33Irtrupuliu.

A deputation of gentlemen connected with the Conservative party, in- cluding Mr. Disraeli himself, waited upon Lord Palmerston on Tuesday, to beg that he would retain the provision in the Census Bill, calling for a return of religious opinions. Lord Robert Montagu, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Beresford Hope, and others spoke to the Premier. Lord Palmerston, having stated to his audience the substance of what occurred when a deputation of Dissenters had waited upon him, said :—

The return obtained by the last census merely gave a statement of the number of persons who, on a particular day, attended religions worship, and this was of course liable to fluctuations, the relative state of health and sick- ness for example, fine weather or bad—in fact, it indicated nothing but the accidental presence of persons at particular places of worship. If it should .be thought right to add to the enumeration of persons belonging to the different religious denominations a statement of the number of sittings at each place of worship, he was not prepared to say that that might not be a very great addition. It might also show what was the zeal of each denomi- nation in regard to establishing means of worship in proportion to their actual numbers. It certainly might be a question whether penalties should be inflicted upon those who,. from conscientious motives, did not wish to have their religious opinions inquired into but he had always understood that men were proud in acknowledging the sincere convictions by which they were animated. It must be recollected that the last census, by requir- ing a statement of the buildings of the different denominations, did to some extent enter upon an inquiry as to religious opinions, because each building was returned as belonging to one or other of the religious denominations. He saw no reason for departing from the proposed form of enumeration—(cheers) —and it appeared to him that no religious person could have any good reason for taking offence at it. The object was simply to ascertain a fact which would be of great importance as the foundation of legislative action. The only other points which he thought they had to consider were, first, that mentioned by the Home Secretary a few evenings since, namely, whether it might not be expedient to exempt from penalties conscientious persons who had objections to answer in ; and, secondly, whether, in addition to the enumeration of persons belonging to different sects, it might not be useful to know the number of sittings in the different buildings em- ployed for religious worship.

Mr. Beresford Hope, in expressing the gratification the deputation felt in his lordship's answer to their representations, said he hoped that the census would be taken by Government enumerators, and not left to the different denominations. The deputation then retired.

The same evening, a large number of Dissenters, including many Members of Parliament, held a meeting at the Freemasons' Tavern, Mr. Edward Baines in the chair, and passed some emphatic resolutions against the clause, declared to be an unwarrantable interference with personal liberty.

The adjourned meeting of Old Westminsters to consider the propriety of removing the school drew together a large number of prominent public men. The Dean of Westminster presided. Having repeated the as- surance given on the former occasion, that the Dean and Chapter, with- out in the least abdicating their responsibility as guardians of the school, were desirous to express no conclusion of their own on the subject, but solely to elicit a final utterance of opinion on the subject from Old West- minsters, he called upon the Archbishop designate of York to open the discussion. In a speech of great taste and feeling, acknowledging the great benefits which he had derived from Westminster, Dr. Longley strongly advocated the removal of the school as the only means of re- storing it to its pristine vigour. The Archbishop was followed by Sir George Rose, who deprecated the removal as likely to violate the religio loci. A very long and animated discussion followed, in which Dr. Will- son declared that the site of the school was prOminently healthy, and that the neighbourhood in this respect had much improved of late years, The Marquis of Lansdowne, though inclining to removal, thought that further information and inquiry was necessary, in order that no step might be taken in the dark. The Marquis of Westminster was against removal - Lord John Russell was for removal, but thought a committee of Old Westminsters should be appointed to consider and report on the subject. Lords Stradbroke and Llanaver and Lord Charles Russell fol- lowed decidedly for removal, while Sir David Dundas and Sir Walter Stirling were warmly against it. Dr. Cureton, as one of the canons and as rector of St. Margaret's, thought that the school could not be removed without injury to the vested rights of the city, created by the statutes $of the Royal Foundress. Lord Ebury, without venturing to repeat the pro- posal which was so distasteful to the former meeting, produced statistics which, apparently to his satisfaction, proved his point. The result of the whole discussion was that an influential committee of Old Westmin- eters was formed to consider on the best means of improving the school on its present site ; and, if that should be found impracticable, to report on the feasibility of its removal. The meeting which lasted nearly_four hours, was concluded by a hearty vote of thanks to the Dean of West- minster for his ability and courtesy in the chair.

The annual general meeting of the National Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church was held on Thursday, at Westminster; the Archbishop of Canterbury in the chair. There are now 10,539 schools in union with the society, 167 having been united during the last year. The members of the society congratulated each other on the progress made, and Dr. Sumner and Sir J. Ray Shuttleworth pointed out that though much has been done, much remains to be done.

The annual festival of the Royal Caledonian Asylum was held on Saturday. It was attended by many distinguished Scotchmen, Sir Roderick Murchison occupying the chair. No less than 13501., sub- scribed during the evening, attested to the sincerity of the guests. The case of Nottidge versus Prince has occupied much of the time of Vice-Chancellor Stuart, and still waits his decision.

The facts of the ease are not easily compressed. Miss Louisa Jane Not- tidge, a maiden lady, aged forty-four, was induced, some twelve years since, to transfer into the name of Mr. Henry James Prince, a sum of 57281. 7s. 2d. New Three per Cent Annuities. This lady died in 1858, and it is her brother and administrator who now seeks to recover this sum from Mr. Prince, on the ground that it was part of his sister's personal estate, and that it had been transferred by her into Mr. Prince's name by the exercise, on his part, of "undue influence," when she was under his "spiritual as- cendancy, and in a state of religious delusion with respect to him." The lady in the present case, sister of the plaintiff, became in December, 1845, a disciple of Mr. Prince, " who then and now declared himself to be a ser- vant of the Lord." Three of her sisters were already his disciples. Who and what, then, is Mr. Prince ? Mr. Prince was a clergyman of the Church of England, whose extraordinary zeal as a curate in Somersetahire and Suf- folk had got him into trouble with two bishops. This precarious situation, as an erratic curate of excessive zeal, Mr. Prince managed, by some mira- culous process, to convert into the comfortable and awful position of the founder of a new and final " dispensation " "opener" of a new and final " covenant," and proprietor of an establishment described as the Aga- pemone, or Abode of Love, where the " day of grace" is concluded, and the day of judgment "introduced," the "dispensation of the Spirit closed," the last " covenant with flesh" entered into, and the beat of board and lodging provided. To this Abode of Love it seems that Mr. Prince, the sometime curate, had, in the first place, carried his rector, his rector's wife, and in- come. "Brothers" and "Sisters" from time to time joined the "dispensa- tion," and gave up their worldly goods to the Tabernacle, and, among the rest, three of the sisters of Miss Louisa Jane Nottidge. These three ladies were prevailed upon, by successive "revelations," to marry three "brothers," and in each case, the question of a settlement was overruled, in obedience to the declared "purposes of God." Miss Louisa Jane Not- tidge, the fourth sister, at the perilous age of forty-one, went to reside in the neighbourhood of her sisters, and became subject to Mr. Prince's in- fluence, but was taken away by her brother to reside with her mother, and shortly afterwards, upon medical certificates, placed in a lunatic asylum, because she had expressed her belief " that Mr. Prince was God Almighty, and that he had the power of conferring immortality upon her." Two years in an asylum having failed to shake her belief in Mr. Prince, she was re- leased by order of the Commissioners, in consideration of her bodily health beginning to fail. On the day of her release, she met her brother-in-law, also a "disciple," and with him went to London to transfer the Three per Cent Stock, standing in her name, into that of Mr. Prince. On her return to the Agapemone, she procured a power of attorney, and actually completed the transfer a fortnight after her release from the asylum. It is alleged by Mr. Prince, that this transfer of stock was made without any solicitation on his part, and without his knowledge. The Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer delivered judgment on Saturday in the much-vexed case of Swinfen versus Lord Chelmsford. The charge was that Lord Chelmsford, then Sir Frederic Thesiger, acting as counsel for Mrs. Swinfen in a disputed will case, did, without authority from his client compromise the case, and that he "wrongfully and fraudu- lently " withdrew a juror. The latter charge was not sustained, and the Court strongly disapproved of it. At the trial the plaintiff was nonsuited, and this was a motion for a new trial. The Court ordered the rule to be discharged. The interest of the judgment lies in the statement of the lae, of barrister and client, thus stated by the Lord Chief Baron at the conclusion of his examination of the facts. "No action lies for a prosecution, how- ever grounded, which has occasioned costs, unless the prosecution was also malicious; nor will any action lie for extra costs however unfounded a suit may be, and even though it was brought vexatiously. On these grounds, then, no action will lie against counsel for any act honestly done in the conduct or management of the cause including the withdrawing a juror, and that the residue of the complaint is that the defendant did a void act, and exposed the plaintiff to legal proceedings, for which if done bone fide no action lies against any one. The words `wrongful' and fraudulent' in the- declaration ought to have been proved, and therefore the direction was right. We have assumed, for the purpose of giving judgment, that no authority in fact was given to the defendant to make any compromise, and even that contrary instructions may have been given, and that the defendant was aware of this. It is not, however, to be understood that we have formed, or that we express, any opinion either way. If the defendant, under the circumstances we have assumed, be not liable in this-action (as we think he is not), he would a fortiori not be answerable- if' he had authority, or had reasonable ground for believing that he hairnet, and was not acting contrary to express or im- plied instructions. We desire also to express no opinion as to the propriety of an advocate in all eases adopting his own view of a case against the in- structions of his client, because he is not liable to an action for doing so. I entirely concur in the judgment of my learned brothers, and in the rea- sons assigned for that judgment ; but my own opinion goes somewhat be- yond theirs as to the duties and responsibilities of a barrister, and I think it right to express my own opinion, that, provided an advocate acts honestly with a view to the interests of his client, he is not responsible at all in an action. It seems admitted on all hands that he is not responsible for igno- rance of law, or any mistake in fact, or for being less eloquent or less astute than he was expected to be. According to my view of the law, a barrister acting with perfect good faith, and with a single view to the interests of his client, is not responsible for any mistake or indiscretion or error of judg- ment of any sort ; and if he imagines he has authority to make a compro- mise when he really has not, this is a mistake either in law or fact; or if, in spite of instructions to the contrary, he enters into a compromise, believ- ing that it is the best course to take, and that the interests of his client re- quire it, this is but an indiscretion or an error of judgment if done honestly, and it appears to me that neither for the one nor the other can an action be maintained against him."

The Judge of the Arches Court has given judgment against the technical objections taken by the Reverend Mr. Bonwell to the form and substance of the articles exhibited against him, and has decided to proceed without al- lowing Mr. Bonwell liberty to appeal against his decision.

At the Central Criminal Court, on Thursday, Henry Francis Richardson, late secretary to the City of London Rifle Brigade, was found guilty of em- bezzling money, the property of the Colonel of the Brigade. It is estimated that Richardson embezzled 5661., hoping that in the confusion of his ac- counts his offence would not be discovered. Sentence, four years' penal servitude.

Sir Edmund Lacon, Member for Yarmouth, has instituted a prosecution against one Henry Fayerman, agrocer' for perjury. The grocer swears that the Baronet gave him on a particularnight a five-pound note to vote for him. The note bears an endorsement, stating the day on which it was given, the pupose for which it was given, and the name of the giver. Sir Ed- mund Lacon swears that he did not give any note to Fayerman, and brings evidence to show that on the night in question he went straight from a Meeting of his supporters to his carriage, and therefore could not, as stated,

have given Fayerman the note in a bye road. Moreover, it is alleged that the date in the indorsement on the note has been altered from " 1860" to "1859." Fayerman has been remanded by the Westminster Magistrates with the intention of sending him for trial.

A gentleman, adjutant in the Queen's Westminster Volunteer Rifle Corps applied to the Westminster magistrate for his assistance under the following circumstances :—Applicant said that on Monday evening he was passing over Vauxhall Bridge in undress, carrving his rifle, and was about to go by the toll-house, on the Westminster or Middlesex side, without paying, as he was given to understand that riflemen, like soldiers, were not subject to pay the toll. The toll-taker refffsed to allow him to pass, and after remonstrat- ing with him for some time he paid the money, but under protest, and now sought the magistrate's assistance and advice.

Mr. Paynter inquired whether the applicant was walking or riding. Ap- plicant replied he was on foot ; but, as an adjutant, he had he believed, an equal right to pass free on horseback. Mr. Paynter observed that he thought soldiers were not allowed to pass free on some of the bridges. Applicant remarked—Of course, where a soldier was not allowed to pass he did not expect to do so. He had gone over both Waterloo and the New Chelsea Bridges frequently without paying. On the occasion he was now asking advice upon, he said to the toll-taker, " Why do you not allow me to pass: as you do soldier.; ? " To which he replied, "But you are not a soldier, thereby clearly recognizing the right of a soldier to go over free.

Mr. Paynter, on looking at the Act of Parliament, said the words were "for any soldiers upon march, or upon duty," and also " for any volun- teers upon march, or upon duty." Applicant said, in point of fact lie was always on duty, as the colonel gave the officers orders to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with the country in their district. Mr. Paynter said some regulations had lately been made with respect to volunteers, and he had no doubt the applicant was exempt. The summons was then granted against the toll-taker.

Robert Page, an omnibus conductor, has been fined by the Bow Street magistrate for loitering, and ordered to pay the cost incurred by a passenger who got out of the omnibus and completed his journey in a cab. The facts of this novel case were these :—The driver pulled up at Charing Cross, and the passengers were delayed there ten minutes. Complainant requested the conductor to go on, but the latter replied, " If you are in a hurry, sir, I am not," and distinctly refused to proceed ; adding that his time for leaving there was a quarter to twelve. It was then only thirteen minutes to twelve, and complainant told him so, stating that if the driver did not go on directly he would get out, proceed in a cab, and summon him for the coats. The conductor treated this notice with derision, and as he still refused to go on, complainant and his sister got out, took a cab, and drove home, resolved to try the question before a magistrate. The defendant, in answer to the charge, stated that it was usual for the last omnibus to stop ten minutes at Charing Cross, and he had not been there more than five minutes when the complainant interfered and left the vehicle. Mr. Jardine said the defendant must be aware that he had no right to stop any- where, except to take up or set down passengers on the road. The police did their best to prevent loitering, but they could not get rid of the nuisance entirely. If the public would only take up the matter as the present com- plainant had done, it would soon be accomplished, as the magistrate had the power ne tree 20s. in each ease. He should inflict a penalty of 5s. only on this occas'a.u, but the conductor must pay the com-

plainant the coats incurred by him in aing_ come in a cab, and also in attending at the court that day. The costs, which amounte&to 6s. 3d., and the line were immediately paid, the conductse---,--‘-or be would summon the complainant for his fare from Oxford Suit to be esthete; ,Cross, whiee was not paid.

0. e Sidney Marks is in custody on.a charge of stealing a court dress-coat and other valuable articles from the house of Lord Bury. When arrested, Marks was at drill—he had joined the police on Monday

The Lambeth Magistrate has committed Mrs. Ellis Harriet' Mftry Felt- haul for trial, on a charge of stealing articles from the stall of Lady Emily Peel at a fancy fair in the Crystal Palace. The evidence against the ac- cused is not conclusive of her guilt. There is no doubt the policeman took the goods from the woman, but whether she took them or picked them from the floor is not clear.

Lorenzo Noodt, late an officer in the Foreign Legion, has been sentenced by the Bow Street Magistrate, to two months imprisonment, for attempting to obtain money from Lady Waldegrave upon false pretences.

Two workmen have been sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour, by the Clerkenwell Magistrate, for combining to force Mr. Anley, a builder, to discharge men working, under what is called the "declaration." The men were proved to have threatened Mr. Anley, that they would strike unless the declaration-men were instantly removed. This, Mr. Anley declined to do, and, thereupon, the men took awaytheir tools and ceased to work. Mr. Corrie held that this was an offence under the statute. The defendants ap- pealed, and were liberated on bail.