The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-29 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 29, 1864.

The noble lord the member for Arundel may be
congratulated by men or all parties out of the House,
as he was at once very earnestly congratulated by
men of all parties in the House, for the really ad-
mirable speech delivered by him yesterday upon the

subject of Emigration to America. That speech of

..
Lord EDWD. HOWARD'S was immediately recognised

as one of such conspicuous excellen e that, directly
after the close of it, the suggestion came from both
aides of the House of Commons that it should, out
of consideration for the public interests generally,
be circulated as widely as possible throughout the

United Kingdom. Even the stormy, fiery, redhot
Tory member for Devonport insisted upon it, that the
working classes of this country as well as of Ireland
must feel greatly indebted to the noble lord for the
able and important speech ho had just delivered.

Mr. FERRAND adding thereupon that that speech

ought (as previously suggested by Mr. LAYARD)
to be circulated throughout the country. The
expense of doing so, said the hon. member, might
be great, nevertheless he (Mr. FERRAND) would ask
the Government whether they had not some money

in their hands which could be usefully employed for
that purpose. For example, said the member for
Davonport, serio.comically as one might say, and in
the midst of mingled laughter and applause, for
example—the secret-service money ! Again,
in regard to this remarkable speech of
Lord EDWARD HoWAßD's—what said the Irish
Sccretary—what said Sir ROBERT PEEL ? Why,

nothing less than this—that the excellent, humane,
and charitable demonstration of the noble lord
would, he hoped, be productive of much good in
opening the eyes of the poor dupes The
dupes, that is, of those emissaries from
Ame rice who are notoriously going about hither
and thither in this country, promoting in an
underhand manner the illegal cause of Federal
enlistment. The Under Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs, however, was the
very first, as he was, everything considered,
the most earnest panegyrist of the veritable good

service done by the delivery of the noble lord's able
imp! essive exposition before the House of Commons,
his exposition (through the medium of his speech)
of the evils resulting from the continuance of this
systematic emigration to America, of men who are
really entrapped for the purposes of Federal Enlist-
ment. Mr. LAYARD yesterday did not simply con.
tent himself with expressing his opinion that
his noble friend, the member for Arundel, had done
good service by the able and impartial address he
just delivered to the House." He said—while re-
marking that it was a difficult question for the
Government to deal with—that "he (Mr.
LAYARD) did not know a better way of dealing with
this difficult question than by publishing
throughout the kingdom the important state-
ment just made by the noble lord. It was
impossible for the Government to deal with the matter
except by reiterating the warning of his noble friend,
and by doing all they could to instruct those who
were likely to cross the Atlantic in regard to the
real facts of the case and the dangers to which they
were likely to expose themselves," Than this
declaration on the part of the honoura'ole gentler
man the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, nothing surely could be more strikingly
eulogistic of the speech which had been just
previously delivered in the House of Commons,
the speech then so very freshly within the recollec-
tion of those who were listening to Mr. LAYARD'S
instant commentaries thereupoD. While we would
express our very cordial concurrence in these well
deserved commendations of the remarkable speech
here referred to as having fallen from the lips of the
noble lord the member for Arundel, we would fain
urge upon those upon whom ought now to devolve
the duty of carrying out the wishes of the
House of Commons in regard to Lord EDWARD
HOWARD'S speech of yesterday—we would fain
urge upon them the necessity of at once carrying
out those wishes in earnest by causing to be
reprinted and very widely circulated an accurate
report Of that excellent and impressive harangue.

The glorious uncertainty of the law—proverbia
in this country from time immemorial—has bni
just now, as recently as yesterday, had a new and a
very striking illustration. Nominally, the YELVER-
TON Case was yesterday brought to an end deft.
nitively. Referring though we do here to the deci-
sion thus pronounced upon this important case by
the highest court of judicature in the land, we use,
advisedly, the significant adverb, and we hesitate
not to reiterate the remark, that this decision of
the Law Lords is, after all, no more than nominally
(as contradistinguished from practically) conclu-
sive. The meaning of which, at first sight, in-
comprehensible assertion, is readily to be explained
by the circumstance that yet another proceeding
has been taken by Mrs. THERESA YELVERTON, née
LONGWORTH, the consequence of which proceeding
on her part is quite efEctually to prevent the
judgment which was pronounced yesterday by the
Law Lords, in the House of Peers, from being
made final in Scotland, until the parties to the
suit shall have been finally examined upon oath.
It will be observed that the decision pronounced in
favour of the petitioner, Major WILLIAM CHARLES
YELVERTON, has been simply the decision of a
majority—not by any means an unanimous decision
against the respondent. Ostensibly, the majority is
considerable. In reality, it is insignificant. Ap-
parently, it is a decision pronounced as by three to
one for the petitioner and against the respondent.
Literally it is a decision carried by the smallest of all
possible majorities—that of one. For, while three
of the law lords (all of them present) were yester-
day for the reversal of the judgment pronounced
by the lower Courts--were, in other words, in favour
Of Major YELVERTON, and against Mrs. THERESA
YELVRTON 72e LONGWORTH—two other of the
law lords (one present the other absent) were,
as distinctly of a totally different opinion.
And, observe who they were that wore for
the petitioner and who they.
ELyweEit
reTothNaotaawienrset
for the respondent. For Majorir
Mrs. THERESA YELVERTON née LONGWORTH,
were—of these Law Lords—whom ? Lord WENS-
LEYDALE I Lord KINGSDOWN! And Lord CHELMS.
FORD I Whereas, upon the other side, who, let it be
distinctly borne in mind, were the law lords who
pronounced (one by word of mouth, one by message)
just exactly otherwise? Pronounced, that is, dis-
tinctly, deliberately, emphatically, in favour of Mrs.
THERESA YELVERTON t ea LONGWORTH and against
\Nor YELVERTON, the Petitioner ! Who were the
Law Lords who so thought, el decided ? Why, no
others than— Lox dWEsTEußrand Lord BROUGHAM !
The latter, the most venerable And illostriouN