The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-16 00:00:00

tbtrli Vibition

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat to-day in the Old Hall, Lin-
eoln's Inn, fbr the purpose of giving several judgments
and hearing appeals.
Ife TUE NOTTER OF 'UNIVERSITY COLLECE, OXFORD.
The LORD CRANCILLOR gave judgment to-day in
this case, which cur readers will recollect was argued
before his Lordship at Westminster in the course of the
last term, upon a petition presented to the Crown by the
Rev. Mr. Moorsom, praying that the Lord Chan-
cellor, as the representative of the Queen, who was
the visitor of University College, Oxford, would
declare that one of two fellowships which had
been filled up in University College, Oxford, were
invalid on the ground of the disqualification of the
parties elected. The petition of Mr. Moorsom was
directed against the appointment of two gentlemen of
the names of Bright and Covington, the former on the
foundation of Henry IV., and the latter on that of
William of Durham. The petitioner's case was, that
neither Mr. Bright nor Mr. Covington fulfilled the
requisites of the statute, neither of them being in priest's
orders—in sacerdolis constitutes —at the time of the
election. Mr. Bright was then only 22 years of age,
and not admitted even to deacon's orders, as by the 44th
Geo. 111., cap. 43, he could not be admitted to deacon's
orders until he attained the age of 23 years, nor to
priest's till, 24. He was a native of Yorkshire, but that
was not, of any consequence to the fellowship of
Henry IV., to which he was elected. Mr. co-
ving:con, who was elected on the foundation
of William of Durham, was not duly elected
thereto, as the statute required preference to be given
to ?I native of the dioceses of York or Durham, to which
iv.) did not belong, having been born in Lincolnshire.
ale petitioner was qualified according to the statutes for
either fellowship, having, been admitted to priest's or-
ders previous to the election, and being born at Whitby,
in Yorkshire. There was no question or doubt as to the
probity, learning', and morals of any of the three gentlemen.
The Lord Chancellor, on giving judgment, went at
considerable length into the facts of the case, and also
the statutes, and in conclusion stated his clear opinion
to be that no ground whatever existed for impeaching
the election to fellowships either of Mr. Bright or Mr.
Covington, and therefore that those elections must be
affirmed.

Mr. BETHELL, on behalf of the respondents, trusted
that the Court would give his clients the costs.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he could make no
order in that respect. He was only acting for the
Crown,l who was the Visitor of the college; and such
being the case, he did not think any authority exited in
him to give costs.
Mr. COOPER observed that the authorities on the
subject were against giving any costs.

Petition dismissed without costs.
AXE V. ANDREWS.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this
case, which was an appeal from the judgment of the
Vice• Chancellor Wigram, dismissing the appeal with
eosts.

LANCASTER V. EVORS.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this
case, which was an appeal from the decision of the pre-
sent Master of the Rolls. His Lordship, after reviewing
the whole case, dismissed the appeal with costs.

GLOVER V. HALL.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this
appeal from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of
England. His Lordship decided that the order of the
Court below was correct, and dismissed the appeal with
costs.

EXCIIEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Westminster.—Trial at Bar, Wore Mr.
Baron PARKE, Mr. Baron ALDER:3OW, Mr. Baron
Rum and Mr. Baron PLATT.)
BARON V. DENMAN.
_ _

Mr. M. I). lime rose to reply on behalf of the
plaintiff. By the kindness of their Lordships an ex-
amination was made into the state of the evidence
with respect to the pleadings, and many questions
originally introduced were now disposed of in favour of
the plaintiff and against the Crown. It was not now
contended by the Crown that what the defendant did
was a justifiable act, except so far as was now attempted
to make it so under the authority of King
Siacca and his chiefs. Another ground of
defence remained to be dealt with, which was, that the
not was the act of the State, and not of the individual.
The defendant was therefore, according to his Learned
Counsel, protected but not justified in his conduct, and
was not bound to answer in this action. The plaintiff,
in establishing himself at the Gallinas for the purpose
of carrying on the slave trade—in him perfectly legal—
broke no laws which he was bound to obey, and he
therefore stood in precisely the same situation as an
Englishman would have stood prior to the year 1807.
Breaking no law, sinning against no authority to which
he owed allegiance, his property had been visited with
destruction by the defendant, who had set up the de-
fence to which he had already alluded. Whether he
deserved the charge of want of candour made against
him yesterday by the Attorney-General he could not
say ; he had endeavoured to conduct the case for his
client in the fairest manner. There could be no doubt
as to what were his own feelings and sympathies on the
subject of slavery. His education and his principles
would never load him to hold sympathy with the op-
pressors of his fellow-beings. But was he to set himself
up as the judge of the actions of the plaintiff? Was it fur
him to lecture him on the subject of the immorality of
the traffic in slaves, when he could be triumphantly
answered by the plaintiff pointing to the history of this
country in connexion with the matter? Now it ap-
peared that a woman of the name of Tri Noman was
detained in slavery by Prince Manna, at the Gallinas,
whom the governor of Sierra Leone was anxious should
be restored to liberty. This was the origin of the attack
made by the defendant. The defendant was ordered to
cruize off the coast to interrupt any vessels afloat. Such
was his position at the time of the attack. He then pro-
ceeded in naval array up the Gallinas, and without wait-
ing to communicate with any person, as he went up the
river the force seized a number of canoes, and de-
stroyed them, on the morning of the 19th November,
and possession was taken of the warehouses at Dombo-
oorro; they took the keys of the premises, which they
retained until they left the island, using the contents of
the warehouse at their own will, for the purpose of re-
covering back the slaves who had been driven away.
The slaves were clothed out of the stores of the plaintiffs
at Dombocorro by the defendant. The force then took
the gunpowder and the spirits, and destroyed them.
And here he must complain of the statements of the
Attorney-General that these spirits were purposely
poisoned, without a particle of proof of their being so.

- The ATTORNEY.IfIENERAL—It was stated so in the
general order issued by the defendant.
Mr. M. D. HILL—WeII, if it were so, what means
bad the defendant of proving that they were poisoned?
All these things were done before the treaty—there was
no doubt upon that subject, all the witnesses agreed
upon that point. After this treaty, as it was called,
was entered into the defendant waited till he had col-
lected 800 slaves, all the buildings were destroyed, and
there remained nothing more to be destroyed, the force
left Dombocorro. With respect to the amended plea
the amendment proposed was, " that King Siacca, with
the consent of other persons to the defendant unknown,
being chiefs, did enact and make a law
tthathttehessaid
goods and chattels should be appropriated
whateverue of
the said King." Now there was no evidencee
of any such law having been issued by King Siacca or
his chiefs. Neither did the treaty itself state that it
was made with the consent and authority of the .King
and his chiefs. There was no evidence that King
Siacca even knew anything at all about the matter.
But if King Siacca were really present, and was a party
to the treaty, still there was no evidence of the law
having been issued. A treaty was not law, it was only
of the nature of a contract. It was not in proof that the
law in question had been made by the chiefs; and even
if it was it would be fatal to the plea, which recited that
the law was made by persons unknown to the defen-
dant, whereas their names were known and were affixed
to the very treaty which had been produced by the
defendant. The defendant further justified his conduct
by the treaty. There was a great detention and seizure
of the property of the plaintiff before the treaty, but the
treaty did not authorise the defendant to seize at all; it
was a complete contradiction. There appeared to be a
" bull" crept in somewhere. Instead of the treaty being
an authority from King Siacca to Captain Denman to do
certain acts, it was from Captain Denman to King
Siacca. By a supplementary clause in the treaty of the
high contracting powers, it was stated " Captain Den-
man, by the request of Prince Manna and the chiefs, at
first commanded that the trade goods of the white slave
dealers should be destroyed ; ' he, Captain Denman,
requested this, " but King Siacca having declared that
those persons having acted in defiance of his laws, and,
in -consequence considered their goods as forfeited
to him." He was not quite so absurd as to burn
the goods; "they were forfeited to
demandhesaid
upon this point,said.
"Captain Denman has withdrawn h
and consents that King Siacca
shall take possession of the goods upon the condition
that they are immediately taken from the factories and
removed to Ghindemar, or some other place far from
the coast." The whole effect of this was to make this
petty barbarian chief a monarch,
was
as he was called, a thief
instead of an incendiary ;
instead of burning them.hetotake tthilies would
He apprehended uulldove decisive at once ofthecaseiaitnh redcspatt
to thedtheir
Lordships' attention to the subject .v
defendant pleading that he acted under command of her
Majesty,heconlended that a subsequent ratification could
not be considered as tantamount to a previous command.
Very grave questions would arise upon such a construc-
tion of the powers of the ratification. By the peculiar
form of the plea it was not necessary for him to argue
the question.
Mr. Baron PARLE said, the Court were of opinion
that the evidence of a subsequent ratification could be
given in evidence, under the plea of command, but
whether such ratification was equivalent to previous
command was a point which they wished'to have argued.
Mr. M. D. HILL said that he would then proceed to
argue first, that this was not only not_ s.
ucha ratification
as was required. but that in point of fact, it was no ra-
tification at all. There ero three circumstances
to be considered. First, factsthew. themselves; secondly,
the representation of such fa and, thirdly, the ra-
tification, real or supposed, by
how made. No publication ohheormatiifitcweB made,
and
place in the Gazette in such a manner :stir
tiirliheafodrmtaktre
Queen of Spain and the whole world that the
mode of proceeding on the part of the queen of pjpoapfenr,
in making application for redress in respect of
-acts
which had operated to the injury of one of her subjects.
No representation had been made by Captain Denman,
or any other person, to the Crown, or. the authorities
of this country, that the attack had Weil made by that