The Express.
London, England, 1867-02-08 00:00:00

THE APRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 8, 1867.

the company might present a petition to the Board of
Trade preying it to order an investigation into the cir-
cumstances of the company. On that the Board of Trade
will be bound to give due notice to the directors of the
oomPanY, and a certain limited time would be allowed
for objections to be made. The Board of Trade,
if they were satisfied there was a prime. facie
alai for any peoessedings, would appoint one, two,
or three inspector., coup.. tent by their financial and legal
ability to investigate the whole affairs of the company,
having posers to make complete and satisfactory investi-
gations. to call witnesses. and then to prepare a scheme,
under the borne for which it would beresponsibleand which
it would introduce to the attention of parliament, for the
settlement of the affairs of the company. The bill had for
its object the securing of an uniformity of decisions and a
reduction of the expense. It was one of the proposals of
the bill that these measure,. instead of being passed
through one hue..., and its committee and then through
the other house and committee, an arrangement should
he come to by which the bill should be introduced
simultaneously in both houses, and haring passed
its second reading, should be referred to a joint committee
of the two housea. In the event of any petition being
presented agein.t it, it should be referred to the joint
coiumittee, and they should have the power of proceeding
bust as committees on private bills now proceeded. The
ill would be under the charge of the president of the
Board. of Trade, and he would be interacted in arguing
those questions which the promoters of private bills were
not interested in considering. It was hoped that thus a
means would be fouml for dealing with each case on its
own speciaTeircumatatices. The inspectors inquiring into the
merits of a case would not be hampered by say toned rules
of evidence. He ventured to suggest that standing orders
in reference to this wetter should be framed on • careful
footing, and that there should be a power in the two houres
to call to their assistance those persons who were not mem-
bers of either house, that was to say, some of the referees
to whom they were iu the habit of referring private bills.
It wall essential that there should be but one parliamen-
tary inquiry, so as to obviate expense ; and considering the
large amount of inquiry that would have taken place out
of doers, he trustee 1 the house would be satisfied with a
single inquiry. He would venture to suggest that on pri-
vate bills this system might with advantage be consider-
ably extended. (Hear, hear.) He would only say further
there were clauses in the hill which contemplated the pos-
sibility of the inspectors finding that an arrangement
might be made under the lowers which the companies
already postiesse.L Then, with the consent of a
very large proportion of shareholders and cre-
ditors—three-fifths—there should be power for the
inspectors to prepare a acheute to be submitted to her
Majesty and confirmed by order in council.
Mr. WATKIN deprecated tle^ interference of the Board
of Trade with these undertakings, There was never a
more dangerous principle enunciated in that house than
that a mortgagee should not he allowed to sell the pro-
perty on which he had advanced his money. What parliao
meat should do was to declare that a debeuture was really
a mortgage.
Mr. M. GIMON, without going into the details of the
measure, approved the proposal to refer bills to a joint
committee, but doubted whether the Board of Trade was
competent to discharge the delicate judicial functions to
be intrusted to it.

Sir R. PALMER feared that the principle of the bill
would be fourd totally inadequate to the necessities of
the case. Parliament, he maintained, had a duty to dis-
charge, not only to the public, but to the private inte-
re.tw involved, and it ought to pas., a law securing to the
olitori of railway companies payment of their debts on
certain principles, and to give courts of justice the same
power over insolvent milway companies as over other
. . . .

Sir S. NORTHOOTE, in reply. said it was intended to
prevent the .enureof the rolling ',tuck, or anything that
would prevent the operation. of the company from being
carried on.
Leave was then given to bring in the hill.

Isla intellionce.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY
COUNCIL—Fn. 7.
(Before the Arehbishop of York, SirW.Erle, Sir H. Cairns,
Sir R. Kinder'ley, Sir E. V. Williams, and Sir J. Col-
vile.)
THE OFFICE OT JI'DDE PROMOTED CT THE BPIHOP Or
tioRR ICH r. BARNET (cLena).
After our report left yesterday,
At the conclusion of the Queen's Advocate's address,
Dr. Deane followed in support of the decree of the court
below; and on the conclusion of his argument, their lord.
ships announced that they would postpone delivering
judgment.

EQUITY COURTS.—FEE. 7.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Stuart)

WATRRLOW r. NHARP. -GARDNER r. BAIL-RE THE
LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPAVT.

•
The first of these bills was filed by the plaintiff, a
creditor and debenture holder of the above railway, against
Major H. J. Sharp and H. R. Price, who are the trustees
of a deed dated 111th January last, by which the company
assigned their rolling stock, chattels, /sc., to the defen•
dents, for the benefit of their (the oompany's) creditors.
The object of the suit was to carry out the trusts of the
deed, and obtain the appointment of a receiver. The
second suit was directed to the same objects.

books which were daily issuing from the press. Authors
and publishen were aware of it, and they sent their books
to the AfMums in order that the critics belonging to that
publication might sit in judgment upon them, and fairly
and candidly say whether it was a good or a bad look. This
book was sent by the editor to the young gentleman
who wrote the critique, who, though his name need not
he mentioned, was well known. He was a member of the
her, and his name was • guarantee of his respectability.
He had taken degrees at the university, and he had re-
ceived an education sufficient to enable him to form
an opinion on the books which were forwarded to
him to review. The author of the notice came
to a bona fide opinion upon the merits of the
work, and it was modified by the editor before it ap-
peared in the Athrnfenon. With regard to the second
aiticle, it was written by the editor, Mr. Hepworth Dixon,
and it was merely an essay on criticism, and a defence of
the rights and liberties of the press. The learned counsel
then read numerous passages from the work in support of
the statement in the original article, contending that it
contained numerous passages of vulgarity, profanity, and
indelicacy. The learned counsel called
Mr. Hepworth Dixon, who stated that he was the
editor of the Athenfrura. He wrote the second article, and
considered it to be a fair report of the first trial ; from
what he heard he had every reason to believe, when
he agreed to the withdrawal of a juror, that if the
paper obtained the verdict they would not get their costs
from the plaintiff. The offer to withdraw came from Mr.
Serjeant hallantine, because, having heard the passages read
from the book, be stated in public that he felt that as a
gentleman and a barrister he could not continue the con-
duct of the case. The learned serjeant distinctlysaid be had
nut read the book ; and the first time he knew the cha-
racter of the book was when be heard the passages read by
Mr. Hawkins in the first trial.

A Juryman—ls it necessary for us to hear any more of
this case, my lord
The Lord ChiefJustice—Yon must, unless the learned
counsel for the plaintiff consents to withdraw.
A Juryman—We think it might stop here.
Dr. Keneelly —You ought not to say that until you have
heard the true character of the book.

A Juryman—We have heard enough of it. We don't
want to hear anything more of it.
The Lord Chief Justice—l cannot stop the case without
the consent of counsel. It is always possible that a jury's
minds might be changed.
The jurymen shook their beads.
Mr. Dixon said he sent the book to be reviewed in the
usual way. At that time he had neither seen the plaintiff
nor heard his name. Ile had read the book since the
notice, and in his opinion he considered it was a perfectly
abominable hook.
Cruss-examined—He was not aware that the Athenentsa
was noted for its utter abomination of books. He had not
read any of the pamphlets that might have been published
on the severity of the notices that appeared in the Athe-
VIIINI. He should not say that the general scope of the
criticisms was severe. He trusted implicitly to the gentle-
man who wrote the first notice. The learned counsel on
the first trial read passages from the book.
Dr. Keneally—His book has been condemned by those
who never read it.

Mr. Dixon—After the trial he read the article now com-
plained of. He bad never mentioned the plaintiff's name
in the AMVIffIIIII since.
This was the defendant's case.

Dr. Keneally contended that this was not a fair, honest,
and true criticism ; but the writer of the second article had
followed the plaintiff into his domestic relations, by the
allusion to his inability to pay costs, showing it not to be
fair criticism, but malignant and malicious abuse. It
showed private malice. The publication complained of
was a fair and honest book as ever could be written, and
the criticism was unjust from the beginning to the end.
The passages that had been read were the strongest that
could be found against the plaintiff, but so far as he could
judge from having read the book it inculcated on the
whole • high and exalted principle. It was a foul and
scandalous libel to say that it was an abominable hook.
The learned serjeant (Mr. Serjeant Ballsntinel formed a
wrong impression of the work from the perverted and false
view that was taken of it at the first trial. He was certain
if the learned serjeant had read the book he would have
been of a different opinion. There could be no doubt the
defendant was ready to run a-muck at everybody. There
were in the writings of the greatest masters of fiction
certain passages which could not perhaps be approved
of, but the works were not condemned on that ac-
count. The course pursued with regard to Keates and
Shelley in the early part of the present century was the
basest page in the critical history of this country, and the
.4111.11 mm wished to revive it.

The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, said the ques-
tion was whether the criticism in question, which was
very strong, was justified by the nature of the
work. It bad been conceded that it was neces-
sary for the sake of good morals, religion, good taste,
and good feeling that the works given to the public should
be of such • chanicter as that, through them, the public
mind and feeling should be improved and not demoralised,
and it was of the last importance that criticisms on books,
so long as they were fair, reasonable, and just, should be
allowed to the greatest extent. An author challenged
public criticisms. He rejoiced at it if it tended to 'his
prsi.e, led to his popularity, and the extensive sale of his
book. He must therefore submit to it if it was adverse,
so long as it was not prompted by • reckless disregard of
what was right, and vindictive malice. The question
for them was whether, looking upon the book
as a whole, it was • good and moral work.
It was not because certain passages were objectionable,
that therefore the critic was to condemn the hook in a ge-
neral sweeping censure. On the other hand, it was not
because the ultimate tendency of the book was good, if
the critic found it replete with sentences of an obnoxious
and offensive character, that the critic was to abstain from
comments in the spirit which he thought the book
deserved. He bad not been able to reed the book with
attention during the trial, so as to be able to say what the
hook intended to show or accomplish, but of the passages
read there could be no mistake, and they would seem to
warrant the charge of indelicacy, profanity, and very
many of them the charge of the grossest vulgarity. Was
the article as • whole reasonably fair and just
The jury, without leaving the box, returned a verdict
for the defendant.

Witness--Counsel are responsible for :all that.
Mr. Serjant Sallantine—You acted under the advice of
counsel in drawing the pleas
Witness—Yes.

And to-day you have left the whole conduct of the case
to Mr. Chambers and me?
Witneas—Yea.

MrSiirjeasit—ltidlantine—And a very proper and pre.
dent course to adopt, too. (Laughter.)
The witness was corroborated by Mr. Pulley, his proc-
tor's clerk.

Dr. Spinke, in reply, said that the testatrix had actually,
in her excess of caution, executed her will three times
over ; but the signature, which was "at the foot or end "
of the instrument was on the next line—for the paper was
ruled—after the testimonium clause, and the first attesting
witnesses had signed on the next line after that.
The jury, with little hesitation, found for the plaintiff.
SirJ. V. ilde decreed probate, and said that if he had
been asked to condemn the defendant in the coats he must
have done so, “s there had been no pretence whatever for
disputing the will.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Fee, 7.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Hotroyd.)
IN RE DAVIES AND LINTON.

The bankrupt) were tug owners, of Gravesend. Their
liabilities are ; property held as security, 3,000/.
They had come to the court on their own petition • but
weignees having been appointed, application was made to
substitute a creditors' petition for that of the bankrupta, a
proceeding which is not unusual where questions of pro.
perty are involved. The court granted the application, but
the order was appealed against by the bankrupts.
This was the sitting for examination and discharge ; but
it appearing that the matter was still before the Court of
Appeal, an adjournment for six weeks was ordered.
Mr. Chalky and Mr. Mums appeared in the case.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Winslow.)
IN RE L. JOSEPH.

The bankrupt was a wholesale jeweller, of Alderegate-
street. The liabilities are upwards of 20,0001., assets
realised about 2,3001. This was a sitting for examination
and discharge.
Mr. Burton, for the assignees, stated that the creditors
had been induced to pass a resolution under the 185th
section taking the case out of court, on an offer of a com-
position of ss. in the pound ; but as the arrangement had
not been carried out, and the bankrupt did not nowappear,
the creditom felt that they had been trifled with.
Mr. Angell, for creditors, took the same view of the
case.

Mr. Sydney, on behalf of the bankrupt, called George
Joseph, his brother, who deposed that the bankrupt had
gone out to the Cape of Good Hope for the purpose of pro-
curing the necessary funds.
His Honour said under these circumstances he would
grant an adjournment for a month.