The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-04 00:00:00

BRAZILIAN DEPUTIES.

The following protest waS signed by the Bra.
zilian Deputies on their arrival at Falmouth,
where they are waiting for a passage to Rio de
Janeiro :

The undersigned, wishing to avert every suspicion foreign
to truth, to which their sudden withdrawing from Lisbon
might give rise, do hereby declare to the Portuguese nation
and to the whole world, the reasons which compelled them to
adopt that course.
From the moment they took their seats in the Congress of
Portugal, in which they had to struggle in the defence of the
rights and interests of their country, and of the nation in ge-
neral, they unfortunately found that all the of they made
proved abortive, and that they were even represented as so
many aggressions upon the nation. Contempt and insult al-
ways accompanied the rejection of theirpropositions ; and after
having with anguish of heart daily seen hostile plans against
Brazil meditated and put in execution, in spite of their repeated
and most earnest remonstrances, the Constitution of Por-
tugal was presented to them in order that they might
sign and swear to it— a Constitution which contains
many articles of a most - humiliating and injurious nature
towards their country, and in which there perhaps is not one
which even indirectly tends to its prosperity at a future though
remote period. The undersigned, therefore, could not, without
exposing themselves to the well-merited execration of .ieir
fellow-citizens—without being tormented by the everlasting
stings of their own conscience—without subjecting themselves
to the maledictions of posterity, subscribe, much less swear, to
a constitution which seems evidently framed to exalt and aggran-
dise Portugal at the expence of Brun. On this ground their
refusal was founded. 'The hatred and indignation which had
before been manifested towards the Brazilian Deputies now
increased to such a degree, that it would have been most
imprudent, and even a criminal temerity, in them to con-
anus in Lisbon, where their services were useless, and where
they were exposed to inevitable insults from the populace, who
believed that the Government and the Cortes sanctioned their
violence. The Congress had, indeed by the expressions of some
of its principal members, given unequivocal proofs of dissatis-
faction and of future designs against the inviolability of the
undersigned, and even against their civil liberties, which every
citizen is entitled to enjoy in a free State. The Government
denies passports to one, and the Committee of Powers rejected
as inadmissible the claim of another who insisted upon return-
ing to his country, because three .months of suffering from a
chronical disease had rendered him incapable of attending to his
duty—giving as the main reason for this decision, that he had
not yet signed the Constitution and intimating authoritatively,
that he must submit to the fate experienced by others in the
same circun)stces. _

The undersigned considered, on the contrary, that the mis-
sion on which they had been sent was terminated ; that they
had it now in their power, and were bound to give an account
of their mission to their constituents ; and that it was therefore
proper that they.should depart as quickly as possible. By the
circumstantial exposition which they will make to their coun-
try of the different transactions which hawe ,occurred during
their mission, the whole world will be enabled to judge of their
conduct ; and their fellow-citizens, informed of these events,
will perceive vithout difficulty the situation in which they are
placed ; and will be satisfied that their representatives can do
nothing more for them, except to present to them the faithful
picture of the past, and a probable view of the future.
(Signed) CYPRIANO JOZE BARATA DE ALMEIDA,
FRANCISCO AGOSTINHO GOMEZ, ,
JOZE LINO COUTINHO,
ANTONIO MANOEI, DA SYLVA BRUNO,
DIAGO ANTONIO ZEYO,
Falmouth, Oct. 22. Deputies for Brazil.

LAW INTELLIG ONCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 2.

PILKINGTON AND TursELL V. BENNETT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR stated, that he had read the affi-
dits in this case.—(See our report of Saturday.)—After an at-
tentive consideration of the subject, he had formed the opinion
that Mr. Bennett had undoubtedly. been guilty of a contempt
of Court; but he thought it was perhaps the most excuseable
case of that nature that had ever come under his consideration.
If the objection which was made at last to the young gentleman
existed at first, it was unfortunate that it had not been at first
insisted on. If it should appear that no marriage had taken
place, it would be necessary to inquire into the grounds of that
objection. The affidavits stated that a marriage had taken
place; therefore, the first thing to be done was to refer it to the
,Taster, to inquire whether or not there had been a valid mar-
riage between the parties. • A
Mr. HART believed there was no doubt that the marriage
had taken plaCe in France; but perhaps his Lordship would
think it proper that it should be re-solemnized.
The LORD CHNNCELLOR said, that if the Master should
report that a marriage had not taken place, the question would
he what the Court would do under such circumstances ; that
was a question not very difficult of solution. Should it, how-
ever, be declared that a marriage had been had, it was desirable
that it should be re-solemnized in England for the sake of proof :
but that would depend upon what might be proposed by way of
settlement. It was a difficult thing for the Court to pass over
a contempt ; but upon looking at the affidavits, he thought
that if there could be a case of contempt which the Court
would not visit with punishment, this was one. He aid not
pay much attention to the affidavits, although of very respect-
able individuals, with respect to the good character of the young
gentleman, because he could not admit tliat a contempt of
Court was to be disregarded because the person committing it
was, as in the present case, of highly respectable character.—
The ground upon which he proceeded was, that the young gen-
tleman was led on, step by step, until it became almost impos-
sible for him not to commit the attempt.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed, that his Lordship
must perceive by the affidavits, that Mr. Bennett had enter-
tained no mercenary views.

THE PORTSMOUTH CAUSE.
Mr., HORNE reminded his Lordship that the petition in the
case of the Hon. Newton Fellovies and the Earl'of Portsmouth
would coihe on in the regular course on Tuesday next. Ilis
object in alluding to this case was to request that it might be
postponed. The ground upon which he made this application
was an affidavit which had been filed by Dr. Bankhead and Mr.
France, who was the solicitor of Lady Portsmouth, which stated
that impediments had been thrown in the way of their visiting
the Earl of Portsmouth, in order to ascertain the actual state of
his mind. His Lordship during the long vacation had made an
order, directing that the Earl of Portsmouth should be kept as
tranquil and undisturbed as possible, but that reasonable access
of medical persons to him should be allowed, in order to exa.
mine his mind. In consequence of this order, two respectable
.gentlemen, Dr. Bankhead and ilr. France, were directed to
visit his Lordship; but it appeared from their affidavit that
their access to him had not been so unrestricted as was necessary
to enable them to execute the purpose of their visit. • The affi-
davit proved that the Earl of Portsmouth was kept in a sort of
captivity, which exhibited one of the most extraordinary cases
ever brought before a court of justice in this country. Under
these circumstances, he requested that the case might be post-
poned, in order that an answer might, if possible, be given to
the facts stated in the petition,. when the whole matter would
Come fairly before the Court.
Mr. HEALD, who was on the same side, supported the ap-
plication for delay. He would endeavour to explain the grounds
on which it rested. During the long vacation his Lordship
made an order which directed that the Earl of Portsmouth
should be kept as quiet as possible, but should, however,
be open to the access' of medical gentlemen competent to
examine his mind. (The Lord Chancellor said he did not
think he had made a formal order.)' His Lord Ship doubted
whether he had made a formal order, but the intimation of his
Lordship was considered as such by the Counsel of Lady Ports-
mouth. In consequence, her Ladyship did not go to Hurst-
bourne-park, although he was confident that, had she gone and
obtained an interview with her husband, he would have been
released from the state of thraldom in which lie was held.. Mit
as his Lordship had directed that the Noble Earl should be
kept tranquil, her Ladyship did not go to Hurstbourne-park,
and all the accounts which had been published in the news-
papers,respecting her proceeding thither were totally false. Dr.
Bankhead, however, went to Hurstbourne-pack, having pre-
viously given notice of his intention. Dr. Bankhead was re-
ceived by the persons who surrounded the Noble Earl in a
manner which he (Mr. Heald) would not state, but whicl, was
described in the affidavit. A great many affidavits had been
made touching the transactions which had taken place in Scot-
land.' It was the opinion of Counsel that justice could not be done
if the case were to come on at present, because it was consi-
dered necessary that, after reading Dr. Bankhead's affidavit,
his Lordship should make some order, having for its object the
investigation of the Earl of Portsmouth's mind by men of
skill. He and his Learned Friends were anxious to lay before
the Court the evidence upon this point of any number of phy.
sicians appointed either by the Court or the opposite party,
being fully satisfied that the result of investigation would be the
evidence of the falsity of the insinuations, which were thrown
out against'the mind of the Noble Earl.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAI, .who was opposed to Mr.
Heald and Mr. Horne, complained that the affidavit of Dr.

Bankhead, which referred to a transaction that took place on the
2d Oct. had been filed only two days, in consequence of which it
was impossible to make any answer to it. He felt it necessary' to
allude to what had fallen from Mr. Heald, because otherwise
the facts which he bad insinuated might go forth to the world
(as every thing which passed in that Court did) as being in.
capable of 'contradiction. He (the Attorney-General) denied,
then, that any impediments had been thrown in the way of Dr.
Bankhead ; he denied that that physician had not seen the Earl
of Portsmouth. In fact., Dr. Bankhead had a long interview
with him in the manner which he-desired. It had been stated
that all that had been said about the Countess of Portsmouth
going to Hurstbourne-park was false ; but it could not be denied
that her Ladyship had gone to Whitchurch, half a mile from
the former place, with the intention, he believed, of proceeding
thither. . . •

After some furtlier dikusiioo of no importanc6 between Mr.
Hart, .111r..Pepys, and the Counsel before mentioned, the
LORD CHANCELLOR said he would read Dr. Bankhead's
affidavit, and detetthine on Tuesday morning what pioceeding,
if any, it. would be necessary fly him, to found upon it.

LEES V. AINSWORTH.

The defendant attended in . Court to-day, in • pursuance of
the order of his Lordship, to abide the determination of the
Court, for having married a ward without the consent of the
Court. Mr. Wakefield attended on his behalf.

The LORD CHANCELLOR asked whether the parties were
married ?

Mr. WAKEFIELD said they had been married in Scotland
sit weeks ago, with the consent of all their friends.
The LORD CHAN C L OR.—But not with the consent of the
Court.

Mr. 'WAKEFIELD then asked. that the case might stand
over to 'Wednesday, in order to give his client an opportunity
of filing affidavits.

Thelon') Cifaxor.trAin granted the request, but issued
an order, restraining all persons from taking the ward out of
the jurisdiction of the Court. ,

THE WATERLOO-BRIDGE COMPANY V. MESSRS. BROWNING

- . AND co:
After hearing Mr. Horne and the Attorney-General, the
Lonn'CuArr CE Limn confirmed the injuncion which he granted
on Friday to restrain the defendants from proceeding with an
action at law.