The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-21 00:00:00

RATION.

RUTTER U. CHAPMAN.
The Judges sat in the Exchequer Chamber this morning
for the purpose of hearing the appeal in :he above case,
from the decision of Mr. Baron Rolfe, at Liverpcol.
At. ten o'clock Lord Denman, Lord Chief Justice
Tindal, Mr. Justice Littledale, Mr. Justice Patteson, Mr.
Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Coleridge, Mr. Justice Be.
sanquet, Mr. Justice Coltman, and Mr. Justice Erskine,
took their seats in Court.
Mr. Cremell, Mr. Wightman, Mr. Cowling, and Mr.
L. Peel, appeared for the pia ntiff, and the Attorney-Ge-
neral, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Crompton, for the de-
fendant.
Mr. CRESWELL said this was an action brought by the
plaintiff against the defendant, for the invasion of his
office of Coroner, by attempting to hold an inquest in
Manchester, to which the defendant pleaded that the
householdeis of Manchester had petitioned her Majesty to
grant the town a charter agreeably to the provisions of the
Municipal Corporation Act, and that in consequence see!:
charter was granted, and on the 25th of October, 1838,
was duly accepted and received, and such proceedings
were had, and the burgess lists, and list of claims and ob-
jections were duly made and revised according to the pro-
visions of the said charter, and in accordance with the
enactments of the Municipal Corporation Act. The plea
then recited the fact of the election of Town Councillors,
Aldermen, and Mayor; and that in 1839 a commission of
the peace was given to the borough, and a separate Court
of Quarter Sessions granted; and it then set forth the
appointment of the defendant to the office of Coroner.
under the provision of the Charter, to which it was replied
that the inhabitant householders did not petition, neitl e
was the charter granted according to the provisions of th 3
Act, and thereupon issue was joined. At the trial it was
given in evidence that a requisition had been presented to
the boroughreeve and constables of Manchester to hold a
meeting—that the meeting was held, and a petition for the
charter agreed to, which was signed, :not by a majority of
the inhabitant householders, but by 4,000, and that before
such charter was granted a petition against the granting it
had been presented to her Majesty, signed by 6,000 in-
habitant householders, whereupon Mr. Baron Rolfe,
who tried the case, directed the Jury to return a
verdict for the defendant, confirming the validity of the
charter. whereupon a bill of exceptions was tenderLd.
DOW submitted to their Lordships that tile petition pre-
sented to her Majesty was not such a petition as would
authorise her Majesty to grant a charter ; and also that the
charter itself was invalid on account of its inherent defect,
such charter not being in conformity with the provisions of
the Municipal Reform Act. Acts such as the one in
question, giving the power of taxation, ought to be con-
strued strictly. The first question to be raised was, whe-
ther the petition was such as would empower the Crown
to grant a charter. The charter was granted under the
provisions of the 141st section of the Act of 6 Wit IV.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The Charter is granted un-
der the Act of 1 Victoria, cap. 78, sect. 49, which is re-
cited in the charter, and which names the mode of grant-
ing the charter.
Al^. CRESWELL submitted that to give the Crown
authority to grant such a charter as this, the pe-
ttion mu t express the voice of the inhabitants, and must
therefore be signed by a majority of the inhabitant house-
holders. Now, in this instance, he would not contend
for even this, inasmuch as a petition was presented against
the ranting a charter by a greater number of persoes
than those petitioning for it. Now, this petition, he ap-
prehended, had been substituted for the acceptance of the
charter. The Crown possessed no power of incorporatirg
a town against its consent, and if the majority of the in-
habitants refused to accept a charter, it was void. The
Learned Counsel then quoted several authorities in sup-
port of his position, and among others that of Lord Coke.
.vho said certain persons might ask for a charter, yet the
town might refuse it. Such, he imagined, was the case
here. In the case of the King and Askew, it was laid
down that it was necessary to the validity of a charter that
such charter should be accepted by the inhabitants of a
place, as the Crown could not make a man member of a
Corporation against his wish. The same was the law as
laid down by Mr. Justice Ashurst, in the case of the Cor-
poration of Chichester. Now, it might well be that the
acceptance of a charter to an indefinite body might be not
necessarily the majority, for if once a good meeting could
be got of those to whom the charter was addressed, the
acceptance by the majority of such meeting might suffice.
He was not aware of any direct authorities on that point,
but there were several analogous cases in which it had been
so held. The Learned Counsel then quoted several cases
in support of this view of the question. But the
meeting mast be one, having a legal authority to
say to them concerned, this is a meeting at which you
ought, anti are bound, to be present; and if you continue
absent we shall act for you. The acceptance by such a
meeting would be a legal one—but not otherwise. The
law knows nothing of a reasonable number of inhabitants.
Is one in three, one in five, or one in ten, a reasonable
number? where were they to stop? But the words of the
Act were—the inhabitants of the town. Take the ease of
the election of Churchwardens—the inhabitants in vestry
assembled to elect them. What did that mean but the ma-
jority of the inhabitants? They might all come if they
chose, and if not the meeting represented all the inhabi-
tants. This had long bean recognized by 'he hwi, as
was proved from Ribbock's Report, 212. The same was
the case in Roger's and Davenant, 194 ; Murder, Re-
ports ; and in the Chamberlain of London's case. 5 Coke.
The Learned Counsel then quoted a variety of cases, 14
support of this vie .v of the subject. He, therefore, appre-
hended that in all cases it was perfectly clear that the
majority mu...t hind, and they bound, not because it was th
voice of the majority, but because it was to he taken as the
voice of the whole. There could be no difficulty in getting
at the voice of the majority in Manchester—why not take a
poll, as was done in the case of the parish officors ? Ano-
ther objection which he took was that the charter did not
comprehend the whole district of the Parliamentary be-
rough. Suppose, instead of sending up these petitions,
the parties had inet in public meeting, and 4,000 had voted
they would petition, acid 6,000 that they would riot, where
would be tire difference? The 4 000 might still have pe-
titioned, but what would be its effect ? It would be a pe-
tition of 4,000 of the inhabitant householders, but not of
the inhabitant householders, and the petition of the 6 000
was quite as much the petition of the inhabitant house-
holders, and surely the Crown could have no right to
grant a charter upon such a petition. It was merely
the petition of those signing it. A; there was no legal
mode of assembling a meeting, the petition and counter
petition would be the only . legal mode of getting at the
will of the majority of the inhabitants ; and if the petition
had had the inajerity of signatures there might be some
ground for granting the charter, but where the signatures
of the majority were against it there could be no ground
for saying the charter had been petitioned for by the ma.
jority of the inhabitants. In this case there was no one
who had authority to call a meeting for such a purpose ;
and the Act itself states that the will of the inhabitants is
to be made known to the Crown by petition. How were
the defendants to make the case known—either by counter
petition or else by all those who do not sign the petition
being considered as against it, in which case the petition
might lea signed by the actual majority; but in this instance
the connter petition was signed by the majority, therefore
there was no petition for it, and he hoped their Lordships
would decide that the inhabitants of a town should not be
subjected to taxation by a body emanating from such a
charter as die present, unless such charter should be peti-
tioned for by the majority of such inhabitants. lie w9u3d
nest submit that the charter was not granted to the district
from which the petition emanated. The petition was from
the inhabitant househol lers of the borough of Manchester.
The charter was granted only to a portion of the borough,
three townships being excluded from the charter. Now,
if it was sufficient that the Queen might grant a charter
to a part of a borough upon the petition of the inhabitants
of the whole borough, it would follow that her Majesty
might grant a charter to a portion of a borough within
which nut one of the petitioners resided. He appre-
hended that to be a good charter it must define the
limits of the borough, but it must define the limi.s of the
whole district from which the petition emanated. Now,
unless the district were set forth, how could you measure
the seven miles within which the voters must reside, to
exercise the franchise; and there was another objection be
should make presently. All Corporations must be of
some place, and the limits of that plac3 must be accurately
defined. Again, the cha, ter must be granted, not to the
inhabitants of any part of a borough, but to the borough,
end the interpretation clause showed that borough meant
Parliamentary borough.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said the interpretation clause was
confined to the boroughs now in the schedules, and as Man-
chester was not named he thought the clause had only to
do with the present case.
Mr. CRESaWELL apprehended that the charter must be
granted to the borough petitioning, and not to a portion
of it. On these grounds he submitted, in the seccnd
'lace that the charter was not well granted. Then, look-
ing to the charter itself, he found molly objections in it.
In the first place, it did not set forth that it was not granted
to those who petitioned for it. After stating that the
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses should hays the power
of taking the charter, which was to state of what the
Town-council was to consist, it said that the Council
should be elected for the future according to the Muncipal
Reform Act, except the first election, which it was pro-
vided should take place on the 14th and 15t-h Decembar
of the year in which it was granted. Now, he appre-
hended that the Crown had 110 power of altering the days
of election, and the Act was strict on this subject.
Power was given to the Crown of altering the day of
election on the first year, for reason assigned ; end
after that the Crown had no power to alter tire days
of election in any old borough, or in any new
one called into existence since the passing of the Act.
Now the Crown might grant the charter at any time it
thought proper, and if' the petition came too late, the
Crown Allied have waited until the next year to call this
Corporation into existence, so that the election might take
place according to the provisions of the Statute. He now
carne to a very important objection ' • the division into wards
was provided for by the Municipal Refer m Act. The di.
vision into wards Was a most important point. The wards
might be so divided a i to place the bulk of persons holding
titre set of opinions into one or two wards, so as to secure
a inAjority of different opinions in the other wards, It
WAR also a permanent division ; nothing could set it
aside be', an Act of Parliament. The present
one had been taken to prevent jobbing. No power was
given to the Crown to divide boroughs into wards. Baer,
ihe barrister was not named by the Crown, but by one of
the Judges, who were quite above all improper feelings in
making such appointments. Yet the Crown assumed that DEATH BY L
neighbourhoodan while em—losA.
however, to itself in the charter. Would it be contended, of the name of Gil iIIIMITNING
Assize to
it was necessary that the Crown should make this division. father's larni. in thefine young laic!
ed.i_hraornrowoninhounrsdlaiy
last, gave up his occupation, in
The Crown might call upon the senior Judge of
oonso out',
oßo.el f
of heavy showers
nominate a barrister, and the charter ought to have pro_ of rain, with loud peals of thunder.. tile was on his way home
aided that a barrister should be nornin ited by the untor on horseback, accoinpanied by iris father and elder eroiher,
Judge of Assize, arid that such barrister should divide the who were walking and speaking to him,
when he was struck by
borough into iv rds. the lightning. His brother on seeing him fall was erstantl y
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE--IS not the power of the Jud beside him, and was horror-struck to find his nearest relative a
limited to one year after the passing the
it is. Act ? V' lifeless corpse. The horse had gone but a few yards when it
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—
also fell clown. The animal survived only about a quarter of
Certainly
an hour.—Glasgow Herald.

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—Is there any provision in respect
to boroughs where there arc no Town Clerks?
Mr. CRESWELL—Yes, my Lord. Then it is to be the
analogous functionary. Then the Act provided that this
list so made out should be the burgess roll fur the succeed-
ing year. Now the 9th section required a due enrolment.
Bat there was no provi,ion for the burgess rull under the
charter—only certain steps towards it ; there was no pro-
vision that the burgess list so revise'] should be the
burgess roll. T►re whole thing, therefore, fell to the
ground. The Learned Counsel went on to contend thar
the statute was imperfect for its object ; that it did not
contain provisions to establish a charter giving such exten-
sive powers; that it gave no means of compelling the va-
rious :;Ricers concerned to perform the duties imposed on
them, that it declared no penalty fur refusal or negli-
gence. Moreover, the Statute contained no provision au-
thorising the establishment of the Revising Court—a court
which did not proceed according to common law, ann
which, therefore, according to all the authorities, could
not be erected by the Crown except by Statute or pre-
scription. Mr. Creswell went on to argue rather mi-
nutely the legal part of the question as to the insufficiency
of the petition on which the charter bad been granted.
~The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose, and was
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

NAPOLEON'S REMAINS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
Stte—May I beg the favour of the insertion of the fol-
lowing remarks in a small corner of your valuable Paper.
Having read with feelings of immense satisfaction and
pleasure that the remains of the Emperor Napoleon arc
about to be restored to the French—an act equally honour-
able to the British Government as to the nation who
so enthusiastically received the intelligence—l beg to
offer a suggestion which I trust will not be inconsistent
with the character of a true Englishman.
I am, and always have been, im ardent admirer of Bo-
naparte, and can almost reverence the man who has filled
the world with wonder and renown. This is a sentiment
in which I am sure I do not stand alone, as there are few,
however bigoted they may be, can fail to look up to the
man whom nothing but seasons or treachery could conquer.
This, however, is a subject I will not dilate upon, but pro-
ceed at once to my object.
I think it would not be anti-national, or irrelevant cf
the British public to cuter into a subscription to partl
ti
defray the expenses incidental upon his r-moval, and also
to erect a monument at once grand and unique, which
should be worthy of the man, and still furdier hand
down to pcsterity the chivalrous feeling and generesiti,
of the English towards their once all-powerful enemy.
This act would crown the whole ; nor do I think it irn-
poasible to be effected ; not but what I havo little dotilo
his own countrymen would come nobly forward to testify
their feeling to their once derni-god, but la us be first in
the field, and I am sure we could raise a sum not far defi-
cient to that already vo'cd by the ChaMber, which I fear
is sadly inadequate to the grand occasion.
If such a project were to be adopted I feel little hesi-
tation in thinking the Duke of Wellington and his Noble
co-adjutors in the field, would be among the first to come
forward.

I fear I have trespassed too long on your time and space,
but sincerely trust (if you deem this worthy of insertion:
this may meet the eye of some of your infimmtial readers
who may be more able to bring it under the notice of th,
public, than, Sir, your humble servant,
Birmingham, Aid). 20. W. C. P.

SHIPPING TELLIGENCE.

The following was yesterday received at- Lloyd's :
Office of Committee of Privy Council for Trade,
Whitehall, May M 1840.
Ste,--I am directed by the Lords of the Committee of
Pricy Council for Trade, to tran,mit to you tha enclosed
copy of a specification of certain buoys recently placed
Port Philip, in South Australia, which my Lords wish
should be made public for the information of the captains
of vessels frequenting those coasts.
My Lords further direct me to state that by the last ar'.
vicos from Australia it was in contemphition to erect a
small lighthouse in the course of last DecentLer, on the
extremity of Gillibrand's Point.
I am, Sir. vour obedient servant,
DENIS LE MARCHANT.
The Chairman of Lloyd's.
(Copy.) Station of buoys at Port Phillip at this present
time, November, 1839 :
A red buoy in the shoal called the Pope's Eye, on the
Rattlesnake chart, on the Southern part of it, so as to
make a leading mark either for the Southern or Western
Channel. This buoy is in three fathoms at low water.
A small half-tun buoy (black) on the extreme edge of
the Spit, off Swan Point, in twc-and-3-hall fathoms water
at low water.
A white buoy on the Wcstmost Spit of the \Vest Sand,
abreast of Swan Nint, in two and three-quarter fathoms
at low water.
This buoy is on the Spit that forms a ligl.t on the
West Sand.
A black buoy on the Spit running cff from Indented
Head to the Eastward, and forming the Northern entrance
to the Channel, in two-and-a-half fathoms at low water.
As these buoys have all been laid down on the sands,
vessels should not approach them nearer than about two
cables' length.

EAST INDIA SHIPPING.
Arrivals—Victoria, Street, from the Cape of Good Hope,
in the River, sailed, Feb. 23 ; Helen Stewart, Stewart,
from China, at Liverpool, sailed Jan. 8, Anjer, Jan. 18,
Cape, March 8; Madagascar, Gimblett, from Bengal, in
the River, sailed Jan. 19, Vizagapatam, Jan. 29, St. He-
lena, March 31 ; Dauntless, Corlass, from Bengal, in the
Downs, sailed Jan. 20, St. Helena, March 28 ; Anna
Maria, Ryan, from Bengal, in the Downs, sai!ed Oct. 14,
Mauritius, Feb. 10, St. Helena, March 14; Lasear, Mac-
kie, from Singapore, off Cork, sailed Jan. 9, Manilla, Dec.
21, St. Helena, March 18; George Horne and Diana
(tender), from Desolation Island, in the River, sailed Jan.
8. Cape, March 2, St. Helena, March 16; Heart of Oak,
:M` Donald, from Mauritius, at Liverpool, sailed Feb. 26 ;
Nev Thomas, Nicholls, from the Cape of Good Hope, at
Liverpool, sailed Feb. 26 ; Calypso, Smith, from Mauri-
tins, at Bristol, sailed Feb. 24.
Arrivals at St. Ilelena.—lsabella, Sexton, March 29,
from Ceylon, Cape, and sailed on the 30th for London;
Richard Mount, Longridge, and Eleotior Russell, Worth,
29th from Mauritius, and both sailed on the 31st for Lon.
don ; William Rodger Currie, 29th, from Batavia to Am-
sterdam; Marquis of Hastings, Naylor, 30. h, from Sing.
apore, and sailed for London; Malabar, Dunlop, from
Mauritius and Cape, and sailed on the 31st to London ;
Egyptian, Skelton, 31st from Ceylon for London.
Departures limn St. Helena.—George Canning Winn,
March 30, for London ; Jessie Logan, 31st, for Liverpool.
Arrivals at Mauritius.—Paragon, Ogilvie, Feb. 5, from
Calcutta ; Louisa Murvio, Silk, 12th, from Rio, and
sailed 16th to Calcutta ; Bolivar, Blown, 15th, from
the Cape ; Mary Gray, Boyd, 24th, from Bordeaux.
Departures from Mauritius.—Nile, Noble, Feb. 12, fur
Calcutta ; Hong hley, Bayley, 16th for Calcutta; Dawson,
Price, 17th, for New South Wales ; Juliana, Parker, for
London and Vigo; Billing, for Abbotsford; Paragon and
Mary Anne for Calcutta; Malay for Liverpool.