The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-15 00:00:00

but too well known in Ireland, may convict, and
partisan judges may condemn ; but happily the time
is past for general integrity to submit to such foul
desecrations of common justice. The State prosecu-
tions in Ireland, after what has already taken place,
can have no other effect than to sink their promoters
deeper and deeper in public ignominy and execration.
Had the traversers violated the law, they might, even
in Ireland, be punished by the ordinary forms of the
law's administration ; but when the legal officers of
the Crown, who ought to be the foremost in setting
an example of the most scrupulous impartiality, de-
scend to the petty and disgusting quirks, quibbles,
and subterfuges which from the first have polluted
the present prosecutions, the only effect of the trials,
in whatever manner they may terminate, must be to
make the people more and more disgusted and in-
censed against the Government under whose adminis-
tration such abhorrent irregularities can have place.

NAVAL BENEVOLENT INSTITU-
TION.—(THIS DAY.)
A quarterly meeting of the subscribers and friends
of this Institution was held at the Thatched House
Tavern, St. James's-street, this morning, at twelve
o'clock, Captain head, R.N., in the chair. The Re-
port was read by the Secretary, from which it ap-
peared that, from the year 1826 to 1837, the funds
of the Society had very much decreased, but
since the latter year, up to 1842, they had
progressively increased. Notwithstanding the great
pecuniary depression which had been felt by similar
institutions, the amount at present in the hands of the
Treasurer was 787/., out of which the sum of .5001.
had to be voted towards the relief of distressed persons
connected with the navy. Since the last meeting of the
Society the death of Sir Graham Moore, who was one of
the Vice-Presidents of the Society, had taken place. The
Directors had also the painful duty to perform of
announcing the death of Admiral Sir Thomas Wil-
liams, of the Royal Naval Female School at Rich-
mond. This institution sprang out of the Naval Be-
nevolent Institution. The Report referred to a state-
ment which had appeared in the newspapers, to the effect
that the funds of the Society were improperly applied.
A letter had appeared in one of the newspapers, con-
taining statements which were altogether false and
unfounded. On the motion of Mr. Rowland and
Lieutenant Bedford the thanks of the meeting were
unanimously given to Captain Dickson, the Secretary
of the Institution. Notice of a motion was given by Capt-
tain Marshall, R.N., to the effect that the Society shall
endeavour to get the law altered which obliges the
widows of naval men to administer for all sums of
prize-money or freight due to their deceased husbands,
if the amount should be more than 321. Vice-Ad-
miral Sir Willoughby Lake was then appointed
Vice-President of the Society, in the room of Sir
Graham Moore. Thanks were voted to Earl Manvers
for his liberal donation to the Society ; after which
the meeting separated.

SINGULAR CONTEST.—A few days since a woman,
named Sharpies, the wife of a boatman, left her hus-
band at Selby, and eloped in a keel with another
boatman, named James. Two days afterwards Shar-
pies came up with the runaways in the Humber,
nearly opposite Barton, and boarded the pirate. A
fight ensued, on the deck, but the wife finding her
husband down, and in a fair way of being pum-
melled, took part against her husband's vessel. The
parties met again at Hull on Tuesday evening, in a
public-house at the Southend, and it was agreed that
they should fight for the woman. A battle took place
accordingly, on Dock-green, the same evening, when the
husband was the victor, and bore away with him the
worthless prize.—Hull Packet.
A great deal of disßatisfaction has been created
this week among the pensioners and women who have
been receiving pensions and hall-pay at the dock-yard,
in consequence of the clerks at the Navy Pay-office
paying them in many instances with gold which is
barely of the standard weight, and does not turn the
scale. It seems to be an established axiom among
tradespeople that gold issued in the reigns of George
3d and 4th is not now a legal tender, and 6d. discount
is demanded on every 20s. It is certainly true that the
clerks at the Navy Pay-office have refused to exchange
the gold so issued, when returned in consequence of the
above discount being demanded. This looks very like a
fraud on the public, the money for paying these people
being drawn from the branch Bank of England, which
bank receives the light gold on payment of an established
allowance.—Hampshire Independent.
ST. IVES.—FORTUNATE DISCOVERY.--During last
week, a labourer employed on the farm of Mr. Wratten,
farmer, of Needingworth, near St. Ives, discovered what
he considered to be a piece of paper projecting from one
of his master's stacks, when, on a nearer inspection, it
was ascertained to be a sort of a large fusee attached to
a ball of what is considered to contain combustible mat-
ter, which was placed about a foot in the stack. The
paper or fusee had been lighted at the end exposed, but
from some fortunate reason had smouldered a short time
and gone out.— Chelmsford Chronicle.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 13.

THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK V. THE KING OF lIANOVER
The Ma STER of the ROLLS gave judgment in this case, which
was argued last term. The suit was instituted by the Duke
of Brunswick, who was deprived of his duchy by a revolu-
tionary movement in 1830, while the Duke of Cambridge
was Viceroy of Hanover. At a convention of the Germanic
Diet, the plaintiff's brother (William) was invited to take
unon himself the government provisionally, but the diet left
it to the legitimate agnati of the family to provide for the
future government of the duchy. In 1831 King William IV.
and the Duke of CiaBmb,ridsiggenceldaimbeydhtios b:iathjeestlyegKitiimngatewraiguniaamti
of the family. The plaintiff was then deposed, and his brother
William was recognized as Duke of Brunswick. By a deed
made in March, 33
IV. and the Duke of Cambridge, it was decreed that the Duke
of Brunswick, having wasted the fortune which he possessed
in enterprises alike impossible and dangerous both to himself
and other persons in seeking to damage the just claims which
certain persons interested might have upon his property, they
considered that the only method of preserving his fortune
from ruin was to appoint a guardian over him. This deed
then appointed the Duke of Cambridge guardian, which office
he accepted, and took possession of all his property. Upon the
death of King William IV., the office of guardian was trans-
ferred by the Duke of Cambridge to the Duke of Cumberland,
who had become King of Hanover, and the Duke of Cam-
bridge accounted to the King of Hanover for the receipt and
application of the income of the estates. The King of Hanover
then took possession of the estates and property of the plaintiff,
and the bill stated that applications had been made to him to
account for the income, which amounted to several hundred
thousand pounds, but his Majesty had refused to render any
account. The present suit was therefore instituted against
the King of Hanover, praying that the instrument which
had been executed by the agnati of the family, appointing
the defendant curator of his estates and property, might be
declared void, according to the laws of Brunswick, Hano-
ver, and Great Britain, and to obtain an account of the
receipts and payments. Upon the late visit of the King
of Ilanover to this country he was served with process
in this suit, upon which he applied to the Lord Chancellor
to stop the proceedings in limine ; but the application was
refused, and his Majesty then filed a demurrer to the bill for
want of equity, and denying that the court of equity had any
jurisdiction. His Lordship, after stating the circumstances of
the case, went at great length through the various arguments
used on both sides. He said the plaintiff had contended, first,
that as the defendant had appeared to the bill, that ought to
be considered proof of his submitting to the jurisdiction of the
Court ; secondly, that the Lord Chancellor having refused
to stop the suit, that was a desision that the defendant might
be sued. Upon this subject his Lordship had applied to the
Lord Chancellor, who stated that he had no intention of
giving any opinion as to jurisdiction. The defendant had con_
tended, first, that as a sovereign prince, he was net liable to
be sued ; secondly, that such exemption was not confined to
his own country ; thirdly, that such exemption was not lost by
his being temporarily resident in a foreign country ; fourthly,
that, if liable to be sued for some things, he was not liable to
be sued on such a case as this ; fifthly, if liable to be sued in
such a case, that the matter was not subject to the jurisdic-
tion of the court of equity, but could only be tried by some
particular court, expressly appointed for the purpose. The plain-
tiff bad contended that this suit ought to be allowed the same
as between two natural-born subjects of this realm—that being
a subject of Great Britain, he could not throw off his allegiance
upon becoming Sovereign of a foreign country—that the law
of England did not prevent foreign sovereigns from being sued
here—that the law of nations and the interest of mankind
showed that justice should be done all over the world—that the
Queen of England was liable to lie sued in a proper form. His
Lordship said, what had been established as to the right of a
foreign prince living in this country was involved in some
difficulty ; when a foreign prince prosecuted a bill here, he
certainly might be made party to a cross suit in the same
matter. There had been occasions in this Court where
some funds were to be distributed, and, for the justice of
the case, it had been found necessary to make foreign
princes parties, but it had never been decided that a foreign
prince could be compelled to come in and submit to a decree
in this Court, but only to be allowed to make a claim ; failing
to do so, after an opportunity Clad been given him, he
would not perhaps afterwards be able to make another claim.
In the present case the defendant insisted that under no circum-
stances could a foreign prince be compelled to submit to a decree,
and that any such attempt would be an aggression against the
' state and people of which he was sovereign, and might lead
to a war ; and that such risks ought to be avoided. The most
influential argument in his Lordship's mind was, as to the im-
munity of ambassadors. It was said that the law having
, granted immunity to ambassadors would not refuse it to So-
vereigns themselves ; on the other side it was said, ambassa-
' dors who came upon business ought to have immunity in cer-
tain matters, but princes who came upon pleasure needed not
such immunity. There was, however, no English law upon
the subject, and the question could only be determined accord-
ing to the law of nations. It was said by some writers that
the only guide we had in such cases was reason. It was very
difficult here to come to a satisfactory conclusion ; the whole
case was replete with difficulties. It was admitted that am-
bassadors should have immunity because they could be punished
by their own sovereign, but a prince not being subject to any
one in his own country could not be punished at all ; but, on
the other hand, if the Court were to make a decree against a
foreign prince it could have no power to enforce its orders. Jus-
tice could only be administered under a jurisdiction having power
that
interestforei
to enforce its decisions. His Lordship said he had given the case
his fullest consideration, and he thought it must be considered
upon the whole, according to the law of nations,
T eh a foreign
opworhumenrcteer
ywians
obediencewhich exempteot
hufrom
pnr
prince
ohoe
bemay jurisdiction
beresiding.
of mankind required that justice should baneddjounsteiotoo
wasai) butnot
provided for by treaty or otherwise, and enforcing it by means
of the state would be the cause of war, an exception must be
made. Cases had occurred where an ambassador had been a
subject of the sovereign to whom he was accredited, and it had
been agreed that then he would not enjoy total immunity. It
was said that an ambassador continued to be a subject where
he was before a subject, but according to what was considered
the law of nations it must be seen what acts of his were the
subject of discussion. The most general rule was, that every
person should be liable to the courts of justice, and amenable
to the law of the country where he resided. It was clear
that a Sovereign, having been formerly a subject of an-
other eouhtry, could not be release 4 from that legal