+ ~ -
Please report pronunciation problems here. Select and sample other voices. Options Pause Play
Report an Error

In January, 1833, Mr. Andrews was
attending at the Register Office, for settling
minutes of the order on appeal, by appointment
of the solicitors of the defendants, when
they caused him to be arrested there, on a
Middlesex writ. This is, in itself, a high
contempt; the person of a solicitor being, while
in an office of the Court on the business of a
suit, held sacred. The attachment was for one
hundred and seven pounds; but, on the 16th
of the same month, whilst the plaintiff was
preparing to apply to the Court for immediate
release, on the above ground, a discharge, in
the usual form, from the Sheriff's Office, was
brought, and plaintiff's liberation (freely,
voluntarily, and unconditionally,) followed.
In March, the plaintiff was again arrested,
for the same costs, on a London writ, which
ran concurrently with the Middlesex one,
returnable at the same time as the writ from
which he had been discharged. The prisoner
petitioned for his discharge continually, until
July, 1834, when he got himself brought up
before Lord Brougham; who part heard him
in person, stopped him to keep an official
appointment, and, soon afterwards, went out of
office. Mr. Andrews renewed this application,
repeatedly, before the succeeding Lord
Chancellor, Lyndhurstthen, before the Lords
Commissionersthen, before Lord Chancellor
Cottenhamnext, before Lord Lyndhurst,
againand, finally, (several times) before
Lord Cottenham. All to no purpose; until,
on the 24th December, 1849, Mr. Andrews
was set at large, with all his rights about
him; these rights being, liberty to carry on
certain appeals to the House of Lords, which
are still pending. He could have been
liberated some time earlier, had he chosen to
forego an appeal upon an injunction to
restrain him from bringing an action against
his opponents for false imprisonment. This
he declined to do; for, by that time, his ruin
had been completed.

The inability of some prisoners to obtain
their liberation by any "acts or concessions
of their own," is well illustrated by another
case we previously stated. Sir Edward
Sugden furnishes some notes made by himself
during a recent visit to the Queen's Prison.
The first case he mentions, is that of the
gentleman committed for the non-transfer of
certain stock, and for not delivering up certain
deeds;—in fact, the unhappy individual who
invested his legacy in Spanish Bonds. "For
this case," Sir Edward remarks, "as matters
at present stand, there appears to be no
remedy." In spite of Sir Edward Sugden's
own statute.

This gentleman then cannot liberate himself
"by any acts or concessions of his own." We
apprehend this to be not a solitary case. We
repeat, therefore, that he is in the catalogue
of the doomed, and is doomed accordingly,
and cannot be restored to society.

Sir Edward Sugden lays great stress on the
expression in our former article, that there is
no Insolvent Debtors' or Bankrupts' Court to
release the martyr of Chancery. There lies
before us a letter to the "Times" newspaper,
signed "George Stephen;" the writer of which
declares that he was for some time appointed
solicitor to pauper Chancery prisoners.
Amongst other things, he tells us that it has
sometimes occurred "that prisoners were
detained in contempt for non-payment of costs,
and, though reported by the master as fit
objects for relief, being paupers not worth five
pounds, they were left to obtain their
discharge by the Insolvent Debtors' Court, as
provided by the act, but were unable to
resort to the Insolvent Court because that
involved payment of fees to the amount of six
pounds." Does Sir Edward Sugden term these
men "self-elected" martyrs?

Great good was, doubtless, effected during
the earlier years of the operation of Sir
Edward Sugden's Act: and to Sir Edward Sugden,
as its author, we render all due commendation;
but, it is rather a curative after mischief
done than a preventive measure. The
power of the Court of Chancery for committing
for contempt will, we trust, be abridged.
There is no reason why the non-payment of a
Chancery lawyer's bill, for instance, should
bring down condign punishment on the head
of the defaulter, any more than any other


IN the year 1834, a widow lady of good
fortune (whom we shall call Mrs. Newton)
resided with her daughter in one of the
suburbs nearest to the Metropolis. They
lived in fashionable style, and kept an ample
establishment of servants.

A very pretty young girl, nineteen years of
age, resided in this family in the capacity of
lady's-maid. She was tolerably educated,
spoke with grammatical correctness, and was
distinguished by a remarkably gentle and
fascinating address.

At that time Miss Newton was engaged to
be married to one Captain Jennings, R.N.;
and Miss Newton (as many young ladies
in the like circumstances have done before,)
employed her leisure in embroidering
cambric, making it up into handkerchiefs, and
sending them and other little presents of
that description, to Captain Jennings.
Unhappily, but very naturally, she made
Charlotte Mortlock, her maid, the bearer of these
tender communications. The captain occupied
lodgings suited to a gentleman of station,
and thither Charlotte Mortlock frequently
repaired at the bidding of her young mistress,
and generally waited (as lovers are generally
impatient) to take back the captain's answers.

A strange sort of regard, or attachment (it is
confidently believed to have been guiltless)
sprung up between the captain and the maid;
and the captain, who would seem to have
deserved Miss Newton's confidence as little