The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-28 00:00:00

DIVIDENDS DECLARED.

J. Smith, 'grocer, Stratford-upon-Avon—first div. of 6a.
in the pound, on any Tuesday before June 16, at the office
of Mr. Whitmore, Birmingham.
P. Strawson and T. B. Young, chemists, Louth, Lincoln-
shire—first div. of is. in the pound, on any Wednesday, at
the office of Mr. Kynaston,
Thomas Suger, corn merchant, Hull—first div. of Is. 9d.
in the pound, on any Wednesday, at the office of Mr. Ky-
naston, Hull.
St. John Cartwright, grocer, Worksop, Nottinghatnshire—
first div. of 2s. in the pound, on any Friday, at the office of
Mr. Kynaston, Hull.
J. Graham, seq.., AlnWiek—first div. of 23.3 d in the pound,
on any Saturday, at the-office of Mr..Wakkey, Newcastle-
upon-Tyne.

DIVIDENDS.
At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street.
J. Parsons, baker, Horseferrv-road, Westminster, May 18,
at one—W. H. Cox, barge builder, Belvidere-road, Lambeth,
May 18, at twelve—T. Benthall, stock broker, Copthall-
chambers, City, May 18, at eleven—S. Harrison, provision
merchant, Poole, May 18, at twelve—J. Hill, licensed vic-
tualler, Hammersmith, May 18, at eleven—W. llodgkinson,
slater, Weston-street, Pentonville, May 18, at two—S. F.
Lettsom, tin plate manufacturer, Cannon-street, City, May 18,
at one—W. Cieversley, floor-cloth manufacturer, Cumber-
land-place, Old Kent-road, May '2O, at eleven—T. 11.
Fiske, ironmonger, Portsmouth, May 20, at twelve—U.
Richards, bookseller, Fleet-street, May 20, at eleven—J. E.
Spicer and C. Poulton, paper manufacturers, Alton, Hamp-
shire, May 20, at one—A, and C. Duncan, merchants, Token-
house-yard, City, May 19, at half-past one—W. Morphew,
linendraper, Sevencaks, Kent, May 20, at half-past twelve.
In the Country.

I. Sansome, ribbon manufacturer, Coventry, May 27, at
eleven, at the Birmingham District Court—W. Brook, stuff
merchant, Manchester, May 19, at eleven, at the Manchester
District Court—J. Hall, innkeeper, Carlisle, May 18, at half-
past twelve, at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne District Court—
J. Gillender, ironmonger, Sunderland, May 18, at half-past
eleven, at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne District Court—R. E.
Huntley, wine merchant, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, May 18, at
half-past ten, at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne District C.,ourt.
CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to

the contrary,,on the day herein mentioned.
May 18
P. Biddle, tallow chandler, Judd-street, New-road,
8— 18
May —J. Thorogood, innkeeper, Aldgate High-street,
J. Wallis,linendraper, Tooley-street, May 18—W. IL Hod-
ding, surgeon, Gloucester-place, Portman-square, May 19—
H. Wilkinson, cabinet maker, Watford, Hertfordshire,
May 19—F. Hopkins, brewer, Cambridge, May 19—R.
Strong, quarry master, Wiltshire, May 21—C. Jardine,
woollen warehouseman, May 18-4. Morgan, draper, Wed-
more, Somersetahire, May 20—W. James, builder, Berkeley,
Gloucestershire, May 18—J. H. Smith, grocer, Merthyr
Tydvil, Glamorganshire, May 18—It. E. Huntley, wine
merchant, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, May 18—W. Beckitt,
money scrivener, Doncaster, May 20—G. Crawshaw, soap
boiler, Leeds, May 20—G. Hirst, woolstapler, Halifax,
May 29—T. M'Enteer, provision merchant, Liverpool,
May 18-0. and T. Goodwin, druggists, Burslem, Stafford-
shire, May 20—J. Hardy, cattle dealer, Castle Donnington,
Leicestershire, May 21—J. Gilliam, jeweller, Frith-street,
Soho-square, May IB—W. Bellamy, builder, Clarence-place,
Middleton-road, Kingsland-road, May 18—R. Morris, stable.
keeper, Gloucester, May 18—J. Rule, veterinary surgwn,
Saffron Walden, Essex, May 18-1. Dawn, draper, Arens-
field, Nottinghamshire, May 18—T. Helliwell, share broker,
Hallifax, May 18—'1'. Freeman, fringe manufacturer, Woad'
street, Cheapside, May 18—W. Neep, builder, Colchester,
May 18.

_
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
T. Tabor and W. H. Rankin. farmers, Little Stambridge,
Essex—J. Robinson and J. Wilson, plaster merchants,
Newark-upon-Trent—S. Lang, G. Blackburn, G.
Lyon.
A. H. Brooke, commission merchants, I v_e Kirkman, dyers,EP
00l (so far as
and
AT
regards A. IL Brooke)—H. Dearman and
Salford, Lancashire—C. H. Mann and W. Ink son, linen-
drapers, Parliament-street—D. Wemys
and J. F. Lorck,
bookbinders, Long-lane,
turers, Huddersfield
Smithfield—J• Taylor, B. Stockwell,
and J. Stockwell, woollen cloth manufac
—W. T. Russell and H.
co corn dealers, Man-
and G.
cliester—J. Wood, W. WoWod.,W.Jll!"pWoo- 'd, S. Wood,
Birstal, Yorkshire (so far as regards
Wood, machine makers,
bricklayers, Bnotle-
G. Wood)—H. Gregory and J. Sawyer, '
and J. Douglas, drapers, Brad-
ford,-Lk:acre, Lancashire—L.
cum • T Wittan and P. Potter, builder, Liver-
pool—C. Yorkshire— .
Tavleur and G. S. Sanderson, proprictois of iron.
works near Warrington, Lancashire—A. Henry, G. Wilder,
W. F. Scholtield, W. R. Johnson, T. Barton, A. F. Stoddard,
and W. 11. Dl'Donald, merchants, Glasgow (so far as regards
W. H. M'Donald)—J. Fletcher and M. Kay, skein dyers,
Radcliffe, Lancashire—J. Barker and O. 0 Nen, surgeons,
Coleshill, Warwickshire—lL Singleton and J. Itawnslot,'
stone masons, Bradford, Yorkshire—J. Allen and R. Shuttle-
worth, cotton spinners, Edgworth, Laneaahire—A. Dennis-
toun, J. Dennistoun, W. Wood, W. Cross, W. C. Mylne, M.
M. Thomson, and T. Sellar, merchants (so far as regards
W. Cross)—A, Dennistoun, J. Dennistotth, W. Wood, W. C.
Mylne, W. Cross, T. Sellar, M. M. Thomson, and B. F. Daw-
son, merchants, New York (so far as regards W. Cross and T.
Sellar)—C. Tylacote and C. W. Lyon, wine merchants,
Burton-upon-Trent—C. Price and W. H. Graveley, ship
smiths, Blackwall—J. Emery and W. Staunard, lithographic
printers, Poland-street, Oxford-street—S. and J. Fresno)
btns:
clog manufacturers, Birmingham—H. and u• Roberts,
grocers, Windsor—J. Ellis, J. Priestman. and W. P.."
worsttd. manuftoturers, Briclford,Torksbite. .

SCOTCH SECIrESTRATIONS.
Thomas Ramsay, merchant, Glasgow, May 0 and 24, at
one, at the chambers of Messrs. Macdowall and Murray,:—
Glasgow.
•James Syme, lime burner, Linlithgow, May 1 and :22, at
two, at the Star and Garter Inn, Linlithgow.
Duncan MacMillan and Company, ship chandlers, Glasgow,
April 30 and May 21, at twelve, at the counting-house of
Messrs. Manford and Wink, Glasgow.

A.W INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BEACH, April 27.
This calktseuiccDaEme V.
eTfuorEeptuhKEe COoFurßtßut;poSllWlarsilp.ecial de-
murrerTbe
actionto th
was
replication.e
brought
by
the
Char-
lotte Muncie!), against his Serenpela/iPigtiliffhesMsr,sCharles
Frederick Aug ustus William Duke of Brunswick and
Luneburg, to recover payment of an annuity of 2001.,
which the defendant had secured to her by deed on cer-
tain conditions ; amongst others. that the plaintiff
should be content therewith, and acknowledge a to be in
di: charge of all claims which she might have on The de-
fendant ; that she should not write to the defendant
concerning past transactions between the parties, And on
several other conditions, the breach of which was te.., ren-
der-the deed void. The declaration fully set out the deed
and alleged a breach.
The defendant, in person, pleaded a. plea to the ja -
risdiction of the Court, alleging, that at the time of the
making of the said deed he was a Sovereign Prince—to,
wit, the reigning Duke of the Duchy of Brunswick
and Luneburg ; and that the said deed was made by
him in his dominions; and that from the time of making-
the said deed he had been, and still was, justly entitled
to all the rights, prerogatives, and privileges apper-
taining to him as the Duke of Brunswick and Lune-
burg, &c., and prayed judgment if the Court here
ought to take cognizance of this action. The
replication alleged that the Court ought not to be barred
from taking cognizance of the said action, because
the contract was not made with the defendant in respect
of any matter appertainir.g to the state and Govern-
ment, or policy of the said duchy of Brunswick and
Luneburg, but that the said debt was a private debt
owing from the defendant, in his private capacity, to the
plaintiff; that after the making of the said deed, and be-
fore the accruing of the said debt, the defendant quitted
the said dually, and was domiciled within the jurisdic-
tion of this Coart, not as a Sovereign Prince, but as a pri-
vatesubject of, and owing obedience to, her Majesty the
Queen. To. this replication the defendant demurred,
and several points for argument were raised by the de- •
muster:
Mr. Luau, in support of the demurrer, said the de-
fendant was a Sovereign Prince, and as sneh he was
not liable to be sued in a court in this country for any
act dune by him while a Sovereign Prince, and acting as
a Swiesitign. The defendant was the Duke of Brunswick
and Luneburg, and was no more liable to be sued in
an English court than the graperer of Russia or the
King of Prussia. T„be defendant -alleged that he was
still entitled to all the rights, privileges, and preroga-
tives of the Duke of Brunswick; that part of
the plea was not traversed by the replication—
it was admitted. There was no averment that he
had abandoned his country, there was nothing
inconsistent with his averment that he was
still a Sovereign Prince. The question then was, could
a Sovereign Prince be sued in the courts of this his
country? Ile contended that he could not. There were
not many authorities on this subject, and the chief was
the case of the "Duke of Brunswick v. the King of
Hanover" (6 Bevans' R. p. 9), in which a bill in Chan-
cery had been filed to set aside an act of state done by
the King of Hanover; and there was a general demurrer
for want of equity, and it was held by Lord Langdale,
the Master of the Rolls, that the Court had no power
to relieve. The Master of the Rolls, in giving his judg-
ment, entered fully into the discussion of the question,
and he decided that he could not interfere in such a case.
The immunities of Sovereign Princes were grounded on
the same reasons as the immunities granted to ambas-
sadors. He submitted that the ruling by the Master of
the Rolls was correct, and should be followed in this
case. It was admitted on the record that the act was
done while the defendant was a Sovereign, and it ought
to be presumed that it was done by him in his capacity
of Sovereign. A Sovereign Prince domiciled in this
country was prima facie not liable to be sued in the
English courts.

Mr. Justice PATTESON—Primii facie, a Sovereign
Prince is not liable to be sued even in hie own dominions.
Mr. LUSH—The plaintiff ought to show that he was
so liable, for if he was not liable to be sued in his own
country he could not be in this. It was for the plaintiff
to show that the defendant had ceased to be a Sovereign
Prince, and had become a subject of her Majesty. She
had failed to do so. The Duke of Brunswick's stay in
this country was only temporary, and be had not aban-
doned his rights as a Sovereign Prince. On these
grounds he submitted that the demurrer would be
sustained.
Mr. BovILL, in support of the replication. The
pleadings had been framed in accordance with the de-
cision of the Master of the Rolls, and he was surprised
that his Learned Friend relied upon that decision for his
defence. his Learned Friend did not deny that the
defendant would be liable for what took place in this
country. The Duke of Brunswick was now domiciled
in this country, and was responsible for acts done in bis
private capacity, when in his own country. In the case
of the " Duke of Brunswick v. the King of Hanover," it
was considered that the acts dae_were acts of state; but
that was avoided in this case,..tv replying that the debt
was a private debt, owing by the defers ls-• ,- his rrivate
and p, rsonal capacity to the l itintiC no of
the decision of the Master of the was, tale groan . .is-
tors were responsible for the acts of their Sovereigns.
The decision in the case of the King of Ilanoter was,
that if there was a contract not made by him in that
charactt.r, but as a private individual, be was table to
be sued here. lie relied upon that authority. The
plea was one in abatement, and that no court in this
country had auy, jursd:ction. lie contended that the
plea w.z.s nlie.nceirecl; it should have been in bar, and
not in abatement. A plea in abatement, which did not
give a better writ, was bad.

Mr. Justice WiGUTMAN- This is a plea to the juris-
diction, and it concludes us such.
Mr. Bovit.r.—As the defendant relied on a personal
privilege he must show that he was a Sovereign Prince.
The plea alleged, that at the time of the making of the
contract the defendant was a Sovereign Prince, but he
did not allege that he was still a Sovereign Prince—he
only alleged that he was entitled to all the rights, &c.,
without showing how he was entitled. The defendant
did not aver, that by the law of Brunswick he was not
liable on this deed, and if he was liable in Brunswick he
was liable in England.
_ -

Mr. Lusn, i❑ "reply, said, that the plea was a plea to
the jurisdiction. The reason why parties were liable
here for contracts made abroad was because they were liable
there, and their liability went with them wherever they
went. It that, conteact could not be enforced in Bruns-
wick, neither could it be sufoieed in England. If it had
been an ordinary person who had made a contract in
Brunswick, the plea would have been bed, but that was
a plea of privilege. An ordinary individual would he
bound to submit to the judgment of that Court, but a
Sovereign was not bound.
The COURT took time to consider their decision.

JUDGES' CIiAMBERS, April 27.
(Before Mr. Justice MAW.: )
POWELL V. DRADBERY AND EVANS.

Mr. linnsoN, the plaintiff's solicitor, applied for an
order to inspect a document, and also for a copy to be
supplied. The plaintiff was a sub-editor of a paper be-
lotlgipg to the dellndants, called the Daily Jews, and
had brought an action to recover damages for the breach
of an agreement for two years, which had been mutually
entered into. The plaintiff having received from
the Bristol correspondent of the Daily News a re-
port of a case in the District Court of Bankruptcy of that
place, in the course of his ordinary duty had revised and
abridged it for insertion. This insertion formed the pre-
text for the plaintiff's dismissal, the defendant pleading
in reply to the action that the abridged report so inserted
was an unfair, partial, garbled, and it raper report.
The plaintiff and his solicitcr hatt-ntade spins affidavit,
swearing that an inspection of the original copy was -
material to the case.
The defendants' solicitor contended, that in all cases
where inspectinn and copies had been granted the
plaintiffs had been a party to the document, which was
not so in the present case.

Mr. livpso-N relied upon the case of " Blogg v. Kent,'
(6 Bing. 664), where a party being trustee, or in the cha-
racter of trustee, was compelled to grant inspection of
the document; and he submitted that the defendants in
this casa were quasi trustees, as newspapers were com-
pelled by Act of Parliament to keep the originals of
matter inserted for twelve months, for the benefit of the
public, in case proceedings should be taken in the mean-
time.

Mr. Justice MILIILE said he saw ne reason for the ap-
plication, and should not make the order.
Mr. IltmsoN hoped his Lordship would, if he had
any doubt, allow an application to the Curt.
Mr. Justice MAULE said he could not prevent the
parties from applying to the Court, but he had no doubt
there was no ground for the application.

1 ----- -
Bell's Life in London, of May 2,-will have the
fullest and most correct particulars of Chester Races. " Bell's
reak eFcth.- h,Cetlhaartehkir,:siofsheo:Nyainenwdg
mdais.
Life" will contain, on Sunday, May 9, a perfect chart of the
et
hwsmoaf
different rapcte,sitcioourrandonlen Ng
fall!,
waithnt of such a guide, with comprehensive great care by Mr. J.
kstaierirvtc. dis-
tinctly
The
wd
expla-
nations, has long been wanting; and, as it will be a source of
continual reference, we would recommend those who desire
to possess it to order extra
papers. A sixpence enclosed to
Mr. Clement, jun., No. 170, Strand, will insure a copy of
Bell's Life at any time by returmheofpost to any part of Eng-
land,
Bathnd Scotland,spring r
eoert i
hl
gr egl,ain with
do French Steeple Chases, were
given in Bell's Life il'i.Newmarket, Epsom, and
se foliovirnub,
.) 0,31111,1:L T mi_loon, ofApril 18, to the extent of
s a provi:iion in the
AX ON MARRIAGES IN SCOT..
LANI).-it i proposed Act for the registra-
tion of births and marriages, that within ten days after mar-
riage, teeth the contracting parties shalt, under the penalty
of paying double tees, repair to a public office, and there,
along with two witnesses, "sign an entry of such marriage
in the register book." For this, the pair, however poor, must
pay a fee of five shillings; it atter ten days--a penalty hy
the way, on marriage jaunts—a fee of ten shillings. But if
the young people, instead ei matching with two witnesses to
the register olliec—.l gazing stock to the populace—should
prefer going- through this absurd ceremonial at their own
houses, which every modest pair ,w;Aitild certainly do, they
must pay a line of one guinea; an*f after the ten days, no
less than two guineas! besides tea cluing expenses to the re-
gistrar!! And, worse than all, if the unlucky pair should
happen to take a rather extensive tour after marriage, and
remain absent for upwards of two months, they will find on
their return that they have incurred a penalty of no less
than fifty pounds! and in default of payment shill suffer im-
prisonment for one month. What a horrid teimination to
the honeymoon.—Ross-shireeidoestiser.
Dispatches from the Governor of New Zealand and
the Cape of Good Hope were received yesterday, at the
Colonial office.

Now Ready in 2 vols. 21s. bound.
THIRD EDITION of HOCHELAGA ;
OR, ENGLAND IN THE NEW WORLD.
EDITED BY ELIOT WARBURTOI4, Esq.,
Author of " The Crescent and the Cross."
" This work has already reached a third edition. We shall be
surprised If it do not go through many. It possesses almost every
qualification of a good book. We cordially recommend it to our
readers, as R ell for the amusement of its lighter portions, as the vivid
brilliancy of its descriptions, and the solid information it contains."—
Jolla Bull.
Henry Gniburn, Publisher, 13, Great Marlborough-street.

GOVERNMENT PLAN OP EDUCATION ,
This day is published, prise Sixpence.
AVERBATIM REPORT of the SPEECH of
the Right Hon. T. B. MACAULAY, M.P. for Edinburgh,
to the House of Commons, on Monday Evening, April 19, 1847, on
the Motion of Lord John Russell, that a Vote of 100,0001. should be
taken, to defray the Charged of carrying out the Minutes of Council
ail Education.