The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-11-27 00:00:00

WHAT CAN WE DO WITH THE

HOUSE OF LORDS?

The Spetator answers this question by proposing to
=Art the House of Lords into an assembly, of
"notables " on the life-peerage principle. Mr. Lowe .
pointed out last wear that in granting household stiff.
cage we hail. in effect, granted the principle of equality
and that the whole tendency ot our future changes
must be to introduce this principle of equality,
more and more into all our political institutions. This
Is true, and one greatly fears that it amounts to admit-
dug that the only final reform of the it use of Lords
will consist in either reforming it away, or substituting
something entirely different, ond mitiiely free from the
attribute of social aristocracy which lathe nwist distinc-
tive trait of the peerage. Every attempt to harmonise the
Peers with the Commons must bring out the radical
satomption at the bottom of the House of Lords that
family and rank are to count a.s power in our political
system; and that is au aesiumition which we have
already to completely abandon, ii As regarda the great
changes made in the choice of our shirt legislative
sasembly, that it cannot hold its ground very much
longer, even for the second chamber. Yet, whenever
it goes, we do not see how any political assembly of
which either family descent or title is a condition can
possibly rurvive in its place.
The Satto day &raw points out that the moot
/viols objection to abundant ere thous of peels is
founded on the corresp,nding depletion of the highest
close of commoners. Almost every new peer is removed
from a potion of es mparative ismer to a place where
he will act at a mechanlial disadvantage. Mr. Glad- ,
stone's peers take with them into the House of Lorils
same scores of thousanila of autiu d income which will
be no longer legitimately applicable to the return of
members like theimielves to the House of COMMOIIF.
Mr. Talbot and Mr. liobait-a will be creditable
members i f the House of Lords, but as commoners and
county magnates they would have been better able to
counteract the operations of detuagogues and agitat to.
Wi hin two yeses Lard Cranberne and Lord Stanley
have been removed from the House of Commons to a
sphere of dignified belpleoeness. It is true that none
of the seW peers share their political eminence, but
they all belong naturally to the party of order though,
sot to the following of Mr. Disraeli.

She had been paid the whole I:190 on the policy, and I
was laying it out daily in the expenses of this prosecu-
tion. She had been advised by her friends to punish
the defendant, in order that he might not do the same
thu gto other.. She knew her husband had said the
property in Ireland was worth VAX). She did not
know that it was not worth that MIL She did not try
to take out administration in Ireland, because the defen-
dant had told her he had done so in Ecgland. She
did not expect to get a single farthing out of the Irish
property, her husband's friends, she said, never having
enlightened her on the eulject. She had been told she
was a shrewd woman, with a talent fi v business. and
it was that which induced her to go to the defendant.
( A laugh.) She never thought the in rtgage for £9O
Ille ant the policy. 'tie really, however, did not under-
stand the deed. She was under the impression that he
. . . .

was to deduct 2100 from the iheuratoe money and to
hand over the balance. She did not pay for the
adminiatration expenses. The defendant bad learnt
that the Irish property would not pay its expenses,
tint she bad not. There was an annuity on the life of
her huebande brother.

After other evidence hal been given for the prosicu•

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, who called no witnesses,
addressed the jury for the defence. The deceased,
Mr. Hall, he said, appeared to have hl some pro. •
perty, of undefined value, iu Limerick, amt upon that •
property the defendant had advanced a Ruin of money,
which hail never been repaid. No administration had •
been taken out in respect of it and the rrosecutrix
could not have supposed, limier the e ircunistancea,
ehe would ever get a single farthing from it. Ste
had represent tcl the ItiSill property to be worth
£3,000, and the husband himself might have mis-
represented its value and so obtained a larger sum
of money upon it than be would otherwise have done.
They would remember that the policy was left with
the defendant about June, la6B. It had been issued
by a perfectly respectable (thee, and under ordinary
cireumstanoes it would be like a bank note ; but in
this owe it was not so because there hal been a min.
representation if the age of the hushand, and in strict
law the office ought have repudiated it altogether. It
was entered into iu September, snd the death occurred
early in the following sear. Whon it WISS put into
tie Mends of the defet dant,it was known to have a slur
upon it, and might not have been recoverable in law.
Under there circiiinstancets, the widow herself could
not have gone to the office and g.,t the m tney. Thecom-
pany ultimately paid it, less Lilt, *MI eventually the
policy Was left with the defendant. For what purpose?
Toe widow at that time could get no money. The
belief wax that the defendant was not likely to face
a trial on this charge. '('here was a trade in ',undue
a great deal w. woe than money-lending. It was
growing to au enormous siZel and spreading over the sur-
face of society, woi ttt iiing pwiple in this metropolis
right and left. It was the flailing out something
'against a person's character, and trying to extort money
from it; and there were petyle who livedmion that. The
prowseutrix was the representative of her husband
.England. but could do nothing in reference to the Irish
property because administration had not been taken out
there. She had th. refers no loc its stand': there, and
had an power to charge the estate with a single farth-
ing. Supposing that property had been worth £3,000,
about £lOO of that would have been swallowed up in
expenses. But, there having been a former mortgage,
the defendant did not get any more ou the security
than he hail before. Again, the prosecutrix was asked
how the £5O she had received from the defendant was
to be repaid, and she replied, out of the policy, she
supposed. That, he (Serj-oint Ballantine) submitted,
put an end to the whole case for the prosecution. Be-
sides, she had got back all her money ; she had not
lost a single shilling, as far as the defendant was con-
cerned, and he was probably a large loser by tlm tran-
sactions in question.
The Common Serjeant, after reviewing the facts.
left it to the jury to say whether they were satisfied
affirmatively that there was an intention on the part
of the defendant purposely to mislead the proaecutrix
into executing the deed.
The jury. after a short consultation, returned a ver-
dict of Guilty, and
The Common Serjeant sentenced the defendant to
12 months' hard labour.