The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-02 00:00:00

THE SUN LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, MARCH 2, 1848.

sation. There is a slight improvement in the demand
for yarn, owing to the shippers coming into the market,
and the spinners are firm in demanding old rates .
Several mills have resumed flail time. The stock of
deep grown wools is short, and some sorts inquired for,
though the consumption
.still falls below an average.
Prices without variation.

HUDDERSFIELD, TUESDAY.—There is no alteration,
either for better or worse, in to-day's market. During
the week, we hare had a few buyers, and more has been
doing in the warehouses. Wool maintains its price, but
there is little doing.
LEEDS, TUESDAT.—Our market this day has been
almost a blank—the great political events which are
passing engross every mind, and put business out of the
question . Manchester Guardian.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
ROUSE OF COMMONS, Match 1.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

TREATY OF ADRIANOPLE.
Lord PALMERSTON then resumed his speech
upon this subject, apologising to the House for not
having been able, during the past week, to give
his mind and attention to the charges which had
been preferred against him. The events of the
week, he said, had been so absorbing, and
had followed one upon the other so rapidly,
that they had naturally engrossed the whole of his
thoughts, and he, had therefore neglected to prepare
himself for this occasion. But it was almost physically
impossible that he could have done so, for the subjects
which the Hon. Member for Youghal brought before
the House last week had already been debated in
Parliament more than 129 times, while the topics em-
braced by the Honourable Gentleman's lengthened
address were spread over no less than 785 folio
columns.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He trusted,
therefore, the House would excuse him if he did not
observe mueh order and regularity in the reply he
should make to the charges of the Hon. Member. In
the first place he had to deal with the treaty of Adri-
anople, and in the first instance he must disclaim
being solely responsible for the stipulations
of that treaty.—(Hear, hear.) It was drawn up
conjointly by the Board of Trade and the
Foreign-office, and in no way did it differ from simi-
lar treaties which had been entered into with other
countries. The Hon. Member for Youghal complained
that the treaty did not place British subjects upon a
footing with the most favoured nations; but, really,
it appeared to him that the Hon. Member had not
properly or attentively read the treaty.
Mr. ANSTEY explained that what he contended
was, that Russia was placed, by the treaty, in a
more advantageous position than England, inasmuch
as in certain cases British subjects were excluded
from exporting particular descriptions of merchan-
dise from Turkey.
Lord PALMERSTON repeated that the Hon.
Member altogether misapprehended the treaty, for
there could not be a shadow of a doubt about it, that
the treaty placed British subjects upon a footing
with the most favoured nations, and what Rus-
sian merchants could export from Turkey Bri-
tish merchants could export too.—(Hear, hear.)
In connexion with this question it could hardly be
worth while or at all necessary that he should defend
Mr. Powlet Thompson, who was afterwards Lord
Sydenham, from the charge that in making this
treaty, as a Minister of the British Sovereign, he
could have been actuated by family motives
or personal partialities. The House, he was
sure, was convinced that the Noble Lord's
character stood above such an imputation,
and .he would not, therefore, pursue this part of
the matter further.— (Hear, hear.) The next ques-
tion which stood in order was the treaty of July, 1840.
The transactions which led to that treaty had been
subjected to much Parliamentary discussion ; and as
many blue books bad been presented to the House
upon the subject, it would require far more time
than he had at his disposal to go fully into
the history of the treaty.—(Hear, hear.) The oc-
currences, however, which led to the treaty might be
stated in a few words. To avert a general war it
was found necessary to attach a portion of Syria and
other neighbouring states to Egypt. Russia, it was
said, meditated a descent upon Constantinople, and
there could be no question about it, that had not this
treaty been agreed to the peace of Europe would
have been disturbed. True, many Honourable
Gentlemen entertained an opinion that it would
have been better to have let things take their course,
and they, were supported in that opinion by a
party in France. But the Hon. Member for Youg-
hal complained that the Foreign-office refused
.to
comply with a request of France to send a fleet to
the Dardanelles. True, it did so, and he was pre-
pared to 'justify the denial. The House would per-
ceive that at the time the treaty was entered into the
place of disturbance was in Syria, and under
these circumstances of what use, let him ask,
would it have been to have sent a fleet to
the Dardanelles ? A representation was made
to the French Government to this effect and
they at (ince admittedlthe force of it. It was at the
time as much for the interest of France as the inte-
rest of England that Turkey should be preserved
from the attacks of Egypt, and by the united efforts
of these two powers Egypt was forced to evacuate
Syria; and Russia was thus compelled to bow
to the decision of the allied powers. The
wisdom of the policy had since been proved by ithe
continuance of peace in Europe. This conflict,,be-
tween France and England and Russia and Egypt
led to the treaty, commonly called the treaty of the
Dardanelles, which led to the restoration of peace
between France and Turkey. That treaty was very
short, and simply provided that, either in time of
peace or in war, no fleets should pass through the
Dardanelles and the Bosphorus without the consent
of the Sultan.--(Hear, hear.) The Honourable
Member for Youghal contended that this treaty had
the effect of crippling the influence of England in
Turkey, but so far from this being the case, he could
assure the House that this country had reaped great
advantages from that treaty. It had convinced the
Turkish Governments that England had it within its
power to be of service to Turkey, and that impres-
sion, which was no doubt strictly correct, had placed
the influence of England in Turkey upon a firmer
foundation than ever it stood before.—(Hear, hear.)
How any man, however, could object to the
treaty of Dardanelles was really a mystery to him.
It was manifestly for the interest of England that
peace should be secured in Turkey, and this treaty
directly enlisted the sympathy of France, Austria,
and Prussia in securing that peace.—(Hear, hear.)
Then came:the occupation of Algiers ; but, looking at
the position of affairs in France, he did not think it
would be judicious in him if be went at any length
into that question. Many papers had been laid before
the House upon the subject, and if Hon. Members were
dissatisfied upon this point they had ample means
and opportunities of satisfying the doubts they might
entertain of the policy the Foreign-office pursued
in reference to Algeirs. By the treaty of Adria-
nople certain ports on the Black Sea were ceded by
Turkey to Russia, but the authorities of Persia in-
sisted that Turkey had no legal right to do so. The
Circassians applied to this country for assistance to
have the question decided by a competent
tribunal. But such a course would have involved
this country in a war with Russia, and as his
courage had not reached the sticking point to induce
him to think that this country could safely indulge
in a "set to" with Russia, he declined to interfere in
the matter. Mr. Urquhart, who was then the
Secretary of Legation at Constantinople, having
persuaded Mr. Bell again to renew his attacks, he
(Lord Palmerston) recalled him, and from
that time to the present the most unceasing
attacks bad been made against him by the
Honourable Member for Stafford. He thought he
had convinced the House that he had done his duty
in discouraging the expedition, and in removing the
Hon. Member for Stafford.—(Hear, hear.) Then
they came to the quadruple treaty. He did not
think the Honourable Member for Youghal had
said much on the quadruple treaty of 1834, and he
would not dwell further upon it. Then, with respect
to the marriage of the Queen of Spain, and her
sister the Infanta, he thought, in the present
state of things, the less that was said upon
it the better. But it had been said he
had not followed the policy of the Earl :of Aberdeen ;
in that respect he thought, upon reflection, it would
be admitted he had. Then, as to the affairs of Portugal,
when that subject was brought forward he should be
able to defend the course they had pursued.
The only object he had in view was to prevent the
continuance of a civil war in that country, and
he thought it would be admitted they had done
so. Then, with respect to the blockades on
,
the coast of Mexico by the French, that
resulted from Government disputes between
those two countries : this country offered to mediate
between them and completely
should
b
e
succeeded in putting
an end to those hostilities. The part he took in that
interference he proud of. Then,
with respect to the treaties with Brasil, that was a
transaction the beginning
and end of which he had
nothing to do with; how he could, therefore, be sup-
posed as favouring the ause of Russia
—(Hear, hear.) The only
with the treaties for the suppres-
sion of the slave trade with Portugal was, that they
did not go far enough ; but how these treaties could
hsveanyfie thingden to d? with Russia, he could not con-
ceive.d that the course that
England
had adopted to put an end to the slave trade
was calculated to produce hostility with
.- any
enlightenedpotrhoeyroketheslave i
ve
tradernation in Europe. It might
and the unprincipled,
but not the right thinking part of the community of
any of the nations of Europe.
Then, with respect to
•
the right of search, he supposed that the Hon. Member
for Youghal imagined that his (Lord Palmerston's)
only object was to set France against this country,
as he appeared to think was his object in the treaty
with Portugal, and by that means bringing all the
states of Europe into eonflict with England, ulti-

mately to ruin her.—(Hear, hear.) He would leave
it to the House to draw its own conclusions on
the subject of what he had done. As to the treaties
that had been entered into with respect to
Texas, he thought that the House would admit
that the course that had been adopted with
respect to them was the right one. But the
Government had been blamed, by the Honourable
Member for Youghal in not in those, treaties
insisting upon the abolition of the slave trade in
Texas. It was impossible that the Government could
have insisted upon such a condition, but they
had obtained from the Texans with some re-
luctance the unqualified right of search.—(Hear.)
Then it was said that the annexation of Texas was a
damage to the creditors of Mexico; why, the fact was,
the Mexican creditors had their claim against the Go-
vernment and territory of Mexico, and those claims
wereas good against Mexico since, as before, the an-
nexation of Texas. Then, with respect to the award of the
King of the Netherlands, it was not him but the Ame-
rican Government that rejected the basis of the award
of the King of the Netherlands. He thought that
the course that this country had pursued was the
proper one, although it had greatly interfered with its
interests. This country had agreed to accept the line
pointed out by the King of the Netherlands,but America
refusing to do so, the only course left was adopted.
Then as to the course adopted with reference to
the succession to the throne of Persia, he
did not see how the English Government could
have pursued any other course than it did,
considering the desire of the late Sovereign of Persia
and the wish of Russia in that respect. He
could not see how this country's interfering,
and prevailing upon the Shah of Persia to
abandon the attack at Herat, could further the
interests of Russia. Then, with respect to the
Affghan war, that subject had been fully discussed in
that House, and he would not go into it
further. But on that subject the Honourable
Member had founded charges against the
Government of perverting documents and making
statements totally inconsistent with truth, and
reading extracts from documents that did not
exist. That subject had also been discussed
fully in the House, and the absurdity of the
charge had been fully proved. Then, with respect
to Goa and Sattara, the latter subject was of itself
enough for one debate, and as to Goa that subject was
one of an ecclesiastical nature, and one upon which
he felt a delicacy in entering on account of
having so slight a knowledge of it. Then as to the
case of Lord Napier and China, he could not discover
what were the grounds of charge against the
Government in this respect. The Government
did not think what had taken place between
that Noble Lord and the Chinese authorities justified
a declaration of war between that country and
England. Since that period other transactions had
taken place, which ended in the sending out of
Sir H. Pottinger and the treaty of Nankin.
By the treaty of Nankin four new ports were opened
to the commerce of this country, which was every
year increasing in a considerable extent. The next
charge brought against him was one arising from
a criminal information against a Mr. Walker. The
Hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart) had
made it a charge against him that he was con-
nected with the publication of a certain
periodical called the " Portfolio." He begged to
state that he was not so closely connected with it as
the Hon. Member had stated. The facts of the case
were these, after the Government of Poland had been
broken up, a Polish gentleman called upon him and
said that he was in the possession of a number of
official documents, which he would probably like to
peruse. He (Lord Palmerston) stated that he should
like to look over them, and they were accordingly
left with him. His time was, however, very much
occupied, and he gave the documents to his secretary
(the present Hon. Member for Stafford, Mr.
Urquhart), requesting him to select from them any of
the most important or interesting of them. Shortly
afterwards he left office, and at the request of the
person who left the papers with him he returned them
again, and shortly afterwards he was shown
the first number of the " Portfolio" containing
some of these dispatches.—(Hear.) He denied
that he ever was, either directly or indirectly, con-
nected with the publication.; and, except upon one
occasion, he had never had anything whatever to do
with the publication of the dispatches it contained,
and upon that one occasion he had requested, when
a dispatch was submitted to him by his secretary, that
two passages, reflecting somewhat severely on his poli-
tical opponents, should be struck out before publication.
He appointed the Hon. Member for Stafford (Mr.
Urquhart) Secretary to the Embassy at Constan-
tinople. When that Hon. Member applied to him for
the expenses connected with the " Portfolio," he, of
course, declined to pay them.—(Hear.) With respect
to the commercial treaty with Frankfort, it would be
remembered that the Prussian League, which
was then formed on the principle of high
rates of duties, and it was thought expe-
dient to conclude a treaty of commerce and
navigation between this country and Frankfort.
That treaty, however, proved no defence against the
Commercial League, and, at the request of the
Government of Frankfort, the treaty was cancelled,
they were released from their obligations, and finally
became incorporated with the Prussian League.
He thought that the Government of this country had
acted soundly in the matter throughout the whole his-
tory of the case.—(Hear, hear.) Then with regard to
the appointment of Sir Stratford Canning to the
Court of Constantinople • upon the retirement of
Lord Heytesbury from the post of Ambassador at
Russia, he had named Sir Stratford Canning to be
the successor of that nobleman. Objections were
taken to that gentleman at the Court of Russia,
and the Government were informed that he
would not be well received at Court ; they
very wisely abstained from sending him, but
as they did not concur in the objections to Sir
S. Canning, they determined not to send any
ambassador to the Court, and for two years no person
was at the Court of Russia to represent this country.
Upon the accession of Sir R. Peel to office, Lord
Londonderry was appointed to the post of ambassador
at that Court. Subsequently to that Lord Durham
had been appointed by the Government in which
he had the honour to hold the office of Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs. Then, with regard to
Poland, the Hon. Member had said that this country
had basely abandoned France and Austria in giving
assistance to Poland. In the year 1830,
when he came into office, the state of Eu-
rope was such that an European war was
expected to have broken out. A revolution took
place in France, in Belgium, and in Poland. The
danger apprehended in 1831 was that Austria, Russia,
and Prussia should attempt to control France in the
choice of her Sovereign, and the Duke of Wellington
who was then in power hastened to acknowledge the
newly-appointed King, and he had no doubt that this
step saved Europe from being plunged into war.
But it was said that if England had joined with
France and Austria, Poland would have been saved.
Why, Austria in 1831, was so far from favouring Po-
land, that they possessed at that time the province of
Gallicia, to which they attached very great value. A
special treaty was signed during the war which Napo-
leon carried on on the continent between Austria
Russia and Prussia for the complete partition of
Poland between them. At the treaty of Vienna the
question was asked, what was to be done with
Poland ? And it was insisted by Austria, either that
Poland should be divided between the three powers, or
reconstructed upon an entirely fresh basis.--(Hear.)
Russia and Prussia declared in favour of erecting in
Poland one large kingdom to be annexed to Russia,
and a smaller portion to be given to Aus-
tria. It was clear that Austria would not
have favoured the insurrection of Poland. In
fine, an offer was made to this country to restore the
independence of Poland, but the acceptance of that
offer would have been at the expense of the peace of
Europe, and therefore it was not entertained.
It was all nonsense to talk about the
independence of Poland having been sacrificed by
this country. At the period to which the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman referred Cracow existed as an
independent state, and he was convinced that had any
attempt been made by this country to restore
the republic of Poland, not only would Cracow
have been sacrificed, but England would have been
involved in a European war. Another foolish asser-
tion the Hon. and learned Member made was that
Turkey was ready to assist this country in
restoring Poland. Why, at this very period, 1831,
Turkey was suffering from the effects produced
by a contest she had just concluded with Russia.
In point of fact, at this very time Turkey
lay prostrate at the feet of Russia, and
it was absurd to tell him that while in such a de-
pressed state as that Turkey was ready to assist this
country in opposing the united powers
of Austria, Prussia, and Russia, with the
view of restoring the independence of Poland.
Again, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman told them
that Persia was ready to assist this country, but
Persia was at this time in a worse condition than
Turkey, and it was not in her power
to render such assistance. The Honourable
and Learned Gentleman next complained that
he had in 1831 broken his promise to send an
Ambassador to Turkey. He readily admitted
that he did make such a promise, but the
three Powers to which he had already re-
ferred objected to his fulfilling the pro-
mise, and, rather than involve the country in
a war with those Powers, he consented
to abandon the thought of sending an Ambassador to
Turkey.—(Hear, hear.) The correspondence upon
this subject he had no objection to produce, but he felt
that at this distant period its production could
lead to no good.
The next charge the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman brought against him, was that
he had broken a promise that he had made to
Count V aleskie, to assist the Poles in again re-

covering their independence, if the Count could
induce his Polish friends in Belgium to consent to a
negotiation which was then pending with the Belgian
States; but he distinctly denied having made
such a promise. He remembered meeting
a Count at a ball at Almack's, when he
asked him to make such a promise, but he distinctly
told the Count that he could not take upon himself to
do so.—(Hear.) Having now gone through, as far
as his memory and time would permit, the
numerous charges which the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman had brought against him, he
had now only to repeat with respect to the general
question, that if any Honourable Gentleman wished
to institute an inquiry into his official conduct,
he was quite ready to submit to it. He must add,
however, that he was unconscious of having at any
time betrayed the interests of the country. His policy
was always to preserve peace with foreign nations
whenever it could be secured without making any
sacrifice of the national honour, and he was rejoiced
to say that so far this policy had been successful.
With regard to alliances, he held that England had suf-
ficient power to steer an independent course, and while
she remained the champion of justice and honesty she
would be sure to find some other power ready to
support her policy. He denied that England had any
favourite allies. Her allies embraced all powers that
supported right and justice, and all powers who
were ready to co•operate with her in endeavouring
to uphold the cause of justice throughout the world
were treated and received but upon one footing.
—(The Noble and Learned Lord then resumed his
seat amidst loud and long continued cheering.)
Lord DUDLEY STUART then moved that the
debate be adjourned.
The motion was received with shouts of disap-
probation, and the cries of " Withdraw, withdraw,"
" Divide, divide," were kept up until Six o'clock,
when

The SPEAKER adjourned the House till to-
morrow.

LAW INTELLIGENCE,
PRIVY COUNCIL, Feb. 29.
CEYLON.--ANSTRUTHER V. ARAI3IN.

In this appeal Mr. M. D. Hill, Mr. Bethel:, and Mr,
M‘Christie appeared for the appellants; Sir Frederick
Thesiger, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Lloyd, and Mr. Wilde
for the defendant.

It was an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court
of the island of Ceylon, dated Bth October, 1846, and
was the first appeal which has been made to the Privy
Council from that island. The facts were these:—The
late Right Hon. James Alex. Stewart Mackenzie was
Governor of and Commander-in-Chief in the island of
Ceylon, from 1837 to 1841. Upon retiring from that
office, in the early part of 1841, he appointed the Hon.
Philip Anstruther, Captain Lillie, and James Steuart,
Esq., to be his!attorneys and agents, generally to transact,
manage, and conduct all his affairs, matters, and con-
cerns in Ceylon. On the 3d of April, 1843, Mr. Steuart,
one of the agents, entered into an agreement with a
Mr. Frederick Lock, the agent in Ceylon of Captain
Arabin, in France, for the sale to Mr. Lock, on be-
half of Captain Arabin, of an estate in the
island, consisting of about 2,200 acres of land (a con-
siderable portion of which was cultivated as a coffee
plantation), belonging to Mr. Stewart Mackenzie for
8,0001., Mr. Lock depositing 2,009 Z in the Ceylon Bank
to abide the completion of the purchase, and receiving
possession of the estate. Mr. Stewart swore that that
agreement for a sale was purely conditional ; thut the
ratification of it was to depend on the approval of Mr.
Stewart Mackenie, who had then left the island ; that
if he did not approve of it, possession of the estate was
to be returned to him (Mr. Stewart), and Mr. Lock was
to be repaid the reasonable expenses he might have in-
curred during his interim possession, upon the proper
cultivation of the estate, he not being at liberty to lay
out any money in making roads or erecting buildings
upon the land until after Mr. Stewart Mackenzie's plea-
sure should be known. As early as the 27th of April,
1843, Mr. Lock was informed by a letter from Mr.
Steuart, that from letters he had received from Mrs.
Stewart Mackenzie there was likely to be disappoint-
ment in obtaining Mr. Stewart Mackenzie's approval of
the sale ; and very soon afterwards that Mr. Stewart
Mackenzie had atsolutely objected to the sale.
Mr. Steuart then and repeatedly afterwards ap-
plied to Mr. Lock for the return of the
possession of lithe estate, offering to refund to him the
outlay he had been at upon the property, but which Mr.
Lock declined to accede to, alleging that the sale had
been unconditional, and that Mr. Stewart Mackenzie
was bound to convey the estate. Mr. Stewart Mackenzie
died at Southampton upon his return to this country in
September, 1843. His family threatened Mr. Lock
with legal proceedings for the recovery of the estate, but
still he persisted in retaining possession of it. In 1844
Captain Arabin filet a bill in the Court of Chancery ix
England against the Hon. Mrs. Stewart Mackenzie,
widow of the late governor, to compel her specifically to
perform the alleged contract, and praying that she might
be restrained from resorting to legal proceedings in Cey-
lon. In 1844 Mr. Anstruther, and other gentlemen,
became the administrators in the island of the estate and
effects of the late Governor; and in May, 1845, they
commenced an actior in the district court of Kandy, in
which district the estate is situate, against Mr. Lock,
for the purpose of ejecting him from the possession, and
claiming damages to the amount of 10,0001.,Mr. Lock filed
his answer to that action, by which he denied his
liability, on the groand of being merely an agent.
The plaintiffs demured to that answer, but the district
court held the answer to be a good defence. Much delay
then took place, and Mrs. Stewart Mackenzie felt her-
self under the necessity of sending a gentleman (Mr.
11`Christie) from the English bar to Ceylon to assist in
the conduct of her cause, and to expedite the proceedings
there. Mr. M`Christie arrived in Ceylon in the spring
of 1846, and immediately advised an appeal to the
Supreme Court at Colombo against the decision of the
district court. Upon that appeal coming on, the Chief
Justice held that Mr. Lock's form of answer was no bar
to the suit, but upon his suggestion that, as Captain
Arabia's title to the estate must be tried, it might be
more neatly tried in an action against himself rather
than against his agent, and upon Mr. Lock's consenting
to appear, answer, and defend such action for Captain
Arabin without delay, by consent a new action against
Captain Arabia was thereupon brought, the then action
being to lie in abeyance until the result of the new
action should be known. That action was commenced
in April, 1846, and Mr. Lock pleaded to it that he had
purchased the estate of one James Steuart for Captain
Arabin, and that Captain Arabin claimed to be the
owner thereof by virtue of an alleged sale of it
to his agent, Mr. Lock, for him. He also set up an ob-
jection to the title of Mr. Stewart Mackenzie to the
estate. The cause became ripe for hearing in May,
1846, and upon the plaintiff's application to that effect
it was set down for trial at Kandy, on the 22d of June.
The defendant then applied for a commission to examine
witnesses in England, and that the trial might be stayed
until after the return of the commission, which the
district court refused. The defendant appealed from that
order to the Supreme Court at Colombo, and which it
dismissed, but granting leave to the parties to amend
their pleadings; it also set aside the order for the trial to
take place on the 22d of June. The defendant took no
step to amend his pleadings ; and upon another appli-
cation made by the plaintiffs to the district court the
trial was again fixed for the 31st of July. On the day
appointed for, the trial the defendant again applied for
a commission to examine witnesses in England, which
was again refused, and the trial proceeded. The judg-
ment and verdict were that the defendant be ejected from
the estate ; that possession of it be delivered to the
plaintiffs, and that the defendant pay to the plaintiffs
6,000/. as and for damages and mesne profits,
together with the costs of the suit. The de-
fendant appealed to the Supreme Court against
the order of the district court refusing for a second time
the commission on the morning of the day of trial. The
Supreme Court dismissed his appeal with costs. He
text appealed from that order to the Judges of the
Supreme Court collectively, and they likewise dismissed
his appeal. He subsequently moved the Supreme Court
to set aside the judgment and verdict of the district
court of the 31st July, and to grant him liberty to amend
his answer and pleadings. The Supreme Court referred
that motion to the Supremo Court collectively, which
court dismissed the motion with costs. He then pre-
sented a petition of appeal to the Supreme Court against
the verdict and judgment of the 31st July, and prayed
that they might be set aside. On the Bth October, 1846,
the Supreme Court, upon the hearing of that appeal, set
the verdict and judgment aside, and granted liberty to
the defendant to amend his pleadings, without putting
him under any terms either as to payment of costs,
security for damages (he being out of the jurisdiction),or
time within which he must proceed. Mr. M'ChriCie,
on behalf of the plaintiffs, thereupon moved the Supreme
Court for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, and to
have a certified copy of the record of the proceedings.
The Court considered the plaintiffs had not a right to
appeal to the Privy Council, under the charter, from au
order which was merely interlocuory.l iThe plaintiff's
counsel submitted that the plaintiffs were perfectly at
liberty, as well under, as independently of, the charter
to petition her Majesty for leave to appeal to her Privy
Council against an order which, thoughinterlocutory,
had the effect of setting aside a final judgment, where-
upon the Court ordered the certified copy of the
record. Mr. M'Christie then immediately returned to
this country with the record ; a petition to her Ma-
jesty was presented ; liberty to appeal was granted,
and the appeal was argued on the 19th and 21st of
February last. It was contended on behalf of the
plaintiffs that there had been no irregularity on their
parts ; that the defendant had had every opportunity
of defending, himself; that all the proceedings he had
resorted to had been mere debtories ; that he had
chosen Ceylon as the place in which to raises his legal
points; that he had adopted the Court of Chancery here as
the tribunal which ought to decide upon his equitable
claims, which he might press on whenever he pleased;
that he had allowed the action to be tried
as an undefended cause ; that there was
no valid ground or pretence for the order of the
Supreme Court appealed against, and that therefore that
order ought to be reversed, and the verdict andjudg-
ment of the 31st of July affirmed. For the defendant
it was urged, that he being out of the jurisdiction, more
time ought to have been allowed to him for framing and
conducting his defence ; that his agent had written to
England for instructions for
.his defence ; but
that owing to the precipitancy with which the pro-
ceedings had been hurried on by Mr. M'Christie in
Ceylon, the action had been tried before thoso instruc-
tions had arrived; and, therefore, before h e had been
able properly to defend himself;' that the trial had been
a mere experts proceeding; that upon such a proceed-
ing, it would be unjust that the defendant should have
to deliver up possession of the estate, and pay such
enormous damages; and that, consequently, there ought
to be a new trial, and the present appeal dismissed.

Lord LANGDALE delivered judgment, and after going
over all the proceedings with great minuteness, he said,
if Mr. M‘Christie's representations were true, which there
was no reason to doubt, it was perfectly clear
the defendant had been struggling through-
out for delay, but he had never made any
application to the courts below for further time
than he had had. It was also manifest that he had
claimed a right to the estate in a manner in which he
was not entitled to claim any such right, and, if injus-
tice had been done to him, it was his own fault. Still
it was evident, that the principal question between the
parties had not yet been tried, namely, the conditional or
unconditional character of the alleged agreement, and
therefore the trial had not been satisfactory in this re-
spect. If the questions arising in this casacould have
been properly tried here, their Lordships would have
preferred to recommend that course, but as the property
in dispute was situated in a part of Ceylon where the
Roman-Dutch law prevailed, they thought they could
not he so conveniently or appropriately disposed of in
the first place here as in Ceylon. Under these, and all
the circumstances of the case, what their Lordships had
considered it would be just in them to report to her
Majesty was, that if the defendant would consent to pay
the plaintiffs the costs of the trial of the 31st July, 1846,
and consent to dismiss his bill in Chancery against Mrs.
Stewart Mackenzie, and pay to her the costs of that
suit, and also perfect a security "within a
month from this time to the amount of 6,0001., to answer
the damages and costs that might be awarded against
him upon having a new trial, the trial of the 31st of July
should be set aside ; that he should have a fortnight's
time to consider whether he should consent to these con-
ditions or not ; and that, if be should not so consent,
then that the order of the Supreme Court of the Bth of
October should he reversed; that the judgment and ver-
dict of the 31st July be affirmed, except as to damages
and costs; that the defendant should deliver up imme-
diate possession of the estate to the plaintiffs; and that
the Court in Ceylon should proceed to ascertain the
amount of damages and costs duo to the plaintiffs down
to the day on which the possession should be delivered
to the administrators.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT, Marck 1.
(Before D. C. MOYLAN, Esq., Judge.)
RUBY V. ALLEN.

In this case the plaintiff, a countryman living at Hen-
don, summoned the defendant, a respectable licensed
victualler, carrying on business at Pimlico, for the value
of a sovereign, which the plaintiff alleged was bad, and
which also he alleged the defendant had given him.
The defendant denied most positively that he ever
gave the man any such coin, and after lasting a consi-
derable time the case was adjourned until to-day, the
plaintiff undertaking to produce witnesses to prove that
Mr. Allen was in the habit of passing bad money.
On the, resumption of the case a witness, a coal porter,
named Richards, was called, and stated that a bad
shilling on one occasion had been paid to him by Mr.
Allen, and that Mrs. Allen wished it to be given back,
and no more to be said about it.

Mr. Allen said the witness was a perfect stranger to
him, and he had no recollection whatever of ever seeing
him in his house. No such transaction as he had de-
scribed ever took place.
Airs. Allen, on being sworn, distinctly stated that
nothing of the kind ever happened as the witness de-
scribed. She had never seen the man before to her
knowledge.
The Learned JUDGE said it had been stated by the
plaintiff that Mr. and Mrs. Allen were in the habit of
passing bad money, and that he could prove it, this day.
From the evidence of the witness, he (the Judge) had no
hesitation in saying that it was one of the grossest cases
of perjury that had ever been brought before him.
Mr. Allen truted the Judge would punish them.

The JUDGE—That is for you to do. I have no power.
It is your duty to indict them for perjury, and as far as
I am able I will assist you.
Mr. Allen said he had several of his neighbours pre-
sent to speak to the character of his house, which was
one of the most respectable in the neighbourhood.
The JUDGE said he had no doubt about it, but it was
unnecessary.—The case was then dismissed, with costs.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME elliCUlT.—Hertford, March 1.

The business of this circuit commenced to-day. The
commission was opened on Tuesday, and this morning
both courts proceeded to business, the Lord Chief
Justice presiding at Nisi Prius, and Mr. Justice Cole-
ridge in the Crown Court. The cause list is heavier
than usual, there being 22 causes set down for trial, six
of which are special jury cases. The cases in the
criminal side are of the ordinary character. None of
the causes disposed of yesterday contained any feature
of public interest.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Reading, March 1.

CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Jugtice PATTESON.)
His Lordship took his scat this morning at nine
o'clock, when

George Banbury, 32, was arraigned for barglariously
breaking into the dwelling-house of Esther Lawrence,
on the let of January, and committing a criminal assault
on the person of the said Esther Lawrence.
Mr. Powys prosecuted, but the prisoner (a stalwart,
bold-looking labourer) had no counsel.
The case having been gone into, it terminated in a
verdict of Not Guilty.
George Cox, 35, was convicted of poaching, armed with
a gun, in company with two other men (not in custody),
in the night time of the 22d of November last, on the
lands of Robert Palmer, Esq., M.P., threatening the
keepers, and shooting a pheasant.
It appeared he had been convicted six times in the
last four .years, at the Quarter Sessions, for offences
against the game-laws.
The JUDGE told him he would give him one more
chance of remaining in the country, and as he never
liked persons such as him to come out of prison just at
the season of the year when they would be likely to re-
new their depredations, and labour was scarce, he should
sentence him to three months' imprisonment, so as to
enable him to get work in June.
This completed the business of these assizes. Mr.
Justice Cresswell having been called to London by the
illness of his sister, did not hold a court to-day, and
Mr. Justice Patteson proceeded on to open the Commis-
sion at Oxford.

WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Winchester, March 1.
CROWN SlDE.—(Before Sir T. J. PLATT, Knight.)
James Ayres, aged 48, a respectable-looking man, was
charged with having, on the 15th day of January last,
at the town of Southampton, uttered and disposed of a
banker's cheque, purporting to be the order or draught
of Messrs. Withers and Bolin, upon Messrs. Maddison
and Pearse, with intent to defraud one George Bullock;
he the said James Ayres well knowing the same to be
forged.

The prisoner defended himself. Ultimately
The jury found the prisoner Guilty of uttering the
cheque, knowing it to be forged. Sentenced to ten years'
transportation.
Henry Willis, aged 23, stood charged with having, on
the night of the 19th of July last, in the borough of
Portsmouth, burglariously broken and entered the dwel-
ling-house of Elizabeth Alley, and stolen therefrom one
silver spoon, two rings, &c. &c.
Found Guilty and sentenced to twelve calendar months'
imprisonment with hard labour.

George Greengrass, found Guilty yesterday of stealing
a post-office order, was this morning sentenced to six
month's hard labour.

MIDLAND ClRCUlT.—Northanzpton, March 1.
The commission for this county was opened yesterday
about five o'clock, by Mr. Justice Maule, who this
morning proceeded to All Saints Church, where Divine
rvice was performed. His Lordship, at the close of the
service, took his seat in the Nisi Prius Court, Chief Jus-
tice Wilde presiding in the Criminal Court.
There are but six causes ; one is a special jury, in-
volving the question of the validity of a bill of sale.
The calendar contains the names of sixty-three pri-
soners. The following is a summary of the charges :
Murder, I; arson, 2; manslaughter, 2; sheep•stealing,
1; forgery, 1 ; embezzlement, 1; Post-office robbery, 1;
offences against the game-laws, 5 ; involving nine pri-
soners, the remainder being common cases of stealing.
We observe one prisoner is charged with stealing two-
pennyworth of bread, another a pint and a half of bran
and peas, valued at 2d. Of the sixty-three prisoners
eleven can neither read nor write.

With regard to the female, it being proved that she
and the other prisoner lived together as man and wife,
and the prosecutor not denying the fact,
The COMMON SERGEANT held that the case against her
could not be sustained, as the law presumed that she
acted under the coercion of her husband.
She was then found Not Guilty. _ _ _

The case against the man proceeded, and ho was con-
victed.

The prosecutor said the prisoner had plundered him
to the extent of upwards of 1001. The custom was for
the prisoner to steal the flour, and send his wife to sell
it, at less than half the market price.
The COMMON SERGEANT said the sentence was, that
the prisoner be transported for seven years.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Robert Moore Dixon, a man of respectable appearance,
who was formerly a clerk at Messrs. Welch's, army con-
tractors, in Leadenhall-street, was finally examined be-
fore Mr. Alderman Gibbs, charged with uttering several
forged requests for the delivery of pieces of linen,
whereby he had defrauded Messrs. Lewellin, Truman,
and Hitchcock, Manchester warehousemen, Wood-street,
of goods to the amount of .55L
Mr. Wontner conducted the prosecution.
The porter at Messrs. Lewellin's, proved that the pri-
soner called on the 22d ult., and left an order, purport-
ing to be written by Mr. Leeds, the purveyor and steward
of the East India Military College at Addiscombe. Ile
said he would call again in an hour. He had called six
or seven times before during the last two months, with
like orders, when the goods were delivered to him, and
he signed the delivery-book as Grantham, the Croydon
carrier. The fraud having been discovered, a parcel
was made up, and delivered to him on the 22d ult., as
usual, but two officers were waiting fur him in the ware-
house, and they followed him.
John Mark Bull and Robert Pack-roan, two of the
City detective police, stated that they followed the pri-
soner to Lincoln's Inn-fields, when ho turned on them,
and asked why they were following him. They said
they wanted to know how he came by the parcel, and
where he was going, The prisoner said he had brought
it from Lewellin's, in Wood-street, and was going with
it to meet his employer, Mr. Grantham, the Croydon
carrier. They offered to go with him, and he then said
it was of no use to do so ; he had obtained the goods
by a forged order, and ho had obtained goods in the
same way before. O❑ the way to Guildhall he asked if
the case would be decided that day. The officers said
it would not, because they must endeavour to trace the
property. The prisoner said he would save them all the
trouble he could, and told them where he had pledged
the property, and at those places the property was
found.

Mr. Leeds, from the Addiscombe College, looked at
eight orders for goods purporting to be signed by him,
and declared they were neither written by him nor by his
authority.
A dozen pawnbrokers attended to produce the pro-
perty, and those who gave up the goods on receiving
one-third of the sunk lent, were allowed to do so, and
were excused from being bound to attend at the 0:d
Bailey.
The prisoner offered:no defence.
Mr. Alderman GlBBScommitted.the prisoner for trial.

BIRTHS.

On the 28th alt., at Bayswater, the wife of the Rev. J. H.
Jerrard, D.C.L., of a son.

On the 29th ult., at Peckham, the lady of W. Haswell.
Esq., surgeon, of a son..

Un the—z9tia ult.,attihesington Lodge, Surrey, Mrs. John
•f a (laughter.
On the 29th ult., Mrs. Samuel Sharwood, of Aldersgate-
street, of a (laughter.

MARRIED.
On the I).(ith ult., at Brenchley, Kent, John Lee, Esq., of
Yarmouth, to Emma, only daughter of Obadiah Lenne►, DK,
of Matfield, near Brencliley.

DIED.
On the 23d alt., at Kent-terrace, Park-road, Lieutenant-
General Thomas Pollock, C.B.
On the 26th ult., at Murray-place, Edinburgh, Lieutenant-
Colonel Oswald, C. 13., aged 6 I.
On the 27th ult., at Idington, Joseph Payne Street, Esq.

London : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG. at
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at 7he Sun Office, No. 112,
Strand, in the Precinct et the Savoy, in the county a
Middlesex, Thursday, March 2, 1848.