The Express.
London, England, 1867-11-23 00:00:00

Kato lutalivatt.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.--Nov. 22.
Sittings in Banoo.—(Before the Lord Chief Justice and
Justices Mellor, Eibeo, and Lush.)

THE QUIOUf V. TWISS AND_

ST ALB AN % CAB&

This wee a rule granted by the court calling upon Dr.
Twins and Dr. Robinson to show canes why • writ of pro-hibition should not issue to restrain them from proceeding
in the suit of " Martin v. Mackonochie," in.relation to the
ritualistic practices at St. Alban's, Holborn.
Mr. Prideaux, Q.C., now moved to make the role ab-
solute, no cause being shown. The rule was returnable on
Saturday last, and he had reason to know that no cause
would be shown. In tact, he believed that the promoter
of the suit was more anxious to have the rale made abso-
lute than the defendant, in order that no time might be
lost in proceeding with the suit before Dr. Phillimore.
The contention was and both sides, were now satisfied, that
Dr. Phillimore had no power to appoint surrogates to bear
the cause.

The Lord Chief Justice—Just so ; and they are going on
with the case before Dr. Phißimore
Mr. Prideaux—Yes.
Rule absolute.
CA3INALL C. FAZIL PUMA.

•
This was an application on the part of his Highness
Mustaphs Fazil Pacha, brother of the Viceroy of Egypt,
who had been sued and arrested in this country, to set
aside the judge's order for the arrest on the ground that at
the time it was made ho was a member of the suite of the
Sultan daring his recent visit to this country, and also
that the order had been improperly obtained by conceal-
ment of that fact from the learned judge who made it,
and also to discharge the order for holding his highness to
bail. The plaintiff had made a large claim upon the Paoha
for commission alleged to have been due in respect of
raising a large sum of money on his highness's estates in
Egypt. The affidavit upon which the Pacha was arrested
stated that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff,
and was in England for a temporary purpose, and about to
leave the country, and on this affidavit the learned judge
at chambers made the usual order for his arrest, and he
was accordingly arrested, and at once applied for his (dis-
charge on the ground of privilege, he being a member of
the Sultan's suite and in attendance on him.
_ _

Mr. J. Brown, Q.C.,and Mr. Lanyon showed came
against the rule ; Mr. anisty, Q.C., end Mr. Murphy
supported it.
Mr. Brown said that about a year before this transaction
occurred the Pache resided in Paris, and whilst there he
employed Mr. Campbell to obtain a loan of 800,0001.
sterling 012 a mortgage of his property in Egypt. The
plaintiff was instructed in writing, in September, 18e4, to
obtain the loan, and the letter authorised the plaintiff to
take all the necessary steps to raise 500,000 f., the sum
having been reduced from the first amount named, for
which he engaged to pay the plaintiff 5 per cent. on the
amount of the loan immediately on its completion, and
he engaged not to authorise any other person to obtain the
loan within three months. In November the plaintiff
succeeded in finding the money, and wrote the Pacha to
that effect, the rate of interest, however, to be 12 instead
of 15 per cent. The defendant afterwards wrote the plain-
tiff, stating that he need not further trouble himself about
the loan, as he had obtained the money elsewhere, and
begging him not to carry out his former instructions, his
financial position having changed. The plaintiff afterwards
had interviews with the defendant inPans, but as they were
both foreigners, the plaintiff could not take proceedings
against the defendant in Fiance. On defendant's arriving
in this country, the plaintiff took proceedings against him
for 25,0001. commission, when Baron Bramwell made an
order to hold the Pacha to bail for 12,5001. on the 20th
July. The application had been founded on the assump-
tion that a foreign sovereign on a visit to this country and
his suite, in the most extensive sense of the term, were
entitled to the same privileges from arrest, and probably
from the jurisdiction of the civil warts of this country, as
an ambassador and his suite. He bad searched the autho-
rities on the point, and it seemed clear to him that they
all laid down that in all time a foreign sovereign could
not oome Into this country without letters of safe conduct
from our sovereign, though he be at amity.
The Lord Chief Justice—l suppose her Majesty's insita-
Mon would do.

Mr. Brown mud the old way of doing it was by granting
a writ de salve conductu. If their lordships wished he
would gratify their curiosity with a sight of tt.
The Lord Chief Justice—Not the least in the world.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Brown said be had found a great many of these
writs in his research. The last was that of Edward VI.
to Queen Mario( Scotland on her passage from France to
Scotland through England ; but in the case of King Jamas
V. of Scotland the writ of safe conduct was refused. The
statute of Anne was confined to ambassadors and their
suites. Modern text writers appeared to be of opinion
that a sovereign who travels through or sojourns tempo-
rarily, from whatever mum, in a foreign country, is by
the law of nations entitled to immunity from civil pro-
ws& The only case in which he had been able to find
immunity from process in the case of a foreign soverelga
was that of " the Duke of Brunswick r. th King of
Hanover." The Pacha's affidavit stat(d thr t he was
commanded by the Sultan to be in attendance on him
in this country, but be did not state whether it was by
letter or by word of mouth. The Paella being in Paris at
the time, there was no documentary evidence to show the
Dacha was so ordered to attend. The plaintiff in his affi-
davit denied the. truth of the Pacha's statement,
and set forth that he made inquiries of Fuel
Bache and Roostur Bey, two of the Sultan's
ministers, before the arrest, and they informed him
that Peril Pasha was not a member of the Sultan's suite ;
that to the surprise of the Sultan he found him at Mar-
seilles to ask pardon of the Sultan, and that be forced
his company on the Sultan. It further stated that Faxil
Paella came to this country at his own expense ; that his
name was not in the list of the suite of the Sultan handed
to the Lord Chamberlain who were lodged, &a, at the
expense of the government, but that he was residing at
Claridp's Hotel at his own expense.
The Lord Chief Justice--Hes the Turkish ambassador
of this country interfered in any way?
Mr. Brown said it was right he should state that, in
reply to an application to the Foreign-office, a certificate
was communicated to the plaintiff, which the Atto-ney-
General considered should be brought to the notice of the
court.

- The Attorney-General, with whom was Mr. Hannan,
said his instructions were merely to watch the case. A
certificate had been given by Muslims Bey, the Turkish
ambassador, which ought to be laid before the court.
The document was then produced, when it appeared
that the certificate given by hfusurus Bey stated that
the day before the arrest Fazil Pasha was • member of
the Sultan's suite. It further appeared that the lists of
the suite handed in did not contain the names of one or
two who were known to be in the Sultan's suite. As •
further proof that Fazil Packs was not one of the suite, it
was stated that he did not receive invitations as such to
the Duke of Cambridge's, Guildhall, and Covent-garden.
After some further conversation between Mr. Brown,
the Attorney-General, and Mr. Manlaty, Q.C., with whom
was Mr. Murphy, who appeared for the Puha,
The Lord Chief Justice said it appeared to him the
Turkish ambassador had not interfered otherwise than to say
that the defendant was one of the Sultan's suite. He
thought that in a matter of this kind the court ought to
depart from its ordinarily strict proceeding and make it as
elastic as possible, to get at the facts of the case. It was •
matter of great national importance that the principle of
immunity from arrest of those who form the suite of a
monarch on • visit to the sovereign of this country should
be upheld to the last extent, but in doing it they must
take care not to extend that privilege to those who were
not entitled to it. The affidavits in this case were not
conclusive or altogether satisfactory, and therefore he
thought they might call on the Turkish ambassador at this
court to inform them whether prior to the arrest the
Pasha had been appointed one of the Sultan's suite ; be-
cause if so, this court would undoubtedly give the Puha
the assistance he sought for. If be was placed on the list
whilst the Sultan was here, even after hn arrest, it might
become a grave question whether, if be was placed there
for the purpose of avoiding arrest, it might not then
entitle him to his liberation, or that his hail should be
discharged. The court was not sufficiently satisfied upon
the affidavits filed and the document produced that the
Pasha was • member of the Sultan's suite when he was
arrested. He thought the court might further call on the
Attorney-General to arid them in this matter.
The Attorney-General said he would communicate his
lordship's suggestion to the Foreign-ofilise, and he had no
doubt they would give the court the required information.
The Lord Chief Justice—The case had better stand over
for that information.