The Express.
London, England, 1859-06-11 00:00:00

LORD NALMMIEURI AND THE WAR.

The following are extracts from a despatch of
Lord Malmeabury's, dated Jan. 12, printed with **various
papers just presented to parliament
Lord Kahoesbury says:—" It appears, indeed, to bee
Majesty's government that the existing ill-feeling between
the two trope/fa nouns bas its origin not so much in any
real and patent eau•e of disagreement, as in mutual distrust
of cub other's views and Intentions, and the consequent
disposition to give en unfavourable construction to
every measure to which either party may have re-
courses. There are no questions of territorial claim or
occopatiov, none of commercial injury, or of disregarded
rights, which can be alleged on either aide as juatlfy log the
sr.l4isess and reserve, not to ray suspicious irritability, which
&erect rt Ise their present intsrcourse. Yet it appears to her
blajsaty's government that neither party evinces a sincere
disposition to come to a frank understanding with the other,
or to make sny sacrificers, however unimportant, to bring
about es desirable a result."

"Her Majesty's government therefore dealer, your lord-
ship, while them is yet time, to place before the imperial
ocean some considerations which they hope may not be with-
out foduence at the present crisis.
" •

" It is impossible to deny that s war once begun in Italy
would soon assume the character of a revolutionary contest;
and no human bresight can perceive what results would
remain to Europe whir, after a long and desperate contest,
the combatants bad sunk from exhaustion Into peace. Such
• war, however begun at first, would soon be adopted as one
of dynasties and opinions, in which exiled pretenders, and
every class of political theorist, would see the possible re•il-
estian of their wishes.

"It cannot be predicted that Franco would be a gainer
from such a state of things. On the contrary it is probable
that she would be fa from finding her account in it. But it
ia certain that Austria, even if she were to come out of the
contest triumphant, would stiffer to an irreparable extent in
all ►ee material interests."

" Thu public opinion in England has a natural tend.•cy
to sympathise with Italian nationalities, but her Majewty's
government believe that those sympathies would not b.
aroused to any active form against Austria, unless Austria
put herself patently in the wrong, and either became an 'g-
ored.. u or gave France or Sardinia a fair excuse for teen-
Meg a war."

LAW INTELLIMINCE.

(71118 DAY.)

WORT OF QUEEN% BENCH,
S attop la Banco.—(Holoro Lord Caaapbel, Mr, J 1114,3
Ma, sad Mr. Justice Hill )
worrovari, APPILLANT-PZIKINS, IIZSTONDINT.

This con cum bekos the met (ram the midstream of
Bath, and the question to be determined was whether under '
the &ecumenism stated her Majesty's carriages were liable
for temptke
It would mem that in December leatMes. Grove, the wife of
Major Grove, equerry to her Mejeaty, was taking an airing is
one of her Majnoy'e carriages in the vicinity of Bath. At
the toll gate kept by the respondent, toll woe demanded, end
It was refused on the ground that the carriage, although sot
at the time is the actual au of her Majesty, was in the nee
of the wife of one of her Mrjesty's mervanta, with the full
percension of her Mejeety. It we Busted, that, at the time,
the Major batsmen wee actually in London.
Toe Attorney-General appeared for the appellant, who has
been for 16 years is the serMr of her Majerty as coachman.
Mr. We kin woe for the reepondeet.
Mr. Williams' contention was that the payment of toll.
wee a pummel liebitiry, and did not attach to the ownership
of good.. It would bo an &bun of the prerogative of the
crown to supine that the royal carriages when in the an of
poisons not in atteedance on the Queen, and at as gnat •
diet roes from royalty as we here implied were to enjoy Wl-
oarlock from the law of the lend.
The court decided that the me of the csrenge disclosed by
the die amounted to an actual as of It by her M.jeety,
and that the royal prerogative applied. No doubt cam
might occur where the prerogative might be abused, bat
Mu the omit would decide upon the individual merits.
Without prejudice then to each came, the judgment must
b for the appellant.