The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-05 00:00:00

-----....-
office, and the gentlemen who are in attendance
from the Home-office will produce all that there
were there. Many were not in the office, and lam
not sure whether this letter was there.
Mr. Irwin referred to a case in "7 Dowling" to
show that a Secretary of State was bound to pro-
duce documents in his possession.
The Lord Chief Justice—But the document is
not in his hands. You can call the other gentle-
men, who will produce it if it exists.
Sir G. Grey—lndorsements are made upon peti-
tions of right, or memoranda upon separate pieces
of paper, but these simply contain the substance of
the answers to be sent to the persons sending them

in.
Mr. Irwin—Did you get a letter on May 21, 1862,
referring you to a letter of Suly 15, which states
that the Lord Chancellor had refused his fiat ?
Sir G. Grey—l got an answer from Mr. Pullen,
your solicitor, informing me of your intention to
apply for a mandamus, and asking me in the first
instatiee whether I refused to present to the Queen
the petition of right. This was the first intimation
I had received as to the petition of right, except a
letter addressed to ME) on the 7th September, re-
questing that the petition might be returned.
Mr. Irwin—Did you or not present that petition
to her Majesty, and if you presented it was it with
the advice not to grant it ?
Sir U. Grey—l submitted it to her Majesty with
that advice, which I thought it my duty as Secre-
tary of State to tender, her Majesty acting always
on the advice of her responsible ministers. I found,
after receiving Mr. Pullen's letter, that my prede-
cessor in office had treated the petition in the usual
way. He bad informed himself by the best legal
opinion at his command as to what advice he should
tender to the Queen, and acting upon that 1 advised
her Majesty that the petition should not be en-
dorsed with the fiat " Let right be done." This was
the advice, not of Lord Westbury when Lord Chan-
cellor, but when he was Attorney-General.
The Lord Chief Justice—lf the jury believe the
evidence of Sir G. Grey, I shall inform them that
the verdict ought to be for the defendant. He says
that he presented the petition to the Queeu, and
that he accompanied it with such advice as he,
being a responsible adviser of the crown, felt it his
duty to offer. If that is so, he has not been guilty
of that breach of duty which is referred to upon
this record.
Sir G. Grey—l am told that Mr. Pullen was in-
formed of the circumstances of the petition being
presented to the Queen by letter.
The Attorney-General—That was the letter
which the plaintiff refused to have read.
The Lord Chief Justice (to Mr. Irwin)—And
which if you had had any regard for your fellow-
creatures would have been read five hours ago. Do
you think that you have gained anything by inflict-
ing this burden upon the suitors and the gentlemen
who have been detained in attendance ?
Mr. Irwin contended that Sir G. Grey had not
acted in accordance with the Petitions of Right
Act.
The Lor(1 Chief Justice—And I dare say if you
were supreme he would be made to suffer, but he
is not at your mercy.
Mr. Irwin submitted that Sir G. Grey had not
acted in accordance with the statute in advising the
crown to refuse the petition of right.
The Lord Chief Justice—lt is my duty to decide
what is the law, and I am of a contrary opinion.
Mr. Irwin—And I bow to that opinion—(great
laughter)—but I have the best professional advice
that Sir G. Grey has acted contrary to the statute.
The Lord Chief Justice—l have spent the greater
part of my life listening to words, and I am perfectly
sure that no words of yours will alter my decision.
(To the jury)—The question for you, gentlemen, is,
whether you believe Sir G. Grey.
The jury at once said that they did, and a verdict
was entered for the defendant.
Subsequently the plaintiff applied for leave to
tender a bill of exceptions, but the application was
not granted, and he was told that he could move for
misdirection.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
BARNARD T. BURROUGHS-PART-HEARD.
This morning the trial was resumed and addi-
tional evidence was given on behalf of the plaintiff,
who contested the will of Miss Jemima Bradley.
The deceased was an aged person who had formerly
lived as servant in a gentleman's family, and had
amassed a fortune of about £7OO. She died in
January, 1861, at the house of the defendant, with
whom she was lodging, and to whom she left the
bulk of her property. The plaintiff was a niece of
the testatrix.
The jury, without troubling the judge to sum up,
found for the will; and
The Court condemned the plaintiff in the costs.