The Sun. — London, England, 1823-11-22 00:00:00

THE LONDON JOURNALS. DA I Ll' Extracts from the Morning Papers, Novemberin. [THE TIMES.] The Dutch Mail of the lGth brings the pro ceedings of the States-General at the Hague, which assembly appears to have for some time employed itself on subjects of extensive and permanent interest to the community. Of the laws immediately under notice, the most import ant is one for exempting from land-tax, during fifteen years, certain buildings erected by the Benevolent Societies of the Hague and Brussels. The establishment to he encouraged by this law is described to be two-fold—lst, for the cultiva ion of an immense tract of waste and barren land; and 9.d, for the useful employment of a large num ber of destitute poor. England, which among our cbntinental neighbours is usually made either a scare-crow, to deter by her bad example or a butt to be treated with ridicule, as it suits them, has been loudly reproached by one of the Dutch orators, for throwing away so many millions a-year upon her poor, instead of setting them to coltivate waste lands ; but the project is young in flatland, and might not be quite practicable here. All the lands which would bear cultivation will nd cultivators without the trouble of an Act of Parliament ; and, for the other plan of employ ing the poor by. Acts of Parliament, all we can ,say is, that it is easier to pass the Act than to render the proposed employment effectual to its purpose. Great numbers of poor may be, and have been, employed on public works in this country ; but, generally speaking, factitious em ployment is far from being certain of success. [MORNING CIIIION CLE,3 A Letter on the affairs of Greece—(see an. other column of THE SUN) —from an Englishman who is an honour to the rank to which be be longs, .is peculiarly deserving of attention, as it cOuttiins the views of a leading and influential Greek on the policy which ought, to he pursued by his countrymen, and throws some light also on an intrigue which is now on foot for making the son of the Ex-King of Sweden Sovereign of Greece. This is better than the Knights of Malta seheme, but we dislike its Russian com plexion, and should trreatly ,prefer seeing t he Greeks form a Confel e ration of Itepttblics, for which the character of the population' best fits them. We do.not like to see the destinies of an interesting people bound up in uprOtege of Russia, and a hear relative of Alexander, who may betray the trust reposed in him, and open a way to the Autocrat when time favonrs the execution of his deSigns. Ilow easy, for instance, would it be for Russia to bribe him with an offer of the throne of SWeden ! The announcement of an.intention to displaCe Bernadotte, in the French Papers a day , or two ago, was, we should suppose, premature, as we do not think it would suit Alexander at the present moment to interfere with Sweden, and besides he commands that kingdom through the fears of the Monarch. But the Swedish Al..stAftty tiro *1 convenWnt for an intriguin ne ighb o ur as the Turkish Janissaries. Russian Gold will be as acceptable at Stockholm as the French used formerly to be. If Alexander should ever wish to have an insurrection in favour of Legitimacy, to give him a pretext for marching 0, Russian army into Sweden, he will always have abtindant materials for it in the numerous and needy aristocracy of that country. [MORNING POST.] Letters were stated to have been received yes terday afternoon from. Paris, of the late date of Thursday morning, announcing that an Extra ordinary Courier had just reached the French Capital from Madrid, which he had left on the 14th instant. it was added that the intelligence brought by that Courier was of the highest im portance : that the King of Spain bad ordered two new Decrees to be drawn up at Aranjuez for his Signature, tlie one revolting the infamous Decree of Port St. Mary's and declaring his in tendon to grant a general aunesty with car• tain exceptions : the other acknowledging the whole of the Debt contracted by the Cortes op to the period of the departure of the Foreign Ministers from Madrid, which took place the end of last February or the beginning of March. By this measure all the Spanish loans would be recognized, with the exception of that contract ed within these six months, which was repeat edly countermanded in its origin by the bear Spanis h A m b a ssador at our Court, and whicthe date of 18g3. After giving these accounts we must fairly say that we have not seen the letters ourselves, and that the only Papers which arrived last night being those of Wed ni,sdfiy, we h ave not been able to ascertain Whether the i n forrnation was c orrect. fina, however, articles from Madrid in these PSpers which add greatly to the probability of its proving nuthentic. The King of Spain, the Journal des fl bai informs us, " was actually It Aranjuez on the 12th instant," and in that Owe and on tha t very day 64 was to issue the important Decrees which Spain expected from him." To this it is added, and by the atioadienne also, " that the Ministry was to be definitively constituted, and that Don Victor Saez would cease to be Minister, in con. sequence of his being the King's Confessor." T he he rem oval of this Monk, which appears o steady certain, is perhaps the strongest confirma tion svhich the intelligence contained in private letters could receive. For tes he was the inspirer Of every thing that was violent a cal situ nd unjust atio , n and on seems to be deprived of his politi th e ground of having used the inAuence which he possessed over the King in the capacity o f his Confessor to dictate to WU improper measures, it is reasonable to expect that a contrary conduct will be adopted by his successors, if it he not even made the condition of their appointment. [NEN Ttmcs.:l We have been applied to for the purpose of rinorrnstencing a_ subscription for the relief of those distressed foreigners who have lately sought a u asylum in this count r y; and we understand some respectable persons are desirous of pro inoting such a scheme. We therefore feel it a duty to our readers to state our sentiments on the subject explicitly. There are two classes of per sons who have arrived here. The first, class consists of helpless females, children, aged ersons, and other well disposed ( thou g h per haps mistaken) individuals. To such we Should wish to see the national bespitality and liberality, ,most widely extended : and if by the labours Of a benevolent and judicious Committee these unfortunate sufferers can be distinguished and separated froth less worthy Objecti, such a Charity would be truly congenial : to the British Character. We think the task of discrimination by no means impracticable : and we wish to be distinctly understood as recommending to the benevolence of our countrymen all those (what ever be their country, their political party, or their religious communion,) whose con duct is free from moral reproach. But there are Foreigners in this country ' of a very different description, whose sole business is to practice crime, or to disseminate evil principles; there are men, who, untaught by the miseries of revolution in their own country, have come hither to stir up disaffection, conspiracy, and rebellion among our own people; there are others who carry into private life the contagion of immorality and impiety These are serpents which will sting the bosom that cherishes them : and yet, under the Cloak of patriOticprofessions and liberal sentiments, many of them may probably lay claim to the most favourable notice and distinction. We must confess We should be apprehensive that such a subscription as is above suggested would, unless managed with equal judgment and impartiality, be con'- Verted into a source of protection for the more profligate class of Foreigners ; or if not so, that it might perhaps become a party engine for the encouragement of revolutionary principles. -=— If these evils can be avoided, and relief can he extended to the blameless, the destitute, and the unfortunate alone, it will afford us real gratifica tion to learn that the undertaking meets with success. - [nairisu mess.] Ferdinand of Spain was expected on the 13 at Madrid, where, it is said, great preparations were made for his arrival. It is a pity the ex pectant Inquisitors cannot, as they did of old for his predecessors, celebrate an Aulo do Fe, in the great square of the capital ! The Eloile has stated, that on the 12th, at Aranjuez, the relent ing tyrant would publish the decrees all Spain so anxiously expected. Reports, it adds, were prevalent at Madrid, that the functions of Saes would cease as Minister ; but that he would still have the power of poisoning his Royal Penitent's mind, as private Confessor. The epuralions in the Spanish capital, the Madrid Gazette declares, were carried into execution with the greatest . lenity. In place (it assures us) of expelling from that city nine hundred individuals weekly, two hundred only were driven from their pursuits l and homes ; but even th is moderate calculation would make 800 per month , o u t of a p o p ulation of 100,000. But the Gazette de Madrid does not limit its example of lenity to this ; the despairing exiles, it appears, are not absolntely forced to ' I proceed on foot to the place of their banishment : such as possess the means, are indulgently permit ted to procure any other conveyance they can pay for! If, as the Cdurier Francais just ly remarks,un numbered horrid facts did not already reveal to Europe the afflicting situation of Spain, would not a full idea of its unparalleled situation be presented by the portrait afforded by this servile gazette of tyranny, thus detailing what it. mock iugly calls the " greatest lenity." The pro scription spread through Madrid was also at full work within the Palace walls ; not a single functionary attached to the tyrant's establishment was suffered to preserve his place ; not even those who, in the most trying period, pursued the path of greatest moderation. The Memorial Bordelais, under the head of its Pri vate Correspondence, gives the following details: —They state that the list of exile within the Palace already comprised 223 individuals ; but new additions were expected. Among these were iUcluded some of the first names in Spain : the Duke of Medina.Celi, the Marquis of Ga mma de in Regalia, De. Cevalles, De Palo mores, Albayda, Obiejo , and others. The physi, clans of the Court, and among them the chief phy sician Martinez,were also included in the dark roll. All these individuals (the correspondent,of the Memorial Bordelais observes), are not precisely revolutionary, but had not conducted themselves with that devotion and fidelity the returned ty rant expected from them. The Restauraor of the 'Bth November, states the arrest of a d nother Member of the Cortes ; destined also, we sup pose, to the scaffold ; Don Manuel Sainz de Buruuga, Coat of Calera, a Deputy to the Cortes, and one of those who voted for Ferdinand's transfer from Seville to Cadiz, have been arrested, it as- serts, on the mountains ofCastagnar-de-I ber,w here he was wandering. lie Will probably follow Kiev) to another world, and add one other murder on the, head of the execrable tyrant. What a si tuation must that country be in, where acts so atrocious can be publicly avoed and unblush ingly defended by the tai teals of an atrocious despotism! Let us hope that the career now run ning in that unhappy country, however appalling and horrible, may still he limited, and for the happiness of mankind, only of short duration. [MORNING HERALD.] The restrictions which the visiting Magistrates of Hertford have thought proper to adopt for the safe keeping of the persons charged with the late Murder, have given rise to more than the usual quantum of silly declamatioth—We do not mean to say these restraints were necessary or wise, but it may be asked in the very outset, and on the first. view of the matter, what si nister motives —what inexcusable inducement,' could English Magistrates of reputable condi. tion and Unimpeached character, have, to employ useless, or to their knowledge uncalled-for 'rigour against the unhappy linen, for whose safe custody they are to account ? Is it in the disposition of Englishmen to indulge themselves in acte of wanton severity ? The odium has been rather e xclusively an of thrown upon one of these Magistrates, a clergyman, Mr. Lloyd. It is even stated against him in aggravation, that he has passed whole hours in and about the prison. Of Mr. Lloyd we have not the slightestknow ledge, but, in the name of candour and common sense, is it to be presumed that any gentleman of his pro bable habits and education would as a matter of luxury, pass his time in such a manner ? Nothing but the clear evidence of facts should induce a belief in such strange idleness and de pravity of taste. We have said that we do not justify the restraints imposed upon the inter course with the prisoners, but there are, as it strikes use the clearest grounds to excuse them. It was most likely—indeed it may be said, Most certainly, the first time that these Magistrates were intrusted with a charge of such awful respon sibility. Let any man imagine, for a moment, the situation in which these gentlemen would stand, with reference to the state, the community, and Public justice, if the prisoners had escaped. Now, if ever in any case extreme vigilance was necessary, it is this. The prisoners, truly or falsely, have been represented as persons of des- perate audacity, accustomed to acts of hardihood and contrivance, and leagued with a host of the most formidable confederates abroad. Was it not most natural that the Magistrates should, in such a cause, use extraordinary vigilance and restraint ? Was it not natural and ex cusable, that, haunted as they were by the awful responsibility imposed on them, they should use a degree of rigour beyond reason, and the exigency of the case? What changes have not been rung upon the valuable, but somewhat hackneyed maxim of our law, that—" every man is to be presumed innocent," and so on—Why, according to the construction of this maxim strictly by some of our wise jurisprudents, these prisoners should be left, like other innocent men, to their liberty and other enjoyments. But it will be said that the restraints necessary for safe custody are compatible with this maxim—the meaning of which is, that no infliction or privation shall be suffered in the way of punishment. Be it so— und let us see whether any restraint has been im posed in this instance, in the way of punishment —none whatever. It is true, extraordinary re straints were imposed ; but who is so ignorant of the Criminal Law of England in its daily prac tice as not to know that it is not merely per mits, but directs different degrees of restraint and privation, according to the degree of offence-- the character of the individual, and various other considerations of discretion. One person is left at liberty on his own recognizance, another is ob iged to provide bail under heavy penalties—a rd is refused bail, but allowed intercourse w lose abroad, whilst a fourth is consigned to so II confinement: LAW INTELLIGENCE. VICE-CIIANCELLOR'S COURT; Nov. 21. IMPORTANT DECISION. WiIITSTONE v. FOWEE. His HON nun, after he came into Court to-day, stated, than he had looked into the papers in this case, and the result was, he was of opinion, thatto file such a bill as was agitated, would be totally useless, and could only serve to put the parties to an enormous unnecessary expenee. in this case, the repre sentatives of one brother have tiled a bill against the repre sentatives of another brother, and the Hope Insurance Com pany has a claim to the amount of their policy as against the plaintiffs, and are made defendants to the bill, and the question before the Court was, whether it was necessary, in order to protect the Insurance Company from any loss by the dispute between the representativea, that the Company should, independent of this bifi, file a bill of interpleader. It was argued, that such a bill was necessary. to be filed by them for them protection, because that protection was to be given by obtaining an injunction, and the rule of the Court has always been held to be, that no defendant to a snit can obtain an injunction against his co-defendant ; therefore, though they might be protected against the plaintiff; ' yet without filing a bill of interpleader, they never could be protected against their co-defendants. Now, that rule of the Cotirt has been misarplied to cases to which it would not extend. The rule certainly has been that a defendant cannot obtain an in junction against his co-defendant, because that injunction would have to be obtained upon the merits of his case, and he would have to afford the co-defendant an oPpertunity of an swering those merits as put upon the record, which in this Court never could be done; but then that rule has. only been applicable to parties litigant; parties litigant would have to state a case against their co-defendants, who would have to leave an opportunity of answering it ; but it was quite obvious that this rule bad no application whatever to parties not liti gant—and in the present case the hope Insurance Company are mere stake-holders, and have nothing to do with the liti gation which is carried on only between the representatives of the two deceased brothers. In that way of viewing it, if the stake-holders were to apply to the Court by a motion (having previously given notice of such motion both to the plaintiffs and their co-defendants) to pay the money into Court, for the pia pose of protecting it to the successful party, the Court could on no principle refuse to receive that Money, if upon hearing both plaintiffs and defendants, it entertained a serious doubt, that by not receiving i t i n to Court, it would be endangered, nor could it on any principle refuse to pay it out to the party in whose favour the suit terminated ; so that in this case a bill of inter. , Ceader would be aim unnecsary. The consequece was, the ourt Was of' opinion, that on es all such occasions in n future the parties should be ordered to pay the money into COurt ; and if after this intimation it should be thought fit not to applY by motion to have the money paid in , but t o file another bill on the part of the hope Insurance Company, the Court shell think it so vexatious, as that it shall disiniss the bill with costs. At present the Court would give the Hope Insurance Company costs, because, down to this day it has been consi dered an universal rule, that a defendant could not obtain an injunction against a co-defendant ; but that has been, because the principle has been misunderstood, which, however, for the future, shall be differently applied. TIAWFIELD V. N ICHOLS ON AND ANOTHER. This was a motion by the plaintiff; Mr. Barfield, for an In junction against the defendants, Messrs. Nicholson and Kelly, to restrain them from selling a certain work,in weekly numbers, published under the title of The Prartical Buildir. Mr. Hvaron said that the plaintiff had been partner formerly with Mr. Nicholson, in the publication of a book called The Architectural Dictionary. This book had been got up at a very considerable expenee ; Ranh/ for 12/. the two volumes, Ind had cost, in Preparation more than 10,0001.; and in the course of the last year Mr. Barfield had purchased Mr. Nichol son's share in it, paying him a valuable consideration for the same, and binding him by a covenant not to put forth any other work.which should diminish its value or interfire with its sale. Mr. Nicholson in breech of that agreement, was now publishing a work called 7'he Practical Builder, which was in substance the same thing with the Architectural Dictionary, and, being much cheaper, destroyed its calculation ; and it was for protection against this pi r acy and violation of contract that the plaintiff' applied to the COVit. The covenant between Mr. Barfield and Mr. Nicholson was put in, and read in terms following :—Mr. Nicholson agreed " not to write- or, publish, or cause to be written or pub lished, any abridgment of the work called The Architectural Dictionary, or any other kind of publication 'which might prove detrimental to that work,, or directly or; indirectly impede the sale of it. Mr. ' Josiah Taylor, architectural bookseller, swore, by his affidavit, that the work called The PradiCal :Builder contain. ell many passage* and plates which were the same with those of The Architectural Didionary. Mr. J. Page, a considerable build er believed the two works to be substantially the same. It, appeared that the second defenda nt, Mr. Kelly (Of Pater, noSter-row), published TheProctical Builder for Mr. Ni cholson. Mr. Pic anEn, for the defendant de nied that there wa s any case upon which the Court could interfere. The workimb. fished in Min - diets was merely it work of _practical instruc kri, and entirely different in character from The Archi. fcctural Dictionary, . which .I , tat a book of reference and dpientific authority. The Learned COUnsel relied upon Mr. Nicholson's affidavit, which stated that many of the plates and passages complained of in The Practical Builder were Olken from an old book of his own, published in 1792, called The Carpenter's Guide. Other plates complained of were drawn from hits'own imagination; others had been executed by his son, Mr. Michael Angelo Nicholson ; ,and much of the letter-press stated to be copied from Th4Architectural Diction ary, had been merely cepied into that work from books written beforehe (the deponent) was born. Mr. HEALD contended that if The Architectural Dictionary contained matters copied from The Carpenters' Guide, then, When Mr. Nicholson sold The' Architectural Dictionary, he sold The Carpenters' Guide also. As for the plates, it mattered little whether Mr. Nicholson had drawn them either from The Architectural Dictionary itself, or from his recollection of what he had done in that work. The performances of Mr. Michael Angelo Nicholson were so feW as to make no difference in the case, The VicE-CnalqcEi.Lon said (upon an inspection of both hooks) that the piracy was evident, but that he should proceed upon a broadeiground.—The words of the covenant evidently went to restrain Mr. Nicholson from publishing any rival to The Architectural Dictionary. There could be no doubt that that contract was broken by the prodUctiOn of The Prac tical .Builder ; and the injunction must therefore pass (as prayed) against the defendants. COURT OF XING'S BENCH, NOV. 21. LAING V. DELADIOIIE, GENT. Mr. ScantariT showed cause against a rule obtained by Mr. Brougham yesterday for pcptponing the execution of a writ of inquiry . before the Sheriff in this cause, of which notice had been given for to-morrow. It was an action by the'captain of an American vessel, against the defendant, an attorney, for criminal Conversation with the plaintiffs wife. The defendant lied suffered judgment by default, and gone to France, leaving his affitirs tinder the management of his father. This appli cation for delay was made on the affidavit of the father, stating that his son was confined with illness at Paris ; that having gone , to France to seek him, he crossed him on the road, and that he had since been unable to obtain an an- swer to his letter, though he had written to give him notice of the proceedings. The father also stated, that he believed, if time were granted, he should be able to adthice evidence which would materially tend to reduce the damages. The Learned Counsel contended against the indulgence prayed on the ground that the judgment was regular ; that an attorney could not be ignorant of the liabilities he had inclined ; and that, in fact, the defendant, when the illicit intercourse was discovered, said " he should be ready to answer, for his conduct when regularly called on." At this time the defendant was living in E'rance with the plaintiff's wife, who had eloped with him, and it was believed that he was drawing. his property from England in order to deprive, the plaintiff of the fruits of his judgment when he 611001 obtain it. For these reasons, the Learned Counsel opposed a delay for which no adequate cause had been shown—to which the defendant as an attorney must know that he was not entitled, and which might entirely deprive the plaintiff of his remedy. 111 r. F. Por.Loox, on the same side, expressed his hope that the indulgence asked would not be granted without exacting security for the damages and costs. Mr. 13notranast urged the hard situation of the defendant who, by an accidental absence, might be entirely precluded from availing himself of those grounds of defence which it was sworn that he possessed. Although he might be liable to an action, yet every one knew that in cases of this kind it was often long doubtful whether proceedings would be adopted. So far from wishing for delay ,merely to postpone execution, he was willing to give judgment of the present instead of Hilary Term, in case the judgment which he prayed for should be granted. The ConnT granted the defendant six weeks before the execut ion of the writ of iniluiry on his father's paying the costs of the delay and of the application, and on condition that judg ment would be given of the present term. THE KING. V. Mr. ANDREWS moved for a writ of Habeas Caipus to bring up the body of a person confined in Newgate, on a charge of horse-stealing, in order to his being admitted to bail. The defendant was a licensed horse-dealer at Chelmsford, who had lived many years in repute in that town, and who was now charged with stealing two horses which he had bought openly at Cheltiisford fair of two persons whom he could call as wit nesses on his trial. The Collive inquired whether these persons had made affi davits ; and receiving an answer in the negative, ordered the case to stand over till such affidavits should be before them. THE KING V. .TON't%, XSQ. Mr. Coorta moved for a mandriMilt addressed to the Mar shal of the King's Bench Prison, requiring him to hear the c omplaint of a prisoner in , his custody, named Forrester , agains t another prisoner named Bridgman. Mr. Forrester had been a prisoner some years, and in April 1921, had occasion to employ an Attorney. Mr. Bridgman was then introduced to him as a Solicitor and partner of Mr. Gellibrand, of Austinfriars, who anti known to be an Attorney of the Court. Under this cha racter he obtained from Mr. muster a lOL country bank -note, for which he was to obtain changel return part to his client, and employ part in carrying on the suit. Having obtained the note, he set off and was neverheard of by Mr. Forrester till he was himieif brought to the same prison for debt, and was recognized by his dupe, and discovered to be no Attorney. Mr. Forrester now applied to the Marshal to hear his complaint, but be re fused to pay attention to his , story. The Coula asked what character the Learned Counsel sup posed the offence to hear ? • Mr. COOPER replied, ho thought it amounted to felony; and considered it within the principle of the well-known case of Major Semple. Mr. Justice BEST observed, that it wits nO felony, because Mr. Forrester, when he parted with his note, did not expect to receive it again in that form. Mr. COOPER submitted that it was at all events a misde rneatiour, as Bridgman obtained the note under the false pre tence that he was an attorney, and able to render Mr. Forres ter professional assistance. ' The COURT at first thought that the transaction took place before the passing of the act by which obtaining notes and se curities by false pretences is placed on the same footing with obtaining money; but, finding on inquiry that it occurred af ter the passing of the statute, they granted a rule to show cause why the mandamus should not issue. THE RING v. WATERS. Mr. STE inrEN moved for a writ of Habeas Corpus to bring up the body a Wm. Waters, a prisoner in Dorchester gaol, iu order that he might be discharged. The party was convicted under the statute called " The Hovering Act," which subject. the navigator of any vessel hovering about the coast with brandy, not being for the use of. the seamen, to a penalty of 100/. In this case the information charged that the defendant had brandy on board his vessel, but did not go on to state that the brandy was not for the use of the seamen, which the Learned Counsel submitted was a fatal objection to the pro ceedings. • '['he COURT granted the writ, and a certiorari to remove the proceedings. The Loan CitiEr JUSTICX left the Court at 12 o'clock, to attend the Council oh the Recorder's Report. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, N0v.21. Mr. Justice PARK sat at Nisi Prius to dispose of untiefini e(1 causes, and the list having been gone th;otigh, the Court then sat in banco ; but in. consequence of the continued Omelet of the LORD ,Cuirr JUSTICE, through indimioisition, 'United its proceedings to the hearing of common motions, and rose at eleven o'clock. CONSISTORY COURT, NOV. 21. MANVILLE V. MANVILLE. Dr. LUSIIINGTON said this was an action of divorce brought by the wife against the husband, by reason of cruelty and adul tery. The husband bud not appeared in the regular manner, but had suffered the case to lie, over from time to time, but the libel wati now brought in, and hs prayed it might be adriiitted. The libel stated, that in March April, and May, 1821, the wife was grossly ill-treated by her husband ; they then lived it the Constttutiou Publie.house, Great lames -street, Lissom grove, her husband being the landlord; butihrough in-treatinent she left the honie. Soon after the marriage he used to beat her, and use very disgusting language tel./suds her. When she left the house she went to her brother's, but at the solicitation of ha husband she returned home again, on hiS promise of amendment, but. his former violent disposition was soon renewed, and on one occasion he threatened to stab her with a knife, but his intention Was prevented by persons coming to her assistance. He after wards knocked her doWn in the bar, and on another occasion dragged her into the kitchen, and struck her so violently as to break several of her ribs, and she bud not since been restored to health., The adultery consisted in his connections with se veral fccailes, by' which he hall contracted a loathsome diseitSe ; she, ht consequence, prayed for the divorce., on the charges of cruelty and 'adultery. Sir ,Cts Isl. o Rows); sow ordered the libel to be ad- I mittal. GREGG t. GlItG6. . In this.cistise, originally of restitution of conjugal rights pro rooted. by the hissband against the wife, and to which the wife hasiince pleaded the husband's .adiilterY in bar, a long iirp-! meet was sustained upon an a i i pli cat i on made by the ladY's proctor, that the Court would allow a further delay on decreeing publication, and assigning it for sentence. The Counsel for Ur. Gregg apposed this, ()tithe ground that the suit had already Sir CURISTOPHEU ROBINSON finally been depending ever since the year 1019. publication on the neit Court day. 11111. St V. 11111.11.--CAVELTY. Dr. LUSHINOTON said, this was a case of divor ce on the plea of cruelty and adultery.M Dr. JESSE ADA Opposed the application, and read certai parts of the libel, in which it was stated that the parties had lived separate three years, and had cohabited together previous to that time only 13 months. He (Dr. Adams) could not see what protection the wife could expect to have, as she had al decreed p ready the protection of the law, having exhibited articles of the peace against her husband, who was bound in recognizahees of 2001. She pleaded that her husband had often threatened to beat her, to run her through with a red hot poker, to stab her, &c., but these were only threats and menaces, and not one act of personal violence proved. It was indeed in evidence, that a nurse had come in ou one occasion while she was on her knees imploring her husband to save her life, but on her interference he desisted, and no violence was done. He (Dr. Adams) knew that in some uses it was not necessary to prove actual violence before the party can come into this Court, but these threats are stated to have occurred frequently, and yet no personal vio lence was committed. The case that approached nearest to the present was Otway a. Otway, where Mrs. Otway swore to repeated threats, where her husband had held a pistol to her head, and would have shot her, but for the interference of the servants, but there it was also stated he spat in her face, pushed the candle into her face, and on one occasion seized her violentlY by. her arms in the garden, until she was extricated by the gardner, who heard her screams for assistance ; and yet in that. case the prayer was not granted. There was also a difference of rant between those parties and the parties now before the Court; Mrs. Otway was the daughter or a Baronet, anti her husband was possessed of property to the amount of 5,000/. Per annum ; and Mr. Hulm was only a pawnbroker residing in Stepney. As to the charge of adultery it was made in g e neral terms, that he did soon after the separation, and does still co-' habit with one Mary Hughes, who passes for his wife ; he (1) ,,, r „' Adams) contended that the charge ought not to be = ow general, but ought to be particularized. Dr. LITSIIIXOTON was heard at some length in reply ; h e , contended that the charge of cruelty was substantiated, alth ou g h no violence was proved, and that it was not necessary to wait Until she had been actually beaten or killed, before she coo , plained ; neither was it necessary to prove any individual gi of adultery„because it was stated that Mr. Hulrne had all along cohabited with another woman.—Libel admitted: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DUBLIN, Nov. TRIAL AT BAR. MATTHEW LORD VISCOUNT KINGSLAND v. HIS GRACE THE LORD ARCHBISHOP Or DUBLIN AND RICHAR' NEVILLE. At ten o'clock on Monday morning, this highly important cause came on to be heard before the Right Hon. the Lord Chief-Justice NORBURT, Mr. Justice BlocinE, IVIr. Justice JOHNSON, and Mr. Justice TORRENa, and a special Jury. selected from the most respectable Gentlemen of the county,— . Sir C. Doroville, Bart., Foreman. The ease occupied the Court six days, when, after the pro duction of many ancient records and other documents, and hear ing some of the most profound legal argu ments on both sides, the Jury, under the unanimous direction of the Court, at threr o'clock on Saturday last, found a verdict for the Noble plaintiff, restoring him to a part of the extensive church-patronage so long enjoyed by his ancestors. he principal points appeared to be the following :—On the restoration of King Charles 11., the Act of Settlement was pass ed in this kingdom, which vested all a dvowsOns of churches /. then enjoyed by Irish Papists (as they are named in the Act of Explanation), in the King, until such Papists, or their beim should conform to the Protestant re li g ion. It a p peared by tio letters patent, inquisitions, &e., produced in the Own, that Sir P. Barnewall, of Turvey, in the county of Dublin, had many church benefices in his gift, which, with other patrimonial inner' . trances, at his death devolved ou his son and heir, Nichols* Barnewall, who was, in June, 1616, created the first Visc ount Ilarnewall, of Kingsland, by King Charles 1. ; but,who, ha f, ing survived the civil wart of this co untr y , found himgn, before the passing of the Act of Settlement unjustly OM; sessed of a kige part of this property; but was restored to so", portion of his estates by decree of innoc ence, under the Act ea Settlement, in 1663. tho T h i c le re de Zo n n tla u n n th til Act of Parliament, of his advOwsons, which were by said, othfe-V2disenofuAntnnNeiicihrielans hperwofaseistel!tlyetstti:a,Ctsy: vested in the Crown, until conformity. In the year . 1 1 e l i . law required, tiie arch-diocesen dth thereby 1. 1 7 n e i c i c o l i e , s r i c a .i. st n ic t a l el b ti n s the present Matthew, Lord Viscount Kingslantl, the. btu male of the first Viscount, conformed to the Protestant religocn; were revealed in him. On the vacancy of the eherch of 0 , 1" "r a e n t d sby t w n e Archbishop's refusing to institute hit?o, inongcltiettik' J* writ of Quote intpedit for the perpetual advowson of the saw: church. After. the most deep research on the part of tlw Noble Plaintiff, and patient investigation of the Hon. COO , the cause was decided in the manner above-mentioned. The French papers mention the death of , a rich individual at St. Quintin, in Picardy "") had bequeathed 300,000 francs (about 11 ) 01 ' sterling, being the third part of his whole fortune) to trustees for benevolent purposes. COAL-MARKET, Nov. 21. . 433 dd f 0 Ships at Market. - Ships sold Prlfo , 134 Newcastle - 9 - d 7 to 74 S , lnderland . In:11,106 COURSE OF EXCHANGE, Norsniber 1. ". „ r , Artiste' dam Ditto, at Sight l2 9 Rotterdam l2 I Antwerp ig " e t Us Hunsburgh 37 9 f Us. Alton Paris, 3 Day's sight .... o .......... 2$ 7 1 0 0 0 , 1 / 1. Ditto 45 99 ,, Bourdeaux, ditto Berlin . • Moo Fraut Girton the Maio .... ••• s f • Patitiburgh . 0 . 0 Vienna rieste ............. ........... .... trot"' Madrid ............ , Cadiz .................................. fi r,ol o Bilboa .................................. 36 951 Barcelona att Seville ........ Gibraltar .. Leghorn ...... , Ital. Li , . Malta ... .. ... ........ ....... ................... 131 ; 1 1".1. Palermo . ...... ° I. Lisbon .................................. Oporto ................................ 6 Rio:Janeiro Dahia ..... •~10, P l o a r b t i n i :al . G . 0 . 1t 9 1, 4 1n Coin .. C8.11(;.1k.1.L..11..15..?....9 .. . I :: .. L. ° , 7 ° 6°' P° (11, Foreign: (mold, in Bars ............. : 3 „ 0 I\ ls: si e ir ow l ar b : u rn o u t l i n i u ' alE i r sr s d l i . l l . . s ys . t . la . asn . td . :a . ti ......................................... ..... °: : 4 A 9 ° 1 1 1 ' EIRTHS. William of Hesse, ot:lttt Wimbledon, t lie W Y ' tY , Lindsay, of a son. ,m, Po re, On the 18th inst., at Leadenham, the seat at 'l i„,•,, o f r Lady Su tan Reeve, of a daughter. t r o ur At Copenhagen, on the :10th ult., the C° ll • DIED. I.llil b° • eilhi fie' v ' On the 14th instant, after a short illness, ro ~,, soo c o , only daughter of Mr. William Row, of S. Pet.,, 0m p 1 . 01 , 1 11 castle-upon-Tyne, a young Lady of great itet ; iioy at and most deservedly esteemed for genuine solo' OK Adolf. ~ in t ile t Jf. path Oe n at Ott Tuesday, the 18th inst., at Alban y i 6 4th P e g 00 1 of Wight, Lieut. Frederick Bowrs, n the jo y ro, Foot, fourth son cif the late RCY. William ~ ;OP on, the Lady of Claverin, Essex. ,ea'Ji. 01, On NVednesday, at his house in Ilamrsteatratal'a Ile John Denis, of the fi rm of Messrs. Denis, /01 yd?' h 1% 1% of Thames-street. Ei ff i n ,..o tr Easl9tthcinoswt.e,,,,atist esrofto‘nvtigntiestir iPn0irt1i55n10,,,,7,30t11.,:er,•(,,,,"5:, yeoann3:arthhuirssidicalyisel,aspt,ratCt.hpriiaseteia,ncampidetrie:llol j.;„ittherim...,„no#ll,°;, On Wednesday last, at her apartments 1 11 „; . ` 1 ,": Julta of born, Mrs. Stalker, widow of the law ~" prifte printer, deservedly regretted. , _ hell ish • .A. Lately, the wife at Mr. Alexander Noll .„040 vi r 0 1 P Russell-court, Drury-Ltne. • we ber, On T testily suddenly, 'Mr. Primrose, Je I street, Oxfor -road. 'llt fr .... • • ' ot t" Printed . orf d ic P r u . b i li l s 2 h , e s d tr f u ot nrd,llbeyr ja.olliN:rikerfs,ris;lo,