The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-02 00:00:00

D RAGLAN. I THE MET.

The following is a copy of the letter addressed by Lord
Lucan to Lord Raglan complaining of the expression
used in Lord Raglan's despatch deucribing the charge at
Balaklava

" Balaklava, Nov. 30, 1854.
" My Lord,—ln your lordship's report of the cavalry
action of Balaklava of the 25th ult., given in the papers
which have just arrived from England, you observe, That
from some misconception of the instruction to advance, the
Lieutenant-General considered that he was bound to at-
tack at all hazards, and he accordingly ordered Lord Car-
digan to move forward with the Light Brigade.' Surely,
my lord, this is a grave charge, and an imputation reflect-
ing seriously on my professional character. I cannot re-
main silent. It is, I feel, incumbent on me to state those
facts which I cannot doubt must clear me from what I
respectfully submit is altogether unmerited. The cavalry
was formed to support an intended movement of the in-
fantry, when Capt .Nolan, the aide-de-camp of the Quarter-
master-General, came up to me at speed, and placed in my
hands this written instruction :

" ' Lord Raglan wishes the cavalry to advance rapidly
to the front, follow the enemy, and try to prevent the
enemy carrying away the guns. Troop of Horse Artillery
may accompany. French cavalry is on our left.
" Immediate. " ' It. AIREY.'

" After carefully reading this order I hesitated, and
urged the uselessness of such an attack and the dangers at-
tending it. The aide-de-camp, in a most authoritative
tone, stated that they were Lord Raglan's orders that the
cavalry should attack immediately. I asked bins, ' Where,
and what to do ?' as neither enemy nor guns were within
sight. He replied, in a most disrespectful but significant
manner, pointing to the further end of the valley—' There,
my lord, is your enemy ; there are your guns.' So distinct
in my opinion was your written instruction, and so posi-
tive and urgent were the orders delivered by.the aide-de
camp, that I felt it was imperative on me to obey, and I
informed Lord Cardigan that he was to advance ; and to
the objections he made, and in which I entirely agreed, I
replied that the order was from your lordship. Having
decided, against my conviction, to make the movement,
I did all in my power to render it as little perilous
as possible. I formed the brigade in two lines and
led to its support two regiments of heavy cavalry,
the Scots Greys and Royals, and only halted them
when they had reached the spot from which they
could protect the retreat of the Light Cavalry in the
event of their being pursued by the enemy, and when,
having already lost many officers and men by the fire from
the batteries and fort, any further advance would have
exposed them to destruction.
"My lord, I considered at the time—l am still of the
same opinion—that I followed the only course open to me.
As a Lieutenant-General, doubtless, I have discretionary
power ; but-to take upon myself to disobey an order writ-
ten by my Commander-in-Chief within a few miautes of
its delivery, and given from an elevated position com-
naanding an entire view of all the batteries and the posi-
tion of the enemy, would have been nothing less than di-
rect disobedience of orders, without any other reason than
that I preferred my own opinion to that of my General,
and, in this instance, mast have exposed me and the
cavalry to aspersions against which it might have been
difficult to defend ourselves.
"It should also be remembered that the aide-de-camp,
well informed of the intentions of his General and the ob-
jects he had in view, after first insisting on an immediate
charge, then placed himself in front of one of the leading
squadrons, where he fell the first

" I did not dare so to disobey your lordship, and it is
the opinion of every officer of rank in this army to whom
I have shown your instructions that it was net possible
for me to do so.

" I hope, my lord, that I have stated the facts temper-
ately and in a becoming and respectful manner, as it has
been my wish to do. lam confident that it will be your
desire to do me justice. I will only ask that your lord-
ship should kindly give the same publicity to this letter
that has been given to your report, as I am sensitively
anxious to satisfy my Sovereign, my military superiors,
and the public that I have not on this unhappy occasion
shown myself undeserving of their confidence or unfitting
the command which I hold.—l have the honour to be, &c.,
" LuciN,
" Lieutenant-General, Commanding Cavalry Division.
" His Excellency the Commander of the Forces."

"TEN THOUSAND A YEAR."

MANBY V. CHASTER AND OTHERS.

NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE, Feb. 28.—This was an action
of ejectment, brought to recover possession of certain
properties on the banks of the Tyne, called Long Benton
and Walls-end, producing a rental of upwards of 10,0001.
a year. The defendants pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Warren, Q.C., Mr. Temple, Q.C., and Mr. Ad-
dison appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Watson appeared
for the defendant Craster, Mr. Hill for Calverly Bewicke,
and Mr. Manisty for others, tenants of the properties.
Mr. Warren, in stating the case to the jury, besought
their patient attention to the facts which he should have
to lay before then], and which he should endeavour to
establish by evidence as interesting to the public as to
the party seeking to recover. The sight of one man en-
joying another's property was at all times painful, but it
was more painful to witness poverty struggling to re-
cover its own, which was usurped by power and in-
fluence. The plaintiff was a very poor man who sought
to recover many thousands a-year from the defendants,
whose character he did not wish to asperse, as they were
gentlemen of the highest honour and respectability ; but
who, he understood, proposed to take their stand in the
present case, and defend their possession, on the ground
that possession was nine-tenths of the law. And the
plaintiff freely admitted that, unless he could show an
earlier and better title than the defendants, they must con-
tinue to enjoy the property concerning which he disputes
their title. From the instructions he had received, it
would appear that the plaintiff is the heir-at-law of Dame
Dorothy Windsor, the lady who was last seized of the
properties in question. She was the widow of the Hon.
Dixie Windsor, of the Plymouth family, and on her death
the defendants' ancestors entered iota possession of her
estates without a shadow of a title. This was net the first
time that this claim had been asserted as against the
trustees of the property, for, on the death of Dorothy
Windsor, the person who at that time became entitled
.to the property, and who was a person of weak intellect,
brought his action of cozenage, and recovered a portion
of the property as heir-at law ;as to the rest of the pro-
perty in the county about, which proceedings were at
the same time taken, those matters were surrounded
by a mystery which none but the dead could disclose
effectually. That action, which was settled, had
been the subject of much conversation ever since ;
it was an action of cozenage, which had since been
abolished, and one of the provisions of the statute abo-
fishily,- that form of action he understood the defendants
would rely on. Unless he were altogether mistaken, it
would be proved that the plaintiff was the real owner
of these large estates. In the case of " Charter v. Tre-
velyan" (11 Clarke and Finelly, page 700), Lerd Cotten-
ham said that in case of fraud time was of no avail.
Such was the present case, and he should Jay before
the jury a transaction which took place so long ago as
the year 1782, and should ask them whether that tran-
saction was not a scandalous transaction and a cruel
fraud upon a poor and weak-minded man ? The learned
counsel here detailed the pedigree of the plaintiff. In
the year 1782 the grandfather of the claimant brought
his action of cozenage to obtain possession of the town
property, and obtained a verdict against Bewicke and
Craster at the assizes held at Newcastle, and at the
same assizes another action was pending to recover the
county property, when an agreement was entered into
when the proceedings were stopped, the defendants
Bewicke and Craster agreeing to pay 1,5001. to the plain-
tiff's attorney, named Hervey, and to pay an annuity of
3001. fir ever to the then plaintiff, and that in lieu of the
many thousands a-year he was entitled to. The annuity
of 3001. was an insult, but he never got it, for an aged
witness, who was 105 years of age, would state that the
claimant was a person of weak intellect, and that after
the action he returned to Louth, where he resided, and
continued so to do in a hovel in the greatest poverty.
The learned counsel then read a copy of a deed bearing
date the 10th of September, 1782, made between
Robert Bewicke and David Craster, and Stote
Manby and the son (who was imbecile), by which
it was agreed that a juror should be withdrawn, and the
action then pending, that Stote Manby should receive an
annuity of 3001., and that 1,500/. should be paid to Stote
Manby's attorney. This proceeding could not be stig-
matised in any other way than as a downright fraud.
In the year 1847 a railroad was made through the pro-
perties, the money for which concession had been paid
by the purchasers into the hands of the Accountant-
General for want of a legal title in the vendors.
Mr. Watson, on behalf of the defendants, dissented
from this assertion.

His Lordship interrupted the learned counsel and said
the Statute of Limitations was a complete and sufficient
bar to the plaintiff's claim, supposing that all the learned
counsel had opened was proved or admitted.

Mr. Warren said that he would ask that the jury be
allowed to find a special verdict, under the 184th section
of the Common Law Procedure Act, and submitted that
the Statute of Limitations only began to run from the
time of the discovery of the fraud.

His Lordship said that in law the plaintiff had nothing
to recover, and that he should noasuit him, and, that in
his discretion, he should not direct the jury to find a
special verdict, as it would be of no use.
Mr. Warren said that it would be of great consequence
to the plaintiff that the facts he bad mentioned should
be found by the jury, for the purpose of their being
placed before the Court of Equity, when they went to
that court to upset the deed of 1782, and that as it was
discretionary with the plaintiff he should not elect to
be nonsuited.

At the request of the learned counsel,
His Lordship asked the jury whether they would con-
sent to find a special verdict, which ought only to be
done by the direction of the judge when there wai some
doubtful point of law ?

The jury answered that they decidedly would find a
special verdict, if their doing so would be of any service
to the plaintiff in equity.
His Lordship then said that, taking the law from him,
the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. He ought to
have gone to the Court of Chancery in the first instance,
and ought not to have brought his action at law. If he
flied his bill in equity forthwith, he could have tide evi-
dence of the aged witness alluded to taken directly, so
that he would not be injured by the loss of his evidence.
Mr. Warren then said that the plaintiff would consent
to be nonsuited.

THE COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL met yesterday,
when the committee which had administered the fund
(ilepr)r 7001.) raised for the distressed coal-whippers
during the frost, reported that they had relieved 6,000
persons, and given away 6,552 loaves of 41b. each,
7,9341b5. of meat, and 65 tons of coals. A resolution
was brought forward, for authorising the City solicitor
to apply to the Court of Queen's Bench for a quo war-
ranto to try the question of the rightful presidency of
Christ's Hospital, upon which eminent counsel had given
an opinion favourable to the corporation. Many mem-
bers were for maintaining the ancient rights of the City ;
others were decidedly against going to law. After much
discussion the motion was lost, and ultimately it was re-
ferred to the committee to take, the opinion of the Re-
corder and some other counsel, and report thereon,

CIOIW"

The following details concerning the Rot
M. de Giorgi, at Locarno, are given. bythe
lieano, a Ticinise Government paper.
Prig
" Francesco de Giorgo was devoted to liberal
ciples, and as much beloved by the people a Tod
tricts of Locarno and Vallemaggia, as he was ha roof
feared by the opposition. On the 20th ult. a PB/01,0,
men, bearing little flags with the canton ea 01
'of
were, in obedience to an ancient custoin.el.4ol
round of all the coffee-houses of the town. otal
came to the Caffe degli usually '7OlO
by the opposition, they were received with 10601
language and threats. De Giorgi, on learning iss,
was going on, immediately proceeded to the floir
with no other weapon than his walking-eane'aderr
mand satisfaction for the insult offered to thL,""col
ment party. But he no sooner made his apt 0'"
the coffee-house than he was assailed by ,410
of twenty persons, headed by an advecata)rofet.
Franzoni, and his brother, who gave the algni tbe
lightsb iood,
tack by crying : "To arms ? " In an le:
ink
lowing morning, without having wsetarebbpeudt oinutr,
ins
ed
pDlaeeeG3i.or i fell welteriaedi
a word. He has left behind him, besides hiaof
father, a widow and seven children. On the aide
aggressors, Advocate Franzoni received two Wig, do
wounds. The people, incensed at the murder (If oil°
whom they loved, flew to a.rms, and called aleco,
vengeance. Fortunately, two. Councillors of co
MM. Molt% and Rosca, en of great
foe dity, happened to be at Locarno at Oajog
gglibeeendieabd
ioent?ii
powerfully aided the municipality in all 0614;
crowd, which was hourly increasing hi t"tnioa.l
armed men from the country. Advocate Fraea'-tifiCew
rested, together with upwards of 30 pergonsich,
degli Agostinelli was closed, and the club, ?lb:, 10.0110
meet there was dissolved. A _ body of 3°,;tl aaAil7
organised to insure public tranquillity) ler-
-231 Giorgi's remains were interred with all the °
and pomp which the town could afford." •