The Press.
London, England, 1857-08-22 00:00:00

THE PRESS, AUGUST 22, 1857.

sponsibility by Lord PALMERSTON'S Government has been in-
curred. Insensible to the admonitory intimations long given them,
blind to the events passing around them, with an army panting
for revolt, they withdrew from India the very sources of the exist-
ence of our rule, and with an appalling hazard staring them in the
face, sanctioned a step which surrendered our fellow-countrymen, with
their wives and families, to spoliation and massacre, and gave reins to
a rebellion that will cost England millions of her treasure, and India
torrents of her blood.

It is not often that a journalist has to comment on the violation
of the code of manners which guides gentlemen who aspire to public
honours. When we read the report last week of the foul case of.
" Lyle v. Herbert" we saw at once that the noted Mr. JAMES, " the
barrister," had transgressed the rules which usually regulate the
utterances of the members of the English Bar. Mr. JAMES appeared
as the leading counsel in the case to which we have referred, when
the proof of the chief allegations of trim. con. turned upon a
witness, " out of employment," who listened in an adjoining room
to obtain proofs of the guilt of the plaintiff's wife. Mr. JAMES,
knowing well that the exhibition of the particular witness would
destroy his client's case before the jury, had the indecency of attempt-
ing to justify the degrading servility of the witness, by offering a pre-
tended parallel with the conduct of a gentleman of stainless honour
in a distressing case of domestic misery which occurred several years
since. To rip up past domestic scandal for the sake of making a
sophistical nisi prius point was not at all creditable to Mr. JAMES.
The impugned honour of Mr. GLADSTONE (as far as a tongue like that
of Mr. EDWIN JAMES could damage it) may safely be left for vindica-
tion to Mr. GLADSTONE himself. The manner in which the House
of Commons received his explanation renders comment superfluous
from any ono. But the spectacle of a barrister raking up past
scandal for the sake of a point is a miserable sight. Where would
such a practice end ? We deny that barristers are privileged by the
rules of nisi prius in disinterring the forgotten proceedings of scanda-
-1 lous cases. In arguing a law point an advocate may refer to the
precedents of certain cases ; but that privilege is a very different
one from ripping up, in speeches to a jury, particulars of painful scan-
dals. No private family would, on the precedent attempUed to be
made by Mr. JAMES, be safe from the scandal of some relative. Per-
sonal matters ought never to bo wantonly reopened. It is only a
few years since a notorious duel took plaee on . account of a public
writer having claimed the exercise of the privilege asserted by Mr.
JAMES in referring to domestic scandals chronicled in the trials of the
House of Lords. Those who stir up bad blood are not liked by
English gentlemen ; and there are few members of the legal profession
besides Mr. JAMES who would have made such allusions. This recent
exhibition of Mr. JAMES has not much improved his dubious standing
with the political public. The electors of Southampton know " the
reason why " they would not have Mr. JAMES. It was expected by
some that he would have distinguished himself before the election
committees. But the Learned Gentleman won few laurels there, and
he was equalled by many, and surpassed by more than one, of his
legal competitors, like Mr. SLAVE and Mr. O'MALLEY. He was to
have rode " the Lion of the fold of Judah" (Archbishop WHALE) in
a snaffle, and to have taught the Connaughtmen how great was Mr.
EDWIN JAMES in "a running down" cause. But, as it was not "a
horse case," Mr. JAMES thought he had better let the " Irish lion "
alone; and we commend his discretion. It is as well not to have too
" spicy" a reputation, even though a Whig Cabinet Minister may have
said, "We like our Liberal lawyers, like our venison, to have a high
" flavour."

Last Tuesday night Mr. DISRAELI asked Mr. VERNON SMITH
whether any compensation was to be made to the sufferers in the
Indian Mutiny. That fluent functionary immediately replied that a
comprehensive scheme of relief was in contemplation. And with this
perfectly satisfactory answer Mr. DISRAELI of course sat down con-
tented. It appears, however, that Mr. VERNON SMITH'S assurance
was only one of those happy impromptus with which awkward
questions are evaded by Ministerial tacticians. On Thursday night
he practically confessed that there was nothing in it, by saying that all
he had meant was, that pensions were to be conferred on the
widows of officers and civil servants. The " comprehensive scheme''
has therefore dwindled down to the dimensions of an already existing
practice, by which such persons are relieved from a fund known as
the " Military Fund," and subscribed to by the Company's servants.
To this the sufferers can help themselves without any aid
from the Board of Control or the magnates of Leadenhall-street. But,
to waive the question of any extra compensation to these unfortunate
victims of misgovernment, there is another body of persons who have
imperative claims upon the Indian Government. We mean
the independent residents whose property has been destroyed in
the recent outbreak. They settled in India in full confidence of
protection by the English Government. The presence of such a class
in India is most valuable and necessary ; and for every reason, both
of justice and policy, it is expedient that their wants should be at
tended to.

'I