The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 11, 1857.

informant, so that the House might judge for itself
whether the authority was as unexceptionable as the
Right Honourable Gentleman declare' it to be.
But in that secrecy he was certainly justified.
Many things of a similar description are referred
to, as well by the members of the Government as
of the Opposition, with a like reserve as t. the
301.11C33 of information. Ho only stated that it
came from " no French authority or quad tn.."
Some guess may possibly be made as to the quiver
from which the shaft was drawn. But, of course,
no party can act on such suspicions. The only
point, so far as Mr. DISRAELI is concerned, being,
was it one to which be might accord implicit cre-
dence

Lord PALMERSTON, in reply, repudiated any in-
tention of casting the slightest imputation on
" the honour, candour, or judgment" of the Right
Honourable Gentleman—all he questioned was his
"credulity." Tho circumstances referred to by
• Mr. DISRAELI, however, elicited the real st ate of
•iffairs. It appears that when Austria was
coquetting with the Western Powers, and
holding out the strongest expectations of
arraying herself on their side in the just and
necessary contest in which they were engaged,
expectations which, it is needless to say, were
never destined t 3 be realised, she sought to elicit
the intentions of France respecting the course she
would pursue in the event of certain possible events
taking place in Italy. This was not, however, an
assurance that France would not take advantage
of her withdrawal of the Austrian troops to molest
her in Italy. There was a great deal more re-
quired by the Cabinet of Vienna, and assented to
by that of Paris. There was the additional and
very import tnt stipulation that "if Austrian
armies joined those of France and England, and
during the war disturbances should break out in
Italy, whatever French force might be in Italy
should act in concert with the Austrian forces for
the purpose of maintaining, not the Aus-
trian possessions, but the general state of ter-
ritorial possessions in It -lily." This makes the case
even worse than had been supposed, for it
might have occurred that France would have been
obliged to defend BOMBA himself against his justly
indignant subjects. The Convention—for it was
a Convention, not a Treaty, although the distinc-
tion is not very important—was never signed,
inasmuch as Austria never gave the preliminary
and indispensable condition, viz., the alliance
offensive and defensive with the Western Powers
against Russia. It was, therefore, a nudum
pactum, which was completely felled to the ground.
It appears, however, that there was sufficient to
justify Mr. DISRAELI'S assertions, and we may
thank the Right Honourable Gentleman for eliciting
information as to one portion of the price that
was to have been paid for Austrian co-operation,
if that power had thought proper to verify the
anticipations for which she gave ample grounds.
We may, therefore, feel thankful that Austria
never joined our standard, and that she has now
no possible claim to French or English support
in respect to her Italian provinces, or the general
state of territorial possessions in Italy. The dis-
pute between the Noble Lord and the Right Hon.
Gentleman was something like that respecting the
gold and silver shield in the old fable, where both
had foundation for their assertions, and both were
partly right and partly wrong, each believing
himself to be accurate in every point.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer last night
nominated certain gentlemen whom he proposes
to serve on the Select Committee to inquire and
report in reference to the proposed renewal of the
Bank Charter Act?. The names are as followp,

viz..--

" The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Dis
raeli, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Spooner, Mr. Gild-
stone, Mr. G. A. Hamilton, Mr. Cardwell, Mr.
Malins, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Hildyard, Mr. Glyn,
Mr. Beckett, Mr. Hankey, Mr. Stirling, Mr. P.
Urquhart, Mr. J, L. Ricardo, Sir C. Wood, Mr.
Cayley, Sir F. Baring, Mr. M. T. &nab, Mr.
Wilkinson, and Mr. Fergus."
We cannot say that we are by any means satis-
fied with the constitution of the proposed committee.
It will be seen that many of them are the most
strenuous advocates of the Act of 1844, who are
already committed on its behalf. Sir G. C.
LEWIS has fully expressed his own views in favour
of the Act for a further term of ten years, with-
out change or alteration of any kind. Sir
JAMES GRAHAM, Mr. CARDWELL, Mr. W.
BECKETT, Mr. J. L. RICARDO, and Sir
CHARLES WOOD, voted in the majority of the
late Committee, that "the laws for regulating the
issues of Bank notes did not aggravate the com-
mercial distress iu England in the year 1847 ;"
and Mr. JAS. WILSON, although one of the most
competent persons to deal with the subject, is
bound to support the views of Ministers. He
cannot, therefore, be expected to take that
independent part or lead in the exami-
nation of witnesses by which he so greatly
distinguished himself in 1848, and to
which he owes his appointment as Joint-
Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. HANKEY, Mr.
WILKINSON, Mr. URQUHART, and, if we are not
mist iken, some of the other Members, have already
expressed their views in favour of the Government
prDposition. The committee, as nominated, can-
not be considered as fairly or impartially consti
tuted; nor will its decisions carry with them
the weight which the vast importance of
the subject requires. We should certainly
desire to see a greater number of intelligent men
not committed on either side, who may, without
prejudice or bias, judge of the evidence that may
he obtained. Unless there be some modification
the report may be regarded as a " foregone con-
clusion." We trust that the House for the sake
of its honour may scrupulously ex ►mine the
el rims and antecedents of every Member ap-
pointed to serve, and that the result may be
alike creditable t ) themselves and beneficial to the
mercantile and manufacturing community, and t
the industrious classes generally, whose interests
are so greatly involved in obtaining a circuating
medium adequate to the wants and exigencies of
the nation.

The Lord Chancellor last night introdaced his
promised measures on the impoitint and int ,rest-
ing subject of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical
Courts. They relate to three matters, perfectly
distinct in themselves—nut having the slight.st
connection the one with the ether, and there-
fore only joined so far as the tribunal.; by which
trey were decided are concerned. First comes
the Test ►mentary Jurisdiet'on, on which
there aro no less nail three measures
Pending before Parliament, and the no less im-
portant propositions submitted by the Committee
of the Law Amendment Society. The second re-
lates to matrimonial jurisdiction—a matter on
fwhich prompt and comprehensive legislation is
imperatively required, and the third to Church
discipline. For the present, we &hall merely ob-
serve on the first branch, on which we already
expressed our views at some length at the litter
end of last month.

We fear that Lord CRAI•TWORTH'S measure will
not at all times satisfy the country. It is in
every respect inferior to any of those already in-
troduced. In fact, it takes the very worst points

from the bills of the Attorney-General, Sir F.
KELLY, and Mr. COLLIER, and therefore pro-
voked the just animadversion of Lords LYND-
HURST, CAMPBELL, and BROUGHAM, who pointed
out clearly and distinctly some of the manifold ob-
jections to the measure in its present form.
It possesses, in fact, but one redeeming
feature, being the total and immediate abolition of
that " aged vice and grey iniquity," the Preroga-
tive Court, which will be entirely got rid of with-
out a single vestige remaining of its existence.
As to the New Court, it will be neither more
nor less than a branch of the Court of Chancery,
with all its notorious evils. We fully concur
with Lord CRANWORTH in the reasons which
induced him to abstain from placing Sir
JOHN DODSOK at the head of the Court.
It is not, of course from any doubt
as to the high qualifications of that eminent civi-
lian, for whom we entertain a high respect. But
had he been appointed judge, it would have been
merely the resuscitation of the obnoxious tribunal
under another name. The appointment of a
Vice-Chancellor, however, will be virtually a
transfer to the Court of Chancery of the
entire proceedings. As Lord LYNDHURST
truly declared, the new tribunal will be,
in all but its designation, an adjunct
of the Court of Chancery, its practice and adminis-
tration will be the same as that which has elicited
the remark that no sane man would acid to the
jurisdiction of that Court. This is chiefly for the
sake of effecting a paltry *saving of some 5,6001.,
a point which even the most enthusiastic advocate
for economy and retrenchment would consider of
the most trivial importance in such matters.
The Noble -Lord proposes that all testimony
respecting disputed facts shall be viva voce—an
additional reason, we submit, why a Vice-Chan-
cellor who is not accustomed to that mode of
eliciting truth will be completely at fault. Having
no experience to guide him as t a the mode in
which the witness may give his testimony, his
demeanour and manner may throw light on the
subject. Although as desirous as any per-
son can possibly be for retrenchment
i❑ every respect, we feel that in the
present instance it would be a penny-wise-and-
pound-foolish economy, that would subject the
unfortunate suitors to great practical inconve-
nience, and which might in many cases lead is a
failure of justice.
In non-contentious or common form business
his Lordship proposes that the proctors should
retain their monopoly, while in disputed
matters the business is thrown open to
the whole legal profession. We must say
that we cannot see the slightest possible
reason for this distinction. Why should. exclu-
sive privileges be retained in any case ? It is for
the public benefit that they should be annihilated.
Men will naturally desire that their business should
be conducted by their own solicitor, and there can
be no reason why additional and costly assistance
should be required in cases where there is no dis-
pute, and where therefore there can he no necessity
for extraordinary skill. There might be some ap-
parent reason for requiring the intervention of a
proctor in disputed matters—there can be none
in those where Lord CRANWORTH insists on their
being employed. The result may be to occasion
fictitious opposition in cases where there is no
real dispute, thus enhancing the costs and unne-
cessarily consuming valuable time.
We also object, for the reasons which we have
already fully detailed, to the retention of the dio-
cesan registries, with the addition of a sufficient
number to make up thirty throughout the king-
dom. It is true that they will be restricted to
non-contentious business where the priperty does
notamount to 1,5001. But, as we have proved, even
that will be objectionable, while still greater oppo.
sition may be offered to the limited jurisdiction
conferred on the County Courts.

On almost every ground, then, we regret the
views adopted by the Noble and Learned Lord,
feeling that, unless:they can be completely altered,
there is but little hope of a satisfactory measure
receiving the legislative sanction during the pre-
sent session. We shall expect to hear stringent

comments on the Government Bill at the next
meeting of the Law Amendment Society, which is
appointed to take place on Monday next, and
which, we believe, will clz-arly and distinctly show
that in its present shape it is utterly inadequate to
meet the requirements, or to satisfy the reason-
aLle anticipations of the community.

According to the expressed declaration of th•
First Lord of the Admiralty, on Monday evening,
in the House of Commons—it appears that Gc-
vernment has not yet decided whether there is or
is not to be any further search (officially insti-
tuted) in. the Arctic regions with a ♦iew to dis-
cover, if possible, either the "remains" or the
" fate" of Sir JOHN. FRANKLIN'S Expedition.
Now we do really conceive that delays such as
these ought at once to be most earnestly depre-
cated. In HEAVEN'S name let Ministers decide
one way or the other! Let them either reject the
notion altogether of fitting out a new expedition,
" positively for the last time"—rather than thus
perpetuate, so to speak, their old and agonising
system of procrastination. By acting as they
have done in this matter hitherto, they have pre-
eladed Lady FRANKLIN and those who sympathise
with the hopes and wishes of that dauntless woman,
either in the United Kingdom or in the United States
—[and Lady FRANKLIN, thank GOD, can yet count
her sympathisers by thousands, we had almost
said tens of thousands, on bah sides of the Atl tntic]
—by delaying, as they have done, in regard to
their ulterior decision in this matter, we repeat
Ministers have effectually precluded Lady FRANK-
LIN and her sympathisers in both hemispheres
from turning their energies to the furtherance of
private schemes altogether independent of the
support and patronage of the British Govern-
ment-. What did Lady FRANKLIN herself re-
mark upon this point, as far back a 3 the 2.1
of December, 1856, in writing to the Prime
Minister? She said—" The time has arrived
when I trust I may be pardoned for pressing your
Lordship, with whom I believe the question rests,
for a decision, since by further delay even my
own effirts may be paralysed." And here is
very nearly the middle of February, 1857, and
Sir CHARLES WooD, on the part of the Cabinet,
announces from his place in the House of Com

mons, that Ministers have not yet come to any
decision as to the advisability of fitting out another
Expedition I Whenever—even after all these
d l,ys that decision does actually arrive,
Lady FRANKLIN avows herself in its regard
(supposing it to be adverse) thus nobly and
chivalrously ! She says (still writing to the Pre-

mier)—" Should that decision unfortunately
thzow upon me the responsibility and the cost of
sending out a vessel myself, I beg t 3 assure your
Lordship that I shall not shrink, either from that

weighty responsibility, or from the sacrifice of

my entire available fortune for the purpose,
supported as I am in my convictions by such high
authorities as those whose opinions are on record

in your Lordship's hands, and by the hearty sym-

_ . .
pathy of many more." Adding—" But before I
take upon myself so heavy an obligation, it is my
bounden duty to entreat her MAJESTY'S Govern'

ment not to disregard the arguments which have
led so many competent and honourable men to
feel that our country's honour is not satisfied,
whilst a mystery which has excited the sympathy
of the civilised world remains uncleared." Yes—
that is the point, after all—that is a most eloquent
and persuasive argument in favour of another effort
in the way of further Arctic researches in the
track of Sir J. FRANKLIN and his heroic comrades.
The mystery of their fate remains to this very day
unsolved ! Notwithstanding Dr. RAE and his cruel
rumour of Cannabalism, and the astounding reward
of that same cruel rumour by the recompence of
10,0001. by order of the Government ! Lady
FRANKLIN therefore argues with reason in favour
of the equipment of yet another Arctic vessel of
research, " that she may bring back from the
Arctic seas, if not some living remnant of
our long-lost . countrymen, yet at least the
proofs that they have nobly perished."
What a pathos there is in the yearning of this
brave and gentle heart, for proofs that her hus-
band and his companions (supposing them to have
perished at all) have perished nobly ! What a
pathos in those two words from such a source—
remembering that vague and unauthenticated
rumour, applying to a portion at least of the 135
officers and men of the Erebus and Terror, the
hideous charge of Cannabalism. "I need not add,"
says Lady FRANKLIN in her appeal to Lord PAL-
AIERSTON, "that we have as yet no proof, whatever
may be our melancholy forebodings." A second
edition of this impressive Appeal.* to the Prime
Minister of Eogland appeared by the way
simultaneously with the formal announcement of
the First Lord of the Admiralty that no decision
of any kind has even yet been arrived at, towards
the middle of the month of February, by Lord
PALMERSTON'S Government. " Rope deferred'
—alas We all know the rest. And how sick
at heart must be that hrave and dauntless woman
who has been pleading so long in vain—hardly
so much for further aid as for some definite deci-
sion (adverse or favourable it scarcely matters
which) at the hands of the Ministers of the
Crown ! Cannot an answer be vouchsafed to her
at last—an answer of some kind, of any kind, an
their
rounry and of
givent thosebyteir s
h oy
MinistersEßEtionN ithe name of

* A Letter to Viscount Palmerston, K.G. From
ia Lady Franin. With an Appendix. Second Edition.
Bw. pp. 36. Ridgway : London, 1857.

LATEST N E WS,

eon. An ofileial, return ~,,,hows that the receipts
the Treasury in December last were 138,226,562
reals, which were more by 10,547,678 reals than
tho.e of the correspondim: months of last year. M.
Bermudez de Caw ro, the new Ambassad,r !oVi en r a,
had talien leave of the Queen, and had left for his
post. M. Becerra, a noted democrat, had been
ordered to reside at Bilbao.