest that Admiral Milne should furnish her Majesty's Government with every information in his power, and I also sent to our consuls at the different ports with a view to obtain every information from them. When the blockade was first mentioned to me by Mr. Adams, I stated to him the difficulty which the United States' Government would experience in maintaining a blockade over 3,000 miles of coast. Mr. Adams's reply was, that there were but seven ports which could admit large vessels, and that there fore the difficulty was not ro great as it at first sight ap peared. With respect to the allegation that a very large number of vessels have eluded the blockade, I asked Mr. Mason myself what was the tonnage of those vessels to which reference was made, and to that question he was un able to give me an answer. But the noble earl will see that that is a matter of very great importance, because those seven ports are connected by numerous creeks with other and minor ports, and small vessels run in and out of those creeks, carrying small cargoes. Before the meeting of Par liament I desired that various papers should be collected together. That has now been done, the papers have been printed, and they will very shortly be delivered to your lordships by her Majesty's command. Without, then, pronouncing any judgment on this question, I must repeat that it is one of the utmost importance. (Hear, hear.) On the one hand, if we said that any thing that was called a blockade, however ineffective, should be held to be a legal blockade —or, on the other hand, if we were to incur the danger of a dispute with the United States without having the clearest and strongest ground fcr it—in either case a great evil would be produced. I therefore trust that your lordships will reserve your judg ment until you see all the evidence. (Hear, hear.) The noble earl has asked me a question with respect to the dread ful murder which took place at Pisa. The British residents in Tuscany have made a representation as to the negl'gence of the authorities and the inadequacy of the means of de tecting and punishing crime in Pisa. That representation was sent to Turin, to the Prime Minister, Baron Ricasoli, who promised to take it into consideration, with a view to devising such measures as may render the police more effec tive in that district. With respect to the arrest of the as sassin and bringing him to justice, the report made by the Consul is, that the first proceedings have been more speedy than is usual in that country. But it appears that these porters are generally a very ill-disciplined and violent class of men, that crime is rife among them, and that the British residents in Florence have complained of the great want of some regular tariff of charges by which disputes might be prevented. This has been represented to the authorities, and I trust that a better state of things will before long be established in Pisa. Earl GRANVILLE.—The other day the noble earl op posite (the Earl of Derby), referring to the declaration adopted at the Conference of Paris in 1856 in relation to the inviolability of enemy's goods in neutral ships, said that that declaration, although it had not been embodied in a treaty, was still morally and honourably binding on all the Govern ments which had agreed to it. Now, that view of the mat ter is entirely the view which is taken by her Majesty's Go vernment; and I stated the other evening that in the event of war that declaration would be fully binding on those Powers which had assented to it. Now, the noble earl who spoke last but one on this subject has expressed not only his disapprobation of the declaration, but, what is a very dif ferent thing, his conviction that in the case of war her Ma jesty's Government would be induced to disregard its obliga tory nature. Now, I think that such a belief going forth as the opinion of one of your lordships who has occupied the position of Foreign Secretary in this country may hay a such an injurious effect on the minds of foreign Powers that I put it to the noble earl himself whether he will not now modify what may have been the hasty expression which escaped him. The Earl of MALMESBURY—Whut I intended to say was, that supposing a great country like England or France, after a desperate war, were driven to the last extre mity, I do not believe that either a warlike people like the French, or a nation of the same spirit as our own, would be restrained by the paper declaration made at Faris in 1856; that the law of self-preservation would overrule all other feelings, and that the nation would take any step which they thought proper for saving themselves and the country from the extreme danger and desperate condition in which they might be placed. _ _ _ Earl GRANVILLE—I was sorry to hear such observa tions from the noble earl, and I sincerely hope and trust that this country will never be reduced to such an ex tremity as will lead her to disregard any obligation which is morally and honourably binding upon her. (Hear, hear.) Earl RUSSELL--I certainly have expressed the opinion that I did not quite approve the declaration made at Paris, but, at the same time, I said that once it had been entered into it ought to be respected. The discussion then dropped. MEMORIAL TO THE PRINCE CONSORT. The Earl of DERBY—Is the noble earl opposite pre pared to give an answer to the question which I put to him on Friday, as to whether the Government have come to any decision upon the course to be pursued with reference to the proposed memorial to the late Prince Consort ? Earl GRANVILLE—I have only to state that her Ma jesty's Government gave no particular sanction to the pro posed memorial to the late Prince Consort, the project hav ing originated in the universal and spontaneous feeling throughout the country thet such a memorial should be raised. The money for the purpose having been volun tarily contributed, the Government certainly would not now be able to take any share in controlling the wishes of the subscribers, and it would be quite out of their province so to interfere. At the same time, many members of the Go vernment have individually given their sanction and con currence to the proceeding. I have myself been in com munication with the Lord Mayor on the subject, and he authorised me to say that the Memorial Committee are fully resolved, as soon as the sum of money which appears to be sufficient for carrying out their object has been raised —which is likely to be the case very shortly—to request her Majesty to state in what form most agreeable to her own feelings the money so subscribed can be best ap propriated ; and, although I have no authority for saying it, I have reason to believe that if this application be made to her Majesty she will not shrink from giving her views on the subject. (Hear, hear.) Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. SUPPLY OF GAS AND SMITHFIELD MARKET, The Sheriffs of the City of London appeared at the bar and presented petitions praying for an amendment of a law relating to gas, and also on the subject of the approach to Smithfield-market PRIVATE BUSINESS. Several private bills were read a first time. STANDING ORDERS. On the motion. of Col. WILSON . PATTEN, the follow ing members were nominated as the select committee on standing orders—Col. W. Patten, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Hen ley, Mr. Wtightson, Mr. S. Estcourt, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Bramston, Mr. B. Carter, Mr. Lofroy, and Mr. Dunlop; and as the committee of selection—Sir W. lloathcote, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Bonham Carter, and the chairman of the select committee of standing orders. TIIE HARTLEY COLLIERY ACCIDENT. Mr. SHERIDA.N gave notice that ho would draw the attention of the house to the subject of accidents in collieries, with a view t.) the prevention of loss of life, for which, he contended, under the existing state of the law, no proper provision was made. PAYMENT TO WITNESSES AT TRIALS AT SESSIONS AND ASSIZES. Mr. A. EGERTON asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he intended to introduce during this Session any bill in relation to the allowances to witnesses at p ensions and assizes. Sir G. GREY said that the subject was under the con sideration of the Government, and it was intended to re introduce the bill that was brought before the house last session. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 11, 1862. The general, or at least a very common, practice on the 1 part of persons who thought themselves aggrieved was to state their case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Cases stdh as these were always made the subject of a clear inves tigation, and the result had Impressed on his mind the con viction that the difficulties and frequent inconvenience atten dant on the collection of the tax were, in the main, inherent in the nature of the tax itself. The hon. baronet bad spoken of collectors, assessors, and surveyors, as constituting a body of persons employed in the collection of the tax; but where there was any question of responsibility such was by no means the case. The collectors and assessors were not ap pointed by her Majesty's Government, nor had her Ma jesty's Government any control whatever over them, except such as the law might supply in case of misconduct. The surveyors, on the other hand, were strictly officers of the Crown—responsible through the Board of Inland Revenue to the Treasury, and ultimatelyto the house itself. Although the arrangement was not one which was satisfactory to the Government, it would be a hazardous experiment essentially to alter the basis of direct taxation. He had told the house on previous occasions that the Government were ready and disposed to take into their hands the assessment and collec tion of the direct taxes; but the hon. baronet must feel that it would be very unwise in the Government to provoke a con • flirt with any considerable body of public opinion in this country. Application had teen made to the various Boards of Commissioners intrusted with the duly of determining the tax to be levied, and with the appointment of these offi cers, and they had been requested to state whether, in their opinion, it was or was not desirable that the appointment of officers and the assessment and collection of taxes should be taken into the hands of the Government. Although a very large number of these boards was desirous that the transfer of duty should take place, the Governthent had not found sufficient unanimity, or approximation to unanimity, among those bodies to justify them in submitting a proposal, based upon their recommendations, to the house. The hon. baronet and the house would clearly understand that if the duty of assessment and collection were assumed by the Go vernment it must extend over the whole country, or at all events over very large areas, because if the new system were only to be carried out in minute spots, and were to be mixed up with the old system, great confusion must ensue, and a large increase of charge to the public would be the unavoid able result. He did not hesitate to saythat a transfer of these duties to the Government wall be most desirable, because anybody who felt himself aggrieved by the conduct of any officer or collector would then have a right to such redress as the Executive Government or that house could afford. There was another aspect of the case. Personswere at present compulsorily required by the local commissioners to assume the duty of collecting the tax—a duty often affording in sufficient remuneration, and clashing inconveniently with private occupations. Although a good deal of unnecessary hardship was inflicted on the taxpayer by the present state of the law, he did not hesitate to say that still greater hard ship was sometimes entailed on persons who were called on against their will to assume the duty of collecting the tax. In reply to the question with which the hon. baronet con cluded, relative to the possibility of recovering costs, he could only say that the local commissioners afforded their gratuitous services to the country, and had not any funds at their command applicable to the payment of costs. He could not, therefore, undertake to say that there was any source from which a taxpayer who was obliged to spend time in connexion with the payment of income-tax could be reimbursed or indemnified for the inconvenience or con sequent loss to which he had been exposed. Parliament had given to the Income-tax Commissioners the power of determining the tax to be levied without any appeal to the Executive Government, except in those cases where parties chose originally to come before the Executive Government. In some cases, which, however, were exceedingly rare, when the Commissioners appeared to have committed a palpable error in principle, such—if the matter were one of low—as would have justified an application for a new trial, he had thought it might be the duty of the Executive Government to afford relief. He had no doubt that with regard to arbi trary surcharges loss and inconvenience were very frequently inflicted on individuals, but the inconvenience was inherent in the nature of the tax. It was no very easy matter to get at the income of a man, and in order to do so the most stringent powers must be given to enable the public officer s in the first instance to obtain positive evidence, or else it must be left to him to exercise due diligence and discretion, forming his decision upon the best evidence he was able to obtain. The latter course, with all its inconveniences, he felt bound to say was preferable to the former, which would be absolutely intolerable, T o arm the taxing officers with arbitrary powers would be a hundred times more oppressive than the present system of arbitrary surcharges, imperfect and fallible as it occasionally proved. There could not be a more gross misapprehension than the idea which seemed to prevail in certain quarters that, because the levy of in direct taxes was grievous and oppressive, they had only to levy direct taxes and they would get rid of all practical diffi culties and inequalities. On the contrary, he was afraid, those practical difficulties would be aggravated in a tenfold degree. (Opposition cries of Hear, hear.) Mr. BENTINCK contended that the surcharges made under the provisions of the act were productive of consider able inconvenience, end should receive the attention of Government with a view to an amendment of the existing law. CHURCH RATES. In reply to Lord A. CHURCHILL, Sir G. GREY said that it was not intended by Govern ment to introduce any bill for the abolition of church rates. THE INCOME TAX. In reply to Sir H. WILLOUGHBY, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER entirely agreed with the hon. baronet as to the importance of the question which he had brought under the notice of the house, but thought that it was too complicated a subject to be advantageously disposed of by a merely incidental dis cussion. At the same time he would not decline to answer the questions which had been put to him by his hon. friend. The hon baronet desired to know how far abuse or griev ance prevailed in connexion with the collection of the in come-tax ; who was responsible for the collection of that tax ' • and to whom the taxpayer was to appeal i n any case in which he had suffered hardship. His own belief was that abuse il;as rare, and that grievance, as far as it prevailed, was incidental to the nature of the tax very much more than to the conduct of those who were concerned in levying it. PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS BILL. Mr. CLIVE obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the law relating to parochial assessments. FIRES IN THE METROPOLIS. Mr. HANKEY moved for a committee to inquire into the existing state of legislation, and of any existing arrange ments, for the protection of life and property against fires in the metropolis. Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN said that this was a subject that required particular attention on the part of Government, and entered into details to sustain his position. Sir G. GREY said the law on this subject had not under gone anyalteration since 1774,and he considered the existing means for protection of life and property through accidents were very efficient. The right hon. gentleman referred in terms of eulogy to the exertions of the fire brigades, and alluded to the late Mr. Braidwood. He thought, however, that the subject was one that might be submitted to a com mittee with benefit to the public. EXCHEQUER BILLS. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I have to ask for leave to bring in a bill relating to two points, neither of which is altogether new, nor will the bill create any difficulty in the practice of this house. The first pro vision is one to amend an Act of last year with respect to the re-issue of what are termed Supply Exchequer. bills. The necessity of this provision arose from the act of last year. The principle on which these Exchequer-bills are issued is tbis,—that they are capable of re-issue within the period of their currency, if they come back into the hands of the Government. Formerly the period of currency was one year only, and consequently any re-issue of Exchequer bills under the powers given by law only affected the finances of a single year, and was a matter only capable of being taken in view by the house at the time when the bill for the annual issue of Exchequer Bills was brought under the notice of the house. But last year we passed an Act of, I think, a very beneficial character, under which Exchequer-bills are not renewed from year to year, although the intereA is paid annually, but the instrument of the bill itself will have a currency of five years. It was justly ob served last year by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Henley) that the power of re-issue under the old law ought not to be extended over a period of five years, because it might so hap pen that a very large number of Exchequer-bills might be taken up and accumulate in the hands of the Government, and that it might be in the power of the Government, be fore the five years were expired, to make a large re-issue of these instruments of public credit without the direct con trol or cognizance of Parliament. I propose to re-establish the provision of the old law, and to limit the power of re-issue to the year, within which the bills shall be issued or paid in. The effect will be to apply the principle of the old law to the amended law now in force. The other provision of the bill relates to a subject which has been often under the con sideration of this house—namely, the power now possessed by the Government, through the medium of the Commis sioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, or funding Exchequer bills of various descriptions. That power is, in point of fact, twofold. It applies to those Exchequer bills, which are called Deficiency, or Consolidated Fund Bills, instruments ;of credit which only pass between the Tree. sury and the Bank, and never go into the hands of the pub lic. The power of funding bills of that description is alto gether " abusive." Whether that power was originally intended to be given or not, or whether it came into the hands of the Government by the unforeseen operation of certain words in an Act of Parliament, is a question which it is not now necessary to examine. I believe, however, that it is the universal opinion of the officers of the Government, and of those members of this House who have applied their minds to this subject, that the power to which I have alluded is altogether "abusive" and mischievous. It has not been exercised for a great length of time, and I propose by this bill to extinguish it altogether, and to take away the power of funding supply Exchequer-bills —meaning those Exchequer-bills which are in the hands of the public. It has been found conve nient, at periods of extended expenditure and of great finan cial pressure, that the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt should themselves become possessed of certain amounts of Exchequer. bills, and a power exists by law under which it is competent to these Commissioners, acting with the authority of the Treasury, to COnvert them at certain fixed rates into permanent stock. The effect is to enable the Executive Government to make additions to the funded debt of the country without the authority of Parliament. So far as I know, the greater operations of the Executive Government in the exercise of this power have been useful and beneficial operations, and I therefore distinguish as broadly as possible between those operations and those which have taken place with regard to Deficiency and Consolidated Fund Bills which have been neither use ful nor beneficial. I do not desire that the benefiical and useful powers to which I have adverted shall be i brought to an end like the others, but the effect of the bill will be to bring these operations under the direct view and control of Parliament. It is not that the power is a bad power, but that it is not necessary to be in the hands of the Executive, and from its nature I doubt not that Parlia ment will give its approval to the principle that such mea sures ought not to be taken without the approval of the Legislature. The right hon. gentleman then moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend an Act entitled " An Act to amend the Law relating to Supply Exchequer• bills and to charge the same to the Consolidated Fund, "and to repeal the provisions of an Act by which authority is given to the Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury to fund Exchequer-bills. After some remarks from Sir H. WILLOUGHI3Y, the motion was agreed to. EAST INDIA STOCK TRANSFER. Sir C. WOOD obtained leave to bring in a bill to provide for the registration and transfer of the East India Five per Centum Stock at the Bank of Ireland, and for the mutual transfer of such stock from and to the banks of England and Ireland respectively. The bill was afterwards read a first time. The house adjourned at ten minutes to six o'clock. AIR. EDWIN JAMES. The Law Magazine and Law _Review of this quarter has an article on the disbarment of Mr. Edwin James. Numberless reports connected with Mr. James's private affairs have already been in circulation, but as the facts of his career are now put forward with precision, and are substantiated by documents, it may be worth while to lay some of them before our readers. Mr. James is the first Queen's Counsel who has ever been degraded by disbarment, and the event acquires an importance from this cause which would not belong to it other- wise. The Law Magazine sketches Mr. James's early career, but this we may pass over, coming at once to the denouement. On the 10th of April last he retired from his seat in Parliament, and shortly afterwards from his clubs. An execution was put into his house. Report coupled his name with that of Lord Yarborough's son, whom he had, it was said, led into difficulties. It was then that an in quiry was commenced by the benchers of the Inner Temple. Mr. James was himself examined before the benchers, and he there consented to the exa mination of Mr. Parkes, Lord Yarboiough's solici tor, Mr. Tallents, and the west country solicitor, to whom he owed £20,000. We now quote from the Law Magazine : We will now simply give the substance of Mr. Parkes's full and clear evidence. The facts speak for themselves. They are sum marily, that Mr. James, thus introduced to LordYar borough's acquaintance, became intimate with the son; that he first in September, 1857, Lord Wors ley just of age, for his own exclusive benefit and use, obtained his lordship's co-responsibility to loans in insurance offices for the gross sum of £4,500 or thereabouts, secured on life policies ; that some time afterwards, in 1858, Lord Yarborough was only in formed of his son's involvement by an anonymous letter; that communication his lordship enclosed to Mr. James, and the earl ultimately referring Mr. James to Mr. Tallents, the noble lord's solicitor. The learned gentleman thus pressed penned the most abject apologies, with solemn promises of an early liquidation of his debt. The correspondence was put in after by Mr. Tallents, and it contained Mr. James's pledge early to relieve Lord Worsley entirely of the whole liabilities. Mr. Parkes stated Mr. Tallents'subsequent discovery of nearly £30,000 of further responsibilities of Lord Worsley for Mr. James ! This disclosure, of course, brought matters to a crisis. Mr. Tallents, under the earl's instruc tions, proceeded to fathom Mr. James's debts; and cautiously, unknown to Mr. James, he inquired into the general pecuniary relations of Lord Worsley to such liabilities for the learned friend. Eventually Mr. Tallents communicated with Mr. James in writing, the latter in replies affording not a sylla ble or figure of explanation, but making abor tive attempts for a personal meeting. Mr. Tal lents, however, preferring pen and ink inter course, at last insisted on a reference to Mr. James's solicitor. Nothing satisfactory resulting, and the execution in the meantime entering the Berkeley-square house at the suit of a hostile and bona fide creditor, Mr. Tallents asked Lord Yar borough's permission to consult some second gentle man, and his lordship referring him to Mr. Parkes those two gentlemen finally decreed Mr. James to give up his seat in Parliament, to retire from the clubs (Lord Yarborough having introduced him to Brooks's and Lord Worsley being a member), and Mr. James finally executed a warrant of attorney to Lord Worsley for the full debt. Mr. Parkes put in the following written under taking of Mr. James. This damning instrument needs no commentary. It is best that Mr. James, in our resume of the evidence, should as far as pos sible speak for himself:— " In consequence of pecuniary transactions of Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Lord Worsley, the follow ing terms form the only and final conditions which could induce the Earl of Yarborough to withhold from the public a statement of all the facts in rela tion to his conduct. " 1. That Mr. James immediately gives to Lord Yarborough's solicitor a schedule of his own entire debts and pecuniary liabilities dated and signed by his own hand. " 2. That Mr. James's professional adviser forth with prepares a creditors' trust deed, or letter of license, and takes immediate steps to ascertain whether all, or in number and amount of claims what proportion, will accept deferred payment not bearing interest, by periodical division of his future income, secured on letter of license or his assign_ ment to trustees (to be hereinafter agreed upon), no creditor having any preference or any private ar rangement or understanding with Mr. James ; and that such trust deed shall contain a covenant by Mr. James against his contraction of any further debt or pecuniary liability. " 3. That if the creditors become parties to such an arrangement and trust deed, Mr. James shall be allowed such a proportion of his future professional income as they may be hereafter agreed upon. " 4. That any and all interests of Mr. James in any life policies of insurances in connection with Mr. James's debts to Lord Worsley shall be surren dered or assigned to trustees of Lord Worsley, for his lordship's sole benefit, if required. " 5. That Lord Yarborough reserves to himself during his own life, and afterwards to his son and surviving advisers, the power, by the disclosure of all the circumstances necessitating such trust deed or letter of licence, and the above-mentioned ar rangements to prevent Mr. James's application for or acceptance of any civil, legal, or other office of public trust or service. " 6. That the above-mentioned terms and condi tions can be agreed to by Lord Yarborough and his advisers solely because the large and serious debts of other creditors would by present disclosures be wholly sacrificed and lost, and from the fact of Mr. James's future professional labours and gains being also the sole source of any possible dividends, or part repayment, or of any reparation on his part, for the heavy losses of such other creditors; and that he himself is willing to make them all the pe cuniary reparation in his power. The foregoing conditions contemplate the renewal by Mr. James of his Parliamentary practice, in addition to that of the common law, and which appears indispensable to enable Mr. James to reduce his debts. "7. That Mr. James undertakes, at any time when demanded, to execute a warrant of attorney (with entry of judgment) for the entire amount of his pecuniary debts to Lord Worsley, or to trustees on his lordship's behalf, or for any ascertained por tion or parts of the gross debt. "8. That Mr. James abstains from any further communication, direct or indirect, with Lord Worsley. " Lastly. That Mr. James hereunder signifies his assent in writing to the foregoing terms and conditions, which have been submitted on behalf of the Earl of Yarborough after Mr. James had ♦olun tarily relinquished his seat in Parliament, the Re cordership of Brighton, and his membership of Brooks' club. "I hereby assent to the above terms. "April Bth, 1861." "EDWIN JAMES. It appears that at the same time a letter of resig nation of the Reform Club was also delivered by Mr. James, to be held and used exclusively on the discretion of Mr. Parkes and Mr. Tallents,and which a few days afterwards was by them sent to that club. Lord Worsely, it appeared, was a member of the club. It may here be observed that Mr. James was proved to have been negotiating a fur ther loan (on Lord Worsley's sole responsibility) for an additional sum of £15,000 promised by an insu rance office ! It was further in evidence that the securities Lord Worsley had given were prepared on the instruction of Mr. James's own solicitor. At this period of the inquiry, the benchers wait ing the attendance of Mr. Tallents, the case of " Scully v. Ingram" was partly proceeded with. The scandal of this second impugned transaction of Mr. James may be very briefly given. He had been counsel for Scully ; and in the interim of a new trial he had borrowed of the opposite party, the de fendant, the sum of £1,250 on his own unsecured acceptances ! This act per se was grossly unprofes sional and utterly unjustifiable. It might, or might not, however, have influenced Mr. James's con duct of the plaintiff's case on the second trial ; and the evidence of Mr. Scully and his junior counsel, Mr. C. Milward, was taken and re• corded in the benchers' minutes detailing this suspi cious transaction. M r.James's simple explanation was that the defendant's loan to him was purely " a simple contract debt" with which the benchers had no concern. But before we close our notice of this principal accusation against Mr. James's professional conduct we will give the statement of Mr. Edwin Watkins. That gentleman was not the executor of the late Mr. Ingram, but the acting friend of Mrs. Ingram, the executrix, and who administered the estate of the deceased. Mr. Ingram, it will be recollected, at the time of his shipwreck and death on the Ame rican lakes, was member for Boston, and proprietor of the illustrated _London .News. Mr. Watkins, applied to by the committee of the bench to give information touching this serious allegation in " Scully v. Ingram," attended the committee on the 14th of May. He made, in effect, the following statement : " I was an intimate friend of the late Mr. Ing ram, and am acting for his widow. After his death I took charge of and examined his papers. He was not a good man of business, and kept his papers in an irregular condition. Amongst other things, I looked at the contents of a box, in which there were papers of importance leases, &c.— and amongst them this packet, in an envelope (produc ing it), marked in Mr. Ingram's handwriting, 'E. James.' I opened it, and this first letter, which I read, filled me with astonishment : " ' Confidential. "' 63, Pall-mall, Saturday Euning. " ' My dear Sir, "' You shall not regret your kindness to me. "'I must make the sum of £1,250. " ' Please deduct the interest, and send me cheques for £5OO for Monday, and £750 for Mon day week. " ' I will send you the policy on Wednesday. " ' Sincerely, " ' EDWIN JAMES.' "I was quite startled. In the same packet %ere other letters from Mr. James, which I produce. These things set me to inquire. I asked at Mr. Ingram's office, of Mr. Begbie, his cashier, if they could trace any money passing from Mr. Ingram to Mr. James, and they could not. I then went to Mr. —, who was very intimate with Mr. Ingram, and made the same inquiry of him. Mr. told me that in the interval between the first and second trials of the case of ' Scully v. Ingram,' Mr. Ingram came to him and said, in a state of great excitement, ' I must lend Mr. James some money.' Mr. replied that he did not see that he must. Mr. Ingram answered, I must—l am so afraid of him—l must do anything he asks, and you must lend him the money for me.' I produce various letters which I have subse quently found, from Mr. to Mr. James, with reference to two bills, each of the date of July 30, 1859—one for £750, the other for £soo—accepted by Mr. James, not made payable at any banker's. Having ascertained these facts, I had an interview with Mr. James at the Euston Hotel. My impres sion of the manner in which Mr. James cross. examined Mr. Ingram at the trial was that it was excessive, but I may not be competent to form an opinion upon that point—but of the effect I am certain, that after it Mr. Ingram was in a state of totally shattered nerves, and utterly broken down. Upon my meeting Mr. James at the Euston Hotel I said to him, ' It is a singular accident that it was into this very room I with difficulty led poor Mr. Ingram after your cross-examination of him, and I must tell you that if ever a man had a narrow escape of causing another man's suicide, you had it on that occasion.' I then mentioned to him my dis covery of the debt, and that it was my duty to ask him for payment. Mr. James admitted he had had the money, sayiLg that it was only £l,OOO, that his election expenses had been very consider able, that he was very poor, but he would give me two other bills, which he did. I said I must give my opinion of the transaction ; that as regarded the loan it was altogether discreditable ; that he was Mr. Scully's counsel, and it could not bear the day light that he should be found borrowing money from Mr. Ingram. Mr. James replied that he did not see it in that light, as Mr. Ingram had offered him the money. I replied that I could not think that to be the case. " Mr. Ingram had told me that Mr. James had spoken to him very kindly, advising him to settle the action. The two bills given me by Mr. James have been dishonoured. The date of the two bills given to Mr. —, July 30, 1859, was after the first and before the second trial." Mr. James, who of course was furnished with a copy of this statement of Mr. Watkins, offered no substantial contradiction to its contents. In effect, he wished the benchers to believe that Mr. Ingram, as his friend, offered, in conjunction with " three or four other friends," £l,OOO each for meeting the ex penses of the learned gentleman's second return for Marylebone in May, 1859. Such " offer," be said, had been "communicated" to him ; but he did not inform the Bench of the communicant's name, nor the names of the other friends who he alleged, "did assist me by loans which I have since repaid !" We have heard of men rushing to newly .discovered gold diggings, but never before of idiots offering loans to such a notoriously involved man as Mr. James. But this justice we do him—that in his " Statement of Explanations" of the Ingram trans action he writes that he should " ever regret the indiscretion of accepting the loan," though " there was nothing of a dishonourable character ever in tended or thought of on the part of Mr. Ingram or myself, either in its proffer or acceptance." It may be doubtful whether the benchers on this disreputable transaction alone would have done more than reprimand the unscrupulous debtor. There were, however, other ample grounds for erasing his name from the books of the inn. To continue our narrative, we will now succinctly state the evidence of Mr. Tallents, whose examina• tion on June 18th followed the above interlude of " Scully v. Ingram." This witness's testimony and documentary proofs clenched the nails. It is unne cessary to give a long correspondence in 1857 be tween the late Earl Yarborough and Mr. Tallents with Mr. James; it forms, however, an important element in the history of Mr. James's first use of Lord Worsley. By the last act of that year the learned gentleman thus addressed his lordship's solicitor : " Pall-mall, Monday Evening, Dec. 7,1857. " My dear Mr. Tallents,—l beg you will convey to Lord Yarborough my very deep regret that my pecuniary transactions with Lord Worsley should have caused him one moment's uneasiness, and to convey to him my assurance that the amount for payment of which Lord Worsley is security shall be punctually discharged by myself. Lord Yar borough has been so kind a patron and friend to me that I am under deep obligations to hi m , an d would make any sacrifice rather than occasion him annoyance or discomfort.—Believe me, yours faith fully, "EDWIN JAMES." With this melodramatic undertaking and promise Mr. James appears to have reste d awhile undis turbed, but to have speedily plott e d graver d es i gns against the young nobleman. On the 9th Novem ber following Mr. Tallents writes the Q.C. to know if the last year's loans were paid off. Mr. James, on the 15th, replies evasively in effect that the in terest and policy premiums were duly Oischarged ; that he had not yet returned the principal, but that Lord Tforsley was perfectly satisfied on the sub ject," and that Mr. Tallents might "assure Lord Yarborough that he need feel no uneasiness upon the matter." Then occurs an interval of a year and a half before Mr. Tallents, on the _l4th of August, 1860, hearing reports of heavy further James loans on Lord Worsley's responsibility, again writes to Mr. James. In that letter he informs him of the ugly rumours which had come to his own and Lord Yarborough's ears. To this refresher and the re quest for information as to any fresh transactions, addressed to the new house in Berkeley-,square, the learned M.P. vouchsafed no reply. P erhaps ho might have been at the battle of Solferine, but on his return from the Italian campaign he appears to have remained still silent. In Feb. of the following year (1861) Mr. Tallents having made actual dis coveries, again on the 23d exhibited by letter new interrogatories to the Q.C. He demanded a full statement in writing of every transaction with Lord Worsley, "or a refusal wiil be followed by most active steps for your exposure at all hazards." Mr. James, thus pressed, addressed Mr. Tallents a laconic note, asking as usual a personal inter view. This declined, Mr. James then referred his pursuer to his " confidential adviser," 1. e., his solicitor, and who it is promised shall "explain" all. It is needless to enter on further details of these disgusting impositions on Lord Worsley. His lord ship was himself willingly examined by the benchers. He plainly stated that he had believed his earlier obligations on Mr. James's behalf were liquidated by the real borrower, and that some of the later deeds and bonds had been signed by him on the honourable understanding that Mr. James would apply the proceeds to the extinction of the 1857 and later debts. We will not make public .ther and equally humiliating letters of Mr. James to Mr. Tallents. Tkey were of course fully communicated by Mr. Tallents to the benchers, and given in evi dence. They constitute, so far as this charge, a confession. We only need add, in conclusion, that Mr. Tallents and Mr. Parkes acted in perfect con cert throughout their painful duties ; and that the "terms" ultimately signed by Mr. James were jointly approved by the late Lord Yarborough and those two co-advisers of the earl. The two gentle men stated to the bench that ho wever impelled by the interests of other creditors to allow Mr. James's return to the bar, they, as members of the legal pro fession, could not permit Mr. James to remain re corder of Brighton administering justice and trying criminals. Had they acted otherwise, they would have incurred public censure, and have grossly com promised their own reputations. We now end with the last and most singular of Mr. James's pecuniary exploits—his extraction fro= the pockets of a west country attorney of a sum of £20,000. This creditor witness was examined on the 26th June last, following the evidence of Lord Worsley. The circumstances of this romantic debt may be shortly narrated. Mr. James, it appeared, formed our creditor's acquaintance not wholly " pro miscuously," but they soon really became friends- - the debtor having previously been the successful counsel 'in a cause of the solicitor's own interest. Mr. James seems early in the long vacation of 1858 to have fascinated his new acquaintance, and soon to have visited him at his shootings. Soon after Michael mas term the Queen's counsel applied to his neW client for a temporary loan of £4OO, and which was advanced on a promissory note. The first bill was► of course, not " taken up," remaining some months unpaid. It may be marvellous, but it was never theless proved to be true, that this creditor, appa rently enamoured of his new friend, subsequently further advanced Mr. James some thousand pounds• After awhile the debtor was insured for the Wigs" tions. But as interest and premiums became in arrear the creditor agreed to undertake Mr. James's; entire financial difficulties—to advance further auras for the benefit of becoming, as he thought, and was assured, the chief or only creditor. In considera tion, the ultimate enormous debt (X 22,000), was wholly covered by new life policies on the debtor, and the creditor appears for the two next years a the Queen's counsel's practice to have received an tees. Thus matters again went on very swimmingly for some months. In the meanwhile, Mr. Jamea became a successful candidate for Marylebone, On the usual extreme hustings pledges. The seat wee not unwisely considered a pretty sure road to the office of Solicitor-General, perhaps a stepping-ston e to even the Great Seal ! On the same scheme of advance in professional life the country solicitor ad mitted to the benchers that he had recommended and taken for Mr. James the hotel in Berkeley-square ! We will only add that before the conclusion of the inquiry Mr. James had sent in the following letter of resignation of his membership : " Temple, June 18, 1861. " Gentlemen—The very painful position in which I feel myself placed, and not intending to resume practice at the bar of England, or that of the colo nies, I beg to be allowed to retire my name from the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple. I trust I shall be allowed to adopt this step, and thus to ter' minate an investigation almost as painful to the bench as to myself, &c., " EDWIN JAMES." This proffered resignation was, of course, too late' and could not be accepted. The time for such retreat was on Mr. James's receipt of a copy of the committee's report, or on the conclusion of his oval examination, After his assent to the summons of the witnesses subsequently examined it was clearly due to them and to the public that the inquiry should continue until its natural conclusion. We have been thus circumstantial because we have deemed it due to the entire profession and the pub lic that publicity should now be made of the priu• cipal facts of Mr. James's unfortunate disbarment• COUNTRY 111ARALAS. v- --- COLCHESTER—FEB. 8. To-day a small supply of wheat, and late prices Were supported for dry samples ; inferior sorts still a slow sale' Fine barley maintains its price, but middling samples TS' ther easier to buy. Beans and peas unchanged in price. Wheat, white. 54s 68s Beans, Mazagan ..36s 406 red 46s 64s middle & small.4oB 44 5 • Barley . .36s 42s Peas, white 38s 40 0 Oats CHELMSFORD—FEB. 7. A fair supply of wheat, which was taken off slowllt the best samples is under late rates, and inferior qualities 2s cheaper than last week. Spring corn of all description s unaltered in price and little doing. Wheat, old white 28s 59s teas, Partridge., ..37s 41 9 new 47s 66s White 39s 468 old red....27s 518 Boiling .. 41s 4 n 70 , new 52s 628 Dun 36s 4 " Barley 30s 39s Ditto new —B - -41/ Chevalier .......308 42s Beans, Tick, old 3ss 4 18 Grinding 24s 32s new.. 355 10 Ma1t..... 610 67s Harrow Ticks ..37s 4 3 ,, ° Chevalier 64s 69s new..37s 4 , Oats 23s 30s Mazagan 32 zia, GLOUCESTER--FEE. 8. A good supply of English wheat, but trade very sloW,i prices may be considered unaltered. Foreign was eau less inquired for, and in some instances is per qr. lower' Oats a slow sale; also barley and beans. KIRKCALDY GRAIN—FEB. 8. We had moderate supplies to-day of wheat and bar: ley, but good of oats. Sales slow, at a reduction upon pre vious prices. Wheat. Barley. Oats. Fir5t....428 Od I 255,0 d 20s Od Second ..508 Od 29s Od 23s:Od Third....sBs Od 31s Od I 27s 7d BIRTHS. ADEANE.—On tho Bth inst., at 8, Seamore-place, the Lady Elizabeth Adeane, of a daughter. BUTLER. --O n the 7th inst., at Drumcondra Castle, Dub' lin, Lady Rachel Butler, of a daughter. FE RGUSSON.—On the 10th inst., at 27, Chesham-stre et, the Lady Edith Fergusson, of a daughter. O'HARA.—On the Bth inst., at Annaghmore, c ounts Sligo, the wife of Charles W. O'Hara, Esq., M.P., son. MARRIAGES. BAINTIRIDGE—REEVES.—On the 4th inst., at Putne,9 o Herbert Glendinning Bainbridge, second son of A. Bainbiidge, Esq., of Putney, o hose, youngest daught er of the late Wm. M. Reeves, Esq., Vostersburg, cou nt y Cork. NicitoLsoN—PALMEß.—On the 6th inst., at Filey, Fi e Nichol-on, Esq., Wootton, to Cecilia Louisa, the secon,, daughter of Captain Roger Palmer, Carrowmore, county Mayo. DEATHS. ALLENDER.—On the Bth lust Gearge Allender, E O.l aged 82. BUSK.—On the Bth inst., at Great Cumberland place, oY de f park, Hans Busk, J.P. for Radnorshire, youngest son 0 the late Sir Wadsworth Busk, aged 90. BOYLE.—On the 9th inst., at Manston House, Somers et ' Lady Bertha Louisa Canning Boyl e , aged eleven Wee''' CHAYTOIL.—On the Bth inst., at Durham, Colonel J° llll Chaytor, R.E., aged 60. FULCHER.—On the 10th inst., at the Victory, Clarence road, Kentish-town, William Fulcher, aged 69. FITZGERALD.—On the Bth in s t ., at 22, Craven - s- re Strand, Major Wm. Henry Gerald Fitzgerald, late 60tet Rifles. Lorinox : Printed and P u bli s h ed b y MURDO YOTI-- NG °I No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TIIE SUN Office, No. 112, 8tra ; in the Precinct of th e S avoy i n t h e Coun t y o f hliddleb - Tuebday, February 11, 1862.