The Express.
London, England, 1849-07-02 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, MONDAY EVENING, JULY 2, 1849.

CRICKET._

COUNTY OF SpEEBY v. COUNTY OF SUSSEX.

debt is an honest debt. At different thug I received from
him.; different sums. I was told by Mr. Corry that counsel's
lidu had been taken as to the transaction of Msy 1847.
The plaintiff is still my solicitor.
Ite-examined.—l continued the possessor of the estates
and furniture after 1848 and 1846, up to 1847, and appeared
to the world es the owner of the property, I ban removed
some things of mine from Stow* and Wootton sine* May,
1847. They wore clothes and trifling things, some of which
I have sold. Lord Chandos has been kind enough to give
me 6001. a regent of the 1,6001. allowed to him. Unfortu-
nately this sedan has caused disputes between us.
Cross examined.—l left Stowe is March 1847 for London,
but I returned to it again in May fora week, before the
trausetion of the 27th of May. I have not been at Stowe
duo. 1 have not slept at Wootton gnu. The article
brought from Stowe asd Wootton, were brought to my
lodgings. There were some clothes, a min, two dressing-
aura, my robes, and some order,. They had been under
the charge of my servants. I was obliged to sell the deeming-
cases for my own seg. They were of very little value.
1.0. Ituticith—l am servant to the Duke of Buckingham.
I Mind some property in April, 11348, and in March, 1849,
bigns Stowe and Wootton. The guns and dressing cases I
bight away were worth altogether from 601. to 1001.
Onmenimined—l have had the charge of these articles.
His grace hashed them many years.
The return of the sheriff of nulls bona was put in.
This was the ease for the plaintiff.
Sir F. Kelly submitted that there was no use to go to
the Puy. The °peeing was that the deed which had been
entered into in 1847 was fraudulent and void. His learned
friend had failed in showing that the Duke of Buckingham
was possessed between the pried& of the Bth of July and the
4th of August, 1848, of goods within the county of Bucks,
which the sheriff had had notice of and ought to have seized.
His Erna had not sworn that be was the owner of the pro-
muy in August, 1849. He had said he was the owner, but
gabfest to a mortgage. It ought to have been shown that
be wag the owner when the return was made. The trifling
articles which had been spoken of could not supply the de-
Lord Denman thought there was something to go to the
Sir F. Kelly then addressed the jury for the defendant.
He said he addressed them in this case with the most painful
feelings, because it was impossible to refer, as was his duty,
to the history of this illustri family so far as regarded the
property in question without animadverting upon the oonduet
of the duke, for whom, he might be allowed to say, he had
alw.ya felt the most profound respect and personal regard.
He should, however, content Morsel with stating to them
the facts briefly, and simply omitting as far as possible all
comment, and placing before them a correct account of the
transactions of this family, to satisfy them there was not the
slightest ground for this action. The question for them to
determine was whether between July and August, 1848, the
duke was posseised of any personal property in the county
of Bucks which it was the duty of the sheriff to *eke under
the writ of execution. There had bsen no evidence as to
the debt of the plaintiff being bona fide; it was of no
im-
portenee in this action. It was of consequence to the Mer-
ged@ of Chandos that it should appear before this court and
tie public that when he entered Into this transaction he was
not told of the debt, and he would remind them that the
dike who had given evidence in support of the plaintiff's
case, would not urdertake to say that the marquis
was *ware one stilling bed bees advanced to him
by Mr. Strut at the time of the transaction of
the 27th of May • still there might have been
subsequent transactions resulting in this claim. It was
now his duty to state to them the exact transaction between
the marquis and his father in May, 1847, and what was the
real condition of the duke's affairs both then and previously,
as his friend had considered it his duty to state in open
court that this transaction, to which the marquis was a
party, was a fraudulent one.
The Attorney•General—Ooly a legal fraud.
Fir F. Kelly—Those were the words that had been used
by his learned friend, and it was only en that account that
he should enter fully into this transaction. The duke bad
before that dispossessed himself of the whole of the pro-
perty—not a single article belonged to him in either of the
mansions at Stowe or Wootton. This transaction was un-
paralleled in the history of human affairs for generosity,
liberality, self-abandonment, nobleness, and greatness
of mind. The duke succeeded to the title in 1839.
It was true, to a certain extent, but to nothing
like the extent cased by his learned friend—that on
account of several transactions during the lif,t4ne of
the late duke, to which the present duke became a party,
debts to a large amount existed against the estate of the pre-
sent duke. A considerable portion of those debts had been
incurred for the purposes of the late duke, but a large portion
was also for the purposes of the present duke. In 1847 and
1849 a large quantity of the personalty had ceased to belong
to the duke. In 1843 a sum of 6.5,0001. was lent to the duke
by a Mr. Attwood, who had a mortgage, which was traile-
r, reed to a Mr. Barcher, and by a conveyance of the 26th of
May, 1847, the duke conveyed the whole of his personal
mare at Stowe aad Wootton to Mr. Barcher, to whom pos.
session was given. In October, 1846, another trussed=
had taken plea with a Mr. Saddler, to whom the duke owed
more than 10,000/., end to whom he had assigned
all his personal estate and effects, so that he ceased
to possess any personal property at all. He would new
state to the jury what had led to the transaction of May,
1847. They would find that the Duke of Buckingham in-
herited from his father a noble property, consisting of es-
tates in Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire,
and in Ireland, amounting to about 34,0001. a year. The
duke was likewise_poesegood of other property, amounting to
10.0001. a year. There was also the Chaados property,
which he derived by 11.1a_gaarriaga with the lest heirreee of

This match, which was commenced on Thursday at
the Oral, wee brought to a eraeloston oa the folowbur
email*. There were but few long worm Chester Mends
et the heed of the list for row, having made 12 and 14, sod
the nest iaßsehby, who mond 7 sad 42. Both batted
beautifully. The mask Mendaatod In fame at Sauey,
who won b 7 16 rasa.

ELEVEN OF ENGLAND v. FOURTEEN OF
HAMPSHIRE.
This match war finished on Saturday afternoon, in
(mat of England by two wickets.
MATCHES TO COlll.--Aptil 3, at Lord's, 8, Gentle-
man of Kiln, V. Goadomen of England."

3intelltgence.
COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.—SATuRDAY.
SMOGS AT 11111 Paton.—RZFOILI LOAD MINYA" MID • emus AIM
THE PECUNIARY BILBABASSMENTS OF THE
DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
STBDTT v. LOWNDZI.
The Attorney-Geueral and Mr. E. James were mama few
the plaintiff, and Sir Fitzroy Kelly, with whom was Mr.
Peacock, appeared for the defendant.
This sass excited very great honest, and Lord Bretterimr
Mr. James Brougbam, Sir Alexander Oran., etc., won upon
the bench. It was an action against the defendant es the
sheriff of Buckinghamshire, for having made a false retain
to • writ of 11. fa. issued to him to levy upon the gads tithe
Duke of Buckingham for the sum of 3,0001. The Meta of
" nulls bona " had been made to the writ.
The Attorney-General, in opening the cam for the
plaintiff, said that he rose with very great regret to addles'
the jury, but he ho d that no observatioas which be Matt
make would be calculated to irritate the helium of the
noble badly who were mixed up in the action eihi& they
IMO 111111111ibied in that court to try It would be mormary
Ise ldm to explain the position of the parties whose mimes
:=6upon the record, because, although this wee an
brought by Mr. Fitton against the sheriff of Busking-
hemehire, still the sheriff was, In fact, but a nominal
Emden% the action being redly brought br a boat ere-
Ease et the Duke of Backbite= against the Marquis cif
Cheeks; and the period to which the attention of the jetty
wield be particularly directed wise the 27th of May, 1847.
The plaintiff had been for some time the cosfidential soli-
dest of the Duke of Buckingham, and there was no question
sheet the velidii y of the debt for which the duke,
In an action brought against him, had suffered
josent by default. That judgment was for 3,0001.,
aid in order to recover the amount due upon that judgment,
and also to try the validity of a transaction which had taken
pbee between the dukeand his son, the Mamuis of Chandor,
11111 execution was issued, directing the sheriff to levy on the
effects of the duke for 3,0001. The question which the jury
would have to decide mote in oust (pence of the sheriff having I
made a return of nulls bona, and there was no doubt that
mho the transaction to which he had referred was a bone
fide is. that the whole property which was said to have
bee& assigned to the Marquis of Chandos still remained the
property of the duke. He regretted that the jury were
issizabled there to try whether the deed executed under the
elseumstances he was about to mention between the Duksof
Buckingham and the Marquis of Chandae notoriously for the
better protection of the property, and now to be sat up by the
met against the father, was or was not a bona fide transaction.
In the:menth of May, 1847, the duke was in that state of
embarrassment which caused a deed to be executed. The jury
would, probably, hear from his learned friend (Sir F. Kelly)
of the great sacrifice that the Marquis of Chandos had made
for the security of his father, but, iu fact, the Marquis et
Ckandos had only followed the example of his father, for the
present Duke of Buckingham had taken the property from
his predecessor with a debt of 900,0001. upon it. It so
happened that in the month of May, 1847, it was evident
that the pressure was coming so directly upon the duke that,in
order to save the property and protect the family, an arrange-
ment of =me kind was absolutely necessary. 'There was no
time to take deliberate professional advice, end accordingly
his grace consulted those friend in whom he had the
greatest confidence, viz., Lord Brougham and his brother,
and the Duke of Richmond. In the hurry of the moment,
the Duke of Buckingham was advised to prepare, to the best
of his recollection, a list of those debts that were most
pressing, and early on the morning of the 27th of
May, 1847, without any time for discussion and
without reading the deed, the duke executed it,
and that deed, which was executed with the avowed oldest
of protecting the property, was now set up u a bout tide
transaction. The object was fairly to distribute amongst the
duke's boot fide creditors the whole of the property, and the
desire was to prevent persona coming in and taking any un-
due advantage, and also to avoid litigation. It was, however,
never for a tingle moment contemplated for any of the
duke's creditors to be able to mot any slur upon his fair
fame, or that if from socideat or inadvertence he had
omitted to enter any debt, the world should be enabled to
say that it was a fraudulent or ooloeratle deed. The duke
felt that he had fallen from the high position to which his
birth entitled him by reason of the encumbrances which bad
descended to him, but he had never done anything to
enable people to say that be wished to act dishonourably to
his creditors. The question for the jury to consider would
be whether at the time the teed was executed
there had been • boot fide consideration for it,
and farther whither it was intended to operate as a real
transaction; because if it was not, his lordship would tell them
that r t ally but

not . judos, morality a._ common sense, -.it b
statute, as aiding Mr. Shutt the deed was void ; and although
other ezeditess might come forward and enter into disputes
about debts not so correct as this, the jury would net be
deterred by the coastquences from the honest discharge of
their du•y. The deed did not state upon the face of it that
any consideration had been given • it recited vatious debts
to a very large amount, and it vested the property of the duke,
both real and personal, in the Marquis of Chandos in trust to
pay those debts. Whore was there any consideration so lar
as the duke was concerned ? lie gave up to his son, as his
trustee, all he had. It might be urged that the Mitigate of
Chandos had taken upon himself debts for which he ought
not to have been liable, but there was a very important point
to be considered, and that was, what was the intention of
the pities? and even although the Marquis might have
taken upon himself some liability--and even though there
was a colourable consideration—yet, if it had never
parties

the illustrious house of Chandos, amounting to 17,0001. a
year; the whole making 61,0001. a year. With regard to
one part, the duke woe merely a tenant for life, and his
only son, the Marquis of Chandos was tenant in remainder
in tail. With respect to the Chandos property, the only
part of it that would not be ultimately swept away to pay
the enormous and inealculab!e incumbrances upon the
Chandos property, was &stied on the present duke for life,
bat with remainder to his issue male. A 1 that the duke had
to pay his debts with was his iaccme et 61,0001. a year. All
that lo longed to the Marquis of Chandos was the remainder
in tail of the Buckingham property, the 34,0001. a year, and
the remainder for life in the Chandos property, to the
amount of 17,0001. a year. Unfortunately, instead of en-
deewurs being made to diminish the debts by the duke se
as to leave something to his wife and children, they bad been
increased. Toe Marquis et Chandos came of age in Septem-
ber, 1844, and immediately afterwards, as soon u a wave-

. , _ ay • convey-
been the intention of the _ that this should acs could be made, the marquis, without benefiting himself
be an honest and bona transaction ; if it was to the extent of one shilling, executed an instrument by
a mere pretence for saving the property, although which he took upon himself and charged his interest in the
the motive might have been of a deliberate nature—although whole of the property, to the extent of 1 100,0001.. the
tier was a distinct understanding it should have for its o amount of his father's debts. Some youths just entering
jest the protection of the estate from debts not chargeable upon life, with brilliant prospects, mixing in high society,
apes the property, still not only would the deed not protect with all the temptations which such a position would cast
the property, but it would make it manifest that it never around them, would have stipulated for something for them-
wee the meaning of the parties that it should be a bona fide. selves to enable them to appear in &manner befitting their po.
instrument. Although the parties in this ease bad professed einem; but without anycondition or benefit this youogman had
to deal with many hundred thousands of pounds, still it charged his property to this vast amount. Part of the
mart be governed by the same rule sa in an ordinary team- money which was to be raised was to be applied
'Mks where an execution was Muted, or a bill of tale given to the payment of particular debts and the money was raised,
apes a poor man's trifling effects. The question was, whe- but not half of it was so applied ; the debts, therefore,
that the deed was meant to be a real bona fide transfer had accumulated, and in May, 1847, they amounted to
absolutely of the property, or was it a mere colourable. 1,409,0001 , and new came the transaction which the Attor-
traneaction, in order to protect the property from the nub- ney-General had called fraudulent. He (Sir F. Kelly)
tend the duke ? Although the object of the parties might would ask who were the parties to the record ? The deed
Meshes* morally correct, yet legally there being no con-
sidewalks, the law would declare the deed to be a fraudu- was between the duke and the marquis. If then a fraud
had been committed it was committed by the duke, and the
lent transfer. He had no wish to enter into family details, duke bad been put into the witness box by Mr. Strutt, his
bud Wahl remind the jury that the question was, aye or no, own solicitor, to prove that he (the duke) hid been guilty of
tuna deed • solemn bona fide instrument ? fraud. Who was the other party ? Why the Marquis of
The Duke of Buckingham was then called and examined.
Re Yid, in May, 1847, I was considerably embarrassed • I Chanties. This young nobleman,
to who did not owe a debt
in the world, who owed not a shillingany human being,
cries deed to the title about Mae years since- EY father had' who had lived carefully and parsimoniously, and who bs that
left the estates considerably encumbered. I bad taken the
liabilities on myself when Marquis of Chandoe There was traneaction charged himself and his vast myelin with his
father's debts, amounting to nearly I,soo,oool.—this was •
a great interest paid. In the month of May, 1847, the baud of the Marquis of Claude. to take upon himself the debts
411.4 bee
more
urgent, I then consultedwith some of his father to such an amount, leaving himself destitute
(needs as to the best coons to be Funned. Lord Brougham
the heir to one of the most ancient titles in this or any
and the Duke of Richmond assisted me with their advice. other country, • member of parliament entering into life, to
It " "cult to say what the personal property at Stows was De charged with a fraud on account of a transaction by which
worth at that time. I was induced to suppose it was worth he sacrificed all he possessed or could possess in
were called
in life, leaving
260,0001., but I have since found it did not realise nearly so himself a beggar. And this was what the j
much. It was proposed in May, 1847, that I amid execute upon to set aside as a fraud. In 1847, it toeing found that
• deed to LOrd Chandos. There were then several
the mone y raised had only been partlyappliedtothe payment
judgments against me. Some on bills. I executed of the duke's debts, and the debts having increased consider-
that deed on the 27th of May, in Pall Mall ; ably, and that the affain must have been thrown into Chan-
I did not read it over, but I was told what its contents eery, and the duke must have been persecuted beyond endu-
were, end I beg to state it was my desire that all my pro- ranee—it was then that the marquis had come forward and
petty should be given up to my creditors, and all his been expressed himself willing, by the great sacrifice he had
given up. I have none left. Some solicitors were Present. stated, to liberate his father and give up all he had in the
received no pecuniary consideration for executing the deed. world to the satisfaction of his father's delve. Could that be
The plaintiff hid been my Private solicitor, and had made considered a fraud ? His learned friend was obliged to state
advances of money to me. Everything was included in that this transaction took place under the auspices of one who
that deed. had been Lord High Chancellor and the Duke of Richmond,
Cress-examined.—l have not resided on the property dace and yet this was sailed a freed. The only doubt was, not
May, 1847. I have been to Wootton fin an hour or two, in whether the Minnie of Chanties would commit • fraud, but
January, shooting. The amount et my debts when the whether they would sanction a young man just entering life
Marquis of Chandos came of age I cannot tell you within even to make this irretrievable sacrifice. This doubt had never
60,0601. or 100,0001. It was very considerable. That was been communicated to the marquis, and he had every reason
in September, 1844. I was in debt at that time upwards of to beliefs that when he made this sacrifice he was liberating
a million sterling. An arrangement was made in his father from all the delta which existed against him. The
1845, to which Lord Chandos was a party, and • interest of then debts amounted to 15,0001. a year more than
deed was executed. I cannot my whether my the income of the property. The property was al-
debts amounted to 1,100,0001. I had • transaction reedy mortgaged over and over nab` far beyond its
with Yr. Beecher. I was indebted to Mr. Attwood in value; and such was the rate of things in May 1847.
65,0091. He had a mortgage ; that mortgage was trwferred The only possibility of paying off the debts was by the mar-
t. Mr. Bucher. There was also a transaction with Mr. qais taking them upon himself without derivi,g the slightest
Sadler, but I don't knew the amount of the debt. It was bet efit ; and such was the sad result of the cue. It was
upwards of 100,0001. I will undertake to state that I was true that the creditors, owing to the plans adopted by the
the owner of perusal property at Stowe or Wootton after marquis, and the pains he took with the property, might
October, 1846. It was but I considered myself hope eventually to be paid, should he be allowed to
the owner addle The property sal produced act se he had hitherto done. It was true he was
about 90,0001. greet deal alit had bebaged to the late left a beggar to the end of his life, but he would
duke—a large peopw. I think I had • personal nom- have the proud satisfaction of redeeming the name of his
munication with Chinese relative to the transaction of family. The marquis had undertaken to set as receiver for
May, 1847. • Mr. Cony was then manager of my estates, half the sum timidly allowed, and out of that sum he gave
in wham I pissed stirseinfidesee. Misers. Liginfoot and hie father 6001. a year—out of 1,6001. a year which he
Robson also wad fee me. Mean. Cirrie and Co. acted as earned, he gave his father 6001. • year, and 6001.
solicit/no IST Lord Choate.. A letter wee written in May, 1847,
a year he allowed to his mother, the duchess, retain-
ing I ow* find it. The amount of my debts at that big only 6001. for himself, which was all he was poe-
tise I Nally cannot tell' taking everything I recollect, I sewed of. The duchess was indebted for the supply of
believe it was about 1,500,0001. There were estates in her necessities to this young man who earned the means of
England an Ireland milled the Buckingham estates, the earring her by acting as receiver under this deed, which
rental of which I cannot tell you. The Chandoe property was called a fraud. Thie was the whole case. He lamented
and the Buckingham property would be I.lofll than 60,00 W. that he should have been obliged to state these family trus-
s year. No money wee paid to Lord Chandos upon either actions. So far from the transaction being a fraud, it was
of the transactions. lam aware Lord Cbandoe has, as my nn the part of the duke, with one exception, a highly merito-
eon, done everything • son weld do for a father, and lam thous act, because by this means he provided • fund for the
not aware that be possesses anything but what is allowed payment of debts he could not otherwise have paid. The
by the tangy mortgagees for his saving the expense of a objectionable part was, that he should have permitted his
receiver, and acting as a reeling' of the rents ; altogether he son, even for so noble and meritorious a purpose, to have
receives about 1,6091. a year. I know Mr. Buster took made this inane:liable sacrifice. With repent to the mar-
possession in May, 1847. lam not aware whether nodes of quis, he should deem it an insult to their understandings if
the gat to ear. Strut, was communicated to Lord he were to my more. He had sacrificed his last shilling to
Mendes, or the Duke of Richmond, or Lord save his father, to do justice to his father's name, and his
Brougham, at the time of the transaction in May, 1847. father's creditor.; and he (Sir F. Kelly) did not envy that
I can state that a very considerable stun was *demised 111131'11 feelings who could listen without admiration to a de-
by the plaintiff to me beton May 1847; and I sea say Ida tad of hie eonflatei end he Muted it would be the last time