The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1836

resolution the QUEEN to give orders
for the immediate re.-embarkment of the British
Marines, and the sending of a fourth flag of.
truce to the Constitutionalists, agreeing to tie
solemn recognition of the Constitution, subject
to such modifications as the Cortes might recommend,
and likewise proffering to recal the Members of the
Constitutional Cabinet. These offer.; Nvere received
with loud acclamations. Mc people generously for-
gave the treachery which had all but deprived them o 1
their liberties, and cries of " Long live the QUEEN,'
resounded in every direction. The castle guns of St
George, and the vessels in the river, announced the resto.
ration of tranquillity by a royal salute. In the evening the
QUEEN left the Palace orßelem and returned to the
Palace of Neccssidades, where she was received by the
National Guards amid the most enthusiastic greetings.
The whole city was illuminated, and the people assem-
bled in crowds to congratulate each other on the fortu-
nate issue of this second struggle for freedom.
The tranquillity thus obtained .had not been dis.
turbed up to the evening of the 7th inst.—the date o
the latest dispatches brought by the Camden Packet
which arrived at Falmouth on Monday last. The
Diario do Govern() of the sth instant contains six
Royal decrees, three of which appoint Senors BAN-
DEIRA, PAssos and EL DE CASTRO, the first Presi-
dent of the Council, and the others Ministers of the
Interior, and of Grace and Justice. These appoint-
ments have given universal satisfaction.
We trust the experiment which has been just made,
will convince the QUEEN and her Consort that they
must either reconcile themselves to live peaceably un-
der the Constitution, or quit Portugal. We have
learned with considerable astonishment that the
PRINCE ROYAL has adopted a line of conduct to-
wards the QUEEN which must, when generally known,
'greatly exasperate the nation and this, too, be-
cause he has been shorn of a "political influence
which Her MAJESTY has no longer the power
to confer upon him. We have reason to be-
lieve that events of this nature forced the QUEEN
in an evil hour, to peril her Crown in the hope
of re-assuring herself of the affection of her hus-
band. The PRINCE ROYAL, unfortunately, is a
stranger to the feelings of the Portuguese nation,
and his cold reserved manners have laid him open to
considerable suspicion. It were better if foreigners
interfered less in concerns personal to the people them-
selves, when they are not prepared to take part
with the people. We certainly cannot compliment our
Government on the feeling to which the appearance
of our troops in Lisbon gave rise in the breasts of the
inhabitants. England has been for some time sus-
pected of favouring a counter-revolution in Portugal ;
and we regret to state that the conduct of our Ambas-
sador has converted that suspicion into certainty, as far
as regards the people of Portugal. This, whether
true or false,; is equally unfortunate. Most unques-
tionably we are in favour of the Constitution ; and we
trust that no Power, whether Foreign or Domestic,
will succeed in wresting it from the people. Spain
and Portugal must have the same form of Govern-
ment ; and, without a Constitution, neither of them
can ever enjoy the blessings of civil liberty.

We have received the whole of the Paris papers of
Monday. All that they contain of any importance
will be found in another part of The Sun.

The death of the ex-King of France, CHARLES
was announced in Paris on Monday. His Majesty
disci on the 6th inst. at Goritz, in Elyria. The Royal
Exile, With hi.s family, lately removed from the Castle
of Prague, much to the annoyance of the Austrian
Government. On the 4th inst. the KING was in
good health, and joined his family in celebrating the
anniversary of St. Charles. The day following he
was seized with a violent inflammation of the bowels,
and in a few hours he was no more. The ceremonies
usually observed at the death of a King of France
were strictly observed by his faithful followers.
CHARLES X. was in private life, an amiable,
warm-hearted, well-disposed old man. Having led a
very dissipated life when young, his later years were
passed in acts of superstitious mortification, under the
direction of his confessors. He constantly wore sack-
cloth or hair-cloth next his skin ; he fasted much ;
prayed several times in the course of the day ; and
frequently imposed upon himself, as a penance for some
hasty expression, the remaining several hours without
uttering a word. His gallantries and extravagance, when
Count D'ARTois, gave great pain to his unfortunate
brother, Louis XVI., and not less secret pleasure to
that most consummate of hypocrites, the Count de
PROVENCE, afterwards Louis XVIII., who always
took care to profit by his indiscretions. His deposi-
tion by the French nation will for ever stamp his cha-
racter as a tyrant ; but we hesitate not to say that his
successor is quite as great an enemy to freedom as
ever he was. Louis PHILIPPE has done all that
CHARLES X. lost his crown in attempting to do,
simply because he better understood how to take ad-
vantage of popular excitement and popular credulity.
CHARLES X. was a good man, but a bad sovereign.
He was more devout than sagacious, and was ten times
better read in the lives of saints than in the statutes
and customs of his kingdom. Like Louis XV. his
constant boast in private was, that he held his crown
from GOD alone, and to Heaven only was he respon-
sible for his regal as well as for his private conduct.
The brave men of July unsettled his MAJESTY'S
convictions upon this point. They taught him that
kings were made for the people—not the people for
kings. When driven from France the Ex-King be-
thought himself of nothing but his own salvation,
and the education of the young Duke DE BERRI.
In the various intrigues carried on by the females of
the exiled family he took no part. This was not un-
known to Louis PHILIPPE, who consequently wished
that he might be treated with indulgence. While in
Austria the Imperial Government charged itself with
his guardianship as an act of friendship to France,
and hence his movements were attended with consi-
derable anxiety to the EMPEROR. Had he died in
1831 France would have rejoiced at his death ; had
he lived for five years longer, his countrymen might
probably lament the infatuation which preferred to his
sway the Government of the son of PHILIPPE
EGALITE.
—.OEB

Mr. ENEAS MACDONNELL has addressed another
s
letter to the Times on the subject of, what he calls,
Mr. O'CONNELL'S tergiversation and coalition with
the present Ministry. How our Contemporary could
have inserted such a communication, we cannot pos-
sibly conceive ; for, to say nothing- of its inherent and
I unreadable dullness, there is actually not one single
sentence in it that does not apply with infinitely more
propriety to the Times than to O'CONNELL• Sub-
stitute but the one word for the other, and the appli-
cation is perfect. 'Tis an old saving, that the man
who takes leave of honesty, takes leave also of co,n-
mon sense ; and on this
principle only can we account
for the singular circumstance of a long, prosy lecture
on apostacy appearing in the columns of the lead-
ing postate of Europe.
The gravamen of the Chelsea
A
twaddler's charge
,against o'CoNNELL, is, that he
once abused the NI, lugs, and now praises them. Did
our Contemporary never act in precisely the same
manner towards die Tories ? Did he never abuse
them in the choicest language that the Wapping voca-
bulary affords, and afterwards turn round and praise
them with equal heartiness ? Did he never discover
that Sir ROBERT PEEL was the smallest of all
small statesmen ; and afterwards discover, at a mo-
ment's notice, that he was the author of a first-

-----,• •
pofflical lidzitufesto, which would " flourish

tfitiangh all time, and be co-eval with eternity"—
a remarkable figure of speech, ..hich, we remember,
greatly affected us at the time ? Above all, did he
never condemn the QUEEN—" the QUEEN has done
it all"—for having turned out the MELBOURNE Mi-
nistry, and shortly afterwards praise the KING for that
very same act of ejection ? We are surprised that our
Contemporary, who cannot but entertain a vivid recol-
lection of all these little peculiarities, should have per-
mitted the insertion of a letter like that of MAC-
DONNELL'S, not one of whose hints about apostacy
nut applies with ten times more force to the Times
than to O'CONNELL. But even granting—though
the hypothesis, we are aware, is an absurd one, for the
Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny still advo-
cates the same principles that he advocated years
ago—granting, we repeat, that the tergiversation
has been the same in both instances, can it be cen-
surable in one, and yet commendable in the other ?
Can Mr. O'CONNELL be blamed as an apostate, with-
out involving the Times in the same obloquy ? To
our thinking, the letter of Mr. MACDONNELL is one
of the most cruel attacks that our Contemporary has
yet sustained ; for it puts his readers on their recollec-
tions, and compels them to feel the force of the irony
which pervades its every allusion to apostacy and apos-
tates. " Mr. O'Connell," says his Chelsea TIIER-
SITES, " within four short days after uttering his de-
nunciations, became the apologist and confederate of
these very Whigs whom he had so denounced; and they,
with equal alacrity, placed themselves under his patron-
age, controul, and direction." How bitterly ironical
is this passage ! Erase but the words " O'CONNELL"
and " Whigs," and substitute in their stead " Times"
and " Tories" and the charge will apply more literally
and felicitously to our Contemporary, than any:charge
at has ever yet been urged against him.

ROLLS' COU►I{T.-(THIS DAY.)

MILES V. CARNEY.
This bill was filed by the plaintiff as the legal personal
representative of his wife, who died in the year 1832. The
plaintiff's wife became entitled to a share of the residuary
estate of a person of the name of Harrison, to the amount
of 5461., and the question was whether that sum was now
due. The bill prayed that certain receipts which had been
given might he declared to have been obtained by fraud,
and without consideration, and that they might be delivered
up to be cancelled. It was admitted the amount of the
plaintiff's share of the residue was not paid in money ; but
it was contended by the plaintiff that consideration was
given for the share, by paying to the estate of Edward
Bland Carney, the father of the plaintiff's wife, sums of
money that became due for board and lodging. On the
other hand, it was contended that Mr. Carney, immedi-
ately after the marriage of his daughter with the plaintiff,
had requested his daughter to reside in his house, and take
up her abode with him ; that after a shorsmatrimonial tour,
Mr. and Mrs. Mills went and resided in the house of the
father ; that during the time of their residence with him he
made an allowance to his daughter ; and that under these cir-
cumstances, the father being well off in the world, it was ex-
tremely improbable he should charge his son-in-law with
anything for board and lodging. The defendant stated,
the parties went to reside with the father in 1828, con-
tinued to reside there till the death of the wife in 1832,
and 150/. per annum, being the sum to be charged for
board and lodging, the total amount to be charged would
greatly exceed the amount of the residuary share of the
plaintiff's wife.
Mr. AGAR and Mr. BACON appeared in support of the

Mr. PEMBERTOIi_and Mr. BETIIELL, for the defendant

new

Mr. AGAR replied.
His Lordship the MAsTua of the RoLLs did not think
it the least extraordinary that Mr. Carney should take
from his son-in-law an annnal sum for his board and lodg-
ing, and at the same time make an allowance to his own
child. There was nothing in this contrary to the habits
of society. It appeared to his Lordship tie fraud alleged
in the bill was not made out ; and that being the founda-
tion of the plaintiff's case, which had wholly failed, the
bill must be dismissed, with costs.
The Court then proceeded with the case of the Attor-
ney-General v. Lubbock, which was part heard.

same terms ; and whatever was settled by the law on former
occasions before the passing of the last Act was applicable in
terms to the law which they had now to enquire into. He
might also observe, that the law had been considered as
perfectly settled, it having been acted upon for more than
one hundred years by every portion of the legal and mer-
cantile world. The law upon the case had been settled by
a case that came before this Court, of Broughton v. the
Manchester Water Works, 38. and A, page 381. The
only question therefore now to be considered was whether
the law so understood and decided had been rightly under-
stood and decided. He submitted that the law was per-
fectly right, supposing it to be as it was held to be by the
Judges in the Court of King's Bench, where the question
was solemnly argued, and decided upon demurrer—a case
upon which the opinion of a Court of Error might have
been taken without great inconvenience or expense ; and
yet the decision in which all the Judges concurred was ac-
quiesced in by the parties. However, setting aside this de-
cision, they were now to inquire into the law as if it were a
'king to be inquired into, and he would submit that 111,
,aw was ri2;litly understood. The statute of the 3d and
4th of William IV., c. 98, sec. 14, provides that all the
powers, authorities, privileges, and advantages given by
former Acts of Parliament to the Bank of England shall be
and the same are hereby continued in full force except so
far as by this Act shall be otherwise directed. The Act of
the 39th and 40th Geo. 111. c. 28, sec. 15, which was
stated to be an Act to prevent any doubts that might arise
respecting the privileges of exclusive banking, and also re-
garding the erection of other banks, went on to state—
" and be it further enacted that it shall not be lawful for
any bady corporate, exceeding the number of six persons,
to take up any sums of money upon bills or notes payable
on demand within a less time than six months after the
same shall be drawn." This Act gave the Bank
of England a power of exclusive banking, and the
question was, whether under the provisions contained in
the 3d and 4th of Wm. IV., the defendants, according to
the sense of the Act, were in the situation of persons en-
titled to borrow, owe, or take up sums of money upon bills
or notes payable upon demand within less than six months
after date ? That the rights and privileges of the Bank of
England remained, as far as the distance of 65 miles from
London was concerned, was a prinCiple that was perfectly
unimpaired, and it appears that the London and West-
minster Bank carry on their business in London, and that
the town of St. Alban's was within the `distance of 65
miles. The consideration given by the Bank of England
for the privileges conferred on them by Parliament showed
that those privileges were considered to be of importance.
The words of the different Acts conferred on the Bank of
England the sole power and privilege of exclusive banking,
and went on to state that it should not be lawful for any
body corporate, erected or to be erected, to borrow, owe,
or take up money upon bills payable in less than six
months. He submitted that if they found two senses
to these words, in one of which, however, they were
wholly nugatory for the protection of the Bank of England,
and which conferred nothing that could be called a sole
privilege ; and in the other sense in which the words of the
Act conferred something which effectually, and to a certain
extent, protected the Bank of England—the latter was
clearly the sense in which the Legislature intended to use
the words. The words which he had referred to were found
in the 6th of Anne, and in the whole series of subsequent
Acts of Parliament. The [Learned Gentleman then pro-
ceeded to refer to the various Acts of Parliament on this
subject, from the sth of William and Mary, down to the
Act 3d and 4th of William IV., and had not concluded
when our reporter left.
Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice PARKE and a
Common Jury.)
CLERKE V. MORRIS.

This was an action on the case to recover compensation
for injury sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the
defendants' negligence in driving his cart on the night of the
19th June last.
In appeared in evidence on the part of the plaintiff, that
on the night in question he was driving in his gig along the
road between Homerton and Bow,:and that coming in con-
tact with the defendant's chaise, which was going in an op-
posite direction, he (plaintiff) was upset. The shafts of the
gig were broken, the harness cut, and the horse so injured
that he died immediately afterwards. It was contended that
the accident occurred in consequence of the defendant's
negligence, and that he had received sufficient intimation
of the plaintiff's approach.
Mr. Sergeant SPAN KIE addressed the Jury on behalf of
the defendant, and called witnesses, who swore that his
client was driving at the time of the occurrence at a mo-
derate pace, that the defendant was on the left side of the
road, and that the accident arose from the plaintiff's own
neglect.—Verdict for the plaintiff, 201. damages.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Mr. Baron BoLLAND.)
ALLIES V. GILL AND ANOTHER.
The plaintiff brought his action to recover the sum of
661., the balance of a year's salary, due to him as a tra-
veller to the defendants, who are woollen warehousemen.
Mr. ERIE and Mr. BATT appeared for the plaintiff, and.
contented themselves with shelving that the plaintiff was in
the service of the defendants, and put in a letter from
them, saying they agreed to his terms of 200/. per annum
for three journies through the western counties—the re-
mainder of the time to be filled up by journies in other
counties, as might be convenient. He shewed that the
plaintiff was discharged before the expiry of the year for
which, he contended, he was engaged.
Mr. KELLY (with him Mr. Steer), addressed the Jury
for the defendant. He complained of the conduct of his
Learned Friend in selecting one letter from a correspon-
dence, which if all put in, would have explained the whole
of the case. Under these circumstances, it became his
duty to lay the facts before them. In July, 1832, the
plaintiff was recommended to the defendant as a tra-
veller, and went out two journies, which brought him
up to about Christmas. There, before that, had been
no contract between the parties. Some correspondence
then passed between them, and it led to the letter
which had been read by the other side. There was
no doubt that the defendants were pleased with the
exertions of the plaintiff, and agreed to the terms proposed
by himself, that he should be paid 2001. per annum so long
as he should remain in their service. By that contract
they did not engage him for one year certain, but
the letter was to be read that he was to be paid at
the rate of two hundred pounds a-year so long_ as he
remained in their employl; but he was to be bound
by the custom of the trade, which was that all tra-
vellers could put an end to their contracts by giving
one months' notice, and so could the employer. He
would prove that that was the invariable practice,
even when, as in this case, the hiring was at a certain
sum per annum. The plaintiff went out another journey
in the beginning of the year 1833, and then the defendant
had reason to complain of the plaintiff. He sent up a
number of orders, which it was impossible for them, with
any safety or prudence, to execute. They made many
bad debts by his orders ; and he entirely failed in
obtaining any orders from the good houses in the
to,vns through which he had passed. Again, they
had reason to complain of a great loss of time on the part
of the plaintiff. His horse had died, and lie remained at
home for two weeks ; and he was much disturbed in his
mind by the failure of another house for which he tra-
velled. The defendants complained of this, and the plain-
tiff excused himself by the above statement for a month's
delay. The defendants, however, told him that they
would not consider themselves liable for the salary for
that month. The plaintiff was still out, and for ten
weeks the whole of the orders sent up by him amounted
to only 401., which was not quite the amount of
the salary which he was drawing. They, therefore, wrote
him, stating that travelling such as that would not pay
them, and they accordingly gave him notice that it was
their attention to give it up. The plaintiff,wrote in answer
complaining of being turned off at a moment's notice, but
not saying a word of his considering his engagement to be
for a year. They wrote him again, desiring that they
might be furnished with the plaintiff's ledger and balance
sheet. He sent them, and in the accompanying letter
he said he had charged for the time he was actually
employed, and he left it to their liberality to put any
further sum to his credit, which they thought proper.
The account sent up left a balance of 291., in favour
of the defendants, not one farthing, however, of which
they ever got. When he put in all these letters
which would be read to the Jury, he felt certain they would
agree with him in saying that this was a mere after-thought,
and that at the time he was aware he had no claim upon
the defendants, who had treated him accrding to the custom of
the city of London, which he would prove. When he proved
all these facts, he felt certain to obtain their verdict.
A number of letters were put in and read. Mr. Cook,
who had been a traveller for Messrs. Leaf & Co., of Old
Change, for fourteen years, and now employing four tra-
vellers himself ; Mr. Devas, of King-street, who travelled
for four years, and now employed travellers on his own
account ; said the regular custom and generally understood
practice was, that all commercial travellers were liable to
be discharged at a month's notice, and masters were obliged
to accept the same from their travellers. All their expe-
rience was of travellers engaged in London and where the
employers paid all the expenses.
The defendant's counsel called many more tradesmen
from the City to prove the system of travellers' engage-
ments, the examination of whom had not closed when our
-norter left.

The Duke of Devonshire, with a select party, was
performances at Madame Vestris's
present to
theto ig thewujitinhetheiore last.