New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-07-22
BRITISH AFFAIRS.
THE STOCK JoBBING SCANDAL.

ALERT CIAST CONDCCuSG HIS Own CAsE-NE
DISRAEII oCAERELING WITH TIE PEEss-A
MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT ACCUsED OF SOLICIT
ING VOTES FOR a PRIVATE B!LL-EEFoRM
NEErCr.
lFRON Az OCCASIONAL CORRESPONDENT or TIE TEiBUNEl
LoEDOS, July S.-The case which it Is gem
orally understood ia to complete hr. Albert Grants
financial advanced another sta ge. Indeed rs
Sir Henry James the LEAKING counsel against Grant very
pOintedy remarked 1t Is proceeding "a slowly rs the
defendants could wish The jrynaE who fel Ill At the
outset far recovered to be able 10 resume Ina
attendance yesterday. when the case still not uenG
completed, il adour1ed several days because
the Judge has other duties 10 perform. have however,
but lttc doubt thai the cable viii have brought you
Of the result before this letter is IN type AMI VIII
be bold enough venture upon prophecy and SAY that
the verdict OF the jury viii bs for the pianth for the
amount claimed. The progress OF the case has been
eagerly enough watched from the outset but few were
prepared for the startling phase into wnch IL mas no"
red The task which two Of the most eminent counsel
the English bar shrank from has now been undertaken
by Mr. Grant himself; and after being abandoned by hS
legal representatives he has essayed to address he jury
in ms own behalf Probably he is making bet
ter defeuse than with all the adroltness ana
experience OF FIR. Hawkins could have been
made for him. It is rot hard to See
however that this speech is directed beyond the jury
box but am afraid, in both cases. 1r Grant II address
three hours and when the court adjourned ne had not
concluded hs address There is much in the address
that ia of interest Grants comments % the side issues
and references different people but within the short
space letter these cannot be given. The burden OF
the sreech however was that Albert Grant was rs
honest man any he found In the wide world that
he would not yield the point OF honor to Sir Henry
James or the judge G.ord Coleridge) himself de
acknowledges that he instructed hs counsel 10 withda"
the defense and odmt the claim, and that he did SO IN
order avoid the being gone into; but he ud not
think wien gave those instructions absent persons
would be mali ned and the Portuguese ambassador Sian
GereG The whole affair, he said, was speculation, by
which Mr. Tvycross had lost and he could no; now come
against those who had been paid for the work they dd
IN connection with the matter 70 recoup him the losses
be had made He rcpudated the notion that no one was
to be paid for their work but barristers. In dealing
with the technical part OF his defense me said lie should
contend that he had been promoter OF tile Com
pauy at all and even II he had, the agreements, which
the suLecmatcr OF this action were not such as
the English law compelled promoters 20 give notice Of in
the prospectus Of o company On this latter point,
however quickly stopped by the judge. and told
that lis Interpretation OF the law not correct But
hs great point the prejudice existing against him
Every one must said. have heard OF Albert Grant,
and mad likely, heard MIN spoken Of as the great
es. sinner OK sinners in the City OF London lie even
charged the judge with prejudice against hiE but he did
not venture an explanation OF the circumstances which
gwen name rutu an VI attthfs
10 explain away tue facts which have caused him 10 rise
into such great prominence Mr. Grant Is bold in still
regarding the tr.u-ic ions which have been shown UP
in this case n legitimate but happily it is not likely that
the jury the public will take the same view nor l. 1t
probable that either viii pt Mr. Grant AT lis own
valuation.
Tn. unnecessarily offensive and sHeerng tones in which
MI D,racl spoke OF the journalists on Monday natug-
ally eyUked The displ.aslTe Of The IWcs, more esrci-
ally a. II the Tunes dispatches which arose IN the
debate Ind wE.cL deliberately questioned By nm
The Tines however took it, revenge the next morning
by publishing IN ful the notorious Berlin memorandum,
the authenticity Of which it challenged Mr.. Disrae to
Iu~ Hr Di-rael hrsi withhods the official documents
from Parliament aud the country and then blames the
country for forming IL, opinion upon the only other evil
dcnce in ia possession tie press dispatches And yet
the pres dispatches have up 20 the present been exactly
IN accordance with officially announced facts The Ber-
la memorandum turns out TO be exactly what The cor
respoudcns lad .ad it was and indeed the whole thing
looks very much as il it had been type IN Printing
Hou-c-,quare for some days-perhaps weeks. Mr. Dis
raci has done many ud,scrcet things Of late and rot the
least Of them TO withhold Dispatches and then sueer at
the new, papers !lr being ahead Of the Government.
We Used to be told that lobbying was IN accomplish
ment OILY known in Washington that at all events the
British Parliament was composed OF men Of toe much
honor TO bear even the suggestion Of such thing
practice which bears remarkably close resemblance 10
that which in Washington is called lobbying has. now
ever twice been discussed alluded to IA the House OF
Common, this week 1t however, quite incden-
tally One Of the prominent rules OF Parliamentary pro
ceaure is that there shall De- canyassing Of votes los
private bills ana 10 q certain extent and IN certain
sense this rule IL generally complied with Last week
however that eccentric politician Sir Robert Peel.
thought til 10 charge Sir Edward Watkin with having
ISSUED a circular soliciting votes for certain private bill
in which he was interested. SIR Edward Watkin Is a
member OF the House, and interested in about as many
private bills prObaby any member on either side He
il, Chairman OF three great railway companies ana
don't know how many other COMPANIES, railway and
otherwise % inferior sort, which Of course brings HIN
into close connection with the financial interests Sir
Edward Watku denied having issued any circular at all
and lac privately called upon sir Robert Peel % retract
the statement which he moi only declined to do, but he
went ga far a. 10 rcaiHrm IT, Edward HlE!n there
oou brought the matter before the HoIs, but the frac
tous Barouet would not Withdraw his statement, and he
cudeavord the absence OF proof Ia shield himself be
hind instructions This personal incident Is OF itself OF
ttl value except IN 50 far ~ has been tHe indirect
means Of drawing public attention 20 the whole ques-
ton Taking advantage Of this, sir Edward Watkn
sbrewiy revived the interest by question TO the Pre-
micr at ni,ht lie asked whether having regard 20 the
fact tha twice IN the present session private bills have
been rejected by reason Of canvass, hr D-raei would
afford an opportunity for the discussion % the present
standing orders the question. Mr. Dsraeli IN an
answer which at once approves and dsapprOyes priya-
capys-iucaruroycs il ~ mild form but d-apprJvcs
Il in anyt hing ike q systematic way-sad be could NOS
at the present time afford the required facility Dir
Edward Wat n, however has got al he wants lie mas
drawn public attention to the matter, and the further
the sy-t,m OF private bill legislation is looked into the
clearer will the public De- impressed By IL unairnes-
ana t, coils, Private bills now too often private
bills in more sersca M one would think for
moment Of iupatin- corruption % any member o. Par
lament but thc., are other influences Gurc as potent
which fr.ueu,iy determine the fate OF bills known '@