The Express.
London, England, 1850-05-09 00:00:00

to dwell iis Hie parity and truth, that we regard
*am day id k-. As so the waren se that Heavy Jame.
Priam Might his Women that be was a divine character, I
Bony it ; yea, not ealy do I deny this, bat I mediate with
the greatest horror ay sash weer ion. do far from uremia;
mythine of the kiwi he men *nal tdo en I avant 'apnea
my horror at the aseerelos, the dewing anertim, the livid
assertion. that Mr. Prime does asrogan to !nosed nun •
ehancter. I repel It with kedigaation, *ad with scorn
It is awned in the petition, sad set denied by the indexer,
that the use ot prayer is thessetiseed. Prayer, 1 swat, is
• means to our eat It is the leggin after sometkins,
and the rapressios of that desire. It is asserted that these
who rigid. at the Ammons were distiaglisked as men of
payer. Their life was a life of prayer, Messes it is the
imam of communion with God, sad the Mast of fellow-
ship with his sew Jesus Christ. It was the wily way of
thimble sigh to God. Bat, as I said beton, as a mems to
ha end, and If it is of any Interest to the sours to
know it, we have what we sought for, we enjoy what we
1/angered sad thirsted after. We ham God. We an ready
Winner, in the face of Mama, sad before this honourable
mart. Bleeped we the pan la heart, for trey shell is.
God." And I tear net to sweet that we do see o.d. We
pray not because our prayers are tuned lath praiw But
do we despise prayer as that sesoust ? Do we think lightly
of prayer ? Nay, we Mena It. We know it is the only
10111311 of twinging us sear to God. If it is of any interest
le the court to hear, we have as anthem which 1 will re
peat. It is the anthem we Mig—
non Faberilow awn I
shoe love. *MUM INS!
IL,i. Sphrhs ualoketth!
Baty Tama. thy mos Is U.
ha. Old.* thee
GWaht enmity
Glary 0 kw% ft tire
Gatmt Is thy pmhyt
And if this honourable swan Gould hear the lips that are
moved and the hearts that are awakened by the love of
God, teen th y would feel that there is a reality and truth
in whit see inert. If we have ainussments, we carry God
into them. It may be Ws that we do not read the Scrip.
tuns as once we did. It is because we regard the
Beriptures as • means to an sod. It was the
book that b, ought us to God. The weed of the living
Owl has laid open to us when 014 was to be found. As to
nachastity or immorality, I defy the whole universe to
bring forward against us any charge of immoral conduct.
We sand before heaven and before God, and we challenge
pow to show it. Ours is a holy life—a life of truth and
parity. Again,—it his been said that Beaty James Printer,
theses possessing • fortune of only 1001. a-year, rides in •
eartisge and-four. 'them are carriages, and there are
!mean Beautiful they are, and large sums of money they
Mt. Why do they say that Henry James Prince drives
about ? Why do they not say that I drive ? I, every day,
drive in the carriages, and ride these beautiful hones. It
is because they bate and despise the trust of God that they
east all this oa Henry James Prince. I say calmly,
solemnly, and deliberately, that the " Agapemone" is
a work of • 0 41—pare, holy, glorious. It has
been reviled, slandered, and maliciously spoken of, but
It le • work of God, and all will come to acknowledge that it
is the Lord's dialog and marvellous in our eyes. For hold-
fag these opinion., maintaining these truths, and hying this
life, It is Deserted that I am unfit to have ti e guardianship of
this infant. 1 Issas the responsibility of judgment to this
honourable court.

Mr. rruT replied.
Toe Vacs Chancelior said he would read the affidavits. is
the iseentione the present custody of the Want must not be
(dunned or bantered with.
COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.—TZSTERDAL

Ikrnme cs Loma
Doi DIY Braxor r. BA.LZ laiD arass.—lnrowuNT

4M;

Lord Campbell damea the jUdiment of the court in this
ease, which, it will be remembered, raised the question of
the connezion between barristers and attorneys. The judg-
ment was me lellowe
In this ease we are valid upon to consider whether there
is a rule in the sant iur Gauls which prevents a defendant in
&civil suit, is which he has appearel in person, from basin:,
in the subsequent stages of the snit, the assi,tance of c tuned
instructed by himself without the intervention of an attorney.
There his cuteMly been an understat.dibg in the profession
to the eff et that barristen should not receive briefs in civil
salts except from attorneys, and we are of opinion that it is
to the ainatage of suitors that this understanding is acted
upon. We think, however, that there is no express rule of
law by which such an understanding can be peremptorily
geforcsd. In the Curdy CAMS An, the 9 end 10 Vitt.,
C. 9i, is the only statutory provision of which we ere
aware, on the subject, that statute, in the 91st section,
meeting that no barrister shall be entitled to appear in the
said courts unliss instnictod to do so by an attorney. Tht
statutes of Westminster, the first of the 7th William 111.,
c. 3, and of the 6th and 7th William IV., c. 114, allowing
parties to me ks defence by counsel in all curs of fel my,
are silent as to the manner in which counsel are to be
ins.ructed. This being a matter connec'ed with the pro.
feedings of the court, the judges might, of their own
authority, have laid down a general ru e determining the
conditions under which counsel might be heard ; but no
such rule can now be found, nor is there any proof of its
existeeee, although it has b: en suggested that the usage
which bee prevailed should be treated as proof of the
existence, at one time, of such • rale' although no 'miress
nosed of it is e'w to bs found. It Is admitted that in the
erbsinal courts such • rule does not prevail, mid in
all knows instances in which banisters have defended
without the intervention of an attorney.
irlitser:ould be great difficulty in drawing a &nineties
foe this punster, between civil and criminal proceedings,
and civil and criminal courts. The owners of land, when
under an obligation to repair a road, may hi proceeded
against by indictment for neglecting to repair, and a mss
may be tried for • criminal offence, In an action for a pis-
salty. Oa circuit we talk familiarly of the crown and eta
sides, bat it is to be bmie in mind, that formerly insolvest
debtors might have been tried in the Crown Court ; and at
Nisi Prim. writs of mandamus and quo warranto, and in-
dictment& far misdemeanours, may now be tried. Even es
indictment for mauler may be removed into this court by
certineri and tried at nisi pries. In strictly civil suits tbe
practice des not seem to have recently been for the barrister
to act without ea attnney, although the practice has not
been as strictly uniform as it would have been it reculaeed
by law or positive rule. Instances have been mentioned to
us In which counsel of great eminence sad high honour have
thought that, from the particular circumstances of
the care, they were jurified, with or without
fee, in holding briefs delivered to them by the
pestles, without Ute intervention of attorneys. But there is
no decided case which can assist us in this respect. The rises
of " The Ming v. Burdett " and of " Moscati v. Lswson "
were dad, but in these the question war, whether a party
who condinted his own cue could have the assistance of
counsel es reglrded such points of law as arose and had to
be argued during the trials. The immemorial usage of the
profesaiAi has been much relied upon, but it must be re-
membered that salaam' orantere *listed in England en-
tarior to the statutes of Westminster; when, there is reason
to believe that, after the fashion of Roman patrons, they
were in the habit of directly communicating with their
elks% Chaucer says:
A **leant at law, wary and wire,
That ofthagl been at the wrier.

The parries wee • hied of exchanp in whirls the serjeants
communicated in Use esighbourhood of St. Paul's with
those who wished to consult them. They afterwards had •
pillar in the cathedral, at which they c mmunieated with
their clients. Bat by degrees, the advantage to be derived
from subdividing the business, and of Leong two orders of
praciitionen, between Whom it should be distributed, W-
elling more and more apparent, but for a long time tin
attorney only sued out process, and prepared the ewe= Ihr
trial. iighly approve of the division which hes =ea
latterly establishes between the functions of barrister and
attorney. Tee intervention of the attorney between the
horrid.r and client, has not only contributed to the dignity
of the bar, but has also tended to great improvement is
the administration of English jurisprudence. Reverting to
the practice of former days, we an not of opinion that the
onus of proving the non-existence of any rule, like that vo-
tended for, rests on the defendant. We are by no means
insensible to the inconvenience which may arise from this
privilege on the part of the client being judicially recog-
nised, but we trust that it will not alter the uniform
practice which has prevailed for about a century,
and that the interference of the court will not
be necessary to restrain the abuse of it. CUP may
certainly again occur, though rarely, in which it may be fit
for hamsters to appear in civil nits instructed only by the
parties, but, in the main, they may continue to appear ac-
cording to what may be the etiquette of the profession, for
though ever ready to render their best services for the laser-
tion of right and the prevention of wrong, they will still be
at liberty to restrain, for what easy be considered the public
good, the employment of their services by such rules as they
may deem neeieary. Nor can that highly honourahle and
useful breach of the profession be prejudiced by this dnisim,
kr it =gall he penal in any person to perform the functions
properly appertaining to =temp and their intermediate
agency, ix nduetes as it is to the admieistratiin of justice,
will remain ucimpaired. At say rate, we can now only look
et what the law is, leaving any inconveniences which may
arise to be remedied by the authority of the judges or of the
legislation. Oa the whole, therefore, we think that the rule
kr a new trial =mild be made atnolate.
Rule absolute.

Tae Quests e. Layman.
In this ease • rule nisi had been obtained at the aommence.
sent of the term, by Sir F. Tipsier, calling on the de-
fendant to .how crime why • criminal information should
sot be blvd &millet bun for a libel which he had published in
the Plymouth Josental, of which he was the publisher and
proprietor, erb.st • certain number of ladies, known r the
Sisters of Messy.
Mr. Cockburn new showed cause spinet the rule. fader,
so, the learned esansel Kist read the article which contlineu
the alleged libel. The paragraph complained of as libellous was,
se alrtadystated when the rule mai was applied for, that
which enarged them with having misappropriated, by
the purchase of a service of plate, to he presented to •
church, a pert of the fund which, for charitable purperses, had
been entrusted to them by the public lie win instructed
to disclaim, on the part of Mr. Latimer, any intentir
of inspiring to the ladies in gavottes a wilful
noieapplittatioo of the funds entrusted to their care. The
defendant had been in the habit of freely commenting upon
ewer opinions entertained by them, se opinion,' not alto.
Reiner erolotent with what wee orthodox in the judgment
of many, but it wu ever far from his intention to impute any
peroansl up Yesaduct to them. In support of these statements
the learniql central read the affidavit of Mr. Latimer. The
writ with which he had chimed the applicants was an error
i• judgment. Under these eirenstatarie the learned counsel
submitted test the rule should be diaeresis/.
Sir Y. flu dger was about to address the court, but was
116r:Caoapbell—Wiat we may be made et this rate it is
INS he laS SO assiair, bat I as slimly of opinion that is

Millet be sere absolute. The article complained of wee mot
confined to criticism, or the serenades which maybe,. been
observed by these ladies, and about which there appeared
to he such • diversity of opinion, for there is a Bestow.*
in it whir appears to to. to impute pre trawl.
(The sentence alluded to was that respecting the presents-
Hon of plate, which his lordship read) This certaialv
charges the 'optimums with • imirrgliggilos of the stomas
planed at their disposal. With meat eto what sow appease
rto the motives of the defendants' conduct, k does not ap
peal is me that anything bas been urged by hi. to relieve
him fres the cessenterees of this spplioatios because to
dose leek in his rower, show the remade of his'bellef is the
rumour, which he says was afloat, and to which he had
given sdditional publicity. To some extent the defendant's
conduct may be judged of from what occurred subs candy
to the publication of the libel. Wks& he was galled upon
to retract it, all that he offered wee to publish their desist of
it, if the ladies would deny it We cannot lay it down as •
rule here that calumnies may be published, and that the
libeller exonerates himself by offering to publish a
denial of them, provided the parties will first deny
it. In what position would • lady be in, if • paper
threw as imputation apes her diorite, and she was called
upon to deny re charge before it would be retracted) I see
no rears why the application should be Mislead, sod think
that the yule should be made absolute.
Birk,. fleshier cheered that as it was the only wish of
the 'scholia question to clear themselves of the seeming Ito
pu'ation made upon them—an imputation calculated both to
injure their usefulness and impair their r potation, end as
the defendant had expresely stated that he had had no inter.-
Mon whatever of imputing to them any misconduct with re-
gard to the fund alluded to, and had admitted, at the same
nate, his belief that no imputation attached to them—they
were quite content to allow the rule to be discharged, on the
payment of costs.
lr. Ceckburu observed that the defendant was satisfied to
submit to the condition on which the rule would be

discharged.
Lord Campbell thought that the course which the ladies in
questioa had pursued was highly creditable to thew, and
SI the defendant appeared, by his own statement, to have
inadvertently published what be now disevowsil, the ride
might be discharged on the conditions named.
Rule discharged.

BAIL COURT.—YESTERDAT.
Banta Ma. Junes Couounor..
This being the last day of term, the court was chiefly oc-
cupied with motion, for the re-admis ion of attorneys who
had cea.ed to take out their oertifieates for some time put.
Ong ease was reserved for consideration, the gentleman seek-
log to be re-admitted not having practised for the last nine
years, during which perio I he had been carrying on the bu-
siness of a cotton spinner.
QUEEN O. SPIRIT.
In this case Mr. Smirk. had obtained a rule, calling upon
the defendant to show cause why a criminal information
should not be tiled against him for baring sent a letter to big
brother-in-law, challenging him to fight a dueL It would
seem that some family disputes had arisen between the two
gentlemen, and the upslxit of the affair was the sending of the
letter complained of.
Mr. Phynn now apreared to show emu ageinst the rule
on behalf of the defendant, stating that be was instructed to
express the regret of his client that in a moment of lulu ion
and excitement, be should have been betrayed into writing
the letter. He was, however, willing to wake the amc-nde
honorab e by apologising to his brother in-law for the in-
Ault he had given him; and the learned counsel was in-
structed to add, that aa the dispute had been entirely made
up, there was no prospect of the quarrel ever being renewed,
but, to satisfy the court of his sincerity, the defendant was
willing to enter into his own recognieances to keep the peace
to all her Majesty's subjects for any period the court might
determine.
Mr. Smirk. was instructed by the complaining party
to accept this apology, and consent to the course pro-
MM
r. Justice Colericigedirected the defendant to enter into
his own rocogniaances in the sum of 2501. to keep the pears
fur two years.
The rule was accordingly discharged.

COURT OF COMMON PLRAS.—YErnitwa.
firrroos ix BASCO.—BII7OIII LOOM enno JCIIIICE WILDS AND MR.

TALIFOVILD.
BOXiiii V. TEI LONDON AND NORTH WI/TEEN
RAILWAY COMPANT.

This was an action which had been brought by a ballet
dancer against the London and North Western Railway
Company, to recover compensation in damages for the loos of
a trunk, containing a gold watch and chain, and some valu-
able theatrical and private dresses. The case was tried at
the lot 'seises at Liverpool before Mr. Baron Rolfe, when a
verdict was found for the plaintiff damages 401.
It appeared that the plaintiff left Manchester foe Rugby
on the lith of January last by the hall-peat 11 o'clock train
a.m., and that on her arrival at the Manchester
station she had with her two trucks one a
large one and the other a smaller one—which
were directed " Miss Somers, passenger, London ;" and on
both of which the word Rugby was written in chalk by one
of the railway porters. On reaching Rugby, the plaintiff
did not me the larger trunk. She made inquiry
respecting it of a porter, who tad her she would find it all
sate on arriving in London. This however did not prove to
be correct the trunk was not amongst the luggage, and she
west to the office where icquiry is made for =Peng parcels,
and made a StS,OII2, at of her loss which was taken down.
Enquiries were afterwards made by the company for the
trunk, but without success. Some correspondence ensued
between the plaintiff, her attorney, and the company, which
resulted in the present action being brought.
Consul having been heard,
Toe Chief Justice said that the can was one of the most
distressing that could be presented to the consideration of the
court; because ii the story of the plaintiff were a true one,
she was in this mitigation that, from being kept out of her
property, she was prevented from exercising her profession ;
and it must be remembered that the plaintiff did not belong
to a high order of &crimes. The plaintiff's case was thus—
she had lost her wardrobe, the means by which she supported
herself. It was distressing to the court that she should be
kept out of her property, as she suet necessarily sutler
greatly tar the want of it; but still, at the same time, it was
the duty of the court to see that the defendants bad all the
kir means of defending themselves against any fraud. In
dealing with justice to all parties, the court was placed in*
very painful situation. No doubt Mr. Sibley was the witness
oe whom the ease chiefly depended, and the question was what
account he gave of himself. It speared that be was e
witness obtained by means of an advertisement. He (the
Chief Justice) did not mean to say that he was not a re-
spirable person on that account, but persona of a different
description might be got as witnesses by means of an adver-
tisement. What account did Mr. Sibley give of himself in
sfildaeit ? He might be a molt respectable person, and
be (the Chief Justice) did not mean for a moment to in.
misstate that he was not. lie stated that he went to Man-
chester to search for the register of the baptism of a eels-
SO that hie being at Manchester when the plaintiff was
there was quite a matter of chases. Mr. Sibley stated that
he nu a gentleman ; but when sited at the trial where he
lived, it appeared he said that ha believed he resided
at Grove Cottage. Now it was desirable for the de-
fendants to know where Mr. Sibley lived, and it
did not appear in hie affidavit that he was only
a lodger in a horse, and he did not state when he last slept
at Grove-terrace. Looking at the whole description given
of Mr. Sibley, the court thought that a rule fora new trial
should be granted upon pepped of the Gate, and that the
tense should be changed from Liverpool to London or Mid.
Mese:. The case might be tried in next term, and the
plaintiff, if successful, could have speedy judgment.
Mr. H. Hi'l said that perhaps the court would give the
plaintiff time to consider whether she would ohmage the
TIOWL