The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-20 00:00:00

(From the courier.)

The chief thing complained of as a monopoly is that
of the coal trade ; and if there be one article more than
another which ought to be brought free from all the
charges incidental to such a state of things, to the door
of the consumer, it certainly is coals. We have been
blessed by Providence with extensive beds in differait
parts of the country of the most beautiful coal ; th:a
which lies under the counties of Durham and Northum-
berland being the acknowledged best. The insular posi-
tion of Great Britain brings with it humidity and togs,
followed by catarrhs, rheumatism, and fever ; the best
prevention, ho sever, to these complaints is the social
habits of an Englishman's fireside, and where a good
blazing coal fire can be procured the vice must be
natural, and not acquired from ❑ecessity, that drives a
person to the gin-shop. But in this immense metro-
polis, where the highest degree of luxury and the lowest
depths of misery are equally to be found, coals, the ar-
ticle most essential, and indeed the very foundation of
alt our comforts, is the very dearest we have to pur-
chase ; and this evil is made doubly severe by the cir-
cumstance that they are made dear, especially, to the
metropolis. Take coals to any distant outport, the
freight is no greater than in London, the charges less,
and, in fact, they may be carried on to the West Indies
and sold at the ordinary London price.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(TIIIS DAY.)

(Continued from our First Edition.)

THE QUEEN V. THE MOST NOBLE ARTHUR DUKE OF
WELLINGTON, CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

OXFORD.

Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK had yesterday brought
under the notice of Mr. Justice Williams a motion of
rather an unusual nature, and had by him been re-
ferred to the full Court. It was an application for
a writ of prohibition, directed to the authorities of the
University of Oxford to restrain them from proceeding
further in a suit instituted in that Court against the
plaintiff in a certain case, and his attorney. He was sa-
tisfied that when the facts of the case came to be fully
examined by the Court, although the application might
be a novel one, their Lordships would be of opinion
that the Chancellor's Court of Oxford, in order to relieve
themselves of tile difficulty of claiming cognizance, had as-
sumed a jurisdiction to which they had no claim whatever.
The affidavits disclosed 'that Mr. Taylor was employed
by a tradesman named Barnes to commence an action
against an undergraduate of Worcester College, Ox-
ford. On the 22d of February last he issued the writ,
and on the 27th he was served with a process or citation
from the Chancellor's Court of the University of Ox-
ford,to appear before the Vice-Chancellor of the Cour t
on the 28th instant, to answer certain charges of having
infringed the statutes and privileges of the College in
having issued the writ. With great deference to the
authorities of the College, although the noble and learned
personage at its head knew nothing of the-matter, or
much less than their Lordships at present did, he sub-
mitted that they had no jurisdiction whatever to take so
extraordinary and unheard of a course. He (Sir F.
Pollock) had had the honour of being for many years
Commissary of the Chancellor's Court of Cambridge,
and although the Court claimed jurisdiction in certain
cases where one or both of the parties were members of
the University they had never arrogated to themselvr s
so extraordinary a power as the facts disclosed
in the present case exhibited to their Lordships.
Mr. Taylor did not appear, and he was ordered to stay
all proceedings in the cause, and to pay the costs. A
similar citation was served upon the plaintiff, who had
actually been arrested under a warrant, and compelled
to pay the money. There was at the present moment
a warrant against Mr. Taylor to arrest him for the costs
in the Chancellor's Court. He trusted the Court would
not put Mr. Taylor to the cost and inconvenience of ap-
plying fora writ of habeas corpus, or of bringing an action
for money had and received. He considered that al-
most as a right he was entitled to apply for prohibition,
the Court certainly having no legal jurisdiction to take
such a step. How could the Chancellor of the Uni-
versity of Oxford have any power to punish an attorney
for merely discharging his duty in suing cut the regular
process of a superior Court, the Court of Queen's
Bench. He trusted, under these circumstances, the
Court would grant him the rule.

COURT—Take a rule.
TDE QUEEN V. THE BRISTOL DOCK COMPANY.

This was a mandamus directed to the defendants,
and commanding they,' to make certain repairs in a
navigable cut or canal, pursuant to the provisions of
the Act 43 G, o. 111., c. 140.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now submitted to the
Court that the return made to the writ by the defend-
:,:nts was bad. The defendants were authorised under
the pro:L!ions of the Act to make a new cut for the
river Avon, and they were to keep the cut, with the
banks thereof in proper repair. The mandatory part
of the writ was to mend the banks of the new course,
but to that they gave no direct answer—they merely
referred to the depth and bottom of the new course and
the inclination of the sides, which, they maintained,
were in proper repair, and as nearly of the required
width and slope as cireurnstances permitted. The gra-
vamen of the complaint was that the banks were out
of repair, and no answer being given thereto, he sub-
mitted that the return was bad and insufficient, and
that the peremptory mandamus must go.
SIR F. PoLLocx, for the defendants, submitted that
the Court was not in the habit of granting mandamuses
whenever the party had any other specific remedy. In
a case like the present, where there were merely re-
pairs to be done,. the proper course was to appeal to a
Jury. Here the defendant had made a navigable
canal or cut in lieu of the old one, and if any parties had
suffered by that, they could indite the defendants. He
submitted that they had done every thing required by
the Act—that the return was a full and satisfactory
answer to the mandamus, and therefore the rule ought
to be discharged.
The COURT said it did not appear from the argu-
ments that the return went a great way to answer the
complaint, but it was a point requiring further consi.
deration —Judgment deferred.