The Express.
London, England, 1862-02-07 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVPTIN G, FEBRUARY 7,.
.1862,

polderence, we should my flat the more succinct
and dos* erprineions of Lod dlizmiumars were
very much mom to the purpme than the some-
what prolix eukgke of Lord Murmur; While in
point of eloquence Lord Dl•sr must fairly be
awarded the palm. Towards the does of the
debate, • really useful contribution to the
maxims that to so large an extent fence round
our traditional polity was presented to the notice
of tie Pee* by the Sgt ILETARY of Fugue=
Arr,

alas. The sable Lord mentioned that,
in the amuse of a recent couvenation, Prime
Ataxia had observed that he knew an
opinion had long prevailed in this country, that
the Sovereign had the choice of her Prime
Minister, and that when that choice was mad*, the
duty of the Crown was to follow his advice in all
things until ha was removed. The Panics said
that, on the contrary, a constitutional Sovereign
had not the power to name a Premier, but must
accept in turn the head of each party which was
predominant in Parliament ; while, on the other
hand, it was the Monarch's duty to communicate
frankly and fully with the Minister about the
measures of government, to endeavour to under-
stand them, and to express confidentially opinions
regarding them. Lord R MULL intimated his

entire acquiescence in these views, and ascribed
much of the political amelioration that charac-
terised the present reign to the abstinence from all
attempts on the part of the Court to give a mono-
poly of office to either of the great parties in
the State.

As was to be expected, the chief topic of poli-
tical comment last night was the American ques-
tion. And here the line of demarcation may be
drawn very distinctly between the tone of those
who spoke with the sense of responsibility, and those
who spoke without that salutary check. AU con-
curred in praising the vigour and dignity, the
promptitude in act or the forbearance in
language of the Government in the Trent affair.
But Lord Drrreats was feeble and captious in
his criticisms on the conduct of the Federal
Executive ; Lord Diener, mischievous and unde-
fenaive. But when Ministers came to deal with
the subject of America a very different tone was
observable. Lord Russ= stated explicitly that
no intention existed of recognising the Southern
I Confederacy, or of interfering arbitrarily with the
blockade. For the first few weeks, until the
Federal Republic was able to get its
ships manned and equipped, the Southern ports
had not indeeclbeen strictly watched ;but the reports
to our Admiralty sines then stated that there
seemed to be a sufficient force now maintained
upon the Southern coast to enforce the blockade.
Vessels did unaccountably pass in and out of
certain ports, it was true ; but there was no evi-
dence to show that, as a general measure, the
blockade was not effectual. On the still more
important point of Southern recognition his
language was clear and unequivocal. Time must
be given for the Government of the United States
to re-establish its authority, if it should be able to
do so ; and should it fail, the notoriety and con-
sciousness of the fact would probably lead to some
compromise or treaty of peace whereby the
seceding States would be recognised as independent.
But the difference would be immeasurable between

such a result and the premature attainment of
Southern independence through the interposition
of foreign Powers. Such interposition would
never be forgiven by the Government or the people
of the Union, by whom it would always be said
and believed that when they might still have re-
covered their former prestige and regained their
former power, advantage had been taken of their
difficulties to convert revolt into permanent sepa-
ration. It is but just to Lord DERBY to say that
on this latter point the language held by him
was moderate and judicious ; but upon the
question of blockade he carefully guarded him-
self against making any decisive admission,
and we shall be a little surprised, when the papers
are laid on the table about whose contents he and
his l►te secretary, Lord CaawaavoN, professed to
feel so much curiosity, if we do not hear more upon
the question.
The debate in the Lower House scarcely elicited
any difference of opinion on the most important
questions of policy. It would be premature, indeed,
to assume that because Mr. Duman' did not
directly challenge the policy hitherto pursued, he
and his party will abstain from all attempts to
embarrass the Government on the absorbing
questions connected with the continuance and pro-
gress of the American war. But whatever ulterior
views or hopes the chiefs of the Opposition may
cherish, Mr. DISRAELI has apparently had the
sagacity to perceive not only that public opinion is
resolutely against any attempt at intervention, but
that there really is no ground on which it could be
decently urged. He last night strongly supported
the policy of neutrality which the Government
" had sincerely adopted and sincerely maintained,"
declaring that nothing had hitherto occurred to
shake this policy. So far he deliberately separates
himself froth the organs of his party that have
been incessantly clamouring for immediate inter-
ference. The spirit, too, in which the right hon.

gentleman refers to the American Government is
in equally striking contrast to the violent and
vulgar tone of these journals. Referring to the
affair of the Trent, Mr. DISRAELI, while praising

the firmness and moderation of the Government in
its demands for satisfaction, expressed at the same
time his conviction that the reparation made by the
American Government had been dictated by senti-
ments as worthy. He had, moreover, the fairness
to allow that the American Government had, in a
crisis of enormous difficulty, acted manfully and
courageously, and that its language and conduct
ought, therefore, to receive a generous and liberal
interpretation at our hands. We are bound
to say that in doing this act of justice to the
Cabinet of Washington Mr. DISRAELI stands in
honourable contrast not only to the journals but
to many of the leading members of his party. We
can only hope that a similar spirit of fairness and
moderation may animate the speakers on the
Opposition benches in the discussion of American
affairs to which the House will probably soon be
called. Mr. DISYJELI hints at the direction which
such discussions will take in his anxious inquiries
for official papers relating to the blockade of the
Southern coast, as well as in his philosophic de-
claration that a neutral Power must anticipate a
term to the conflict, and may under given circum-
stances interfere to secure it. That intervention,
however, the right hon. gentleman intimates, will
be regulated more by an instinct of the heart than
by any strict regard to the dictates of international
law. If so, if intervention is to be regulated by
an " instinct of the heart," we may be quite sure
of the direction it will take so far as this country
is concerned.

Thu country, however, is quite decided against
any interference for any purpose. The policy of
strict neutrality hitherto pursued will be as strictly
maintained. Lord PALMERSTON'S declaration last
night is decisive on this head. He stated that the
Government had no intention of swerving from
that policy. It had been dictated by a sense of
prudence as well as by a regard for the national
honour ; and there was, he justly declared, no

reason whatever why we should interfere in a
quarrel with which we have nothing no do,

Mow people, certainly, thought they Aid got
rid of Mr. Erwin Janus, (still it segists)Q.C. ;
for, though disbarred, the Royal Patent is still
nncanoelled. The man had gone to America,
where he had been admitted to the New York
Bar, and set up a legal partnership. Of course,
the conduct of the New York Bar in admitting
such a person, after being disbarred in England,
furnished a tempting subject to the anti-American
writers here ; but the dispassionate observer
ought to remark that the Benchers of the Inner
Temple are to some extent responsible for the
conduct of their American brethren. It is
not given to many Englishmen to understand
the precise effect of being disbarred.
Nor would it be correct to say that every cause of
disbarment in this country is sufficient to render
a person unworthy of pr►ctising as a lawyer in
any other country. It is true that the leaders of
the New York Bar might have written to the
Benchers of the Inner Temple to ascertain the
grounds upon which Mr. Evian( Jan= had been
disbarred. But the necessity for such a step
shows conclusively that the grounds upon which
the Benchen act in disbarring ought to be made
public. It is to be hoped that in any future case,
either of disbarment or of reprimand, this course
will be followed. In the meantime, an article has
I appeared in the Law Magazine and Law Review
for the present month, setting forth all the cir-
cumstances connected with the " disbarment of
" Elwin J. Jamas, Q.C.," which must have been
communicated by the sanction of the Benchers. The
account is, therefore, probably authentic, and
deserves, both for the sake of the British and for
the sake of the American public, the widest
publicity. _ _

Mr. EDWIN Jsmss was the eon of one of the
Secondaries of the City of London. Be had never
been to either university. Wild in his youth, he
had originally tried the stage ; but to him Tragedy
—which, like Mr. MIELE; he considered his forte
—was more a passion than a success. Failing in
this attempt, he was entered of the Inner Temple,
and afterwards called to the Bar in 1836. His sue-

cm was considerable, and about ten years ago he
obtained a silk gown, and finally was elected for
Marylebone in February, 1859. It cannot be
said that he occupied any position in society ;
but, considering his character, it is singular
that he should have associated with men occu-
pying the position of some of his ostensible friends.
Nor, indeed, did it seem absolutely impossible that
he should become Solicitor-General. It is true

that, unlike most of the Queen's Counsel of his
Inn, he was not a Bencher; and an attempt had
been made by Mr. CHAIITURD, the Member for the
Ayr Burghs, on the occasion of Mr. Jima being
appointed Recorder of Brighton, to have the
causes of his exclusion from the Inner Temple
Bench investigated by a Committee of the House
of Commons. Mr. CHAUFTRD'S motion, however,
was not only negatived, but actually erased from
the journals of the House. The transactions for
which Mr. JAMBS wail disbarred are long subse-
quent to 1866 ; but it is some satisfaction to Mr.
Ca►uroao to know that his motion probably de-
served a very different reception than that which
it obtained ; nor is it unfair to add, that if the
Inner Temple Benches in the House of Commons
had done their duty on that occasion, the career
of Mr. Jaunts might have been less discreditable
to the country than it has been.
Let us now record the history of this wretched
man's fall. In the spring of last year, a few
months after the Member for Marylebone had re-
turned from his campaign with Garibaldi, and bad
written his letter on the writ of habeas corpus to
Csvotra, London was surprised by the publication
of an address to his constituents announcing his

resignation, and this was speedily followed by his
retirement from Baooac's and the Reform Clubs.
At the same time it became notorious that there
was an execution in his new house in Berkeley-
square, on a judgment for &large debt. Thenrumours
came to the ears of the Benchers, and also one
written complaint. It was resolved that an investi-
gation should take place, and Mr. JAMES, bearing of
this, vobtitte, red an expression of his anxiety to give
the fullest information. The inquiry began in
Jane, and Mr. JAMES was the first witness. The
writer of the articles from which Viece facts are
obtained does not produce the evidence of Mr.
JAKE', probably for the very sufficient reason that
it was, as he says, " a tissue of suppressions, false-
" hoods, and perversions of fact." But he does
give the summary of the evidence adduced by Mr.
Joseru PARKIN and Mr. TALLEST, the legal advisers
of the late Lord YARBOROUGH. There was great
difficulty in obtaining this evidence from these gen-
tlemen, who considered themselves bound by a
secret promise not to make any disclosures. After
some hesitation Mr. JAMES permitted them to be
exan dned, although it is tolerably certain that if he had
refused his permission the scandalous transactions
with Lord WOVALEY would have remaired &secret.
The policy which dictated the giving of this pro-
mise was adopted in order to allow Mr. EDWIN
Jsuss to practise at the Bar, and so to discharge
his large debts ; but simultaneous secession from

two clubs, resigning • seat in Parliament and a
recorderahip, were occurrences so striking and
unusual that they attracted public attention,
rendered a public inquiry necessary, and thus de-
feated the whole object of Lord Yarteosouoil's
forbearance.
The precise mode in which Mr. EDWIN JAMES
came to owe young Lord WOILBLZY 35,0001.
would be an interesting study. It is the duty of
the Benchera to publish the full details. In the
meantime all that is known is, that Mr.
Janzs, by some means or other, induced
this young nobleman, just on coming of age, to
incur liabilities for his freed, the Queen's Counsel,
who had become aojuainted with his family in the
year 1849. For those debts Lord Woasi.zy ob-
tained not one farthing of benefit; on the contrary,
the very money which Lord WoitaLry obtained from
his father to discharge them was misapplied by Mr.
EDWIN Janne. Nor was it easy even for men so
shrewd and experienced as Mr. TALLINT and Mr.
PARKES to bring the imperturbable Q.C. to rea-
son, for it was not until he was threatened " with
" an exposure at all hazards," that even a full
statement of his liabilities could be obtained. Tbis
act of the drams was concluded about April by an
agreement in which Mr. JAMES consented to retire
from his clubs and public life, and to execute a
warrant of attorney to Lord WONSLIY.
But the incidents of the trial of " SCUILY v.
" INDIUM " are even more interesting. Mr.
JAN= was counsel for Mr. Scum.; Mr. Itios.Ax
was the proprietor of the Illustrated London News,
and was unfortunately drowned in the Lady Elgin,
on Lake Michigan. The case was tried twice ;
and on the first trial Mr. James cross-examined
Mr. INGHAM. His crow-examination was so severe
that a friend of Mr. INGRAM thus described it to
Mr. JAMES when he met him at the Euston Hotel :
" It is a singular accident (he said) that it was
" into this very room I with difficulty led poor
" Mr. Inosan, after your cross-examination of
" hie; and I must tell you that if ever a man

" a narrow escape of causing another man's
" said., you had it on that occasion."

Mr. Isoiimi himself seems to hays been of the
same opinion, for before the second trial came on
he said to an intimate friend in a state of great
excitement, " I must lend Mr. Jsmos some
" money ;" and although the friend objected, Mr.
Noses( insisted, saying, " I must—l am so
" afraid of him, I must do anything he asks, and you
" must lend him the money for me." Mr. Ixos.tm
had, in fact, between the two trials, lent Mr. Jxxsa
the sum of 1,2501. A doubt seems to be ex-
pressed whether such an act as this would be suffi-
cient cause of disbarment. But if any counsel,
on tho eve of an important trial, is to be allowed
to borrow money of his adversary's client and
remain a member of the Bar, the sooner • new
Temple is built the better.

The other victim of this forensic MACAU= was
a west country solicitor. Early in 1858 Mr.
JemEs formed this gentleman's acquaintance in a
professional case ; fascinated him ; visited him ;
borrowed money of him, which, beginning with
the modest sum of 4001., soon rose to 22,0001.
In the meantime the creditor received the whole
of the fees of the eloquent debtor ; and when he
had been elected for Marylebone the enthusiastic
creditor, inspired by the possibility of his debtor
obtaining the office of Solicitor-General or the wool-
sack, took for him the mansion in Berkeley-square.
On the 27th of June he told the story of his dis-
appointment. Upon all these things being proved,
the Beechen had but one course open, and they
followed it. EDWIN JOHN JAMES was formally
disbarred, and it is something to know that he is
the only Queen's Counsel who has ever obtained
this infamous pre-eminence. In vain he attempted

to resign ; his resignation was refused. Indeed,
it is to be observed that after he had, in a moment
of reckless infatuation, permitted the advisers of
Lord YARBOROUGH to give evidence, be never
again appeared in person before any tribunal. His
list public act was a confession of guilt.