The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 245, 1841.

posed to prevail between the parties, Sir A. Grant came
out with a fresh attack upon Mr. Sheehan of the
most unwarrantable nature. The result of that attack
was that Mr. Sheehan addressed a note to Sir
A. Grant, requiring an explanation of the charges
he had made against him, and the reply was that
Sir A. Grant would bold no communication with
the party avowing himself the author of so ruffianly and
scurrilous an attack as that of the 23d May, 1840. Sir
A. Grant had a perfect right to'say that he treated Mr.
Sheehan as a ruffian and a libeller, and would have
nothing to do with him, but having taken that course he
had no right to come to the Court of Queen's Bench and
ask for its protection. He had no right to deal out
language calculated to irritate and provoke, and then to
come to that Court and complain of the result of that
irritation. He could not come to that Court with success,
unless he could show that there had been no act of his
own to provoke the opposite party. But it did not rest
there. Mr. Sheehan, irritated at the manner in which
he htig been treated, put the matter into the hands of his
friend Sir John Milley Doyle, and a communication was
opened between that gentleman and Lord Granville So-
merset as the friend of Sir A. Grant, the wholeopf the
circumstances connected with and surrounding which
must clearly show any rational man that the object was
to have an explanation, or the usual alternative of a hos-
tile meeting. The Learned Counsel here referred at
some length to the correspondence that had taken
place between the parties, for the purpose of showing
that such an alteration was recognised throughout, and
that the subsequent reference to Sir Henry Hardinge
wqs with the same object. The part subsequently taken
in the transaction by Sir John Doyle would be referred
to by his friend the Solicitor-General, but he contended
that the subsequent publication of the whole of
the correspondence in the papers did not alter
the relative position of the parties. It was clear
that throughout Sir A. Grant was not averse
to a hostile meeting, nor had ever given the other party
any reason to suppose that such was the case. Sir A.
Grant had never made any explanation or apology for
the language he had used towards Mr. Sheehan ; and if
the present proceeding was to be taken as the medium
of a public apology, he trusted it would not be at the ex-
pense of his client, but that the rule would be discharged,
and with costs.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, on behalf of Sir John
Milley Doyle, then addressed the Court. His arguments
were in some sort a recapitulation of these urged by the
Attorney-General. He relied more especially upon the
apology which had been tendered to Lord Granville
Somerset by Sir John Doyle, on behalf of Mr. Sheehan,
in which he disclaimed any intention to cast any
personal imputations upon the honour of Sir A.
Grant, and which apology Lord Granville Somerset
thought satisfactory in principle, but objected
to some of the details. That at least was a proof that
Mr. Sheehan was anxious to remove any impression that
he had made a wanton attack upon Sir A. Grant. It
was further to be observed, that notwithstanding the
statement made from the hustings by Sir A. Grant with
regard to his acquaintance with the history of Mr.
Sheehan's life, that he had never attempted
in his affidavit to justify that statement, and had made no
allusion whatever to any act of Mr. Sheehan's life. It
was clear also that throughout the whole of the negotia-
tion Sir Alexander Grant never once repudiated the
idea of a hostile meeting but, on the contrary, Sir J.
Doyle was led to believe, and he so stated in his
affidavit, that until the matter had entirely terminated,
the whole of Sir A Grant's conduct was such, and the
affair was conducted on such a footing, as to
lead to no other conclusion than that a hostile
meeting was to be the result if satisfactory explanations
were not given. He would ask their Lordships what
was the object of the present application? It was not to
prevent a breach of the peace, for that contingency was
now at an end ; but it was, as he (Sir A. Grant) had
himself distinctly stated, to put the public in possession
of the whole facts of the case, and he apprehended that
their Lordships would not entertain the application,
having such an object: Now with regard to the letter
addressed by Sir John Doyle to Mr. Sheehan, and which
had been made the subject of complaint by Sir Alexander
Grant, he would merely observe that that letter had not
been published by him at all. He opposed the rule in
the present case because he thought the conduct of the
party applying was such as to disentitle him to the pro-
tection of the Court. First, by his publishing an attack
upcn Mr. Sheehan's character, unjustifiable, and hitherto
unjustified ; and secondly, because he had taken the
question of a hostile meeting into his consideration, and
had entertained the idea of resorting to such a course for
the purpose of giving the opposite party satisfaction. On
these grounds, therefore, he submitted that the rule ought
to be discharged.
Mr. E, JAMES followed oti the same side, and Mr.
WARREN on behalf of Mr. Sheehan.
Mr. THESIGER regretted that not less than five hours
of the time of the Court should already have been occu-
pied on the present discussion. When he had applied to
their Lordships for the rule he had endeavoured to bring
all the circumstances of the case under their considera-
tion in the clearest and most impartial manner. His
Learned Friend had, however, laboured to impress
upon the Court that the conduct of Sir Alex-
ander Grant had been such as to deprive him of
all right to the protection of the Court. He was
not aware, however, that in cases in which language
had been used calculated to provoke a breach of the
peace, the Court had decided that the party so attacked
should be deprived of its protection ; much less could
he conceive how a party caUed in as the friend of the
aggressor should take the quarrel into his own hands,
and then turn round and say to the assailed
party, that he had no right to protection
from the laws of his country. He would now address
himself to the question of provocation, and he thought
the Court could not entertain a doubt that it was of
the most serious and personal nature. Sir A. Grant's
situation at the time the attack had been made on him
was also very peculiar; he had been just returned, and,
without knowing anything of the author, he expressed
himself in strong terms of the conduct of the paper.
In the mean time it would appear that Sir A.
Grant had learned by a statement made in open
Court, that Mr. Sheehan was the author of
these observations, and on the occasion of the follow-
ing election the substance of these changes were em-
bodied in a flag in a very offensive manner, and Sir A.
Grant, in a moment of excitement, had certainly ex-
pressed himself in very strong language of Mr. Sheehan.
It had been said in the course of the discussion that in
times of electioneering excitement expressions were not
to be measured by the ordinary good rule of propriety,
and that might well be applied to the remarks
which Sir A. Grant addressed to a large meeting
from the hustings. The letter of Mr. Sheehan requiring
an explanation was said to be couched in very mild and
courteous terms, but its courtesy might be judged of
from the circumstance of his denouncing the statements of
Sir A. Grant as calumnious and disgraceful falsehoods.
The result of that application was that Sir John Doyle
appeared upon the scene, and it was considered advisable,
in consequence of Sir John Doyle's rank and
high character, to give him an interview. Now,
it was clear that Sir A. Grant had done what
every sensible man would give him credit for,
having called in the assistance of a nobleman,
whose character was above all suspicion, in order to be
present at his interview with Sir John Doyle, and to act
as his friend in the matter. Lord Granville Somerset,
at the first interview, stated that he attended there with-
out any view whatever to any hostile meeting taking
place between, the parties. It would appear from Sir
John Doyle's affidavit that Sir A. Grant had expressed a
wish to call in the advice of Sir 11. Hardinge, and that
was taken by his Learned Friends to imply that there
was to be a resort to a hostile meeting. It was evident
also from Sir A. Grant's stipulation at the outset
that his: object was to have the matter amicably arranged,
because he insisted upon a retractation of the offensive
charges originally brought against him by Mr. Sheehan.
That explanation merely went the length of saying that
they were not intended to hurt Sir A Grant's feelings, or
to assail his private character, but left the charges
themselves where they were before. That.not being consi-
dered sufficient, Lord GraiivaleSomerset's advice to Sir A.
Grant was, to consult his legal adviser on the subject.
Now, it was evident from that observation that there

never was any intention to resort to hostile measures,
although the subsequent reference to Sir H. Hardinge
was to lead the Court to believe that the very contrary
was the case. '

Lord DENMAN—Pray, when was the observations
" My lion. and Gallant Friend Sir H. Hardinge, who is
per perfectly au fait at these matters" used ?

Mr. THESIGER said they were stated by Sir John Doyle
to have been used by Sir A. Grant at the first interview.
It must, of course, be presumed that these expressions
were used, as they had not been contradicted, but he
apprehended that they could not have been used in the
sense ascribed to them by Sir John Doyle. It was said
further, that the letter written by Sir A. Grant, in an-
swer to Sir J. Doyle's request to be referred to a friend
to arrange a meeting, was an intimation that he had not
quite abandoned the idea of such an alternative. That note
was written at a late hour on Saturday night, and on
the following Monday he gave Sir John Doyle a
detail of the whole of the circumstances between the
parties, intimating his intention to leave the matter in
the han is of his legal advisers, and when matters had
come to that point, Sir John Doyle, finding his hands
tied up, insisted upon snaking the quarrel his own, and
requesting to be referred to a friend within 24 hours.
Now there had been no personal quarrel between Sir A.
Grant and Sir John Doyle whatever ; but it would ap-
pear that the latter was determined to put himself in
the breach, and to insist upon a hostile meeting.
It was for their Lordships to say whether such
a letter 14-as not calculated to provoke Sir A. Grant to
a breach of the peace; but if that was not deemed suf-
ficient, th ere could be no question whatever as to the
object of a. subsequent one, which Sir J. Doyle acknow-
ledged he had published along with the whole of the
correspondot ce. In that letter he indulged in the
must g-ratuito us insult of Sir A. Grant, stating that he
Was asharcal of the apology, and afraid of the alterna-
tive. The 07)ject clearly was to cast an imputation
upon the courage of Sir A. Grant, and to induce him to
require am inn nediate meeting. It was for their Lord-
ships to ay w hether Sir John Doyle was justified in
adopting such a course. He apprehended that with
regard to Mr. Sheehan, he was implicated in every step
of the prom*ediags taken by Sir John Doyle, and that
with regard to the latter gentleman, his conduct was
still less excusable, inasmuch as he had no personal
concern in the transaction at all. He looked to .the
decision of -the Court with some anxiety, because he was
satisfied tha t it would be impossible to put a stop to a
most inipro: per and illegal practice unless the Court
would interfere in cases like the present. If Sir A.
Grant had :responded to the call made by Mr. Sheehan,
ho might 2 lave been placed at the bar as a person guilty
of the hi; ;hest offence known to the law. He trusted
that, after • looking carefully at all the circumstances of
the case, • :he Court would come to the conclusion that
Sir A. Gri int was, in the present instance, entitled to the l
protection of the Court, and that they would deem it
be their duty to make the rule absolute.

The COURT said the matter was of so complicated a
nature, that it would be necessary to look into the affida-
vits before they pronounced their decision.

BAIL COUI?7, Nov 24.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.—THE QUEEN V. THE STAF-
FORDSHIRE GAZETTE.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD moved for a rule calling upon
the printer of the Staffordshire Gazette, also upon a
person named Stonyer, to show cause why criminal in-
formation should not be filed against them, tOr the pub-
lication of a libel, reflecting on the character of , Mr.
Parker, a magistrate, residing in Staffordshire. The
libel alluded to consisted of a, letter written to the Editor
of that paper by Mr. Stonyer, imputing to Mr. Parker
utter unfitness for the office of a magistrate, and stating
the opinion of the writer that the Lord-Lieutenant must
have been imposed upon when he inserted his name in the
roll of Magistrates, and that he ought to be removed.
The applicant had made all the affidavits necessary to
entitle him to his rule.—Rule nisi granted.
MANDAMUS.—THE QUEEN V. THE MAYOR OF SUDBURY.
Mr. BYLES move for a rule for a mandamus, calling on
the Mayor of Sudbury to place the names of two
persons on the Burgess Roll of the Borough. It ap-
peared that the Mayor had rejected the claims
of these persons on account of some informality
in giving notice of claim. Now he (Mr. Ryles) con-
tended that all such informalities and misnomers were
cured by the interpretation clause of the Act.—Rule
granted.

QUO WARRANTO.—THE QUEEN V. GLUZE.
Mr. V. LEE applied Or a rule fora quo warranto,
calling on the defendant to show by what right he
claimed to exercise the office of Town Councillor
of the borough of Bridgnorth. At the late election
for Town Councillors for Bridgnorth several can-
didates were equal on the poll, and the Mayor of Bridg-
north had, as returning-officer, given his casting-vote.for
the defendant; and he had, consequently, been returned.
Now, it appeared that there had been two polling booths
erected, and that some persons who had voted at booth
No. 1, ought. to have voted at booth No. 2, and, discover-
ing such was the case, these persons had afterwards gone
and voted again at booth No. 2, for the defendant, and
that many persons had voted for property situated in
one portion of Bridgnorth, whereas they appeared in the
Burgess Roll as being qualified by other property than
that stated in the voting paper.—Rule granted.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION' BETWEEN WELSH
AND THE GREAT NORTH OF ENGLAND RAILWAY COM-
PANY.
Mr. ADDISON moved for a rule to show cause why the
award should not be set aside in this case; on the ground
`that the arbitrators had exceeded their jurisdiction, by
adjudicating upon matters that were not regularly before
them, and also that they were too, late in giving their
award.—Rule granted.
Having disposed of the above cases; Mr. Justice Patte-
son left the Court at ten o'clock, and shortly afterwards
Mr. Justice Wightman took his seat upon the bench.
QUEEN V. THE CORPORATION OF HARWICH—MANDAMUS.
Mr.. Burr moved for a rule nisi for a mandamus, or-
dering the Mayor, Aldermen, and Town Councillors to
assess and award a sufficient amount of compen-
sation for the loss' 'of the offices of Town-Clerk,
Clerk of the Peace, Coroner, and Solicitor of the
borough of Harwich. It, appeared that the father
of Mr. Chapman - had, in 1803,. been appointed Town
Clerk and Coroner• Of. tie borough, and that he had sub-
sequently been appointed Clerk of the Peace and Solicitor
to the borough. He had died in 1835, and the present
applicant had been appointed to fill these offices,
which he had held until the Municipal Cor-
poration Act passed, when he was reappointed to
the office of ToWn Clerk, only because, by the
provisions of that Act, the offices of Coroner and Clerk of
the Peace had ceased. He had held the office of Town
Clerk until the 9th of November, 1839, when he was re-
moved. He immediately made his claim for compen-
sation in the form required by the Act for all the
offices, and the Council disallowed his claim al-
together, on the ground that, looking at the tenure
by which he held his offices, he had no claim whatever
to compensation. Now, he submitted to the Court that
under the 66th clause of the Act, he was clearly entitled
to compensation. Application had been made to the
Lords of the Treasury, and their. Lordships, instead of
deciding the question of the amount due to Mr. Chap-
man for compensation, had gone into the question of law,
which they were not competent to do, and had decided
that, considering all the circumstances, Mr. Chapman
was not entitled to compensation. Now he submitted to
the Court that the Lords of the Treasury had exceeded
their jurisdiction in so deciding; but, as' a mandamus
could not go, the proper course to pursue was to direct
a mandamus to 'the Corporation of Harwich, directing
them to assess the compensation.—Rule nisi granted.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION AGAINST THE " NORTHERN
STAR."—THE QUEEN V. WHITE AND O'CONNER.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved fOr'a rule to show
' cause why a criminal information should not be filed
against George White, of Bromsgrove, for writing
a false and scandalous libel, reflecting upon the charac-
ter of the Rev. C. A. Anstey, one of the Masters of
Rugby School, and against Feargus O'Connor, the pro-
prietor and editor of the Northern, Star, for publishing
the libel in that paper. The libel was contained in a
letter addressed to the editor by George White, one of the
defendants, and dated Bromsgrove, 30th Oct., and which
imputed to die gentleman on whose behalf the application
was made, conduct of a nature so atrocious, and so utterly
base, that if it were -true ,it could not be charac-
terised in language too strong. The writer of the
letter, after stating that as a proof that in this country
there was one law for the- rich and another for the poor,
said he would relate several instances of abomina-
tions committed by the parsons in the south of England,
which clearly proved the rascality of the richer classes.
The letter then went on to state that a certain poor
hawker had, some time since, in consequence of his po-
verty, been obliged to send his wife and child home to
her mother, at Rugby, and that she subsequently went
into the workhouse, where she, unfortunatly, attracted
the attention of a certain Rev. Gentleman, who was a mar-
ried man, and one of the head masters of Rugby School ;
that the hawker, havingsubsequently become enabled to
maintain his wife, applied to have her restored to him,
but that the Rev. Gentleman, having determined to
make her the victim of his improper desires, prevented
her joining . her husband ; that the hawker then
applied to the Guardians to discharge his wife and
her child, and that on her discharge she was in-
veigled by the parson into his house ; that
on the hawker threatening him with an action
if he detained his wife, the parson discharged her
from his own house and took another for her close to his
own; and that he also induced the parish officers to
make a claim against the hawker for 12/. 18s. 11d. for
the maintenance of his wife,' and that subsequently she
had had a child by his Reverence ; that after this the
parson had offered the hawker money to live with his
wife again, which he had refused to do, and that
the parson had taken her before a Magistrate to make her
swear the child was her husband's, but that the Magis-
trate had refused to administer the oath to her; that in
order to prevent the husband from taking proceedings,
the parson had procured his imprisonment in Warwick
gaol on one occasion for two months, on another
for twelve months; thaw the hawker would enter
into an action • against the parson, but he had
no means; and the letter concluded by asking whether
Mr. O'Connor would take up this case, which was an-
other instance of the manner in which the laws were
worked by the rich to make, •the poor subservient
to the gratifi,:ation of their beastly appetites.
Now his affidavits went to show that the Reverend
C. A. Anstey was the person alluded to in the
libel; and the affidavit of the Reverend Gentleman and
. his wife went to show that•some years since they had
taken a person named Ann Fearon, who had been mar-
ried to an Irish hawker, and who had left her husband
to live with her mother, in consequence of his in-
ability to support her, into their service as an
occasional servant ; that she afterwards went to
reside with her mother, and that Mrs. Anstey having
heard that her husband had returned and was ill using
her, to induce her to live with him, had gone, accom-
panied by Mr. Anstey, to the cottage of Ann
Fearon's mother, and had found Fearon ill using her;
that Mr. Anstey had remonstrated with him, and recom-
mended him to come and live quietly at Rugby, which
Fearon said he could not do, as he owed the parish
officers money; that thereupon Mr. Anstey had offered
to speak to the parish officers on the subject, to induce
them to take the money by instalments, which he had
done, and had written to Fearon on the subject.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN—Iie denies all the imputations.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—He does, my Lord. The
Learned Attorney-General then proceeded to contend
that it was a duty Mr. Anstey owed himself, the school,
and his country to come forward and clear himself of
those imputations, which had been cast upon him merely
for a political purpose,—Rule granted.
CHURCH RATES.— MANDAMUS.-- THE QUEEN V. THE

CRAPELWARDENS Or VARIOUS "TOWNSHIPS OF THE
I'ARISH OF BRADFORD,
Mr. CRESSWELL applied on behalf of the Church-
wardens of the parish of Bradford, Yorkshire, for a rule
calling upon the Chapelwardens of various townships in
that parish to show cause why a mandamus should not
issue, ordering them to proceed to collect and
pay over to the Churchwardens certain proportions
of a Church-rate, according to ancient custom.
The parish of Bradford is divided into various townships
to each of which chapelwardens are annually appointed
a part of whose duty is to collect the quota of Church-
rate payable by the township. A monition had been
issued by the Ecelesiaitical Court of York for the
making of a Church-rate for Bradford. The inhabitants
assembled in vestry, and
the majority refused a rate,
whoreupon the churchwardens and the minority
proceeded to make a rate. That rate the
Churchwardens had partially collected in the
township of Bradford, but the chapelwardens, who
had had regular notice given to them, refused to do any-
thing towards collecting it. The Archdeacon's visita-
tion had since taken place the churchwardens and several
of the chapelwardens had been selected, and against those
of the chapelwardens who had been selected he
app lied for the mandamus, because they had been already
called on to collect the rate.
Mr. Justice Wlc iermaN—Do 'you know of any in-
stance of this sort in which the Court has interfered? A
mandamus will not lie to make a Church-rate.
Mr. CRESSWELL—NO my Lord; but a mandamus will
lie, calling upon the church Wardens to meet and consider
one. It is, - know, the opinion of some high authorities
in Doctors' Commons that the Court has the power to
interfere in the present case.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN—If there is any instance of
the Court interfering in a similar case, you may take a
rule to show cause
; if there is not, you had better move
before the full Court.

MANDAMUS.-THE
QUEEN V. THE MAYOR AND ASSESSORS

OF LICHFIELD,
Mr. WHATELY moved for a rule for a, ,mandamus,
calling upon the Mayor and assessors of Lichfield to re-
store the name of George Allen to the burgess roll. The
defendants had struck his name oft the roll, on the ground
of non-payment of what they chose to call a borough
rate, which rate WAS, in fact, merely a paving rate, and