The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-04 00:00:00

ADVANCES TO IRISH UNIONS.

The following correspondence between the Earl of
Clancarty and Lord John Russell, appears in the
Galway Vindicator of Saturday :
" (iarbally, Oct. 9, 1851.
" My Lord,—As chairman of a public meeting of
guardians of the poor, from the several poor-law
unions of the province of Connaught, held at Ballina-
sloe on the 7th instant, with reference to the repay-
ment of advances made by the Treasury during the
famine, I have the honour of transmitting to your
Lordship a memorial upon the subject, together with
the resolutions upon which it was founded, and which
were unanimously assented to.
" Your Lordship will, I trust, pardon me if I take
this opportunity of remarking to you that the addi-
tional burden which the Consolidated Annuities Act,
if enforced, will throw upon the poor-rates for the
next forty years, will probably have the effect of
disfranchising many ratepayers who, under the re-
cent Act for altering the qualification of Parliamentary
voters, have acquired a right to vote, as, apart from
unwillingness to pay what is considered an unjust
exaction, the poor-rates in some districts will be so
much enhanced by the annuity, that many will be
unable to make the payment of the rate which is the
condition of the franchise.

" Your Lordship, I am sure, cannot wish that the
Irish constituency should be narrowed, or that the
most heavily taxed districts should, through the very
excess of taxation, be unrepresented in Parliament.
Neither can it be desirable that those who, by pay-
ment of rates imposed upon them, acquire the right of
voting, should elect their representatives under the
influence of a feeling that wrong has been done to
them at the hands of the Government.

" These considerations, I think, warrant me in ex-
pressing to your Lordship an earnest request that the
rates designed for the relief of the poor may not be
impounded to reimburse to the Treasury the advances
made during the famine until after a full inquiry, as
prayed for in the accompanying memorial, before
Committees of the two Houses of Parliament

" I have the honour to be, &c.,
CLANCAETT.
" The Right Hon. Lord John Russell, &c."
" Garbally, Oct. 25, 1851.
" My Lord,—Not having hitherto received any ac-
knowledgment of a letter I had the honour of ad-
dressing to your Lordship, transmitting a memorial
from the guardians of the poor of the several poor-law
unions of the province of Connaught, agreed to at a
public meeting at which I presided on the 7th inst. at
Billinasloe, I respectfully request that you will do me
the favour of informing me whether the memorial was
received, as the subject to which it relates is one of
much interest in this province, and especially to those
who have to administer the poor-law, and many have
applied to me to know whether any, and what answer
has been returned to it.

"I pray your Lordship to excuse this intrusion
and to believe me, your very faithful servant,

" The Lord J. Russell, &C."

" CLANCARTY.

" Downing-street, Oct. 27, 1851.
"My Lord,—l received your letter of the 9th
instant, together with a memorial from the guardians
of the poor of the several poor-law unions of the pro-
vince of Connaught.
" The memorial has been under the consideration
of the Board of Treasury. A Treasury minute has
been issued on the subject of the repayment of the
loans advanced in various parts of Ireland. As I
feared a simple acknowledgment of your letter might
be complained of, as it has been in other cases, I have
waited en the Government could make a decision on
the subject.
" I have no doubt your Lordship has seen the
minute of Treasury, by which the Poor-law Com-
missioners will be guided till the meeting of Parlia-
ment.

" I remain, my Lord, your Lordship's obedient
servant, (Signed) " J. RUSSELL.
" The Earl ol CI t''
. ancar y.

THE NEW NOVEL, entitled " R vEtescurEE,
" b
the Author of " Emilia Wyndham " &el, in 3 vols. puby-
lished this day by Messrs. Colburn,
andCo.,and may now be
had at all the Libraries. Tae following popular new novels
are also just published:-2. Mrs. Mathews; or Family Mys
teries, by Mrs. Trollops.-3. The Livingstones, A Story of
Red Life.-4. Cecile ; or, the Pervert, by the Author
of
o Rockingham," 1 vol.-5. Marian Withers, by Miss Jews-
bury.-6. Alban, A Tale, by the Author of " Lad Alice."—
7. The Tutor's Ward, by the Author of " Wayfaring
ku,talikorenobfurg.
,Mbayrgatrheet
Sketches."—S• Clare Abbsecye,neblyinLatdhye
TErmopiilycZ'ol3nysoenabpyt.a—in
9. Arthur Conway; or,
Maitland," 1 vol.
Ail man . —.l 0. Caleb Field,
Alsoj
Author of " Mildred Vernon."
usbty retandey,A
SOUTHAMPTON, Nov. .
She took out
India and Mexican mails, left this afternoon.
pany's steam-ship Thames, 3.
—ptTaihneAbßbooytta,lwitihaithi eCWomes-t
alase9asvl.y,
amnaailt,hefullalrggeenneurmalbcerargoof,
Is3poecpieastsoontghee,amamouonnmt
t of
16,
whom were the Bishop of Jamaica, Lord and Lards
cliffs and daughter Dr. Evans, Colonel Wilson?' Wham-
Lord_Ce C.
Harvey, Rev. Mr. ,Jugle, Lieutenant Clark, &c. The -
ninsalar and Oriental Company's steam-ship Indus, Captain
soy, left for Gibraltar, Malta, and Alexandria, as an extra
vessel. The Great Western, with the homewaard West India
mails, is expected about the sth inst.
PRIZE CLOTEIB.—Day after day numerous pur-
chases are made from the specimens exhibited by those ma-
nufacturers who have obtained most distinction. The fur
beavers, Venetian cloths; and fine black and blue cloths dis-
played by Messrs. Carr, of Tiverton Mills, near Bath, as
samples of the West Country Cloths, and which obtained a
prize medal, have found a purchaser in Messrs, Crozkes, of
News.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 3.
ZULUETA V. YINENT.

This appeal motion was partly opened in the be-
ginning of August, and stood open by consent. The
bill was filed to restrain an action at law, com-
menced by the defendant Vinent for the recovery of
the proceeds of a cargo of copper ore consigned by
him to the plaintiff. The Master of the Rolls refused
the injunction, and the motion was now renewed be-
fore hit Lordship.
Mr. LLOYD, on the part of the plaintiff, continued
his argument until half-past two o'clock, when his
Lordship rose to attend a Cabinet Council.
The Court sits to-morrow at Lincoln's-inn, and
will continue to do so until after the meeting of Par-
liament.

COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY, Nov. 3.
The Lord Justices, Sir J. K. Bruce and Lord
Cranworth sat to-day in the court formerly occupied
by the Vice-Chancellor of England, and heard appeal
motions.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE CORPORATION OP
NORWICH.
This was an information against the corporation
filed for an injunction to restrain them from applying
the funds of the borough to defray the expenses of an
Act of Parliament, which the corporation propose to
obtain, in order that they may deepen, widen, and
improve that part of their river which flows between
Norwich and Yarmouth. The relators allege that the
corporation have have no power to devote the borough
funds to such a purpose unless there is a surplus, and
the corporation contend, in answer, that the improve-
ment they contemplate is within the scope and meaning
of the 92d section of the Municipal Corporation Act,
and for the benefit of the ratepayers, and the ultimate
diminution of the rates. The Vice-Chancellor Shad-
well, before whom the matter was heard, granted the
injunction, and the corporation now moved to dis-
charge the order, which, as they contend, is an im-
pediment to a great public improvement.
Mr. Stuart, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Brooksbank are for
the appeal ; Mr. Walker and Mr. Rogers contra.
Mr. STUART was heard until half-past three.
The Lord Justice K. BRUCE, at that hour, thought
the Court had better adjourn, unless Mr. Stuart felt
an anxiety to conclude his argument.
Mr. STUART readily accepted his Lordship's pro-
posal to adjourn, but suggested that the adjournment
should be until some time a little later than ordinary.
Their Lordships were, it was understood, to sit in the
new hall of Lincoln's-inn, but the notice had been so
short that it was feared the arrangements could not be
completed by ten o'clock on Tuesday morning.
The Lord Justice BRUCE observed that the judges
must look on Mr. Stuart, from his connexion with
the inn, as being in some measure their host, and
therefore under his directions.
Mr. STUART so far accepted the honour as to sug-
gest that it would be convenient if their Lordships
sat at eleven o'clock to-morrow (Tuesday) morning,
instead of ten.
The LORD JUSTICE had the assent of his brother
Lord Cranworth in saying that there could be no
oljection to that arrangement. His Lordship added,
that it must be also understood that the court would
not sit for the present after three o'clock.
Mr. STUART hoped the appeal motion would take
precedence of other business to. morrow.
Lord Justice BRUCE, after consulting with Lord
Cranworth, said their Lordships conceived it better to
hear the motion to a conclusion, but they were of
opinion that the Court ought then to proceed with the
business set down on the paper of the day.
Their Lordships then rose.
The eleven Queen's Counsel named in our report
elsewhere took their places within the bar at the sit-
ting of the Court.
The separate sittings of the Lords Justices took the
profession somewhat by surprise, as there was a very
general impression that the L,,gislature intended to
form one effective court of appeal, composed of the
Lord Chancellor and his two subordinates. The
reason given for the separate sittings is, that the Lord
Chancellor wishes to reduce the very heavy arrear of
appeals as much as possible before his time is de-
manded for the hearing of appeals in the House of
Lords. The object, whatever might be its effect, is
no doubt most desirable, and within the powers given
him by the Act of Parliament.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 3.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. PARKER.)
The newly-appointed Vice. Chancellor took his
seat in a court temporarily fitted up in one of the
committee-rooms opposite Henry Vll.'s Chapel. A
large concourse of spectators, professional and others,
were assembled to witness the ceremony. His Honour
was attended by Master Blunt, who, after shaking
hands with the new Vice-Chancellor and bowing, re-

ATTORNET-GENEIIAL V. CROFT.-TIIE PABISII cutincn

OF YRAMPTON-ON-SEVERN, GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
Mr. HA.LLETT applied that this case might be ap-
pointed for some day next week, to be spoken to on
further directions, the minutes having been agreed to
in June last. The scheme had been prepared and ap-
proved of, by which legacies had been appropriated to
the purchase of communion plate, of a damask
cloth for the communion-table, and for railing in the
church.

His HONOUR ordered the case to be mentioned
again on Wednesday next.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KINDERSLEY.)
His Honour Vice-Chancellor Kindersley took his
seat in the court of the late Vice• Chancellor Lord
Cranworth.

His HONOUR disposed of several unopposed mo-
tions ; but owing to the lateness of the hour at which
the court was opened, no case of any insportanee WAS
mentioned.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 3.
(Sittings in Banco.)

THE QUEEN, ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE. EARL OF

LONSDALE V. STEILL.

Sir F. MERGER moved for a rule to show cause
why a criminal information should not be filed
against the defendant, the sole proprietor, printer, and
publisher of the Carlisle Journal, for a libel pub-
lished by him in that paper upon the Earl of Lons-
dale. The libel appeared on the 15th of August last,
and when the facts came to be detailed he thought it
would be difficult to say which was most to be won-
dered at—the utter perversion of fact, the excessive
daring, or the scandalous malignity displayed in the
article. Lord Lonsdale had been at various times in
offices of the highest importance in the State, and
bad therefore been exposed, as all public men in this
country necessarily were, to very severe animadver-
sions in the newspapers. He felt, however, that he
had only been so exposed, and that it was very im-
portant that their conduct should be strictly can-
vassed, and that the observations on it should
be made with the utmost liberty by the public
press. He, therefore, never attempted to re-
strain that liberty by any appeal to the
protection of the law, nor would het on
the present occasion have acted otherwise, or have
done anything but disregard the low scurrilous abuse
which ran through this article, if it had not likewise
contained a most daring attack on his integrity as
lord-lieutenant of the county in which he resided, and
charged him with an abuse of the trust which had
been delegated to him by his Sovereign, and with
corrupting the source of the administration of justice.
The occasion which had given rise to this libel hardly
seemed equal to the serious consequences which had
resulted from it. The libel arose from circumstances
connected with the Whitehaven workhouse. The
guardians of that parish rented that workhouse, which
was situated in what was called the Preston Quarter,
from Lord Lonsdale. The property, in question had
been converted to the purposes of a workhouse during
the time of the late Lord Lonsdale, for which pur-
poses many alterations had been made in the original
building, and a rent of 851. was reserved and paid, a
sum which did not amount to more than 5 per cent.
on the original and the additional outlay. The ques-
tion of enlarging or rebuilding the workhouse had
been under the consideration of the guardians since
1842, and in the beginning of 1850 there was a meet-
ing of the guardians, and a committee was appointed
to take these different matters into consideration.
That committee was instructed to negotiate with the
lord-lieutenant for the purchase of the house. Lord
Lonsdale's interest in the house was but trifling, for
the property in the house was vested in trustees, and
he himself had but a life interest in it. His pecuniary
interest, therefore was but small. When the proposal
for the purchase was made, Lord Lonsdale, on the
advice of his agent, asked for a sum equivalent to
thirty years purchase on the rent of 851., and he asked
a sum of 4001. for an additional piece of land. It was
perfectly immaterial for the present purpose whether
the price so demanded was exorbitant or moderate ;
but upon this point it might be mentioned that in the
January preceding, Lord Lonsdale, acting on the ad-
vice of the same agent, had purchased property im-
mediately adjoining the spot in question at a higher
rate than he had thus demanded for his property.
The guardians at a meeting held in November, 1850,
suhnoaunlidinnooutslbyeraecscoelvpetdedt,bsaotthLaotrdh
isLLonosrddaslhe'ips pbreol
ipeovseadl
that the whole affair of the purchase was at an end,
and he thought nothing more of the matter until
the 14th of March, 1851, when he received a letter
from a person named Fox, who represented himself
as
ak and
doacting
andafdto
irtsiutohe board
nma h
eol
land.
nrd.
wouldof i guardians,aokrde forL orequestingnt2hdea Lonsdale,
odesiringrk housteo
to meet the wishes of the vestry, directed that
a smaller sum than before should be asked
as the price. In order to complete this part of the
history of the case, it might be mentioned that on
the 27th of March, 1851, the guardians entered into
a negotiation for the purchase of another piece of
land at Woodend, and the two negotiations were going
W wasuo
poonsetodgeitnhetri:e
vOe ns
try the
thatlst o
tf h
eMay,pro
pleBrstyl , :tt
should be purchased; but an amendment was carried

I to the effect that negotiations should be entered into
with Lord Lonsdale, to ascertain how, and on what
terms, the possession of the property at Preston
Quarter could be obtained. It was now necessary to
turn to other matters which were important, as bear-
ing on the libel of which Lord Lonsdale complained.
Lord Lansdale received from the Rev. Mr. Senhouse
a letter, on the 12th of December, 1860, in which
that gentleman represented that since the Rev. Mr.
Featherstone had quitted Maryport, no petty sessions
could be held, in consequence of there being no two
magistrates in that neighbourhood, and the present
incumbent having declined to become a magistrate,
the writer was induced to mention Mr. Lawson, the
eldest son of Sir Wilfred Lawson, as a gentleman in
every way qualified to be put in the commission. On
the 15th December Lord Lonsdale wrote an answer
to this letter, in which he observed that it was not
usual to ask for the commission for a county to be
opened in order that one name might be inserted in
it, and that in truth there was a necessity for creating
several more magistrates, and he therefore asked Mr.
Senhouse, as he had asked several other gentlemen, to
mention to him the names of different persons whom
he believed to be properly qualified to act as justices
of the peace for the county. Lord Lonsdale now
stated that, acting on the advice of others, as well
as upon his own knowledge, he had been induced to
recommend twenty-nine gentlemen to the Lord
Chancellor as persons to be added to the commission.
The recommendation was instantly adopted by the
Lord Chancellor, who informed him that a commis-
sion would be prepared accordingly ; but before it
was prepared the inhabitants petitioned that the
name of the Rev. Octavius James might be added to
the rest, and his name was sent up to the Lord
Chancellor, and was inserted in the commission. Of
all these thirty gentlemen there was but one who
had applied to be put into the commission, and
that was a gentleman who had complained of the
omission of his name when the former commis-
sion had been issued. The Learned Counsel added
that he had the affidavit of a magistrate of many
years' standing, who set forth the absolute
necessity that there had been for this addition to
the magistracy ; for that the population of the
place was larger ; it was opposite the coast of Ireland ;
it was liable to immigrations of Irish paupers ; and in
1850 about 12,000 of them had come within magis-
terial and police jurisdiction. The letter also showed
that the number of magistrates had been 33, but that
it had been reduced by deaths and changes of resi-
dence to 22, of which 22 the attendance was very
indifferent; so that though there were five meetings
of petty sessions every week, only two out of the 22
performed the duty; and it frequently happened that
the business was obliged to be suspended or adjourned
for want of magistrates to conduct it. For the rea-
sons thus set forth, and for no other, Lord Lonsdale
inserted in his letter of recommendation the names of
12 persons within the district of Whitehaven. Only
six of these qualified at the following April sessions,
and of these six two had been elected guardians of the
poor. At that time Lord Lonsdale did not know that
the qualifying magistrates became ex officio guardians
of the poor of the parish or union in which they
acted as magistrates; and although he held one-sixth
of the rateable property of the place, he was not
then a guardian. He had since, however, become a
m igistrate and a guardian. The libel of which he
now complained attributed to him that he selected
these gentlemen to be magistrates because he knew
that they would thereby become ex officio guardians,
that they were creatures of his own, and were chosen
with the understanding that they would do his bid-
ding, and would vote for the purchase of the work-
house from him. It was this of which he complained,
for he disregarded the rest of the article; but when
he was accused of thus corruptly misusing the trust
which his Sovereign had placed in him, he felt that
he was bound to apply to the Court for i's interfe-
rence ; and in doing so he negatived, in the most ex-
press terms, the imputations which it conveyed. The
Learned Counsel was proceeding to read and com-
ment on the libel, when

Lord CAMPBELL said that the article imputed a
grave offence to a high officer in the discharge of his
duty, he had distinctly denied the imputation, and
the rule must be granted.
Rule to show cause granted.
TUCKER V. THE PROPRIETORS OP THE BRISTOL AND

XETEIi RAILWAY.

Mr. A. J. STEPHENS moved fpr a rule to show
cause why the defendants in this case should not be
ordered to take up an award which had been made in
a reference where
,they were parties. The Learned
Counsel stated that the facts of the dispute and the
reference, and the making of the award, and then ob-
served that the Act under which the arbitration took
place was so worded that the plaintiff was not autho-
rised to take up the award; but the right to do so
was vested in the defendants alone, who, by refusing
to take it up, prevented the plaintiff from obtaining
what was justly due to him.
The COURT granted the rule to show cause.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 3.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
His Lordship did not enter the court until a few
minutes before two o'clock. The business disposed
of was of no interest or importance.

EXCHEQUER, Nov. 3.
in Banco.)
This being TtheO(fiSFritsttindgsay of term, their Lordships
breakfasted with the Lord Chancellor. The Court
sat at about half-past One. The Court consisted of
I Barons Parke, Alderson, and
Mr. Willis having been appointed• to the office of
" Tubman" to
Platt.
Mr. Lordt Chief Baron
the Court, to which the privilege of
moving before Queen's counsel is attached, made the
first motion on the sitting of the Court.
In the course of the afternoon the several gentle-
men who have recently been appointed Queen's coun-
sel presented themselves to the Court, and were called
within the bar by the Lord Chief Baron.
BURT V. KELLY.

Tbis was a case specially appointed to be taken on
the first day of term.
Mr. WATSON and Mr. MANISTT, for the defendant,
was a
ms broughtay, 184
9,
now showed cause against a rule for a new trial,
which had been obtained by Mr. Humfrey on the
ground of misdirection on the part of the Lord Chief
Baron, before whom the case was tried.
The
the
on an agreement, bearing
date
by which the defendant
agreed to let to the plaintiff a piece of ground at the
corner of an intended street, leading into the Vic-
toria--road, Hampstead-road, for the purpose of build-
ing two houses on it; and in consideration of the
plaintiff's engaging to build the two houses, to be
completed before June, 1850, the defendant agreed to
make a temporary road from the Victoria-road along
the intended street by the 31st of September, 1849.
The breach assigned was that the defendant had never
made the temporary road. The defendant paid 51.
into court, and the jury found that no further damage
was sustained br the plaintiff. The misdirection
complained of was that his Lordship said that the
Plaintiff could not have sustained any damage up to
the time when the houses were to be built; and that
he might have made the road himself, and then sued
the defendant for the sum which it might cost.
Mr. WATSON and Mr. MANISTT, in support of the
ruling on the first point, contended that until the
houses were completed and fit to receive tenants the
road could be of no advantage, and therefore that
its absence could cause no damage; and, as to the
second point, that if erroneous, it had no effect on the
verdict.

Mr. Huhu.*Er and Mr. M. SMITS, in support of
the rule, contended that one of the uses of the road
was to enable the plaintiff to cart materials for the
building of the houses, and that in this respect he had
been damnified by the defendant's failing to perform
his contract.

The COURT took time to consider whether the rule
should be granted.

STURGESS V. LORD CURZON.

Mr. D. KEANE applied fora rule to show cause why
this action should not be stayed, on the ground that
the subject matter of it had been referred to arbitra-
.

tion, which was now pending. The facts were as
follow :—A. Mr. Gell, an attorney, sued Lord Curzon,
as director of a railway company, for his bill of
costs. That action, upon coming on fur trial, was
referred to arbitration. Mr. Gell afterwards became
insolvent, and upon the arbitration being proceeded
with, Lord Cranwortb, then Mr. Baron Rolfe,
stayed it until security for the costs should be
given by the attorney on whose account it was
alleged that the proceedings were continued. The
present action was then commenced by the plaintiff,
who is the assignee of Gall, for the same cause. Mr.
Baron Martin at chambers stayed the Faction until
the first day of term. Mr. Keane now moved for
its further stay on the ground thatit was in fact the
same matter as that of " Gell v. Curzon," and was
brought by the attorney for his own purposes, and to
frustrate the order of Mr. Baron Rolfe.

The COURT intimated an opinion that the assignee
could not be prejudiced by the proceedings in the
action brought by the insolvent, but they would con-
sult Mr. Baron Marrin before giving a final decision.

ARCHES' 'COURT, Nov. 3.
(Before Sir H. JENNER FosT.)
This was the first day of term, and the usual for-
mula was observed.