The Sun.
London, England, 1841-08-16 00:00:00

that it was a case free from doubt. They con-
sidered, on the contrary, that it was involved in
difficulties, which would be in many cases painful to en-
counter, but after much and attentive consideration, they I
thought the balance of evidence (and by that they Must
be governed), was in favour of the appeLants.
Next as to the codicil—they thought it was, both the
instrument and the signature, in the handwriting
of the testator. The evidence in the affirmative
so greatly outweighed was opposed to it, as to satisfy
them entirely on that point. That evidence was so
thouroughly sifted by the bar and the Judges as to render
further examination unnecessary, and it derived further
strength from the conduct of the executors themselves.
They were intimately acquainted with the hand-
writing of the testator and everything relating to it ;
they saw the codicil and expressed no doubt of its genu-
ineness, though this was in a letter dated the 13th June.
to the Mayor of Gloucester, written before they had
seen the original, but after they saw it they made no ob-
jection, and in a subsequent letter and in the search for the
codicil, they acted as if it was a genuine instrument, and
it was not until some time after that they altered
their course and treated it as a forgery. But
according to the rules of: the Ecclesiastical Court, it could
could not grant probate upon the handwriting of the testator
where that was disputed. There must be some confir-
matory proof. The confirmatory proof must vary in each
particular case, and must be mere or less strong. In some
of the cases referred to in the arguments at the bar
the confirmatory proof referred to, appeared very slight.
They (their Lordships) thought, however, in this case, that
in addition to the strong evidence as to the hand-
writing, there was several circumstances leading
in the result, no doubt that the codicil was the
act of the testator. It was in evidence that he
had it in contemplation to add a codicil to his
will, and this appeared also from the will and par-
ticularly from his question put to Mr. Chadborn
It was, moreover, not probable that he would leave so
large a property to be enjoyed solely by his executors.
There was nothing which left them (their Lordships) in
any doubt as to the genuineness of the instrument,
and if it did not notice every person who might naturally
have been the object of his bounty, that might be ex-
plained by there having been a previous codicil
to which that one referred.• There were (several
facts in proof of the hand writing. As an instance
they referred to the incorrectness respecting the name
of counsel. It was not probable that a person
forging such an instrument would have mis-spelt the
name of a person with whom he must be well acquainted
So. as to the use of figures instead of words. A forger
would lave conformed to the usual practice. These
were minute circumstances, but their minute •
ness added to their importance. Again, the
legacies left by this codicil were such as might
have been expected, and with respect to the
previous codicil, referred to, there was proof
that Mr. Chadborn was in; the house of the testator de-
stroying papers at an early hour after his death.
He admitted that some papers had been burnt, one of
which, at least, was probably of a testamentary character.
Now that was a circumstance which tended to weaken
the force of the objection. Then again, with regard to
the charge brofight against the executors' in the letter in-
closing the codicil. 'Would a person forging the codicil
make such a charge ? How could he possibly have known
or suspected that papers had been burnt ? These persons
were all men of respectable characters. No one could
have suspected that such an occurrence had taken
place, and yet the charge tureed out to be true.
What inference could be drawn from that, but that the
person who had produced those papers had had
some knowledge of the transaction, and that explained
the circumstance of the previous codicil having been
referred to. • But then it was alleged that this codicil
had been cancelled. Now the onus of proving
that it had been cancelled certainly lay upon those
who opposed its admission. It appeared that
a corner had been burnt, and that the paper had
been torn through across the signature, but there
were no circumstances to show when this had been
done ; there was nothing to show that it had ever
been done by the testator or in his presence. It had
been argued that this • codicil must have been cancelled,
because the other codicil to which it alluded
was not forthcoming, but it was obvious that
that codicil might have been destroyed with other
papers, but the present codicil was not found among
the testators papers, it was in other hands, and,
therefore, from the fact of the other codicil
not being forthcoming, they could come to no safe
conclusion that it was the testator's intention
to cancel the codicil produced. But even if it
had been found among the testator's testamentary
papers after his death, it would require further evidence
than any that had been yet produced, to show that the
codicil had been cancelled. It was therefore the opinion
of the Court that the codicil ought to be proved. There
was still one other question to decide, and that was the
question of costs. With regard to the costs, under all
the circumstances of the case, the Court was of opinion
that the whole of the parties both in the original cause
in the Court below, and also in the Appeal to this
Court, out to have their costs out of the estate.

THE FUND-S=4CLOSIN G PRICES.)
. BRITISH FUNDS.
Bank St oek — 'lndia Stock ...... .........247
3 per Cent Red 9O `Ditto Bonds spm
3 per Cent Cons , 894 ,Ditto Old Annuities ...
3i per Cent Red..
New 3f, per Cent '94 Ex. Bills, 1,0001—.21d ..16 pm
New 5 per Cent • Ditto 5001 l4 pm
Long Annuities to expire Ditto Small l6 pm
Jan. 1860 ... 12 'l5-16 Bank Stock for Acct... 168%
Oct 1859 _ , India Stock for 0pg....
_ , Consols for Acct
Jan. 1860.
FOREIGN FUNDS.
Austrian, 5 per cent.... • Portuguese, 5 per cent.
Belgian, 5 per cent 1034 Ditto, New Ditto 294
Brazilian 80nd5.......... ,Prussian, 5 per cent.
Buenos Ayres, 6 per cent 19 Russian, 5 per cent —
Chilian 6 per cent...—. --Ditto, Metallic —
Colombian, 6 per cent... 204 Spanish, 5 per cent 194
Ditto, 1824. 204 Ditto, Deferred •
Danish, 3 per cent....... - French, 5 per cent. —f. —c.
Greek, 1825, 5 per cent. Exchange
Mexican, 5 per cent.... 25/ French, 3 per cent —f. —c
Ditto, 6 per cent, 1825. IDutch, 24 per cent. ... 511
Peruvian, 1825, 6 per ct. 154 Ditto, 5 per cent
SHARES
. Great Western Railway (65 paid) 824
Ditto New Shares (50 paid 564
• Ditto Fifth (4 paid)
London and Brighton (50 paid) 434
London and Birmingham Railway (90 pd) 160
Ditto Thirds (32 paid)
Ditto New Shares ( 2 paid)
London and Croydon Railway (Trunk) 124
Manchester and Birmingham (40 paid) ...... 194
North Midland Railway (100 paid)
_ Ditto New Shares (40 paid)

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THY EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAT.

GLOBE.—Though Sir Robert Peel will not, until re-
gularly called in, prescribe for the nation, his organ, the
Times, is very desirous that he should at once be per-
mitted to prescribe for the Sovereign. Though he will
not say in what manner he intends to dose the State,
the privilege is claimed for him of making up a mix-
ture for her Majesty in the shape of a Royal Speech ;
the preparation of which by the present Ministers, in
the manner they consider best, is denounced by the
leading journal as an act of indecency. For our part
we think there is something much more indecent in the
haste of the Tories to write the Queen's Speech before
they are admitted to the offices of the Queen's Ministers,
than there can possibly be in the fact of the Crown's pre-
sent advisers continuing to exercise their functions until
upon others has regularly devolied the duty of perform-
ing them. But it may be said in reply, "We do not
wish to dictate the terms of the Royal Speech ; our
only object is to protest against any allusion being made
to the subject of the budget. You surely can avoid one
particular topic, when you are left full liberty to range
over the wide field of generalities, from which the
matter of these documents is usually gathered." We
know the tact of the Tories in appearing to say something
when they have really nothing to say ; but as the Whigs
do not happen to be in that predicament they are not
obliged to fall back upon the truly Conservative art of
dishing up a very minuteportion of matter in a very cOnsi-
derable number of words, in order to form a speech of
respectable length for the opening of Parliament. But
'what are the arguments on which the Times disputes
the right of the present Ministers to allude, through
the Sovereign, to the subject' of the Budget ?—and
upon what ground is the act denounced as a misde-
meanor so high, that anything higher in the scale of
enormity is hardly conceivable ? We are told that,
" when the Sovereign dismisses an administration for mea-
sures disapproved by the country, the constitutional con-
struction of that proceeding is that the obnoxious measures
are abandoned." This is all all very true. The conclusion
is exceedingly just ; but the case alluded to in the pre-
mises is unfortunately hypothetical, and the period
" when the Sovereign dismisses an Administration" has
not yet arrived. But if, when the event does take place,
it is because " their measures are disapproved by the
country," it will' then, we agree with the Times, be
proper for the Sovereign to refuse to listen to other
measures of a similar kind ; particularly if they should
be indecently proposed by the very man who may have
been foremost in obstructinc, them. However inconvenient
it may be to Sir Robert Peel to be called upon for his
opinion with regard to the Corn-laws before he is "re-
gularly in," he is certainly " regularly out " if he ex-
pects that there will be any opportunity given him of
declaring hereafter that "his silence gave consent" when
out of office, to any revision of the Corn-laws, which,
should he ever be in office, he may think proper to im-
pose upon her Majesty.
STANDARD.—The latest rumour of the intentions
of Sir R. Peel and his supporters forms the leading topic
of animadversion in the Morning Chronicle of this morn-
ing. Ile will, it pretends to believe, " discuss nothing
until February." It reminds us of Lord John Russell's
pledge to the electors -ef London, that "As soon as
the now Parliament meets, he and his colleagues will
take the first opportunity of asking for a clear and
decided judgment on the policy they have pur-
sued ;" and it pretty significantly hints that in
order to afford him the opportunity, the Royal Speech
on the opening of the new Parliament will raise the
question of the budget. Indecent and unconstitutional
as such a course would be, we have had too muds
experience of the reckless despesation of Lord
Melbourne and his associates to induce us to regard
it as improbable. But how,. should they medi-
tate this gross outrage on the Queen and consti-
tution, will Sir Robert Peel be enabled to avoid " all
discussion " until February ? Why, by postponing
until that time any attempt to obtain the. govern-
ment. This, it appears, is the " only conceivable way"
in which " all discussion may be avoided." The excuse
for anticipatingso
gross an improbability as that Sir
Robert Peel will not avail himself of the earliest oppor-
tunity of placing Ministers at the bar of their country,
and taking its verdict on their conduct, is accordingly to
be made the excuse for precipitating a Corn-law discus-
sion by a reference to the defunct budget in the Speech