The Sun.
London, England, 1828-05-17 00:00:00

DM V. CLARICE.

Mr. Rouext. stated, that this case was referred to his
Lordship, to say whether he would be pleased to recont.
mend his Majesty to issue a Commission of Review or not,
and that as it pressed exceedingly, one of the parties being
in prison, the Court would confer the greatest benefit by
appointing an early day for hearing the petition.
His Loxes►tle inquired whether it was usual for the
Court to hear Counsel on such a petition?
Mr. ROUPEL believed it was optional with his Lordship
to say whether he would hear Counsel or not.
His Lottnstur desired to know if there was any case in
point.
Mr. Rou Pet said, the only case he knew of in which
the Court had heard Counsel on a petition of this nature
was " Matthews v. Warner," and which came before
Lord Eldon.

His Lounsuir believed this case had already occupied
several days in discussion in the Court of Delegates. He
would read the petition now presented to him, and let the
parties know his opinion then.

BROWN V. DE TASTET.

Mr. SUaDEN, Mr. Pms, and Mr. COE, appeared in
this case, on behalf of the appellant Mr. De Tastet, of ap-
peal against an order made by Lord Eldon, upon the hear-
ing Wexceptions to the Master's Report, to contend that
the order was wrong, and particularly that part of it which
direeted Mr. De Tastet to pay into Court 18,0001. The
Learned Counsel considered the whole question to turn on
articles of partnership, entered into by the late 111 r. An-
thony Margin and the defendant. The arguments weir
proceeding to a great length when we left the Court.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
His HoNowx disposed of twenty-nine short causes in the
course of the day.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
THY LING v. WASON.

This was a criminal information granted at the prosecu-
tion of Mr. Dawson, a solicitor of great eminence, against
the defendant, who is a gentleman of considerable fortune.
The circumstances of the case have been already before
the public, and are briefly as follow :—Mr. Wason, about
five years ago, became acquainted with Miss Hart, the
daughter of Sir Anthony Hart, the present Chancellor of
Ireland, and Made her an offer of his hand. Out of this pro-
posal a negociation commenced, which ended in Sir A.
llart's employing Mr. Dawson to snake inquiries into the
state of Mr. Wason's property, and especially of some pro-
perty which he represented himself to possess in the neigh-
bourhood of Liverpool, and from building on which he
expected to derive a considerable income. Mr. Daw-
son wrote as the result of his investigation, that
Mr. Wason certainly possessed the property he had
stated, but that its productiveness was a mere matter of
speculation. This statement coming to the knowledge of
Mr. Wason, he addressed a letter to Mr. Dawson, in which
he assumed that Mr. Dawson had charged hint with misre-
presentation—and under this impression he applied to Mr.
Dawso❑ the epithets "liar and coward." Upon receiving
this letter, Mr. Dawson applied for a criminal information
against Mr. Wa.son, which was granted, and to which that
gentleman pleaded guilty, and the judgment of the Court
was now moved upon him.
Several affidavits were put in on behalf of the de-
fendant, detailing the history of his acquaintance with
Miss Hart, and the character of the negociation carried on
with Sir Anthony Hart.
Sir JA ILES ScaatraT, on the part of the prosecutor,
alluded to the circumstance of the proceedings having
come before the public, though the Counsel had carefully
abstained from mentioning the names of the parties, when
the case was formerly before the Court. He also noticed
as a circumstance in aggravation, that the defendant had
refused to make any apology.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, for the defendant, observed that
his client did not instruct him to offer any thing by way
of vindication. He felt that he had written an improper
letter, and was sorry for it, but he conceived that he had
been charged with misrepresenting his circumstances, in
order to induce Sir Anthony Hart to receive him as a son-
in-law, and under this impression he had written the letter
on which the information was founded.

Mr. Justice BAILEY pronounced the judgment of the
Coart, which was, that the defendant should be imprisoned
for two months in the custody of the Marshal of the Mar-
shalsea, and that he should pay a fine of 3001. to the King,
and remain in prison until the fine was paid.

Works have been constructed at Ghent for the
construction of a dock, sufficiently capacious to contain
with ease 500 vessels.

An Evening Paper of yesterday presents its
readers with the name of the person who, us it supposes,
furnished us with the sketch of the debate which took
place when the reporters were absent. "We hate direct
" knowledge of the fact," say they. " You neither know,
" mor can know, any thing on the subject," say we; and
we are surprised that any man who knows so little of the
methods by which a journal may be raised into an ho-
nourable reputation, should be intrusted with the conduct-
ing of a nascent concern. It has nut risen, and it must
sink under such management. Why cannot the conductor
observe, with caution, the course which other Journals
take that have obtained a place in society, and follow the
same course?—we mean Its to what we may call profes-
sional practice. Then diligence and honesty are all that is
necessary for success. If he deviate; he must deviate
fur the worse, deficient as he is in talent and genius.—
Times.

COACH PROPRIETORS.—Mr. HORNE, of
the Golden Cross, Charing Cross, was summoned yester-
day for having the word London painted on his coach,
instead of Charing Cress, Westminster, from which place
the coach started. Mr. HORNE complained of the hard-
ship of the cases which bad lately been brought against
hint by the common informers, and contended that the
inscr:ptioo on the coach was perfectly legal and proper, as
the colden Cross, wbich had been an Inn upwards of WO
Years, Was alivqys known apd styled at being in London.
lie had applied to the Secretary of :tats on the subject,
and a bill was now framing which would entirely take the
laying of informations out of the hands of common in-
formers. lie had spoken to Sir liEtixT PAItNELL and
Mr. DAwsosr on the subject. The latter Gentleman ex-
pressed the greatest surprise, that any Magistrate would
• convictLica..se [,haring Cross was designated London. lie
would ask if all Treatieo Were not styled " Treaty of
London." Mr. H.. added, that he paid upwards of
25,000/. a year duty to Government, and he thought he
ought to be protected. A.'Olicitor observed that in the
statedds
aaiy4 s
haegt
that
ati
the
1::ot luiEeniae6potzi
atit t oafn pry' Castle,
case of 6i v.Cuevas," which Was argued a few
s
i Fleas. the jilud4foisl.;taedr
might be considered in 'London. I,llr. GRECionoc
ecide according to the Act of Par-
liament, and convicted Mr. HonNts in thi penalty of .50s.
and costs. Mr. IloattE—l shall have SQO more of these
infor.-nations. Mr. GREOORIE.--I cannot help it. J wieh
some other Magistrate had the cases.

• I

%

THE CATNOLIC QUESTION.

(From the Dublin Morning Register of Thursday.)

It will be seen that the debate was resumed on
Monday night. Mr. Grant appears to have betaken
himself to his task with great earnestness and energy.
For that code which his colleague, Mr. Peel, holds
to be defensible on the grounds not merely of policy,
but justice, he can, it seems, find no more appropriate
phrase than " ATROCIOUS." The hopes of the
friends of Ireland were rather stronger on Monday
than at the close of last week. The announcement
of the Russian declaration of war was auspicious.
We have heard that some chance has brought Sir
Compton Domville back to Ireland, and that he
failed to get any one to pair off with him. We
believe Mr. O'Neill, of Hull, is also at this side of
the water, at the present moment, and that thus two
votes have been lost to the enemy, which were cal-
culated upon with some confidence some days ago.
We just closed this sentence when an express,
from the office of the indefatigable and enterprising
Sus, brought in the important news that the motion
of Sir Francis Burdett has passed, by a majority of
SIX, in the fullest Parliament that ever sat in West-
minster. The numbers were—

For the motion 272
Against it 266
Majority 6
We have said that this WtiS the fullest Parliament
that ever assembled at Westminster. The greatest
muster of members that previously occurred was in
1825, when 509 voted. The assembly of Tuesday
morning exceeded this by no fewer than 29 mem-
bers. And here it may not be uninteresting to our
readers to give a view of the progress of the ques-
tion, as far as numbers are concerned, since the
great campaign undertaken in the days of Wellesley
Pole :-
1813—For the Bill 245

Against it 2o3—Majority 42

Total number of voters

448

921—For the Bill
Against it

Total number of voters 497

Third reading, ayes
Noes

Total number of voters

413

1325—Ayes 268
Noes

Total number of voters

S2B—Ayes
Noes

Total number of voters

........
It is here seen that there has been some fluctuation
in respect to the actual majority at each effort, but
that the ayes have continue.' to increase to the latest
moment :

The ayes in 1813 were
Ditto 1821 ditto
Ditto 1825 ditto
Ditto 1828 ditto
Thus it appears that though in 1813 we had a ma-
jority, apparently exceeding that of the present day
by thirty-six votes,our present muster of ayes exceeds
that of 1813 by twenty-seven votes. What ques-
tion ever before agitated England as this does ? By
what agency has it been raised to its present import-
ance ? By that of the ever-calumniated Catholic
Association.

Our readers are aware that an Aggregate Meeting
is about to be convened—and there are rumours that
simultaneous assemblies are to be held. The most
decisive and authoritative contradictions should cer-
tainly be given, on behalf of Ireland generally, to
certain lies of monstrous and most mischievous cha-
racter, which were thrown out (according to the
newspapers) in the recent debates. One gentleman
alleged that no Priest in Ireland would marry a
Catholic and Protestant unless there was a previous
stipulation, that the offspring of the marriage should
be brought up in the Catholic faith ; and another
gentleman, not many minutes before the division,
declared that Dr. Doyle denied that Dr. Magee was
legally the Archbishop of Dublin. Many such state-
ments occurred throughout the discussion. It would
be well to repel the imputations they convey by the
voice of all Ireland.

We must again express our admiration of the
energy and devotedness displayed by Mr. Grant.
He appears to have been well seconded by Mr.
Huskisson, who declared that things cannot go
much longer in their present state. Altogether there
was more of heart in the last debate than any that
ever before occurred, and on the whole we consider
it auspicious and most cheering.