The Sun.
London, England, 1837-01-27 00:00:00

.4a,e ,11t11,+

LONDON,
FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 27, 1837.

We recommend to the early attention of his MA-
JESTY'S Ministers and the Liberal Members of both
Houses of Parliament, a pamphlet just published by
the Messrs. RIDGWAY, entitled the " Policy of Eng-
land towards Spain." The writer's name does not ap-
pear on the title-page ; but it is easy to see that he is
no stranger to our foreign relations, and to the true
foreign policy of England. His main object is to
prove that the safest, best, and most honourable
way of putting down the civil war in the Penin-
sula, would be to land an English force in the
Basques sufficient to crush the Carlists in a few
weeks, and thus deliver the country from the
sanguinary and fratricidal strife that now desolates it.
As a means of effecting this most desirable termina-
tion of an atrociously demoralizing civil war, he re-
commends Parliament immediately after assembling,
to enable Ministers to grant a loan to Spain ; which
might easily be done on terms as advantageous to
England, as honourable and profitable to the Spanish
Government and people. This loan would supply
the pressing wants of the Madrid Cabinet till the re-
gular revenues of the nation could be rendered avail-
able ; while the appearance of our troops in the Bas-
ques would at once extinguish the hopes of the rebels.
Three years ago we recommended a precisely similar
policy to our Government with respect to the Penin-
sula, and there has not elapsed a week since in which
we did not repeat it. The changes that have taken
place in the Government of Spain have not, in the
slightest degree, affected die question as regards Eng-
land. The course which this country ought to have
taken then, is the only one that can advantageously be
taken now. If France will not unite with us in ren-
dering the quadruple Treaty more than a piece of blot-
ted parchment, it behoves us to act on our own re-
sponsibility. " England,"—in the words of the
pamphlet to which we are referring, " is rich enough,
and strong enough, and bold enough, to pursue, single-
handed, the course which humanity dictates, and which
is most conducive to her honour and her interests. She
has dole so before, and she is not degenerated now.
How trifling, too, would he our outlay—how
great and how rapid Would be our return ! The
guarantee of a loan, for which Spain is able
and willing to give ample security, would pro-
vide for the exigencies of the State, and would
render the Government politically strong. A land force
which should occupy the frontier of France, and which
south of the Pyrennees should carry into effect that ar-
ticle of the Treaty which France has failed to execute
to the North of those Mountains, would blockade the
Carlists in their rocky citadels, and would re-organize
and re-animate the Spanish • army. The British stan-
dard would be a
,pledge that what England undertakes,
ilitilln perform ; and in a few short weeks we
14,s
,_ "\t,:rtily have the glory of finishing this fratri-
. - f.i.culakit . s ould find ourselves in the proud position
a :...--V , iiiiiie 'shed peace upon a lasting foundation."
scf,
.I.':-:
,/ Ail
..*. _---:,-.•!f* ;;-
i .---. 71.::_-
~.... - • ,
I . .

'~.:~~~

AIL S

The closing inference is very doubtful, but in the cor•
rectness of all that precedes it we cordially concur.
We do think the time has arrived when it is

the duty of the House of Commons to take a decided
course with respect to Spain. England has gone too
far to recede. The honour of our, flag is perilled
but a vote of the House of Commons is all that
is wanted to crown it with - glory. Let France
be invited to join us ; but if she prefer the
loss of her honour to the speedy deliverance of
Spain, why, England can herself effect the pacification
of the Peninsula. It is possible that circumstances
may arise to render the' possession of a liberal and
powerful ally on the further side of the Pyrenees of
immense advantage to Great Britain. Now, therefore,
is our time to act as becomes a great and high-minded
nation. Let Parliament but pronounce the doom of
Don CARLOS, and in less than three months after-
wards,-the Basques will not shelter an enemy to the
QUEEN and Constitution.

We this day copy from the Constantinople corres-
pondence of the Morning Chronicle, an account of
the capture of the English ship Vixen, by a Russian
brig of war on the coast of Circassia. Our contem-
porary will of course cite this as another proof of the
all-directing influence of Lord DURHAM at the Court
of St. Petersburg. The facts connected with this
gross violation of the law of nations are as follows :
In July, 1836, Count NESSEL RODE, President of the
Imperial Council, and Minister for Foreign Affairs, ad-
dressed a note to M. BOUTINIEFF, the Russian Ambas-
sador at Constantinople, commanding him to apprise
the Members of the Diplomaticßody, that the Emperor
had declared the Circassian coast in a state of blockade.
The contents of this official communication were made
known to Lord PONSONBY, andby him transmitted to
the Cabinet of London. Our Government refused
to recognize the right of the Emperor of RUSSIA
to blockade a coast which formed no part of his
territory, and the inhabitants of which were not,
and never had been, Russian subjects. An official
document to this purport was communicated to our
Ambassador at St. Petersburg, to be formally laid
before the Imperial Council. No further no-
tice was taken of the affair ; but it having bean
reported that a stlict blockade was still kept up along
the Circassian coast, some British merchants at Con-
stantinople resolved/to test the sincerity of the Rus-
sian Manifesto. For this purpose the Vixen was
fitted ont, and a cargo of salt put on board, to
be disposed of in Circassia. One of the proprie-
tors took charge of the vessel ; and he is now with the
crew a prisoner at Sebastopol. We need not point
out the course which our Government must adopt, if
we are not to be classed among the slaves of the Auto-
crat. Bold medsures must be decided upon as the
only way of bringing Russia to her senses.

The Reformers of St. Ives gave a public dinner on
Wednesday last to G. G. DAT,Esq.—a gentleman well
known and deservedly respected in that neighbourhood
—in commemoration of his triumph over the Hunting-
donshire Tories, who for some time past have made
him the object of their rancorous and unceasing perse-
cution. Lord FITZWILLIAM presided, and, in allusion
to the Tory conspiracy got up against Mr. DAY, ob-
served, " there was a complete absence of all legal evi-
dence against Mr. DAY, and there was not the
slightest shade of moral guilt in the transaction ; and
if there was neither legal nor moral guilt, he left it to
the gentlemen to form their own conclusions as to the
characters of those who had brought such a case be-
fore a jury." In the course of the evening, two hand-
some pieces of plate, purchased by public subscription,
and valued at from five to six hundred guineas, were
presented by Earl FITZWILLIANI to Mr. DAY.

We refer our readers to the letter of a Correspon-
dent in another column, for a very graphic description
of something between a guzzle and a grubbery, whiclr
was held by the South Warwickshire Tories at Strat-
ford-upon-Avon. Our Correspondent has left us
little else to do, than to notice a point or two that
seem to have escaped him. In the first place,
it is amusing to contemplate the number of Parsons
who congregated at this feed. It seems to have been
a perfect rookery. Out of about twenty-five names
thought worthy of selection, as adding grace to the
revel, fifteen belonged to men of GOD. " Where the
carcase is, there the ravens are gathered together ;" and
where grub and Toryism are, there are plenty of par-
sons sure to be found.

If any one expected to find a mouthful of common
sense spoken at such a meeting, he will be sadly
disappointed. Instead of the song of swans with
which the locality is associated, we hear nothing but
the cackling of geese. The great gander of the flock
was E. J. SHIRLEY, of Eatington-park, who, as far
as gaping, hissing, fluttering, and similar demonstra-
tions of cowardly courage go, seems to have played his
part to the very life. _

It may appear to our readers a superfluous task to
bestow a serious thought on any thing that proceeds
from such a source; but we are nevertheless tempted to
notice, not indeed an observation of Mr. SHIRLEY'S,
but a remark of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S at Glasgow,
parroted by him. Sir ROBERT among other things
equally silly, and equally proving that he knew very
little about the matter, remarked, when launching forth
against the voluntary system in religion, that it was
necessary " that the Minister who is to speak with
authority, who is to rebuke indifference, who is
to endeavour to conciliate towards religious feeling,
who is to be the censor over presumptuous vice—that
man ought not to depend upon the precarious benevo-
lence of those he is to counsel, to admonish, or to re-
buke." Now the man who could utter this, we say at
once, knows nothing about religion, properly so called.
He must be a perfect Ignoramus as to spiritual matters,
if he supposes that the Minister of the Gospel—the
preacher of the truth as it is in JEsus—not as it is
cribbed, cramped, and distorted in an artificial frame-
work of man's contrivance—stands in need of any such
Dutch courage as can be supplied by State Establish-
ments, to make him do his duty. These Establish-
ments may, and do, supply bribes in abundance to
such worldly minded persons as resort to them for the
sake of filthy lucre, to wink at vice, to flatter the
prejudices of the great, to spare iniquity in high
places, and to square their conduct in all respects
by the maxims of this world ; but it is the voluntary
preacher alone—it is be who has faith enough in the
providence of GOD to cast himself upon his care for
the things of this life—that is qualified to " speak with
authority," to " rebuke indifference," to " conciliate to-
wards religious feeling," and to " be the censor over pre-
sumptuous vice." In fact, one of the great evils of an
establishment is, that it keeps the voluntary minister
of religion at a distance from the great, and prevents
them from hearing the truth until it has been
sifted and purified by the courtly preacher, and
served up in the most palatable form. It is he
who dares not, or, which is the same thing, who will
not risk offending the feelings of his auditors ; and if
Sir It. PEEL, or his echo of South Warwickshire,
will consult the history of former times, to say nothing
of the experience of the present, he will find his theory
on this subject decidedly the reverse of the truth. To
go no farther back than the Reformation, we would
ask by whose preaching, particularly in the country in
which he delivered this harangue, was that great event
accomplished? Was it by the agency of the compul-
sory or of the voluntary system ?

The whole of the Paris Journals of Wednesday have
been received. Their contents are unimportant. The

qtJN,

Chamber of Peers met on Wednesday to receive some
Ministerial projects of law, of which the particulars will
be found in our report of the proceedings.
There is no news from the North of Spain. The
Christinos and Carlists are making the mo',t active pre-
parations for renewing the war, as soon as the weather
will admit of their taking the field.

CHAMBER OF PEERS, WEDNESDAY, J.N. 25.

At a quarter past o'clock Baron Pasquier, the Presi-
ent, took the chair, when, after the secretary had read the
woces verbal of the preceding sitting, M. Martin du Nord,
he Minister of Commerce, was called to the tribune.

M. Martin presented to the Chamber two projects of
law—lst, one relating to mineral springs, and recommend-
ing legislative measures for their preservation ::'ally, another
bill authorizing the execution of works in the valley of Rive
de Gier, for draining several coal mines which have been
lately inundated.
After M. Martin had concluded, M. Persil, the Minister
of Justice, ascended the tribune, and read the following
imojets de loi :—The first referred to the crime of non-
revelation, which had been abolished in 183:2, and had
not since been considered as an offence against the
safety of the State. The object of the bill, he said, was
not to re-establish the system in its entire state, such
as it existed in 1810, but merely that part of it which
had been thoughtlessly abandoned in 1832. He then
mentioned the circumstances under which that reform had
taken place, and contended that if the articles of the
code respecting. non-revelation .had not been abrogated,
the attempts of Fieschi and Alibeaud might perhaps have
been prevented. Revelations of assassination, he said,
were never made to good citzens, so that they would not
be affected by the new penal enactments. He then moved
that the articles 103, 106, and 107, of the penal code, abro-
gated in April, 1832, should be again in force, but merely
as regarded crimes or attempts against the life and per-
son of the King. He proposed accordingly-Ist, that
any individual who should have had any knowledge of a
conspiracy or. crime of the nature above referred to, and
did not denounce the perpetrators thereof, or reveal the
circumstances connected therewith in the course of twenty-
four hours, should be punished with imprisonment ; 2d,
that any individual, who should have had knowledge of
such conspiracy without revealing it, should not be held
excusable, even if he disapproved of the plot, or endea-
voured to dissuade its authors from executing it ; 3d, that
in case the person guilty of non-revelation should be a re-
lative of the individual who had acquainted him with his
culpable projects, the former should not be subjected to
imprisonment, but might be placed under the surveillance
of the police for a period not exceeding ten years.
• M. Persil next submitted to the Chamber a project of'
law, having for its object to fix and regulate the compe-
tency of that house as a court of justice. After a long
preamble, in which he endeavoured to justify the constitu-
tionality of the provisions it contained, the Minister read
the Royal ordinance which invested the Chamber of Peers
with. the power of trying—l st, all conspiracies and attempts
against the life of the King, Queen, the Presumptive Heir
to the Throne, &c., as well as all plots, described in the ar-
ticles 75, 76, 77, and following, of the penal code ; 2dly,
all crimes of a similar nature committed by Ministers, Mar-
shals, Peers, Deputies, Archbishops, Bishops, Ambassa-
dors, Admirals, Prefects, and other high dignitaries of the
Kingdom. 3dly, the authors of all other attempts against
the safety of the State, who might be handed over for trial
by a Royal ordinance to the Court of Peers, &c.
The Minister afterwards presented another Bill, regu-
lating the judicial mode of proceeding of the Court of
Peers, in the trial of crimes of high treason, which, owing
to its length, he deposited on the table, at the request of
the President. _ _ .

_______
Mr. Persil next read a bill, having for its object to
repeal a law of July, 1828, respecting the superior juris-
diction of the Court of Cassation, which bill had been ap-
proved of by the Chamber of Deputies in the course of
last session.

After the Minister had concluded, there being nothing
else on the Orders of the Day, the Chamber broke up at
half-past 3.

We this day re-publish together such testimonials
to our exertions as have come to hand from oar me-
tropolitan and provincial Contemporaries, with respect
to The Sun express from Glasgow, &c. 'We most
cordially thank our friends for the expression of their
good and unbiased opinion, promising that The Sun
will not relax in its exertions to give the earliest in-
formation on all important public questions.
As many of our country friends have been puzzled
at " the extraordinary and unprecedented exertions"
of the Morning Herald in this affair, we will now en-
lighten their darkness with regard to the " great ob-
scure," seeing that the Oracle herself refuses to resolve
the enigma " upon compulsion."
The matter stands thus :—The Morning Herald
of Saturday morning, the 14th, printed a certain quan-
tity of that paper, " containing. the Saturday morn-
ing's news" on three pages—the first, second, and
fourth—leaving the third page blank. This three-legged
novelty was sent off by the Telegraph coach to Manches-
ter, which it reached about 11 o'clock that night. It was
thence sent on to Kendal, a distance of 76 miles, by the
morning coach, and would there meet the reporters from
Glasgow about one o'clock on Sunday. Now Kendal
is a very convenient place for this " unprecedented"
manoeuvre ; for it so happens that the mails from
London and Glasgow arrive there nearly at the
same hour—about eleven o'clock at night ; and
the " extraordinary express Heralds" would be carried
by the respective mails in the ordinary course of busi-
ness to Manchester, Liverpool, &c., southward ; and
Glasgow, Edinburgh, &c. northward. But it appears
that the copies reached Glasgow about eleven o'clock
on Monday forenoon, and, Edinburgh about five
in the afternoon. This apparent discrepancy in
,the
unprecedented despatch" is easily explained. Glas-
gow being the grand theatre from which all their
coming glory emanated, it was deemed expedient to
" astonish the natives" there, by sending forward an
express ; while the " fluid folks of the auld town" were
left to wait for dark arrival of the Carlisle mail. here
is the whole mystery of travelling the 800 miles
in 41 hours, as expressed by some of the Glasgow
papers, in their original admiration of such unpre-
cedented achievements. We apprehend their asto-
nishment has been now somewhat sobered down by
reflection. But this is not all ; the Herald, presuming
on and glorying in its unveiled mystery, actually affected
to prove by inference, though it still refused explana-
tion, that the express was bonafide to andfrom London,
by quoting a laudatory paragraph of its " unprece-
dented dispatch" from a Newcastle paper, which
paper stated that it received the Express Morning
Herald by the London mail ! This was deemed
conclusive evidence ; but alas, for the ingenious
and obscure device 1 the papers were sent over
from Kendal to Darlington, where the mail coming
from London would take them up, and carry them to
Newcastle, &c., just in the same way thata,
Glasgow
express paper, printed at Cambridge, and ,
professing
to give an account of a banquet in London, being
put into the Post-office at Barnet would be taken up
by the Glasgow ?nail coming to London, and so deemed
conclusive that it came fro:n Glasgow ! So much for
the Herald's unprecedented express. Kendal is 262
miles from London, and only 140 from Glasgow.

The Lord Lieutenant has approved the appointment
of the Hon. J. Douglas Bloomfield as Deputy-Lieutenant
of Tipperary.
Some of our contemporaries of Wednesday and Sa-
turday circulated a report of the death of the Earl Dal-
housie. How such a report originated, or what could pos-
sibly give rise to it, we know not ; but we are able to give
it a most unqualified contradiction. This Nobleman enjoys
his wonted health. Accounts from the castle were re-
ceived in town on Saturday evening-, at which date the fa-
mily were all. well.
The Cambridge Ball, given by the gentlemen of the
University, took place on Monday at the Town-hall ; and
although expectation had been excited to the highest pitch,
it was in every respect more than realised. The company
consisted of upwards of 259 members of the first families
of Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, and Bedfordshire.
Died, at No. 4, Chapel-street, Park-lane, on tLe
18th inst., in the sixty-first year of her age, the Lady Pru-
dentia Charlotte Emily Coote, second daughter of Charles
last Earl of Bellamont, and of his wife, Emily Mary Mar-
garetta, late Countess of Bellamont, and grand-daughter of
James first Dake of Leinster, and of his wife, Emily late
Duchess of Leinster.

Died, on Friday, the 20th inst., at her residence,
No. 9, Promenade terrace, Cheltenham, after a few days'
illness of influenza, the Dowager Lady Ford, sister of the
late Viscount Anson, and aunt to the Earl of Lichfield.

9

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

SHAW V. WRIGHT.

Ills Lordship the MASTER of the Rou_s, this morning gave
judgment in this case, which has occupied the last three days,
allowing the exception of Mr. Patrick Stead. A long dis-
cussion afterwards took place upon further directions and costs,
which had not concluded when we left the Court.

KING'S BENCH.-(TIIIS DAY.)

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.-TILE KING V. COX AND ANOTHER.

The ATTOR'EY-GENERAL appeared to shew cause against
a rule nisi fur a criminal information which had been obtained
by Sir \Vm. Follett on a former day, against the defendants,
fur certain mildemeanours. The defendant, John Cox, was a
plumber and glazier, and Wm. Rester, a grocer, both residing
in the borough of Hithe, and the charges against them were,
that they bad altered a rate book by which the franchise of vot-
ing at municipal elections was to be determined. The de-
fendants appeared to he illiterate ignorant persons, and although
it could not be denied that they had done wrong in making
any alteration, stilt their Lordships would, he trusted, feel
that the present was not a case for a criminal information, and
having expressed their displeasure at the conduct of the de-
fendants, and promulgated the law for the guidance of others,
they would discharge the rule. The alterations made were
the substitution of Wm. Williams for Henry Williams, there
being no person of the latter name in the borough, and it evi-
dently being a misnomer set down by mistake. In the column
which set out the description of property out of which the
party voted, instead of repeating the word " house" or " ware-
house," dots were introduced, and the defendants were charged
with having substituted for the dots the word house" or
" warehouse," and these alterations were made in no less than 300
cases. The Learned Council proceeded to read the affidavits of
the defendants, who stated that they were not aware that they had
committed any offence in making these alterations, and that
they had not dune so for the purpose of favouring any political
party in the borough. Under all the circumstances, he (the
Attorney-General) would submit that the rule ought to be
discharged.
Sir W. FOLLETT, in support of the rule, observed that the
defendant Cox was an active agent and partisan of the Liberal
party, and that the alterations had been made in those names
which were supposed to be favourable to that party. He was
surprised to hear his Learned Friend plead the ignorance of
the defendants as an excuse for what they had done—the one
was the senior Alderman of the borough, and the other was
the late overseer, and one of the auditors of the parish.
Lord DENSIAN—I don't think we can infer ignorance be-
cause a man happens to be a grocer. The facts seem to us to
be sufficient to warrant our granting the rule.—Rule absolute.

BAIL COURT.
TEMPLAR V. ROGERS AND ANOTHER.

The ATTorts Ey-GENERAL applied for a rule to show cause
why a writ of prohibition should not issue directed to the
Court of Admiralty, against proceeding in a cause to try the
right of the parties in the ship William Money, now in the
port of London. About two years ago she sailed from the
port of London to Quebec. She got on the banks in the gulf
of St. Lawrence. She was insured, and was abandoned to
the underwriters. She was subsequently sold by public sale in
Quebec, and was purchased by Messrs. Rogers and Co., who
got a new registry for her. For about two years she remained
in their undisputed possession, and lately came with a cargo
into the port of London. Mr. Templar, who was the original
owner, sued a writ of possession out of the Admiralty Court,
and to that Rogers and Co. pleaded their title and the regular
transfer to them. Notwithstandini this, a replication was
entered, and the suit proceeded. Now he (the Attorney-
General) thought that though the Court of Admiralty had an
undoubted right to interfere where the title was not in dispute,
its jurisdiction did not extend to a case like the present, where
the question was one of title to the property of the vessel, and
therefore on behalf of Rogers and Co. he applied for the writ
of prohibition.
Mr. Justice PATTISON—You may have a rule nisi.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.

ISAMILTON V. ANDREWQ.

This was an action to recover a tailor's bill. The defendant
was arrested for 43/. upon the eve of his going to his regi-
ment in India. On the trial it was proved to the satisfaction
of the Jury, 'that 71. of the amount had been furnished to the
defendant's brother, and on his own credit. They accordingly
found a verdicVor only 36/. ss.
Early in the Term a rule nisi was issued, calling upon the
plaintiff to show cause why he should not pay the defendant
his costs, under the provisions of the 43d Geo. 111., which
was passed for the prevention of malicious arrests—the verdict
having been for a lower sum than that for which the defendant
was arrested.

Mr. HOGGINS now showed cause against the rule, and con-
tended that the plaintiff had reasonable and probable cause
for arresting for the larger sum, inasmuch as on the trial it
was proved that the defendant had offered a bill for the whole
debt, which was refused, and two letters from the defendant
to the plaintiff were put in, in which he said that the brother
was wholly dependent upon him, and therefore craving time.
It was alleged, on the other side, that the plaintiff had given
the credit to the brother, because, by the Ledger, it appeared
that there were two separate accounts. That he contended
did not show that the credit had been given separately, but
was merely for the convenience of knowing for whom the goods
were made.

Mr. HUMFREY—In support of the rule—said that the
bill for the larger sum was offered only on the condition
that no hostile proceedings should be taken. It was clear,
from the fin\ding of the Jury, that the entry in the book was
conclusive as to whom the credit was given. The plaintiff
knew that well enough, and only arrested the defendant for
the larger amount, because as he was just about proceeding to
India he thought he might make him pay for his brother's
clothes, as the defendant would not have time to oppose it.
The Court said, after the offer of the bill as settlement for
the whole account, and taking that with the expressions used
in the letters, they could not say the plaintiff had not "res.
sonable and probable cause."—Rule discharged.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
WATSON V. FOSTER AND OTHERS.

The LORD CHIEF BARON, on coming into Court, gave
judgment in this case, which came before him upon excep-
tions. There was an original bill, and an amended bill. The
original bill stated two charges, and the amended bill con-
tained the same. The answer to the amended bill stated that
no further answer could be given than had been given before
in the answer to the original bill. The amended bill contained
this charge, namely, " that they now have in their power, cus-
tody, or possession, divers books of accounts, receipts, &c.," re-
lative to the matters hereinfore mentioned, and they ought to
produce the same for inspection. It was charged that they ought
to set forth a full list or schedule of all such books of accounts
as then, or lately were, in their custody. To this part of the
amended bill, the answer contained no notice whatever. It
was very true that the allegation was in terms exactly the
same as in the original bill, and if the answer referred to the
original bill, as it did in respect of the correspondence charged
to have taken place between Solomons and Foster and Co._, if
it stated that no further letters or communications had taken
place than those referred to in the original answer, that
would have been quite sufficient. The answer, how-
ever, took no notice of the charge whatever. The sim-
ple question was, whether, as the amended bill charged
that the parties were now in possession of certain docu-
ments, &c., which they ought to set forth, and which
charge the answer passed over without notice, although a
similar charge had been made in the original bill and answered,
whether it was sufficient for the amended bill ? They might pos-
sibly have had these documents since the original bill was filed,
and they ought, therefore, to say that they had nothing more
to state than what they had stated in their original answer.
It appeared that if he considered this as a sufficient answer,
they might with equal propriety have omitted half of the an-
swer. He thought the word " now" had regard to the time
of the filing of the amended bill, and not the original bill, and
the answer to the amended bill must be taken as standing by
itself. OR this ground he thought that thelexception ought
to be allowed.