The Express.
London, England, 1867-02-19 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TuESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 19, 1867.

stag surgeon examined the man on three occasions, and
certified that he was in a fit condition to receive corporal
punishment. The medical officer WAS present during the
flogging, aid he cam seen by the army surgeons tidy. Four-
teen days afterwards he was admitted into the hospital suf..
feriag from fever. He was attacked by erysipelas in the
face, and he died on the 9th February. A post mortem
ex.ituiciation prayed 64 he died of congestion of the brain
in coasequence of erysipelas.
PANIC-LANE AND HALICMSTREET.

Sir H. W. lIARE)N asked the First Cummiaoioner of
Works if it was intended to widen Park-lane from Stan-
hope-gate to Oxford-street ; and if any and what measures
could be token to abate the inconvenience now existing to
twit pa Al'!ngers and carriages by the wooden barriers erected
in Halkin-stieet, which had narrowed that great tho-
roughfare?
Lord d. MANNERS said it was intended to widen Park-
lane throughout, from Stanhope-gate to Oxford-street. The
other matter was in no way under his jurisdiction.
Sir H. W. BARRON asked whether the noble lord could
telt him who be wai to apply to for information.
(Laughter.)
Karl GROSVENOR said the buildings in Halkin-street
would probably take two years to complete, and he
.pre-
sunmd the hoarding would not be removed for that time.

even after adopting it the house may in its wisdom
think proper to differ from her Majesty's government.
Having embarked upon this policy, and made a certain
progrev4, it would surely he unwise to low the advantage
of what has been done. I believe that the adoption of
our plan will lead to no delay, but that on the contrary it
will greatly facilitate the passage of the bill which we shall
afterwards bare the honour of introducing. I trust that
the house, considering the difficultyof managing this ques-
tion, will put a charitable construction upon the motives
of the ministry, and believe that we have not had recourse
to this method fur the sake of amusing the house for a
time, or of occasioning procrastination or delay. We shall
devote our utmost energies to the work. We have put
our hand to the plough, and we shall not draw back till
the whole field is eared. (Cheera.)

Mr. GLADSTONE—The charitable construction for
which the right hon. gentleman has just made his
appeal is one that lam perfectly prepared to give ; and
the best mode of doing so is, in the remarks which I may
make, to avoid altogether any reference of whatever kind
to the motives of the government. We are embarked in a
common cause, and lam bound to say that I think my
hon. friend has received just credit from the right hon.
gentleman for the spirit in which he offered hie observa-
tions. He has been so far justified in the course he has
taken, that he has only been endeavouring to give expres-
sion to the feeling which is generally entertained in the
house, namely, that we are placed in a position of con-
siderable embarrassment. (Cheers.) There are in the
country as there are in this house various currents of
feeling with respect to the subject of parliamentary
reform. Some of those currents are in opposite directions,
and thus tend to neutralize one another. Others are more
powerful ; but there is one powerful prevailing opinion in
which I think nearly the whole community is united, and
which I likewise believe is faithfully reflected within the
walla of this house, with reference to political parties. I
believe the strong, the earnest, I might even venture to
say the absorbing and overwhelming desire of all is that
we should, within the limits of the present session, arrive
at a legislative settlement of this question. (Loud and
general cheering from all parts of the house.) There being
that desire in the country, there fellows from the very
existence of it a wish that it should be settled by those
who are now in power, for it is wholly beyond the ability
or capacity of any set of men who conduct the delibera-
tions of this house to bring to a satisfactory issue a mea-
sure with regard to the representation unless they be the
confidential advisers of the crown. We have before us a
government, and, so far as I am individually concerned—
I believe I also speak the sentiments of many others on
this side—l have an earnest desire to co-operate with them
for the settlement, end above all for the early settlement,
of this question. What, therefore, we are anxious for
that her Majesty's government should feel the present to
be a favourable state of things, and should take all the
steps which are necessary to bring to practical effect the
disposition which is so generally prevalent in the house.
Accordingly, her Majesty's government have presented
resolutions, and I ant bound to say that I ant strongly of
opinion that that was not an expedient course. (Cheers.)
I have, however, esteemed myself perfectly willing
to accede to the method in question—that is to say,
to agree that we should take no exception on general
grounds to the method of proceeding by resolution. The
special reason which the right hon. gentleman gave for
adopting that plan was substantially this :—" Had we sub-
mitted our intentions with regard to parliamentary reform to
the house in the shape of a bill, you might have met us, as
you did one. former ocassion, by invidiously selecting some
one point from amongst the provisions of the measure, and
upon that point our whole comprehensive scheme might,
by a not very legitimate process, have been got rid of in
this house." My hon. friend has endeavoured to convey
to the mind of the government en assurance that therewas
net the smallest probability of any such proceeding taking
place, and I cannot help expressing my strong belief in
conformity with his opinion. Of course, it would be pre•
sumptuous in me to undertake to bind any gentleman in
this house, far less any body of members. I express my
own opinions, and I do not go beyond the
limits to which my personal communications have
extended. At the same time, the circumstances of this case
are so clear, and they have assumed a character so his-
torical, that I think they can hardly leave a doubt on the
mind of the right hon. gentleman and the government as
to the groundlessness of the apprehensions which he has
expressed, and which he states have led him to a conclu-
sion so important. The right hon. gentleman on a former
evening adverted in terms of censure and disparagement
to the proceedings of 1M59. I am not about to defend
those proceedings further than to say that I do not think
they merit the kind of censure which he has passed upon
them. Those proceedings, whether prudent or not, would
in illy opinion have been perfectly justifiable had they
been taken by • parliament that had its heart and its
mind earnestly set upon legislation for the purpose of par-
liamentary ref onn. (Cheers.) But now, with the light
which experience affords, it is impossible to regard the
proceedingsof 1859 without reference to those of 1860.
Taking the operations of theee two years as one—taking
into consideration the strong measure of 1859 with its
unsatisfactory completion in 1860—I think I am only re-
presenting the public sentiment out of doors, and the
general sentiment in this house, when I say, in the words
of the right hon. gentleman, that those proceedings cannot
be renewed. (Cheers.) The reason, then, for adopting
the present method has diseppeareil ; and undoubtedly it
would have been a matter of great gratification to me if
the right hon. gentleman had been Maresca to adopt the
suggestion made in no unfriendly spirit by the hon.
member. From what he stated, however, I gather that he
is not disposed to accept the suggestion ; and, for my part,
whatever my regret and concern may be, I do not withdraw
any assurance that I have ventured to give him. I must,
however, observe that at the present momeut we are placed
in a peculiar position, especially as regards one point.
(Hear, hear.) We are greatly desirous of prompt procedure.
Another request hasbeen addressed to the right hon. gentle-
man of a more limited character than him been made to
him to-night. It was thought we might be favoured upon
the earliest day—a day earlier than Monday next—
with those additional explanations to which thel2
hon. gentleman has referred, and which he has called
the explanations of the government resolutions which are
due to the hones. On Monday night last the right hon.
gentleman gave us his explanation of his resolutions. The
right hon. gentleman perfectly recognised the parliamen-
tary principle that resolutions of this character cannot be
advantageously considered by the house immediately after
the statement of the responsible minister of the crown
introducing them. He proceeded in a manner to which
the practice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with re-
ganl to the financial statement is analogous. He submits
the financial statement, but he never asks the house to act
upon it till a future day ; or if for fiscal reasons any por-
tion of it must be affirmed at once, it is well understood
that it is only a provisional adoption, and that it is left en.
tirely open to future discussion. That practice is well
said firmly established ; and after we bad received the
right hon. gentleman's explanation of his resolutions on
Mondaylnst, we were told that the resolutions would
not be uitroduced till the 25th inst., hut none of us knew
till Friday last that we had not received • full explana-
tion front the right hon. gentleman. It appears that we
have only had one moiety of that explanation, and that
the other moiety is not to be given till the day when we
are expected to consider the resolutions. (Hear, hear.)
It appear' to me, therefore, that there was no want of
propriety in the suggestion of my hon. friend the mem-
ber for Leeds, that as time was a matter of such import-
ance, the full ministerial explanation should be given be-
fore the day when the house may be called upon to vote
upon the resolutions of the right hon. gentleman. (Cheers.)
I don't recollect any similar case where • minister of the
crown submitted resolutions to be adopted by the house
in committee, not in one, but in two statements. lam
not sanguine that when the house has received the second
statement of the right hon. gentleman, which must Pees,-
airily be an enlargement, and perhaps even a modification,
of the first, it will be possible for it at once to discuss with
advantage his resolutions. I feel deeply the responsi-
bility that attaches to us in the present state of
affairs, and I have rigidly confined myself to the
point that further delay beyond Monday next may have to
be incurred unless the right hon. gentleman can accede to
the suggestion of my hon. friend the member for Leeds.
My own desire—my earnest desire—is that we should avoid
any loss of thee, and that we may this session bring to
a successful issue our efforts for a reform of the represen-
tation. (Cheers.)

The SPEAK'S then left the chair.
SUPPLY.

The house then went into oonunittee of supply, when
three eupplementary estimates for the civil service were
brought up. One was for a sum of 45,721/. for the pur-
chase of the Blame collection of coins and antiquities for
the British Museum. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
moved the vote, and dwelt on the great vAlue of the
collection, which he spoke of as containing the finest gems
in the world. Mr. Gladstone supported it, and after a
few words from Mr. Gregory, it was agreed to But on
the next estimate, which was for 1' ,3091. which com-
Prised several items, including 30,000/. to meet payments
required for the English department of the forthcoming
Universal Exhibition at Parts, Mr. Childers objected to
supplementary estimates being brought up, end Mr.
GW.one followed this up by remarking tlmt if supple-
mentary estimates were allowed the house would lose all
control of the finances.

Mr. AYETON then moved that the item for the Paris
Exhibition be postponed until further information wee
given with rexard to it, but on the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer usuruig the committee that there were no papers
on that subject, the amendment wu withdrawn and the
vote agreed to,

The remaining estimate, which was 101,300/. for the
Anglo-Chinese flotilla, was also agreed to. after slight
opposition from Colonel St MS and Mr. W. Berm.

TRADES' UNIONS.
On the second reading of the Trades' rnion Bill, the
composition of the commission that is to be appointed,and
the propriety of mixing the two subjects of outrages and
the politico-economic part of the question were discussed,
after which the second reading was agreed to.

which were inherent in it. The grievances comphillv!,l
of were that if the tenantry made improvements at
their own expense, and were evicted from their hold-
jugs before they had reaped the fruits of their out-
lay, there was no machinery for enabling them to
receive compensation. This, it is argued, tended to dis-
courage industry, to render the land unproductive, and to
engender negligence and want of exertion on the part of
the tillers of the soil. The measure which he proposed
was founded upon the principle of the Land Improvement
Acts, which was that if • reputed owner borrowed money
and laid it out on his land, and it turned out afterwards
that he was not the real owner, the land would still be
charged with the loan, no matter to whom it
might belong. The improvements contemplated by
the bill were six, consisting of thorough or main
drainage, theelearance of wasteland, the removal of useless
fences and erection of new ones, the making of roads, and
the construction of farm-houses and farm-buildings. Com-
missioners would be appointed to carry out the provisions
of the measure, and the value of any permanent improve-
ments made by the tenant with the authority of the com-
missioners would become a charge on the land, for which
the tenant would be entitled to be paid in case he were
either evicted or chose to give up his farm. Of these im-
provements the first three might be effected without the
consent of the landlord. To the three latter his assent
would be necessary.
Mr. C. FORTESCUE doubted whether the proposal to
lend government money to tenants at will in Ireland
would meet with approval, and was of opinion that the
machinery of the bill was too complex to be taken advan-
tage of by many of the poor tenants of Ireland.
The Otionoonee refused to accept the bill as • per-
manent settlement of the question, an opinion which was
sha.ed by Mr. Blake and Sir P. O'Brien.
Dr. Brady, Colonel Greville, and Mr. Gregory gave a
qualified approval of the bill, which was defended by the
new Solicitor•Genend for Ireland (Mr. Chatterton).
After some observations from Mr. O'Beirne, Mr.
Bearden, Mr. Murphy, and Sir F. Heygate, Lord Bass
replied to various objections, and leave was given to bring
in the bill.
Lord NAAS then introduced his second bill to facilitate
the leasing of land by limited owners in Ireland by abolish-
ing certain restrictions and technical formalities no longer
deemed necessary. He explained that it was almost
identical with Mr. Forteseue's bill of last session, and its
principle was much the same as that of the Montgomery
Act in Scotland.

Mr. AGAR-ELLIS obtained leave to bring in a bill to
enable contracts to be made between landlord and tenant
for the improvement of land in Ireland.
The other business was disposed of, and the house ad-
journed at half•peat 12 o'clock.

tato Intelligence.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-FEB. 18.

After Term Nisi Pries Sittings at Westminster.—(Before
the Lord Chief Justice and Special Juries.)

CALTMORP T. THEORZAT !ASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action to recover damages for personal
injuries received through the alleged negligence of the
defendants' servants. The defendants did not deny
their liability, and the present action was brought for the
awessment of damages, the parties being unable to agree
amongst themselves. The plaintiff laid his damages at
10,0061.
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C. Sir Ceo. Honyman, Q.C., and Mr.
Beasley were counsel for the plaintiff ; the Solicitor-
General, Mr. Serjeent Ballantine, and Mr. Philbrick ap-
peared for the defendants.
The plaintiff, a tall, fine made man, and before the
accident of good health, and of particularly active habits,
is a farmer at Sutton, in the Isle of Ely, renting an estate
between 600 and 700 acres in extent, for which he pays
1,351/. per annum. He is 47 years of age, and a married
man, with six children, the eldest being under ten years
of age. In the summer of 1865 the plaintiff's wife
and family were staying at Lowestoft, and on
Saturday, the Ist of July, 1865, plaintiff left
Ely for the purpose of joining them. When about two
and a half miles from Norwich the train went off the em-
bankment near a viaduct. Plaintiff did not at the time
think much of the accident, although he felt unwell, and
it was not until November, 1865, having in the meantime
got gradually worse and worse, that he called in Mr. Balder,
Lie medical man. He was then obliged to give up all
active pursuits, and he had not since then been able to ride
or to attend to his business. He went to the sea side,
and finding himself getting worse he communicated with
the company in January, 1866, relative to compensation.
A long correspondence ensued. At first they admitted
their liability, then they denied it, and then again, just
before trial, they admitted it. Plaintiff was now a
thoroughly broken down man, and is getting worse in-
stead of better. He suffered constant pain and distress
of mind. He had been repeatedly examined by medical
men sent to him by the company.
The plaintiff, who could only with difficulty get into the
witneaa-box, had to be accommodated with a chair. He
stated that he was a farmer and • captain of volunteers.
The train left Ely 40 minutes late, and being an express
train it was being driven at 60 miles an hour when the ac-
cident happened. When he came to himself he found the
carriage turned over, and he was lying on his back ; the
carriage window was about 2i feet from the ground, and
he was enabled to crawl out. He proceeded on to Low-
estoft and joined his family. He was unable to sleep
that night. The following day (Sunday) he went to
church, but he could hardly sit out the service ,• he felt a
creeping sensation up and down the back, which had con.
tinued more or less from that time to the present. After
the accident he used to feel giddy, and he had to aban-
don horse-riding, and he had to rest in a reclining posi-
tion. He was now only able to walk about 100 yards. He
had been examined on the part of the company by Sir
W. Ferguason, Drs. Skeen, Bennett, and Colaton.
The Rev. Mr. Spencer, vicar of Sutton, in the Isle of
Ely, and Mr. Webster , Q.C. (plaintiff's brother-in-law).
gave evidence as to his being a man of active habits, and
in the enjoyment of good health previous to the accident.
Mr. Buller, his medical man, was called. He stated
there was no hope of the plaintiff getting better. He was
permanently iniured, and his life was very uncertain.
Dr. John Emeson, professor of surgery to University
College Hospital, and surgeon to that hospital, said that
plaintiff was partially paralysed from the waist down-
wards ; the left leg more than the other. Ile believed the
plaintiff would never recover, the disease having progres-
-1 sleety increased in severity up to the present. There were
no signs of any cessation. He had never known any one
recover so long a time after an accident. Plaintiff's life
would be materially shortened by the accident-
Mr. Edmund Calthorp, plaintiff's cousin, a surgeon prac-
tising in London, gave similar evidence, which was con-
firmed by Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Savery.
' For the defence it was stated it was impossible to with-
hold sympathy for the serious accident the plaintiff
had met with, and the suffering resulting from it, but it
was to be regretted the plaintiff had not called in the ad-
vice and assistance of eminent medical men, because in all
probability has distressing symptoms might have been
alleviated. The plaintiff had very properly submitted to
examinations by the medical men consulted by the com-
pany, and according to their judgment there was every
probability that ultimately the plaintiff would recover so
as to be able to follow his usual pursuits. It was for the
jury, after hearing that evidence, to Bay what amount of
damages the plaintiff was entitled to.
Dr. Colston said the plaintiff had certainly received
a 'revere shock to the nervous system and injury to the
lower parts. The muscles were wasting, but he was sur-
prised to hear the term paralysis given to it. There had
been a dragging of ono of the legs, but that had ceased.
He never had hoard paralysis ascribed to such a case.
The weakness of the lower limbs he ascribed to the shock
to the nervous system. He had every reason to believe
the plaintiff would ultimately recover, and be able to fol-
low active pursuits. Plaintiff had greatly improved during
the List two months ; he would require some months'
rest.

-Dr. Skeen and Sir W. Ferguson gave similar evidence.
The jury ultimately returned ► verdict for the plaintiff
—damages, 7,00 W.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Fin. 18.
After Tenn Nisi Prins Sittings at GuildhalL—(Before the
Lord Chief Baron and Special Juries.)
. . . 0001101 r. WELLS.
.

The plaintiff in this case, Miss Emily Cooper, had been a
governess in the service of the defendant, and she sued to
recover damages upon the ground that she had been im-
properly dismissed ; and there was also a count in trover
for the recovery of some letters which had been detained
from her.

Mr. Serjeant Robinson and Mr. Joyce appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Serjeant O'Brien for the defendant.
In the opening speech it was stated that the plaintiff
was not yet of age, and that the defendant was a surgeon
carrying on his profession and for the most part living in
Grosvenor-street, Grosvenor-square. Ile, however, alao kept
a house at Hampstead, wberehis children lived, and where the
plaintiff stayed when she had charge of some of them. Miss
Cooper entered the service of the defendant on February 1,
1865, and remained in it until the 26th November, 1846,
and during the whole of this time she was treated with
much more than ordinary kindness and consideration. In
December, 1865, the plaintiff received an anonymous letter,
in March following another one was sent to Mrs. Wells,
and after this tinse many anonymous letters, all in the
same handwriting, were received by each of them, and it
was stated that some of them were of the grossest and
moat abominable character, and that they cast most serious
aspersions upon Mrs. Wells. Three servants were succes-
sively discharged upon the suspicion of having written
them, and it was not until Mr. Nutherclift, who was what
was called an expert in handwriting, gave bisopinion upon •
commuisonof handwriting, that theplaintilf had written the
letters, that her father was sent for, and she had to leave the
defendant's house at once. It had been previously arranged
that she should leave at Christmas, and ahe was paid her
wages up to or beyond that time; but it would be sub-
mitted that she would be entitled to re.iover a compensa-
tion for the loss of her board to Christmas, and also
damages for the detention of the letters which had been
addressed to herself, and which she had handed over to
Mrs. Wells. It was added that the question of damages
was considered as immaterial compared with the isn-
portauce of clearing the young lady from the horrible im-
putation that she had written these disgusting productions.
The letters were put in in the course of the case, and
having been proved, they were banded to the judge, and

also to the jury, for inspection, but it was agreed on all
hands that public decency should not be outraged by their
being read aloud.
Miss Cooper was examined, and stated that she was 19
when she entered the defendant's service, and her silary
was to be 20 guineas a year. She had received altogether
two or three dozen anonymous letters. She said that she
had no knowledge as to who had written these letters,
and she most positively stated that they were not written
by herself.
To the Judge—There were two female servants at Hamp-
stead, one was about 23 and the other 36 years old, and
neither of them were married. There were three female
servant. at the house in Grosvenor•street ; she did not

know whether they were married or single: but she did
not think that they were married. She had no suspicion
as to who had written the letters.

Mr. Cooper, the plaintiff's father, deposed to having
an interview with Mrs. Wells, when she showed hint some
of the letters and the admitted handwriting of the plaintiff
upon which Mr. Netherclift had formed his opinion. Mrs.
Wells said that she intended that the plaintiff should not
stay another night in the house, and thereupon he took
her away.
The Lord Chief Baron said that it was a lamentable
thing that an end could not be put to a use like this, which
was a discredit to • court of justice. Mrs. Wells did not
originally throw the imputation that she had written the
letters upon this young lady, but they had been foolish
enough to put the letters into the hands of a gentleman
who was called an expert, and upon his opinion to defend
this action. If the imputation were withdrawn, and a
verdict for the plaintiff for nominal damages taken by con-
sent, it would be a most desirable end to the case.
Mr. serjeant O'Brien, however, declined to adopt this
course, and instead submitted that there could be no
property in letters such as these, and, therefore, that
trover could not be maintained for them. _ _

The Lord Chief Baron said he wilsclearly of opinion that
the plaintiff hsdproperty in these letters, and was entitled
to maintain trover for them.

Mr. Serjeant O'Brien furtherrubmitted that the plaintiff
not having been a domestic servant, was not entitled to
damages for the loss of her board.
The Lord Chief Baron thought that there was evidence
for the jury of damage.
Mr. Serjeant O'Bnen then addressed the jury for the
defence, and said that after the evidence which he should
bring before them he had no doubt that they would feel
themselves obliged to come to the conclusion that the
plaintiff had herself written the letters.
The case had not concluded when the court rose.