The Express.
London, England, 1861-02-26 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 26, 1861.

keyed to becomes unnecessary. The representative of t►e
Ottoman Porte has not protested against the oucupatios,
but I will shortly state what has been done. The represen-
tative of the tStornan Porte stated that it was the opinion
of the Sultan's government that a prolonged oecupttion
would to unnecessary, and he added a request, that if the
representatives of the European powers were of a different
opinion, he hop,il that, Ixforn coming to any
deci.ein, they would arverally refer back to their r.np•c-
tire governments. No decision has token p;.tc •. I.l' ti .e
matter La been referred, as requested by the Tuthish
Amiss/odor.

books of the borough of Birkenhead, and when he told tie
honee that if the bill were to pass to-morrow it would be
found that there would be 5,314 voters, of whom 2,500 oc-
cupied houses of I.'o/. a year and upwardr. he thonght they
would acknowledge it waa entitled to have the member
proposed to be given to it, and he thought it entitled to
two.

lIORSMAN said he did not found his opposition to
any part of this bill on any disparaging opinion of metro-
politoti members. On the contrary, he thought those
epinione not only invidious bet unjust. But • paper bad
liecu placed in his hands which led him to think that the
conclusions which had been oome to by the hon. member
would lead to an errooeous result. The boo. member said
that there were twenty metropolitan members, and that if
they took wealth and population there should
be forty. But be (Mr. Horsman) doubted whether
they ought to take the representation of London
to be merely that which it was theoretically.
Here was • list of six or seven London bankers, all of them
representing other constituencies, but whose businesses
and whose residences were in London, and who,
when the commercial or political interests of the
City of London were affected, were quite as avail-
able as were the four members who represented the
City theoretically. Then be found there were DO lees
than eight Bank directors who also sat in that house
representing other constituencies, making 15 members
who were directly connected with the City. Then
there were no less than four aldermen of the City
of London who also set in that house representing
rural constituencies. There were in addition five
eminent merchants—for instance, be might name his boa
friend the member for Huntingdon, sod others hardly lees
eminent—representing rural constituencies ; but no one
would NI V that where the interests of the metropolis were
concerned they were not as available representatives of
the metropolis as any of those who t• 4 been elected by a
metropolitan constituency. (Opposition cheerio.) Then
there were nix eminent shipowners, all whose local interests
were in the City of London ; and without going more
minutely through the list, he might lay there were oo
' lees than 40 members of that house, in addition to the 20
reereeentieg metropolitan cosaituencies, who were as avail.
able for the representation of metropolitan interests as
any of those to whom be had already referred. That was
also putting entirely out of the question the greet many
others who, like himself, were electors for metropolitan di,-
tette, and who more or less represented metropolitan dis-
tricts. Therefore, so far from there being merely 20 repre-
sentatives of the metropolitan districts, he thought there
were more than thetOdemanded by his bon. friend. He ven-
tured to say that there were at least 40 or 50 members un-
connected theoretically with the representation of the metro-
polis who were asmuchconnected with metropolitan interests
as any of those who were elected by the constituencies.
There wee another question which had beeo very much lost
sight of, viz., that of locality and vicinity. The imme-
diate vicinity to parliament of a metropolis which has two
representatives residing between two and three miles from
the House of Commons, who were always on the spot to be
applied to—a district like that did not require so many re-
presentatives as a district in Ireland or in Scotland, whose
members could not always be in bonder. Some constitu-
encies of large population and wealth having three repre-
sentatives were not so well off as a metropolitan
constituency which had only two (hear, Lear)
merely, therefore, upon the question of the enormous
advantages which the metropolis possessed in its wealth
and the number of its commercial and other peat interests,
it was • question of very great doubt whether it was not
already. more represented in proportion to its wealth than
more tant constituescies. (Hear, bear.)
Lord JOHN MANNERS said Ise was not disposed to
follow the right bon. gentleman, as the question was whe-
ther the house was to fill up four defranehised sate ; and, I
as be imagined, there was a question beyond that, namely,
the principle upon which the government proposed to duo '
tribute those seats. He concluded the principle upon which
the government proposal went was to give half the seats to
boroughs, and half to counties. On the whole, he wag not
disposed to find fault with that arrangement, although it
could not be denied that thereby the government were
likely to pin two seats. But he subjected to placing two
more counties in the invidious category of being " small
counties," only deservisg a third seat. He thought their
experience of what had been called "unicorn" counties had
not been very eatiodactory. At that stage of the bill, how-
ever, he wished to do no more than guard himself against
that part of the proposal which gave • third member to the
West Riding ad to North Lancashire.
Mr. ROUPELL said he could not entirely assent to the
obeervations which had fallen from the right boa gentle.
man the member for Stroud. Surely the Scotch members
who represented English constituencies were in the same
position as the Scotch members who eat far Scotland. He
could not understand bow it could be said that the metro-
polis was over-represented. Did the noble lord the mem-
ber for Marylebone sit in that house es so Irish member, or
as a representative of the metropolis! It was equally idle
to say that the six or seven hank directors and others who
bad signed that declaration were members for the metro-
polis, and not of the places that returned them.
Lord W. GRAHAM reminded the house that • resolu-
tion was passed last session pledging the house that no time
should be lost in refilling the four vacant sate. If the
government did not agree with that resolution, it would be
=was and impolitic to go on with the present bill, inas-
much as the publication of the new census might alter the
proportion of returns of population.
- Mr. COLLINS was glad that the Home Secretory bad re-
solved to act upon the resolution, but he thought the right
boo. gentleman had not deft out that measure of Justice to
the West Riding which they required. The West Riding,
irrespective of boroughs, comprised a population of 800,000
persons, whilst that of the borough, comprieed 40,0011. It
was 60 miles long and 70 broad ; and, what was net im-
material, • contested election cost 15.0001. • aide.
(Laughter.; Ia the present state of political feeliV:
would be impossible to start a candidate,
pasesut sate of the scanty, the seat was virtCmultrZianed
to a few leading fasoiliss. On the ormasevative aide, at the
last election, every shilling was paid by public subserip.
tion ; but, of course, contmued the hem member, "we
cannot always rely upon that." (Laughter.) He saw no
reason why the writs for these two sesta should not bane
immediately; for if they did not go out till November the
register would in the mean time be scrutinised and disputed
by attorneys of the rival parties, to the great incutsventenas
of the constituency.
Mr. V. SCULLY saki that he mnst be the last person to
allege that the county of Oork was not duly represented,
though he hoped by that time to-morrow evening it would
be still betterrepresested. (Rear, hear.) He thought,
however, that this was not the time for the re-chstributioir
et these seats. Forty or fifty claims had bees put forward,
and they had a new census that year. It would be far
more convenient if the measure were deferred till they had
a new reform bill; and be strongly objected to the present
system of bit-by-bit reform.
Mr. PARKER said he noun trouble the bona for a few
minutes while he rend • communication which had been
placed in his hands on behalf of the mayor of the
ancient borough of Sudbury. (Loud laughter.) The
ni•yarstated that in 1844, when the borough was
it had possessed two seats in parlia-
ment for upwards of three centuries. He recounted
the speciel services which had been rendered by represeuta.
tires of the borough, which were more deserving of special
recognition than those of many ministers of the crown.
Sudbury was situated in the western disdains of Suffolk,
which county, including boroughs, had only nine members.
Sussex, with about the same population, returned eighteen
members. Wiltshire. which was very similar in area. re-
turned eighteen members. Buckinghamshire, with less than
half the amount in numbers and area, returned eleven.
The hundred in which Sudbury stood contained
• population of 40,000. He added that several
boroughs, since the disfranchisement of Sudbury, bad been
convicted of the grossest bribery and corruption—(hear,
heal—and yet led been allowed to retain the right of re-
turning members to parliament. Even at the present
time writs for Gloucester and Wakefield were suspended,
though without any ultimate intention being shown of dis-
franchising them ; and a report had been just published
by the election committee on the borough of Berwick-on-
Tweed, coutainisg more astounding facts than any that had
been alleged against the constituency of Sudbury. He (lir.
Parker) alsoukl be veer much ialuesold Ia the vote he
mire it the government were prepared to my that they
proposed to deal out an equal measure a punishment to the
larger delinquents he hail mentioned. (Hear, hear) If
the house should not think it prudent to restore to Sud-
bury the privilege of two members, perhaps it might give
them one. (Laughter.) At all events, he thought he had
made out a cue for Suffolk. (Heir, hear.)
The bill was then reads second time.
THE HIGHWAYS BILL.

Sir C. C. LEWIS moved the second reading of this
and he hoped the house would be prepared to pass it this
stage this evening, ea the bill underwent a full discussion
'set session.

HINLEY mid be understood many hon. members
wiring to take part fis a discussion on this bill, and there-
fore bhoped it would sot be premed to-night.
The neorese haring bps withdrawn,
Yr. HARDY raid be hoped the mead weeding would be
Axed for en early day.
Bir 0. 0. LEWIS weed Wednesday, the eth at Nara.
THE CRINLVAL LAW CONSOLIDATION AND

tato inttlligince.
HOUSE OF LORDS.—Feu. 25.
APPEALS.

•ROOK •. =OWL -II A RRI AGE 'mu A DECKAtIED P171"111

SIMTER ABROAD.

This is an appeal from the Court of Chancery. The
appellant* are James William Brook, Clara Jane Brook,
Amelia Brook, sod Sarah Helen Brook, all infants, under
the age of 21 years, by their next friend ; and the respon-
dents are Charles Brook, Jun., John Edward Armitage, and
Edward Armitage, trustees el the will of William Leigh
Brook, late of Meltham-hill, ewer Huddersfield, Yorkshire,
and her Majesty's Attorney-Owieral. The questions in.
volved are whether • marriage duly solemnised on the 7th
June, 1850, at the Lutheran church of Wandsbeck, near
Alton, in the duchy of Holstein, in the kingdom
of Denmark, between the said William Leigh Brook and
Emily Armitage, the sister of his first wife, Charlotte, then
deceased, is or is not a valid marriage ? and whether the
issue thereof are out legitimate, or are not to be con-
sidered to be entitled to succeed to real or personal pro.
party of their father, as legitimate according to the lows of
England, the said marriage being valid and the issue thereof
being legitimate according to the law of the said duchy ?
and whether Charles Armitage Brook, deceased, one of the
children of the second marriage, having died, the appellant,
James William Brook, the sun by the first marriage, is not
his heir at law, and as such capable of inheriting his reel
estate ; and the appellants, James William Brook and Clara
Jane Brook, Charlotte Amelia Brook and Sarah Helen
Brook, are not his next of kin, and as such capable of taking
his personal estate. William Leigh Brook married on the
20tb of May, 1840, Charlotte Armitage, who died in 1847,
and bad by her two children— namely, the appellants,
James William Brook and Clara Jane Brook. In 18.10 be
married at Wandsbeck, near Altana, Emily Armitage, the
sister of his former wife, and by her, who died only two
days before himself, had three children—viz., the appellants,
Charlotte Amelia Brook, Sarah Helen, and Charles Armi-
tage Brook, slue deceased. Up to and at the time of the
second marriage, an alleged by the respondents, the parties
were domiciled in England, and had no permanent residence
in the country where it took place. The father made
his will 19th September, 185.1, by which be gave to his
eldest son, Janus William Brook, his mansion at Meltham-
ball, with gardens, house, grimed, and farmer's cottage and
land adjacent to it, sot to molude his mill property of any
description. He then gave to his second son. James William
Brook, his daughter, Clara Jan Brook, to his " reputed"
son, Charles Armitage Brook, and his " reputed"
daughters, Charlotte Amelia and Sarah Helen Brook, tits reel
of his property, share and share alike, except that be gave
to his two sons • double portion of the property disposed,
the property of Ideltham-hall being already appro-
priated to his eldest son, with reversion to his
second and "reputed" son Charles, in the event
of his eldest son dying during his minority.
In the event of both eons dying before the age of twenty-
one, the property of Ifeltharn.ball was to be realised at
the discretion of the trustees of his will, and the proceeds
to be divided in equal portions between the surviving
sisters and " reputed" sisters who should attain the age of
twenty-one. The testator died of an attack of cholera at
Cologne, on the 19th of September, 1855 ; and on the 26th
of December, 1855, letters of administration, with the will
annexed, were grunted to the trustees named therein ; and
they have ever since continued in possession of his large
real and permed estate as trustees and executors. The
children by the second marriage, on the Bth of March, 1856,
filed a bell nst the trustees and James William Brook
for the ' • tion of the estate ; bat before
the cones came on for bowing, Charles Armitage Brook,
the sou by the second menthe, died, and, awarding to the
Jmellant., his rights to the reel estate vested in
mea William Brook as his brother and heir-at-law ; and
as to his personal estate, the other children, the appellants,
became entitled thereto as his next of kin. The title of the
appellants to the real and personal estate of the mid
Charles Armitage Brook was denied by the Attoreey-
Galena oa the ground that the marriage of hie father and
mother was not valid, and his property was ehdeeed for the I
crown The cause came on before Vice-Chancellor Stuart,
who held the will to be established, but directed an
'equity whether the children of the second marriage were
the legitimate issue of the testator. The Chief Clerk, by
his certificate, found that the second marriage was cele.
heated at Wandabeck, in Denmark ; that the parties were
at the time of the marriage, and at the time of their deaths,
domiciled in England, and that their marriage was lawful
according to the law of Denmark. The matter was arped
en further consideration before the Vice-Chancellor, assisted
by Sir Creessrell Cromwell, then a judge of the Court of
Common Pleas, who gave his opinion that the ma
have` been soiemaiaed between the testator and his de-
wife's sister, however lawful it might be in the
country where it took place, was, under the statute sth and
6th William IVth, c. 54, which declares that such mar-
riages were absolutely null and void, of no effect, and the
children illegitimate. In this opinion the Vice-Chew.
senor concurred, avid made a decree, declaring the
marriage, whether celebrated •In the kingdom of
Denmark or elsewhere, nuU and veid to all intents
and purposes, and that the crown was entitled to all
the real and poeaoaal estate of Charlie 'Armitage Brook,
deceased. decree having been enrolled, the presses
appeal was Imagist. The appellants contend that the
validity of a marriage and the legitimacy of its ague is to be
determined according to the law of the country where it was
solemnised; that according to the law of Denmark the
hi gelation was valid, as the marriage of a widower
with his deceased wife's sister is not within the prohibited
degrees el oeneenguieity and allanity in that oounti7 ; that
the elands of Wm. IV. is only s territorial law and does not
apply to her Majesty's colonies, army other plea, out of Bu-
llied and Ireland ; that if the statute does apply to such mar-
riages by British sub*le wherever they may be solemnised,
yet it only made null and void such marriages as, if the
statute had not been mused, world have been voidable in
the Ecclesiastical Court ; and that the particular marriage,
regard being had to its being valid by the law of Denmark,
would sot have been voidable in the Ecclesiastical Court
during the lives of the parties. The respondents urge that
by the Act 5 and 6 William IV., e. 54, every domiciled
Englishman is made personally incapable of contracting •
marriage with his deceased wife's sister either in England
or elsewhere ; that although the law of England admits in
general the validity of • marriage between British
subjects when duly celebrated in • foreign country, yet
that rule applies only to the solemnities required to consti-
tute a binding contract, and does not affect the original es.
pacitr of the parties to the contract ; and that even if the
law of the pleas of contract were held to 'Used beyond the
limits assigned to it in the above argument, it could not be
so far extended es to sender valid a marriage between domi-
ciled English proms, which is incestuous by the law of
England.
Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Haling, and Mr. G. Lake Russell
appeared for the appellants ; the Attorney-General and Mr.
Wickens for the respondent'.
The argumeuta were not concluded.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Fax. 25.
Bittinp at Nisi Prim at Cuildba/L—(Before Lord Chid
Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury.)

PUNT P. POLN AID °THU& -ACTION UPON ♦ POLZCT OP

This trial wee reamed et the sitting of the court today.
The action was brought by the plaintiff to recover 4001.
upon a policy of insurance 'plaid Bre effected with the
Sun Fireoßice.

The defendants pleaded, fink that the plaintiff bad made •
ftauduleot claim; and, eeco•dly, that the plaintiff wilfully
set lire to his house.

Mr. M. Chambers, Mr. Serjeant Ballantioe, and Mr.
Lewis ware counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. O'Kelley,
Mr. Phinn, Mr. Hawkins, and Mr. Unlike ter the de-
feedanta._...

--EllenGibbons was recalled, and gave additional evidence
es to the Are, sod the nature and amount of stock.
In cross-examination she said that the relation between
her and the plaintiff use only that between master and
servant. She was addressed ea Mrs. Piney by Wharton
or his wife, or any one else. She left her home and went
to live at the plaintiff's against the consent of her friends,
is coeseq.ience of • quarrel she had with her Lister.
She said she was lowered from the house by
the plaintiff into the street at the time of the
Are, and denied that she came down stain and made
hat serape by the side door. She did not say at the in-
quiry into the origin of the fire before the coroner, that
Piny said to Simon Brown that he thought the hones was
set on fire—that he could say by whom, but he did not
mention the name. She did not say before the coroner
that she believed the house was set on fire. She never
heard the plaintiff express any opinion as to the origin of
the fire other than that he said it arose under mysterious
crctuustanoes. In reply to other questions the witness
said-1 never heard Piney say to Wharton at Tottenham,"
Supposing I were in trouble would you mind taking •
falae oath for me!' I did not bear Wharton say, " No,
not fur any man living." I did not say to Platy or any other
pesos, " I will swear for you through thick and thin," or
anything to that effect, oa any °COSMOS. I don't remember
saying anything about swearing.
Re-examined—l had so improper intercourse with Piney
while I was with him. I swear that most positively. I
have been la a lunatic asylum at Bow. I was there nine
ineatha I was also in the asylum at Colney Hatch for six
or eight months. My memorry is rather defective.
George Piney, a brasafoundei arid a wholesale dealer in
inGolden-lane. St. Luke's, and the son of the plaintiff.
deposed that before the fire his father's shop was full of
goods. Shortly after his father went to Tottenham he lent
him 100/. Witness had been in business seven or eight
years. His mother WDA lnc delicate state of health. She
knew that Ellen Gibbons was living in his father's house,
sad she had seen Gibbons there. He heard Mr. Hodsell,
the agent of the Sun Fire Insurance Company, offer his
father 1001., bat he rejected it, and said he considered he
ought to have his full claim. This was after the ooroner's
inquiry. /tr. Hodeell then walked away.
Cross-examined—Nothing was said at that interview
about an excessive claim. It Is four or Ave years ago since
my father acted as my assistant. I bave got no memorise-
dem of the 1001. I hat to him. I have so security for it.
nor is there say eatry of it in any of my books. I
have no I 0 U far the motley, but I may have
a scrap of paper at home. I gave him the 100/. in sove-
reigns and Dolma No ow was present when I did so. I
borrowed the mosey from Masers. Lewis and Stevens, of
Islington, epos • lease of mine we of them is • house
spat, lied the other a printer. I did not receive the
from them by cheque, but is gold and taw I harp
iiakweiton it. My lather has sot bees able to gag as due..

Serest shoe this calamity ; but he paid me half a year's in.
Wrest about 12 mouths ago. There were several pictures
in my father's shop ; one of the pictures was a portrait of a
duke. 1 can't say what duke. I am act a judge of
dukes. (Later.)
The Lord Chief Justice—Why do you say he was a duke!
Witoesa-1 have seen dukes on the stage. (Laughter.)
He had robes similar to those of a theatrical duke.

A Juryman—Was there a coronet
Witness (hesitating)—l saw a good deal of curled hair.
,laughter.) He had a sword at hie side and a purple robe.
There was another picture, supposed to be that of Queen
Charlotte ; but I am no more a connoisseur of pictures than
of dukes. (Laughter.) I can repay the 100/. I borrowed
whenever I like. There was no stipulation as to the time
within which it should be repaid. fly father and mother
are nut separated, though they .lo not live together. They
were not hvinq together before the tire.
Ite-examined—My father and mother are good friends
now; they were at my place last Sunday evening.
Simon Brown, a shoemaker. deposed to the eircumstancee
connected with the fire, and ht.ttml that the plaintiff carried
Eliza Gibbons, who was in her eight clothes, into his home,
and placed her in his (witness's) bedroom.
On being cram-examined, he said he was rather king
Ling up up after the alarm of fire, as he was in • bit of a bot.
Mr. Phinn—What bothered you?
Witness-1 suppose it was in consequence of the young
woman being brought into the house. (laughter.)
Mr. Phiun—You are not accustomed to see young women
in their night dresses
Witness—No. (Laughter.) On further examination be
said, when be first saw the fire it was raging iu a corner of
the shop user the cupboard, where the chopped wood was
kept. The sash of the shop was broken by some one before
the fire, and • few days after the fire Piny said to witness,
" I should say that the person who threw cow muck over
my place and broke my sash, set the shop on fire." He said
that more than once. Witness also heard him my that it
might have been done by placing something under the shop
door. Witness did not say to any one that he would not like
to give Si. for what was in the shop.
Mr. Phinn—What did you say
Witness—l was asked if I would give Si. for the old
shoes, and I mid I would. Old shoes are worth a mint of
money. (Laughter.) When I went to the fire Pizey opened
the door sal asked me if I could do any good. I said I
could not, and he then directly pulled the door to. This is
how I saw the state of the fire. I did not men-
tion this before the coroner, but I am speaking
the truth now. I did not know it then. I supposed
I saw through a crack caused by the heat expanding the
door. It wee two or three days after the coroner's inquiry,
when we were talking together, that I said the door was
opened. Piney told me that he opened the door, but I did
not remember it then, and I don't recollect it now. I can-
not say whether he opeued the door or not.
After some other evidence had been adduced, the OW was
farther adjourned.

COURT OP COMMON PLEAS.—Firs. 25.
(*War in Beam—Before Mr. Justice William and Mr.
Justice Wiliam.)

MEDI r. CONQUERT. THE EIGHT TO DRAMATISE NOME.
This oaae involved the question whether the dramatising
• novel without the consent of the author is any breath of
ecig"
Mr.
Justice Williams, in delivering judgment, said that
the declaration alleged that the plaintiff was the registered
proprietor of the copyright in a tale called "Never too late
to Mend," and that the defendant, without the consent of
the plaintiff, dramatised the said novel, end canoed the
drama to be publicly represented at the Grecian Theatre,
for profit. To this count there was • demurrer, and it au
insisted by the defendant that what he heel done was
not an infringement of the plaintiff's copyright therein. The
court was of opinion that in this the defendant was right.
The right claimed by the plaintiff was twofold ; and first he
contended that his statutable right had been infringed by
the defendant. It was laid down in "Coleman v. Wathen,"
that the public represeo title° of a dramatic piece on the stage
was not • publication within the meaning of the statute of
Ann ; and the 5 and 6 Vic., cap. 45, defined copyright to be
"the sole and exclusive liberty of printing or atharwise end.
tiplyiog copies." This seemed to furnish • complete answer
to the plaintiff's claim uoderthestatute. The plaintifrs main
reliance however was placed, upon this, that even if his
statute-de right bad not been Infringed, he bad a common
law right concurrent with but more exteusive than that
under the statute, and that that common law right
possessedb been invaded by the defendant. It was not
necessary to consider whether anterior to the statute, of
Ann there existed • copyright at common law in
published books ; but there could be no doubt
that in Lord Mansfield's time the weight of authority
was in favour of such a right, though the doctrine bad
found less favour in more modern times. But the con-
tinued existence of such • copyright after the statute of
Ann was distinctly denied in the celebrated came of
" Docallsoo r. Beckett" by the majority of the judges,
and the case itself decided that no such common law right
existed after the expiration of the period for which the
statute gave copyright. The question, therefore, was nar•
rowed to this, whether the statute of Ann having put an
end to such right after the prescribed period, it was yet pre-
served during that period. Ms lordship, hang quoted
some casea expressed the opinion of the court copy-
right in published works existed only by statute.
Judgment for the defendant.