The Sun. — London, England, 1842-01-19 00:00:00

MORNING SUN The defendant dwelt at some length on Mr. Owen's opinions, and then said he would now at once proceed to comment on the remarks of the Learned Counsel who was opposed to him. He had asserted that he (the de fendant) thought all men who were opposed to him diss honest men ; he denied, he repudiated such a charge, and he defied that Learned Counsel to point out a sin gle line in any of his writings that would justify him in making it, for there were many Christian writers whom he honoured and revered for their talents, learn ing, and their sincerity ; he abhorred only the med dling hypocrites, who went about from town to town, and village to village, engendering strife ; he loved all all good men of any creed or of no creed at all, and who, if there was a work of God, were the noblest works of God. He could admire talent, he could admire virtue, whereever he found it. He now much wished to dis abuse their minds of the impression which the Learned Counsel sought to introduce, viz., that he was a vain, conceited person,:who thought himselt a great philosopher. He thought himself no such thing ; but he did think himself an honest man, and he thought that was the happiest state of society in which the people had paid more attention to the laws than they did to the lawyers. The Learned Counsel had said that his intentions were to oppress and destroy. He denied it. lie had never in his life oppressed or destroyed, nor had he wittingly ever hurt a living thing. Such were not not his objects, and in publishing the " Oracle of Reason," he only de clared in favour of the rights of man and free disepssion, If there were 1,000 religions, 999 of them must be wrong, and the whole thousand might be. He only claimed the same right which the Unitarian did, which the Christian did, which the Quaker did—the right of' free inquiry and of expressing their honest convictions. It was said by Mr. Smith that he might publish whatever he thought proper, but then the law was to pounce down upon him, so that if what he had done was morally right it might be legally wrong; he would, however, contend that what was morally right ought to - be legally right. The Learned Counsel said that he wished to reduce men to a level with the brutes. Nothing could be further from his intentions; he wished to raise them from their present position, which was almost on a level with the brute, to .their proper situa tion. The poet had said, " What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in comprehension how like a God—the glory of the world, the paragon of animals." This was what man should be, but never yet had been. This was the rank to which he would raise him, and if learning, if instruction was to brutify, then he would brutify him, but not otherwise. For, show him an ignorant people, and they showed him an enslaved people. He was charged with a wish to destroy society, and to bring about scenes similar to those which disgraced the French revolution. The Learned Gentleman, but little understood him, or he would not have spoken of him as he had that day—his mind was so cribbed, cabined, and confined, that he could not understand him (the defendant). The Learned Gentleman clung to his own principles, but would not allow him to exercise his. The Learned Gentleman loved Christianity—he loved philo sophy ; and although the Learned Gentleman thought it impossible for there to be any virtue without religion, he (defendant) thought there might be a race of moral ists as far above the present race as giants were above dwarfs. What ! did the Learned Gentleman so debase the human rade as to say that there was no love of vir tue—no respect for morality—no hatred of oppression, unless by religion ? Who would not die for the wife of his bosom ? Who would not serve his friend ? Was there no one who would do a single good act without the hope of reward or the fear of punishment hereafter? He (the defendant) knew it to be far otherwise, and if it had been necessary he could have produced for himself a character for morality and integrity which, perhaps, would have stood as high as any. But let them not suppose that, while thus he professed his love of nature, he would for a moment strike down law. No ! he was as tremblingly alive to it as was the Learned Counsel ; society would be de stroyed without laws; but it was one thing to have laws and another thing to have good ones • and while it was necessary to respect the laws, and t hose who uprightly administered them, there was a duty that they owed to themselves, that of resisting bad ones. Supposing that Luther, Calvin, Knox, Socrates, Aristotle, and a hun dred others—supposing they had acted on the principle that laws are not to be resisted, what would have been the results ? If Luther had not acted as he did, he (the defendant) would not have been standing in a Protestant country, and yet he was to be persecuted for holding . his opinions ; and, because he held some which were inimi cal to the opinions held at present, he was to be swept from the earth. For the free expression of his opinions they had no more right to hurt his little finger than they had to cast him into a dungeon or send his body to the stake. Their cruel fathers, the Catholics, sacrificed whole hecatombs of men in Smithfield and elsewhere, in the name of religion, for the service of God, and because their opinions were held to be detrimental to society ; and, in more ancient times, the best of men had been eacrified—religious men—if, to be religious, meant to act righteously and well, to love truth and hate insincerity ; and they, the Jury, would be imitating the conduct of their cruel forefathers if they punished him for the exer cise of his opinions—he contended for the entire free dom of thought and opinion. Supposing they thus per secuted him, they might force him to hold his tongue, but that would make him thug his opinions closer to his heart, and cherish them the more they wished to rifle them from him. The way to maintain ° ( - rood opinions was not by persecution or prosecution but by intro ducing better arguments. Mr. Southwell then quoted a great number of authorities, ancient and modern, and at nine o'clock, there being no probability of his closing his defence for several hours, the Court adjourned until ten o'clock on Saturday morning. On Saturday at ten o'clock the trial was resumed, and the defendant proceeded with his address. He con tended that he had as much right to the enjoyment of his opinions as any other member of society, though he did not agree with any of the existing systems of religion. His opinion was, that to be moral and honest was to be entirely just, and that was all that was necessary to guide their conduct. his opinions were tho same as some of the noble Greeks and Romans, who not only disbelieved in all the religions then taught, but had none at all; yet their - characters were held up even in modern times as examples of what men ought to be, and were as honest men, and as little dispoSed to do mischief, as any one of the Jury. He then entered into a disquisition on the charac ters of Thales, Epicurus, Aristotle, Zeno, and others. They were, in fact, Athiests, as he was, for all men were Atheists who contended for the eternity of matter. Th e defendant contended that a great many learned and scientific men of modern times held the same opinions, only they thought it prudent to withhold those opinions from the uneducated and vulgar, and hid behind a thick veil of mystery the opinions they were compelled to en tertain. The Learned Counsel had laid to his charge an inconsistency which he should be ashamed of, in stat ing'that he had said the universe was an effect. What he contended for was, thn same as Aristotle had held, that the universe is 'necessarily something not produced. It was others who said it was an effect. Whatever opi nion they might entertain of his prudence, they could not doubt his honesty and sincerity ; for he declared most solemnly that he had never in his life wittingly told a falsehood, nor ever in his life knowingly given pain to any human being . The difference between him and the per sons of whom h e had been speaking was, that lie thought expression ought to be given to whatever be considered truth. They liked the light for themselves, but kept the people in darkness : he wished the light to shine on all alike. And it was impossible any longer to keep knowledge boxed up in cabinets, as it were ; it would cut out a road for itself, and there was no resisting it, and therefore it was folly to be persecuting a man for the publication of his opinions in the 19th century, as they did in the dark ages of the 10th century. The clergy were sufficiently numerous and well paid to contend against error, and the proper way to put down bad opinions was to combat theM by good opinions, and not by the halter, the dungeon, and the scaffold. The defendant, after pro ceeding in this strain for some time, quoted extracts from No. 87 of the "Tracts for the Times," in support of pre destination, and said that he could plead the same justi fication for F ntertaining and publishing his opinions. Tf their thictrines were sound, then there was no merit or demerit in whatever opinions he might hold, and he would beg the Jury to reflect on -the fact, that these doc trines were-spreading, and that if a junction should - take place 'between the Puseyites and the Roman Catholics- which was far from improbable—let them consider they thetnselves,:its Protestants, might be placed in the same situation he then stood in ; and, if they - condemned him, they either did not understand the principle of Protest antism, or they did not act upon it. lie proceeded to enter on the subject of religious fanaticism, and to make large extracts from various works on this subject, and then to endeavour to justify the description he had given of the Bible in the libel. He read extracts from certain parts which he considered exceptionable, and after re ferring to the laws relating to blasphemy, he concluded by making a powerful appeal to the Jury to honourably acquit him, and thus set an example which would set at rest at once and for ever the system of persecution fim opinion's sake. The Learned RECORDER having charged the Jury in a short address, they retired, and in about ten minutes re turned with a verdict of Guilty. The defendant was then sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment in the first class, and a fine of 100!., and to be further imprisoned till the fine be paid. The trial lasted altogether fifteen hours, and the speech of the defendant occupied nearly ten hours. ORDINATION. - - - On the 9th inst. the following Gentlemen were ad mitted into Holy Orders by the Lord Bishop of Ripon: --'- DEAcoxs.-01, OXFORD.—William Baldwin, 8.A., St. Edmund Hall ; R o b ert M ars h a ll Martin, 8.A., St. Ed mnnd Hall; Samuel Browne Harper, 8.A., New Inn Hall; George Antrobus, 8.A.. Brasennose College, by letters dismls3ory from the Archbishop of York. OF CAMBUIDGE.--Reginald 'John Mapleton, 8.A., St. John's College; Christopher Greenside, 8.A., St. Peter's College; Alf red Bligh Hill, 8.A., Jesus College; John Swabey Oxley, 8.A., Queen's College. O F DITBLI:I.—Irwin Lloyd, 8.A., Trinity College; Thomas Henry I.lllmning, 8.A., Trinity College. LITERATE,—CharIes Henry Sinberry Nicholls. PRIESTS.—OF OXFORD.—IIev. Frcdcriek Edwin Lott, B A., St. Allmu's H a ll, by letters clisraissory from th e . Bishop of EXeter. OF CAMBUIDGE.--Rev. Henry Bailey, 8.A., St..Tohn's College; Rev. Samuel Pagan, 8.A., St. John's College ; Rev. Thomas Harvey, 8.A., Clare.Ha 11. Brlarle) Browne, 8.A., OF DUBLIN.—Rev. Thoma s Trinity College; Rev. Benjamin Luke Poyntz, 8.A., Trinity College. Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to command the presence of the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs of London, at the Christening of his Royal Highness the Prin ce o f Wales, on the 25th instant , and at the dekuner - Saul the banquet. His Lordship and the Sheriffs will have_a mit of apartments in the Palace, where they will remain till the 26th. - FROM THE EVENIN G PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. GLOBE.—Lord de Grey has rendered matter of s e h h i p i t washe rt o i s g o n osceptical hi s s t c o er d ta o i u n b t i y . thpaterwhhaipchs hism some w o r e d r own weakness —of his utter impotency to resist temp.. tattoo, own when party objects invited him to compromise personal reputation, the character of the Government he has been called to administer, and (what is of infinitely higher moment) the honour of the Crown and the provisions of the Constitution, which prohibit the Crown from becoming a party to, or interfering with, the election of the representatives of the People. By open, flagrant violation of these, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—the person to whom the Sovereign has delegated the high honour, con joined with correspondent responsibilities, of her Viceroy, has shown himself unworthy of the con fidence reposed in his discretion. By directly inter fering with the pending election for the City of Dublin, Lord De Grey has proclaimed his unfit ness for the high office to which he has been raised. He has merged that office in the partisan ; and by be coming the tool of a faction, has identified his Sovereign with that faction. So far as lay in his power, be has en dangered the integrity of the empire, by creating dile ' gust towards his rule, and want of confidence in the laws while administered in his name, as the represen tative of the Sovereign, in the country to which be has been sent with delegated dignity and authority. STANDARD.—The King of Prussia brings with him a recommendation which all mankind civilised and savage, recognise and honour—he is hospitable—the friend of the human race. The country which he go verns, in a spirit truly paternal, is the asylum for the oppressed and virtuous of the whole world ; good men, therefore, everywhere, owe him a debt —he is their patron and protector a debt as obligatory upon the good men who happily do not stand in need of his support, as upon those who do. Beyond this, the King of Prussia is, in a particular manner, the protector of oppressed Protestants, as he has gloriously shown in his treatment of the Zillerthall exiles. As such he has, next after our own Queen, the highest claim upon the veneration and gratitude of British Protestants. In his illustrious house, indeed, the championship of the Protestant cause has been he reditary ; and we trust we are not, in our grateful sense of such championship, degenerated from our fathers, who, nearly a century ago, held the Pro testant King of Prussia of their time in esteem the second of the Princes of Europe, their own Sove reign being the first. The present King of Prussia holds on the Continent of Europe the place which his ancestor held in the last century, which Gustavus Adolphus held the century before ; and we are bound to honour him as their successor. His Majesty has not, indeed, been called to manifest his Protest ant zeal in arms, but , he has displayed it, as we have seen, in the more Christian warfare which the time admits of—in succouring the oppressed Pro testants everywhere, in aiding England to extend the truth of the Gospel, even to the birth place of our faith—to the Holy City itself. The highest compliment that was ever paid to a nation, the noblest tribute that even proud . England ever re ceived, was the solicitatiod of the King of Prussia to join with her in the establishment of a Protestant B shopric in Jet usalein, and the cession to England of the first place in the holy work. For this we are debtors to the King of Prussia to an extent which we shall not easily discharge. The people of England will, however, do their best—they will welcome the benevolent Protestant Prince, as a sense of his virtues shall prompt—they will honour the Queen's honoured guest, as they love and honour their Queen. The manner of testifying our respect, gratitude, and admiration—or rather the manners, for we hope that the tribute will be paid in all possible forms—must be matter of consideration with those who are wiser, and possess more influence than ourselves. COURIER.—The living of Elgin, being the first Crown living that has become vacant since Sir Robert Peel's accession to office, and the proceed ings of the Presbytery in filling it up, as regards the celebrated Veto Law of the Church, have of late become subjects of no little curiosity among our Scottish neighbours ; and on Friday last the problem was solved. An opinion from the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General was laid before the Presbytery, that to proceed in giving effect to the pro visions of the Veto would be to proceed illegally ; and, accordingly,the Presbytery have directed the induction of Mr. Wylie to take place, as if no such law of the Church existed. This is the offence for which the Presbytery of Strathbogie was suspended and deposed. We shall see how•the dominant faction in the Kirk will behave on this contempt of ecclesiastical authority offered under sanction of the Crown itself, and where Government is clearly pledged to protect the spiritual parties guilty of it. Surely an Extraordinary Commission will forthwith be called. _ MONEY MARKET and CITY NEWS. FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. CHRO.,NICLE.—The embarrassed condition of the United States Treasury had created a great sensation. Mr. Fillemon, Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, having stated in debate that the Secretary of the Treasury had informed him that there was a present de ficiency to meet the demands of upwards of 250,000 dol lars, and that, unless the money was provided, the Go vernment must be dishonoured. Everything had been fought off, in the expectation that Congress would imme diately vote the needful supplies, but instead of that, the House had passed appropriations without granting means. The resumption of January, 1841, not having been fully maintained, or carried out, is considered to have been more disastrous to the currency than if the attempt had n not bee made. At no period since 1815 has the Ame rican currency been in such a deplorable condition. POST. : ---A question has arisen daring the last few days respecting the large masses of light sovereigns which are known to have accumulated in the country. The Bank cannot take this deteriorated coin and again put it into circulation, otherwise its present stock of treasure would, it is considered, be at once augmented by at least three or four millions. The vaults of the Corpo ration have, as the last monthly average.shows, been re plenished in a very considerable degree, and the healthy state of the exchanges warrants the expectation of a further accession from week to week for some time to come ; but notwithstanding this promised abundance, negotiations are, it is believed, going on for relieving the holders of light sovereigns from the disqualifica tions imposed by the monetary laws regulating the proceedings of the Rank. The coin in question has, for the most part, been rendered ineligible for payment there by the process of what is technically called " sweating," as practised by the lower order of bullion dealers, and to recoin the metal at the expense of the Crown would be at once to act contrary to law, and to hold out a premium on the system that could not fail to insure its continuance. Unless, therefore, by the intro duction into the recoinage of an element- of alloy which will effectually prevent rasien, it seems difficult to per ceive how the evil is to be .dealt with. This may, how ever, it. is said by scientific persons, be accomplished. Some remedy for it, at all events, is becoming indispens able, and it is rather this necessity, we presume, that .is forcing itself upon the attention of the public authori ties, than the adoption of any expedient with a view simply to the strengthening of the hands of the Bank, although it is not improbable that some extension of the note circulation, as the spring season advances, may be thought desirable. ARCHBISHOPRIC OF COLOGNE. The following is a copy of the letter which his Ma jesty the King of Prussia addressed to the Archbishop of Cologne, Baron Drost de Vischering, on the 19th of last October : _ _ . " Monsieur l'Archevique—You have doubtles learnt that the affairs of the Church of Cologne have been happily arranged by the prudent intervention of the Court of Rome ; and I have not lost sight of the fact that you have zealously co-operated in the attainment of an •end so anxiously desired. More than a year ago you gave me your word that you would take no endue 'advantage of your liberty in order to return to Co logne: You have conscientiously k e pt your promise • and, in signifying to you my satisfa c ti on w i t h your con duct, I a bsolve you from your parole, on con di t i on t h at , if you wish to visit Cologne, yon will not d o so before the arrival and installation of the coadjutor. - " I could never believe that you had borne part in any revolutionary intrigues, - and my Government has already taken occasion to refute the charge ; but, knowing that your honourable family is earnestly de sirous that I should personally make a similar declara tion, I avail myself with pleasure of this opportunity to assure you, that tLere is no ground whatever for a suspicion that you have abused the dignity of your station and functions for the purpose of favouring poli tical or revolutionary intrigues, or to associate your self with persons who bad such objects in view. I sin cerely hope that this assurance will convoy to you the tranquillity you deserve to enjoy, and that Providence will long permit you, in a quiet old age, to rejoice in the re-establishment of the peace of the Church. (Signed) " FREDERICK WILLIAM." " THE SCHOOL FOR WivEs."—This ex tremely promising title announces a novel from the pen of a writer whose first work—" Temptation ; or, a Wife's Perils"—was so successful that nothing but the sharp satire on existing society and manners, which marked its pages, could have caused her name so long to elude that eager, inquiry which has been made respec ting it. Notwithstanding the report to the contrary, we think the same excuse for the concealment will be found in her new work, "The School for Wives," which belongs to the same " School" . as " Temptation" —tht t of truth and reality, as distinguished for mawk ish "sentiment" on the one hand, and high-flown "ro mance" on the ether. This new novel includes, indeed, a still greater variety of characters and incidents, which are held together by a plot of intense domestic interest appertaining to ti society and manners of our own day. A Tory Journal, the Limerick Chronicle, con tains the following announcement :—" There has not been a grain of wheat from Ireland . imported .into the London market for the last three months, and the con sumption of foreign wheat increases with every day that passes ! What must it be in- the, next six months, with the prospect of a late, - and, we apprehend, again deficient harvest in' thici coutdry-r - _ _ . . COURT OF ALDERMAN. Yesterday a Court of Aldermen was held for the des patch of business. - The Court affixed the seal to the presentation by the Governors of St. Bartholomew Hospital, of the living of Christ Church, Newgate-street, and St. Leonard's,Finch lane, upon the Rev. Michael Gibbs, M.A., Fellow of Caius College, Cambridge. r THE VACANCY OF THE BENCH IN THE SHERIFF COURT. Mr. R. Taylor, Mr. Hardwick, Mr. Wood, and Mr. Wire, a deputation from the Secondaries' Committee, at tended the on the subject of the vacancy occa sioned by the death of Sergeant Arabin. The Com mittee had it in view to make such arrangements with respect to the filling up . of that situation, as might be considered to be conducive to the interest of the citizen, and a better opportunity could be taken than that which at the present moment offered itself. A Report had been drawn up by the City Solicitor, and the Committee was desirous of having a conference with the Court, or a Committee of Aldermen, to ascertain to what extent they might agree in the suggestion contained in that document. The RECORDER said that the document was one of much importance, and involved matters of law and of fact requiring grave consideration. He was desirous that it might be read and referred, if the Court should think proper to make the reference. Mr. R. TAYLOR read the resolution of the Secondaries' Committee, which related to the suggested alterations and improvements, one of which was the holding of a weekly session for the trial of juvenile offenders. Here a conversation took place on the question of reading the Report. The Recorder pressed the Court to adopt speedy means to fill up the vacant situation, in asmuch.as the public, and especially the Judges, were likely to suffer serious inconvenience from delay. There were points in the Report which he thought could not be touched by the Court of Aldermen, and the suggested weekly session was one of them. That was a matter over which :the Commissioners of the Central Criminal Court alone had authority. Alderman FAREBROTHER thought it would be ad visable to refer the Report to the law officers of the Cor poration,.with directions to take into consideration every part of it. They could decide whether it might be neces sary to hold a consultation with the Judges of the land on the subject. Perhaps, if a weekly session were held, the Aldermen might be deprived of the power of sitting as Commissioners altogether. Sir PETER LAURIE said that he and Mr. Clark, the clerk of the arraign, had waited upon the Secretary of State some time ago, and were informed by that Minis ter that without an Act of Parliament a weekly session could not be held. Alderman GIBBS recommended the reference of the Report to a Committee of the whole Court at once. Alderman COPELAND was not aware that any great evil could arise from such a delay in filling up the va cancy, as might enable the Corporation to fill it up well. The City Solicitor's Report was finally referred to a Committee of the whole Court, with the understanding that the deputation would subsequently confer with them on the various matters embraced in it. THE CONDUCT OF BROKERS AND • PRETENDED BROKERS. Alderman COPELAND called the attention of the Court to a subject which was daily becoming of greater and greater importance. It would be a matter of no difficulty to him to prove that the most injurious abuses were practised by persons not qualified to act as brokers, but constantly acting as such. It was time to look actively after the responsibility of those who acted in such an important capacity. The Corporation took about 4,0001. a year in the shape of rent from the brokers of the City, and the Corporation were bound to see that in every instance security was given for the pro tection of the merchant. Now the system as regarded the government of brokers_ was so loose, that th mer • chants were greatly dissatisfied with it, and the fact was, that the Court must either give up the privilege they possessed, or insist upon receiving proper securities in order to maintain a check upon a very formidable dan ger.—(Hear.) He felt convinced that applications would be made to the Legislature on the subject, if the Court, which possessed the power, declined to exercise it. Under all the circumstances, he should move that the laws re lating to the brokers of the City of London be referred to a Select Committee, with instructions to report thereon. Alderman WILSON seconded the motion. He had worked for several years with Alderman Copeland to improve the system, and most heartily would co-operate to effect so great a public advantage as was suggested. The case in which widows and orphans suffered by the villainous conduct of brokers in making transfers of stock were innumerable, and the securities were always found to be of no avail. The late City Solicitor had in some instances prosecuted, and so had the present, but prose cutions were found to be inadequate protection. The motion was unanimously agreed to. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1842. THE THIEVES INFESTING WHARVES IN THE CITY. The ward of Dowgite made a presentment to the effect that a very serious nuisance arose from the multitude of thieves who attended one of the wharfs on the Thames, and suggested the propriety of removing the nuisance as speedily as possible through the means of the. police. Alderman HUMPHERY said that the owners of wharfs at which steamers landed profited immensely . by the traffic, and were bound to protect the public against the thieves by employing officers of their own.—(Hear, hear.) Alderman COPELAND was quite of the same opinion. The petition was refered to the Police Committee. REGULATIONS FOR THE- GOVERNMENT OF THE CITY roLicz. Mr. FIRTH (of the Town Clerk's Office), read the fol lo‘r ing letter from the Office of the Secretary of State : " Whitehall, Jan. 7, 1842. Sxa 7 --I am directed ,by Secretary Sir James Graham to acknowledge - the receipt of your letter of the 26th November last, containing the remarks of the Police Committee ofAldermen on the several points to which their attention had been called by Mr. Manners Sutton's let ter of the 28th September with regard to the regulations for the government of the City Police ; and I am to in form you that the explanations given appear to Sir James Graham to be satisfactory ; and I have to return to you the orders and regulations, with Sir James Graham's ap proval and sanction annexed: " I am Sir, your obedient servant, " The City Rememlirancer. "T. M. PHILLIPS." Upon the motion of Alderman GIBBS, a copy of the rules was ordered to be sent to the City Police Com missioners with power to be acted upon.—Adjourned. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF . .CBANCERY. Jan. 18. NEW QUEEN'S COUNSEL. On the Lord Chancellor taking his seat to-day the fol lowing gentle= n were called within the bar by his Lord ship in consequence of their having been appointed Queen's Counsel:—Mr.Wilbraham, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Koe, Mr. Teed, and Mr. Lowndes. WARD V. ALSAGER. This case stood on the paper to-day in order to en able the Solicitor-General to conclude his reply ; but In consequence of the hoarseness of the Learned Gentleman the further arguments were postponed to Friday. TOLEDO V. VISTA. This case came before the Court upon motion for the discharge of an order pronounced by the Vice- Chancellor of England, by.which his Honour directed that an injunction which had been granted, restraining the transfer. of stock, should be dissolved, unless the sur viving plaintiff, Colonel Toledo, filed a supplemental bill on or before this day. The original suit was instituted by Colonel Toledo, who was the natural son and committee, according to the laws of Spain, of the late Duke del In fantado, and the object of that suit was to obtain an in junction, restraining the defendant Vieta, who was the physician of the late Duke, from transferring a sum of 10,0001., standing 'in his name in the English Funds, in trust for a lady who had lived with the Duke and his children. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the amount in question had been ob tained from the Duke when he was in an imbecile sta`e of mind. On the case coming on before the Vice-Chan cellor of England, he granted the injunction, and from that decision the defendant appealed. During the pend ing of that appeal the Duke del Infantado died, and the suit became abated. Upon this event taking place, the order was made which it was now sought to discharge. The LORD CHANCELLOR ordered the motion to stand over for five weeks, in order to give the parties time to obtain certain documents from Madrid, the injunction to be continued in the meantime. IN TIE MATTE'S OF WILKINS, A LUNATIC. The rest of the day was occupied by the further arguments in this part heard Lunatic petition, the only question in which was, whether a farm ought to have been let for 100/. or 130/. a-year. The LORD CHANCELLOR, at the conclusion of the ar guments, postponed his judgment, ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 18. . IN RE STEWART—COLMAN U. STEWART. Mr. PEMISERTON applied to the Court for the discharge of this defendant, he having been committed to prison under the following circumstances :—A bill had been filed in Chancery against him, to which he had neglected to make any answer, and in consequence an attachment . was issued on the 11th of May, 1840. In June, 1841, he was served with a notice to enter an answer to the bill within fourteen days from the date of the notice. In consequence of this the defendant caused an appearance to be entered, and he Was discharged from custody on the ground that defendant ought never to have been com mitted. Ile (Mr. Pemberton), referred his Lordship to the case of Lewis v. Evans, which came before the Lord Chancellor Cottenham lately, in which the defendant in the case had been committed to prison for want of ap pearance, but an appearance was ent ere d su b sequent to the attachment, and on that ground the Lord Chancel lor discharged the prisoner. The appearance had been made in the present case, and the question was, could the defendant legally be detained in custody. His LORDSHIP said if the defendant had really ap pprtriendh, s i t answer,ivouldbea n h d i tr h r d e s. hadhi p.' s n odutyt appeared, p to e a r order t h h e i n m h t i o s , eil h a e to h vv i a s , d p is r c o h p a e r r g ly e tcobniut.., Lordship must order an t a im pp e ca ; r a a n nc d e. difa l nh V ea h p e tp l a h nr e apn fi aie r de st a tchn p e - - e p t isae en tered ap pearedin mr would ju o lm u d r t have a l t i v e e should hee n entitled h av minithtiesdnteogcluecsttotdoy.payThtleie tered his appearance voluntarily, and it appeared to him question cos now was, had he en tered that it was not, as he had entered his appearance in con sequence of a notice served upon him in the Fleet. Nir. CRAIG, who opposed the defendant, said, that the defendant had not proceeded upon that notice, as it called upon the defendant to enter an appearance within fourteen days, and the appearance of the defendant was entered two days after that notice had expired. His LORDSHIP said that' became a voluntary appear ance, and would be something to proceed upon. Mr. PEMBERTON read the affidavit of the defendant, which stated that he believed, from that notice, that if he did not enter an appearance, it wou ld heprejudicial. to his interests, and he therefore entered.. an appearance, ithin sixteen days after the date of the .notice. • Mr. CRAlG—.Therefore, that would be a 'voluntary ap pearance. • . . . • His LORDSHIP said that the questioh was, whether , that notice was involuntary, if Mr. Pemberton really thought so, he would order his discharge. His Lordship addressed the defendant, and asked him what was the reason he had not made his answer to the bill ? The defendant said he had not the means. His LORDSHIP—Come up to the table, and make oath of that fact, and you, shall have means to enable you to put in your answer. Mr. PEMBERTON inquired if the defendant was dis charged ? His LORDSHIP said he ias sent back to the Fleet. and would remain there till the Master had inquired into his means, and if they were found as he had stated, a solicitor would be found for him, and every thing necessary for him to put in his answer to the bill. LIEFE V. BISHOP OF LONDON. Mr. PEMBERTON stated that Mr. Liefe, a native of Scotland, did, on 3d July, 1838, execute a deed accord ing to the forms of Scottish law, by which he conveyed certain Scotch heritable bonds to certain trustees, and in the year 1835 he executed a will according to the Eng lish law, by which he devised the residue of his estate. One-quarter he gave to the plaintiff himself, and two-fourths to the Reverend the Dean of Westmin ster, the Bishop of London, and the Chairman and Vice- Chairman of the Hudson's Bay Company, upon trust, that they should invest the same in the funds, in such manner as they should think most desirable, the divi dends to be applied for the purpose of establishing the Christian religion, according to the Protestant form, amongst the Indians in that ►art of North America called Rupert's Land or the Hudson's Bay territory. The remain ing one quarter of his estate to be divided amongst his five sisters. It appeared that two trustees had declined to ac cept the trust. The plaintiff had also declined, but the Bishop of London, and the Chairman and Vice-Chair man of the Hudson's Bay Company, were willing to accept the trusts. A question would arise as to whether the pro perty could be applied to the purposes named, but the ap plication he (Mr. Pemberton) had to make was, that the trustees should furnish the plaintiff with a full account of all the properties and monies of the deceased. After some discus:i ml between the parties it was agreed that the funds should be applied as stated, provided all accounts were supplied to the plaintiff, and referred to the Master, in order that new trustees might be appointed. VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Jan. 18. (Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.) LORD STUART V. LORD WHARNCLIFFE. This case came ' befiffre the Court, upon exceptions made on the part of Lord Wharncliffe to the Master's re port, as to the sufficiency of his Lordship's answers to certain interrogatories put to him by order of the Court. It appeared that John Lord Bute, who died in tho year 1793, having willed his right in a certain colliery, and the debts due to him from the pro perty, the present Lord Stuart de Rothsay was the residuary legatee. Lord Bute had but a third share of the property in question. The right of the legatee under the will had been the subject of much legal discussion, but that right was ultimately confirmed, and in the year 1818 a decree was granted, referring it to the Master to take an account of the specified articles. The colliery had in the mean time come into the posses sion of Lord Wharncliffe, Lord Ravensworth, and Mr. Bowles. By order of the Master, Lord Wharncliffe had, in the year 1828, put in answers to six interrogatories relating to the accounts of the property at the death of Lord Bute. The Master certified that the answers were insufficient as to all the interrogatories. Exceptions were taken to that certificate; and as to the second and third answers, it was overruled. Lord Wharncliffe put in further answers to the interrogatories which had not been previously answered to the satisfaction of the Court. The Master, however, certified that the answers to the last questions were insufficient. These answers were to the effect that Lord Wharncliffe had applied to his partners for permission to examine the books, but, as they had refused that permission, he could not furnish the accounts required. Lord Wharncliffe excepted to the certificate of the Master declaring this answer insufficient. His HONOUR said that the answer of Lord Wharncliffe did not appear to him to be sufficient. There was not enough to show that his Lordship might not have pro ceeded to examine the books without having at all asked the permission of his co-partners. He was, therefore, of opinion that the examine eon was still insufficient. (Before Vice-Chancellor BRUCE.) Some motions of no interest were disposed of in the early part of the morning. His HONOUR then called the following gentlemen to the Inner Bar, who took their seats accordingly :—Mr. Wilbraham, Mr. Mathews, Mr. Koe, Mr. Teed, and Mr. Lowndes. BURRIDGE V. ROW. In this case Mis:l3u;idie is the plaintiff, a daughter of Mr. Alderman Winchester, and the cause was insti tuted for the purpose of claiming, from the assignees of the bankruptcy of Mr. Alderman Winchester, certain policies, in which. she had a life interest, belonging to the late Mr. Alderman Winchester. The principal facts of the case will b 9„ gathered from the judgment of his Honour, Mr. VicChancellort Bruce. Mr. Cooper appeared for the assignees of the estate of Mr. Alderman Winchester ; Mr. Rogers for the trus tees; and Messrs. Russell and Simpkinson for the plaintiff. The arguments in the cause occupied several hours, and, on their conclusion, • Its HONOUR said—rom whatever motive Mr. Al derman Winchester paid these premiums, if they were not paid by means of any contract with the trustees, and for Mr. Burridge or his wife, the conse quence of this payment would be the accession of the property in the policies, but by which Mr. Alderman Winchester acquired no right in the bond, possible or probable, for re-payment'with or without interest, with or without a lien for them. Nothing has been stated to m which has had the effect of persuading my mind that Cere ever was a contract with the trustees or Mrs. Burridge. The mere far...t, of making the -pay ment, however necessary for protection to the property, would give the party making that payment no tide to the property. lam aware of no authority or principle in sup port of such a preposition. I must therefore hold that Mrs. Burridge's life interest in the policy fund exists in her, not affected to any extent by what has been done, except there should be any dispute as to whether Mr. Alderman Winchester had been fully repaid by the detention of Mrs. Burridge's income, which he was liable to pay, or otherwise ; then there would be an inquiry in this respect. I wish to know whether the asiigness were paid the debt ? Mr. CoorEa—There is no doubt about that. His HONOUR—Then I inn to understand it is admitted by the assignees of Mr. Alderman 'Winchester, that he has been fully repaid all that he did pay for the premiums ? Mr. COOPER —Certainly. His HONOUR—Then that admission must be taken down, in order that it may not prejudice any other claim in this case, otherwise there will be an error ap pearing on the deeree. Then it only remains to con sider the title of Mrs. Burridge to compensation or in demnity in respect of the payment which she ha's made, or that her husband's estate was liable to make. It is, as I understand, proved in dm case that Mrs. Burridge had by her income, or money de ducted from her income, actually paid premiums to a cer tain extent, and which her husband's estate was liable to pay. I may therefore declare that Mrs. Burridge, the plain tiff, in respect 'of this payment, charged against her in re spect of these premiums so made, has alien on Mr. Row's interest under the settlement, whether assigned or not ; whether with interest may possibly be a question. I would rather have that spoken to. My present im pression is, that it will carry interest at the rate of four per cent. I will hear the assignees on that point if they wishe but if I am to decide it now, I should decide that these premiums paid by her will bear simple interest at the rate of four per cent. charged upon Mr. Row's interest in the fund ; because if I were now to settle the portion of capital for the pur pose of paying that, I should prejudice Mrs. Burridge's interest. If you wish, 'Mr. Cooper, to address the Court as to the liability in respect of the payment of these pre miums I will hear you. Mr. CVPER—I declined doing so. His HONOUR-Then my impression is that the pre miums ought to bear simple interest, at the rate of 4 per cent. Then comes the other question, and it may, perhaps, not be inconvenient to the Court to declare its opinion upon it, viz., the ques tion , whether Mrs. ' Burridge is affected by any thing which has taken place under. Mr. Alderman Win chester's bankruptcy. It is only a claim so far ; there is no proof ; and I apprehend that having referred to what the rights and liabilities of the parties were immediately 'before the bankruptcy of Mr. Alderman Winchester, that there is a right on the part of the plaintiffs to see upon what the interest. belonging to Mr. Row stood. Although the liabi lity does not stand exactly upon the same footing as it does in the cases of Priddy and Row, Cresley and Woodroffe, and Smith and Smith—although there was the obvious difference I have mentioned, I viewed the case in this way—the policy found is rightly in the name of the trustees now in Court, and I viewed it as coming rightly into thei r name . If Mr. "Winchester had not become bank ru p t , an d if after his decease his executors had a ppli e d to the trustees for a transfer of th e po li cy f un d o n payment of interest on the policy, t h e trustees wou ld have a right to say, "True, this is yours, but you; to whom t his mone y is due, also owe us money s i n respect of the bond; therefore let an account be stat e d b etween u s, and let us see who is debtor and who is credit or ." I will now state the rights of the estate between the trustees and Mr. Winchester. I apprehend the bankruptcy makes no difference ; but, according to the extensive meaning which has been fixed between them to the time of the bankruptcy. It name you will, which the that there is that right, by authorities on that point, there was a mutual credit _appears to me, therefore, whether retainer, set-off, or lien, call it by what clallaerithnge ,absecsigaluieseestohfc:leri.: not, however, prepared to say that I can give an imme diateplaintiffs contend for. lam effect to it, but it may be convenient to the par ties to declare it, that the effect might be obtained with out waiting till Mrs. Burridge's death, because it is proba ble wronc , in this ary interest on the policy,.but if they do they must sell it subject to that right, which I think I am justified in de settling the NnVointhcihneg:ter will sell the reversion_ part of the case, and this may probably have the effect ' of admission that na c oc r : wo e , : nwhether t youi judgment upon this point, and on this prin ciple I will decree. You must state the form of the d. , :- I decide the whole now.. may. be erroneous. If you want any Mr. SIMPKINSON—We want no account. His Howoua—l decide the principle of the decree Mr. COOPER--Yes, Sir, I would say the whole decree. His Howoua—Then you will mention the minutes at another day, an d if you w ill prepare them upon the principle I have. mentioned, I will endeavour a a n n d d I , s h o o li p n e ito th r e a ot to settle any difference of opinion: You will name a day, minutes tof w Court,i will bbe n consideredorderth that t y the e Counselinay not t wnlilulr is gthhabtlie:s °ion: NtE r oc c u l d e g. r i y, to exclude stand-over.. . 1 . M. .COOPEit said, he had to apply to his Honour re specting the costs. - 4 . His HoNovu--:I ani much obliged to you for remind ing me of it. I have thought of it during the argumen'. Neither party has addressed me on the subject, but I think the plaintiff ought to have the costs out of the fund. Mr: COOPER thought the assignees were entitled to the costs out of the fund. Mr. SIMPICINSON—They ought to pay the costs. Your Honour should know that they claim everything by the bill. His HONOUR—I am disposed to apportion the costs to all parties between the policy fund and the bond fund, if you can do that practically, and I do not see why not. One fund has produced nothing, but I suppose it will produce something. Mr. SIMKINSON-It will produce something, probably Is. in the pound, and that will not go far. His HONOUR—The simplest would be to take them out of the policy fund. But I will tell you what I think of the costs when the minutes arc settled. The case will be heard again on Saturday next (Before Vice-Chancellor WmaAm.) PERKINS. V." BRADLEY. Ms HONOUR gave judgment in this cause. Henry Perkins was possessed of a sum of 675/. Three-and-a- Half per Cent. Annuities. On the 13th of February, 1838, he mortgaged that stock to Henry Bradley, for the purpose of securing to him the sum of 251., recited in the deed to have been then advanced, and further sums intended and expected to be advanced, not exceed ing 251. It was admitted in the cause that 25/. was the fee paid to Mr. Kelly for the purpose of defending Henry Perkins on his trial for felony. On the 21st of February in the same year, another mortgage was exe cuted by Henry Perkins, subject to the prior mort gage, to Henry Bradley, for the sum of 428/. 17s. Two persons having put a distringas on the stock, proceedings were had in the Court of Exchequer for the purpose of having it removed, and the result was, that it was discharged. On the 7th of March a meeting took place between the parties, at which were present the defend an t, H enr y B ra dl e y, an d J a mes Perkins, the father of the plaintiff. At that meeting. Henry Bradley suggested that, the distringas having been removed, a letter should be written to Henry Perkins, then in prison at Cambridge, requesting him to execute a vower of at torney enablin g th em t o rece i ve th e s t oc k. That power was executed, and on the 12th of March, 1838, Henry Bradley received the money. If the matters had rested in that state, no difficulty at all would have arisen as be , tWeen the plaintiff and Henry Bradley. On the 14th of March, however, Henry Bradley being gone to Cambridge, obtained for Henry Per kins another deed, by which he charged the stock with a further sum not exceeding 100 L Another case set up by Henry Bradley was, that at the meeting of the 7th of March, it was agreed that he should de fend Henry Perkins upon his trial, and that the expenses incurred should be paid out of the stock in question. He set up a claim to those costs, and also to the costs incur red in removing the distringas. That being the state of the case between Bradley and the plaintiff, inasmuch as the defendant's costs, when added to the paid mortgages, exceeded the amount of the stock, it had become neces sary to determine the question of priority between the parties. A third party, however, had set up a claim to the entire stock, and if that claim should be established, it would be quite unnecessary to enter into the question between the two other parties. The Crown said that when these several securities were executed, H. Perkins was awaiting his trial on a charge of felony. On the Ist of March, 1838, shortly after these several transactions, Henry Perkins was . convicted of felony, and all his goods and chattels being thus forfeited to the Crown, the Crown insisted that that forfeiture overreached these several transactions. Now it was a settled point of law that the goods and chattels of a felon were forfeited only from the time of conviction. The authorities upon that point were Coke upon Littleton, 391 A ; Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, 2d book, c. 49; and Blackstone's Commenta ries, pp. 387 and 388. He quite concurred in the argu ment for the Crown, that the. alienation had been frau dulent, and for the purpose merely of avoiding the for-, feiture, that alienation could not stand against the right of the Crown ; but if the alienation had been for value and bona fide, to say that in that case it should not pre vail against the right of the Crown, would be to deny the main proposition, that the forfeiture took place only from the time of conviction; it was, in other words, a declara Lion that the right of property r ema i ne d i n the felon up to that time. His Honour then referred to several cases to establish the point, that the forfeiture could only ope rate from the conviction. He felt therefore bound by the authorities,-to hold that a felon, indicted but not con victed, had power to pay his debts. As to the question of whether this was an alienation for value, it appeared that in May 1836, the sum of 4271. was advanced by the plaintiff to his brother, for 'the purpose of enabling him to embark in trade, for which an I. 0. U. was given at the time. With respect, therefore, to that sum, the felon did nothing more than pay a debt which was due from him to his brother. The first sum of 501. ap peared to have been expended in the costs of the trial -; that too, was clearly a bona fide payment: With respect to further inquiry, on the part of the Crown, if the 'case went before the Master, upon the preSent state of the evidence, and the Master decided that these were not bona fide transactions, and exceptions.were ,taken he should feel bound to overrule those exceptions. Then, with respect to the second mortgage of 50/., it had been arranged that when Bradley received the money from ' Henry Perkins he should pay the plaintiff's claim out of the money so received. The deed of the 14th of March could give him no priority. The defendant claimed a lien upon all money which came into his hands to pay himself the. expenses incurred in defending Henry Perkins. The law of the case was, that if a solicitor recovered money in a suit to the ex tent of the costs included o in recovering that money, he had a lien upon it, but he had no lien at all upon the money in respect of any general claim. He was of opinion, therefore, that the claims must be taken in this order. First, 50/. payable to Bradley ; secondly, 417/., payable to the plaintiff ; thirdly, the costs with respect to the distringas ; and, fourthly, the claim of Henry Bradley. The Bank of Englund had been made a party to the suit, but as he could see no reason why that had been done, he must refuse to grant wets. The plaintiff must recover costs from the corporation of Cam bridge. The defendant might, if he pleased, take a re ference with respect to the second transaction. The case was then ordered to stand over for a few days. NEW APPOINTMENTS OF QUEEN'S COUNSEL. Mr. Loftus Wigram, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Koe, Mr. Teed, and Mr. Lowndes, took their seats within the bar. MONK V. TANKERVILLE. Mr. GIRDLE STON E opened this case at great length this morning. The plaintiffs are Sir Charles' Miles Lam bert Monk and Mary Elizabeth his wife ; the de fendants to the record are the Earl of Tankerville and Frances Hills, and the object of the suit is to have it declared that Frances Hills became the trustee of a sum of 8481. 12s. 3d. Three per Cent. Annuities, and to obtain payment of that sum, together with the dividends which have accrued since the death of the late Earl of Tanker ville in 1836. The case is expected to last two or three days ; we shall give an outline of it in a more advanced stage of the proceedings. JANUARY 17. (Before Vice• Chancellor BRUCX.) JONES V. HUGHES. The arguments in this cause were brought to a hear ing. His HONOUR commented upon several of the points which had been raised at the bar, but deferted his judg ment till Wednesday. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY V. THE COOPERS' COMPANY. Mr. BURGE opened this case at great length for the plaintiffs. The prayer of the bill was that the Coopers' Company might be decreed to grant to the plaintiffs a formal license in writing in pursuance of the agreement entered into between them and.llavid Trinder in the bill mentioned, and that it might be declared that the plain tiffs were entitled to demise, assign, or underlet, the pre mises in dispute. The Learned . Counsel said that, by the Act of the 4th Wil. IV. c. 85, the East India. Company were directed to close their commercial busi ness, and for that purpose to sell all their warehouses, tenements, hereditaments, , and other property, which were not necessary for the government of the territories in the East Indies. Part of this property consisted of certain premises at Ratcliffe, upon which were erected the Saltpetre Works of the East'lndia Company. They held these premises for the residue of .a term of 260 years, which had been granted to them by the Coopers' Company, by an indenture of lease of the 30th of Octo ber, 1770. In and previous to the year 1770 a person of the name of David T ren d er h a d b een i n possession of the premises, as the assignee of two Indentures of lease, bearing date the sth of February, 1760, and granted by the Coopers' Company to a person of the name of Hatt. In the year 1770 an agreement was entered into be tween the East India Company and Mr. Trinder, by which, in consideration of the sum of 3,9201., Mr. Trinder agreed to surrender the residue of the term to the East India Company, and to procure a grant by the Coopers' Company to the East India Company. of this term of 260 years, at an entire rent of 1551. ; and the East India Company, in consideration of this, were to grant to Mr. Trinder the lease of a parcel of land adjoining the wharf, being part of. premises to be included in the lease from the Coopers Company to the East India Company. 200 years were to be added to the term of the lease, and Mr. Trinder agreed that he would deliver up to the Coopers' Company the two indentures of lease, and the Company agreed to grant him a portion of the land comprised in that extended lease, at a yearly rent of 1654 payable quarterly. The bill stated that Mr. Trin der entered into the agreement with the East India Com pany with the privity and consent of the Coopers' Com pany. The whole of the negotiation on the part of the Coopers' Company and the East India Company was carried on by Mr. Trinder, and the Coopers' Company , must be taken to have been fully acquainted with his au thority to act on the part of the East India Company. On the 30th of Oct., 1770, the. Coopers' Company exe cuted this indenture of lease to the East India Company for the term of 260 years ; and that lease contained a covenant that the East India Company should not part with the said demised premises without the license and consent of the said Coopers' Company first had and con tained in writing for that purpose. The plaintiffs en tered into possession of all the premises except that portion which was demised to Mr. Trinder. The East India Company had regularly paid to tho Coopers' Com pany the reserved rent for the whole of these premises. In the beginning of the year 1836, the East India Com pany proceeded, in obedience to the directions of the Act of Parliament, to sell this portion of their property. The British Gas Company first proposed to become the purchasers ; but, 'discovering in the lease this covenant against leasing or assigning without the license of the Coopers' Company, and not being.aware of what had .passed between Mr. Trinder and the Coopers' Company, making the latter parties to the agreement, they offered 500 L for a license ; and that offer being rejected, there was an end of the negotiation. The Coopers' Company, being aware of the situation in which the East India Company was placed by the Act of Parliament, and having it, as they supposed, in their power to prevent that sale, by not grantea license, they being in the possession of the only e v idence of that license - having been originally, panted. to Mr. Trinder, it occurred to ,thptithat they- might make a bargain for themselves, and they ofered•to become the purchasers of the premises for the sum of 4,0001. They afterwards extended their offer to 4,5001., but that sum was ri , fusi.d. It v. as (Fite clear, from all the circumstances, that the Coopers' Com pany were seeking to avail themselves of the obligation imposed upon the East India Company by Act of Parliament, to compel the latter to sell. The 1 interposition of the Coopers' Company, and their ; refusal to grant a license, originated entirely in the passing of the Act, making it obligatory on the plain- ! tiffs to sell; and it was to protect themselves against such conduct that the present bill had been filed by the plain tiffs. The Learned Counsel insisted, at great length, on the right of the plaintiffs to have a formal license granted. The property had been sold to Mr. Ward for the sum of 1 5,5004 ; but the Coopers' Company had refused to enable the East India Company to complete the sale. He con tended, that upon all the evidence and correspondence in the cause, the plaintiffs were entitled to what they asked I by , the bill. _ _ Mr. LLOYD followed on the same side. The further hearing was postponed at the request of the parties until Friday next. The VICE-CHANCELLOR directed the attention of Counsel to two points—first, to the manner in which it was sought to be proved that there was an agreement to permit an assignment contemporaneous with the grant ing of the lease which expressly forbade it, which must be a matter of groat difficulty ; and, secondly, as to the relief which could be given against the lessors, when it did not appear that, they had threatened to eject-the Plaintiff, even supposing that there existed an agreement to permit the lease to Trinder to be granted, it not be ing the rule of the Court to make any merely prospec tive declaration of the rights of the parties. The Act of Parliament directed the East India Company to sell their commercial property, but it was difficult to argue that it . gave the CoMpany a right to come into a Court of equity for help, in order to carry the Act into effect. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 18. I HOWARD V. GOSSETT AND OTHERS. This was an action of trespass for breaking and enter ing the plaintiff's house, and making therein a great noise and disturbance. The defendants had pleaded, first, that as to breaking and entering the plaintiff's house they were not guilty; and, secondly, that as to the alleged trespass, the Parliament of the Sovereign was being holden at Westminster, and on the 27th January it was ordered and resolved by the House of Commons that the plaintiff do attend the said House, of which he had notice, but had neglected and refused to do so ; that on the 4th February it was ordered that the plaintiff be sent for and brought in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and that the Speaker do issue his warrant for that pur pose ; and accordingly the then Speaker, Charles Shaw Leferre, issued his warrant to the Sergeant-at-Arms, by whom it was delivered to the defendants, as his deputies and assistants, who proceeded thereupon to execute it, but without using any unnecessary . violence, and think ing it probable the plaintiff Would shortly return to his dwelling-house they remained there for some time. To that plea the plaintiff had demurred, that the second plea was insufficient in law, as it did not disclose any sufficient authority for the violence that had been used by the de fendants, and also, that although the second plea ad mitted the acts that had been done, it did not show that they were acting under any authority proceeding from, known to, or recognized by law;, nor did it show what acts had been committed by the plaintiff, which rendered it obligatory upon him to attend the House of Commons. Neither did the plea state any particular ciantempts or breach of privilege committed by the plaintiff ; nor did it show that the warrant contained any distinct ground or charge against the - defendant; nor that he was in the house at the time the defendants went there to execute the warrant; and, lastly, that it was bad for uncertainty and informality. Mr. KELLY now appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, in support of the demurrer, and submitted that the plea demurred to was wholly insufficient in law, and set forth no sufficient justification of the trespass complained of. The question was one of ; very considerable import• slice, and involved considerations of the greatest moment as regarded the liberty of the subject. M; presumed it was the object of those who justified the plea to put forward two propositions for the decision of their Lordships—first, whether the House of Commons had the power of arresting and imprisoning the Queen's subjects without their having been guilty of any offence known to the law, but merely for a contempt of their privileges ; and, secondly, whether, if the House had such power they could justify their officers in breaking and entering a dwelling-house and remaining there at their own, pleasure, even although the party against whom the warrant was issupd was not in the house, and was not alleged to have been there. But there were other preliminary questions first to be disposed of, and one of them was that there was no actual charge Of the plaintiffhaving committed any contempt of the privileges of the House of Commons: There was no allegation in the plea that after notice had been served on the plaintiff by the House a reasonable time had elapsed, previously to the taking of these further and more stringent steps — nor did the plea allege that he had refused to attend without any reasonable or legal excuse. A <further objection was that the warrant, the foundation of the defendant's proceedings, was not set forth on the plea, and the Court had no means of judging whether the defendants had any legal and sufficient authority for what they had done. These were objections in point of form to the plea as far as regarded the first count ; but with regard to the second plea, wherein it was stated that it was probable the plaintiff would return, by way of justifying a second entry into the house; there was an allegation that they believed or hadevery reason to suppose that he would re turn. Now their Lordships were aware that it was a general principle of law that the plea must be taken most strongly against the party pleading, and in the present case it must be taken to be bad for uncertainty, because it did not state whether the warrant authorised - the defen dants to take the plaintiff, and bring him in custody be - fore the House of Commons, or that they were to bring him befere the House fora contempt of its privileges. He submitted that such a warrant, so vague and uncertain in its powers, was a violation of Magna Charta. If a party arrested on such a warrant were brought before their Lordships on a writ of habeas corpus they could not have anything of the nature of the offence charged against him, and unless they went the length of ascrib ing to the House of Commons the arbitrary and un oonstitutional power of arresting and imprisoning the Queen's subjects without any cause assigned, they must discharge the prisoner. In the case of a Magistrate ex ceeding his jurisdiction, and wilfully imprisoning one of the Queen's subjects, a prosecution might be instituted against him—if any other of the authorities known to the law transgressed their authority the same remedy was open to the party aggrieved, but in the case of the House of Commons, itovas to their Lordships alone the public could look for protection, and it was the more imperative upon them to watch their proceedings narrowly, inasmuch as they were in almost all respects an irresponsible `upon If the warrant had been issued by that House upon a conviction for a contempt, then it could not be impeached in the present mode, because it was admitted that the House of Commons had jurisdiction in all cases of contempt. - The Learned Counsel then referred to a number of authorities bearing upon the privileges of the House of Commons, and its right to commit for a contempt, and: con tended that the present case did not properly come within them. Ile submitted that if the plea put in by the defendants was to be taken to be a justi fication of the trespass, the cons2quence would be that a party could go as often as he pleased to execute a war rant, and remain in the house on each occasion as long as he pleased—Lord Tenterden's remark about a man's house being his castle would be a complete dead letter, for the trespass, and breaking, and entry, might be carried to the extent of di.possessing a man of his house alto gether. If such a doctrine was recognised there was no knowing to what an injurious extent it might be carried. He would now come to the entry, which it was clear was unjustifiable and unlawful, except in cases of felony. It was stated in the.declaration, and was not denied, that the defendants, without attempting an entrance by the door had forcibly broken open a window and effected an entrance in that way. In the case of Burdett v. Abbott, Mr. Justice Bailey bad laid it down that a party had a right to break open an outer door and force an entrance, provided there was first a demand of entry in the usual way, and a refusal. There was, however, no alle gation of either a demand admission refusal, set out on the plea in the present case, and the proceeding was therefore clearly unjustifiable and illegal. After the Learned Counsel had concluded his argument, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL applied to the Court for leave to amend the plea, on payment of costs, which was assented to by the Court. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 18. The Court was engaged the whole of the morning with cases in the New Trial Paper. Their Lordships found much difficulty in proceeding in consequence of the absence of Mr. Wortley, who is attending the obsequies of the Countess of Earn, his grandmother. He is engaged in many of the causes which now stand first on the list, and they being put off until his return, the cases which stand lower were called on suddenly, and the parties were not prepared. There was no point of interest raised in any of the causes which were argued. BAIL COURT,Jan.IB. THE QUEEN V. THE GREENWICH RAILWAY COMPANY. Mr. WALLINGER moved for a certiorari to remove into this Court three indictments which had been found against the Greenwich Railway Company, for a nuisance in building certain arches across a road, on the ground that on the trial of those indictments many points of law would be likely to arise on which it would be desirable to have the opinion of the Court. Mr. Justice WiawrmAN granted the application. HULL V. FEARNLEY. This was an action brought by Benjamin Hull against Henry Fearnley, to recover compensation in damages for having been run over by the defendant's cart, in conse quence of which plaintiff's leg was fractured. • . Mr. T. CROWDER stated the case to the Jury. The plaintiff, whose name was Benjamin Hull, was in a humble station of life, and up to the 9th of J une l as t, had been in the employment of Messrs. Vexiables and Hull as light porter. The defendant, Henry Fearnley was a coppersmith, carrying on business in Shoreditch. On the 9th June last, the plaintiff had been sent by his mas ters, who carry on business in the City to Tottenham court-road, for the purpose of fetching a parcel, and when on his return, passing on the narrow footpath close to St. Giles's Church, with the parcel on his left arm, his right arm being towards the road, he felt something touch his right arm, turned, and immediately was knocked down by a cart, the wheel of which passed over his leg and broke it. When picked up be was found with his body lying across the pavement and his feet in the road. The cart which had done this mis chief was the property of the def,.nd..nt, and was driven by him at the time. The cart drove on, but was stopped, and the plaintiff was taken-to a surgeon's, and ' subse quently to the Middlesex Hospital, where he remained seven weeks, At the time o f the accident the plaintiff was MORNING SUN earning 18s. a week, but had not been able to do any• work since. Mr. Venahles had called on Mr Fearnley-, who had never made any ihquirice, and Mr; Fearnley had in con sequence gone to the hospital, and given the plaintif f 55., and said he must see what could be done for him when he should came out. Application was accordingly m ade to Fearnley, who offered 2L as compensation, which was re fused. Mr. Fearnley subsequently raised his offer to 519 which was refused. Mr. Fearnley had never imputed t tn Y' blame to the plaintiff, and the only excuse he had made for his Conduct was, that . he had that morning been • teaching his son to drive. The Learned Gentleman then called his witnesses, who deposed to the facts of the case, and who were subjected to a rigid cross-examin a tion by Mr. Thesiger, on the part of the defendant, in the course of which it was elicited, that at the time the ac cident had happened, an omnibus, foll Owed by a cab, we° coming in an opposite direction i to defendant's cart; that the road was very narrow ; and that some of the per sons, who had taken plaintiff to the surgeon's had sun ' that he had slipped off the curb, and been run over. Mr. THESIGER (with whom was Mr. Knowles) then addressed the jury for the defendant, and begged to as sure them that no one could more deeply regret the un fortunate accident than the defendant himself; on whom his Learned Friend had been instructed to cast wh at be (Mr. T.) must characterize as most unjustifiable impute tions. At the time the accident had occurred, th defendant was utterly ignorant that he had occasioneo any accident. He was not driving at an unreasonahl:. rate at the time, the rate at which he was going n o t being more than five miles an hour. The mono; the defendant knew the injury he had occasion, he went to the Hospital,. gave plaintiff 55., told him to want for nothing, and promised to s atisfy him when he should come out. Now, what could be have done more ? He contended that the plaintiff had not established the fact, that the injury he had sustalne' had been in consequence of the blameable conduct of th e defendant, which he was bound to do to recover aft; mages. In any case of inevitable accident no pluintlp could recover. Now, he contended that this was a co° of that nature, and therefore the defendant was not liable:. Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN, in summing up, said an° after the accident had occured it appeared to him tha t the defendant had done all that he could do, and that, 'sequently, no blame attached to him for that. If the J Ol 2 were of opinion that the mischief was occasioned by evitable accident their verdict must be for the defendant; If, on the contrary, they should be of opinion that it been occasioned by any default of the defendant, then their verdict must be for the plaintiff, with such damse l as they might think the justice of the case required. The Jury found a verdict for the defendant. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 18. CLARRIDGE V. X`RENZIE. The defendant rented a house in High-street, Ainr lebone, from a person who held the premises un der si_ lease from ' the plaintiff's father. Upon the expiration the term, the lessee informed the defendant that Clan' ridge's interest was also expired, and that the rent mu! in future be paid to the Duke of Portland, the grountr landlord. On the other hand Miss Clarridge served tri defendant with notice that the interest of her dec eas father, whose heir she was, continued, and that the re ll , must be paid to her. The defendant agreed at fir o st ` t ., pay her, if she would reduce the rent, and she cone° mg, he did pay the first quarter, but on the second be : coming due, refused, and this action was brought for the rent since alleged to be due. For the defendant witnesses were called, who stated t ill !! when Clarridge gave the lease to Mlienzie ' he said 1, was for,the whole term of his own interest. The rut in ' tiff produced no proof of the nature of her father's inter est, and the Jury found for the defendant. Mr. Sergeant SIIEA. this day moved for a rule nisi set aside the verdict and ; grant a new trial, on the gill, that the defendant, having acknowledged the plaintiff It his landlord, could not afterwards question the right. • was the Duke of Portland's case in reality ; and the. pr' r per mode of bringing the plaintiff's right into que o/ , was by an ejectment. The COURT refused the rule. SHERIFFS' COURT, Jan. 18. BURKE V. SWIFT. This was an action brought to recover the sum c lr 91. I Is. from the defendant, who is an attorney. It l ', 1) ,1 peared that, some time since, the plaintiff had employ the defendant in an action in this Court, for the recocey, of a small sum • and the case having been frequen,V e postponed, Mr. 'Swift charged the sum of 31. Bs. fer `,l l attendance of counsel, amongst other items, althonb, the law forbade an attorney; on his own responsibilitYo' to employ counsel in suits for any sum equal or less t hfi n that in which he was concerned for the plaintiff. Wally a bill of costs was run up, whi c h more than 4",; ( 1 drupled the sum for which the action was brought . the plaintiff having subsequently executed some Ivor' r e Swift, the latter refused to pay him, alleging that t he was still'a considerable sum due to him for costs. di s The present suit (which occupied the Court nearly ed whole day) was then instituted, when the Jury ret urn a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 61.115. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jas. • IN THE MATTER OF CLARKE. The insolvent, who described himself as foretna ll ,, in. ' the. establishment of Messrs. Clarke and Turner, 1% 1 ' 5 "L posed by Mr. Woodruffe, on behalf of Mr. Robins.°S; the proprietor of the extensive horse repository i n Britam, : on the ground of haong contracted debts on ' 6 , commodation bills without any reasonable prospe ct , meeting them. f fel It appeared that he had been twice insolvent be• ° „t, and had, in connection with a horse jockey named Gr n " - n t raised 92/. from the opposing creditor on these ..1 0 ! 0 , bills, soon after which Grant disappeared, when the i l t . solvent was sued, and defended the action at c onsiu e r able expense with plaintiff. He had also dealt verY,e..i, tensively in accommodation bills, and in his scheille appeared the names of several loan societies to which had become security. orti' Mr. Commissioner BOWAN said the insolvent, ecc.o6l ing to his own representation, could not have ent ertal mj the slightest hopes, of being able to pay the deb t het ibe contracted with Mr. Robinson, and upon the face t,rbe schedule there appeared no means of paying it- or judgment of the Court, therefore, was -that he be est . prisoned for eight months from the date of hie Ye mg order. IN THE MATTER OF JOHN cntron.“. ei The insolvent was opposed by Mr. Hall, on beh Mr. Allen, of the firm of Allen and Co., Piccadilli• The grounds of opposition were that the ins c A '' Q $ rented a tenement from the opposing creditor, an'f t et leaving it did not give up the key until two days the termination of the last quarter day, and he c°- quently sued for a quarter's rent. Mr. WooniturrE was about addressing the the insolvent, when— Mr. Commissioner BOWAN said the grounds of Oe it s • • tion were most frivolous, and at once . ordered the 111- •. • vent's discharge. The famous insurrection of the French pea s° . uP in the fourteenth century, called " The Jaccit i of has been selected by Mr. James as the groundworicho his last Historical Romance. The Captal de 13tich' was the bosom friend of Edward the Black Princ, e ' rt er• was one of the founders of the Order of the ur fi n ro' and who remained many years in prison rather t han mise not to fight for England, is one of the most pr,,, o c nent characters. The Literary Gazette observes,that that Jacques and their savage leaders, and the lords :tad ' f i t ful followers, who opposed them and perished, form of the and dreadful tragedy ; and the final overthrow " gt peasant force, with its Parisian and other alliestio Meaux, and the catastrophe which clos es the neirr it are in the very highest style of this class of writing' GOLD WATCHES, LONDON-MA D deo , T. COX SAVORY, Watchmaker, No. 47, Cernhill , Lo'! A Ol seven doors from Gracechurch-street, submits for selecll7: very : large STOCK of GOLD WATCHES, the vrli w o die which are carefully examined by experienced workme n premises, and each is warranted for correct performance. ' SIZE FOR LADIES. Fine Vertical Watches, jewelled, in engine-turned ,„ gold case., and gold dials , warrante d £lO -" Fine Vertical Watches, jewelled, with double-backed engine-turned gold eases and gold dials, warranted I 2 '- Patent detached Lever Watches, jewelled in four = holes with double-backed gold cases and gold dials, t / warranted SIZE FOR GENTLEMEN. Patent detached Lever Watches ; jewelled in four holes, seconds, and double-backed gold cases, war - 13 13 ° ranted Patent detached Lever Walch'es, capped, jewelled in six holes, seconds, double-backed gold cases and 17 1 7 " enamel dials, warranted Patent detached Lever Watches, capped, jewelled in 0 six holes, seconds, double-hacked gold cases and 0 gold dials, warranted 114 Either of the Gentlemen's Watch es ma y b e h a d i n gold 10 cases, for 31. 3s. eacn extra. N.B. Second-hand Watches purchased in excllt.:,#"3. BIRTHS i d, °I On the 16th inst., at Brixton-hill, Mrs. D. H. Pura) • Onl‘c ' a son. Fre ° the 16th inst., in Camberwell - grove, Mrs. Besley, of a daughter. , j, „r e o , On the 16th inst., at Elm-grove, Sydenham, the w T. Fry, Esq., of a daughter. • Da cia On the 17th inst., at St. George's-place, Mrs. ______,.. of a son. _ MARRIED. ; be ° Yesterday, at St. Pancras Church, Joachim Deti.j . bi te ' Esq., to Mrs. Blagdon, eldest daughter of Mr. W. I ‘''' ' r head, of the Polygon, Somers' Town. On the 13th ult., al the Vritish Consulate, Madeirs4 pet s , f sit Cossart, EN., to Jane, third daughter of T. H. Ed w : Vet e " On the 13th inst., at Cullom ton , Devonshirth . 1 ' t or Esq., youngest son of W. Upcott, Esq., to Mary ft k i p cond daughter of Robert Sears, Esq., of the semi Plat tOl . n, On the 15th inst., at St. Augustine's Church , Br'etore, o f ward, only sen of E. Harley, Esq., of P o rtland-sqOA.. Mary Ann, youngest daughter of Arthur Palmer, " . A Park-row, both of the same city. Ph fs ' j- s, On the 17th inst., at the New Church, Brornpton, sob' Deere Roper, Esq., of the Madras Army, to Louisa youngest daughter of the late William Dance, Esq.' DIED. e ( pee° On the 14th inst., at Bath, Mrs. G. Mason, ° I , „ e J c Parade, aged 77. ~ fl''' On the 28th ult., at'Halifax, Nova Scotia, an" ~,11 the wife of George Reany Young, 1. sq., aged 25. .. Per On the 2d inst., a , . Gloucester-place, Kensingt" th e William Henry Parkes, Esq., a ged 61. n ° f t On the Bth inst., at Plymouth, Walter Scott, th e s° t late a Scott, of London- s t ree t. „stre ; t, On the Bth inst., Mr' T. Jackson, of South Auw ir e J 0.0 1.1 f, On the 9th inst., in Alba n y -st r eet, Regent's-P ar youngest daughter of the late T. Mutlow, Esq.. e ' ~,,t 0 Monmouthshire, aged 36. ark , '''' s' On the 17th inst., at Alpha-road, Regent ' s -pa r to Ch o ar n lo th tt e e, l t l h th e i w n i s f t e ., o a f t T th . the Rectory House, IN fle ht er the Rev. John Colmer, M.A. A 0 14 On the 13th inst., at Paris, Caroline Har A r l ie k t, e e rll7sll l:o. _./ of the late IV. Walshe, Esq., of Dublin, barrister -at-'7„,/ ;1 _...-------- tr--- - - -- t — tr-t - -t- No. 112, Strand, at The Slin Office, London: Printed ' and P u bli s hed by MURDO ' tra rt ' 1 No. 1 12, J o i thP Coy of Middlesex, Weduesdsh Janui r l 1' 06) Tb, Nap th ey ne xt ( ONE Th e Abeti under ~.1,, te st Best Ting iten n , j -:(4 1:(1 ngot! si2 e 44r1 ( 'of 4 N o Ii C3tt ' , ld c o (I(tee, N ob for bare " ( I all Ala N, ,4, 3 .E J o h n nu n ' Geo, Pr o f ess A OLic, Any. P rofits N. oth er rat e ,. f „ The —r e d the 3 ' l( t l , ne nta ge 11; e a th e 0 4 (4%-ard