The Sun. — London, England, 1835-01-22 00:00:00

fled and embellished by the lessons of OUT holy religion. Another feeling, closely connected_ with the former , i s their steady and active friendship fo r those distin g uish ed individuals who 6.1 directed their youthful ener -.lpdge a nd the study gies in the pursuit of useful -orous . of divine truth. This elevated and gels... preciation of the " debt immense of endless gratitude, to him who had directed the important business of . education was never more deeply felt, more promptly or more durably displayed, than by that immortal Statesman to whose transcendant genius and indomitable firmness England is indebted for her moral and political pre-eminence among the nations of the earth. The first individual to whom William Pitt announced his elevation to the post of Prime Mi nister was his former tutor, Dr. Prettyman. So inhe rent and so active is the principle that analagous in stances may be found among the mere Whigs. The agency of a similar feeling might be traced among the warriors and legislators of antiquity, and the intense ness and activity of the feeling were in the direct ratio of the intellectual superiority and energy of him whom it actuated. In the estimation of Alexander the invalu able caskets of Darius were the only suitable depository for the works of his master Aristotle. The existence of the feeling we have alluded to may, in a great mea sure, be traced to a something , " Gothic and Monkish" —for " such," as Mr. Burke has said, "it is in the groundwork"—in the discipline of our Universities, and in the system pursued there. This ecclesiastical tinge, this early and habitual association of sacred and of scientific truths, has given a somewhat sombre colour ing to the national character, habits, and manners. But on the other other hand, to the permanent operation of the same salutary system must be ascribed all that is most dignified and valuable in the character of the English Gentleman—all that elevates our aristocracy as a class above the moral and mental level of that of any other nation—all that enables them, to use the language of Milton, " to perform justly, skilfully, and magnanimously, all the offices, both private and public, of peace and war." The intellectual and moral cha racter of our educated classes is formed by our Eccle siastical Universities, and by those domestic habits which, through successive generations, have re ceived their tone from the same source. Those learned bodies, at once the offspring and the auxiliaries of the Established Church, are animated by her spirit, and identified with her interests and ob jects ; their separate beings are essentially and inextricably interwoven ; they reciprocally inter penetrate each other ;* nor can we conceive the possibility of detriment or deterioration in the one, without a corresponding injury to the other. It is not the friends of the Established Church who are of this opinion ; her enemies entertain a similar conviction. Hence their inveterate hostility to the existing privi leges of the national Universities, the nurseries of the Ministers and champions of the Established Church, and the able and unflinching supporters of that union between Church and State which it is object of all their efforts to destroy. The enemies of the Church (in other words, that section of the Destructives which is con nosed of political Dissenters) are at this moment the mo't dangerous, because the most ac tive, enterprising, ‘ ,7 nd unprincipled of the fac tions which for some yees past have kept the public mind of England in a ferc?ent. Religion is with them the mask of faction, and congf:i'Vntious scruples are the cloak of personal and sectarian ambition. It is not our intention, in the present article, to en ter into the discussion of the modest pretensions or those Jacobins in masquerade to nullify the ancient privileges, to abrogate the statutes, and to revolutionize the systematic discipline of our Universities. To the redress, or rather to the removal, of the few remaining disabilities to which Dissenters are subjected, to grant to them the most comprehensive measure of relief as citizens and subjects, compatible with the essential conditions of our civil and ecclesiastical polity, is the course dictated by reason and by justice. To do less than this would be unworthy of the liberal and en lightened policy of the Church of England and of our Conservative Cabinet. To do more it would be im possible for a conscientious Dissenter to expect ,or to desire. The great subject of Church reform must soon occupy the attention of the Legislature. The de termination of the Prime Minister on this subject is expressed with equal simplicity and precision ; and his recorded promise to enter on the considera tion of this momentous subject " with the sincerest desire to remove every abuse that can impair the efficiency of the Establishment, to ektend the sphere of its it.sefulness, and to strengthen and confirm its just claims upon the respect and affections of the people," does honour to his principles as the Minister of a Pro testant Monarch, on earth the supreme head of the English Protestant Curch, and entitles him to the heartfelt gratitude of this Protestant people. The declaration of Sir Robert if el on the subject of Church Reform was as opportune it was explicit, and is equally creditable to his sagacl`ty and to his firmness. The concurrence of Sir Robert reel in the comprehensive measure of 1829, which co:needed more than to many zealous adherents of the Es.a - Wished Church seemed advisable, gave additional va lue to this document. There is a point beyond which a British Minister cannot advance in the path of a concession without compromising at once the honour of the Crown and the interests of the people. In times like the present, when the agitated surface of society betrays the potent agency of the spirit which disturbs its depths, the calmest and the coldest, the firmest and the proudest, must syripathise, more or less,. in the general movement of the Mighty mass. If -within the limits of the British Empire there are two men whose character and whose experience qualify them to meet the emergencies of the present crisis ; to controul the elements of disorder ; to prescribe limits to the wild and fearful spirit of innovation, which me naces with outrage and utter ruin all that is valuable, or. _venerable, or holy ; to save the Monarchy, the Church, and the Constitution ; to serve the peo - pie, and save them from themselves ; those men are the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel.—Morning - Port.- Our contemporary, the Standard, forgetful of the . denunciation in Scripture, is somewhat apt to deal with two measures. The parsons of England are the great canvassers for the Tories. This, of course, : , :: finds•favour in the eyes of our contemporary. In a lborough in the East of England, which we could r'°--name, the individual employed in bribing the electors '`crtiallced down the principal street, arm-in-arm with the i{ 'ory candidate and a canvassing parson. But the s ,llgman Catholic priests, also, take an interest in the elections, and they do not exert themselves in favour of the Tories. This is a heinous offence in the eyes of our contemporary, who, with amusing inconsist .ency, a the very moment he is filling his columns with authorities against the Parliament which proved an overmatch for Charles the First, recurs to parliamentary precedents, in the reign of the same Monarch, against clergymen of the Establishment, for preaching about the election of Members of Puha • ment, with a view to the punishment of the Irish Ca- _ . tholic priests. "We have already," (says the Stan dard) laid before the English reader the address of the notorious priest, M'Hale." Our readers will re collect that we also alluded to this address, and that we 'demonstrated that Dr. M'Hale was not only justitial _in denouncing the heinous crimes of perjury and bri bery, but bound as a Christian pastor to enlighten all who were under his charge on the subject. The diffe rence between Dr. M'Hale and the Reverend Canvas sers for the Tories is this, that the former uses his influ- ence against crime, and the latter in favour of it. "In a late number of the Ikblin Freeman's Journal (conti nues the Standard) we read similar addresses issued seve rally to their clergy by Priest M'Mahon, usurping the see of Killaloe, Priest Murphy, usurping the see of Cork, and Priest Nolan, successor to the well-known Di. Doyle, in the usurped see of Kildare and Leigh lin." Why not ? Has our contemporary already for gotten that he subscribed to the justice of our remarks in the case of Dr. Hale, and wished the Protestant clergy to profit by the arguments we advanced in justification of the interference of the Catholic clergy in political matters ? Our contemporary, however, now invokes the aid of Parliament against the Catholic clergy, for pre suming to raise their voice against bribery and corruption—for wishing to snatch the souls of their flocks from the perdition into which their Tory Commons will do (says the Standard) with cases this, it were vain to anticipate but if we may 'refer to the practice of Parliament, such conduct will not be passed over without notice. We may instance the well-known case of Dr. Hams, Minister of Bletch _ingly, in Surrey, who about two centuries ago, for * by preaching or otherwise about election --l;ament, upon complaint, was called Commons, and there as a -- -sit. to confess his ^f his misbena, of Members of r to the bar of the House of delinquent on his knees, had judgm,.. fault there, and in the country in the pulpit parish Church ;'—or the case of Dr. Manwaring under similar circumstances, fined 1,0001., imprisoned during pleasure, and disqualified from the Minis try. Now, if Parliament has so dealt with ministers of the Established Church, with men who professed to hold no power of consigning to ultimate perdition—who issue no death-warrants under the skull-and-cross-bones signet, will Parliament take no cognisance of tyranny exercised under the awful sanc tions of temporal and eternal death—sanctions yin dieted, as far as such can be on earth, with a certain and a bloody promptitude ?" The skull-and-cross bones signet, and the temporal death, are exaggera tions, we suspect ; and at all events the addresses of the Catholic Bishops have referred only to the eternal consequences of bribery and perjury. Will Parliament dare to take cognisance of the conduct of Clergymen who tell their flocks that they ought not to pollute themselves with the mammon of unrighteousness ; that they ought to take the advice and counsel of their landlords only when they can do so with a safe con science ; and that, in voting for a candidate, the only question they ought to ask themselves is, Is he a fit and proper person to represent the people in the Imperial Legislature ? Our Contemporary refers us to two cases : let us take the latter, as stated by Mr. Hume—that of Manwaring. " There is nothing (says the Historian and Apologist of the House of Stuart) which tends more to excuse, if not to justify, the extreme rigour of the Commons towards Charles, than his open encouragement and avowal of such general principles, as were altogether incompatible with a limited Government. Manwaring had preached a sermon, which the Commons found upon inquiry to be printed by special command of the King ; and when this sermon was looked into, it contained doctrines subversive of all civil liberty. It taught, that though property was commonly lodged in the subject, yet when ever . any exigency required supply, all property was transferred to the Sovereign ; that the con sent of Parliament was not necessary for the im position of taxes ; and that the Divine laws re quired compliance with every demand, how irregular so ever, which the prince should make upon his subjects. For these doctrines the Commons impeached Manwaring. The sentence pronounced upon him by the Peers was that he should be imprisoned during the pleasure of the House, be fined a thousand pounds to the King, make submission and acknowledgment for his offence, be suspended during three years, be incapable of holding any ecclesiastical dignity or secular office, and that his book be called in and burnt. It may be worth notice, that no sooner was the session ended, than this man, so justly obnoxious to both Houses, received a pardon, and was promoted to a living of consi derable value. Some years after he was raised to the see of St. Asaph. If the republican spirit of the Commons increased, beyond all reasonable bounds, the monarchical spirit of the Court, this latter carried to so high a pitch, tended still farther to augment the former. And thus extremes were everywhere affected, and the just medium was gradually deserted by all men. Manwaring, no doubt, preached an unconstitu -1 tional doctrine ; and though an impeachment is not r - the best mode of refutation, much allowance ought to 'b e ma d e the Commons at a time when King and Parliament were ;-;:uggling for ascendancy. When any body of men have t;io power of determining the extent of their own privileges, they seldom err on the side . of excessive moderation ; and it may be said of the House of Commons, that their privileges do not form au exception to the rule. Mr. John Reeve was ordered to be prosecuted by the House of Commons in 1794, for asserting that the two Houses of Par liament, deriving their power from the King, were of inferior authority ; but the prosecution was not then generally approved of, and would now be universally condemned. Indeed, the House of Commons might, with equal propriety, order the prosecution of the Standard for asserting that the King's pre iouative extends to the naming Ministers on his own responsibility to God—that no Ministers are responsible for an act, by which a country may be in volved in consequences of a most ruinous nature. There is, in fact, no limit to the privileges of Parlia ment. But, though the House of Commons may choose to proceed against Dr. M'Hale for publishing addresses against bribery and corruption, because it once impeached Dr. Manwaring for preaching in favour of arbitrary power, we think it very unlikely that it will do so, and we are sure that it ought not to do so. Nine-tenths of the clergy of the Church of England have been preaching against the measures of the Government, from the beginning to the end of the Whig Administration, to the great scandal occasionally of their flocks. Yet no one ever pro posed that the House of Commons should order them to its bar. If Protestant Priests may preach nohtics, may not Catholic Priests publish political addresses ? Our contemporary quotes the precedent of Dr. Manwaring to justify proceedings against the Catholic priests, yet he writes a long and laboured article to prove that the King and Dr. Manwaring were, after all, in the right, and the Parliament in the wrong. Hume, with all his partiality, admits that the exaggerated pretensions of Charles led to exaggerated pretensions on the part of Parliament ; but our con temporary throws all the blame on the Parliament, and, by way of showing the danger of Radical pre tensions, quotes a number of passages from such heated productions as Symmons's Vindication of Charles. " Had the King (says Syrnmons) been one of those that, under pretence of vindicating the liberty and happiness of the subject, should vote away the subject's right to his own goods, sometimes a twentieth part, sometimes a fifth part, sometimes all." Why, the creatures of Charles contended, as we have seen, that he had a right to take all : and if the con test between King and Parliament entailed heavy charges on the nation, it is absurd to lay all the blame of these charges on the Parliament, if it cannot be shown that the King was not in fault in the outset, Even Hume admits that the people of England are in debted for their liberties to the Puritans, who at last took the field against Charles ; and if Charles had been successful instead of the Parliament, England would in all probability have been reduced to the con dition of France. The long Parliament may have out stripped the bounds of moderation ; but of two evils it was better surely that a Monarch should lose his head than that a nation should lose its liberties.—Morning Chronicle. Of all the blows which have been aimed at the re negade and unprincipled Government, with which it hath pleased heaven in its mercy to bless this country, that of Mr. Byng, the father of the House of Corn mons, and a representative of the people during a pe. riod of 45 years, and now, we may almost say, in twelve successive' Parliaments, is the most deadly-- the most destructive—the most incapable of anything in the shape of honourable return. In his letter of thanks to the electors of the county of Middlesex, which appeared in yesterday's Advertiser, he says,— after reminding his friends that the first vote he ever gave was " in support of a 'motion made by Mr. Fox for the reliof of the Dissenters by the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts,"—for " Lord Grey's mo tion on Reform"—far " Mr• Wilberforce's on the ........ ..,.. ______. ___ African Slave Trade"—for Catholic Emancipation, and many other V measures bearing the stamp of the utmost liberality, the Honourable Mem ber proceeds to lay it into the loins o the Tories after the following fashion :—" I have lately seen, with great surprise and regret, the same party which formerly called themselves the Tory party, again restored to power; but with still greater sur prise have I seen them, in the face of their country, abandoning every principle they ever professed to hold, renouncing the very name under which they so long acted, and putting forth as their claim to public con fidence an intention to act upon the very pfinciples which tiro Whigs have always maintained, and to which they professed and were considered to be con scientiously hostile. To a Gpyprnment composed of men whose former conduct belies that pr gent pro fessions J can give no confidence whatever ; their continugnve in power gold Ti9t 14i1 tp excite tend to pt course me Ve know nothih: whole ti n of our editorial lire more hOnobrable to any Member of the House of Commons than this decl • aration on the part of Mr. Byng-m-nothins so just--nothing so deadly to the existence of the Tory Government. It could not have come with such good grace from 'any other Member--it could not have told so forcibly from any other quarter. If the Tories live after a such denun ciation—if they will still cling to the •of reins power, and defy public opinion by • renounc i ng all the send and principles which they have hitherto pro +-- .tosay, that they are fit fog ,",„eve fessed—why, the a.. , lit „ . any thing and every thing, and that the -pone must treat them after a very different fashion from that which common courtesy has hitherto dictated.— Morning Advertiser. The unfavourable termination of the South Hants election, by the exclusion of Lord Palmerston, is the first real and substantial blow which the cause of R e . form has sustained. The substitution of Mr. Compton for Sir George Staunton, though much to be regretted, is not of equal importance to the cause of. the people, since the former, in his declaration, professed that he considered the Reform Bill as part of the Constitution, and that he would follow it out by the removal of every abuse in Church and State. Not so Mr. Fleming,who is a thorough-going Tory of the old school ; and to com pare either of the successful candidates—the bit-and-bit Reformer, Mr. Compton, or the Church and State Con servative, Mr. Fleming,with two such individuals as Lord Palmerston and Sir George Staunton in influence, weight, station, or talents, would be an insult to good sense. We have no doubt that when the results be come known, this transient victory over the people will be found to be owing to party spirit, and not to public principle. What new light may have broken in on the electors since they freely invited Lord Palmerston and Sir George Staunton to come forward, and freely re turned them by a large majority, we have yet to learn ; though, " as we guees, ' the sterling arguments resorted to most profusely during the election by Conservative corruption, have not been spared on this especial occasion. But good often springs out of evil, and the loss properly employed may prove a gain. It is a lesson which calls for the exertion of renewed energy. Lei. the Reformers work double tides to repair the reverse, and, rejecting the supineness which too great a confidence in success is apt to engender, adopt the axiom of the Roman victor, and " think nothing done while aught remains to do." That the Conservative party moved heaven and earth, in order to exclude Lord Palmerston from his certainty of again. superseding the Duke of Wel lington in the Foreign Office, by his return to Parlia ment, we have not a shadow of doubt. What corrupt means were employed is pretty evident, from the fact that the Sheriff was compelled to ad journ the second day's proceedings of the po'l from Saturday to Monday, in consequence of the desperate proceedings and illegal violence of a Conservative mob. We admit, therefore, that the cause of Reform has in this instance suffered a loss, although it was doubly counterbalanced by the simul taneous announcement of the return of O'Connell for the capital of Ireland, which was for a moment doubtful, and the substitution of the new Reform day-star, Mr. Fox Maule, for Sir George Murray, the most talented of all the drum-head staff of the Duke of Wellington. Let the Conservatives delude themselves into a fool's paradise of unreal triumph, in order that their fall, when they awake from their dream, may be more bitter and complete. The Reformers can afford to tell " the truth and shame the devil." They can afford to admit one loss, amidst numerous gains ; since the balance of profit to the cause of popular right is infinitely in their favour. Morally, as well as numerically, their cause is now safe. By their conduct in the metropolitan districts they have, indeed, taken a " bond of fate," and " made assurance doubly sure." Well, then, the Reform cause has, we admit, suffered one essential loss by the result of the South Hants election. Now, let us see what the Conservative in terest has gained by that result. It has returned a thorough-going ultra-Tory in the person of Mr. Fleming. Let us look to the man, and then infer what will be the real measures which he and his allies and supporters represent. His jockey ship metaphors about steeds being thrown out and horses slipping, may suit the Sfagnco of the Southampton race-ground, hut will find no sym pathy beyond the narrow limits of his Conservative coterie. The old proverb says—" One knows a man by his companions; Let us see, then, what are the opinions of this companion and supporter of Sir Ro bert Peel, and this opponent of Lord PahnerstOn. The men are pledges for measures, as Sir Robert Peel himself allows. What, then, are the measures of the Conservative Government to be of which Mr. Fleming and such men as he are the symbol, the earnest, and the harbinger ? In the speech on the day of nomina tion, wherein he made a Lelaration of his views, he charged his opponents with purposes of anarchy and confusion. He said that they wanted a destructive se paration of Church and State. He asserted that they wanted to destroy the House of Lords, or, to use his own circuitous phraseology, the second branch of the Legislature. He said, that they treasonably held op " their gracious Sovereign as an object of scorn. ' Finally, he asserted that " their object went to the ex tinction of the Throne and the Church ;" and he called upon his party to rally round their constitutional monarchy, which, as he said, was thus endangered, and "to shed the last drop of their blood in its de fence." These, then, are the' opinions and political principles of the Hampshire allies and supporters of Sir Robert Peel's Conservative Government. These 'odice 71. •• It 41%4 iirCV ital are the men who every where declare their determina• tion to go up to their knees in blood in support of al the. abominations and abuses of Church and State These are the men, and these are the measures, with which the Conservative Government, if it last a single day beyond the meeting of Parliament, must in future be irrevocably allied. Let the people of England look to it in time. Away with the (Jesui tical pretence of waiting for measures from such men. Their acts and words—their act in dissolving Parliament, and their words in the speeches of their candidates—demonstrate beyond all shadow of doubt what their measures must and will be—measures, like the whole tenour of their lives, in either open or co vert hostility to Reform. The people of England henceforth know what they have to exp e ct, they know that an unsheathed and brandished sword—without being gulled into the folly of waiting for the assault— means an attack upon their properties, their liberties, and their lives. " What," said Cicero to Tuber°, when pleading the cause of Ligurius before Ccesar, in burning language, which made the Dictator turn pale upon the bench, and drop the official document of sentence from big bands, " what was the meaning of yur unsheathed sword at the battle of Pharsalia ? What was its real purpose ? Against whose life, cause, and triumph was that sword unsheathed' and di- reeted ?"—The act speaks for itself, and d emons t r a tes the object.—Morning Advertiser. Our readers will recollect our having brought the question of medical reform before the public some time ago, and we believe we may say with truth, that the Morning Herald was the first non-medical publica tion that ever insisted upon the necessity and import ance of that species of reform, as bearing upon the general interests of society—at least it was the first that did so among the Daily Papers of the metropolis. We will not refer to a late contested election and the circumstances connected with it, because chat is TIOW over, and we wish not to revive any unpleasant feelings to which it gave rise. Our purpose was to deal with the general principle, independently of all individual inte rests ; and we laid it down as a general truth applicable to all such occasions, that the influence which nepotism exercised W 44 highly detrimental to the great institu tions of medical charity, as long as they remained um e formed, by making the family claims of 4 f4n4idate for a surgical or medical office superior to all the qualifica-. tions which talent or experience could bring into the field, We then took occasion to observe upon the abuses o f rrAical b)s!ittitigns in general ; for though it is a great abuse tbat a medial of "ertation' and • t r-r•• - long standing in an hospital, or other c ariiable and public in6titution, should have the power to bring in an y of his juvenile and inexperienced relatives, in pre ferenee to -..elaiuutnts for office who rely solely upon •, r. z their merits, yet it is a greater abuse to have what the Legislature intended to be the very fountain of medical education and honour polluted by a corrupt and cor rupting influence, which tends to poison the moral health of that profession to which it ought to he the source of strength, improvement, and invigoration. If, for instance, a collegiate body that ought to be the asylum of merit--th e promoter of science— the very heart and life of a liberal and enlightened system of practice, should become little more than a hotbed of favouritism— a close borough for fa voured connection or fortunate incapacity —if, by some vice inherent in its very constitution, or from some other cause, instead of affording protection and encouragement to unpatronised talent, it is used as a sort of turnpike trust upon the high road of the profession to levy revenue and stop unfriended genius on its way, it becomes not a public benefit but a public obstacle to improvement. In every profession it is an indisputable truth, that, in proportion as dunces and incapubieg are fostered and encouraged, talent and merit are repressed and proscribed. It is not the pro fession alone that suffers, it is the public, whose dearest interests are thereby intrusted to incompetent persons, who are falsely accredited to the world as the ablest and best interpreters of a science which they have less studied than the paltry and obsequious arts which su perior talent can never stoop to practise. Without saying whether the College of Surgeons or the College of Physicians do or do not come within the description which we have given of collegiate bodies, created for the promotion of science, which are either vicious in their original constitution, or vitiated in their practice, we will, at present, only observe that, in all such institutions, the principle of 3ey-Zelection is the root of abundant evil, No such institution, however good in other respects, can long preserve its purity or usefulness, in which the principle of self-election pre vails. As to the College of Surgeons, a great au thority in that profession attributes all its abuses to that principle. We mean Surgeon Lawrence, one of the most distinguished men in the profession, of which he was some years ago a very zealous Reformer. I n proof of whi c h we w ill now quote a passage or two from a speech which he made on the subject, at a public meeting in the Freemasons' Tavern, in the year 1826 :—" The cause of the grievances," says Mr. Lawrence, " which we have to coinplain of seems to me, gentlemen, clearly and directly traceable to the originally defective constitution of the authority from which they have proceeded ; self-elected and irrespon sible bodies have always been found most unsafe de positories of power. If, moreover, the members hold their places for life, all the elements of misgovernment are combined, and we may safely anticipate that the public good will be sacrificed to private interests. Under the present Constitution, the Council have the power to fill up vacancies in their own body, and are thus enabled to admit or exclude particular descriptions of persons--to indulge friendly or unfriendly feelings. These appointments, in which not only the whole profession, but the public, are interested, take place in secret conclave--thus every facility is afforded for the exercise of favour or prejudice, and all checks against abuse are entirely neglected. A body thus constituted is particularly- un fit to preside over a liberal profession, and to exercise, without control or appeal, acts of legislation directly involving the pecuniary interests of themselves as well as of the subject members. The ruling authority in the surgical profession will not fulfil the ends of its in• stitution, unless it possess the good opinion and confi dence of the body at large, and these they cannot have unless they are nominated by the members. In any new constitution, then, it will he necessary that the general body should elect those who are to he at their head, and I conceive further, that that appointment should be limited for a time, and not for life." We recommend these observations to the attention of Sir Robert Peel, and shall take an early opportunity o: returning to the subject.—Morning Herald. COURT OF CHANCERY. LEWES V. LEWES. The argument in this case being concluded, The LORD CHANCELLOR had entertained some doubts on the matter in the course of the hearing ; but they were now completely removed. By the will of the testator, a sum of 3001. was appropriated to the education of the chil dren of his son, Thomas Lewes, and all the residue and remainder of his property vested in trustees, to pay over the income, from year to year, for the support and mainte nance of the said Thomas Lewes and his family during his life ; and it was declared that the testator did this in order to guard against the extravagance and improvidence of the said Thomas Lewes. If the will had stopped there it could not be a question that Thomas Lewes would have had it in his power to assign his interest ; but there followed a pro viso by which Thomas Lewes was expressly enjoined from doing anything to frustrate or impede the execution of the trusts of the will. Reading the whole of the will, there fore, there seemed to be no doubt that the decision of the Vice-Chancellor was right, and that the appeal must there fore be dismissed. His LORDSHIP gave no costs. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT. LEIGH V. LEIGH. Sir WILLIAM HORNE in support of a demurrer in this cause, stated that this bill was filed by Mr. Leigh, whose claims to the barony of Leigh were well known, for an in junction to restrain the defendant, Mr. Chandos Leigh, from setting up any outstanding terms in defence to an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiff to recover the large family estates. The last Lord Leigh devised all his estates to his sister, the Hon. Mary Leigh, for life, with remainder to her issue in strict settlement, and in default of sue "to the first and nearest of his kindred being male and of his name and blond"who should be Jiving at the determination Of the preceding estates, and the heirs of his body lawfully begotten. His Lordship died about May, 1786, when Mary Leigh entered into possession of the estates, and the bill stated " that she departed this life unmarried and with out issue on or about the 2d of July, 1806," having pre viously devised the estates in settlement to James Henry Leigh, the father of the defendant, Chandos Leigh. George Leigh, the father of the plaintiff, who was his eldest son, claimed to be the party entitled under the description in the testator's will, and he having died in January, 1834, the plaintiff was now endeavouring to establish his title to the estates. To this bill the defendant, Mr. Chandos Leigh, demurred, because it appeared on the face of the bill that there were twenty years adverse possession since the death of Mary Leigh, when the title which the plaintiff asserts accrued, and tliat period was a bar and extinguish ment of the plaintiff's claim under one of the late Real Property Acts. His HoNona. observed that the time of Mary Leigh's death was stated in the bill to be on or about the 2d of July, 180 G, which might be very true though she had not died till 1830. There was a good deal of verbal criticism between Ms Honour and the Counsel for the defendant on the meaning of the phrase "at or about ;" but his Honour still held that it did not appear on the face of the bill that twenty years had elapsed, and overruled the demurrer. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL, for the plaintiff, was pre pared to support the bill by a reference to three languages —Greek, Latin, and English.—(A laugh.) His HONOUR very much regretted that he was so clear upon the point, as he would otherwise have had much plea sure in being illuminated by the Learned Counsel's disqui tion.—( Laughter.) KING'S BENCH-WEDNESDAY. THE KING V. WITNESHAH. This was a question whether a pauper could make a valid contract while he was a member of a Volunteer corps. The pauper had made a contract of service with a master, but had made it when he was a member of a Volunteer corps. If he could make a valid contract for service at such a time, then he was entitled to a settlement under that service ; if h 9 could not, he must be removed to the parish which was the place of his settlement anterior to the service. Mr. GURDON contended that the pauper was enabled to make a valid contract. Mr. AUSTIN, on the other side, requested the Court to allow him time further to consider the point. The Colinr consented to the request of the Learned Counsel, and postponed th e ca s t accordingly. THE KING V. BRYANT AND ANOTHER. Mr. PLATT stated that this was an indictment preferred aga i ns t the defendants at the Sessions. An application hail been made a long time since by the defendants to Mr. Jus tice Taunton to remove the case by certiorari. That Learned Judge refused the application. Shortly afterwards the defendants applied to Mr. Justice Littledale for a rule fOr a certiorari, and that Learned Judge, not being i n f orme d o f the preYpW4 application to Mr. Toncon,graeie'Ci the rule. Mr. 'Justice Taunton subsequently directed a procedendo to issue. Another application was then made the Bail Court to Mr. Justice Littledale. A case was made out, and a certiorari was ordered, but no statement of the previous circumstance was tutors, under these circumstances, the Court for a procedendo. The COURT granted the rule. then made. The prose were driven to appeal to COMMON PLEAS-WEDNESDAY. PRINCE V. BRUNATT. This was an action brought by the plaintiff as indersee of a bill of exchange. The declaration stated the bill to be drawn by Sarah Elwood on the defendant, and payable to the order of Sarah Elwood, and accepted by the defendant. The defendant pleaded that Sarah Elwood, the supposed drawer of the bill, was a married woman. To this, which prima facie was an answer to the action, the plaintiff re plied that Sarah Elwood, at the time of the drawing and indorsing of the said bill, drew and indorsed it as the agent of, and by the authority of, her husband. To this replica tion the defendant demurred, on the ground that it was a departure from the allegation in the declaration. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD supported the demurrer. Mr. COMYN supported the replication, and the Court held the replication good. Judgment for the plaintiff. EXCHEQUER COURT, WEDNESDAY ADAM V. BANKART. Mr. Sergeant GouLunaN showed cause to a rule ob tained in last term by Mr: Hill, calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the uonsuit in this case should not be set aside, and a new trial had. It was an action on an award against the defendants, who were partners in trade. It was tried before Mr. Justice Taunton, at the last assizes in Lei cester, when the plaintiff was nonsuited, because one of the partners only agreed to the submission to arbitration ; and the Learned Judge was of opinion that the other partner was not bound by such submission, and consequently that the award was void. The Learned Sergeant contended that one partner could not bind another by transactions which were before the partnership, and not necessary for carrying it on. Mr. HILL submitted that there was no direct authority to show that one partner could not bind another by submission to arbitration. Lord ABINGER was satisfied that one arbitrator could not bind another by submission to arbitration, as it was no part of the partnership transactions.—Rule absolute. PREEDY V. MACFARLANE. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a Surgeon, against. the defendant, formerly a Lieutenant in the army, to recover the sum of 27/. 10s. for medical attendance, and for the boarding and lodging of the family of the de fendant. It was tried on the sth of December before Mr. Baron Gurney, when the Jury found a verdict for the sum of 28/. ; but in consequence of the Learned Judge thinking a verdict for that sum was unsafe, it was reduced to the sum of 20/. Mr. PRIC.I in the course of the present term, obtained a rule Nisi for a new trial, on the grounds that the de fendant had been arrested, and held to bail for the sum of 371. 10s., whereas the plaintiff never attempted to make such a claim, the only sum which he sought to recover was 271. 10s. ; besides in the bill of particulars there was the following item :—" For attending you as a witness on a charge of felony at Union Hall, in which you failed, two guineas." There were other items of as equally extraordi nary a nature. Mr. JERVIS now showed cause against the rule. Mr PRICE supported the rule.—Rule discharged. COOK V NETHERCOTE. The plaintiff, a hairdresser at Eton, sought to recover damages for the injury which he had received in conse quence of the violent conduct of certa'n officers, of whom the defendant, a Cornet of Dragoons, was one, and who, it was alleged, had inflicted a severe wound upon his ancle by kicking him, whereby he was confined for forty weeks, and had incurred a surgeon's bill for 75/. 15s. Bd. Mr. THESSIGER was for the plaintiff. The officers and others had, on the 7th of June, 1834, made a disturbance by ringing the bells and knocking at the doors of the it.ha bitants, and making a great noise; that at length it was found expedient to call in the aid of several of the inhabi tants, who were aroused from their beds when it was com menced, about twelve o'clock at night, and continued for several hours. At length the Hon. W. Henry Stanley, his brother, the Hon. Charles Stanley, a Mr. Gleig, and the defendant were lodged at the cage. It was in the course of this capture that the plaintiff received the injury, of which he now complained. The defendant had a cricket stump in his hand, and when the plaintiff collared him he said, " If you don't leave me alone I'll knock your brains out, and give you a good ducking." They were near the water side. When taking him to the cage he made resistance and tried to get away. There was a heap of rubbish, and in the struggle they fell down, when the plaintiff exclaimed, "I am kicked." When the defendant was lodged in the cage the plaintiff repeated the charge. " You have kicked me," he said, " you gave me a very bad kick." His leg was much swelled. The defendant replied, "It served you right." The Hon. Henry Thomas Stanley, M.P. for Preston, and Captain-Lieutenant in the Guards. The witness is son of the Earl of Derby. He recollected the disturbance which happened during Ascot races on the 6th of June. The Oxford Blues and a regiment of Guards were at Windsor. He did not see' defendant during the night, nor did he see him till between two or three o'clock in the morning, when he walked with him from Windsor to Eton, to ascertain the reason why his brother, the Hon. Charles Stanley, and Mr. Gleig were put in the cage. He had dined at the Christopher Inn at Eton, and left about ten o'clock, and went to Windsor, A disturbance was go; ng on when he went there ; it commenced, he b y the ringing of bells and knocking at doors; H e saw the de fendant at the White Hart afterwards \Olen he returned, and they went together to the cage at Eton ; they knocked at the wicket and asked to see the prisoners. The reply was " Yes ; walk in." There were about fifteen or twenty persons, mostly constables, present. Instantly they got in, the door was closed, and he and the defendant were told they were prisoners for having been concerned in the pre vious disturbance. The next day the defendant was dis charged by the Magistrates. In the cage they had some brandy and water and some cigars, which were put through the iron gratings. On his cross-examination the witness said he was perfectly sober. He had dined with two friends. There might have been five or six officers engaged in the disturbance. His brother's age was twenty-seven. His own age is thirty-two. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 123/. 15s. Bd., being the amount of the bill for medicines, and 75/. 15s. Bd., with .50/. beside, damages, as compensation. INSOLVENT COURT-.WEDNESDAY. Saul Levy, a Russian Jew, was opposed by Lyon Samuels. In this case the acrimonious feelings of the parties were displayed to a fearful extent, and, notwithstanding the con flicting state of the evidence, it created much merriment and lasted several hi urs. The insolvent had, according to his statement, been robbed sonic months ago of between 5001. and 6001. He had given information to the polir7,-, of the robbery. The opposing creditor Samuels sP',(l the ins Ivent had not goods to that amount, and that he had told hint he had robbed himself. This was positively de nied, and the insolvent said it had been pa into the news papers. " Aye," replied Samuels, " anything can be put into the papers"--(Loud laughter') The insolvent had, he said, an idea of bolting to America ; but this was also con tradicte:i, awl Samuels was stated to be a friend of the in solvent, and had been to see him several times in Prison, and bad suddenly turned round against him. The insolvent had contracted some debts shortly before his arrest, among others one with Mr. Hedlund to the amount of 51. 10s:, a few days before he went to prison. The Court considered that the insolvent was a fit sub ject for the exercise of the discretionary clause, and sen tenced him to the full modiouni of imprisonment, namely, six months. The Court sat till six o'clock. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE. Yesterday, an elderly man, of respectable appearance, named Francis Metcalfe, was brought before the LORD MAYOR, by Forrester, charged with felony. There was, it appears, several charges of felony against the prisoner, and the amount of the property said to have been stolen was stated to be upwards of 500/. Mr. Charles John Brooks, linen-draper, of the house of Brooks and Griffith Thomas, of 180, Oxford -street, deposed that the prisoner was clerk in the house. The firm did bu siness with Messrs. Caldicot, in Cheapside. On the 3d of September last, the firm owed Messrs. Caldieot an account, and witness gave a check of 45/. to the prisoner to dis charge the obligation. On Tuesday, however, he had as certained at Caldicot's house that no check of the kind had been paid in by the prisoner or anybody else. Here the check in question was handed in. It was drawn by Mr. Brooks upon Sir Claude Scott's banking-house. Mr. G. Edlin, cashier at Caldicot's, was in the habit of receiving the cheeks sent in to the firm. He had Lot re ceived the check for 4.5/. on the day in question, hut ho received a check of Mr. Brooks on the ilth of December for 851., which check includs4 tha amount of the order which had not been receiyA as well as the amount of other parcels of K 994%, Thc, Lciltn /(fivoßr—How do you account for ed po lthis:, - Mr. Hobler, jun., said that th e` kali prisoner ingeniously neglected to post the amou n t ill or, an d the rose cutor, therefore, ;i 3 4 Werz twice over. It was the prisor,ez's d‘t,ty t, ( l make ihe entry. 114' Humphreys said th at i t appeared to be a toistalio, • and that his client was anxious to have tirre ---1-ni/ to give a explanation. Mr. Brooks—l am prepared with another case °fl similar ki n d. O n the 30th of October I gave a check A, 1121. 10s. to the prisoner, to pay Messrs. LainAon and Co., of Bread -street. I crossed it with Lainson's bankers Jones, Loyd, and Co. (Here the check was produced.), Mr. Henry H ooten, cashier to Mr. Lainson, depose' that the check had not been paid to him. H e had th ey charge of the books, and every check of the kind mot g ° through the bank. The names of Jones, Lloyd, and C ° ' were erased in the check, and the words 44 Bank of E n g . land" were put upon it. The LORD MAYOR —HOW is that .accounted for? Brooks stated that the check was presented and paid at the Bank of England, from the house of a Mr. Fairclotb, an accountant in Chcapside, who paid it to Mr. Green, a n official assignee. The LORD MAYOR—How did Mr. Faircloth get P° P session of it ? Mr. Brooks—l do not know. W e COder stand he is not now in town ; but his partner, Mr. Ar' strong, has been seen, and he knows nothing about the c beck'. The LORD MAYOR remanded the prisoner till Wedo o day next. A young man, named Thomas Macdonald, was charged with having committed several forgeries. So fearless culprit has not for some time appeared at the bar of the Justice-room. Mr. Bush, the solicitor, to the Committee of Bankers for Protection against Forgeries and Frauds, attended for the prosecution. Mr. Thomas Metcalf, a clerk in the house of Messrs Smith, Payne, and Smith, deposed that on. Tuesday e venig the prisoner presented at the counter a check, of which the following is a copy : Lon " Messrs. S m i t h, P ayne, and" Smith.don, Jan. 20, 180. " Pay Mr. Carty, or bearer, thirteen p oun d s , fourteen shillings. WILLIAM-ELLIV A gentleman of the name of William Ellis cashed at thd house, but witness knew the check, to be a forgery ilia"' diately, although the handwriting was exceedingly like tha t of Mr. Elli s . H e a d vanced towards the door by which tb s prisoner had entered, for the purpose of preventing escape' and then gave the prisoner into custody. The LORD MAYOR—How did you know that the ehli was a forge r y a t once, if i t so strongly resembled the r signature ? Witness had on a former day paid to the P r T,, soner a check s i gne d i n a s i milar manner for 87/. 125.,7 two bank-notes for 40/. each, a 5/. each, and 21. 12s. cash. He suspected that the check presented yestert , was a forge r y f rom k now i ng that the check for the le sum was a forgery. Mr. William Ellis, wine and spirit broker o f No. 131 Great Tower-street, examined the check which had be,„ ti presented o n T ues d ay . Th e signature was not his. , prisoner had been his clerk, and had left him in April les / ,; The prisoner had often opportunities of seeing witnees t checks. Th e s i gnature to the check fo r 871. 12 s . w as o n . his. The writing in the body of that check was the P P. soner's undisguised handwriting. Edward Tinson, cellarman to Mr. Ellis for twenty-h et years, knew th e p r i soner, and had often seen him write. writing in the body of the larger check was the Mr. Bush—We shall. be able to prove that the ban' notes paid fo r th e l arger check have. been in the prisoner possession. There ar e t wo ot h er cases of forged checks against 611 prisoner, the one for 15/. and the other for 101. 10s. draw s in the same name, and presented at the same house. The LORD MAYOR said it would be necessary that tu t Court should be put in possessien of the knowledge tbs ~ the prisone r was so d esperate an offender if he should "" tried only upon one case, and remanded him. BOW-STREET. A number of the inhabitants of St. Martin's-in the-Fie were yesterday su mmone d b e f ore Sir F. RoE and P' HALLS for neglecting to pay the poor rate, in w hich 11 7, includ e d th e s hilli ng d emanded for registration under te Reform Act. None of the defendants had suffered thei r selves to be summoned in consequence of inability or di siii ; clination t o p ay , b ut s i mp l y to have the question decided'' to the po wer o f th e M ag i strate to make a compulsory orde' , for the payment of the fee of registration. Sir F. •ROE said that the Act was imperative upon 11/1 4 housekeep ers , an d if t h ey neglected or refused to payi, shilling th ey were li a b le to have their names expunge"; and deprived of the privilege of voting. He (Sir F. W el paid the fee himself, and of course knew it was legal. if Mr. Bla c k man pers i sted in his refusal to pay, and , F. Roe ordered a distress warrant to be issued against I fr goods. The other defendants abided by the decision of the Mai gistrates, and paid the rate. MARYLEBONE. John Wilson, a mechanic, residing at No. 20, Camden -street, Camden-town, appeared at this Office 4 prefer the following curious charge of assault ;against wife. The complain an t h a d b een married to the defen os eleven months, during which ti me tb!;3T had lived on Ie most loving and amicale terms. Or. the night of TuestisS the 13th instant, she went out, - giving him as usual a p , f; ing kiss, saying that she was 'going to nurse a female frieri,._ who was ill. He believed such to be the fact, an d 1 .0 P v undeceived till Thurs`lay afternoon, when, as he was sietil very comfortably was alarmed 1- .ay the fire taking his tea and toasio J 37 her entering the room with a sailor, wh she said ";as her husband. She then, without further eit e i 2 ro mow: , came up to hi m , an d , catching hold of the colla. ~is coat, thrust him into the street, at the same time., claiming, " What business have you here .you're no o %r band of mine, you poor rogue?" The sailor in the i 4 0 .4: was standing , with his arms a-kimbo, laughing heartily st,, mishap. en Saturday night he went again to the house ~.1 fetch away his things, and asked for Mrs. Wilson, wor the d e f en d ant rus h ed upon him, and saying, " My vo , ir you stupid, i s no t Wil son, b ut Cash, " struck him a blor which sent him reeling. The defendant, in reply, after squeezing with much- te t ; derness th e h an d o f h er fi rst love, the sailor ( w h os e flaTi is Cash), sa id t h at she (Ally married th e comp l a i nan t ill 1 (t . belief th a t h er l aw f u l h usband, who then stood by h e r... 51 " and had been seine years at sea, was dead ; she should 1 1 5 be true bl ue t o hi m, and have nothing more to say to.t, complainant. =•: Sailor—Bravo, my. girl, give us your grappling iron. Mr. RAWLINSON—I wish you could settle this 11 1 r,i ; without my interference. Complainant—l wish to get rid of her, your Worsl and I would no t li ve w i th her again, no, not fol. a 600 0 pounds. Sailor—(Hitching up his trowsers,),....N o, iny lad, take good care you won't.—(Laughter.) Aat i Not being able to come to pp hrrangement, the deren-- - n r was ordereSto find bail ; tP• ij o n bearing which, the " - Neptune" flew off like P shot to get the required euretie°' • UNION -HAIL. 0 0 lln formation was g i ven a t this office that an attemp 4 v made to break into the Waterman's Arms, at Rotherbithes oy four men, one of whom was near being drowned in e{ fecting his escape. The housebreakers commenced boring through th e b ac k d oor of the Waterman's Arms abl!'t half-past one o'clock in the morning, when they were u l ; turbed by Howe, a policeman of the R division, and Of t ', made a p rec i p it ate retreat to a boat which they had in Hatt ing at th e wate r s id e. They all jumped into the boat eg cept one, w h o f e ll i nto the river and sunk, and on risilj to the surface he was dragged out by his companions, nef b ,, exhausted. Th e b oat was afterwards chased by two 10 P - termen, who, h owever , were beaten off by the thieves, w • ultimately escape d , l eav i ng their housebreaking im lone° i s behind them. Roasting pigs were so plentiful in Bury on Satur evening that th ey were purchased at the poulterers' f t ,%, Is. 6d. to ts. 6d . , per h ead, weighing from 81b. to 101 b. 0 BIRTH On the 18th i ns t. , at H ale End, the wife of the Rev. OW . Mercer, of a son. On the 21 s t i ns t., Mrs. W. IL Pileher, of N ew Broad-street! a son. MARRIED. On the 21st inst , a t W est H ackney, Andrew Grant, of ..-risto4 c o surgeon, to Seli na , e ld est d aughter of the late Jur i es Harr— r Esq., of Pentonville. _—.----- DIED orii On the 20th inst., in North A udley-street, Lady Harriet I t Villiers, daughter of th e E ar l and Countess of Clarendon. Or On the 20th inst., i n t h e Adelphi, Alderman Christopher o r° aged 85. On the 19th i ns t ., at Vaughan-terrace, Islington, F. v ,--. of wards, Esq., y oungest son of the late Thomas Edwards, Esq" Coleman -street. On the 18th i nst., in Marshal-place, Perth, Mrs. Bisset, lil Mr 91st year. On the lath i nst., at Whitehaven, Joseph Bragg, in 11'9 Pith year, one of the Society of Friends. On the 16th inst., at Dover, in her 7th y Customs, L on d on. sq.ear, Adelaide,U;gri°ityte; youngest da ug h ter of Henry Welch, E, recently o; his Majes On the leth i nst., at Lower Edmonton, 1 2,atharine, wife of° J. Ficla, Esq. On the 20th inst., at Epsom, Majesty's 13th Regiment, aged s. ;" : On the 20th inst., at P stings, Mr. Hen Ann's-hill, Wandsworo -4 he 1# 1. 1e ”...-Colon r e y l W co a r t t t h s On the 20th in :::,• i n h er 70th year, Lucy Jane, relict of t•. IVir' Mr. John Fo-,nes, Battersea. ,On 11 2 - , 4th hist., in Lower Edmonton, in his 35th yel l. ' 1 ":...epti John Leathwick, of Hart-street, Bloomsbury-squ ar ,f t 9 0 0 On the 21st inst., in his 12th year, Robert Isaac, el"" Robert 'Espinasse, Esq., of the Inner Temple. ~_, Harr On the 20th inst., at Canterbury -place, Lambeth, Miss ~. Horsfall, and on the same day her sister, Mrs. Mary florsta :)I.lna,tee°: Sb: GI Londcm Printe4 and Published byMURDO YOUN 4 t The S‘f Office, No• 112, Strand. NA Notia e Las at th have not valiant t,C app Jan. If for the E Special P, teases the Gloucester Ord ers 111 e ar ' IREL ELF a ccordin E zplan at g ic ~llDg k tONci l e a Nei l to New edit.REY Lone l IOE' lee int er , e RY iviPiserseA E NGLI AIK, th: 1 9 441 t SELEC ,istrue BA lK eatti e DR. XEI A S GE mmacor B 1 C 411 S T h i U r I-11 ®cult Lee a o. %s 1 erat e 4441 Interior kt tr e tn ieal be itivooeturc t 01. 6r . de % ft e t Ce e r i nerit • a charges . tiLO, ti ltlest y, " after nded rally c Is be 6 Yst e : r nPlait Itr % 1 of en clei• g Y rec ce t i t r tful orfish and 71.?°ts at t • ORN'c v ,Pleu ros a • d, for its Itwine Uft eoe I s t: by any e o r ne econou :14_ Cutlet. ' 4 ' l 4 • a _ . : 44.1 : a c r e: ;15:e'd wholes thro`o th e t „. o .ah .- , rot e d li te Prev ent 1 Alex volO bottle 44311 s' War;