The Express.
London, England, 1866-02-27 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY TY, 1866.

senses gives money without retaining a right over
its disposal ; but the exercise of such a right in the
present osse would bring our Government into
collision with a Power which in such a contest
would be sure to win. We must forget all the
teachings ,of history, and cut ourselves loose from
the progress of modern civilization before we can
listen to such a proposal as that of Lord Lunrozo.
Berl Ginty hoe given notice that on the 9th of
March he will move that the Lords go into com-
mittee of the whole Hones to consider the state of
Ireland, and propose resolutions recommending a
definite course of policy. We earnestly trust that
the Noble Lord's wisdom and success may prove
equal to his laudable courage.

Ir is to be hoped that there is no mistake in
the telegraphic annonnoement that the Armstrong
guns which we lost at Dewangiri have been restored
to our officers by the Bhootan chiefs. We see no
reason for supposing that there is : the intelligence
purports to come from Sir JOHN Lay/Runes ; it
ought to be true, and it probably is true ; only we
have bad so many disappointments, the fruit of
false hopes, aims this Bhootan war began, and such
notable proofs of the fallibility of the Eastern tele-
graph to transmit a message entire, that the
habit of distrust will assert itself in the presence of
the strongest evidence. Looking now, however,
to the explicit language of the Govxerroz-Grartam.
of India, we feel at liberty to congratulate the
country for the first time on the real ending of the
Bhootan war.
The circumstances under which these guns fell into

the hands of the Bhootanese, a year ago, made too
strong an impression on the public mind to have
been already forgotten. After a force had been
sent into their country to avenge the insults offered
to our envoy, Mr. Farm, and to obtain the satis-
faction which he had failed to exact, and when the
fortress of Dhalmioote had been taken and
Dewangiri occupied, our soldiers encountered in
the climate a worse than human enemy, against
which the Government had failed to arm them.
At the beginning of January we held a line
of posts in Bhootan extending to a length of
190 miles. The nominal Government of that
country was talking of peace, and no reinforce-
ments were forwarded to our little army.
Suddenly the most powerful chief in the
country, Towoso Parn.ow, knowing that 03
only pesos likely to be signed would be
made at his expense, having collected four
thousand men—just five.and-twenty times as
many as we had been led to believe he could dis-
pose of—suddenly and simultaneously attacked
our poets. The attacks were repulsed, but in each
case the enemy was enabled to take up • strong
position overlooking ours. The principal post was
that of Dewangiri, held by Colonel CAMPBELL, of
the 43rd Native Infantry, with 400 newly raised
men and 100 cavalry. The force was weakened by
malaria fever, officer after officer having been
stricken down. On the 30th of January,
Towaso PxmLow :attacked Dewangiri with 5,000
men, and was at first beaten off,. He, however,
erected stockades close to our position, and
our troops—who, it is to be remembered,
were Sepoys--refused to advance. By the
6th of February there was no water, and
Colonel CAKPBYLL held a urine of war, at
which it was unanimously resolved to abandon the
post. This was done at night ; the force was
misled by the guides ; the Sepoys abandoned the
guns and the wounded, and the affair ended in a
disgraceful flight. Subsequent operations, lulu-
ding the recapture of Dewangiri by General
Tomes, and the state of our military affairs per-
mitted us to resume ncotiations for peace. A
Treaty was finally signed last November, the
surrender of the guns was one of its stipulations.
Many persons thought that their restoration
should have been made a condition prior to any
negotiation, and all held that the war must be re-
sumed at any cost if the guns were not sent tack.
At that time their restoration seemed far from pro-
bable, the Torras° PZELOW who held the ions
having throughout the war and negotiations taken
a true of his own, and being, moreover, the most
powerful of the chief.. By what means he has
been brought to reason we are not informed, nor
does it much concern us to inquire. We have got
out of a war in which we could reap neither profit
nor renown, and it may be hoped that our next
dispute with a native State may be settled with-
out resorting to methods which place our holorr
in the power of a handful of savages.

OUR CONTEMPORARIES.
(THD3 DAY.)

barest will aot astrthetsaily deal with, and this au
only be relieved by a past diminution of the total expend!.
tare Cl the governmeat, tbzugh the adoption Cl a sounder
feisty, ooloalal, and demastie.

The Pod Wake the sketch which it says Mr. White
drew of the Begliah people groaning under a lo►d of tan.
Lion which they feel is intolerable, and ready to disarm the
country to cheapen tea and beer, has an exceedingly
apocryphal appearance. The colouring is laid on too thiok,
and the rhetorical ogreish fails to wooed the &bassos of a
truthful appreciation of the national spirit.

The &or will not conceal tie regret that Kr. Gladstone
did not avail himself of the opportunity to avow an earnest
adhesion, not merely to those general principles of fruga-
lity which are acknowledged on all sides, but to a broad
polity of retrenchment. It was vary gratifying to hear
from the opposition so generous a testimony as that borne
by Sir Stafford Nertheote to the necessity of °cashiering in
these questions how terribly taxes may press upon the poor
which are hardly felt by the rich. It did equal honour to
the bon. baronet as a politician and as a man, and it was
characterised by an obvious sicoerity and feeling which
sontrasted very pleasantly with the " prosperity talk'
which fell so glibly from the lips of Mr. Laing.

LATEST INTELLIGENCE.

,LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF QUKEN'S BKNOIL

After Term Nisi Prins Sittings at GniMan.—Totem the
Lord Chief Justice and Special Juries.
1111,1101. 9. THE AOOIDZITAL MUTH nrIMILLIKII 0011 PANT.
This wee an action upon • policy of intonate in the
Accidental Death Insurance Company. The defendants
bad paid M. into court, and pleaded that the plaintiff was
sot whelly disabled from attending to his besieges, and
that consequently he could not recover.
Mr. H. James and Mr. Telford Baiter were counsel for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Coleridge, Q. 0., Mr. Jos. Brown, Q. 0., and
Mr. Charles Hassell were counsel for the defendants.
The plaintiff is • publican, sad was formerly connected
with °remorse, sad at the time of the accident complained
of he bad a place of business in Holborn, and was also
proprietor of the Hotel and Carders at North Woolwich.
Thu plaintiff effected a policy of Inswranoe in the defend-
sat's company, and by it they covenantal to pay
the um of 1,0001. in ease of she death ci
the person assured, and 61. per week was to be
paid if the scoured was totally disabled from attending
to bedews. and • sum of 30s. per week in case of
partial disablement. In May, 1884, the plaintiff wee going
along Holborn in a Hansom ash, when he wee struck by the
heroes in an omnibus cosnisg.in the opposite direction,
breaking several of his ribs. He wan tikes to his house
ie Holborn, where he was confined for • week, and after
that be wait to Woolwich for change of air, bet he wee
unable to attend to his boguss.
Mr. Coleridge widths cue was more one for his lordship
than for the jury. He believed they were agreed epos
most of the facto, and the question to be determined wee
the wording of the policy with regard to the " whole " or
" partial " disablement of the assured. A person wishing
to resolve compensation for partial disablement was in-
quired to pay an extra premium of 2s. per cent. The plain-
tiff did not pay that per outage.
The Lord Chief Justice said the language of the polity
with record to partial disability appeared pretty clear.
Mr. Coleridge said the sum of 41. premium for 1,0001. In
ease of death was • very null premium, and the company
was obliged to protectoary itself in eases of compensation only.
This was not an o death poli.
The Lord Chiefrdi cy
Justice said the question was whether
the plaintiff had been wholly or partially disabled. If only
then it sou to be contended that it was sot within
tthhe
Mr. oo
eridge.—Yes. The defendant bad paid the plain-
tiff six weeks' compensation the time that he was wholly
disabled from Weediest to his business. After that it was
only • partial disability, the plaintiff being able to attend
to certain matters. The question was as he had already
stated—the meaning of the words in the policy.
The Lord Chief Justine said there could be so doubt that
if • man was obliged to be in bed it was a total disablement;
but that if a man's doctor allowed him to work for an hour
or two • day it wee • partial disablement only.
Mr. Henry Jams. said his contention was that the
plaintiff was totally disabled for eight weeks from attend-
fog to the whole of his businsse ; merely giving certain
directions in a man's room did not alter the cue.
The Lord Chief J ustioe said It would be better to hear
the facts of the cue.
Mr. Bishop was then called—He deposed that he was
confined to his bed for six days at Holborn. At Woolwich
he was confined to the her parlour for three weeks, acid be
wee only able to sit about and see what was going on end
answer questions. He was unable to take any active part
in the business. From attending to badness too soon he
had a relapse, and he kept hie bed for three weeks.
The Lord Chief Justice said that is whet be should have
expected from a man going out six days attar he had
broken his ribs.
Plaintiff further said that he was still very unwell and
was not able to attend to his business as formerly.
The Lord Chief Justice said the question of total or
jurtial disablement was one of fact and degree for the
ry. He thought it was essentially • question of theirs
and not of law. He would so direct the jury and give
the defendant leave to move the court gun the °oestrus-
tion of the policy, or it mold be turned into • special cue.
The question was of the three weeks the plaintiff was con-
fined to his bar-parlour, in which he had said that he was
wholly disabled from attending to business.
Mr. Coleridge said the company was very desirous ci
having a legal construction put upon the policy. If the
plaintiff had paid the extra premium he would ham
been entitled to compensation whilst partially disabled. The
defendants had paid six weeks at 61. a week for the total
disablement.
Eventually, the jury returned a verdict for the defendaato
on the ground that there was not a total disablement for
more than six weeks and that the sum paid into court was
sufficient.