The Sun.
London, England, 1868-05-23 00:00:00

EPIRIT OF TUB PUBLIC JOURNALS,

The Saturday Review, apropos of the vote on the im-
peachment trial of President Johnson, declares that all
but the most extreme Republicans have long since dis-
covered that the impeachment was a mistake ; but -.seven
prudent and temperate men may naturally anti pate
disadvantageous consequences from an acquittal. It is
almost certain that the rash and impulsive President
,would regard his escape as a decisive victory, and that he
would be encouraged in his desire to thwart the / entire
policy of Congress. It is difficult to anticipate the trouble
which he might cause during the remaining nine trnonths
of his administration, especially as his opponents would
have been greatly weakened by their unsuccessful experi-
ment. The Republican Convention for the nomination of
a candidate for the Presidency is about to meet imme-
diately, while the Democrats have, perhaps judiciously,
postponed their own assemblage till July. The party
which has so long been excluded from power would be stimu-
lated to fresh exertions by their triumph, and their antago-
nists would probably be distracted by internal quarrels be-
tween the advocates and opponents of impeachment. It is
not easy to foresee the bearing of the process of reconstruc-
tion on the Presidential election. The House of Repre-
sentatives has already voted the admission of Arkansas
under the new Constitution ; but the Democrats will use
their utmost efforts to exclude the negro voters, or to
admit the disfranchised whites. If, notwithstanding the
vote on the eleventh article, the President should be con-
victed and removed from office, Mr. Wade will succeed to
his functions by a doubtful title. The administration of
the vacant office is entrusted by the Constitution to the
President of the Senate, and it is not certain whether the
Senate would not have the power, by dismissing its own
President, to remove the temporary President of the
United States. Mr. Evarts did not forget to point out
the anomalous relations of the Senate to the Government,
as an argument against an assumption of power which
might perhaps lead to a popular agitation against the
Senate itself. The final judgment, which will be delivered
in a few days, will, under any circumstances, lead to
illportant results.

Of course, says the Spectator, it is possible that the
plople of the United States are tired of the very word
" mpeachment," that the reaction- has set in, that they
see ,a)mething ludicrous in deposing a man who has only
nine wonths to reign, and that the voice of the constitu-
encies, when it is heard, will be for dropping the proceed-
ings. Fut all this carries very little weight. The
"weariness" of the sole topic of political discussion is a
weariness which is only felt in the small circles of great
cities, and is .no index of the feeling of the country, where
any important topic of discussion must be fresh enough,
since men n:eat so seldom and talk so little. As for
" reaction," the, country has long since seen the unfortu-
nate character of the form of procedure—namely, a
judicial trial for acts which technically amount to little
more than the exernis'i by the President, in a sense keenly
hostile to Congress, of powers conferred on his office only
for the purpose of delaying the action of Congress, and
this in a time when it had become generally understood
that Congress, as the legislative power, should be deferred
to as virtually supreme. Tile Americans—we confess we
think with questionable judgment—have preferred the
perversion of a special Constitutional form to the more
natural method of providing by revolutionary steps for a
difficulty for which no remedy was supplied, the difficulty
itself having never before been practically encountered
under the Constitution. Having chosen that method,
we cannot think that they will shrink from making it
effective.

The London Review calls attention to the prevalence at
Westminster of a pernicious practice, indulged in by
counsel who are flooded with briefs, of appointing I,
deputy to do their work. This is not merely indulged in
by the lower branches of the learned profession of the law.
The practice is essentially peculiar to what is termed the
higher branch of the legal profession. No one ever hears
of an eminent physician receiving the fees of those who
wish to consult him and saving himself the trouble of
looking at them by availing himself of the idleness of one
of his brethren, whose knowledge may possibly equal that
of the American doctor who sent all his patients without
exception into convulsions because he. happened to be a
"stunner at fits." Yet things of this sort are by no means'
uncommon in practice at the bar. An attorney may
have a case requiring the employment of a coun-
sel of peculiar capabilities. Knowing that every-
thing may depend upon a rough tongue and unsparing
cross-examination, a rattling speech to the jury, or a piece
of well-sustained chaff throughout the conduct of the case,
he selects his man, and proceeds to retain him. A feeling
of natural anxiety to make sure of the talent of which he
hopes to availhimself, and theprice of which he is prepared
to pay, prompts him, as a necessary preliminary, to ascer•
tain that the counsel will be in his place when the case
comes on. His mind is set at rest upon this point by the
assurance of the barrister's clerk that his master has no
other engagements to divert his attention from the case.
Now it may be the misfortune of the attorney to be a gen-
tleman, and, judging of others by himself, he pays away
his money upon the promises he receives, fixes an hour for
consultation, and returns to his chamber with the con-
sciousness that lie has done his duty, and that his client's
case is in the fittest hands to hold it. On the morning of
the trial his first disappointment is the non-appearance of
the distinguished advocate for whom such solemn promises
had been made ; and painful doubt takes the form of yet
more painful certainty when the clerk, who was so liberal
of assurances the evening before, comes forward with an
expression of sympathy upon his features that would be
pleasing if it were not chronic, to inform him that Mr.
So-and-so is unfortunately detained in the country, or in
the House'of Lords, or at the Privy Council, and will not
be able to reach the court until late in the day. The at-
torney then, upon searching for his brief, finds it in the
hands of a young barrister, like him who made his griev-
ance known through the columni of the Times, or of an
old barrister whose abilities had not been of a sufficiently
marked character to gain him the confidence of attorneys,
and who, having no briefs of his own, holds those
of other people. The substitution, it is needless
to say, is in most cases unfortunate. The clerk
of the absent advocate, intent upon securing his own
fees and those of his master, makes his selection with a
liberal disregard of the fitness of things. A mild squabble,
in which the witness gets the best of it, takes the place of
the proposed cross-examination, and a spirited speech or
adroit chaff is looked for in vain from the staid individual
whose eloquence in its highest flights cannot soar above
the statute of frauds. The case may be lost and injustice
done, and the person who is injured is left with such poor
consolation as the general abuse of lawyers will afford him.
The law itself leaves him without remedy. For some
inscrutable reason it will not permit a barrister to bring
an action for his fees, and, by way of set-off, it invests
him with the power of being as negligent and as reckless
of the interests of his client as he pleaseswith impunity.
The Imperial Review declaims energetically against the
new move of the Jamaica Committee. The opinion of the
prosecution seems to be that martial law in itself is in no
case justifiable. It matters not what may be the emer
gency, the long formalities of the law must in all cases be
adopted. Such a theory, if carried out in all its logical
significance, might submit the inhabitants of any British
colony to riot and massacre ; but the object of the prose.
cution, in this case, is not to prevent the salvation of a
colony, but merely to punish its saviour. The main body
of the Jamaica Committee are advocates for the abolition
of capital punishment. Actual murderers are to be per
mittcd to live on, but no quarter is to be given to thosA
whom they conceive to have committed an error of judo.
ment. It becomes a question, however, whether Govern•
went should not assist a man, thus persistently attacked,
to defend himself. When Mr. Eyre quelled the Jamaica
rebellion he was a Government official, and acted as the
deputy of the sovereign. When, after the bloody massacre
at Morant Bay, lie succeeded in nipping the rebellion in the
bud, he received the thanks of the Colonial Office for
his unwearied energy and courageous conduct. Soon,
however, a clique sncceeded in asserting its power, and
obtaining the commission of inquiry which, after a' long
and patient investigation, reported to the English Parlia-
ment. The report was not, as many suppose, adverse to
Governor Eyre, but bore testimony to the fact that he had
saved the island, and to the widespread nature of the
disaffection that had prevailed. It reported, however,
that the punishments inflicted had been excessive, and
therefore Governor Eyre was recalled from his office, and
deprived of the fruits of the exertion of a lifetime. Most
people will think that this punishment was sufficient, if
not excessive. Many will hold that no punishment at all
was deserved, but we are certain that few indeed will
endorse the persecuting policy adopted by Messrs. Mill
and Taylor. It is impossible that any useful legal pre-
cedents can be drawn from these prosecutions; it is, we
think, equally impossible that a conviction can be obtained;
but perhaps the slender fortune of Mr. Eyre may be
reduced to a minimum by law expenses • and this is, we
ima,gine, the real object of the continued persecution to
which he is subjected. One point, the appearance of Sir
Robert Collier as prosecuting counsel, calls for strong
comment. It is, no doubt, usual for a barrister to accept
a brief on• either side, whatever may behis Opinion of the
case ; but there is, happily, no precedent for an ex-law
officer of the Crown taking, as a private barrister,
position in a criminal case diametrically opposed to that
which he hail advised when in office. If the Liberal
Solicitor-General imagined, when in office,have Eyre
was a criminal and a felon, it was
his duty to pro.
nosed his prosecution by the Crown.
The John Ball while denouncing. the disloyal expres-
sions which have 'been drawn forth by the withdrawal of
the Queen to Scotland, regrets that she has been obliged
by the state of her health to take the course she hea,
called
her absence, however, the Prince of Wales should b
-- to take her place. lint there can he no doubt that
e of Wule,, in his laudable desire to fulfil the
ad difficult ditti.s of an Heir Apparent—never
•1 difficult 11.3 at the present moment—has not
...iowatice from the nation for the carrying
unties which the nation expects him to undertake.
The C.; overninctit deAre to do this simple act of justice to his
IZoyal Hig!iness ' • but with a characteristic Consideration for
their position intheniidst of unscrupulous foes, the Prince
has desired them not to propose it. But the time has
come when ft spontaneous offer should be made by "the
nation to add to the income of the Prince of Wales, on
whom so many duties devolve, and who has in a difficult
and trying position so ably discharged them. Our con-
temporary tiusts that steps may lie taken, not only to
provide his Royal Highness with a shooting-box in
I,!-eland—one of the best remedial measures for Irish
oiscontent—but to increase an allowance which shall
enable him to continue on a suitable scale those hospitali-
tiss and charities which have so endeared the occupiers
of Marlborouah House to the people of the United
Eiradoxn.

ail
Prin

10113 1.111

THE CASE OF EX-GOVERNOR EYRE.

Sir Roderick Murchison sends the following to the
Times :

" Sir,—As in their unceasing prosecutions of Er
Governor Eyre the Jamaica Committee have so far suc•
ceeded as to send my distinguished friend to stand a new
trial at the Court of Queen's Bench, the means already
subscribed to defend his cause will soon, I fear, b.
exhausted.

" Under these circumstances I was delighted to receive
;his morning the following letter from Lord Overstone.
" This spontaneous expression of the feelings of a noble.
man so calm-minded and so just will, I trust, operate
powerfully in eliciting fresh contributions, and thus enable
&be Eyre Defence Fund to cope with such persevering
assailants.—l am, sir, your obedient servant,
" IG, Belgrave-square." " RODERICK MURCHISON.

" Carlton-gardens, May 21, 1868.

" My dear Sir Roderick,— I have hitherto abstained from
taking any part, and indeed from expressing any opinion
with regard to the legal proceedings which for so long
a time have been directed against Governor Eyre. But
these proceedings have now reached a point at which, it
%ppears to me, he is entitled to look for the sympathy and
support of the public. That appeal he has made in a few
stirring words which he addressed to the magistrate before
whom he was arraigned, and which appear to have ex-
cited a spontaneous outburst of approval from the by-
standers even in a court of justice. I shall be mistaken if
they do not elicit a warm response from many a British
heart.

" Englishmen have always been ready and just in their
recognition of services rendered in the faithful discharge
A great duties, and at the same time considerate and
generous when called upon to discharge the painful duty
A criticising errors of judgment which may have occurred
,n circumstances of perilous emergency, full of difficulty
and of danger. These virtues, I trust, are not yet oblite-
rated from our national character.

" Funds, I understand, are really required for the effec-
tual defence of Governor Eyre, and that pecuniary ruin is
one of the cruel and unjust consequences which may arise
from the present proceedings. This can never be
permitted.

" I enclose my draught for £2OO in discharge of my
share of a public duty, which I doubt not will be widely
recognised, and if recognised, will be cheerfully fulfilled.—

Yours very faithfully,

" OVERSTOITE.

" Sir Roderick Murchison."

LAW AND FOLICE.

IMPORTANT DECISION WITH REGARD TO THE RIGHTS
OF MARRIED WOMEN.—The case of Fleet (administrator)
v. Perrens was decided in the court of Queen's Bench,
and the judgment of Mr. Justice Blackburn shews what
some of the rights of married women are. The case raised
a question as to the capacity of a married woman to
acquire and retain pecuniary interests when the husband
does not intervene. The plaintiff sued to recover a sum
received by defendant for his son's wife. He first sued
as administrator of his son, the husband, who had sur-
vived his wife, and had afterwards died. He, however,
being advised that he was wrong in claiming it in right
)f the husband, discontinued that action, and now
sued as administrator of the wife, and the question was
whether he was entitled to recover in her right. At the trial
oefore Mr. Justice Lush, letters to from defendant were
put in which were such as, if addressed to a femme sol e, would
beyond all doubt have shewn that the defendant promised
her to hold some money for her which he had received
from a third party. There was no evidence that the
husband had in any way interferred either to allow his wife
to have the control of the money, or to prevent her from
dealing with it, nor, indeed, whether he knew of its
existence or not. It was objected that the cause of action
did not accrue to the wife, and that therefore the plaintiff
as her representative was not entitled to recover, hut
could only sue as representative of the husband. Mr.
Justice Blackburn, in giving judgment, said there was no
doubt that all personal property of a corporal nature, such
as goods or cash, belonging to the wife before marriage
vests in the husband by the marriage, and that all such
property given to or acquired by the wife after marriage
also vests in the husband. But rights of action belonging
to the wife before marriage do not vest in the husband
unless he does some act to reduce them into possession
during the marriage. And even during marriage the hus-
band may permit the wife to make a contract in an action
in which he may join with her during her life, though he
may disaffirm the interest, and sue on the contract as
made with himself alone. If he permits the wife to make
Such a contract and does not reduce it into possession
luring the coverture, it survives to the wife. Judgment
was given for the plaintiff.

ACTION AGAINST SIR M. PETO.—In the same court
an action was brought against Sir Morton Peto by a Mr.
Vigers, a contractor, who had agreed to carry away
the materials extracted from the excavations for
the Metropolitan Railway, for which he was to be paid
Is. 4d. per cubic yard. The point was as to the meaning
of the words " per cubic " yard—whether that meant the
yard in situ (i.e., as the soil lay in the earth) or the yard
as it was measured after excavation when the materials
were loose. The difference would be enormous ; a matter
of some thousands of pounds. The Lord Chief Justice, in
giving judgment in favour of the defendant, said, taking
the words as they stood, it might be that the plaintiff's view
*ould be right ; but, taking them in the sense in which
they were understood in the business, according to the
finding of the jury (upon evidence the court deemed ad-
missible), the defendant's view was 'the right one—that
"per cubic yard" meant the earth as it stood before exca-
vation.

SERIOUS CASE.—The Mayor of Henley held an inquiry
as to the cause of death of Emily Stevens, a young lady
who died within his jurisdiction on Sunday. Several
witnesses were examined, and the evidence shewed that
the deceased had lived as wife with Mr. David H. Barling,
a gentleman residing in London and a member of the
United Service Club. They had travelled together some
time, but latterly resided at Henley, and last week, the
deceased being very indisposed, Mr. Brooks, a surgeon,
attended, but before leaving told Mr. Barling that there
was something that he could not make out, and
the latter informed him that abortion had been
procured. The lady died, and a post-mortem exami-
nation was held ; but it being thought necessary that
Professor Taylor should view the body, the inquest was
adjourned for that purpose. Mr. Barling was ordered by
the coroner to find £5OO bail, and enter into his own recog-
nisance in the like sum to appear at the adjourned
inquiry.
EXTENSIVE ROBBERIES FROM AN EMPLOYER.—At the
Middlesex Sessions, William Rose was charged with steal-
ing nearly two hundred pairs of boots, the property of Mr.
Henry Kelsey, his master, and John Purvis and Joseph
Stoddon were charged with receiving the same knowing
them to have been stolen. The evidence clearly shewed
that Mr. Kelsey bad been the victim of an extensive
system of robbery. Rose, who had been in his employ
some time, was left to take care of the shop during the
breakfast hour, and he managed that the other prisoners
should be at a coffee-shop, and when he sent for his breakfast
one of them should slip round and receive a bag from
Rose. Rose was sentenced to eighteen months' hard
labour, Purvis to two years' imprisonment, and Stoddon,
who bad previously been convicted of fraud, to seven
years' penal servitude.
WHAT IS A TRESPASS ?—At Wandsworth Police-court,
Mr. J. C. Richardson was summoned for trespassing on
the West London Extension in Battersea-fields, and
refusing to quit the line. It seemed that one of the com-
pany's platelayers cautioned the defendant not to cross
the line, and the latter replied he should do so when he
liked. The witness, in answer to the magistrate, said
that the defendant was in the public road when
he spoke to him. Mr. Dayman said that being
the case the summons could not be sustained,
as there was no refusal to quit the line. The magistrate
was then referred to a case in which a milkman had been
fined in that court for trespassing upon the line at the same
place. Mr. Dayman said in that case a watch was kept for the
milkman,whowas known to cross the line at a particular hour.
In this case the defendant had passed over the line before
he was cautioned. He thought that if the company's ser-
vants caught persons on the line who refused to return by
the way they had come they would be justified in laying
hold of them, for trespassers had no right to choose their
way of leaving. The summons was dismissed.

The Earl and Countess of Kinnoull are placed in
mourning through the death of their second daughter,
Lady Evangeline Hay.

No regret to hear of the deaths of two of the
medical officers of the British service in Abyssinia—
namely, Staff-Assistant-Surgeon John Collins, M.D., and
John E. Stewart, M.D. The former joined the expedi-
tion from this country, and the latter from Bombay.—
Medical Times and (lazdte.

SCENE IN NORDEN Cliunen.:--At the Rochdale
Police.court, the Rev. Mr. Whitehead, the recently-
appointed vicar of Norden, has applied for a summons
against Mr. James Rawstron, the parishioners' church-
warden, for disturbing- him while performing divine ser-
vice. Mr. Rawstron was lately elected with a view to
checking the High Church practices at Norden, and on
Sunday morning as the complainant stood in the chancel,
he walked up to him and, as it is alleged, snatched the
flowers from a vase which he (Mr. Whitehead) was hold-
ing. The application was granted.