The Sun.
London, England, 1869-11-22 00:00:00

THE DUKE OF. NEWCASTLE'S APPEAL
CASE.

the appeal case "ex prrte Morris in re the Duke of New-
castle," was heard beforo Lord Justice Giffard. It was
a case in bankruptcy, and an appeal from the decision of
that court. His lordship now gave judgment. He said
that the only question in the case was whether
peels and members of Parliament might, by
their privilege, be exempt from proceedings in the bank-
tuptcy court. He was of the impression that they were not,
and in support quoted Lord Ha rdwiek's dictum in reference
thereto. Up to the reign of George 111. there was no
doubt that members of Parliament and peers had very
peculiar privileges by which they were precluded from the
effects of any proceedings in regard to matters of insol-
vency. The aim of subsequent legislation to that period had
be en,wit h regard to bankruptcy, to relax the stringency of the
regulations, and to improve the position to the creditor as
against the member of Parliament. The Act of 1849 was
the first step which here upon the question; and by a sec-
tion of that Act persons who, are traders, are liable to be
sued in the Ccurt of Bankruptcy for their debts.
That was the meaning of the Act, which extended
also to the goods and chattels of the debtor,
and thus he was placed in the position of
an ordinary debtor. If the defendant in that
case had been a trader, the question would have been
settled at once. But it was contended that he was not a
trader, and was exempt. Taking the construction of the
Act of 1361 in connection with the meaning of the Act of
1849, he considered that it regulated the matter en-
tirely. In the latter Act the following words occurred :
Or persons, whether traders or not." His opinion
as to the meaning of those words was that they meant
clearly to include non-traders. It had been very ingeniously
argued that when the Legislature intended to make a law
applicable to a class or classes of the community it was
specifically mentioned, and that, therefore, no mention
being made in that case of members of Parlia-
ment their privilege continued intact. They
certainly did retain freedom from arrest during the
performance of their parliamentary duties. But he
was clearly of opinion that those words he
had alluded to "of persons, whether traders or
not," included them in the rank of ordinary creditors.
Therefore, according to his construction, there
could be no doubt whatever that a trader, according to the
Act passed in the year 1849 referring to the question, was
to all intents and purposes liable to civil process in a court
of law for any debt contracted by him, whether he was a
member of Parliament or not. And the Act of 1861,
in his opinion, extended the powers of the other Act
by the words "or persons, whether traders or
not." Therefore it was clear that the Act
by such an expression included members of Parliament.
If members of Parliament were not specially mentioned, it
was, no doubt, entirely from misadventure, and not by any
means by intention. Therefore the case must be remitted
to the Court of Bankruptcy again, and if it was found the
claims were proved against the defendant, he must pay the
costs of the appeal.

THE DISCH ARGE OF THE DOCKYARD
I V aRKMEN.

Mr. Morley has written to Mr. Childers, M.P., the First
Lord of the Admiralty, for information as to the doings of
the Government in re the disciiargo of dockyardmen.
Tho following is Mr. Childers' reply :—" You ask me to
give you the facts as to the recent reductions of the num-
ber of dockyardmen, and the closing of Deptford andWool-
wich Docl. yards ; and to explain the reasons which have
influenced the Government in the matter. I have much
pleasure in comply ing with your request, so far as the
facts aro concerned ; but the arguments for and against the
action of the Government can be better stated in Parlia-
ment than in a letter during the recess. You will, how-
ever, find the policy, both of the present and the late
Government, explained and defended in the debates on the
gavy Estimates in 1867, 1868, and 1869. During
the last years of Lord Palmerston's and during
Lord Russell's Government, the numbers of workmen
employed in the dockyards were in course of gradual
reduction, and in July 1866, they stood at 18,588. After
the accession, in that meal', of the late Government
they were increased, until they reached 19,334 in January
1867, and 20,313 in January 1868. In the spring
of 1868 the Government made a great reduction
in these numbers, which stood at 19,432 in April, 17,294
in May, and 16,128 in July; and they were 15,954 in
December 1868, just before the change of Government.
The reduction made by the late Government during 11
months of 1863 was therefore to the extent of 4,359 men;
and it was effected by the discharge of 3,948 hired men;
and the pensioning of 411 established men. Of the hired
men, 79 received a gratuity on their discharge. No reduc-
tion in numbers was made by the present Government
during the winter from December, 1868, to March,
1869: but stops were taken to assist some of the
dockyardmen who had been discharged and were in dis-
tress, to emigrate. But the closing of Deptford and the
prospective closing of Woolwich led to gradual reductions
during tho rest of the year; and the numbers now em-
ployed are 14,613, or 1,361 less than when the present
Government took office in December 1863. During that
period of 11 months 617 established men have been pensioned
at an average rate of above 9s. a week, 666 have been aided to
emigrate, and 187 have received gratuities on discharge. The
total number assisted in these ways, 1,470, exceeds by 109
the extent of the reduction during the same period; most
of the emigrants' having been discharged during the
previous year. The discharges would have been greater
had not the present Government commenced the building
of three new turret ships, although it had been decided
by their predecessors to build no new ships during
the present year. This change of policy was challenged
in the House of Commons, and on the Bth of March, 1869,
a reduction of £30,000 in the vote for wages was pro-
posed. The motion was resisted and defeated by 122 to
46. You ask me to give particulars as to the closing of
Deptford and Woolwich Dockyards. In 1864 the Com-
mittee of the House of Commons on dockyard extensions
recommended that prospectively Deptford, Woolwich, and
Pembroke should be closed. The resolutions as to Dept-
and Woolwich were carried unanimously, the following
members being present : Mr. Berkeley, Si Francis Baring,
Sir John Pakington, Mr. Corry, Sir James Elphinstone, Sir
Morton Peto, Sir Joseph Paxton, Mr. Lawson, Mr.Leatham,
Mr. Laird, Mr. Hennessey, Captain Talbot, Sir John Hay,
and Lord Clarence Paget (chairman). The resolution as to:
Pembroke was carried by nine to four, the noes being Mr.
Berkeley, Sir Francis Baring, Sir John Pakington, and Mr.
Corry. The late Government carried out this resolution as
to Deptford, the order to close which, on the 31st of March
last, was given in 1368. The present Government have car-
ried out this resolution as to Woolwich. But they have
not adopted the recommendation of the committee to close
Pembroke also. The total number of workmen in Wool-

wich and Deptford Dockyards, on the accession of the
present Government to office was 2,431. Of these,
1,235 have been transferred to other dockyards on full
employment ; 249 have been pensioned at an average of
10s. a week; 342 have been assisted to emigrate ; 171 have
been discharged with gratuities ; 42 have been dismissed,
died, or are temporarily retained; and the remainder, 392,
hired men on weekly wages, have been discharged without
gratuities. Of the men discharged with gratuities, many
had no claim under the terms of hiring, but the rule has
been specially relaxed."

Riordan, the man who was arrested by the police
in Cork on suspicion of being implicated in the late mur-
der, has been discharged, there being no evidence to wF-
-‘nt his detention. _ _

...... ...
A Yankee editor remarked in a polemical article,
that though he would not call his opponent a liar, he
must say, that if the gentleman had intended to state
what was utterly false, he had been remarkably successful
in his attempt.

The clerical address of sympathy to the lion. Mrs.
Waldegrave, from the clergy of the diocese of Carlisle, was
presented to that lady on Thursday by the Chancellor and
the Dean. It was accompanied with the autographs of
nearly all the clergy of the diocese. Mrs. Waldegrave was
much touched with this testimony of respect and regard for
her late husband.
SIR, JAMES PRIOR AND Mn. FORSTER.—Sir
James Prior, who died on Tuesday last, is chiefly remem-
bered in the literary world for his rather angry contro-
versy with Mr. John Forster on the subject of his "Life of
Goldsmith." Sir James, who was the author of a life of
Goldsmith, published long before Mr. Forster's delightful
biography, accused Mr. Forster of wholesale appropria-
tion of his labours, to which Mr. Forster replied
a little in the old style of savage literary controversy.
The truth seemed to be that Mr. Forster was con-
siderably indebted to Sir James in the way of facts ; but
facts cannot be made the subject of private property;
and Sir James Prior's views on the subject
certainly seam to tend to forbid any man ever to
write a life of Goldsmith after himself. Mr. Forster's best
defence, licwevor, is the enormous and essential difference
between his book and that of his predecessor—the former
being a work of genius in which a name dear to every
student of English literature becomes clothed with real
flesh and blood reality, while Sir James's work, like his
"Life of Burke," is the dull book of a plodding literary
workman. Sir James's " Life of Edward Malone" (we
believe his latest publication) contains some amusing
anecdotes. These were, we believe, the only works in no
way of belles-lettres published by Sir James Prior, who was,
however, known for some l
medica works. He was
knighted in 1858, during Lord Derby's ailministration.