The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1825-11-23 00:00:00

RI)YAL 57A.V.V.4 ASRI AND lON A BRITISH MINING SOCIT. A w ry numerous mowing of the Subscribers to the above Corn. was bald yesterday at the City of Loudon Tavern, Ilishops gstoereet. was convened for the ptirpose of ". Inquiring into the amrstien of the Company and the state of its and of tKso p ing oproures to enforce either the rwrformanee, 011 the part tit wornow, of the Prospectus bunted by them to the public, or. ( watt, to compel restitution of the deposit money obtained 1 0 t a t thereof." NStr . M t t , e • s F •..q• • wits called called to the ("hair. g e posit/sow—Refine. Sir, I wry any things," to the objects ,_ idoc a we ere sore immediately ariembled, I wish to repel an "s w ade ow the in the public prints, and beg to call on M r . eZ ita4 imur ,tune Mice this falseho od has proceeded, to cane fira wd lad justify it. It is to the effect that I offered to forego all ro o m ageinst the Coronary. provided the Directors would wriest one hundred of try shares, at ei. each ; and that, in the a /doodah* ao, I would pay the call for the additionsl de cot on the any hund h a v e, by me. Sir. I never made or ', l imited any such offer. I in the ',Odic prints, d e cl are d owe statements to be . grossly raise:" and I now repeat that they i v (Ilse from first to last. (Hear. hear.) Mr. Bg r AAA Caolicitor to the Company) said, he did not attend ibis meeting proftssionelly, bat to answer any observations that might fill from Mr. Robertson, relative to the ointment of which be had just complained. The whole matter originated in a tom ,,,estion made to Min. but whether or not the individual who rule the communication had the authority of Mr. Robertson for so dstrg he was unable to say. Mr. ROBEItTSO laid he held in his hand a letter which would ,errne all douhe on that bead. The letter was addressed to Shaer& Denham and Soo, and was as follows: GENTLEatin—I hive rend in the RrifferPress of Saturday. deep 'tree, ail Advertisement from the Directors of the Royal s n ooty Mining Company, inserting a copy of a letter written by rat to tbe Directors. This, you must allow me to say, was highly I m p r eoer, since the offer I made came, not from Mr. Robertson, bet from me, as a menial Mend of all parties, be irierely se w:Amine therein, and I made the communiation to you privately sal residentially. .5 At Igm aiw3ys averse to disputes and litigation, I adopted 6,, li ne or proceedirig, though, as a shareholder merely, I had no bodiesto doe; butt I am sorry to find my pacific designs ren. deed/Waive by the Advertisement I refer to, and which I really drib the Directors ought to' state was inserted by mistake and kip spaapyrebenaion. " 1 remain, Gentlemen, your moat obedient servant, (Signed} •"Joits %Vitae, jun. ate Dmarlatrert, Nov. 32, 1525." - - - I hese (stir! Mr. it.) that therneeting are now tettisfied that I ne. I ~r ode or rathoristd such an offer. (Cries of " yea, yes.") The tau vas atrophy this : after tie meeting at the Freemasons' Tavern. on the Ilkh test Mr. Wilkes begged to Me me next day ; when we met, M r Wilkes asked me if I had any personal hostility to the Itirectora; I replied in the negative ; then, sant he, " you merely Wilt to get back your money." I answered, " certainly nothing mere" Mr. Staines!! again declared, that from the manner in which t wee; see communicated to him. it was quite impossible he amid gm whetticr it came from Ir. Robertson, or merely from 11r. Wilke. It was due to the firm to which he helmged to declare that the matter did not originate with them. lie begged to ask R h Robertson whether he Aid not at all events acquiesce in what had fallen from el r. Wilke? lit. ROBERTSON-1f you mean to ask me whether I should suit to get back my mor.ey, I have no hesitation in telling you that !should be most happy to recover it. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) yr, K. went on in say that he had shaped the requisition for calling the resent meeting, so as to exclude all those who had sanctioned the moceedings at the Freemasons' Tavern ; he hoped, therefore, tutees, were now pettiest none who had not well weighed the necessity of getting back their deposits. (Hear, hear.) It must appear evident to every person who paid the slightest attention to the subject, that the Directors bad deceived the shareholder*, and asthey had hese friend to deceive them in some matters which had cam to their knowledge, it ails no harsh conclusion in suppose that tray lad been equally deceitful in other matters which hail not yet hem made public. (Ilene, hear.) Ile was prepared to show that tiny intended to keep 4000 for themselves, except 800, which wen !riven to .Mr. Henricks, the projector, and alien they de mented the deposit on his share, he replied, that when they had pled it on their own be should pay on his. Now, as to the Listen hundred shares, which were reserved for the counties et Cornwall and. Bevan, if these were s much sought after by istisiduals is these counties, why not give them ? If any •tich feeling exigent its Cornwall and Devonshire, why did not the Doseces buy up the sham for them when they were at a dietionet in the market ? Mr. H. proceeded to remark at some length on die ltreorc et the late meeting, anti obeevyral, ,that it would have been runcli inert satisfactory to the ShareboMers tmbear of some imme *Rawlins • of I in. the . pilnert, tl.an be amused, as they whit( f Cdps iverghirrg IBA' ounces, which were Hid t • Yielded by one of these mines some years MAN ..i. •ti , .is". 1.:. , li 1, ,, - .111) , XXlisdita • 4hal,when ils bad the honour of addressing cm the llfattillgat the, astute Tavern, he stated not only hist:mi na is' to,what, this, , .rectors had done, but the legality of their withheliNtrg the 4 c harts . That opinion was then controverted bespefilitsier4l edema!) present. The result, however, proved tittle ( b11e.,K.) was right, ash,. had now the opinions of the At. twos and lolisitor kleneml, which, hdlycoinettled in what had pre many fallen frau) hisn,:, and,es the velde of an opinion must de. soden the truth of the facts on which they acre founded, he !mid read the case at length to the meeting, whn would then be Able te ptitge whether the facts were distorted, nr whether they were used es a person *sienna to come at truth would submit them The elfe•Wid before both was precisely the same, and was U bikes:— "t *me in the spring of the present year an A IDOCilitiOD est insted a) have been formed for the purpose of purcheaing and rot Err; comb mines In Cornwall and Devon, to be called the " Stannery sod British 31inIng Associcion," the capita to he fls , oltlt. in I COO shares or earn. "Taw i tytrenr flekLyiected. and consequently had the es. tinned'tfkw of tlaselairta. By the accompanying Prospt a takes also by adverthiements in the Thies and other daily papers, spplhartions 14 !hares were to be made to the Bankers or the :•4oli- Mon of the Associetion. In toff ietpientc of such advertisements, sot lea than 211.00 d shares were applied for. The Directors. how. Chi, either with a view to their own personal advan•oge. or for remote which they do not think proper to make known, kept back 4.04 sham, issuing to the public only 6,000, upon which a deposit hat herr, end of 51. Tier share. By this course of proceeding, only UAW. has been paid instead of 50.0001., the amount of the depo na upon 11,000 shares. the number originally contemplated. "la this situation tine Directors have expended nearly the whole al thekteooL in the purchase of mines, and by other large pay ola's, and notwithstanding the whole of the 500.000/. named ir. Ow ' , mentos has not yet been subscribed for, or any Dead of As. tseatlost . executed or even prepared. the DirtClll,s have made a tanker eall art -.!1. per share, not upon the le,ooo Shares, as oriel scale . annmened by the Prospectus, but upon those roily held by the pubite, and on which the deposit of 5/. per Share has been trade. This eircnnistarcc, with many others, unnecessary to men tion, hare l e d t h e s h are h o ld ers to call for the aetnunts of the Com. Pony, and from winch, when produced by the Directors, it appears that they, in addition to the first purchase of the mines, and other incidental expenses, have paid a sum of 2,a001. to some person as Inc prejeene Cl the Association, and not satisfied with having kept hack 4.00t1 shares, the Directors went into the market and actually mai-Maya 1.000 Mart. , at a small discount, for the cost of which shires di!, take credit as a payment made on sconunt of the Asa% Cation If Do less a sum than 4.7001. The present shareholders, timlliorr, who have paid thoir deposit upon the faith of the Com psoy. homing 10.600sbarei of 30 . each, assisted in the prospectus, via have their risk increased Just double the amount they con templated, and that at the arbitrary tilecretion of a few individuals who litre elected themselves the Directors of this Association, an I . lls never. called a meeting to authorise any one of their acts. 117 - the part of those who have paid the deposit of 51. per Share !par tKtoto of the original Prospectus, it is contended that the Director; hare no power to alter the terms of the said Prospectus, or to make my paynt ...to (except those necessary for the eatablish. memo( the Aanicaanoso. entil the whole amount of the Capital of ;'O.OOlll named in the Prospectus has been sobscribeil few, and the POsita paid upon the WAR* snares—ronst less hod they . autho ffty temke so large a payment as 2.5001. to the Projector of as As. °Pt even now formed ; and 4,7001. for toe purchase yf trlt'ith havine been done previous to the repeal of the • ewvmor.ly eallvd the Bubble Act. was altogether illegal. Under they opir . pis rye ited— depatit of 5L of the out. a further '.OOOl. bas upon the ty 5 *". ••• 'tut* mese sirs-eminences, your opinion is requested - - " I. e. 'Whether due Subscribers. whortave paid time deposit of 5/. ha ft.., their reapseti se shares, in cinfur.nity to the terms of the °fi- n " 41 PnsPecitlk, Can be held liable fur the payment of a turtlitr i ; r iriv i:Dr y i 1 Novi : o : . l :; o . l :; i ..,,t, :. m, p .... . h r edeteri ih het. a 7: : : . :ll o :ll;:r ot i i t:ul l th rei i in. w p;7 ll : i sti d z e wr o on. f re ta s e upe C th a rmi p; i til ol pt !r d ) m . u ooo ake l. e h tnt a ly : ted ri s for the nu•chu"e tut .11 roes , air the 2 n thljl. to die alleged i; e AsosAttro tal , see ha o d rd b in e l n to m re r te ib r ed ms f ot o ll a i n el : t h o r si n ieCTu d i r , e l l i e :ribe i eft fikrt 'l.•ired. 1 1 in " lily. iVbether, as only &OW Shaees have been paid upon, r igile 'rites. ' of likoutt the nuttilwr oft 4 mallY mused its the Pros p ectus, " 1 'Min tit (11,4 Sitlfe% since pur chased by the Directois, thereby so, •c'tztsastng the risk of the prrseni titirril.dders to double w h it wan to. ~,„'",o P ,t i ttel d by the prospectus, such Shareholders ran withdraw mad rliti^st the 17 1 7rect t o hl ( c„° , "`" 1 " ..7 ." ,1 g" . he „ r :w a l ' lnte n nt n e ' ; ' ,l.. " 3, ac ,i. .:- 4:. Pa tillur c liav n e bee:receiver/ l i ci t: rawer hack such dt ' , twit. in hi ms LI money had and received ; and whether the purchaser of an ig 1 '''Ptil tutocrib,r's in erest stands In any different or worse situ- 'int: than the oripiMil tiuisscriber himself. Itther ' " 4thl b e W. And, failing such right of action, can the Subscribers " , ?el the Prnjectois or Itirectros to refund the wioniesso expended, ' '"II '^', rty up the d enns i ta on t h e 4,000 i ssue d Shares , so as :u gu on 11l t he AfteciatlOn on its original basis." i . THE ATTOHNEY-GENEHAIA OPINION. Ht. I t 41,,, n o t appear from the above statement, or the Prosper. • I. ; It 0 tut ' t 414 the Directors possessed any authority to alter either the sir.iiunt of the Capital, the number of wha ur , in fact, to du is InT thine omit thelio ni nemliernfShis ' wer ' e Purchase:l. and th e 4 atntal au wle bscribed. I think the Subscribers are not liable fur Off 1 : k PtYatent of the r het 01 or a per Shan, in the Present alls . 't ef the Asaociatinn. Indeed, it dues not appear that the Iti- r ' 4 'e any authority to make a call fur limber payment ; their - - t '... • -* J, .; h rhiP nen tans n- authority in this respect would depend upon the terms of the Assn. elation. which do not appear to have been settled. 2d. I think, upon the above statement, the Directors had no authority to make any of these payments. 3d. I think any shareholder may withdraw from the Association if he thinks proper; but he cannot maintain an action for money had and received. againat the Directors who received the deposit. I thick this money can only be recovered (if at all) in a Court of Equity. If the pare wishing for the return knew that the Direc tors were laying ottt the subscriptions in the purchase of 'lines, &e. and did not in any way interfere to prevent it, either by remon science or otherwise, they will not, I think, be entitled to insist upon the return. 4th. For any misapplication of the Funds, theme individuals who have authorised such misapplication will he responsible; but they can he called to account only in a Court of Equity. If they have improperly withheld the 4.1100 Shares, they would be liable in respect of any injury the Association may have thereby sustained. I think, if they continue Directors, they may be compelled to carry on the Establishment upon its original footing; but there would be very great difficulties in the way of any proceeding in a Court of Justice. arising out of any Association of this nature. Sergeant's Inn, Nov. 21, 1823. J. S. COPLEY. THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL'S OPINION. lit. i am of opinion that the Subscribers who have paid their Deposit of S per Cent, could not be compelled to pay the addi tional Instalment of 21. per Share. 2d. I see no grounds upon which the Directors enuld assume , a power to divert and apply the money in their hands, paid in by ' the Subscribers, to either of these purposes; and I conceive that neither of these sums could be. allowed as matter of discharge, being payments made without authority. 341. I apprehend that the Subscribers would not be able, by any action, to recover hack their pepsins. But I think that the Sub scribers by a Bill in Chancery, by or in the names of all, might require the Directors to account, and pay back their Deposits, upon the ground that the Association, under all eirenmstiment, must be conaldered as virtually at an end, and incapable of being proceeded with. I further think that the Court of Chancery would not, by any decree, enforce or compel the establishment of the Association. Upon the whole, the relief which the Subscrib er. have, is to meet the case (ise it in aubstanec is) as one in which probably the Project cannot be carried into effect, end con sequently that the Directors must account and pay back the Be. posits. C. WETHERELL. Lincoln's Inn, Nov. 22, ur.s. Mr. CLARK next addressed the meeting. lie disclaimed any personal disrespect towards the Directors, but still he was hound to declare rust the e.rposi made by them at the Freemasons Tavern was most dissatisfactory, and it was his decided opinion, that if the Company went on in such hands, it could never prosper; he was I convinced that the Directors originally intended to reserve to therm s. selves the shares which they purchased, but finding them at a dim count. they sought to get rid of them by throwing them on the shareholderp. 31r. Clark then proceeded at considerable length to comment in strong terms on the conduct of the Directors, and tee several matters set forth in the Report. There were, he said, ROM strange things connected with the management of the Company. It would perhaps surprise the meeting to learn that a gentleman then present held two shares, from No. 72M to 7253, which was an excess of 28 shove the number of shares, on which, according to the Report, deposits had been paid. Ile was anxious that a com mittee be appointed to probe the entire natter to the bottom, and if the result of their inquiry was dissatisfactory, he theught the inte. rests of the shareholders would be best consulted by a dissolution of the Company. Mr. RORERTSOX was convinced that there lurked a hope in the minds of the Directors, that the shares would have borne a pre. mitun, and that that was their real motive for purchasing them. Indeed their conduct, in now offering them to the shareholders, was not singular • it was not the first or second instance in which Di rectors had been equally philanthropic, in giving to the subscribers when they were at four and a half per cent. discount, shares which they had originally intended for themselves. The present had there. fore but adopted a course of proceeding which had hitherto been often pursued, to the serious injury of such unfortunate wights as he and many then present were. - (Applause and laughter.) The Di. rectors boasted, at the Freemasons Tavern, that they held seven hundred shares, which seven hundred, be it remembered, were worth but the sum of 3.10 i. All present ought to hear in mind that this Company never exiated. Ifany doubt remained as to that point, the opinions which his friend Alr.Knight had just read must remove it. (Hear, hear.) For his own part, he had nn objection to their making Mr. II enrieks a present of 500shnrea, provided they did it out of their own pockets, and not at the expense of the shareholders. The prospectuses were altered nearly as often as it appeared the names of the Directors were. Indeed, Ms. Palters told him that neither he nor his friend Mr. Walters had atithorined the publication of a prospectus, which was supposed to be sanctioned by them. Mr. Bohemian then proposed the Resulu. tions lfor which see advertisement). A blEarnen asked Dlr. Beetham if he knew who the present Directors were? Mr. BEETHAM-1 don't know ; I ern not hem officially. Mr. CLAIIX-1 can supply you with the information. I hold in my hand a list of the Directors, as furnished at their own office. I sent there for a That, without stating toy reasons for applying. The names are via follow : Chairmen. Sir Francis Deranges—Deputy Chairman, Richard Neale, Esq.—Directors Sir F. Agee, Alven, E. Fernie , H. Garrett, S. Goddard. R . Greets, J. S. Leigh, Wm. lmeson, John Polngdestre, end K. O Weatherly, Emma A cometaatiost then ensued, in which several Gentlemen took pert ; it wan finally agreed that a deposit of half-a-crown on each slime should be paid to the Committee, to defray the expenses attendant on enforcing the Directors to refund the money which they had received. The subs:ription was accordingly entered Into ; the holders of nearly 2,1110 abases putting Cann their names before the meeting separated. A Meier t.r. maw now complained of a misrepresentation on the out of the Directors, in stating that the Report presented at Fm masons' Tavern had been unanimously approved of, when in faet., even to the question of the reception and printing of the Report, when pat from the chair, there were over 30 dissentients. Several Gentlemen corroborated this statement, and observed, that on the occasion alluded to the question "that the Report be approved" was not submitted to the meeting. A vote of thanks was dun voted to the Chairman, and the meet ing separated. Me I.•N C HOLY CATAPTROPIIE.—A melancholy anti dis tressing occurrence took place on board one of the packet ships, on her recent voyage from Liverpool to New York. Whilst on her way thither, she met with another packet vessel coming from New York to Liverpool. The inquiries usually made on such occasions were interchanged ; and, amongst other intelligence, the failure of a mercantile house of some eminence In America was mentioned. The communication was observed to produce a sensible and in stantaneous effect on a gentleman who was going out to New York as a passenger, and it afterwards appeared that he was one of the partners of the house in question. So afflicting a circumstance could not fail to excite a deep feeling of commiseration in the breasts of his fellow-pas sengers, who endeavoured, as far as possible, to soften and alleviate the anguish occasioned by a communication so abrupt and distressing. The next morning, when the cabin-party assembled to breakfast, the gentleman did not appear amongst them as usual ; and, on the steward's en tering his state-room to call him, he was not to he found, but a short note was left on the dressing-table, requesting the captain not to persevere in an unavailing search for him. We need not add that the unfortunate gentleman hail, under the influence of paroxysm, consigned himself and his sorrows to a premature grave. ROPIERY AND A RSON.—A most serious affair was brought before the Straaburgh Court of Assize on the 12th of this month. A man named Laurent Herenbcrger, a libonrer, was charged with the double crime of robbery and arson. The following is a summary of the facts, as they were stated in the depositions of a great number of witnesseses. It appeared that, in the night of the 25th January last, a quantity of fustian, in pieces, anti spinning cotton, was stolen from the warehouse of a manufacturer, of Henfeld ; and it was perceived that, after the robbery, and probably to conceal it, three looms in which the goods had been deposited had been set fire to. This attempt at arson seemed the more connected with the robbery, as the remains of burnt straw was scattered under the looms, one truss of straw was still entire, standing beside the looms, and must have been brought there by some stranger. No person connected with the establishment was able to furnish the least clue to the robbers. On the loth February, an individual offered for sale in the market of Obernai a piece of fustian, which he gave out he had wove himself; and when some one, who suspected him, desired him to go before a Commissioner of Police, he fled, abandoning his goods, which, in fact, turned out to be part of that taken from the warehouse at Bcnfehl. This individual was Herenberger ; six witnesses identified him on the trial. There were, besides, pieces of fustian and cotton found at his house. The prisoner denied, low ►ver, having any thing to do: in the present affair, hut admitted that he had been concerned in many other robberies. Several witnesses proved that he bad for several years past supported himself by robbery. It was upon such weighty charges that Hcrenberger was brought before the Court of Assizes. He had M. Marchand for counsel, and his efforts were crowned with probably un hoped for success; for, after a long deliberation, the Jury acquitted him of arson, but not of the robbery. He was condemned to twenty years hard labour, not for the rubbery in the warehouse alone, but for also having stolen, on a pre vious occasion, a quantity of oats and hemp from the post master at Beath], and which llerenherger confessed to. Two other in.lividuals, whom he had charged with being accomplices, were acquitted. TIM.I DRITISH PRESS. NEW CATIIOLIC ASSOCIATION. [From the Dublin Eveninz Pnet of Saturday.] This body met to-day, at the Corn Erchange Rooms, at half after three tieloek. :lir. BUTLER (grandson of the late Earl of Kilkenny) was in the Chair. Mr. (FeturxEttriadikeetigkat the Honourable P. S. Butler (the Chairman's f r ubee) l adritted a Member.—Carried amid cheers. Mr. COvottor was appokr4SeuetAry, and read the minutes of the last day's proceedings. Ile would say a fet: words with regard to one motion which appeared nn the minutes—that which he had moved no this (*week. regarding the taking in by this body of the Eloile, and which was unanimously carried. lie was happy he had done so, although his friend, Mr. O'Connell, who had given notice of the Intone' he referred to, was not in the rooms on the day It was brought forward. Mr. O'Coi;:ecti. regretted his absence, and stated that it wu professional business of moment which prevented his attendance, and not, as they would all believe, any wish to shrink from his public duty. He then alluded at much length to the ignorance of the Londrm Papers with regard to high affairs, in very pointed terms. If they were to be credited, the (ioverninent of this country was most devoted to relieve the wants of the people. They would have their readers believe that Ireland was inhabited by a people who entertained of religion the MU degraded notion, and of each other the test contemptible opinion. (Hear, hear .) It was not the vile Carri er a ton e 'Mkt dies represented the people, but the Tinier, the Mowing Chronicle, and a more obscure and worse conducted Paper than those, the Morning Ilerald, joined in the calumny and nilakpresentation.. It was fortunate, however, for the people of this country that the French Press was open to them, thrisngh meant of which they could proclaim their wrongs to the world. Ile concluded by disclaiming all intention on the part of the Association of seeking er wishing for foreign influence. He dia. I liked everything foreign in Ireland. It was foreign influence which had blasted thin beautiful island, and turned a once powerful nation into a pitiful province. Mr. CONWAY read a letter from the Rev. Mr. Trent, PP. of Templemore, county Tipperary, forwarding 81. to the Association, being the amount of the subscriptions of eight parish priests of the diocese of Cashel. Oil the motion of Mr. O'CoNNEtt. these Rev. Gentlemen Mr. John JAMecon, a rssoectsble Presbyterian; Air. Scott, of Ennis; Messrs. Roger and JoioesLet&la, a Liverpool ; find aevcral other% were admitted Members. Mr. O'CoaN ELI brought ferward Mr motion relative to the conduct of the king of the Nctltinlaada towards hie Catholic sub jects, and after detailing thai conduit at ninth length, concluded by moving the appdinhvienl of a eommittee at amen to take means to disabuse the people of England on the misrepresentations cir- Alated A' them cm—. among on that subject. Mr. PLUNRITT thought that any interference with stead to the King of the Netherland* and hie aiihjects would be twat pre judicial to the Catholics of Ireland, could not come within the de fined objects of this associatidn, and would not be of any service to the Catholics of the Netherlands. fie would, therefor*, call on every honest Irishman to follow his example and protest against such interference. Mr. CONWAY saitl6.lf? beg tightly understood the object of Mr. O'Connell's motion, it was not in order to interfere with the King of the Netherlands he brought it forward, but to advert to that conduct, in order to disabuse the I::ng'jab minttellS the opinions they entertained as to Catholicism generally. , Mr. C'CorrxEtt. assented to the view taken' bfliv. Conway, and declared that to be the only intention he evert entertained m bringing forward the motion. Mr. Sit r. said it was necessary for them to know how a Pro. teem Government, which had obtained control over the ministers of the Catholic Church, was disposed to deal with that Church, as it was a subject which Interested them so nearly. The Learned Gentleman then adverted to the ofiservationa contained in the Courier, regarding Mr. Conway's motion about the Etolle, and after most clearly contradicting the assertions of the former journal regarding the lame, he adverted to the threat, that, if the Catholics were not quiet, the Penal Laws would be again re. enacted, and declared his astonishment and indigation at such an abominable hint. That time wide never, he thanked God, come; and should it he attempted, such an enactment would cost much blood. (Tremendous cheers.) In justification of himself and the Association, he would ray, that no mart could more ardently hope that England might Pow be in peril than he did. They wished not for foreign connexion, they disclaimed lit • but they felt grateful to the Mode for making Europe acquainted with the suf ferings of the Irish Catholics. Mr. CONWAY felt no apprehension that ever the period alluded to by the Courier worth, arrive. fie did not apprehend that such saturnine times would ever again visit this country, and his only reason was, that the debt of Rogland, and the three per cents. for bade it. , Mr. O'Connell'a motion was carried, and • Committee ap pointed,. after which the meeting adjourned. ANCOVERY OF ' _ 'We extract the following interesting fact from a pam phlet just published, containing " Observations connected with the National Enclosure Company :" " In the county of Lincoln, Mr. Young, in his Agricul tural View Of Lincolnshire, informs us that several em bankments anti drainages have token place, particularly] East and Wildmore fens, which, after their recovery, were j estimated se be worth- two millions of money. Deeping fen, a very extensive tract near Spalding, was also recovered, increasing it in value COO per cent. In the long reach which extends from Tattersal to Lincoln, between twenty and thirty square miles of country were reclaimed ; and in the parish of Long Sutton, ten thousand acres have been redeemed from the sea. Indeed so numerous have been the recoveries in this county, that it is calculated that j within forty years no less than one hundred and fifty thou sand acres have been rendered fertile, which previously were sterile and unproductive. " Near Chester, sire River Dee Company has gained several acres from the sea, which have been divided into different beautiful farms, the whole paying a rental of more than %Wu/. per annum. The Society for the Encourage ment of Arts and Sciences has awattled gold medals to several individuals who have recovered ninny thousand acres in different parts of the kingdom. Mr. Maddock has reclaimed a fine property in Wales, oa which the town of Tre-maddock is built ; and although the circumstances of that case are peculiar, it will eventually prove a bene ficial undertaking. The Earl of Morley has reclaimed a considerable quantity of laud near Plymouth; and the Dentitick family, in Norfolk. " These are all, comparatively, modern instances of the practice of the art of embanking and draining : but we have many in which it was clone by the Romans and our ancestors to a great extent. Holland fen, in - .,icolnsliire, estimated to contain one hundred thousand acres, is un doubtedly a recovery in part efFectt d by the Romans. Romney Marsh, in which fifty thousand acres are em banked, is a work which Dugilale attributed to the same people. Hatfield Chase, Yorkshire, containing ninety thousand acres, was drained in the reign of Charles I. ; and the far-famed great Bedford Level, extending no less than sixty-eight miles, and into six counties, was effec tually recovered from its inundated state in the year le4e. Many other instances might be produced, were not these sufficient to prove that the process has also been success fully prosecuted in our own country." The following Gentlemen were yesterday called to the degree of barrister-at-law, by the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn :—John Manahip Norman, Esq. ; George Nutcombe Oxnam, Esq. ; William Francis Lube, Esq. ; Richard Cheslyn, jun., Esq. ; and John Hodgkin, jun., Esq. THE FUSTIAN MANUFACTURERS AND THEIR WORIL• !SEN.—We are sorry to state that no accommodation has yet been effected between these parties, nor is there any immediate prospect of a termination of the differences sub sisting between thcm. A meeting of manufacturers and merchants was held on Wednesday last at the Bridge water Arms; when one of the resolutions previously adopted—by which work done for members of the society in their own establishments was excepted fromthe stated prices and regulations—was rescinded; and it was resolved that such work should, in all respects, be subject to the same rules as other work. A resolution was also tressed for explain ing some points in the list which appeared to have been mis understood. The prices for cutting velveteeris were declared to be pieces not exceeding 6 ounces to the yard 10. per yard ; above six ounces and net exceeding seven, Yd. per yard ; above seven and not exceeding eight, 20. ; above eight, and not exceeding nine, ; for eight•shaft cords, not exceeding six ou n ces, of a penny ; above six and not exceeding seven Dynes. LI. ; above eight ounces 10. It was also further resolved, that, as the cutter, refused taking out work at the list prices, the se cretary should give notice to the members In discontinue putting out work from the following day. the 17th instant. In the mean time, the cutters still refuse to accept the list-prices. We understand a meeting was held on Wed nesday evening, when the anhject was again considered. with the explanations contained in' the resolution adopted at the meeting of employers ; bttt the list was again una nimously rejected ; so that the business of fustain cutting is at present almost completely at a stand.—.lfunefterter. Guardian. LAW NOTICES. COURT OF CHANCERY. Brroßt THE LORD CHANCELLOR TRU DAY. RANKREPT PET/TIOXS PART HEARD. Expert° Leyland, Parker, Ramsbonom. Lunrie °etition, per order-1n re Ware. Two Appeals part beard—Deraymes v. Noble, 5 catnii. APPEALS. Wackeroath r. Crossthwaitev.Powell I Eade y. Eade I Atkins Y. Oiler. BEFORE THE VICE-CHANCELLOR firm nay, Hnrn T. Horn, exceptions one I Malcolm v. Myers, eX:eptions further directions Lowe v. Lord Huntingtower, Yates v. Bainatd, plea per order further directions and costs Stevens v. Guppy, exceptions Blew v. IVinehester, exceptions and further directions and cosh Cope v. Parry, further directions Duke of Norfolk v. Walkers, and costs exceptions and costs Crump v. Snorkel ditto Attorney-General v. Tyler, fur. Farmer v. Francis, ditto then directions rutti costa Baddeley v. Harding, exceptions Clarke v. Faux, ditto and further directions ROLLS COURT. The Master of the Rolls will hear causes, furtliei directioni, and petitions, by consent, on Saturday next, the 26th inst. at nine in the morning. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. Iffmnr.rsrx.—Notice —None but undefended causes will be tried in 3liddlescx on Friday the 25th instant. Notice must be given at the office of such causes as are undefended, or the Records will not be sent to ‘Vestminster for trial. Lowposr.—Notice.—None but undefended causes will be tried in London on Saturday, the 26th inst. Notice must be given at the office of such causes as ate undefended, or the records will Dot be sent to Guildhall for trial. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. LONDON CAI:IIESTWIIE TRIEDtt; 761R1) SITTING IN MICHAELMAS TERM, TO-MORROW, AT HALF•PAST NIKE. Wheel( r v. Stephens Collins, Gent. v. Meanies Dickavon and another v. Goon Collins v. Mayday!l and another GUI v. Kersey Fox v. Colville Cave v. Franck. LONDON CAUSE TO RE TRIED AT TIIE SITTIVO AFTER MICHAELMAS TEIIM, ON WRRINESDAY. NOVEMBER St ➢lartin and another v. Pitcairn. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. CAUSES TO BE HEARD THIS DAYS Per order—Wing v. Morrells. Part heard—Petre v. Wells; !Hillery. Jackson. On Sequestration—Hamilton v. Earl of Strathmore. CAUSES. Price v. Spencer York v. Middle- Hugo v. Joh burgh Dena and Chaptarof Atkinson v. Hutton Fielder v. kieynell Evans v. 1191111itne Bamford v. Archer Bn.singns.m t. Bou Gibson v. Butler. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, Tun'At, Nov. 21. IN •Z ELEPHANT AND CASTLE CHARITY. The Loon CHAxcet.Loa thisda;:gi;vejutlgtnertt in this case. The subject of this charity was constituted by a grant from the Dean and Carter of Canterbury, on the 4th of June, 1673. The grant was to the parishioners of Newington, upon trust named. The matter crime before this Court upon a petition under the sanction of the Attorney-General, to have a plan settled for the distribution of the charity fund. There was then a reference to the Master, and he reported what he thought ought to be done. It turned nut upon an application to the Court, that it had not given the Master proper directions to make that report, and, there tore, he was called upon to review it, and afterwards there was an application to the Court to confirm the report, to which there was considerable resistance, Application was subsequently made to the Attorney-General, to obtain his sanction to a supplemental petition. There was a dispute whether that sanction was given or not, but from the papers, and from conversation with the Attorney_ General, his Lordship was of opinion that the came might proceed by petition. A premien arose al to whether the Dean and Chapter were to be considered as visiters. Ilia Lordship was of opinion they were not, and there was an end of the business with respect to them. There was then a point strongly pressed (and which his Lordship thought was the material point is the cause), whether the Court had not jurisdiction, under Sir Samuel Rotnilly's Act, to re. plate the charity, upon a petition; but if it could, that regulation could only be made by the Attorney-General filing an information. The trustees, under the Dean and Chapter had, nr should have the legal estate in the premises upon a trust to distribute as the church wardens and overseers of the poor slulidlrect in the parish, and Iris Lordship thbught it quite obvious that a worse plan of ad ministering a charily estate could not exist, than the plan prescribed by tbe authors of this. charity.. Hie Ipprd6hip thought it most likely that where there was a considerable fund to be distributed, and the distribution was to be made by persona annually elected,le might have the purpose of getting persons voted, not for the par pose of doing their duty, bat far the purpose of having advantage in their office. It was also bad in another point of view, that where they are to be changed so often it was difficult to know in whom the legal estate was, or in whom the beneficial enjoyment of the estate was invested. Ws Lordship was decidedly of °pinks there were now no such overseers in the parish of Newington aa was contenseleted by this trust deed. Upon the whole, he was of opinion, that the Court had jurisdiction, and wouhl, therefore, refer it to the Master to settle a plan for the distribution of this charity estate, reserving further directions till he saw what that plan was. Mr. Haat wished to know whether his Lordship would give any coats to the relater. The LOUD CHASITELLOR said he would rather see the Masteee plan first; anti if the parties were dissatisfied with his opinion, he' had nothing more to say about it, for they knew very well their own course ; but, on the other hand, if they were not dissatisfied, he would beg leave just to ask them again whether this suit was likely to be beneficial to the objects of the charity. Mr. Harr said they were extremely desirous to put an end to the disputes. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Tutsroat, Nov. 72. MU. v. REARDow AND OTHERS. Arguments in this case, which had occupied the Court the greater part of two former days, were this day resumed, and the decision of the Court given. It supeared from the:pleadings, that James Fanning, and his wife Frances, were British subjects, who had emigrated to France previous to the revolution. At the time of the intermarriage of the ratites (1772) Frances was entitled to the domains of La Roche Talbot, which were settled upon herself, with remainder over to the heirs of her body. They had one son and one daughter, issue of the marriage. After a lapse of atonic years, the mother died intes tate, and one moiety of her estate devolved upon her son and daughter, James and Hose Fanning. In 1792, the property was seized and confiscated by the Frencn Revolutionary Government, and Mr. Fanning emigrated to this country. James Fanning, the son, died in 1794, without will ; and his stater, Mary Rose Fan. ning, died in the year 1801, also intestate. In 1808, James Fan. ning, the father, died, and by a will, bearing date in the year 1804, bequeathed the estates and property in question tol James Ed Rani Devereox, for his own use—a residue being reserved for charitable purposes. From the period of the sequestration of the domains. down to the year 1814, they remained out of the possession and control of the Fannings, or their legal representatives. In that year a convention was entered into between France and England, for the purpose of liquidating the claims of British subjects for lows sustained by the confiscations of the Revolutionary Govern. ment of that country. Mr. Devereux, in the character of legatee of Fanning, applied to the Commissioners appointed to investigate the nature of the claims preferred under this convention for com pensation. His title to the confiscated estates was not considered good by the Commissioners, on the ground that Fanning, through whom he claimed, was not a British subject at the time of his , emigration., or the confiscation of his property. Mr. Devereux ap- pealed from this decision to the King in Council. The Privy Council thought the Commissioners wrong, and rescinded their award, referring it to them again to investigate and ascertain the amount of Mr. Devereux's claim. The Commissioners, in mot plianee with this order, declared the defendant (Devereux) entitled to compensation ; and he was put in possession of that portion of the domains of La Roche Talbot, which remained unsold by the French Government. A pecuniary compensation for the other parts of the property was assigned Mr. Devereux by the Commistioners• ' These were the circumstances of the else out of which the pre sent proceedings arose. A bill was filed by the plaintiff (Ann Hill) who claimed a right to the property at imam as neat of kin to Mary Hope Fanning, in preference to the legatee. On her part it was urged, that on the sth November itnrt, she was nearest living relative (cousin) and heiress at law to Mary Fanning ; and that by the French law, the sequestrated property was to be restored to the proprietors, or failing them, to their next heirs, and not to the devisee or legatee. On this ground the plaintiff originated the pre sent suit, and claimed a moiety of the property. The defendant's (Devereux) answer set forth that, in the year 1779. or 17811, Mrs. Frances Fanning made' will in favour other husband, who succeeded to the Inheritance in consequence of her dendt ' and the seirsequent decease of their children. The will of 1801, In favour of Devereux, was then set up, as constituting his claim to the estate ; and the award of his Majesty in Council was further pleaded. The defendant. Reanlon, pat in an answer to the effect that Mr. Devereux, being Indebted to him in a sum of money, aesigned his (Devercux'N) claim on the estate to hint, by executing a power of attorney in his flavour. The Solicitor-Genet-el and Mr. Horne, with whom was 51r. Wakefield, appeared for the plaintiff: For the defendants :—Mr Hart and Mr. Simpkinton appeared for Devereux, and Mr. Fon• blanque, with whom was Mr. Roupell, for Reanion. Mr. Garrett appeared for the Commissioners ; and Mr. %%'ray for the Attorney- General, who claimed one moiety of the estates in behalf of his Majesty, on the ground that James Fanning, the elder, died with out heirs. , The VICt-eIIASCELLoR—There appears to be a question of French law mixed up with this case. The Solteseyeadieirrnat. remarked that point was in his ciliate' favour, as hod been already decided by a decree of the French Court of Coloration, and the opit.ion of an eminent French Advocate. The Vrce.CitawCin.r.eib—l cannot tz.ise the opinion of any -- T ^- vp. - 7 . French Advocate. however eminent. and iherw is no iretance this Court deciding a question of foreign law. if the vote turns on that point, it must be referred to the elanweri to inquire respecting it. • : ilr. HART said. he heti a preliminere ohjecthan to make to the jurisdiction of the Court in a matter aiready decided by the Veal in Council. This objection had already heal made before the Limd Chancellor, and his Lordship was disposed to admit its weight sod importance. The object of the convention entered ,std Wien! . France and this country, in 11114, was tt recompenee. and retnetatie in their privileges and possessions Dank subjects. who hid bean dispossessed of their property under the arbitrary &wee Of f 144 • French Revolutionary Government. Commissioners wereappolnt ed to investigate the elaime, and the defendant Mr. Devetene , went before them for the purpose of making out hlin claim to the estate violently seized. He claimed es deriving througp the elder Fanning by bequest, but the Commiesioiners thought hum not en- . titled. An appeal was then made to the Kinnan Council, why ro t ; versed the decree of the i'emninesionets, and the estate was &Medial to the defendant. Under the law of France preilous to 1003, when the children died, the inheritance took an asrecellog (Wee. ion, end became vested in the surviving parent. Mr. Fanning was in /Ma situation, for his last child, Mary Borne Fanning, died in 1401. Subsequent to this period, the Imperi a l Goveremepathuniglit Kr 4o , radically alter the law of France in this respect. By the new ye. gulation, the principal put of the property was still given to the .. ascending line, but a portion was reserved for the collater a l vela. : tires. However, thi s had nothing testy with the estate,in qncstme. The award of tine Privy Council, and afterwards of the Commis sioners, in favour of alr. Devotee:, was not brought about by any misrepresentation of facts on his part, or by a nalstatement of title. Under those circumstances, it could not be established that a Court of Equity possessed soy authority to interfere with the de- eision of a tribunal appointed for the specific purpom of investigate ir.g and determining op the claims submitted to it.. A period of three months had been allowed at the time of the esteblishment.of . the commission, for claimants to come forward and establish their .. titles to compensation. In this interval no claimant to thp property , in question, with the exception of the defendant, made his appear. ante. But the plaintiff 'drained her title now that the thile for . establishing it before the competent tribunal was elapsed. NVoukt . the Court for a tnornent entertain the supposition that the hormone.. , stoners and his Majesty in Council were wrong in their award ? Or was this a Court by which that decision, right or wrong, could be reviewed ? He was free to admit, that if the defendant had oh. tanned a preference by fraud or misrepresentation, it then would be competent to a Court hi Equity to set the metier right ; bus no , such allegation was made by t he plaintiff, and the Court has no right to interfere. The plaintiff merely claimed as a collateral . branch of the family of die Fannlngraggieet the legal devieeerawsel-- not on the ground of miatatement or undue representations one it part. This Court possessed no jurisdiction in the case, and could . not disturb the award obtained in a legal and equitable manner. o , part of the estate sequestered hail been sold--another portion w , not sold, but became mixed tip with the national doiitalris—fbr the. . former the Comedasiteners hod awarded a ,onmentietion ; the hulk . (to the amount of 166.hectolitres of land). v. an restored to the defend. ; ant, under an order of the French Governmen t t e .juder ell those circumstances. be t meted the Court would see tato decline irk., emitting itajurisdietiem in the present case. . . .. Mr. St MPKINSON followed on the mime side; Mr. I , 0116LaX‘in; (for the defendant Bearden) su b m i tte d thiii2• the question now for consideration was. Whether the Court palmed- • any right to review the award of the Commissioners, be thal.wwerd , • right or wrong. . Under the convention two French and we Ehglisb_• Commissioners had been appointed, who held their Idtthlgt et Paint .• for the consideration of the claims gyarle forcompensitteh irnd.reliti: ‘. Sutton of confiscated prolterty,..,,A. yards kites found coneenirat to refer the.claims of British supcts to Commiksioners Cuing*, London. In cases of "Webs, ."t or extile the_ cernmizsioncis Wire ; permitted to pay the money in dispute Veto eflianeety,' in order to obtain the assnstaece of that tribunal in.,the,adjudianion. Bettie war only in cafes of peculiar intricacy that the Asp of Parliament nude this provisicc, which was oastsintlonal, dirt nor citipidrott; i in the Con.miesiemere They werpint directed to pay money inlet ' Court, but merely atithorieed to 4p so it they should so deer fir. . This was intended as a provision s 'lacism of contiadictory vette', and conflicting interests, oo the merits of which the Commissioners might not feel competent to determiee. Bpi it did not apply to the present cnse. Here were no oppoethg candidates for the promote in question. Mr. Ottvereux preferrents claim in the character of i executor to.Faiming, and there could not be said to exist any ap.. . pearance of fraud itt his manner tsf :urging that claim 1 nor Was there the dightefa pretence OF Ife!}fo.tia took es a trustee, sad not in his own behalf.. Yet the 044141 andeafroared to turn round on Ale. Llevereuz and say, ••• True, you have acted correctly t sou have established a claim -which ir not sTfen made one eacertairoxl. the property would have been lost to esery body, but in doing so you only acted as out trustee,. and in thit charade( we will aurapt. to clothe you, notwithstanding it is winder;, common sense you took the property as eseeutor under the will yotte own behalf.- No claim had been brought lowaid stgainas defendant till the., year 1818. and long *Bet the „.04 4, 0,,, ~,fie Mr. pereeettit. petitioned the Commissionell : foe et settee, he was s la actual possession of a part of the estates witch had rot kept old. The French Government had restored then poeticai and 'although at the commencement of. the o.days iettt defendant was dispossessed under the imperial decree ehrgi api eeri tottaidekedre4 to emigrant, yet subsequently be was 011111 1 / 1 00111,441416, MAW Xl' thority. -.....' . 9 , • , l . The VicE-CartarcEct‘tid -7 11V;1 1 ptlittique,.. - ;Op. : latter ob liervatiens don's street the poilnetittirflet; .91.10 aeha ...they are all upon the merits into which the, duet csmiht Jitiftft)rai •Tr • question is, can I reviver the decision Cif ihe. Privy Council and it e Cammjajarleta 0 It Is asserted be yot) who.rraitif.tbrehißrnthOlothe decision of the Privy Council Ti brat. .Chi the Odrecaide, thew-. deny its finality ; that is, they dfcillow lkten netlaili cnltibelsointel , admit it to be final as to somehotti, *Oil if genie etilatippiittal of rho property between this mummy and thp : r oach fibeetriment t but they do not admit it to be dnal,-as..il, soostrAtt a,ptirtictilir lad:- virtual. Mr. Demount I aot ent. m pregame M «sealer whether the Privy Council was ri ght Or thfre-Lbdt stitcher right or wrong. this Court eon review ha thinWp,.04.1(014t.400, 1 44nnt-4 , 1an4 ad: the rest is packthread ! . ., ~...... ' ' ''''" Mr. FONBLANQUE INAgallid+.loLiiiitiiiiir WtgoVilerAilt same line of argument... . - . .- • ilc , • The Vioo-CatedetaLon e estant .1 rona4 , It interrupt. Shile * , fin • you, alr.Fonblanque.atut you are argatiog.keratir e q#iitifleh, led I must remind you that the toed dm Judges belongs to the snub. lie, and cannot be wasted. . Mr. Fox nit axoue—The time of thi Jodges is eertainly ttiw property of the puLlic, and that it 'Mould not he lasted is an im. .portant object ; but there Is a still hietace.olgtice and that is, that juitice should be aeministered tightly 1 I heyileastippyiee temia more important than the time of either Judges or Advocates. The VICE-CHANCELLOR—Vita. 11111 001111111 must not read " (lit Blaa" when the question is one reldtiCe to trench law ! ale. FONBLASTQUE —I triton these obsefierforn'vld 'not apple to me. I am not conscious that they de t anti 'I spould hope they would not apply to any gentleman engaged In Oils Wise.. The Learned Gentleman then .too that from the language of the 10th section of, the Aet - eTarliament regulating the powers and duties of the Coninilsalusitikiii&the enbkellatelegt • peals to the Privy Council, thee ennid be no doubt reasonably en. tertained bet that the decisten of his blearily - ie. 14pnoil, gee traad such cases to be considered as boat, . The word, of the Act were. '• that it may be lawful for his . I .lltOestyln 'Connell tithe:Sr( arid. finally determine such appeals." . 1' be decree ,of eitialsortie an Caviled went to affirm the property as ,10/011.11fIg to * Nit. ' Des c. roux ; the bill of the plaintiff - denied 'her it chit lan fewese not now for the Court to determide whirl wain sight, bet tawny whetter or not it would consider itself authorised to review, and, perhaps reverse such decision of the King in 'lL'outecif. ' . Mr. It °urea', followed en, the metal ',Mit, and grieved toddle: the jurisdiction of the Court, or its outhvrity to : examine theearma already made. This wash' itself an impottsnecase,'endiff made it subject of appeal, all the eases decided by she Commikeinnerajeg liqunlating the claims of British subjectsegasnat }'rants might be brought into Court and reviewed in like Mantic, Mr. GARRETT appeared for the Commisslocers of Charitable Beq nests in Ireland, who were entitled to it reeidos under the sill of Ar. Fanning, for which they had filed a bill In tire other Court ha 1822. Hie application, however, woe merely formed, and thew suit ao amicable one, rai sed pending the decision .on the prestni claims. The Soatet Toe-GENERAL (for the plaintiff) exprewrct his.an. tentien to confine himself as much as possible to the limits marked out in this discussion, namely, tine question as to whether the Court Possessed or could exercise a jurisdiction on the subject or not. He did not mean to deny ale. lievereux hod obtained a legal title, but he could now only maintain it in the capaeity of trustee to tbe.platn. tiff. One moiety was claimed on behalf of the Crpwn, .apcl, the wharves the leaver in dispute between the present Parties. it could net be fairly said that the Court of Choocery its ibti cam could exercise no jeristliction, for the money had been paid kW/ Court, and in that manner it had already exercised a jericlictipit. At one time it alleged that the Commissioners were tine fitrnnt ‘oitt". Fetear, and at another that tine decision Of the Privy Couneel weir final. Ile humbly submitted that the competency and tieuitty ut neither of these tribunal* had been satisfactotily established. A man might have a legal title against all mankind, bat out an equitable claim against a person so situated as the prose!: plaintiff: This was the case now before the C'ourt, and in thin way could a Court of Equity step and had been made by the Commissioners. It would begintine strange indeed if the treaties between Fran c e and land which had been alluded to in the courts of these prate. togs had nullified all equitable rights laid vested principle+ s, lung and universally established as these. Only one claimant Mn appeared before the Commissioners. acid yet it was maintained that their decision was good, against the rights if all other sod future claimants. They, m fact, had no right (according to the intertirt ' tation of the powers confided to them by the Act of Porhstnens) st.• decide between contending parties, but between this cotraty pad France. They were rot to adjudicate to wbern.--hot what.. AM with regard to the appeals permitted to the Privy (:ouncli, they could only 'elate to international subjects, and be ertglnaseil-Ibr die purpose of determining whether or not the Commiesionmeof Li quidation had rielitly interpreted the treaties, and properly ease. cieed the duties confided to them. The pleintiff bad never . beera before the Commissioners, atirl consequently possessed no oppot. tunity of appealing from its cleCigiOn, had that been adverWe-te hog claims. The right of appeal was only provided in eases virtu the Commissioners had net put largelp coostructigo sn the trtetics, : awarded the proper amount to the c'Aiotants. It was never int that there appeal' should be for the puitws , e ant deciding he A and 11, for the Commissioners thenteelVes were reqaireenlowai pear as parties to the appeal. It waster the Court of tiArtegarptic. decide between the contemling penises, AS it had bees for rise pri g ,. Council to decide between the claimants and the 3C.U13 try. Mr. HORNE tallOWet! on the same side, and argued thgithis %air was not in tact an appeal from theCtreennivtlnni and Praertio..MAiL; with the decision of which the plaintiff was perfectly satisligtko .~ ~V to 100 AMr:01110' --Nast I ~e