The Express.
London, England, 1849-07-05 00:00:00

OUR REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM

NIAIDSTONE.—(Coecne DED.)
The Alforning Post is, par excelletce, the journal
of Park-lane. Stanhope-street pays defer?' c e to it ;
Grosvenor-gate Ihisve down beeline it. When Mr.
Disraeli was a young man he was accustomed to
send his coatributiors to "violent" rewepapers;
Runneyasede's lucubration appeared in the Times,
but when Mr. Disraeli married and became established
in Perk-lane, he emit his letters to the Morning Post,
and the Morning Poet inserted them.
One morning, soon after the Maidstone election
committee of 1898 had arrived at their decision, the
clerk of Charles Austin, Esq., Q.C., one of the leading
counsel for the pretioners in that case, placed upon
his table in Plowden-buildings, Temple, a damp copy
of the Morning Post, containing a letter to the editor
from Mr. Disraeli. The letter complained of Mr.
Austin. It sett forth that Mr. Austin had stated in
opening the case that Mr. Disraeli had entered into
pecuniary promises with the Maidstone electors which
be bad left unfulfilled. Mr. Disraeli said coolly that
this was " utterly false."
I myself (mid be never either directly or indirectly
eahwee into any pecuniary ergasemets, or made any
nesaiary prawns to the electors of Maidstone. and then-
kw I cannot have broken any or left my unfulfilled. The
whole expresso of the contest were defrayed by my lamented
Gillespie (Mr. Wyndham Lewis), end I discharged to him
my moiety.
ER panne wo may. remark that Ode word
" moiety • is on copious significance. Lexicographi-
cally, it means one half; according to ordinary accep-
tation, it means any proportion you please. How
Mr. Disraeli employed it wee never explained; nor is
it of much consequence. The dispute which followed
turned on a very different point—namely, upon the
following striking and very elaborately penned
pongee :
I am informed (so writes the author of Tsnared)—l am
inonted that it is quite nwlAs and even unnameable in
me to expect from Mr. Austin any satisfaction kr these Mi-
deast calumnies, leso.suse Mr. Austin is a amber of an
kososrable profession, the first principle of whose practice
appears to be that they may my &erten, provided they be
paid fur it. The privilege of inculoneir falsehoods with
impunity is deliberately described as "doing your duty
towards your climate," which appears to be a very different
process from doing year duty towards your oeighbour. Thb
may be the SSW of Mr. Austin's profesei.n, and It may be
the custom of society to submit to its practice; but, for my
part, it appears to me to be nothing better than a dogmatize
aid intolerable tyraaay, and I Lr one shall not how to it
la silence.
I therefore (continued the hon. member) I therekes re-
peat that the statement of Mr. Austin is fine, and inasmuch
as he sever attempted to substantiate it, I conclude that it
was on his site but the blustering ardfite of a rhetorical
hireling swelling Menlo( the vile license of a loose-tongend
lawyer, not only to make a eta ment which was false, but to
make it with the consciousness of falsehood.
"Ode! balls and barrels!" what a letter. The editor
of the Morning Post, conscious of its bloody-minded
characteristics, would have printed it in red ink had
his machinery permitted. Everybody, of course, sup-
posed that Wormwocd Scrubs would have been re.
dyed upon this occasion. Bat the scene of battle was
,sinned—by certiorari, possibly, as issue certainly
nee net joined. The new scene of action suss the
Cent sr Queen's Bench, in which Mr. Austin ob-
tained a no calling on Mr. Disraeli to show cause
wby a eriminel information should not issue against
him for a It.hel. The learned Queen's counsel
treated the cas e after a fashion widely different
from that probably which the member for Maid-
stone had expected. Ile took it up, not as a
personal matter, .but as an injury, an offence
against the bar. The Attorney- General appeared es
his coastal; Sir Frederick Pollock and Sir William
Follett were " with him." The letter was admitted.
What, then, could be Mr. Dievaeli's defence? He bad
none either in law or in fact ; and in the month of
Novembar following, the rule h evieg been made abso-
lute, and judgment having been suffered to pies
*pint him by default, the measlier for Maidstone
was brought up to receive the judgment of the court.
On this memorable occasion Mr. Disraeli made a
long speech. Its length was its pri.scipal feature. It
was a speech ill-adapted for a court edjuetice. It fell
dead upon the ears of the judge, who tried in vain to
catch a glimpse of its meaning, and " take a note," as'
they call it, of its points. "An abs elute apology,'
Mr. Disraeli said, " he would not makes ; but he re-
gretted what he had done, and felt great mortifica-
tion at it."
He had so opinion with regard to the bar but that which
was entertained by every wan of seam and knowledge. Be
considered it, to nee the words of a great writer oae of the
illustrious ribs et the body politic. ite did not forget that
from the bar had arisen some of oar most eminent states-
men. But, on the ether head, be could act but think that
the bar was Untie to exhibit amenn its mambo* a taint of
that redeem spirit whin always aecompaniod ireesponsible
Lower - and if was mews In that belief, at last he found
wlllerof his emenseres *min in the writings of one
a best mongol the most eminent members of the bar.
And thee be sated Lord Brougham, to prove that
the bar ' even integrity and honour to the
interest of their client'. cause!
But Mr. Disraeli proceeded :
As respected his offence against the laws he meld do no-
ling but supplicate for mercy; sa to the iadividual betted
off, nded, be offered him the meet wept& apology. Hs re-
ted the insult : he deplored the. language. And,
'sally, he ctncluded by destining that. he bad meant no
personal reflection en an iadividual al ATII be did net know,
ht whom, he said, he understood to t• a man of honour, of
integrity, and learning.
This would all have been very 1 sumilisting, but that
there was an apology required liy the circumstances;
and no man can suffer humiliation in freely making
retribution for a wrong. The Attorney-General, Sir
Frederick Pollock, and Sir W. Follett, declared their
opinion that the apology was most complete and
eatisfazto; y; and said thr.t 1 the court was sat isfled,
Mr. Austin was satisfied . The court did not '.ay that
it was satisfied, but said that *, it was more satisfac-
tory to the court that the matter should terminate in
reparation and apols cagy than in judgment. As
the prayer for judgi rat was withdmvr.i, there the
matter ended.
Such was one . the extraordinary legal proceed-
ings whlch arose out of the Maidstone committee. It
was not the eel• one. At a mblequent Kent aldose,
an action wit , tried in which !elr. Coppoek was
the Plaintiff , and a Mr. Bower the dolma-
ant, and iv' .rich was brought to recover the anon
of a note of hand for 6001. given by defendant to
plaintiff i• a liquidation of the costs of the petition
against) Ir. Fector's return. The defence was that It
was one of the conditions on which the note of hand
yea Ili rea that in the event of Mr. Fector offering
him if again, no other candidate should receive the
12[1Pf sort of the liberal electors, and that no petition
127 ,old be presented against him. This condi-
° an, it was said, had been grossly violated. Mr.
Joppock however, alleged that he had been no
party to the proceedings which constituted the
alleged violation, and therefore the cise went to trial,
and the jury found a verdict for the defendant. Thus,
those electionueirroossdings resulted in a common loss
to all eon
At the ensuing general election of 1841, there was
an entire change in the representation of Maidstone.
Mr. Disraeli, without publicly assigning any reasons,
deserted his Brit love and offered himself for Shrews-
leery. Up to this hour it has never been satisfactorily
explaked in Maidstone why this gentleman resigned.
Looking at the tremendous pother that was made
about lir. Artin's speech, it is no joke to hint that
monetary conditions had anything to do with the re-
signing,. As faithful chroniclers, however, we are
hound to state that in Maidstone at the present
time, it is alleged that all the incidentals of the
contest of 1837 were not paid, and that that
was among the circumstances that probably induced
Hr. Disraeli's wi'hdrawal from the representation.
They may not have been debts of his own that were
owing, bat there certainly were sums claimed in re-
gard to the coated—rums which Mr. Lewis would
sot pay, and, as is believed, which he was fully justi-
fied in resisting.
In 1841 Mr. Fector had just married. He, too,
appeared to have had enough of Maidstone, and at
his "domestic arrangements" would, he es*
"interfere with the proper discharge of his parliamen-
tary duties," he, too, begged permission to withdraw.
Through the instrumentality of this gentleman, a Mr.
Dodd, of Brunswick-square, was sent down by the
Oarltea. At the same time Mr. A. B. Hope, another
enservative, was introduced through the family of
ilesount Bereeford. Up to a very late period of the
widest these two gentlemen were unopeeceed. The
liberals could not agree on the proper soul's to
take. Some were for starting a candidate on
parity principles—others desired to let the election
go—whilst a third
At Mr.
for winning
seder all circumstances. At Mr. David Salo-
mon was announced to boa Z,Ndate. This gondo-
las= cams forward under cercumstances which gave
kiss a claim on the consideration of the elestare.
Ho was a neighbour, being resident on an citations
Toobridp Wells, when hs is Mid pinouslly