The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-17 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY

i tions of Lord LYNDHURST, been placed in such a
; position as to give a well-founded hope of speedy ad-
justment. The simple narrative of the wrongs in-
flitted on the parties, in the name and with the sane-
' tion of the English Government, excited a general
feeling in the House and in the country of sympathy
for the oppressed, and indignation against the
oppressors. This feeling led to a unanimous reso-
lution for the appointment of a Select Committee
to investigate the entire circumstances of the transac-
tion, so that the stigma of unjust and dishonest con-
duct may be removed from the British name. Under
the convention that had taken place, the Baron DE
BODE was entitled to compensation for the injuries
he had sustained, not from the French, but from the
English Government, which, in consideration of
60,000,000 of francs, or 2,400,0001. sterling, had
taken all these liabilities on itself. And so far as the
justice of the case was concerned, it signified nothing
whether the Ministers, for the time being, had made
an improvident bargain, so that the entire fund
were exhausted in satisfying the demands of
other claimants. In any case the losses of
the Baron, an English subject, should be
recompensed from the national Exchequer. And
this view of the case is corroborated by the fact
that when it was erroneously supposed that there was
a surplus it was not restored to France, but paid into
the Treasury , and applied to public purposes, we
believe to, the building of Buckingham Palace, the
general destination of all unappropriated balances
being the erection of Royal Palaces in the good old
times when GEORGE the FOURTH was King. No
matter then what may be stated of the fund, or how-
ever inconvenient or unpleasant it may be to pay
half a million of money, the demand must be satis-
fied, if founded on justice and equity, and that although
it might be successfully resisted by an astute lawyer
on technical grounds, not going to the real .
There is, however, another case of equal hardship
which was brought before the public.only last week
in the Court of Chancery, and which should be re-
ferred to the consideration of the same Committee.
We allude to the application made in the case of the
representatives of the parties claiming to be the next
of kin of the late SAMUEL TROUTRECR, in which an
injunction was granted to restrain the claimant from
taking any further proceedings under the writ of
right that bad already been obtained, or under
another writ, denominated " monstrans de droit."
We do not impeach the judgment of the LORD
CHANCELLOR ; he could not perhaps have pronounced
any other, taking into consideration the objections
urged by the counsel appearing for the Crown.
Lord LYNDHURST admitted the justice of the deci-
sion pronounced in the case of the Baron DE BODE,
and which, if final, would be fatal to his claim; but
he went on the broad ground that a mighty nation
like Great Britain should not avail itself of technical,
or what may be termed unconscientious defences to
demands resting on the broad basis of substantial
justice.

The deceased, SAMUEL TROUT/UCH', died in the
year 1785, 67 years ago, leaving property amounting
to between 300,0001. and 400,0001. A bill was filed
in 1792 for the administration of his estate and
effects, and a decree pronounced two years subse-
quently referring it to one of the Masters to ascer-
tain his heir-at-law and next of kin, who reported
that there was no such person. The property was
subsequently transferred to the Treasury, and in the
year 1815 expended on the Pavilion at Brighton.
Many years afterwards the then claimants, two ladies
named ROBSON and AINSLIE, applied to be allowed to
go in before the Master to establish their title as next
of kin of the deceased. The application was granted,
but the decision in the Chancery suit, which was
carried by appeal to the House of Lords, was unfa-
vourable to the claimants. We are not aware of
the exact grounds of the judgment, but the
real substantial issue, the only one that
could determine the merits, was whether
they were the nearest surviving relatives of the de-
ceased at the time of his death. In order that this
might be fairly tested they put forward what is
termed a petition of right, setting forth the nature of
their claim and praying relief. Now, if it had been
intended to rely on the former proceedings in the
Chancery suit as being final and conclusive, it is
quite clear that the prayer of the petition should have
been rejected, and that the applicants should not be
suffered to incur heavy expenses, or allowed to en-
tertain unfounded hopes. Had such a course been
adopted, perhaps, no well founded complaint could
have been preferred, for there had been an adjudi-
cation, which was adverse to the alleged rights of the
petitioners.

In place, however, of that simple and straightfor-
ward course the law advisers of the Crown for the
time being, relying, perhaps, on the great difficulty
of establishing a relationship after the lapse of so
many years, assented to the application, the usual
answer, " Let right be done," was returned, and the
writ issued in due course. The allegations
of the petition were referred to a special jury, who,
after a protracted investigation, returned a verdict
in favour of the petitioners, finding that they were the
sole next of kin of the intestate, and as such entitled
to his immense personal estate. A petition was then
presented to the then Lord Chancellor (CorrExuAm)
praying for liberty to enforce the inquisition. The
law officers, however, when the facts had been
found favourable to the claim, began (as in
the case of Baron DE BODE) to take technical
objections. Then they considered that proceedings
should be stayed on the ground of the finality of the
Chancery decision. After a further delay of two
years, Lord COTTENHAM pronounced judgment, re-
straining the parties from proceeding at law to enforce
the verdict, or from taking any proceedings to enforce
their claim, except in the snit in: Chancery, and
this order was confirmed on appeal before Lord ST.
LEONARDS last week.

Here then is the position of the case. The present
plaintiff is prevented from obtaining rights that have
been established by a verdict which has not been set
aside or even impeached. If Mesdames RonsoN
and Aimidi were the next of kin of SAMUEL TROUT-
BECK, Mr. MONKTON is entitled to a large sum of
money, which has been paid into the national
Exchequer. An intelligent jury has declared that
they were so. Let the fact be investigated over and
over again if necessary; but we cannot believe that
while such a verdict remains on record it will be con-
sidered just or expedient to prevent the party from
following it up and obtaining the rights to which
he is entitled thereunder. We trust, then, that some
Noble Lord will think it advisable to move that the
Case of MONKTON v. the ATTORNEY-GENERAL be
submitted to the consideration of the same Committee
that is to report on that of the Baron DE BODE,
and that "not for the sake of the claimant, but for
the character, honour, and dignity of this great
country."

We understand her Majesty will honour the Hay-
market Theatre this evening with her presence.

BATTY'S ROYAL HIPPODROME.—This interesting
place of resort and recreation still continues attractive, and
the daring feats of horsemanship succeed each other with
astonishing rapidity. The interest and excitement caused
by the jockey, car, and other races is almost incredible;
nor can we speak too highly of the daring as-
cent o Mademoiselle Eisler on the elevated corde,
or the Brothers Elliott as the flying Calisthenics.
Scarcely less interesting or extraordinary were the feats of
the Nicolo Family. Mons. Franconi, the able director, de-
serves especial notice for the wonderful training of his dapple
grey horse Johnstini. The car of Bacchus and the attend-
ant lAcchanalians elicit thunders of applause, arranged as
it is with singular ingenuity, and producing the most
pleasing effects; and we doubt not but Mr. Batty will reap
a golden harvest.

MASQUERADE AT VAUXHALL TO-NIGHT.—A grand
bal masque and Venetian carnival is announced at the " Royal
Property" this evening, and to-morrow (Friday),
the anni-
versary of the battle of Waterloo, a magnificent gala, to
celebrate the triumph of British arms, and in honour of the
" hero of a hundred fights," his Grace the Duke of Wel-
lington, on which occasion the veteran mronaut, Mr.Cbarles
Green, the" Columbus of the Skies," as he has been face-
tiously termed, will make a nocturnal ascent in his nzonstre
ariel machine, the great Nassau balloon. The illuminations,
by that "Genius of the Lamp"—the modern Aladdin—Ali.
Robert Duffel], will be brilliant in the extreme, introducing
many new and appropriate devices, in addition to which
there will be double display of fireworks.
ROYAL MAIIIONEITE THEATRE.—The attractions
of this elegant theatre continue undiminished, nor do the
late rains appear to hare affected either the voices or spirit
of the performers. Last evening the Duchess of Sutherland
accompanied by a
Marchioness of Kildare, the Earl of Grosvenor, Lady Con-
brilliant party, among whom were the
stance Grosvenor, Lord Frederick Leveson Gower, Lord
Albert Leveson Gower, and Lord Ronald Leveson Gower,
honoured the theatre pith their presence.
Mrs. Disraeli has issued cards for an assembly for
Wednesday, the 23d instant.

Otto Goldschmidt, Esq., and Madame Gold
Schmidt (Jenny Lind) have arrived at Fenton's Hotel, from
Liverpool.

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.

We have received the Paris journals of yesterday
The Legislative Body held a public sitting yester-
day at three o'clock ; M. BILLAULT in the chair. The
subject under deliberation was the Bill to continue
the tobacco monopoly in the hands of the State until
January Ist, 1863. The measure was adopted with-
out discussion by 211 votes in its favour and none
against it. The Bill to grant a credit of 170,000
francs for the restoration of the church of St. Oiler,
at Rouen, was likewise adopted unanimously by 203
votes. The sitting was then brought to a close at
half-past three.
Before the public sitting the Members met in their
bureaux to nominate a Committee on the sumptuary,
Bills presented on Saturday last. Considerable dis-
cussion took place, and the general feeling of the
Members appeared to be against the measures. As
the Committee is to be a double one, composed of
two Members per bureau, the proceedings occupied
more time than usual, and only eight Members were
named.

The Patrie announces that the Government pro-
poses to pass a law for the abrogation of the decree of
the 18th of October, 1848, respecting trial by jury.
The section of the Council of State, charged to de-
cide s on
dnt"conflict," assembled on Tuesday
under of M. BARocIIE, to take into
n " conflict" raised by the Prefect of
the Seine with respect to the judgment, by which the
c oe
the
consideration
mattersipresidencyon
the o f
Tribunal of First Instance of the Seine, at the be-
binning of the last month, declared that it had jaris-
on the appeal made by the Princes
of Orleans against the decree of
relative Family
to their property. The pro-
ceedingstodhfice theti2o2nt22d January
oo
ydaelcommencedne l
by M. LEON CORNUDET reading
a report which set forth all the facts of the case. He
then briefly stated the reasons which had been urged
both in support of and against the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal, and concluded without expressing an
opinion on one side or the other. M. PAUL FADRE,
advocate for the Princes, then pleaded that the Civil
Tribunal was perfectly competent to entertain the
case. lie was listened to with the most profound
attention- 81. ITAIGNE, commissary of the Govern-
ment, replied, and demanded that the "conflict" as
property comprised in the donation of
the 7th August,
1830, should be confirmed; but that
annulled with respect to the property
wth c h h
Orleans Princes inherited from their aunt,
the
ADELAIDE. The conclusion of his speech
iwa regarded
Princess
t followsshould the
e be
"The Orleans Princes assert that they are proprietors
of a part of the domains of Neuilly and Monceaux,
namely, of the domain of Neuilly, as heirs of the King
their father, who purchased it subsequent to the 7th
August, 1830; and of the domain of Monceaux as heirs
of Madame Adelaide d'Orleans, who was joint proprietor
of it with King Louis Philippe. Now the decree of the
Januaryoato
only
22dthe donationof disposes of the property comprised in
the 7th August, 1830. As to that of
which the Orleans Princes assert that they are pro-
prietors in virtue of hereditary rights, it is evidently not
comprised hi the application of that decree; and it is by
error, in my opinion, that the ' conflict' endeavours to
remove from the civil jurisdiction the examination of
questions which may arise relative thereto. In fact,
it the Administration des Domaines were to raise diffi-
culties as to the question whether the portion of the
estate of Neuilly referred to be comprised in the
donation of the 7th of August, the solution of them
would require the production and examination of
title deeds, the appreciation of which would be-
long to the tribunals. The samo might be the case
with respect to Monceaux. It has besides been al-
leged with respect to the latter that there is, not what is
called contiguity, but joint possession, and the Prefect of
the Seine maintains that joint possession is not an ob-
stacle to the sale of the whole being made by the Ad-
ministration des Domaines, in conformity with the law
of the 15th Floreal, an. X. Such may, in fact, be the
right of that Administration. We believe it the more
readily, as the portion in joint possession which may be-
long
to the Orleans Princes as heirs of Mme. Adelaide,
falling under the application of the first decree of the
22d January, it will be right to proceed within a
limited period of the sale of the whole of the property
in execution both of that decree and of that of Maroh
27; and it does not appear to us possible to deny to the
Administration des Domaines the right of making such
sale. Nevertheless, if difficulties were to arise,
either on that point, or as to the disposal of the,
price obtained, we should not hesitate to admit that
such matters do not enter in the category of those of
which the rules of the Council relative to the national
domains, reserve the solution to the administrative ju-
risdiction, in virtue of Article 4of the Law of the 28th
Pluviose, an. VIII.; and that they are of the nature of
those over which the ordinary tribunals have juris-
diction. For these motives, we are of opinion that the
conflict' of the 28th April, 1852, should be confirmed in
so far as it deprives the Judicial tribunals of the power of
entertaining demands for discussing the legality of the
decree of the 22d January, 1852, or for determining the
sense and regulating the execution of it with respect to
the Princes of the Orleans family. And we consider
that the said conflict' should be annulled as regards
the rest."

The President then declared that the public sitting
Was at an end, and that the tribunal would retire to
deliberate. The Patrie states that the decision will
not be read in public sitting before Saturday next.
Bnnu
remains arm, The delegates of the printers are
The delegates of the paper manufacturers have just
published a memorial against the proposed duty on
paper. According to the calculations made by them
the new tax would not
yield more than three tril-
lions aalso preparing a memorial against the tax.
Tpehre .
per
Bourse m
with not much business
doing. The Four-und-a-Half per Cents. opened at 100 f.
55c., and closed at the same price for the end of the
month;
the Three per Cents. closed at 70f. 10e. ;
Orleans Railway Shares, 1,225 f.; Rouen, 842 f. 50e.;
Havre, 322 f. 50c.; Great Northern, 608 f. 7.5 c.; Avignon,
365 E; Vierzon, 610 f. ; Basle, 262 f. 50c.; Bordeaux,
632 f. 50e.; Paris and Strasburg, 575 f. ; Tours and
Nantes, 380 E; Pahl and Lyons, 638 f. 750; the New
Austrian Loan, 93.
LONDON STOCKI:tEISnSdiPanONPIiInNsuIa. 51/2—Grand Junction of France.
FIDERLIGHNANRGAEIL, WjuANYESI6A.T THE
7/8--Namur and Liege, 6—Northern of
3[A—Western of France, 734.
France, ' Cent. Bonds (formerly Boulogne and
Amiens shares), 13
, 7/8—Orleans and Bordeaux, 16—Paris
and Lyons, 1.5/s Paris and Rouen, 33% Paris and
Strasbourg, 22% ex d.—Rouen and Havre, 1 2 'X3 —West
4y—Luxembourg,l3UGSrie2oi.3per 3
Flanders,