The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-27 00:00:00

COAL MARKET.-YESTERDAY.

Carr's Hartley
Davison'sWestHartley 14s 6cl,Russell's lletton ~ l6s Oil
East Adairs Main..... 12s Od Stewart's
North Pontop —.. ..... Ils Od Cassop .... ..
Kew` Tan field, l3s Od Hartlepool
Original Tanfield lls 6cl Heugh Hall
Ord's Redhengh
Tanfield Moor. .... ..... 14s OdThornley
Townley l3s 6d'Adelaide Tees
Wall's End, &c. !Cowndon Tees ...
Framwell Gate ....14s 6d Denison ... 15s Od
Gosforth ...

Heaton

Seymour Tees

Harton
Riddell's l4s 9d
Washington
Eden Main lss 3d
Belmont lss 9d
Bell
Haswell l6s 6d
Hetton

South Durham l4s 9ti
Tees
West Hetton l4s 9d
Cowpen Hartley
Howard's W. H. Neth l4s 6d
Hartley
Sidney's Hartley
Ships at market 91.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—(THIS DAY.)
The House sat to-day to bear appeals and give judg-
ments. The Peers present were, the Lord Chancellor,
Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, the
Earl of Devon, the Earl of Radnor, Lord Wharncliffc,
and the Bishop of Hereford.
THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK V. THE KING OF HANOVER.
The further arguments in this important appeal,
which commenced on Tuesday, were resumed this
morning, and occupied their Lordships the whole day.
The case came before their Lordships upon an appeal
against an order of the Master of the Rolls, by which a
suit instituted by the Duke of Brunswick against his
Majesty the King of Hanover was dismissed. The
following may be stated as a succinct summary of the
case. The Bill was filed by Charles Frederick William
Augustus, formerly the reigning Duke of Brunswick,
against the King of Hanover, who was sued by the
name of his Royal:Highness Ernest Augustus,- Duke
of Cumberland and Teviotdalo in Great Britain,
and Earl of Armagh in Ireland. The bill prayed
that it might be declared that a certain instrument
dated the 6th of February and the 14th of March,
1833, and the appointment of his Royal Highness
the Duke of Cambridge as guardian of the fortune and
property of the plaintiff thereby purported to be made,
and of the persons purported to be appointed adminis-
trators and managers under him, and the subsequent ap-
pointment of the defendant as such guardian, were void,
and that the defendant was liable to account to the
plaintiff for the personal estate and other property re-
ceived by him under the defendant since his appointment
as guardian, by virtue of the instrument, including the
estate and effects, paid or accounted for to the defendant
by the Duke of Cambridge, and, that such accounts
might be accordingly taken. The bill stated, that in
the year 1830 the plaintiff was the reigning Duke of
the duchy of Brunswick, and .was in his private cha-
racter or capacity possessed of real and personal pro-
perty in Brunswick, England, France, and elsewhere
in Europe to a very considerable amount; that the
duchy of Brunswick bordered on the kingdom of Han-
over, and that in the month of September, 1830, his
late Majesty William IV. was King of Hanover, and
his Royal Highness Adolphus Frederick Duke of Cam-
bridge was Viceroy of Hanover, acting under the
authority of his late Majesty William the Fourth.
That pending a revolutionary movement in Brunswick,
a,decree of the Germanic Diet of Confederation was made,
on the 2d of December, 1830, whereby the plaintiff's
brother, William, Duke of Brunswick, was invited to
take on himself provisionally the government of the
duchy, and that in February, 1831, King William the
Fourth and William Duke of Brunswick, claiming to be
the legitimate agnati of the plaintiff, caused to be pub-
lished a declaration, whereby they purported to dethrone
the plaintiff from the throne of the duchy, and declared
that the throne had passed to Duke William; and that
after this declaration was made it was signed by their
B iyal Highnesses the Duke of Cumberland (the present
defendant), the Duke of Cambridge, and the Duke of
Sussex; and that in pursuance of the declaration, William
Duke of Brunswick took upon himself the government of
the duchy, and he had ever since exercised the
rights, powers, and authorities of Sovereign Duke of
Brunswick. The Bill then proceeded to state, that
early in the year 1833, an instrument in writing,
dated the 6th of February and the 14th of March in
that year, signed by King William IV., and by
William Duke of Brunswick, was promulgated by
them—that the Duke of Cambridge, though this in-
strument was absolutely void, accepted the appointment
of supreme guardian of the plaintiff's fortune and pro-
perty, took possession of the real estates to which he
was entitled in his :private capacity at Brunswick, and
of all such parts of the plaintiff's property in Bruns-
wick and elsewhere, of a personal nature, as he could
discover, to the amount of several hundred thousand
pounds; that he sold and converted several parts thereof
into money, and made payments on account of the plain-
tiff, and of his property ; but that after allowing for
such payments there remained in his hands a very large
surplus unaccounted for ; that King William IV. died on
the 28th (20th) of June, 1837, and thereupon the pre-
sent defendant became King of Hanover, and the Duke
of Cambridge having resigned his appointment of guar-
dian by an instrument in writing, to which the defen-
dant was a party, and which was signed by him and by
William Duke of Brunswick, the defendant purported
to be appointed guardian of plaintiff, and of his fortune
and property, in the place of the Duke of Cambridge,
and with all the same powers and authorities as had been
purported to be conferred on the Duke of Cambridge.
That the Duke of Cambridge accounted for his receipts
and payments to the defendant, and paid him the balance,
and the defendant took possession of the plaintiff's pro-
perty, and had received large sums of money on account
thereof, and had thereout made some payments on ac-
count of the plaintiff; but that a very large balance, to
the amount of several thousand pounds, remained due
from the defendant to the plaintiff on account thereof;
and that the defendant refused to account. The bill
charged, that the instrument of the 6th of February, and
the 14th of March, 1833, and the appointment of the
Duke of Cambridge as guardian, and the appointment
of the defendant as guardian, were wholly invalid, ac-
cording to the laws of Brunswick, Hanover, and Great
Britain; but that under colour thereof, the Duke of Cam-
bridge and the defendant took possession of the plain-
tiff's property on his behalf, and not adversely; that by
the law of England such appointments of guardians,
and all the rights thereby purported to be given, are
void, even if the same were valid by the law of Brunswick;
and that if the same were valid at the time when they were
issued, having regard to the circumstances and situation
of the plaintiff at that time, there was now nothing in the
circumstances or conduct or state of mind of the plaintiff
to debar him from the full right and power of enjoy-
ment and disposition of his property. There was a
charge that the receipts and payments by the Duke of
Cambridge and the defendant respectively, ou account
of the plaintiff, and the management of his property,
constituted a mutual account, with items as well as on
the debit as on the credit side thereof; that such ac-
count was still open and running, and was of an intricate
and complex nature, and could only be taken in a court
of equity. The defendant demurred to this bill, on the
ground of want of jurisdiction, and the following were
amongst the principal propositions advanced on behalf
of the defendant:—First, he was by the bill admitted to
be King of Hanover, a sovereign prince, recognised as
such by the Crown of England. As a sovereign
prince, his person was inviolable, and he was not
liable to be sued in any court. Second, the in-
violability of a sovereign prince was not confined
`o his own dominions, but attended him everywhere;

so that though a king might be personally in
a foreign kingdom, :yet he was to bo judged, in law, a
king there; that his inviolability was not affected by his
being temporarily resident in a foreign kingdom, even if
he was a subject of such a kingdom, but that he still re-
tained his character of an independent sovereign prince;
that the defendant was not the less a sovereign prince,
and not the less exempt from being sued in any court
here, merely because he was a subject of the Queen and
a Peer of the realm of England. ['hat even if the de-
fendant should be held liable to be sued for some things
in this country, he ought not to be held liable to be sued
in respect of the particular subject matter of this suit,
which was alleged to be matter of state, and not matter
of forensic jurisdiction; and, finally, it was contended,
that even if the defendant should be held liable to be
sued here, and if the subject matter of the suit should
be held to be matter of forensic jurisdiction, yet that
it was not matter subject to the jurisdiction of the
Court of Chancery, but was matter which must be
deemed to be subject to the jurisdiction of some court
of special and peculiar jurisdiction, such as in this
country were proceedings arising in lunacy, bankruptcy,
and various other matters, which, although proper sub-
jects of forensic jurisdiction, could only be adjudi-
dicated upon in courts specially appointed for the purpose.
On the other hand, the following were amongst the
principal propositions advanced in support of the Bill on
behalf of the plaintiff:—First, it was said that this
ought to be considered as an ordinary suit between sub-
ject and subject. The plaintiff and the defendants were
lineal descendants of the Princess Sophia, Electress and
Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and as such were, to all
intents and purposes, to be deemed natural-born subjects
of this realm. The plaintiff was domiciled here. The
defendant was born here, was an English Peer, and had
taken the oath of allegiance. Secondly, that no English
tsubjecttchoeu
ad
ww
ui tfhtdhrea w fl
au dr o. m
Hisl isbaelcleumpiaungc ethaend s
sovereign
prince of another country could make no difference in
this respect ; he remained an English subject, and was
bound to obey the laws of England. Thirdly, the law of
England afforded no authority for the proposition that
sovereign princes resident here might not be sued in the
courts here, and there were dicta to the contrary, as in
oCfa lay i
fno'sreigcansen'atiinon which
into Eahnstgtl
saidoanb England
thhiyna ttt
hh
(as ititouwg eii
this case
uea
as kingsvee
hoef
been reported that in the cnaasemeo;?
the king of this realm
fDas king;l and it had
shall sue and be sued by the
sovereigns could both sue and be sued isn opinioncountry.l that
In support of this proposition reference w
Ber-
nales, Sir John Leach stated it to be his a Torre v.
ta: s
made
proceedings in which John Baliol, King of Scotland,
wparsocs u d
to
Court of Edward 1., King of England; and toia was
summoned to answer charges made against him
proceed-
ings in which Edward 1., King of England, eethe-
moned to answer charges made against him in the Courtm-
of Philip le Bel, King of France, at Paris. For the de-
fendant these cases were attempted to be distinguished
from the present on the ground that the proceedings were
respectively adopted in virtue of and for the purpose of
enforcing the superiority which Edward L claimed to
have over the kingdom of Scotland, and the superiority
which the King of France bad over the province of
Guienne, which Edward I. held in fealty to him.
Fourthly, liability to the suit, it was said, did not ne-
cessarily involve liability to coercion ; the defendant, as
an English Peer, was by privilege protected from per-
sonal coercion ; and even if a sovereign prince, without
such peculiar privilege, was a defendant here, this court
had power so to modify its process as at the same time
to do justice to the plaintiff and have due regard to the
person end dignity of the defendant. Fifthly, it was

said that the law of nations, the general law, and the
common interests of all mankind were, that justice
should be done `all over the world. The right of a
suitor here was not to be impeded by the assertion of
an unrecognised privilege in any person against whom
he bad a legal demand. Sixthly, the Queen of England
was liable to be sued in a proper form—a form not ap-
plicable to a foreign sovereign ; but if a foreign sove-
reign were not liable to be sued here at all, he would be
placed in a better situation than our own Sovereign,
which, it was 'said, would be absurd. To the bill filed
by the plaintiff a demurrer was put in by the King of
Hanover, on which the question raised was whether
under the circumstances of the case, and as against a
Sovereign Prince who was and is in England a subject
of the Queen of this country, a Court of England had
jurisdiction. The Master of the Rolls, upon the demur-
rer being argued before him, was of opinion that the
alleged acts and transactions of the defendant, the King
of Hanover, under colour or under the authority of the
instrument, questions were not acts and transactions,
in respect of which the defendant, the King of Hanover,
was liable to be sued in a Court of Equity, or in respect
of which the Court had any jurisdiction. The Master of the
Rolls being of that opinion allowed the demurrer, and
from thatjudgment the present appeal was brought.
Mr. RoLT resumed his arguments this morning on
behalf of the appellant the Duke of Brunswick.

The case appears likely to occupy several days.
Nothing of any interest came before the Rolls Court,
or any of the Vice-Chancellors' Courts to-day.

BANKRUPTCY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)

THE SALISBURY BANK.-IN RE BRODIE AND BRODIE.

These bankers, who had carried on business as bankers
at Salisbury under the firm of the Salisbury Bank, came
up today tor their certificates.
Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Gifford appeared to support
the application, and none of the creditors opposed.
His Hortoun (who sat for Mr. Commissioner Evans),
after reading the report, said that it appeared that the
parties bad been insolvent a long time before their bank-
ruptcy.
Mr. LAWRENCE said it was a very old concern, and the
losses had been very great, but he was confident that
there was no imputation on the integrity of the bank-
rupt.
. _

his HONOUR said as none of the creditors appeared to
oppose, he felt himself justified in granting the certifi-
cate; but at the same time he wished it to be understood
that he did not consider the state of affairs altogether
satisfactory.

The certificates were then signed.

SHERIFFS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Under-Shetiff BURCHELL.)
THE EARL OF LINDSAY V. CAPPER AND OTHERS.
This was an action to recover ciamageS. from breach of
covenant. The plaintiff is the Right Honourable the
Earl of Lindsay, and the defendants were the provisional
committee of the Great Northern Railway. The amount
claimed was 6,0001. and interest.

Mr. MILWARD, for they plaintiff, stated the case,
from which it appeared that during the contest be-
tween the • Direct Northern Railway and the Great
Northern Railway, an agreement was entered into
between the Direct Northern Company and
the Earl of Lindsay, by which they undertook, in con-
sideration of his withdrawing opposition to their line, to
pay him 25,0001., supposing they took twenty acres near
to the Noble Earl's seat at Uffington Hall. In another
event he was to be paid 20,0001., and in the event
which had come to pass, namely, the amalgamation of
the companies, and the railroad taking another course
through his lands, he was to be paid 6,0001., the amount
now claimed. It was contended that the Great
Northern Company were bound to take up all the
agreements entered into by the Direct Northern Com-
pany. An action had been brought to try that question,
which had been carried by writ of error into the House
of Lords. It was, however, necessary in this case to
come before the jury to get a judgment.
The deed was put in and read.
Mr. START, for the defendants, said that the real point
in dispute was as to the amount of interest, and from
what time it could be claimed, as there was no mention
of interest in the deed. Under the Act, four per cent.
was the rate of interest to be paid to creditors of the
company.
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFI said that he considered
the jury might give interest if they thought proper, and
it could be given from a certain day, namely, from
three months-after the passing the Bill up to the present
time. The question as to whether interest should be
allowed or not was, in the absence of any agreement,
entirely one for the jury in estimating damages.
The jury retired for a considerable time, then gave a
verdict for 6,3001., being at the rate of 3 per cent. interest.

CLERKENWELL.—(THIS DAY.)
Thomas Strange and Edward Clarke, middle-aged
men, were charged before Mr. Combe with burglariously
entering the dwelling-house of Jehn Brown, in Feathers-
mews, Milman-street, Brunswick-square. It appeared
that Mr. Brown having some reason to suspect that "a
plant was set" to rob his house, placed Peter Keen, his
horsekeeper, in the stable on Tuesday evening to watch.
About one o'clock, the two prisoners came to the private
door, and one of them put a key into the lock, and
having turned it partly round, withdrew it, and they
went away without attempting to --enter the premises.
Last evening, about the same hour, Keen was again on
the watch in the stable, and saw the prisoners approach

the private door. He concealed himself under the stair-
case, and heard them unlock the door, and saw them
come in and go up stairs to the private apartments. He
then called the police, who found the prisoners at the
foot of the stairs, near the door. They had heard Keen
rive the alarm and thought to make their escape, but he
d successfully fastened them in, and they were cap-
tured without resistance. On the table in Mr. Brown's
sleeping apartment, into which the servant had seen them
go, was found a complete set of house-breaking imple-
ments. Strange had also left behind a handsome silver
snuff-box, having his name engraved in full. Upon his
person were found a valuable watch and chain, and a purse
containing twenty-six sovereigns and a half-sovereign,
with four shillings in silver. Both prisoners are in
good circumstances, and Strange is a cab proprietor,
having six drivers in his employment.—Committed.

GOOD WOOD RACES.
(THIS DAY-BY EXPRESS.)

Sweepstakes cst 50 soya. each.

Archery

walked over
Sweepstakes of 200 sous. each. T.Y.C.
Picaroon filly, out of Blue Bonnet

Cynthia ...
Flycatcher filly...

Glenalvon

Syrup ~.

The Sussex Stakes.

... 1

Touchy ...

... 2

Sweepstakes of 100 sovs. each.

•.• 3

Helfer Skelter ...
Malmesbury ...

... 2

... 3

... 2

WORKING OF RAILWAYS.

[The following is a pretty fair sample of how much
benefit is conferred on the public at large by the rapid
conveyance on railways. By the " good old times"
mode of traffic the quantity here enumerated would
take some three months in travelling by one road, while
the milk and fresh fish would be anything but fresh.—
ED. Sun.]
EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.—ARRVAL Of AGRI.
CULTURAL PRODUCE, &c.—The following is a return of
cattle, grain, &c., for the London markets, over the
Eastern Counties Railway, for the week ending July
22, 1848:—
Beasts
Calves
Sheep
Pigs
Malt
Wheat
Barley

... 1,514
... 144

“. 9,169

... 463
~, qrs. 5,638

1,770
... 9 t

•• If..
204

Oats
Beans ••• " 25
Peas ••• " 19
Flour
•„. sacks 5,142
Seed ..• 91 741
Milk
... quarts 20,800
Bread ••• ewts. 581
Tons. C wts. Qrs.
146 12 0

... qrs.

Poultry ... ... ... 16
13
Fish, fresh ... ... 147 18 1
Fruit and vegetables ... 169 2 2
Ale and porter ... ... 187 3 2
Wines and spirits ... 50 3 3
Wool ... ... ... 137 19
General merchandise ... 2,757 3 0
1

Worcester arrangements
con-
ageump
Albert Denison
upon. It
by
t
pleted, and at a
vwisaists to the Cathedral
BRITISH ARCHAOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION.--WOR,
CESTER, TUESDAY NIGHT.—The
con-
gress, hrees local
Conyngham,aul committeeunder the
m .p ~r
arf
roe
ors i
ndt
oeh
presidency
forthcomingyofnearly
Lord
ocompleted,
do m
meeting held at the Guildhall in this city to-day, the
pemrobgrraacmestTout
estdhaey,prAocuegel?dsitnglsl,
and antiquities of the city, including the site of the battle
of Worcester, &c.; general dinner at the Guildhall.
Wednesday, excursion to Sudeley Castle. Thursday,
excursion to Malvern, Pershore, and Evesham. Friday,
a lecture on Egyptian embalming, by T. J. Pettigrew,
Esq., F.R.S., Vice-President, illustrated by the unrolling
of a mummy, obtained from a tomb at Thebes. During
the meeting a collection of antiquities will be on view at
the Natural History Museum. The Papers already an-
nounced to be read are of a very interesting character.
We understand the Very Rev. the Dean of Worcester
has invited M. Guizot to take up his residence with him
at the Deanery during the congress.
A GOLD LADY.—" A fine gold lady's breast-pin"
is advertised as lost in an American paper. A bachelor
makes the inquiry if she is a single " gold lady," and is
willing to be changed?
VANITY.—A drunken north countryman, returning
from a fair, fell asleep by the roadside, where a pig fount
him, and began to lick his mouth. Sawney roared out
" Who's kissin' me noo? Ye see what it is to be wee,
liket amang the lasse6."
PLEASURES OF MATRIMONY.—In one place Richter
says:—" No man can either live piously, or die righteous,
without a wife." A very wicked old bachelor of our
acquaintance says to this:—" 0 yes! suffering and severe
trials purify and chasten the heart."
At the time the Vatican was built, niches were
left for statues of the Popes. All these have been filled
except one, and some persons argue, from the signs of
the times, that the one niche will be all that will be
required.
ADVICE FOR AlontEas.—The Spaniards have a
saying, " At eighteea•marry your daughter to her supe-
rior; at twenty to hec NW; at thirty to anybody that
will have her:,