The Express.
London, England, 1853-07-04 00:00:00

LITERATURE

Lectures on the Etoo:is4 niusiossriste of the EipAleesstA na-
ture. By Witt.t.sii MeatraacZ TUACILIMAY, author
of " Vain, Fair," te. Smite, Eider, sod Co., Corobill
The great and striking fact that distinguishes this
book from an ordinary 'Joe* of criticisms on authors
is, of course, that the man who here speaks of hu-
mourists is a humourist himself. Old Butler, in one
of the poems in his " Remains," says:
As English poet 'heels' be tried ►by his peers,
And sot by pedants and philosophers:
lucompetrat to judge poetic fury,
As butchers are forbid to be on a jury.
This is true of all classes of writers. Why is
Coleridge's criticism so valuable ? Because he could
himself create : and he was therefore, as a partaker
of the feeling from which works of art spring, the
deepest judge of it, manifestations. The " Lectures"
of Sydney Smith on wit and humour; the "Essays"
of Leigh Hunt on writers of sentiment and imagina-
tion—are all further proofs of the truth of that
which Butler said and which we urge ; and now the
attractiveness of this book of Mr. Thackeray's
is a further confirmation of it. We do not pretend
to exclude all criticism by men who have not the
creative power, which would be unjust and absurd.
We only maintain that, given the creative power, its
posses,or will be the truest and deepest judge of
others.
l'erhaps since Scott wrote the biographies of the
novelists no such a happy instance of sympathy be-
tween a humourist and her critic has occurred as we
bare displiqed here. What, then, is the chief charm
and value of the work? It is this—that, as a
novelist, Mr. Thackeray bps laid hold of the per-
sonality of the men he writes about. The faculty
consists in the readiness of this mental process—viz.,
the abstracting from all the hundred accounts of a
man those points, those essentials, which are the moat
vital characteristics of him. A mere critic might tell
you that Pope was a weak, deformed, little man,
who wrote very finely, and was somewhat bitter.
Thackeray seizes the relation between the personal
phenomena and the intellectual result, drops im-
mense superfluities of narrative and criticism
(such as are in the biographies), and gives
you the man and the author in one portrait.
He succeeds in doing this, because, as a novelist, he
has learned to observe character in its everyday de-
velopment in society. He knows bow to interpret all
those actions, weaknesses, and peculiarities, which
have distinguished the men he speaks of—and larks
this mental question—What kind of man would Pope
or Swift be, if he were alive now ? An answer to
this is just what the general reader wants. Ordi-
nary criticism presents nothing to the heart to lay
bold of : these " Lectures" do, and the chances are,
give one about as vivid a notion of the sort of people
these great writers really were in private life, as can
now be obtained. The reader sees more of that cen-
tury in this book than anywhere else—out of Ho-
prth's canvasses.
Such is the general importance of the work. The
effect is produced by the agency of the most suitable
and appropriate of all styles : a style that is very
easy, and flowing, and colloquial—and eminently art-
ful too. Its effect is designed to carry off the opi-
nions in an appropriate music. When Swift's un-
happiness is to be narrated (and the effect conveyed
that it was Swift's own fault), the style becomes
solemn and even passionate ; when Addison is talked
of, we are gravely seduced into more earnestness of
admiration, than Addison himself produces; and
Prior and Gay pass before us to a light, airy, cheer-
ful tune. Indeed, the book is eminently dramatic;
the narrative represents the moving of the personte,
and the commentary the accompanying music. The
pleasure produced by reading it, is much like that
which you derive from a serio-comic opera—which
remark must be taken in its most complimentary
sense.
Thackeray was well aware where his real strength,
or where, at all events, the attractiveness of novelty
lay, when he made up his mind to direct his expo-
sition to the men's lives, rather than their works.
But as nothing but the " works" induces
nos to interest ourselves in the " lives" of
these people, there is sometimes injury done
by this system, which must be set against
the benefits of it. This is easily illustrated. We
have more biographical information about one cele-
brity than the other, and thus on Mr. Thackeray's
plan—the celebrity who has had the most copious
accounts written of him, comes best off. Addison is
made far more of, for example, than Sterne. Will
anybody venture to compare the genius of the
essayist with that of the creator of the Shandy
family— that exquisite writer whose quality of
humour is richer, rarer, and more subtle and delicate
than anybody's but Shakspeare's? Yet the result of
Mr. Thackeray's conduct in this matter is, that he
sends the confiding reader to the works of both men,
—to find in the end that Addison is a smaller man,
and Sterne a much greater man, than he imagined.
On the whole, the " Lectures" are a valuable addi-
tion to our permanent literature ; eloquent when the
author ii serious; brilliant when he is gay; they are
charming reading. They will instruct hundreds;
and those who differ from the author in particular
points, will still come back often to weigh his
remarks, to re-consider his view. We do not say
that they are works as remarkable as " Esmond " or
" Vasity Fair : "—they will be most valued as contain-
ing the opinions of one who has acquired an autho-
rity by these preceding publications.

BrAGLARY AND ATTEMPTED MURDER.
BRISTOL, JOLT

was received yes-

terday by the police of a burglary of a very dariag deo-
criptioa, and accompanied with savage violence, which was
unmerited that seaming, Whets the hours of one and two
o'clock, at the house el Mr. Williams, a gentleman eighty-
five years of age, who resides at Cotham Vale, soar this
city. It appears, from the inquiries we have instituted,
that Mr. Williams, who was formerly a teasher. maided
Mee, although the bomb is in a somewhat eigneoned
situation ; with which fact, no doubt, the burglars became
acquainted, and it is clear, from the traces left of their pro.
eatediags, that they were accomplished housebreakers, the
whole matter Davis, been evidently pleased and carried
out with the greatest deliberation. It would seem,
from an emnisatios of the premises, that they
first of all procured a short ladder from a cowshed is •
field near the premiers, and endeavoured to effect an
satrance through • window on the first storey is front of
the house, they having previously ascertained that all the
back windows bad been properly secured by bells being at-
tached to them. After one or two trials they found they
could not succeed in opening that window, it bevies been
fastened oet the inside, and they then proceeded to some
bay fields some little disarm of where they procured a
large 24-round ladder, whish reached to the upper window,
which was unfastened, sad by this means they managed to
get in, and they premed at once to the old man's bed-
room. According to his statmeat there were four persons
altogether concerned la this outrage. One of these men
had his face covered with • mask, and he at once jumped
on the bed, seised the old man, gagged hie mouth,
and threatened that he would murder him if be did
not at once disclose where his property was, or if he
made the slightest disturbance. Mr. Williams protested
that he did hot keep his money on the premises, but
the other men at once began rifling the house, palling
open all the cupboards and drawer', and searching every
spot where they thought it likely property of any kind
:night be concealed, and they succeeded in possessing them-
selves of • gold watch worth twenty guineas, a silver watch,
and all the money the old gentleman bad in his pockets.
While this was going on, the man with the mask stood over
Mr. Williams and beat him several times with his fist on the
face and head. He struggled very much, and managed to
get under the bed, but the burglars seised hold of his legs
and tried to pull him out, and one of them took hold of Mr.
Williams' finger and bit it nearly off, to make him come
out. The man with the mask then beat his head against
the flooring, at the same time threatening him, with impre-
cations, if he attempted to remove the band .ge they had
takes the precaution to place over his eyes. They ill-used
him so much that he became insensible, and the villeins
soon after quitted the house, no doubt scrip:chc that
be was dead, making their escape through the kitchen
window and over the hack wall. As the bandage was
kept over his eves, Mr. Williams could not give a
full description of the men, but he recognised four different
voices, and he said, as far as he could judge, the man with
the mask was • rough fellow, but the others had the ap-
pearanceof gentlemen. Shortly after the villains had left,
Mr. Williams managed to crawl down stairs, and went to
a neighbour's house, who got up and procured a policeman
from the nearest beat, and one of his comrades, and on
searchieg the house they found that in addition to the pro-
perty above mentioned the thieves had carried off some
gold seals and keys. They must have gone cautiously to
work, for they had removed all the belle from the fasten-
ings to lessen the chances of alarm, and opened all the doors
so as is case of necessity to admit of easy flight. The locks
of the bow had evidently been picked with superior is-
strusaents. The thieves left behind them some articles of
sew wearing appere‘ which it is hoped hereafter will afford
a clue to their MeWty. TM yahoo aza actively engaged
ustati enap=uaynd IMION Mpg. are entertained
that tythy la icht te
liam iala Na bewas lbws the ?righ* t and ther *mo-
ving@ el fie WNW NOW bye au at hi. advanced
age.

Law intelligence.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY
COUNCIL- SATI:IllIAT.

Th• members of the committee mu tat to do were the
Right Hon. Sr J. Knight Bruce, the Right Ron. Sir J.
rerner, the Itieht lion. Sir Edward Ryan, and the Judge
of the Admiralty Court.

JN TIII NATTER OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM
It‘INT r. 'WIN CARL AND ROSEN? ARNINTItoNo.—
rlly 11LNCIt AED TLI BAR.—ALLIOSD CONTEMPT OF

The respondent, John Carr. is Chief Justice and Re-
•order of Freetown, in the oniony of Sierra Leone, and also
Judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court ; and Roh.-rt Arm-
.trong is Assistant Judge of the said Court of the Re-
order. The appellant we, an advocate and attorney in
the courts of law in Sierra Leone.

The petition sit out that the aprellant had been ex-
tensively engaged in the colon, in the practice of his pro-
feasion ; that in the month of Jun►, on behalf of one George
Osmond Patnelli, he prosecuted an action against the Hon.
Charles H d It. a merchant of Sierra Leone, and a mem-
ber of her Majesty's council in that colony. and also an
assistant judge of the courts in the said colony, upon a
eontrect for wages due tn the raid Grosse Osmond
Patnelli, as the factor of the eaid Charles Heddle ; that in
the course of the trial he called for the production of the
books of aceount, and certain other document. having
reference to the matters at issue, and which were in the cus-
tody of the defendant in the cause, but which the defend-
ant refused to produce; that he respectfully appealed
to the court to enforce the production of those
hooks, as was the usual practice ; that the Chief

; that
Just ice did not notice the appellant's application,
but desired him to proceed with the case, which the appel-
!lnt was obliged to do accordingly, observing at the same
time that he had brought all his client's books and papers
into court, but that he feared he should be obliged to with-
hold them, as, if he did not do so, he would he giving the
,:efendant an mtvantge over his client; that the court de-
sired the appellant to go on with the case, which he accord-
ingly did, and brought his client's case to a close ; that the
advocate on the other side having addressed the jury, he
began to examine his witnt sate, and proceeded to put irre-
gular questions to them; that the appellant objected ; that
the Chief Justice, in • violent and angry tone, told the ap-
pellant to sit down, which he (lid ; that the appellant took
a second objection ; that the Chief Justice, in • manner un-
courteous and arbitrary, desired the appellant to sit down
and be silent; that shortly afterwards the books of the ap-
pellant's client were called for ; that the appellant declined
to produce them unless the defendant's books were also pro-
dueed; that the Chief Justice concluded by saying. "Then
do I understand that you refuse to produce the books ?"
that a repetition of the same matter occurred over and over
again ; that the Chief Justice again desired him in an angry
tine "to be silent and keep his seat;" but claiming and in-
simirg en MS right to interrupt the opposite counsel, and
prevent his putting leading questions to his witnesses, the
appellant was ordered by the Chief Justice to be fined is
the sum of 201. for contempt of court ; that the appellant
did not allow an improper word to escape from his lips,
further than to insist upon his right to be heard ; that im-
mediately after this fine was imposed, the Chief
Justice observed that a great many persons is
court felt for sad sympathised with the tippets
lint, and remarked that the appellant was acting in
• manner which was likely to induce persons to believer
that justice was not likely to be done to the appellant's
client, which the sppellaat felt was the fact ; that the Chief
Justice declared him guilty of a contempt, and ordered him
be Seed in the further sum of 501.; that the appellant
'Omits that the imposition of such fines was an arbitrary
and unjust exercise of the authority of the court by the Chief
Justice ; that in the ennduct pursued by the appellant there
was nothing either illegal, irregular, or improper towards
the court; that the appellant was only discharging his duty
to his client ; that the appellant denied that the representa-
tion of thefacts which led to these proceedings as repre-
sented on the minute of the court was accurate; that being
fearful that he would be arrested for the fines he paid the
samsof 201. and SOL to the clerk of the court, protesting at
theism* time against the legality of the proceeding, sad
giving notice of his intention to appeal; that the trial of the
cause then proceeded, hut the Chief Justice permitted the
same course, so prejudicial to the ease of the appellant to be
adopted on the other side ; that • short time afterwards the
appellant was again fined for contempt of court, the eon-
tempt being that having addressed the Queen's advocate he
waserdered to be silent, and then he madethe following ob-
servation to the judge:—" Whenever I get up to speak
lam interrupted." In consequence of the conduct of the
jaclp the appellant declined to tender any more bills
of exception than he had already tendered. The judge
asked him why he had not done so, when he alleged that
his Honour's conduct had been tantamount to a refusal to
allow him to do so, whereupoa he was fined SOL for con-
tempt. The fine not having been paid, the Chief Justice
caused a writ of copies and fieri facia to be issued against
the appellant, who was arrested, but he obtained his dis-
charge, the writ having beer issued without a seal en, in-
demnifying the sheriff. Having left the colony, the
appellant's attorney, pursuant to • notice served on the
clerk of the ecurtwito had by direction of the Chief Justice
issued • writ without the assistance of the crown law
'Soar, moved the Court of the Recorder oa the 22nd of
November, 1851; for a nil, to show cause why the writ
&We not be set aside on the ground that it:was void for
Mint of seal, but the Chief Justice refused the nee. In
uenee of this decision, the appellant's agent was com-
es his account to pay the fine of SOL The appellant
that he felt deeply aggrieved by these oppressiveZii arbitrary proceedings, not only in a professional and
peinalary way, bat what was far more important to him, by
the imputations which had been east on his conduct, the
*feet of which and the orders [made against hiss was
to preclude him from the fair exercise of ibis profession in
the Recorder's Court He further complained that the
preftwaliap were wholly unwarranted, harsh, and oppres-
sive, sail wars • violation of his just rights and privileges
as en eiveeate.

The answer of the respondents denied the appellant's
allegations, and stated that on the second day of the trial
the Queen's Advo-ate, Mr. O'Neill, opened the defendant's
case, and upon his proceeding to examiae the wanness for
the defence, the appellant commenced $ mums of disorderly
conduct ; that he several times boisterously interrupted the
Queen's Advocate in the examination of the witaemes
without any justifiable cause ; that the court desired the
petitioner to desist ; that the admonitions and warning of
the court were not attended to by the appellant, but en the
contrary his conduct was disorderly and boisterous; that
hardly • question could be pot by the adverse party but the
appellant rose to object ; that the appellant proceeded to n•
fleet on the bench in language to the following effect : " That
greater latitude was allowed to the Queen's Advocate than
to himself in the examination of witnesses; that the Queen's
Advocate had it all his own way ; that the respondent, J ohn
Carr, emmulted with the respondent Robert Armstrong,
as to the propriety of fining the appellant, when Armstrong
advised Mai not to do so, as the appellant appeared to be
greatly excited, and the court wee therefore adjourned
until the following day. On the cause being resumed, the
appellant, Instead of offering any apology for the language
he had used the previous day, again interrupted the Queen's
Advamte and Mr. Deegan, whereupon the respondent',
ding admonition useless, imposed a fine of 201. for con•
Naps of court. The same behaviour having been ma-
thmed, the Chief Justice remarked " That the conduct of
doe sopallsat was calculated to lead persons to believe that
balm want likely to be done to the plaintiff." To which
the swiss% k a meet insolent and disrespectful manner,
sad Via skald is kis chair, and with a grinning men-
talism% ',plied aloud, I can very well see that."
Susi induct being highly improper, the respondents
Mt Masi to impose a further fine of 501. The
respealsass having denied several of the allegations
of the appellant, went on to mate that on the fol-
lowing day he voluntarily paid the fines imposed on him,
and that subsequently to the imposition of the last fine he
declared the court might fine him as often as it pleased,
but be would get justice elsewhere." They further al-
leged that such disrespectful conduct having been conti-
nued by the appellant, who got up an altercation with the
Queen's Advocate, the cow: imposed a further fine of 101.,
which was paid on the 22nd of September; and on the
24th of the same month, the appellant having declined to
answer a question put by the court, declaring " he was
ready to go to gaol and put an end to the trial,"
the respondent Carr felt bound to impose another
fine of 601., which however was not paid, and Can
with the consent of Armstrong, issued the estreat roll.
The appellant denied that the writ could be issued, as the
period allowed by the act had expired, and he also claimed
the retur nof the lines paid under fear of arrest, as he al-
leged, though he well knew no order had been issued for
his arrest. The appellant left the colony for England on
the 21st of November, 1851, and before the next court of
quarter sessions at which the writ was returnable was held,
namely, December following. On the 22nd of November,
the appellant being beyond the jurisdiction of the court, a
motion was made before the Recorder of Freetown, by Mr.
Dyett, appellant's attorney, for a rule nisi to set aside the
writ and to discharge the then sheriff, Mr. Parke,
from being liable to contempt of court for having
discharged the appellant from his custody under
the writ, on the ground that it had not been
sealed with the seal of the court. The court having been
informed that the Queen's Advocate had not received notice
of the motion, refused the application on the ground that it
should have been preceded by a notice to the law officer of
the Crown, and that the writ was returnable to the Court
of Quarter Sessions, and not to that of the Recorder of
Freetown, and that the former had no seal for the sealing
of writs or other documents returnable to that court. In
conclusion, the respondents prayed that the petition and
appeal might be dismissed.
Mr. Whateley and Mr. Moore appealed for the appel-
lant ; Mr. Wawa and Mr. Lush for the respondents.

The arguments haring been concluded,
Dr. Lushington said that this not being a regular appeal,
but a special reference by her Majesty, the usual course was
simply to report to her Majesty, and not to give any inti-
mation of the opinion of the ccuncil until they had re-
ceived her Majesty's commands.