The Express.
London, England, 1866-04-24 00:00:00

YPR .SS. TUER4y ;EVENING, APRIL 24, 18.616

were hostile to all reform, the right hon. and learned gen-
tleman rcferred to the conduct of the liberal party in 1859,
and.coitonded that the rasolution proposed. by Lord liar-
tington, after the meeting at Willis's Rooms, was uncon-
stitutional and factious, and that the manoeuvre by which
Lord Derby was driven from power was intended by Lords
Russell and Palmerston for the express purpose of behay-
ing the cause of reform. lie was not opposed to a safe
and legitimate extension of the franchise, accompanied by
a scheme for the redistribution of seats and the defining
of boundaries, but he could not consent to transfer the
functions of the legislature to a majority chosen by num-
bers. The presout measure was, in his opinion, levelled
against the just influence and power of the aristocracy as
defined by law as part of the constitution. It would, he
thought, be an unfortunate thing for the country that such
policy should prevail ; and for the sake of the constitu-
tion, which, although it might be destroyed in a day, was
nevertheless the growth of years, he called on them to
support the logical and well-considered amendment of Earl
Grosvenor.
• •

---- -
Dlr. WC. TORRENS protested against an asser-
tion which had been made that the middle classes
were opposed to the extemion of the franchise, and pro-
ceeded to point out that Lord Stanley and Mr. Disraeli
had voted again and again for the alteration of the fran-
chise in Ireland in 1850, without saying a word about the
redistribution of seat.; being included in that bill. He
argued against what he deemed to be the fallacies, that small
constituencies were necessary for the introduction into and
retention of great statesmen in parliament, and that in
large constituencies many persons did not exercise the fran-
chise, and therefore that it wns not a necessity that they
should be still further enlarged ; and maintained that
there was no foundation for assertions that the working
classes would use their existing organisations for political
purposes, while as regarded the effects of the bill„ he ridi-
culed the notion that it would tend to swamp the existing
constituencies by the addition of a small proportion of
working men to the franchise.
Mr. WALPOLE said that the issue raised was whether,
admitting the necessity of reform, the question was to be
settled as a whole, or be dealt with by a measure which
comprehended only one part of that question ; and he
pronounced against the latter proposition, and in favour
of the amendment, the expediency of which he laid
down had been so conclusively established by the speech of
Lord Stanley, that for all practical purposes the debate
might well have ended with that address. The right hon.
gentleman, in detail, examined and contended against.the
arguments of some of the most distinguished supporters of
the government bill, and explained away the assumption
of Mr. Bright that he and Mr. Henley had left Lord
Derby's government on a question of parliamentary re-
form, under such circumstances as to render it diffi-
cult for them to oppose the present proposition ; and,
while emphatically expressing his desire to settle this
question, declared that the course pursued by the
government was not calculated to attain that end. He
suggested that the house should proceed by resolutions
whereon to found a bill for the amendment of the repre-
sentation of the people. He should vote for the amend-
ment, not because he was opposed to reform, but because
he thought that any measure on that question ought to be
comprehensive and complete.
Mr. GOSCHEN observed that the government had to
defend their measure from opponents in their hoot and
their rear, most of whom attacked it upon different and
varied grounds, and he proceeded to analyse and reply to
several speeches of honourable gentlemen, which, he
argued, were inconsistent with each other, and
only consistent in their object, that of defeating
the bill. Many gentlemen had declared themselves ready
to consider reform as a whole, but they did not say when ;
and he wished to know whether, if the opportunity were
afforded them, they would proceed to do so at once. The
government were willing, if it could be, to do the whole
this year ; but, if not, half now and the remainder next
session. He then proceeded to combat the assertions
which had been made that the bill in discussion was
not safe or prudent, and argued against the
fears which had been expressed in regard to the
preponderance of mere numbers, which could result
from the measure ; and he showed by calculation that no
such result could ensue, for not more than ninety-seven
members could be returned by the working classes proper ;
and he asked if that number could be considered a pre-
ponderance in the representation. Assuming that the
unfitness of the working classes had been abandoned, be
dealt with the argument that the snore intelligent they
were the more likely they would be to combine to obtain
&nein,
political ascen , which he contended was, when con-
sidered, a mere f and urged that the main objection
to the government b. 1, was to that which ought to be its
merit—namely, that it was simple.
Mr. LOWE moved the adjournment of the debate.
Lord ELCHO explained that he had not impeached the
political honour of the government.
Mr. GOSCHEN said that his allusion had been made to
the hon. and gallant member for Huntingdon.
Mr. ONSLOW seconded the motion for adjournment,
and was • to make some observations in favour
of the li 1, but was prevented by the opposition from ob-
taining a hearing.
Mr. R. YORKE complained of the length of the
speeches, and the difficulty which young members found
in obtaining a hearing. During the two previous nights
of the debate 22 hours had been occupied by 13 members,
and that night four members had exhausted eight hours.
He hoped that some time would be allowed to the younger
members during the remainder of the debate.
Sir R. KNIGHTLEY had not the slightest wish to ques-
tion the impartiality of the right hon. gentleman in the
chair, hut it would be more consistent with both the spirit
and the letter of the standing orders if certain members
did not so exclusively catch his eyes. About
120 or 130 members had taken their places for the
first time in this parliament, and there might be a con-
siderable amount of latent talent among them—(laughter)
—and it would much conduce to the character of that
house if that undeveloped talent had an opportunity of
displaying itself. (Laughter and " Hear, hear.") During
the year he had hail a seat in that house he had never wit-
nessed such a flood of eloquence as had been exhibited in
this debate by past, present, and future placemen. (" Hear,
hear," and laughter.) It would be invidious, and possibly
unjust, if he said that those gentlemen foresaw at no dis-
tant date a disorganisation of political parties, and were
anxious that their individual claims might not be over-
looked in any reconstruction of the ministry. (Laughter.)
He presumed that all the hon. and right hon. gentlemen
who had spoken were acting from the noblest, purest, and
most patriotic motives. (Laughter.) He was not actuated
in what he said by any personal feeling, but only spoke on
behalf of a very large class of new members who might
desire to speak before the debate closed. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BUTLER-JOHNSTONE was glad to avail himself of
the opportunity of saying a few words upon the adjourn-
ment, as, at the rate the debate was going on, he should
have to be content to address the house that day ten years
upon the gene question. (A laugh.) It was impossible
for any one under the age of fifty, unless he were a cabinet
minister, to pretend to address the house on a great pies-
tion like this. If the whips on either side had a list of
30 or 40 persons anxious to speak on the question of
reform, and only four, five, or six, were to be heard every
night, and there were o, twelve nights, as the Chan-
cellorof the Exchequer had told them, on which the question
could be debated, it required no very acute calculator to
tell that few of the number would have the opportunity
he desired. It seemed hard that a middle-agedgentleman
who had no intention of being a cabinet minister should
be denied the privilege of expressing his opinion, but as
there seemed no probability of all members who wished to
speak being heard, he hoped the leaders on both sides
would be able to tell the house when it was probable that
the division would be taken. Members might have en-
gagements in the country, and they might run down and
return for the division. (Laughter.)
Mr. HIREERT asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether it was likely that the debate would be continued
for a considerable number of days, so as to give members
below the gangway, representing large constituencies, the
advantage of addressing the house. (Laughter.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER —I am afraid
that as regards the adjournment of the house we have no
choice, in consequence of the decision of the hon. member
for Dudley, who is unwilling to give way to-morrow, as
other members are. He compels the adjournment of the
debate till Thursday. I confess I think that is very in-
convenient. (Hear, hear.) There is very great advantage
in continuing debates of this kind from evening to even-
ing without any intermission at all, but still
I am not aware that any one has the remedy
against the hon. gentleman, who iscompletely master of the
situation. The course this evening has been rather pecu-
liar. It is not for me to notice the moment of a member
rising or sitting down, particularly as I myself am obliged
sometimes to be a great offender in that respeet—(laughter)
—butundoubtedly I do hope that onThursday, if we adjourn
till then, it may be found practicable, from the course of
the discussion that evening, for a number of members, who
are now waiting the opportunity of addressing the house,
to do their duty. As far as the government are
concerned, I am sure they have shown no in-
dications of impatience—(hear, hear)—and whatever
takes place it is not for us to interpose, especially am the
right hon. gentleman somewhat patheticallly stated that the
six speeches I had delivered created some difficulties in the
way of his friends—(laughter)—and that it required seve-
ral nighta of additional debate to remove the obstacles I
bad placed in their way. (Renewed laughter.)
Mr. DISRAELI said that so far as he could form an
opinion there seemed a fair prospect, with some forbear-
ance and management, of bringing the debate to a conclu-
sion this week. It would be a great advantage if to-mor-
row could be devoted to the discussion. (Hear.) As far
as he was concerned he was personally anxious for the
debate to be prolonged to gin en Orertnni. q for
nittalwg The had taken their places in that-Louse (or the
first time this etolllioll 19 speak upon the subject. So far as
he could have control over the debates he was always
anxious to assist new members, knowing from his own
experience the anxiety and difficulty which they had at
first in obtaining the opportunity of addressing the house.
(Hear, hear.) At the same time they must all feel that it
was almost impossible that by any arrangement they could
make even amajonty of members could have that opportu-
r=eanshdriinuiltd be very glad if they could have some distinct
all to the termination of the debate. He
had originally contemplated that the debate might termi-
nate on Thursday. He certainly thought they might come
to some definite understanding that the debate should end
on Friday. (Hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer

could use his influence' ana he (Mr. Dirrath)
moat happy to use his. (Hear.)
The debate vas then adjourned until Thursday.

fd be

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
This bill woe read a third time and passed.
The Cattle Assurance Bill was read a third time and
passe d.
The following bills were read a second time :—The Con-
victs' Property Bill, the Harbour Loans Bill, the Drainage
awl Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Bill, and the Divorce
and Matrimonial Causes Bill.
The house adjourned at 25 minutes to 1 o'clock.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.

lotto inttitignue.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-APRIL 923.

--- - - -
Sittings in Banc.--(Belore Juin:ices Blackburn, Shee, and
Lush.)
At a subsequent part of the day Mr. Justice Mellor took
part in the baldness, in place of Mr. Justice Lush. The
Lord Chief Justice was absent from continued indisposition.

STRAUSS v. FRANCI.4.—LIBEL.
Dr. Kenealy said this was an action for libel against
the Atheneum, tried at the last assizes for Surrey, at King-
ston, before Lord Chief Justice Erie, when the plaintiff
was nonsuited. He moved for a rule calling upon the de-
fendant to show cause why the proceeding should not be
set aside, and a new trial had. The libel was contained in
a notice of a novel written by the plaintiff, a

Canadian by birth, but t.ernum • parentSge.
The plaintiff left Canada early in life, was an
accomplished scholar, and a doctor of some Ger-
man university. The defendant in the action dill not
justify but merely pleaded not guilty. It would ap-
pear that the counsel for the plaintiff merely put in the
libeL The counsel for the defendant then commenced his

case, and he read various extracts from the volume which,
taken without the context, certainly conveyed the most
unfair impressions to the minds of all who heard them
read ; and after a great many of these extracts had been
read the plaintifrs counsel got np and said that ho thought
he could not carry his cane further, and then the counsel
for the defendant and the counsel for the plaintiff
made an arrangement that a furor should be with-
drawn. If that had been done with the know-
. . _ .

ledge and consent and sanction of the plaintiff he (Dr.
Kenealy) should have—bed—se locus standi on the
present occasion, but it was contended by the plaintiff that
his counsel on the trial had no authority whatever to de-
stroy his client's case, to abandon it and give it up wholly
to the winds, without some communication with his client.
He wished it to be understood that he had no wish to cast
the slightest imputation on his learned friend who con-
ducted the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice Mellor—Then your contention is that no
counsel without the express consent of his client can agree
to the withdrawal of a juror ?
Dr. Kenealy—Yes.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—That it is beyond the compe-
tency of counseL You will have some difficulty, I think,
in making it out.
Dr. Kenealy said he would quote the case of " Swinfen
v. Swinfen " in favour of his point.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said that went a great deal fur-
ther than this case. The decision referred to had been
very much doubted.
Dr. Kenealy said he was not aware that that decision
bad been judicially doubted since it was decided. He was
aware that doubts had been expressed with reference to it
in other quarter*, on the ground of its being an inconve-
nient decision. _ .

Justice Mellor said that the case referred to was
with regard to the apportioning an estate. That was
going much further than was done in this case.
Dr. Kenealy said that all he contended for was the ad-
minion that counsel had only a limited authority.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—A limited authority which per.
mitted the withdrawal of a juror having the control and
management of the case.
Dr. Kenealy said this was a compromise of the case
and in such a case counsel must have the special instruc-
tion of his client to do so. An attorney could not
withdraw from a case without the consent and authority
of his client without subjecting himself to an action for
negligence. If an attorney could not do it, could it be
said that a barrister could do what an attorney sould not
Mr. Justice Mellor—The question is whether after the
defendant's case had commenced, and the plaintiff's coun-
sel considered it would be worse for him to goon, he has
authority to stop the awe ?
Dr. Kenealy contended that a counsel could not even
consent to a nonsuit without the plaintiff being called, and
he conceived that to be a conclusive test.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said he thought not.
Dr. Kenealy said that if a counsel could not agree to a
nonsuit without the assent and knowledge of his client, a
fortiori be could not consent without the authority of his
client to a proceeding which tied up his hands far worse
than if a verdict passed against him, because in the latter
case he could set the verdict aside, but in that of the
withdrawal of a juror he had no remedy. He moved on
affidavits, one from the managing clerk of the plaintiff's
attorney, stating that he informed the learned counsel
that his client would not consent to the withdrawal of a
juror.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said that was more in
the shape of a remonstrance than an expressed
prohibition. The plaintiff, in an affidavit which l had
drawn up himself in rather strong language, said be was
present at the trial and was ready to be examined, and
that he had several witnesses of high literary standing
and competent scholarship ready also to give evidence in
his favour. That when he was informed that his
counsel proposed to give up his case he energetically pro- I
tested against it, and he insisted that the book which had
been so unfairly assailed should be put in as evidence, and
that no consideration would have induced him to with-
draw his case from the consideration of the jury, but
that when he returned into court he was only just
in time to hear the defendant's counsel's concluding
remark to agree to withdraw a juror. Had he been in
tame be should have protested against the inupueod aban-
donment of his case, and have asked for the brief and
conducted the case himself. No consideration would have
induced him to withdraw a juror, and no consideration
would have induced him to withdraw from the cause, but
that rather it should go to the jury, no matter what the
issue might be. The learned counsel (Dr. Kenealy) con-
tended that a counsel was hired for his advocacy in a trial
and not for his judgment. The two things were very
different.
Mr. Justice Mellor said that that eminent judge Lord
Abinger, when at the bar, obtained more verdicts by his
judgment in calling witnesses or not than by anything
else. .

Dr. Kenealy said that was discretion in the conduct of
a case, and not the surrendering a case to the opposite
party, without instructions to the contrary.
Mr. Justice Mellor hoped no counsel would receive a
brief with his hands so fettered. A counsel ought not to
receive a brief without such instructions.
Dr. Kenealy said that must be a matter for his dis-
cretion.
Mr. Justice Mellor said there would be more danger
likely to result from a counsel's hands being so tied than
in the client being able to gratify his malignity.
Dr. Kenealy said counsel might refuse to act unless he
bad unlimited power to act. The learned counsel con-
tended that counsel was confined to advocacy and not to
give his judgment and discretion. It was the legitimate
duty of an attorney to make oomproniimes and bargains.
He protested against the doctrine that counsel had un-
limited authority.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—Neither has be.
Alter some further arguments,
Mr. Justice Blackburn said the rule must be refused.
There was nothing in the affidavits that had been pro-
duced to show that the client had withdrawn the counsel's
authority, or to lead to the conclusion that the counsel
had done such an unprofessional thing es to be the mere
mouthpiece of the client, and to conduct the case without
his own judgment, but, as Dr. Kenealy seemed to think,
subject merely to give his eloquence and skill On the
contrary, one of the most important parts of the duty of a
counsel was to exercise his judgment and discretion also.
The learned counsel had only done what was within the
competency of counsel to deal with in the management of
• cause.

The Other learned judges concurred.
Rule refused.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

77Losnas Maynard, 25, carman, and William Child, 37,
were severally indicted, Maynard for stealing a horse and
cart and two cases of pictures, value 801., the property of
Messrs. Tingle and Jacob ; and Child for receiving six pic-
tures, value 301., the property of Tingle and Jacob, well
knowing them to have been stolen.
Mr. Metcalfe (instructed by Mr. Charles Young) prose-
cuted ,• Mr. Ribton (instructed by Lewis and Lewis) ap-
peared for Child ; Maynard was undefendeiL
This was an extraordinary case, from the time which has
elapsed since the robbery was committed, and how the
facts were mainly made out by a convict sentenced to penal
servitude, and who was brought in custody from Chatham
to give evidence on this occasion.
It appeared from the evidence that on the Ist of Decem-
ber, 1863, a carman in the employment of Messrs. Tingle
and Jacob, Billiter-street, was directed to take from
Messrs. Aldridge's picture gallery, in King William-street,
City, two cases of pictures (which had been sent there
from the Cape of Good Hope to be cleaned) to the St.
Katharine's-dock for reshipment. Wizen the carman gut
to the dock he went into an office to make inquiries as to
what part of the dock the ship he required was lying. He
was absent about three minutes, and on his return the
horse, van, and contents were gone. A man named
Thompson, who was subsequently seen driving the van by
a witness named Jones, was taken and charged with the
robbery, and tried in this court at the January sessions of
1864, convicted, and sentenced to four years penal servi-
tude. The van and horse were found astray at Black-
well, and no clue as to the property or how the robbery
was effected was obtained until a short time back, when
Thompson gave such information as led to the apprehen-
sion of the other prisoners, and the recovery of the whole
of the property.
The jury found both the prisoners Guilty.
A previous conviction was proved against Maynard on
the 16th of December, 1857, when he was sentenced to 18
months' imprisonment.
The Assistant-Judge sentenced Maynard to be kept in
penal servitude for seven years and for five years.
Thomas Pursdl, 21 ; Jame; Bryant, 18 ; and Thomas
Hawkins, 19 ,• were indicted for stealing 250 yards and up-
wards of woollen cloth, the property of the Midland Rail-
way Comysany. The wisoners pleaded guilty.
Mr. Braley appmred for the prosecution.
The Assistant-Judge sentenced Pursell to 18 months'
imprisonment, and Bryant and Hawkins to 12 months 's&

GRZAT NORTHERN HOSPITAL, CALEDONIAN-ROAD,
ISLINGTON, N.—Number of patients for the week ending
Apri 21, 1,121, of which 285 were new cases.