The Sun.
London, England, 1831-05-26 00:00:00

FOR ESSEX.

On Tuesday a grand dinner was given at the
George Inn at Halsted, to the new Members. Mr.
Western and Mr. Wellesley were received upon their
entrance into the town by a large concourse of free_
holders. Every house displayed the colours of the
Reform candidates.

The Members addressed the crowd from a window
before dinner. _ _

Mr. WESTERN, after complimenting the electors
upon their late vigorous contest, said that the whole
community had now but one feeling.

Mr. WELLESLEY was anxious to correct a mistake
which had got into pretty general circulation. It
had been reported that he said Mr. Western was his
personal enemy. The error was a grammatical
one; for what he stated was, that Mr. Western had
been his personal enemy.—(Hear.)—The animosity
had been interred in the grave which public opinion
had dug in the glorious cause of Reform,—a grave
which, unlike that which would one day receive his
mortal remains, would admit of no resurrection.—
(Laughter and cheers.)
At six o'clock the dinner was served up, EDWARD
HoNvwood, Esq., in the Chair.
The King, Queen, Duke of Sussex, and the rest
of the Royal Family, having been drunk with en-
thusiasm,

The 6IAIRMAN gave " The County Members."
Mr. WESTERN said Essex had assumed what be
might, from the order, and regularity, and system,
call a military position. Led on by the impulse of
one grand feeling, the electors had by the weapon of
their franchise obtained a victory to which the suc-
cessful struggles in the field bore no comparison.—
(Cheers.) They gathered together, deliberated
upon the means of obtaining an object, decided, and
struck the blow. They were all judges of the grand
theme of the nation. The enemies of it denounced
it us revolutionary. Truly it had advanced a great
way without producing any of the usual effects of
revolutions; but their denouncement of Reform
testified that stupidity of heart as well as of under-
standing which no ordinary means could drive out
of them.—(Cheers.) The measure was a Royal,
and a loyal, and a popular measure, calculated to
establish and preserve an exact equilibrium between
the estates of the Constitution.—(Loud cheers.) It
was imagined by some, that those who supported
the Bill pledged themselves to the detail. That
was absurd. Every man of common sense must
know that there was some difference between prin-
ciple and detail. How often had a Bill been printed
three times in consequence of the alterations which
had been made in it. Although great good was to
be expected from the Bill, miracles could not. He
knew well what the feelings of the Tories were.
All counties were subject to calamities, and no doubt
every calamity that should happen would be at-
tributed to the Bill. Even if there should be a bad
harvest this year, the enemies of the Bill would say;
" Oh, it is all owing to your horrible Reform Bill.'
(Cheers and laughter.) So ferocious were they
at losing their places, that every thing amiable and
good bad an aspect the most atrocious and revolting
to them.—(Cheers.)
Mr. WELLESLEY particularly approved of the sen-
timents uttered, descriptive of the savage condition
of the unfortunate boroughmongers.—(Laughter and
cheers.) That species 'night be now described as

ferce naturce, and afflicted with a rabies at the total
loss of their comfortable places.—(Loud laughter.)
He should not fancy an approximation to them by
any means, for if he was bitten by a rabid place-
man, what cutting or burning could cure an infec-
tion for which hitherto it had been always found
there was no cure ? He feared that he should go
stark-staring and raving mad.—(Laughter.) He
considered the Bill exactly suited to the times. No
doubt some time back a something more mo•
Aerate Reform would have been received, but he
firmly believed that a less radical Reform would not
suit the exigencies of the times.—(Cheers.) He
now wished to advert to another subject. It had
been said that he was not only inimical to the Esta-
blished Church, but to all manner of religion. Such
was far from being the case. He believed that an
Established Church was as essential to the weal of
a State as any other of its institutions; but he was
satisfied that after the Bill was passed Parliament
would coolly, and deliberately, and effectually, rectify
all church' abuses. He and his were, he believed,
the largest holders of church property in the king-
dom, and conceiving, in the present state, that it
was in jeopardy, lie was anxious to preserve it, which
could not be done under the present system.—
(Hear, hear.) He knew the people of England
well, and they would rather concede that which
they could riot resist. He had attempted last Session
to make an alteration in the Curates' Bill, which he
considered in the main an excellent Bill. He wished
to prevent church property from being thrown into
the Ecclesiastical Courts, and other Courts of
Equity, in .which he had been made such a victim.
He wished to have it put into the Courts of Com-
mon Law.

The company did not separate till a late hour.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CIIANCERY, MAY 25.
JUNG V. HAMLET.

Mr. PEPYS was beard in reply on behalf of the
defendant.

The LORD CHANCELLOR proceeded to give judg-
ment. In deciding the present case, he should not
find the decision in the case of Oxenden and Dufour
at all in the way; and to suppose that a decision in
support of the Vice-Chancellor's order in this case
could have the effect of setting aside the doctrine
laid down in the judgment in that case, would argue
great inattention to the facts and circumstances of
both. There the party who sought relief was a per-
son thirty-six years old ; who had had much expe-
rieece in such transactions; here the age of the party
was twenty-four, and he appeared not to have been
experienced in " the office," as the dealing with
annuity brokers and money lenders was termed.
The difference in years, or the experience of the
parties, was not a consideration which would influ-
ence him on this occasion; but in that case there
had been an exchange of paper, and it did not appear
that the paper given as security was more valuable
than that which had been given in exchange for it.
That case had arisen from the pressure of the bor-
rower's necessities, and all such cases will naturally
arise from the same cause. Lord Keeper North had
said, that but for the necessities of the parties who
stand in need of money there would be no dealings
of this nature to bring before the Court ; and in
the amount of the pressure upon him the motive
which induced the transaction consisted. The
question there was, whether a party of full and
mature age and of great astuteness, and in a dealing
where one worthless bond was exchanged for ano-
ther, ought to have the benefit of the doctrine in
favour of expectant heirs, which bad been established
in the case of Chesterfield and Janson. If that
doctrine had been extended to such a case, it would
not be safe for any man to enter into a contract with
an expectant heir, while his father was alive; and
it might happen, that by the long life of the father,
the heir might pass his climacteric before he should
come into possession of the property, as was the
ease with the heir of the late Earl St. Vincent, who
was sixty years old during the life-time of his father.
The expectancy might be on the death of an uncle
or an elder brother; so that the circumstance of be-
ing an expectant heir was not to be a defence against
the effects of imprudence ; and the statement of the
fact, that a party was such an heir should not excite
more sympathy than had been shown in a case where
an impression had been sought to be made on the
feelings of the Court, by the Counsel on one side
representing that his client was an orphan, and who
was answered by the Counsel on the other side—a
man of seventy years old—who said that the mis-
fortune of being an orphan was equally applicable
to himself. Such a
principle of indiscriminate in-
dulgencecase3 and
could
thereforenot h
beesaw extracted n
o to w
reason from th eiwish
t
existingthat
t
the judgment in Oxenden and Dufour should be re-
versed. The more he reflected upon that case, the
emsporeeciarellayson he had
when
that to be
most
sari-fled tified
material
circumstanceua
,s right
:
considered, that not a tittle of evidence had been
tewoshrtohw
mtiolarte tthielanpartpelart mw'hilciihchha:,asheo ebn.
gpir%orednucewdas
tained in exchange. There ended the argument
which had been founded upon the supposed pres-
sure of that case. The present case turned upon
this point—whether the transaction was what it
purported to salebe,atof common ocfplmatoen?lawCoorulodf ictonblemosno
light regarded by the gh
sense ? No man goes to purchase plate to the.
amount of 5,0001. that he may immediately sell it
for 500/., without being under the greatest neces-
sity to raise money; and it was perfectly easy to
understand that his object in such a transaction was
The Court was not so mech unlike
*as to shut its eyes to that which would
the conclusion of any company of six, or of sixty
be
rational men in whose hearing the thing might be
mentioned. Not one out of the sixty could express
a different view, unless for the sake of displaying
eonsittiot
etoornglertioriiiiumneeny
his ingenuity in maintaining a bad argument. The
whohih was
‘va was
case was, that a young man of twenty-four—his
o
blic'einmg adaleivae—pro%pv foraa jeweller,
loan,
well known to be a dealer in money as well as in
and it appeared doubtful for some time
geitoeedtrsr;ei:leldie; would give the accommodation in cash
or goods. When, however, be was repulsed as a
hhcimistosasiodmetoothlate:e silversmith's, en rtsemd t
fho'
rs ,
hisb u t
undiscovered reso
borrower at his warehouse in Coventry-street, he
would not spend a shilling in coach-hire to take
deal at Mr. Hamlet's, for the plate and "ewels
wife. He, therefore, was called upon to father
resolved
ta
be-
lieve that Mr. Hamlet did not know that this
art
p.rsloilmbaapmblileyetsiastlleiwo.
ausldlitibeleeeNS:o,llrOlkdbtounfsoetthacesDdniteo:
de-
fendant's swear
aenirnnttcdtrisiehs o;mtvlabantMil
and had not been sufficiently ex-
plained by the solicitor when it was sworn, as was
this explanationa e which p e
too frequently the case with affidavits as well as
answers, not only in this Court, but in the Courts
f Lw
ye
saw no excuse; for ten thousand things must hap-
pen
ro daily in If
Mr.ust know for certain on no better proof than lie
had that Mr. King meant to raise money. The
Court, in thus • •
viewing the answer, had regard to
the respectability of Mr. Hamlet's character. There
was a t
another part of the Law.
Hamlet's
t, s
experience, x wouldpern t apply
case, which put to flight
the idea of this being anything but a loan. A per-
son wanting to borrow 8,0004 buys 8,0001. worth
of jewellery for his ' wife, and plate for his establish-
ment. Could it be supposed that he wanted
the loan to buy the plate and jewellery ? And

ohro
ev
total solves the arithmetical problem of finding
hoods ticketed to the exact amount of 8,0001. His
Lordship did
attacham oumuchgtoneither
the
circumstance
more nor less, because it would be easy to select ar-
ticles to make up the amount, but the coincidence of
their amounting to 8,000/., the sum wanted as a loan,
however*
amounting
threwa broad and clear light upon the transaction, to
which the Court wasbound not to shut its eyes. The
great undervalue of the articles was not so much to be
.considered in the present stage of the cause as it
would be at the bearing; nevertheless, he could not
avoid saying, that he was not capable of thinking
that full value had been given ; he could not con-
ceive how Mr. Robins would have sacrificed his in-
terests, if it had been possible to obtain a higher
price; or why Mr. King's friends did not go to Mr.
Hamlet and obtain from him much more than they
sold for. How 5,000/. should be thus. lost in such
a town as this, which was market -overt in every
part of it,, or how the fashion of the bullion should
depreciate the metal two-thirds, was past his com-
prehension. Adverting to the negociations which
preceded the execution of the deed, his Lordship
did not find that Mr. Farrell had acted as -6geitt for
Lord Lorton, as had been stated on the part of the
defendant ; nor was there any evidence to prove
that Lord Lorton was acquainted with the parti-
culars of the transaction. On reading the draft, he
observed that the recitals were put in a mariner fre-
quently used by conveyancers where the security
was for•money advanced in several portions-: so that
there was nothing on the face of the deed to give
Mr. Serjeant Lefroy notice that goods were to be
taken, and not money. Mr. Hamlet should have told
Mr. Serjeant Lefroy and Lord Lorton, what really
was the nature of the consideration. With regard
to the question whether the injunction should con-
tinue, it was to be considered with reference to pro-
ceedings that might be taken at law. If the bond
were to be put in suit, it might either be an unde-
fended case, wherein there would be no remedy; or,
it it were defended, the plaintiff must prove usury.
Hut it was possible that ustny might not be proved,
as there might not be much difficulty in explaining
away what had been said as to the accruing of in-
terest before the delivery of the goods. If there
was no usury and no duress, the merits of the case
would not be brought under the cognizance of a
Court of Law ; and it was, therefore, proper to be
decided by a Court of Equity, and expedient that
the injunction should be continued till the hearing.
The ground which had induced the Vice-Chancellor
to grant this order, now induced his Lordship to
support it. The injunction would, therefore, con-
tinue; and at the hearing the full value of the pro-
perty would be considered, as well as the expences
which Mr. Hamlet had sustained. His Lordship,
after some conversation with the Counsel in the
cause, gave the plaintiff the costs of the appeal.

THE HON. BOBT. KING'S SALE.
TO THE EDITOR OP TIIE MORNING CHRONICLE.

SIR,-Observing in your Journal this morning that
you hare connected my name with the proceedings in this
cause—be so good as to allow me to correct the report, so
far as I am concerned. Mr. Knight, the Counsel, has
been led into an unintentional error; but it is my duty to
set it right. Early in December, 1829, I was requested
by the solicitor of the Hon. Robt. King to anticipate his
pecuniary wants by a loan of 2,5001., to be secured on
plate and jewellery, which ha would place at my di,posal
for immediate sale, on the 4th of January. I first an-
nounced the sale to take place on the 18th of February;
it was subsequently delayed at the instance of the Hon.
Mr. King, and finally took place on the 12th of March
and following days. During this period of ten weeks'
duration, it was advertised 99 times, in eighteen of the
leading Morning and Evening Papers. If Mr. Knight
had been aware of this, I am persuaded he would not have
stated they were put up to sale hastily, which, in more
intelligible language, would imply they were not well
sold. The produce of the sale is also wrongly stated—it
wai 3,4821. '7s. Your obedient servant,
Covent-garden, May 25, 1831. GEORGE ROBINS.