The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-29 00:00:00

ebtrb

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
VALLANCE AND BIERLEY V. THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK.

In this case a rule had been obtained by Mr. Sergeant
Byles, to set aside the taxation of costs with regard to
801. 108., the payment of which was alleged never to
have been authorised by the Duke of Brunswick, and
also with regard to that portion of the costs which re-
ferred to the case of Barnard Gregory v. the Duke of
Brunswick and Mr. Valiance, for which it was alleged
Mr. Valiance was equally liable with the Duke of Bruns-
wick.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD now showed caused against
the rule. He expressed his regret that it should be ne-
cessary to enter into this case, but thought he should be
able to show from the affidavits of the plaintiffs that the
Duke -of Brunswick was labouring under a mistake
when he denied that he ever authorised the payment of
the SOL 10s. The Learned Gentleman then referred to
the affidavits of Mr. Valiance and Mr. Bierley. It stated
Chat Mr. Valiance acted as solicitor to his Lordship from
16-41 to November, 1843, and it denied the affidavit of
the Duke of Brunswick and his equerry, Count De
Witts, that he (the said Duke) had forbad the payment
of this 801. 10s. or that he had said he would not per-
mit it to be 'made. On the contrary, he had autho-
rised the payment, and knew for what purpose it was
expended, he being told of it by Mr. Valiance. The
avoney referred to consisted of money paid to a person
mimed Banks, for making inquiries respecting the case
against the Duke by Barnard Gregory, and certain
,extracts which were printed at the request of his High-
ness, several copies of which came into the hands of his
Highness, and for which 351. was paid by the plaintiffs.
Mr. Valiance stated in his affidavit that Count De Witts
was not present at the conversation which was sworn to
have taken place on the 3d of November ; but that in
the month of October the Count De Witts called on him
at his office, and proposed to him to participate in the
profits of his costs, which he'(Mr. Valiance) refused to
accede to, as it would be both illegal and immoral. Se-
veral interviews and conversations took place afterwards.
Chi one occasion, on the 20th of October, Mr. Valiance
deposed that the Count De Witts called at his office
toed offered him 501. for his costs; and upon Mr. Valiance
expressing his surprise, the Count took a second 501.
out of his pocket, which he offered to Mr. Valiance,
which was likewise refused. The Count then said that
the Duke desired him to offer 501. to Mr. Valiance, and
if he did not accept that to offer him the second 501.;
but, if he did not accept them, to bring back both. Mr.
Bierley also deposed that during a conversation he had
with the Duke, De Witts offered him 1001. to satisfy
Mr. Valiance, which he (Bierly) refused to accept.
On the 21st of October Mr. Valiance attended the Duke,
at his request, at his house in Bryanstone-square, and
after informing him of what took place respecting the
offer of the two 501 notes, he was paid 1501., which
formed part of 800/. which had been paid by the Duke,
and for which credit was given him out of the 1,6141,
the amount of the costs. On the 27th of October Mr.
Valiance received a letter from the Duke of Brunswick,
showing that he still enjoyed the confidence of his High-
ness. He called on the Duke on the 3d of November, the
day on which the conversation took place at which the
Duke was said to have rejected the payment of 801. 10s.,
when the Duke produced a book of solicitors' charges
to him, which he purchased in Chancery-lane, according
to the charges in which the Duke required that Mr.
Valiance should make out his bill of costs.—{Laughter.)
This Mr. Valiance refused to do, as the book was of no
authority. Three days after, he had a conversation with
the Duke, in the presence of lie Witts, and on the 11th
November, he wrote a letter to the Duke, on which day
he received a summons from the Duke, requiring him to
deliver his bill of costs to Mr. Graaf, who was henceforth
to be his Highness's attorney. On the 13th, Mr. Val-
iance received a letter from the Count De Witts, refer-
ring him to Mr. Graaf, who was now, by his (the Count's)
advice, the attorney of his illustrious master. Mr. Val-
lance was most reluctant to bring the matter before tln.
public, and before the bill was taxed by the Master.
40 wrote to his Highness, reminding him of all
he went through for :him, and all the vituperation
aitid slander to which he was subjected on account
of the relation in which he was placed towards
his Highness. With regard to the second point, he
(Sergeant Talfourd) admitted that his client Mr. Val-
lance was indiscreet in going to the theatre with the
Duke of Brunswick, when Barnard Gregory appeared to
play the part of Hamlet ; but Mr. Valiance was made a
defendant in that case, entirely in consequence of his
relations with the Duke; and the affidavit stated that
the Duke of Brunswick promised that he would bear all
the expenses of that action, and that Mr. Bierley was
his attorney in that case.
Lord Chief Justice TINDAL said that the rule was
moved for on two grounds. The first related to the
801. lOs , the second ground was, whether the Master, in
taxing the costs, ought to have taxed them against the
Duke of Brunswick alone, or whether Mr. Valiance
should be considered as liable to pay jointly with him. It
was sworn that there was a promise of indemnity made
by the Duke which he should have an opportunity of
answering. The matter must therefore go before the
Master on this point.
Sergeant WILDE said that they should be certainly
desirous of having an opportunity to answer the second
part of the rule, though he thought lie
_could give an
answer from the affidavit of the plaintiffs themselves.
His client the Duke of Brunswick was subjected to an
action in consequence of his attorney appearing with
him at the theatre, where he ought not to have ap-
peared. But now he was not content to bear any part
of the responsibility which grew out of his own act, and
We Learned Friend moaned over his client, because he
eoulci net make any profit of the matter. With regard
to the first point, the Duke of Brunswick swore that he
never authorised the payment of the 801.
The matter was referred to the decision of the Master.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE ETENING PAPERS OF THIS DAT.
GLOBE.—The Irish State Prosecutions are progress-
ing ; but at a pace so truly snail-like, that they baffle
all attempts of the moet skilful to form an idea as to the
time of their termination. The wordy war commenced
.on Thursday last. Mr. Whiteside, .who is counsel
for Mr. O'Connell, occupied the Court two days.. .11i%
...yeech was worthy of the high reputation he earned
fur , himself OR the trial, by which he has de-
itidedly placed himself first on the list of advo-'
ca `es at the Irish bar. By an arrangement, en-
tere 1 into between the counsel on the part of the
Crown and those engaged for the traversers, with the
consen:t of the Court, four :counsel on the part of the
latter n ere to be heard in support of the application
for a ne.s, trial. The Solicitor-General then to reply.
Four snore counsel for the traversers aro then to address
the Court, in support of: the motion, and in reply to the
Arguments adduced on behalf of the Crown. The. whole
argument to be wound up by the Atorney- General. ISe--
-verai days will thus be occupied in this stage of the pre-
ceedings. Term elpaes on the Bth of May (next Wed-
nesday week). The interval will, therefore, scarcely ad-
mit of doing mere than bringiug the argaMent toa•close
within the term. It is probable that the judges will
wish f it tithe to consider the points on which the appli-
cation has been submitted, and postpone their decision to
the text term. Should the Court, however; pronounce its
decision. on the motion instanter, and that decision ne-
gative the application, a motion in arrest of judgineirs
will follow. A very considerable.portion of the ensuing
term would be exhausted_ by the argument on this new
impediment to the final issue.. It' on both motions—that
for a new trial, and that in arr,.st of judgment—the Collrt•
Should decide against thetraversers, a writ of error to
the House of Lords, as the Court of final appeal, will be
applied for, and will be granted as of course; but the
House will not then be in session to hear and deter-
mine the appeal. As the case proceeds, strongly confirma-
tors, evidence of foul play with • the jury-lists, by seine
party or other having access to the lists, .is discovered.
Affidavits have, we understand, been sworn by severed
persons who were.admitted 3S jurymen by. the Recorder,
.but .vhose names were, never placed „on the jury list..
These erifidavits, with one of great importance, sworn •by
Mr. P. afahony, one of the solicitors for the traversers,
were not ,obtained in time to be used on the new trial
motion. Thf 7 will be available, however, in other stages ;
wed will, we have reason to believe, be used by Mr. Wyse,
in the motion .for Parliamentary inquiry, of which he
has given notice. If doubt exist among the most emi-
nent English lawyers as to some of the ether points on
which the traversers and the Crown lawyers in Ireland
are at issue, no difference of opinion exists as to the va-
.llJity of the objections taken to the charge of the Learned
Judge • who presided at the trial at bar. Without spe-
cifying the names of the counsel who have' ad the whole
case subreNed to them for their opinion, as lawyers;
we state, ad, 'isedly, that the most eminent counsel at the
English bar, 01' both political parties—whose names have
been supplied to us—concur in pronouncing the grossly
partial, and mania. 'say unconstitutional, charge of Chiek-
Justice Pennefather as fully sufficient to sustain the writ
.of error, and thus to . "ender void the entire proceedings.
Sentence must be prork ounced on the, traversers by the
Court before the writ of a .vor can be acted upon. It does
rot, however, follow tin, t;. though sentence be passed,
it should be carried into .effect. While the judg-
ment' of the Court below is liOale to be reversed and the
proceeding§ quashed, it would be monstrous—involvine-
not merely absurdity, but pesitiva• injustice—that the
parties, legally, if not morally. unjustly convicted, should
suffer the penalty of alleged guilt. The punishment
fur . misdemeanor, as fixed by the law, is fine and im-
prisonment—either, or both. Should imprie menent form a
part of the sentence, the period assigned would have
been endured before the judmnent of the House of Lords
could be pronounced upon the writ of error.. If that
judgment were in favour of the appeal—to say :nothing
of the positive wrong thus inflicted on the parties
wrongfully punished, and fe r which no adequate
reparatiiin could be made— what position would
the Government, in such case, occupy in tho eyes
of the Irish people ? Already' regarded with jea-
lousp—and dislike—because, as a• party, identified
with the policy to which the peak 1e attril mite their
former wrongs and prosent vievani •es—th,w would
then appear, in the eyes of the Rennin Catholic popu-
lation of Ireland, persecutors and, (Telma 'ss()rs who,
under the pretext of " judging " O'Corn. 'elf. and his
co-defendants, " after the kw, had cauet..4 them to
he s • effect of
mitten contrary to the, law." The
such a manifesta • tion would 'be to kindle
bens of Irish discontent into' a flame. the em-.
A topic
fraught with fearful power, when applied to tl'e
excited temperament of the Irish people, won ld be sup-
plied to the orators cf the Conciliation II The
cause of repeal would be re-invigorated • w ith giant
strength, and world prodg 'with giant sti ides. Its
leaders would be inves-te not
of heroic patriotism, merely with the ,influence
n the estimatioi a of their
ffollowers, had impelled and enabled them toe udure suf-
fering for their country they would then he s reverenced
as martyrs. In attempting to crush repeal agitation,
•

the Government would itself be crushed. If the result
terminated here, this would be of small moment. It
would, in our view, be beneficial rather than injurious
to the empire generally, but especially to Ireland. But
the probability is, that the frame-work of society would
be shaken, if not shattered, in the madness of triumph.
Surely, there is nothing so magnanimous in the act of
punishing before the legal question is set at rest, lest
the Repeal leaders should be ultimately found to have
been illegally and unconstitutionally convicted, as to
induce the Government to peril its own existence, and
to jeopardise the national peace, in order to enjoy the
satisfaction of placing a political opponent within the
four walls of a prison! We know we speak the sen-
timents of moderate men of all parties, when we say that
it would not only be more just, but more politic, because
more safe, to allow the sentence upon O'Connell and his
co-defendants, if passed, to stand suspended until the
appeal made to the House of Lords is determined. The
defendants would be, of course, held in their recogni-
zances to appear and abide the judgment, should the
writ of error be set aside. We, however, anticipate the
discussion of a question which is yet future—a contin-
gency which, in all probability, will never happen.
STANDARD.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer
will this night make his financial statement. The Budget
this year presents itself under very favoUrable circum-
stances There is, for the first time during a
long series of years, a bona fide surplus to
be disposed cf, instead of a demand to impose new
burthens or a lame apology for " a bottomless
deficiency." We doubt, however, whether the
difficulty of the Finance Minister's position is much alle-
viated by this happy change in the financial condition of
the country. It is often as perplexing and as invidious
to make a selection for the awarding of benefits as
to make a selection for the imposition of burthens ;
indeed, if the benefits or the burthens, as the case
may be, happen to lie in a small compass in propor-
tion to the number of persons to which either is open,
the distribution of benefits is the less likely to prove
satisfactory ; for in •that the majority must suffer dis-
appointment and what they will think unjust neglect ;
in the imposition of burthens, the over-looked majority
will be thankful for their escape. We have already
heard one hundred different claims for the remission
of particular taxes in consideration of the surplus ;
indeed, we believe there is hardly one tax in the
schedule of the public revenue, for the reduction of
which a claim, supported by excellent reasons, has not
been put in. This is the natural course of things. Swift,
in his instructions to servants, lays down this rule :
Ascertain your employer's income, and then consider
that the whole of it is to be sp.nt—whether you
are cook, coachman, groom, footman, lady's maid,
or anything else—in your own particular de-
partment. And this is just the way in which men
reason with reference to the income of the public. This,
however, is not the way in which a statesman can
safely reason ; he must first look to the security of the
inf ome of which he proposes to dispose, and calculate
with a little more caution than one of :our Contem-
poraries, which contends, that because the !existing
taxes afford a surplus this year, less than the exist-
ing taxes must affbrd a greater surplus next year.
Basing obtained a tolerable assurance of the sum to be
disposedi of,: the prudent statesman will then consider
not the claims of this interest or of that interest,
but the claims of all ; and in acknowledging the
claims of all, he is pretty sure to disappoint
every one. Unhappy office of a finance mi-
nister, who, however he be called to act,
is sure to be unpopular, unless he be dishonest. Mr.
Burke truly says, it is as impossible to impose taxes
and be popular as to "love and be wise;" and with equal
truth may it be added, that it is impossible to take
off taxes without giving offence to the majority,
probably to all ; for if the reduction affect all
universally, " their common shares in such pro-
portion fall," that the relief becomes a mockery.
We say these things, not that we know,
ur pretend to know, what will be pro-
posed in the Budget, for the secret has been kept with
remarkable care and with unprecedented success. No
one in fact, even hazards a conjecture—but we speak in
anticipation of the grave,' and probably, in appearance,
well-grounded complaints which will be offered to-
morrow, whatewer the proposition opened to-night ;
complaints almost sure to be loud and angry in propor-
tion to the good policy and the justice of those pro-
positions.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(THIS EVENING.)

H OUSE OF LORDS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool.
sack shortly before Five o'Clock.
The Earl of ROSEBERY presented two, petitions
against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
The Marquis of NORMANBY presented a peti-
tion from Newtown Lemivady, in the North of Ire-
land, praying the House would adopt some measures
to legalise the marriage by Presbyterian ministers.
The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition
against the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.
Lord BEAUMONT laid upon the table a Bill for
the purpose of removing certain disabilities which
pressed upon Roman Catholics in the case of grants
being made to them for corporate purposes.
The Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be
printed.
RECAL OF LORD ELLENBOROUGH.

Lord COLCHESTER wished to put a question on
a subject of vast importance to the Noble Duke near
him—namely, whether the communication of the
Court of Directors announcing the recal of Lord
Ellenborough was accompanied by a statement of
their reasons for that act ?
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that there was
no doubt that the Court of Directors had given
such reasons as they could advance, and which
reasons had been most, decidedly at variance
with the opinions of her Majesty's Government,
and therefore her Majesty's Government , did not
concur in the measure—nay more, he should say,
that her Majesty's Government did strongly remon-
strate against .the • measure, and. pointed out in a
marked manner to.the Court of Directors the error
which they had committed. At the same- time he
felt bound to say that he was aware the Court of
Directors possessed the power of removing the
Governor-General in a strict point of law, for that
power which existed-aince 1784 was again renewed,
or rather retained, in -1833; by the 3d and 4th Wm.
IV. But he felt bound to say that this body was like
every other body, and every other individual was
bound to exercise their powers with discretion.—
)Cheers.) He would say to their Lordships as
a person who had had considerable experience
that he thought the conduct of the Board of Direc-
tors" was most indiscreet. (The Noble Duke here
spoke with considerable warmth, and laid much stress
upon thb hiS't word'of the sentence.) Although the
Court of Directors possessed the, power of recalling
the Governor 'General, yet,,they had no power .to
nominate his successor, nor, indeed, to do
anything,: except under the direction of the
Board of Control. Lord 'Ellenborough had
been.only two years in India now, and had afforded
the greatest satisfaction to those from whom he re
ceived his. instructions in every instance.
(LEFT SPEAKING.) -

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.

Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONE presented a petition
froth .a Presbytery in Scotland against the abolition
of tests in colleges.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented petitions from
the British and Foreign: Anti-Slaver7. Societies at
Chester-le-street, Newton Abbott; lielstone, Corn-
wall ; Darlington and vicinity ; Reigate, Surrey ;.
Torquay, and Oswestry, against any fiscal iegulations
being adopted that will admit of the introduction of
the produce of slave labour into this country ; and
praying that fiscal regulations be adopted in favour of
the pro-duce of free labour. ' •
MI...MUNDY presented a petition from Scar-
borough, in Yorkshire, in'favour of agricultural pro-
tection.

Mr.. HINDLEY presented a petition from the
Anti-Slavery Society, signed by the venerable Clark-
son, against any alteration in the duties on foreign
sugar, which would tend to admit the article from
countries wheie slave labour was allowed.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented three petitions
from Liverpool, Dublin, and Bradford, complaining
of the prevalence of the truck system, and praying
that the House would take the matter into its serious
consideration.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition from
certain operatives connected with factory work in
Belfast, signed by 8,300 names, praying for the re-
striction of ten hours' labour daily to factory work.
Mr. R. HOWARD presented a petition from Car-
lisle against the Masters and Servants Bill, and stat-
ing that it was harsh in its provisions, and trenching
upon trial by jury.
Mi. ROSS presented several petitions from Pres-
byterian congregations against the present marriage
laws as affecting persons of their religious persuasion.
Mr. HARDY presented a petition in favour of
agricultural protection front a tilace in Lancashire.
_ Mr. FERRAND presented a petition from the
West Riding of York hire against the Masters and
Servants Bill.

Mr. W. 0. STANLEY presented a petition from
the Chairman and Board of Guardians of a place, the
name of which we could not catch, complaining of
the clause in the Poor-law Amendment Act relative
to the burial of paupers • also, a petition from the
Isle of Wight against the union of the Sees of St.
Asaph and Bangor.
Captain PLUMRIDGE presented a petition from
Falmouth, on the subject of the Small Debts Bill.
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND presented a pe-
tition from Preston against the Maiters andiServants
Bill.
Mr. MILES presented petitions against the union
of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. Also a petition
from the Deanery of Bath and Wells, praying the
House to address the Queen for the purpose of ob-
taining. for the clergy the right of meeting in con-
vocation.
nsAtolkderme_upsonn.TrPenEtLaAgNainD presentedstanyfurthaepregrtitaniont
ftroolitmhe College of Maynooth.

Mr. STAFFORD O'BR:IEN presented several
petitions from the county of Kent against the union
of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.
HAIL-STORM POLICIES OF INSURANCE.
Petitions, praying for a repeal of the Stamp Duty
upon hail-storm policies, were presented by the
Earl of March, Mr. Blackstone, Mr. Yorke, Admiral
Dundas, Mr. Round, Mr. J. Round, and Mr. Hussey.
Mr. F. FRENCH gave notice that he should to-
morrow bring forward a motion with respect to poor-
laws in Ireland.
SAVINGS BANKS.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
gave notice that, on Thursday next, he should move
for leave to bring in a Bill for the regulation of
savings banks.
TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES