The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-10 00:00:00

POST-OFFICE ARRANGEMENTS.

The whole arrangement of the mails, so far as re-
spects Greenock, are at present of the most objection-
able description. The Irish mail is received about a
quarter past nine, A.M., and is dispatched at half-past
t-n, A.M., thus affording little more than an hour for re-
plying to letters by the same day's post. This is the
more absurd, inasmuch as the letters dispatched from
Greenock at half-past ten lie in Glasgow till half-past
four P.M., and would thus be in perfectly good time if sent
off about two P.M. There is no Glasgow mail between half-
past ten, A.M. and four, P.M., and the evening mail from Glas-
gow, which is made up in that city at a quarter past four, is
detained till five, in order to being sent to Paisley by an
omnibus, from which it is conveyed by a gig to Greenock,
where it is not delivered till half-past eight P.M., leaving no
room for collecting information and replying to corre-
spondence the same evening. The Liverpool mail arrives
in Glasgow at two rad., and does not reach Greenock till
six, P.M. In addition to all these mal-arrangements, it is
now proposed to have a second mail from London, which will
arrive in Glasgow about seven, r.m., and will probably reach
Greenock between nine and ten P.M., atter the business of the
day is closed ; and as it is intended that the Liverpool and
Manchester letters shall be detained so as to be brought on
with this mail, the only effect of the additional mail will be
to aggravate materially the evils of the existing arrange-
ment, which are so loudly complained of. We beg to di
rect the attention of our readers to a very judicious letter
on this subject, addressed by our Parliamentary Represen-
tative to the Lords of the Treasury :
TO THE LORDS OF HER MAJESTY'S TREASURY.
My Lords,—l beg your immediate and most deliberate
attention to the enclosed copy of a memorial to the Post-
master-General, to be forwarded by the same post, which
will carry this.
The memorial points out—

That at present the mails from Liverpool and Man-
chester arrive too late for the convenience of those engaged
in trade with these places.

2d, That the correspondence by the Liverpool and
Manchester mails is of more importance to the trade of
Greenock, than even that conveyed by the London even-
ing mail.

3d, That the projected changes will cause the Liverpool
and Manchester mails to be so ♦ery late of arriving in
Greenock as to be of no use whatever on the day of arrival.
4th, That the expense of the proposed day mail from
London would be incurred without any corresponding
advantage.

sth, That the projected changes would greatly increase,
in place of diminishing, the inconvenience which the com-
mercial public here is already subjected to.
These, my Lords, are matters of deep importance, and
will, I am confident, receive your anxious consideration.
Thus much for the contents of the memorial from the
Chamber of Commerce of Greenock, to which I beg to add
that it must be quite evident that the projected changes
will cause a very large additional expenditure of public
money, without any commensurate advantages ;—or rather
that great inconvenience will be the result of the large in-
crease of expense the Postmaster-General is about to incur
in Scotland.

I beg further to say that, in my opinion, day mails from
London.
will be of very little advantage to Scotland, unless
those for Edinburgh and Glasgow can be made to arrive
in these Cities by three of the afternoons ; and that I am
quite confident, from personal observation, that the said
mulls may be so arranged as to bring tl,e, foreign correspond-
mice, and all the domestic correspondence which arrives in

" That if the projected arrangements were persisted in,
whereby the arrival of the Mail from Liverpool would be
delayed several hours beyond its present time, the expense
of the second Mail from London would not only be incur-
red without any corresponding advantage to the publie,
but would greatly increase the inconvenience to which the
commercial world is already subjected under the existing

system.
" May it therefore please your Lordship to take the pre-
mises into your serious consideration, and take measures
for providing that, in the Pontemplated changes in the
Post-office arrangements, the English mails shall arrive
at Greenock at such time as to affocd an 'earlier delivery
in the clay than is at present obtained.
" And your Memorialists will ever pray."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ROILS' COURT.—Nov. 9.
DAY V. CROFTS.

In this case a motion was made for the appointment of at
receiver Or the real and personal estate of the late Mr. Charles
Day, the eminent blacking manufacturer. The case is some-
what irregular from the number of the parties who appeared
by Counsel on the present occasion. The testator in the
cause made four codicils to his wIll, by which he gave annui-
ties and a large amount of property to different persons, and,
amongst others, he bequeathed 100,0001. fo found an asylum
for the blind, the testator having for some period prior to his
decease been deprived of his sight. He had also made a fifth
codicil, by which ho appointed a Mr. Dufaur an executor,
with three others who had been appointed executors uncZ;lr the
former codicils. This codicil had been propounded in the
Ecclesiastical Court, and had been carried, by appeal, to the
Privy Council, and Dr. Lushington had given it as his opi-
nion that Mr. John Simpson, who was the administrator,
could not net, because the cause having ceased, the adminis-
tration also ceased. Under these circumstances the present
motion was made.

His Lordship the MASTER of the Rou.s said that the appli-
cation was made for the appointment of a receiver of the real
a 2,1 personal estate of the testator in the cause. The ground
object of litigation. Consequently there
a right to receive and enforce pay-
fortiieprwf.saesnttiia6pp2ication was, that the legal personal repre-
sentativewas tie person who had
ment of the testator's estate. The order which he should di-
rect was, that a reference should !le made to the Master to
appoint a receiver for the personal estate, which, however, was
not to include the trade, if the Master should report that the
present manager, Mr. Weston, was the fit pers,'n to be conti-
nued in its management.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, Nor. 9.
THE QUEEN V. GREGORY.

Sir W, FOLLETT applied for a rule to show cause why an
information should not be filed against the defendant. who
was the registered Proprietor of the Satirist Newspaper;
for a libel published in that paper on the 15th of July last
on the Earl of Sunderland. The application was made at
the instance of the Earl of Sunderland, who stated in his-
aittiatiit that he was now in the 17(h year of his age, having
been born en June 2, 1822. The affidavit stated the Earl to
be the son of the Marquis of Blandford by his marriage
with the daughter of the Earl of Galloway. The publication
hi question imputed to the applicant that he was illegitimate,
alleging that the Marquis of Blandfo/d had been married to
another lady before his marriage with the daughter of the Earl
of Galloway. The Earl of Sunefseand was entTed, as their
Lordships were aware, under the provisions of the statute of
ttie Bth of Anne, to the title and estates of Marlborough on
0-1 tUe vreseilt Duke and of :Le 111.oc.ilaik• of Maud..
fold. tt—
pied trjru.
to his present Wife on the 11th of January, 1819 ; tbat
the Earl of Sunderland vras his eldest son, and that there were
besides two brothers and a sister, the offspring of the mar-
riage. In the Satirist newspaper there had appeared a para-
graph, beaded " A Question of Legitimacy." It was to the
following effoct—(The Learned Counsel then read the para.
graph in question).—Rule granted.

BAIL COURT.—Nov. 9.
TIIE QUEEN V. ALDRED AND OTHERS.

Mr. B ANDREWS applied to his Lordship for a rule to show
cause why the defendants in this case should not be admitted
to bail. The Learned Counsel said that the proceeding against
them hal already been removed into this court by writ of cer-
tiorari. The defendants were charged with felony and riot. It
appeared that a person named Lardncr claimed an estate in
Norfolk called Stanfield Hall as the heir-at-law of the last pro-
prietor; that on the 24th of Sept. Lardner, accompanied by the
defendants and several other persons, went to Stanfield Half,
took possession, and removed some of the furniture, and it was
for that offence they were indicted. On the part of the pro-
secution it was stated that the defendants were armed with
sticks, and that a sum of eleven sovereigns was stolen from the
housekeeper's room during their visit. The defendants, in
their affidavits, denied the truth of both the latter charges, and
stated that they had no intention of acting illegally; that they
were assured Lardner had a good title to the estate, or they
would not have interfered. They further denied, not only
having heard the Riot Act read by any Justice, but that they
had any knowledge of its being read at all.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE granted a rule nisi.