The Sun.
London, England, 1833-01-19 00:00:00

PRIVY COUNCIL.-(THIS DAY.)

The Lords of the Privy Council sat to-day at the Council
Chamber, Whitehall. Their Lordships were occupied the
greater part of the morning with an appeal from the Court of
Chancery, in the Island of St. Vincent, the questions on which
depended chiefly on matters of account, totally devoid of any
public interest. The Lords present were the Master of the
Rolls, Sir Christopher Robinson, and Mr. Ellice.

COURT OF CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.

SLAVERY EMANCIPATION,--MOST IMPORTANT

CASE.
THORLEY v. BURN AND OTHERS.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN was instructed to call the Court's
most attentive consideration to the case he was about to open.
It was a case of the greatest difficulty and importance that could
be brought forward, and one in which he very much regretted
his inability to offer his Lordship any assistance in the course
he ought to pursue. Lord Crawford and Lindsay died in the
year 1825, seized of an estate in Antigua, upon which there
were then 140 slaves. By his will, dated in 1816, he directed
that after his death the rents and profits arising from the estate
should accumulate (after defraying certain necessary ex.
penses), till February, 1833, when the slaves should be
manumitted, and the accumulations equally divided among
them for their support. By the laws of the island, any propri-
etor of slaves manumitting them, was bound to pay 300/. for
each slave into the public fund, as a security for their main-
tenance. In this case, the whole sum to be appropriated was
only 750/. The number of slaves was 134, twelve of whom
were unable, from infirmity or sickness, to work any more;
and eighteen were infants. It had been referred to the Master
to ascertain whether, by the laws of Antigua, this desire
could be carried into effect ; and he had now repeated it could.
The LORD CHANCELLOR inquired if, by the Act, a
proprietor could not emancipate without paying the 3001., or
whether he might, but that if he did he would subject himself to
some penalty ?
Sir E. SUGDEN believed that by the law the proprietor
had the power to free his slaves when he pleased, but in this
case it was immaterial to consider whether in doing so,
without providing the 300/. for each, he became liable to a
fine, because there was no fund nor person to be made answer-
able for the penalty, unless it was the Lord Chancellor him.
self, or the present occupier of the estate, and the latter was
quite unable to pay any thing. By the law nothing could
prevent the freedom of these slaves taking place next month.
The slaves knew that. It had been proposed to lay out
the fund to which they were entitled for their general
benefit by erecting huts for them, and apportioning to each
small plots of land, if they would consent to remain together
and work on the estate; but they had all declared they meant
to avail themselves of their liberty, they intended to separate,
and to remain no longer on the estate where they had hereto-
fore been so long located. A letter from a respectable person
on the island, represented to be well acquainted with the dispo.
sitions of the slaves, stated that it was quite unreasonable to
suppose that any thing could induce the slaves on this
estate to continue to work on it after next month—they
would be sure to take themselves off, even if afterwards they
should feel it necessary to return again to the same planta-
tion. If the fund were to be divided into equal shares be-
tween them, it would not amount to more than four or five
pounds for each; and probably the better way (the Learned
Counsel thought) would be to have it declared that the division
should take place--those who were able to work should
have their portions—that the infirm should be supported by
theirs, as far as the money could go, and that the infants' shares
ahould be applied in some way for their benefit, through
the Receiver, or by some other means. It was beyond
doubt that they could not be continued and worked as slaves
after next mouth—their freedom they must have, and yet there
was nothing like the necessary fund for supporting them in
their emancipated condition. It might not be necessary to
declare the able bodied portion of them actually manumitted
until it has been seen whether hereafter there would be the
300/. for each of them, but in that there would be a difficulty.
This was an instance highly illustrative of the difficulty there
must be in proceeding at once to the general emancipation of
all slaves. However anxious all might be that there
should be some amelioration in the condition of slaves, yet
when it was found that when having only 134 slaves to deal
with, and having some property to dispose of among them, it
was impossible to point out any mode of liberating them with-
out the prospect of the greatest mischief resulting from doing
so, and of plunging them into great misery, it certainly was
calculated to teach an awful lesson.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL appeared for the Crown.
He would not enter at once into observations upon the great
public question which had just been adverted to by Sir Ed-
ward Sugden, but would merely state one fact that had not yet
been disclosed, and then leave this undoubtedly very perplexing
case in the hands of the Court. It appeared that the
estate had been let at a yearly rental of 5,0001. to a
Mr. Burnthorne, and that so negligent had the Receiver been
that he had allowed an arrear of rent to accrue to the amount
of 2,0001. If the receiver could recover that four years' rent,
then there would be pretty nearly as much as would meet the
exigencies of the law upon the liberation of these slaves.
Before his Lordship parted with the case, the Learned Attor-
ney-General considered that, at all events, he would bring the
Receiver to an account of his conduct.

Other Counsel were in the case, but they added no observa-
tions.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN had not stated any thing about
the arrear of 2,0001. for rent, because having done so could
have answered no good end. Mr. Burnthorne was quite un-
able to pay a penny of it, and he had stated, that if pressed, he
would instanter turn all the slaves adrift, and there was not a
person in the island who wanted them.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was a case full of dif-
ficulty. Undoubtedly almost any thing ought to be done
at any rate with the view of saving further expense.
Sir E. SUGDEN was sure that he and his Learned Friends
would do all in their power to prevent the case being sent
back again to the Master, or more expense being incurred in
any way.

The LORD CHANCELLOR inquired if the bar had any
objection to his communicating with Government on this
case ? He was replied to in the negative. His Lordship then
observed, that he thought it was very fit on public grounds
that Government should be made acquainted with the whole of
the circumstances of this case. He agreed most fully with
Sir Edward, that it presented many most important reflections.
Sir E. SUGDEN thought the case showed the great danger
that was to be apprehended from yielding to the almost general
public cry for slavery emancipation.
The LORD CHANCELLOR promised that it should have
all the attention he could give it.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL •. THE SKINNERS'
COMPANY.

This case, which was part-heard yesterday, and on which
the arguments were resumed today, was an information filed
by the Attorney-General at the relation of Dr. Knox, the
Head Master of Tonbridge Grammar School, against the Cor-
poration of the Skinners' Company and the Principal and
Fellows of Brazennose College, Oxford, for the purpose of
having the opinion of the Court upon the construction of the
deed of gift of a Mr. Henry Fisher, under which the Skinners'
Company had become possessed of valuable lands in that and
other parts of the country. In the reign of Edward VI., Sir
Andrew Judd, by his will, founded a free grammar school in
Tonbridge, with an exhibition for one student in the University
of Oxford. The whole property of the school was to be under
the direction of the Skinners' Company, of which the founder
had been a member, and for that purpose the Skinners' Com-
pany were incorporated under the name of the Governors of
the Pessessions and Revenues of the Free Grammar School of
Tonbridge. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, a Mr. Henry
Fisher, by a deed of gift, made this school a material object of
his bounty, and it was upon the construction of that deed that '
the principal question in the information turned.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. RANDALL, on
behalf of the relations, contended that under the construction
of the deed the estates were vested in the Skinners' Company,
only as Trustees for the sole use and benefit of theTonbridge
School. On the other hand Sir Edward Sugden, Mr. Lovett,
and Mr. Bethell, submitted that by the deeds the estates were
vested absolutely in the Skinners' Company, subject only to the
payments specified for the support of the school. Mr. Bethell
having finished his arguments, the further consideration of
the case was adjourned, the Attorney-General who had to
reply, being engaged in the Privy Council.