The Sun. — London, England, 1835-04-24 00:00:00

ouw/F. SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. We intended to-day to pursue the political prospects of the Ministers, but we are stopped, literally stopped; our hands are tied. We may make this confession voluntarily and without phrase, because we are assured that the " Tail," as well English as Irish, are dissa tisfied with the appointments that have been made, which were unexpected, and may be of consequence. It is said that in the distribution of offices it was cal culated that good things would have fallen in other places. Our political arithmetic affords us no means of judging in the matter. Our task, therefore, is that of mere narrators ; and because we are, in a sort, he ralds to the public (not that we think there is any thing worth relating, or fitted for the public ear), we tell the tale as it has been told to us. In the first place, then, a fierce gentleman of the late Opposition declares, all through the town, that he has been most wofully neglected. He protests, till the very church porch shakes, that he has been maligned even to his enemies, and cushioned by his friends. " Good God I" he exclaims, " have I not written the leaders in an evening print for weeks past, and have they (the arti cles) not told ?" somebody said sold;" but as a man of veracity he put the sanguine gentleman right, and told him they had not sold. With a sigh he declared that he " ought to have had something." Then there is Mr. Sheil, who has been overlooked in the Irish appointments. He threatens a motion (of which we shall have to speak by and by), which we take to be an indication that all the joints of the "tail" are not equally supple, that they are not to be wagged or curved ad libitum. In this country, among the Eng lish Radicals—we have it upon the best authority— distrust and discontent prevails to a very serious extent. One of the Adelphi looked for a foreign appointment, which nevertheless has not yet fallen to him. The other took a cottage for his wife, put himself into lodgings, and went about inquiring with a careless air whether "an Under Secretary had a house apportioned to him." It turns out that he was not, though he be lieved he was, interested in the reply. To-morrow we may know more about these matters, or, which is equally important to our readers, we may not ; but as our admirable and affable Ministry is scarcely yet complete, it would not be fair to discuss more of the symptoms of their hard-heartedness at present. In point of fact, the Cabinet is so insignificant, that we hardly know what to say about it.—Times. The question which has been lately agitated in the City, relative to the periodical election of Aldermen, we need hardly observe, is a very important one, and involves the consideration of a principle of great value touching the administration of justice. When this question was discussed a few weeks ago in the Court of Common Council, its interest merged in the greater importance of the proceedings in Parliament. We had neither space nor time to give it the notice or attention which it deserved. We now avail ourselves of the op portunity afforded by the recess to make a few observa tions on a question so intimate!) connected with what is called " Corporate Reform," and the interests of local government. Advocating, we do, all real and as sub stantial reforms in our corporate and other institutions, we cannot bring ourselves to fall in with that headlong and rampant rage for innovation which mistakes every proposed alteration of things established for reform. Let us calmly consider whether the character of the civic body would be raised, and the interests of local Government benefited by the suggested periodical election of alder men, according to the recent decision of the Court of Common Council. It will be recollected that, a few weeks ago, Mr. Alderman Thomas Wcod moved the following resolution, in reference, we believe, to some report of a Commitree upon civic reform :—" That the present Aldermen be continued, and that all future ALletrnen be elected for life, subject to the following restrictions—viz. bankruptcy, insolvency by deed of composition, or taking the benefit of the Act, convic• tion of fraud and other misdemeanour by the verdict of a Jury—absence for a given time without leave of the Court, and general imbecility." To which it was moved as an amendment, " that all Aldermen here after to be chosen should be subjected to periodical re-election by their constituents. This amendment was carried by a majority of twenty-five, in a Court consisting of 101 Members—but as the total number of Members of the Common Council is 266, there remain 165 who have not yet expressed any Opinion on the question. Complaints have been made, and justly made, from time to time, of Aldermen neglecting their duties, more especially as Magistrates, and thereby causing great inconvenience to the public. This is an evil which required, and ought to have, a remedy ; but we cannot help thinking that the remedy rroposed is one that would work a greater evil than that which it is intended to cure. If it be possible to make Magistrates attentive to their duties without sacrificing their independence, it is well ; but we do not think that to render those who are concerned in the administration of justice dependent upon periodical election by the people or any other power, is the best way to secure their impartial uprightness in the dis charge of their duties. We are of opinion that Mr. Alderman Thomas Wood's proposition, which makes " absence for a given time without leave of the Court" a cause of deprivation, would remedy the evil complained of, without subjecting those Magistrates to that pe riodical election, which would make them completely dependent upon the few busy leading politicians and canvassers, in their respective wards, who direct as they please the suffrages of the many. The occasional public inconvenience caused by the non-attendance of Aldermen to form a Court of Justice might be ob viated by the infliction of a heal!) fine in every in stance of neglect, and a certain number of such in stances of abandonment of duty, should be a cause of deprivation. This would be much better than render ing one who has to perform the delicate and difficult duties connected with the administration of justice de pendent upon the breath of popular favour or caprice. It is the proud boast of this country that the superior Judges are independent both of the Crown and the people. Who that regards the pure and impartial administration of justice would like to see the Judges of the Courts in Westminster Hall subject to dis missal at the pleasure of the Crown, or obliged to go cap in hand to the people periodically, like the candi dates for the representation of Westminster ? Among those who opposed with spirit and ability the proposi tion for making the election of Alderman periodical was Sir Peter Laurie. Since then the speech of the worthy Knight has appeared in print, of which we have been favoured with a copy. It is an able, intel ligent, and dispassionate argument, well supported by historical references, and illustrated by practical exam ples. He impugns the principle of periodical election upon the same ground that we do. He shows that when the election of Alderman was periodical (for those who sneer at the wisdom of our ancestors some times choose to rely upon ancient precedents), the du ties which they had to perform were only those of a com mon constable. He also shows that when they were in trusted with the administration of justice the practice of periodical election was abolished, as if to secure their in dependence. The recognised independence of the supe rior Judges does not do away with their responsibility. They are liable to Parliamentary animadversion, or im peachment for gross neglect of duty, or malversation in office. So let the Magistrates, whether Aldermen or others, be independent, when once appointed, of both the Crown and the people, and only removable in case of proved delinquency. Sir Peter Laurie illustrates the danger to the administration of local justice which would follow from Aldermen being made subject to periodical popular election, by the following practical argument :—He says " the publicans of the City are a numerous, united, and powerful body, and their conduct is frequently brought under the notice of the Magistrate, and, with his election before his eyes in a few months, it might be difficult to act as independ ently as his duty required —at all events, sure I am that he could never purge himself from the suspicion of acting from interested motives." We spoke of the offence of bribery yesterday at the election of Members of Parliament, in the terms of reproba tion which it deserves ; but the following quotation from the same speech will show that, if our civic Ma gistrates were subjected to periodical election, the heaviest purse, and dip least scrupulous conscience, would sometimes carry the day against every qualifica tion of talent and virtue. Sir Peter says—" And an Alderman, after he has been elected to the Ward, is to be subject to the veto of a Common Hall, forsooth I Did you never hear of such a thing as bribery in that Hall ?—I know it well, for my Committee refused to buy 300 votes, at 7s. 6d. a vote, and I lost my election in consequence ; they were offered to the Liberal Committee opposing me, who purchased them and the triumph of principle at the same time." This statement was made in the Common Council and does not appear to have been contradicted. We must, therefore, take it for granted that even the Liberal or Ultra-Liberal candidate is sometimes indebted to something more substantial than popularity for his success. Upon a review of the whole question we fear that far more evil than good would result from making the Civic Magistrates dependent upon the favour and caprices of the popular bodies among whom they have to administer justice. We can hardly doubt that it would become far more difficult to induce re spectable candidates to come forward for the office of Alderman than at present. To be secure of filling the civic chair is one inducement which would exist no longer ; and men who give their services to the public withoutlpay are at least entitled to some honorary rewards. It was said by some member of the Common Council that, inasmuch as an Alderman, when once elected for his ward, becomes a Magistrate for the whole City, he should be subjected to a new election by the whole of the constituency of the wards. That was well met by Mr. Alderman Thomas Wood, who observed that each Common Councilman, upon being elected by his own ward, should be subjected, on the same principle, to the collective elections of all the wards. For our own part we think that the rejected motion gave all the power necessary to punish delinquency or neglect of duty by Aldermen, without destroying that indepen dence which is essential to the honest and impartial administration of justice.—Morning Herald. The Tories love a job—it is their ruling passion. It is not only strong with them in death (witness Lord De Grey's commissioning of some six or eight ships, several of which are not yet built), but it lives beyond their graves, for the Treasury Tories have actually just perpetrated a posthumous job. They resigned, as we all know, on Saturday week, when Lord Melbourne kissed !lands upon his appointment as First Lord of the Treasury. On the following Monday a Treasury messenger was detected carrying off books and sta tionery in so suspicious a manner as to cause his being taken before the police, when he was committed. Now in consequence of Lord Wharncliffe absenting himself from town with the Privy Seal, it was not possible to complete the formal appointment of the new Trea sury Board until Tuesday, so that the two new Se cretaries of the Treasury could not be installed in office before that day. This was entirely owing to Lord Wharncliffe's remissness ; but the Tory Se cretaries of the Treasury, with that keen scent for a job which is the true badge and bond of their party, did actually, on Monday, being two days after they themselves were, to all- real intents and pur poses, out of eice, proceed . to dismiss the unfortunate messenger, and forthwith, without a moment's pause for inquiry, appointed—whom have they appointed ? why, they have appointed Sir Robert Peel's butler in his place ! This is jobbing, posthumous jobbing, with a vengeance; but we trust the present Treasury will not be so weak as to confirm the appointment. Dirty as the job itself is, there is a still heavier offence in the pe remptory dismissal of the man, since it is a prejudg ment of a case which may come before a jury. The messenger should have been suspended until after his trial, but such respect for justice would have allowed the appointment to slip through the Tories' fingers. Thus, then, the unhappy messenger is to be sent to his trial with a dismissal from office for his offence already recorded against him, in order that a Tory Secretary of the Treasury, who, in consequence of Tory Lord Privy Seal's remissness, remained nominally in office two days after his own discharge, might create a vacancy in order to fill it up with the ex-butler of our self-denying E x-Premier.—Morning Chronicle. It wculd hardly have been thought possible a year ago that Lord Melbourne and that portion of the Whigs who constitute whatever has any claim to re pectability in his Administration, would have con sented to take office under Mr. O'Connell. Yet that they have clone so is evident ; for we do not expect to find among all the casuists in the employ of the present Ministry one sufficiently skilful to point out any dis tinction between holding office under an individual, and holding office subject to-an absolute power of ejec tion at the pleasure of that individual. That those who have voluntarily placed themselves in this position in relation to Mr. O'Connell have contracted an obli gation to obey him implicitly in all things—the penalty of recusancy being no other than loss of office, a pretty severe penalty, and one which Whigs will do anything rather than pay—is manifest to any attentive observer of public transactions. Lord Melbourne, with the whole power of his Administration, cannot displace Mr. O'Connell, or the most insignificant of his adhe rents, from the position which they occupy. But Mr. O'Connell can displace Lord Melbourne and the whole of his Administration whenever he thinks fit merely to intimate that their measures do not afford him com plete satisfaction. Who, in such circumstances, is the real Minister ? Whose influence is most likely to predominate in all public transactions and decisions ? Of Lord Melbourne and Mr. O'Connell which is the more independent of the other--which the more power ful in national affairs—which, in a word, is the master and which is the man ? It is impossible to reflect upon these questions without the strongest feelings of alarm and disgust. There is the most painful humi liation and the most tremendous danger in the fact that the nominal Prime Minister of the King of England and the whole of his colleagues should hold their elevated stations upon a condition so ignomi nious as that of cultivating with humble assiduity and precarious success, the patronage and favour of one whom they, in common with the great body of their country men, regard as an object at once of scorn and hos tility—of one whom they, with the full concurrence of the people of Great Britain, have held up to the eyes of mankind as a public enemy—of one who is the un disguised foe of this country and her institutions, and who has made it the chief business of his life to alienate from Great Britain the affections of a whole nation of her subjects, and, by industriously diffusing amonc , them sentiments of hatred and jealousy of British authorities and British connection, to under mine the prosperity of the empire in the meanwhile, and finally to prepare the way for its dismemberment and destruction. We have not exaggerated in a single feature the character of Mr. O'Connell, whom the present Ministers of the Crown court as an ally, and in whom all clear-sighted and candid men recognise their imperious master and Sovereign Lord. How fatal to the interests and the honour of Great Britain it must be to invest such a character with even the semblance of political power, the present Ministers of the Crown cannot pretend to be ig norant. Mr. O'Connell is the only individual sub ject of the British Crown whom in . modern times the Sovereign has been advised to describe in a speech from the Throne as an enemy to the peace, the welfare, and the freedom of his subjects. Mr. O'Connell, no longer than a year ago, was the mover of the only proposition in the British House of Com mons, which any Administration in modern times has deemed it expedient to confront and oppose by a con current resolution of the two Houses of Parliament. And, monstrous as the assertion would appear, if we regarded only the actual position of parties, it is a literal fact, nevertheless, as every man in the British dominions is sufficiently aware, that the rebuke, un paralleled in our modern annals, which Mr. O'Connell received from the Sovereign—that the extraordinary resolution of the two Houses of Parliament, de nouncing his proposition as indicative of the most dangerous designs, and pregnant with the most fatal consequences to the State—were both of Them concocted by an Administration comprehend ing the same men, with few exceptions, that now seem to hold the reins of power, and who crouch to and fawn .upon Mr. O'Connell as the chief support of their tottering and precarious Govern ment. But it is not from the personal qualities of Mr. O'Connell, nor the reckless proposition which he has offered to the House of Coinmons, that the mischief and danger of his acts are to be fully estimated, although the former has been visited by the severest censare of the King, and the latter by the reprobation of the two Houses of Parliament. What is chiefly calculated to excite suspicion and alarm is the character of this Gentleman as the agent and mouthpiece of the turbulent and disloyal portion of the Roman Catholics of Ireland ; as the open abettor of all the outrages which this wicked and desperate party are in the daily habit of perpetrating upon the property and persons of their" Protestant fellow-subjects ; as the leader in those incessant attacks which the Irish Roman Catholics have been making for years upon the established institutions of this Protestant State ; as the man who represents in his own person the united power and the aggregate virulence of an unscrupulous and embittered faction, levelled as they are against the institutions, the integrity, the peace, and the welfare of the empire. It must surely produce a mingled feeling of dismay and indignation among the Protestant people of Great Britain to be hold Mr. O'Connell, the repealer of the Union, the fomenter of discord, the patron of assassination and robbery, the author and leader of the sacrilegious and too successful crusade against the legal property of the Church—it must, we say, excite indignation and dis may to behold such a man the active ally and close confederate of the Administration—the true source of its power—the absolute arbiter of its fate—and, by ne cessary consequence, the absolute ruler of its conduct. Let it not be pretended, however, that the bondage in which, as a consequence of their actual position, Lord Melbourne and his colleagues are held by this wicked and mischievous agitator is on their part an involun tary bondage. It is a slavery to which they have ea gerly sold themselves for the sordid and ignoble love of place. To what rational or intelligible end but to rivet upon the necks of the Whigs the degrading chain of the Popish faction of Ireland, and its artful and arrogant leader, has every motion of Lord John Rus sell in the House of Commons, from the first day of the session, been directed ? Why was Lord Canter bury rejected as Speaker, but to get the Whigs into place in the character of O'Connell's slaves ? Why was an unmeaning amendment proposed to the custo mary address to the Crown—an amendment so un meaning that we venture to say no man in England, not even he who proposed it, remembers at this mo-. ment a single word that it contains ? Why was an ab stract proposition put to the vote and carried, and that abstract proposition then converted into a prac tical calamity by mixing up its poison with a wise and skilfully-constructed measure of immediate and urgent necessity ? How could all this have been but that Lord Melbourne, Lord John Russell, and their col leagues were gasping for office, and impatient to hug the gilded chain which, in the actual position of their party, must be its odious and disgraceful badge ? Morning Post. It has been observed that there is a great similarity between the physical position of an army and the moral position of a Government. The General who has tact enough to take up a good position, will in most cases be enabled to defeat or resist successfully a superior force, and he will also retain the power of avoiding dangerous or disastrous expedients which a bad posi tion would render inevitable. Nor is a Minister other wise situated : if he assume a position badly chosen, he exposes himself not only to defeat, but he may entail utter discomfiture on the party supporting him, and fur nish arms to his opponents which they otherwise would never have possessed. This comparison between the position of a General and a Ministry has been recalled to our recollection by the result of the stand Sir Robert Peel has made on the Church question. The Right Hon. Baronet has no doubt acted from conscien tious motives ; but we doubt whether they have not been adulterated by political feelings. In fact, is it credible that a man of Sir R obert's talents and tact should not have been perfectly satisfied from the com mencement, that the days of the Established Church in Ireland are numbered in the minds of the great mass of the people of the empire, and that the best means of pro longing its agony would have been the adoption of sorre_t plan similar to that proposed by Lord J. Russell, so as to remove for a time the difficulty, and bring the edifice to the ground without occasioning a shock to the country ? We are convinced that Sir Robert Peel feels that what we say here is the fact, but, unfortunately, the Right Honourable Baronet cannot forget the virulence of some of his ex-Orange friends on the occasion of Catholic emancipation ; and no doubt he has been fearful of incurring a second charge of apostacy. 'Well, what was the consequence ? He took up a bad position—he was defeated ; but the defeat was nothing compared to the consequences which must re sult to his party. Look to the organs of that party, to the most moderate and best conducted of them, and see the abyss into which the ex-Premier has plunged them. Do they speak of the vital interests of the country ? Do they speak of the conservation of the unity of the empire, or of the national dignity, so mi reraiely sacrificed of late years abroad ? No, they talk now of nothing but Popery ; their cry is, " Long live the parsons and the tithes !" They rave about the progress, or supposed progress, of the Papists, in power and influence. In fine, they seem all to have lost their reason. They are all precisely in the state of the routed troops fora General unfortunate in his position. For, seriously speaking, who in the mass of the people of this country cares about, or fears, the progress of Popery? We know what the parsons think—they dread the loss of their temporalities ;-1170 know what the aristocracy think—they fear that their estates are in danger ; but where is now the man who, being conscientiously a member of the Church of England, or of any other section of Pro testants, would join in the cry of "No Popery," which, if it means any thing, means that the Papists, as they are termed, ought to be put down, or rather persecuted. If we know what the parsons and the aristocracy think, we know what the people think, and let any one go amongst them, let him in quire into the opinions of the electors of the country, of that part of the electors who are really masters of the elections, and who are in consequence the real consti tuents of the House of Commons,—go to these men, we say, and talk to them of " no Popery," and you will soon learn their opinions—no matter what may be their religious feelings, you will find that they are almost, if not absolutely unanimous, in wishing that every religion should have a clear stage and no favour. The Right Honourable ex-Premier did not, pro bably, foresee, when he was taking up his posi tion, that it would lead his partisans not only to render themselvess ridiculous by their ravings re specting Papists and Popery, but that it would lead them absolutely to fight the battle of O'Connell and his tail without being aware of what they were doing. The aim of O'Connell and the persons termed Papists, has been to prove to the people of this country that they are really and bona fide friends to liberty—we may almost say unlimited liberty. Now the great mass of the people of this country have got it into their heads, somehow or other, that the party which sup ports the Right Honourable Baronet is hostile to all liberal institutions both at home and abroad. If, then, the organs of that party succeed in demonstrating, as they are essaying to do, that O'Connell is the David who slew the Tory Goliah, why should not the cause of Popery gain ground every day in the minds of the people ? Why should not those who think that they alone are the friends of liberty in this country, end by believing that the cause of Popery is their's ? And why should not Popery become associated in the minds of many men with their dearest ideas? But there is another point worthy of notice. Amongst the Papists as they are termed, both English and Irish, both lay and ecclesiastical, there were many desirous of sup porting the Administration of Sir Robert Peel, and who really are Tories. But how was it possible for them to keep their course when they read the Bed lamite effusions of the Age, the John Bull, and the Standard, not to speak of some other of our contem poraries, who we sincerely believe are, at the present moment, merely labouring under temporary derange ment. If any of their fellow Papists of the Whig persua. sion meet them, they of course will endeavour to prove that the Tories intended a crusade against their body, and although this may at first be laughed at, yet a few extracts from the Tory journals will not fail to raise the Tory Papist's bile, and finally bring him to admit, that if he be unwilling to secede from his party, he cannot think of supporting it ; perhaps he will end by opposing it, and thus O'Connell will increase his influence and power by the secession of some, or the neutrality of others. It is thus that Sir Robert Peel, by taking up a false position, has occasioned his own THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 1835. defeat, and entailed all the consequences of his error upon his partisans, who, like the routed troops of the incapable General, are now, in their retreat, fur nishing, at every step, arms and ammunition to their opponents—for their own destruction. M. de Villele, the greatest practical Minister that France has seen since the time of Colbert, when urged to take a stand upon dangerous and uncertain points, used to employ a saying, to the effect, that you must not say to the fountain, " Fountain, I will never drink of thy wa ters." It would have been well for the Conservative party if Sir Robert Peel, previously to issuing his manifesto to the electors of Tamworth, had thought of the " Fountain." It would have been still better if the " Fountain" had been thought of in a certain quarter, on a well-known occasion ; but we hope that experience will teach wisdom, and that it will never again be said, in reference to the subject matter, " Fountain, I will never drink of thy waters." " I will die first."—Morning Advertiser. VICE-CHANCERY COURT. THE BURGESSES OF THE CORPORATION OF RUTHIN V. ADAMS. This motion was partly heard before the last vacation. The bill was filed by the burgesses of the corporation of Ruthin against Mr. Adams, who was alleged to have been their agent, and to have received the rents of certain lands belonging to the corporation, for which he bad not fully accounted. The time for demurring to the bill having elapsed, and his Honour having refused an application by Mr. Booth to extend the time, the present motion was made at his Honour's suggestion in lieu of the demurrer, to have. the bill taken off the file, on the ground that the burgesses of Ruthin were not a corporation, so that if the bill were dismissed at the hearing, there was no party on the record against whom the defendant could recover his costs. The supposed charter of incorporation, it was con tended, was nothing more than a deed of enfranchisement, by which Henry VII., himself a Welshman, restored to the tenants of Ruthin, and of the lordship in which it was situated, the rights of Englishmen, of which the Welsh generally had been deprived by Henry IV. Mr. TEMPLE, in opposition to the motion, submitted that it was irregular, not having been made before any step was taken in the suit. Mr. KNIGHT having replied, His HONOUR said the case, as it was submitted to him, was one of considerable difficulty, for it involved not only the legal construction of the charter itself, but very impor tant matters of fact connected with it. After some discussion, it was agreed that an issue should be directed, to try whether, in the terms of the bill, there was any corporation known by the name of the burgesses of the borough of Ruthin, with liberty to indorse special circumstances. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. LONGDEN AND ANOTHER V. ALLEN AND SAMUEL TAYLOR. Mr. BALGUY moved for a rule to show cause why there should not be a new trial in this case, on the ground of a misdirection on the part of the Learned Judge. This was an action of trespass, for taking a stocking-machine as a distress for rent ; and the question was, whether a stocking machine was not an implement of trade, and as such pro tected from liability to distress. The cause was tried at Derby, before the Lord Chief Justice Tindal, when it ap peared that the frame had been in use for some time be fore the distress, that it was used on the Saturday night be fore the distress, and again at an early hour on Monday morning, and when seized as a distress had some unfinished web in it. The seizure was made when the machine was at work, and was consequently illegal. The Learned Judge, however, would not direct the Jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff, but left it as a question for them whether the working of the frame at that time was or was not a colourable working. On the facts of this case such a question ought not to have been left to their consideration. Rule to show cause granted. WANSBOROUGH V. MATON. Mr. Sergeant MEREWETHFR stated that this was an action of trover for a barn, and the question was whether or not such an action was maintainable. The plaintiff was the executor of a person who had been the occupier of a farm belonging to the defen dant, and on the expiration of the term attempted to take away the barn, but was prevented by the defendant. The case was tried at the last Assizes for Salisbury, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff. That verdict he now moved to set aside, on the ground, first, that trover would not lie for a barn ; and, secondly, that the refusal of the defendant to let the plaintiff go on the premises to remove the barn was not a conversion so as to enable the plaintiff to support this action. The COURT granted the rule on the first point, and re fused it on the second. UITCHCOCK V. COHER. Mr. ERLE moved an arrest of judgment in this case. This was an action against the defendant on a contract, by which be bound himself, in consideration of being at that time in the employment of the plaintiff; that if at any time thereafter, directly or indirectly, he should in his own name or for his own use and benefit, carry on the business of a chemist or druggist within the town of Taunton, he should pay the sum of 5001. as liquidated damages. The cause was tried at the last Somersetshire Assizes before Mr. Baron Gurney, when a verdict was given for the amount of 500/. The Learned Counsel now contended that the con tract was illegal within the principle laid down in the cases on the subject.—Rule to show cause granted. BERNARD V. CARTER. Mr. ALEXANDER stated that this was an action to re cover the sum of 2001. from an innkeeper, for the loss of a box of jewellery. The case was tried at Lancaster before Mr. Baron Alderson, when a verdict was given for the defendant. He now moved for a rule to show cause why there should not be a new trial, on the ground that a material witness, who had been regularly subpoenaed, was absent when the trial came on.—Rule to show cause granted. HENDERSON V. PASMORE. Mr. LEE moved for a rule to show cause why judgment should not be arrested, or the damages be reduced to a no minal sum. This was an action to recover damages for the detention of letters, briefs, and papers which had come into the possession of the defendant, as attorney for the plaintiff. The cause was tried at Shrewsbury before Mr. Justice Coleridge, when a verdict was given for the plain tiff, with 261. damages. The Learned Judge, in the ab sence of any evidence as to the value of the instruments, directed the Jury to value them. The Jury retired, and returned into Court, and said to his Lordship, " Can you assist us ; we do not know the value of such papers." His Lordship replied that it was impossible for him to do so. They then returned a verdict of 501. The Judge desired them to put a value on each of the articles, and after some discussion they returned a verdict for 261., saying that they valued them at 11. a piece ; but one of the Jurymen added, we do not think them worth so much. The valuation thus put was clearly wrong, for there were thirty papers, and not twenty-six, or, if that was net so, they had certainly overvalued those almost worthless papers.—Rule granted. DAIL COURT. Mr. ERLE moved for a writ in the nature of a quo war ranto, calling upon certain persons to show by what au thority they took upon themselves certain offices in the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn. Various disputes had arisen in the parish respecting proper persons to be elected to the offices in question. Some time since a meeting was called, when the parishioners assembled elected a Mr. Hawkins as Chairman. Objections were taken to the elec tion of that gentleman, and though the show of hands was decidedly in favour of Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Ramsden pro posed Mr. Tooke, and much confusion ensued, and then a poll was demanded, to which objections were taken. Mr. Tooke, and those who supported him, retired to another room, and in that room, the Learned Counsel stated, Mr. Tooke was elected, the parishioners in open meeting not being present. It was therefore to ascertain whether the persons against whom he moved were properly elected th a t he now applied to the Court for a writ. Mr. Justice 'WILLIAMS desired the Learned Counsel to take a rule. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. ELECTION CHARGES..-..-T. AND G. HANDLOCK V. THE HON. R. GREVILLE. Mr. EVANS moved in this case for a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, as excessive, unless the plaintiffs would consent to a fair abatement. This cause was tried before Mr. Justice Williams at the last Assizes for Pembrokeshire, and the verdict given for the plaintiffs, damages 3601. The plaintiffs were brothers a n d a t torneys at Cardigan. The defendant was twice a candidate in 1831 to represent the county of Pembroke in Parliament, and the plaintiffs were engaged on his side, and brought their action for the amount of the bill they made out and delivered to the defendant. In the opinion of the defendant that bill was excessive in its charges, and 140/. was paid into Court, but the Jury gave a verdict for 3601., striking off about 30/. The Learned Counsel called the attention of the Court to the items of charge of which the bill was made up. The plaintiffs were engaged during fifteen days in the election of May, 1831, and nine days in September of the same year, and for that they had made out this enormous bill. The first it e m in the bill was a retaining fee for each, to which, he contended, they were not "entitled. The retainer was contained in a letter written by Mr. Evans, of Haverford west, expressing a desire to retain the services of the plain. ~--- - tiffs, and adding, " I hope we shall have your interest." In consequence of that expression the plaintiffs contended they were authorised to canvass for the defendant, and they ac cordingly charged five days' canvassing, at three guineas a day. During the poll they charged five guineas a day each, which the Learned Counsel submitted was too much, and that there was no precedent or fixed standard for such a charge. For their retaining fee they charged 51. ss. each. Lord ABINGER—I have heard of an attorney charging 500 guineas as his retaining fee.—(A laugh.) Mr. Evans—The two plaintiffs went together from Car digan to Haverfordwest. They made two days of the jour ney, and put down twenty-four guineas to the defendant for the service - so rendered. During the polling the chief ser vices rendered by the plaintiffs were, that one of them, Thomas, acted as tally clerk in a room set apart for that purpose ; and the other, George, went up to the poll at the head of the defendant's voters. Lord ABINGER—That you know, Mr. Evans, is a post of danger at some elections. It is a great pity that the par ties cannot settle the value of services rendered upon such occasions as those, for neither Judge nor Jury are perfectly competent to the task. The rule was finally granted for a new trial upon payment of costs, unless the plaintiffs consented to a deduction, or agreed to refer. ILLEGAL VOTING AT ELECTIONS-GODFREY V. CLARK. This was tried at the last Suffolk assizes before Mr. Jus tice Vaughan. It was for penalties under the 7th and Bth of George IV., cap. 53, sec. 9, which prohibited " excise officers" from voting at elections under a penalty of 5001. The defendant was then " keeper of an excise-office" at Sudbury, and, in defiance of a caution that he would be proceeded against by action if he voted, gave his vote for the western division of the county of Suffolk at the last election. The plaintiff • was nonsuited upon the trial, with leave by the Learned Judge to move the Court to set aside the nonsuit, and enter a verdict for the plaintiff. Mr. BIGGS ANDREWS now moved accordingly. Rule granted. LANGLEY V. THE EARL OF OXFORD. Sir W. FOLLETT moved their Lordships, by permission of the Learned Judge who tried the cause, Mr. Baron GURNEY, for a rule to set aside the verdict for the plaintiff for 6001., and enter a nonsuit. Lord ABINGER—When was it tried, Sir William ? Sir W. FOLLETT—This morning, my Lord, in the other Court.--(Laughter.) This action was brought upon a bond of the defendant's, in which it appeared that an alteration had taken place after its execution by the defendant. The alteration consisted in the introduction of the words, " at five per cent. per annum interest." These words were written over a line drawn with ink, between two words, separated by an interval, which interval or space was so marked, to show that nothing was intended to be written there.—Rule granted. EARL FERRERS V. ROBINS. This was an action against Mr. Robins, the auctioneer. It was tried before Mr. Baron GURNEY, at the sittings after last Term, when a verdict was given for the plaintiff. Mr. F. KELLY now moved for a rule to show cause why that verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial bad. The circumstances were briefly these :—Earl Ferrers em ployed Mr. Robins to sell the furniture of a house in Har ley -street. Mr. Robins sold it to a Mr. Mott, but before he took the acceptance of Mr. Mott for 7501. the plaintiff desired him not to trust him, but to have ready money. The bill, however, was taken, and subsequently so far adopted by the plaintiff, that his agent deposited it with his Lordship's bankers, and Lady Ferrers, on behalf and for the use of his Lordship, received from it and others con siderable advances of money. Owing to the negligence of the plaintiff the bill was not presented, and no notice was given of its non-payment to the drawer, whereby he was exonerated. Nevertheless the Jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, and the Learned Judge directed them to consider whether the plaintiff had adopted the bill or not. The Jury, upon being asked, said that he had not adopted the bill. Now he (Mr. Kelly) contended that this question ought not to have been left to the Jury.—Rule refused. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. NICHOL V. •LEFEVRE. Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT moved for a rule to show cause why the nonsuit in this case should not be set aside and a new trial had. The case was tried before the Lord Chief Justice at Guildhall, and was an action of trover instituted against defendant, shipping agent at Southampton for Mr. Le Couteur, of Jersey. In May, 1834, Le Couteur was in London, and had forwarded a quantity of goods to de fendant to be by him shipped for Jersey. A person of the name of Coates, who had some demands against Le Cou teur, had seized these goods in transitu, after they were shipped, and they were accordingly relanded, with the as sistance and by the authority of defendant. A quantity of goods belonging to plaintiff were seized and relanded at the same time, and this action was brought against defendant to recover damages for this seizure—Rule granted. SHERIFF'S COURT. MORE V. BACCUS. In this case a question of some importance was raised. The plaintiff, a builder, residing in Connaught-terrace, Edgware-road, sought to recover of the defendant, a market gardener, of Shepherd's Bush, the sum of 18/. on a bill of exchange drawn by a person named Day, and accepted by the defendant. He pleaded that it was not his acceptance,,and specially that he had taken the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Act. The acceptance was proved by a person present at the time. The bill was drawn at two months, and became due on the 26th of November last. Shortly after the bill was drawn the defendant became an insolvent debtor, and was discharged under the Act on the 15th of December. In his schedule, an extract of which was read, he had inserted Day the drawer of the bill as the creditor, and stated that he had received no consideration. It was proved that he had received some consideration, and that one of the indorsers had in November left a note of the dishonour with the wife of the defendant, and stated that it was in the hands of the present plaintiff. He was informed that the defendant was in London, but he was ignorant of his im prisonment. The plaintiff had received no notice under the Insolvent Debtors' Act as a creditor, and the question for the determination of the Jury was, whether the de fendant possessed the knowledge that the plaintiff was the holder before the time of his adjudication as an insolvent *tor. The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 181., the amount claimed. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE. Dr. W7ll. Brewer and Mr. Richard Matthews, a medi cal student, both residing at No. 24, Cornhill, were brought before the Lord- Mayor, by John Forrester, the officer, charged with having made arrangements to carry into effect the sanguinary determination to fight a duel. Mr. J. Matthews, the brother of one of the Gentlemen, believed if his Lordship did not interpose his authority, the defendants would fight with pistols, although they had quarrelled about nothing. He knew that preparations were making for the purpose of settling the business by an act of violence. The Lord MAYOR (to the defendant)—Can't you ma nage to arrange the dispute without an appeal to arms ? Is it not too bad to try to blow out each other's brains for nothing 2—(A laugh.) Dr. Brewer stated that a misunderstanding had taken place between him and Mr. Matthews, and he wrote a let ter to that Gentleman upon the subject. The answer he received, however, instead of being explanatory, demanded an apology, and when that was declined Mr. Matthews transmitted to him an elegant epistle, which went the whole length of a challenge. He mentioned in answer that if a friend of Mr. Matthews should find upon investigation that any point of the charge brought against him was established what was required should be conceded. This led to an in terview, after which he went to the country to visit a pa tient, and upon his return that morning he was astonished at receiving a slap on the mouth from Mr. Matthews, who had thus become the challenger and the provoker to battle before the challenge was disposed of. He soon afterwards found himself in the custody of the officer. The LORD MAYOR (to Mr. Matthews)—Have you sent a challenge to your antagonist ? Mr. Matthews—l deny that I have sent a challenge. Mr. John Matthews—Will your Lordship be so good as to read that note ? His Lordship then read the note, which went thus . " Sir,—You will oblige me by being at home at ten o'clock at night with a friend, in order that final measures may be adopted. " R. MATTHEWS." The LORD MAYoß—That is, that we may try to put an end to each other's existence.—(A laugh.) Mr. Matthews—No, my Lord, it did not mean that. The LORD MAI' oit—What am I to understand by final measures ? The last appeal I should conceive. It sounds, considering the place and the hour at night, very like slugs in a saw-pit.—( Laughter.) Mr. Matthews—Dr. Brewer said that he would make no apology, but if a friend of mine was satisfied that he was wrong, he was ready to fight me.—(Laughter.) The LORD MAYOR--A very sound and rational con clusion to come to, indeed ! Dr. Brewer declared that he had no disposition to fight. He had certainly received the very elegant epistle proposing that mode of settling the difference that existed, but he had made no proposal of the kind. _ _ _ Mr. Matthews--You certainly proposed that we should fight across the table ; but to that 1 would by no means consent. Mr. John Matthews—The table across which they were _ to fight was about three feet in breadth, so that their pistol° must have touched. The Loan MAYOR, who appeared to be incredulous oe the subject in consequence of the odd circumstances of the case, asked the gentleman who had applied for the asbis' tance of the police whether he really believed there Was anything to be apprehended from the hostility of the defen dants to each other ? Mr. John Matthews had not the slightest doubt of the intention of both to fight, and he thought them both to° valuable to allow them to be in such hazard. He be. lieved that the arrangements for the meeting had been completed. Dr. Brewer—l have been assaulted, and certainly it w:1 1 , 1 not do for a man of my profession to visit his patients WIC a pair of black eyes.—(Laughter.) The Loan MAYOR—I must prevent you from blowing out each-other's brains, as well as from raising consternr tion in the City of London. I must take care that 3° l don't dispatch each other's honour across a three-foot table. It is every bit as bad as the slugs in a sawpit.—.(Greet laughter.) The defendants were then ordered to find bail to kee,P the peace towards each other in the amount of 100/. each The sureties were immediately procured, and the Lora Mayor set the two gentlemen at liberty. SECOND EDITION. SUN WTI CE, Seven o'clock• THE LONDS - N GAZETTE THIS EVENING. At the Court at St. James's, the 23d day of April, 10 , PRESENT, The King's most Excellent Majesty in Council. the His Majesty having been pleased to deliver the custodY on o n , ,Privy Seal to the Right Hon. John William Viscount Du.ncasterent the oath of Keeper of the Privy Seal was this day administer ed him, and his Lordship took his place at the Board accordinglY• At the Court at St. James's, the 23d day of April, 183 5 ' PRESENT, The King's most Excellent Majesty in Council. . e ms , His Majesty having constituted the Right Hon. Sir C. Ch r . l6 pher Pepys, Knt. Master of the Rolls ; the Right Hon. Sit Shadwell, Knt., Vice-Chancellor of England; and the Right n°l3_, Sir J. Bernard Bosanquet, Knt. one of the Justices of the court Common Pleas, Lords Commissioners for the custody of the Gre i s Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , w as T he day pleased, in Council, to deliver to them the Great Seal of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ; and the said L° be Commissioners did, thereupon, take the Oaths appointed tom taken, instead of the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, an d _ 4 l the Oath as Lord Commissioners for the castody of the Great At the Court at St. James's, the 23d day of April, 105. PRESENT, The King's Most Excellent Majesty in Council. h t His Majesty in Council was this day pleased to declare the Plj Hon. Henry Constantine Earl of Mulgrave, Lieutenant-Gee :1;i and Governor-General of that part of the United Kingdom el' Ireland. ST. JAMES'S PALACE, APRIL 23. _ m ay His Majesty having been graciously pleased to deliver the cwnhe of the seals of the duchy and county palatine of Lancaster te. Right Hon. H. R. Lord Holland, the Oath of Chancellor of,..it", duchy of Lancaster was this day, by his Majesty's command, saw nistered to him accordingly. WHITEHALL, APRIL 22. The King has been pleased to direct letters patent to be Pre under the Great Seal, constituting and appointing the Right .4 0 ... George Baron Auckland; Rear-Admiral Charles Adam; Admiral Sir William Parker, K. C. B. • Captain the Hon. up, Elliot, C.B. ; Captain Sir E. T. Troubridge, Bart. ; so. Primrose, Esq., (commonly called Lord Dalmeny) to be 0 '',.1 of jesty's Commissioners for executing the office of High the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the uhs nions, islands, and territories thereunto belonging. The 16 ,,.. ng d to been pleased to grant the office of Solicitor-General for Sco w ': John Cuninghame, Esq. HOARD OF GREEN CLOTH, APRIL L o ra The King has been pleased to appoint the Duke of .416 Y,"%, Steward of his Majesty's Household, vice the Earl of WiO"' signed. AR , A 24. /Ve 4th Regiment of Dragoon OFFICE Guards. PRIL —Lieutenant C. R. g. ber to be Captain, by purchase, vice Fane, promoted ; On e " lb. Meynell to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Archer ; C. r:, betson, Gent. to be Cornet, by purchase, vice Meynell, j. sth Regiment of Dragoon Guards. Assistant-SurM n t- Munro, M.D. front the 7th Regiment of Foot, to be Ms's" - Surgeon, vice Dragoons. April 24. urlkins °° ' Ist Regiment of Brevet Major R. S. - 11. from the half-pay of the Royal Marines, to be Paymaster, Vice 1?..1. Allen, who reverts to the half-pay of the Irish Artillery, Al l ,' he 12th Regiment of Light Dragoons—Lieut. J. Childe Captain, by purchase, vice Pulteney, who retires ; Cornet, Morant to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Childe ; T. Bell Gentleman, to be Cornet, by purchase, vice Morant, April 24.6 e, 14th Regiment of Light Dragoons—C. E. Doherty, Ge.?. 2 4. man, to be Cornet, by purchase, vice Leeson, who retires, Ap r ' to 15th Regiment of Light Dregoons—F. Sutton, Gentleroa'''ot be Cornet, by purchase, vice Doherty, whose appointment has taken place, April 24. Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards—E. C. W. M. Ali ( 1 1, Gentleman, to be Ensign and Lieutenant, by purchase, vice 3 00 who retires, April 24. Scots Fusilier Guards—Lieut. the Hon. G. A. F. Liddell to b e ; Lieutenant and Captain, by purchase, vice Rowley, who retir g e e J. H. Blair, Gent. to be Ensign and Lieutenant, by purchase, Liddell, April 24. Ist Regiment of Foot—Ensign F. Nicholson to be Lieute',"ent. without purchase, vice Bathurst, who retires • J. E. Sharp, to be Ensign, by purchase, vice Nicholson, April 24. chas e ' 21st Foot—Lieut. R. G. Williams to be Captain by Pur vice Scbaw, who retires; Second Lieut. A. Blair to ' be First 1;' tenant, by purchase, vice Williams; W. Domville, Gent. t Second Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Blair, April 24. vice 45th Foot—R. Maunsell, Gent. to be Ensign, by purchase , Erskine, who retires. April 24. ,„„., do" ' 60th Foot—Lieut.-Col. the Hon. H. R. Molyneux , inT io rly 67th Regiment of Foot, to be Lieutenant-Colonel, vicel3o" who exchanges. April 24. has t ' 66th Foot.—E. M. Davenport, Gent., to be Ensign, by P ure vice Currie, promoted. April 24. Ine ° 67th Foot—Lieut.-Col. T. Bunbury, from the 60th A• e v gi oes• of Foot, to be Lieutenant-Colonel, vice Molyneux, who excbaeo April 24. cha ge? 87th Foot—Lieut. J. Du Vernet to be Captain, by Purim vice Hay, who retires; Second Lieut. W. Radcliff to ~"t , to Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Du Vernet ; A. Murray , u,, e 4 n be Second Lieutenant, by 9 purchase, vice Radcliffe. ;hag* 89th Foot—Lieut. R. T. Healy, to be Captain, by Pur-oeir vice Jones, who retires ; Ensign F. R. Palmer, to be Lieu ° ar• by purchase, vice Healy ; A. Pigott, Gent., to be Ensign, bY P chase vice Palmer, April 24. li t of 92d Foot—Capt. H. Mackay, from half-pay 27th Regi ment Foot, to be Captain, vice B. Duff, who exchanges, April '2 4 . bas e, 1 3u , 1 i 94th Foot—Ensign C. Lecky, to be Lieutenant, by c v at' vice Murray, who retires ; P. Hill, Gent., to be Ensign , chase, vice Lecky, April 24. 'UNATTACHE Capt. H. Fane, from 4th Dragoon Guards, to be 31v , by t o - chase; Ensign J. Currie, from 66th Regiment of .00t, Lieutenant, by purchase, April 24. of To be Assistant-Surgeons to the Forces. egt• J. Sinclair, Gent. vice Blakeney, appointed to the 67th., 11 04 . Foot; J. Watkins, Gent. vice R. Bell, who resigns, Apr" STAFF. WW l ' IT Brevet Lieut.-Col. J. Campbell, on the half-pay 'M at to be Town-Major at St. Helena, April 24. MEMORANDUM. ent 4 The Christian names of Ensign Pugh, of the 90th Reb— Foot, are Charles Vaughan. Li ce ; Major W. Morris, upon half-pay Unattached, and bees H. Fry, upon half-pay of the 100th Regiment of Foot, hav e c ar allowed to retire from the service by the sale of Unattache" missions, they being about to become settlers in the coloniel• HOSPITAL STAFF. . e pt Surgeon G. Mann, from the half-pay of the 93d Reg ina pt iceo; Foot, to be Surgeon to the Forces, vice H. Franklin, wh o "%o* Assistant-Surgeon J. Foster, M.D., from the sth Dragoon 4-1 to be Surgeon to the Forces, April 24. d eP Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of the County of '7 4 , The Hon. R. Curzon, jun., to be Deputy Lieutenant, Als" Commissions by the Lord Lieutenant of the County of P erth ;iee Deputy Lieut. H. H. Drummond to be Vice-Lieuten ant, Sir A. M. Mackenzie, deceased, April 14. floc' The Hon. W. Rollo, Sir J. W. P. M. Drummond , th_,, e W. Drummond, D. Dundas, jun., Esq., W. E. C. W°°`" tia nts , and Capt. G. W. H. Knight, R.N., to be Deputy Lieu te April 11. Commissions by the Lord Lieutenant of the County of rl e 3 f a iet East Essex Militia—D. Ede, Esq. to be Captain, v ice resigned, April 6. West Essex Yeomanry Cavalry—Cornet F. Palmer to be„ilet, tenant, vice Bury, resigned ; W. J. Hamilton, Gent. to be LA' vice F. Palmer, promoted, April 6. DECLARATIONS OF INSOLVENCY• Oar GEORGE WARD and EDWARD WARD, carpenters, cery-lane. JOSEPH NOBLE, merchant, Newcastle-upon-Tyn e. 1110 1 " JOSEPH PENRICE and MATTHEW ANDREW' chester-warehousemen, Old Chane. WILLIAM CHEETH AM, gungpowder-merchant, Austin-frisll‘ BANKRUPTS. We t ' ROBERT WILLIAM SAVAGE, dealer, Great RY" er ; s welv e ' St. James's, to surrender May 5, at eleven, and June 5, at at the Court of B an k ru pt c y. G r o om , Ab c h u rch-lane, o ffiel signee ; Parker, Fish-street-hill. 1,11 I‘l9l It THOMAS LEIGHTON TERRY, vintner, Corn- 1 at twelve, and J une 5, a t e l even , a t th e C our t of Ban k /00 1 Gould, Great St. H e l en ' s , Bi s h opsga t e Withi n ; Goldsnaid , ° . assignee, Basinghall-street. p lay DANIEL TYE, cattle-salesman, Weybridge, SurreY, Greent at one, and June 5, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. jolt Aldermanbu r y, official assignee ; Smith, Son, and I derr. Southampton-street, Bloomsbury. „ 111$9 THOMAS BROWETT, tin-plate-worker, NortharriPt°"' too. 11 . , and June 5, at eleven, at the Angel Hotel, Tokenhouse-yard, London; Mark-hams, Northamptc'n' gal WILLIAM HOGARTH, builder, Newcastle-upon -l Y ne We' 15, at eleven, and June 5, at one, at the C o mmission - r oot % Ste' castle-upon-Tyne. Gibson, Newcastle-upon-Tyne ; S vgu yens, and Co., Frederick's-place, Old Jewry, London. ,THOMAS BACKHOUSE, plumber Wakefield, I°r T o ketv May 1, at ten, at the Court-house Wakefield. Preston, house-yard, London ; Whitham, Wakefield. ' NortheroP ----- BIRTHS r, the lads' the 22d i ns t., a t St . Germain's- . place, Blackhe at ....1 of Lawford Richardson, Esq., of a daughter. ....•-' London : Printed and Published by AIURDO YOUDT,c i, e co ol ' 112, Strand, at The Su n O ffi ce, No. 112, Strand, .I 0 .' of Middlesex.