The Sun.
London, England, 1826-02-09 00:00:00

Lmantmet HERALD.]

it does not appear to be the intention of Minis.
tars to bring the Corn Laws under•the review
of Parliament. this Session, and we think they
are wise in postponing the consideration of the,
subject for the present. Indeed, it would
be difficult to say what particular good could
result from any alteration that might be adopted
in'the Corn systeni before next Session, while it
is obvinus that by pasting over the present-period
of alarm and excitement, men's -minds will be
more likely to approach the question with the
temper necessary for clear and dispassionate con-
sideration. When we assert that ,it would -be
difficult to say what particular good could arise
from an immediate alteration in the Corn. Laws,
we do so under the impressimi that neither corn
nor bread are at' the present time at an unrea-
sonable price. A great deal I; said about the com-
parative cheapness of provisions in France, How
stands the fact as to corn ? The wheat in England
is abotit 60 shillings, and we understand that in.
France wheat of a similar quality is 45 shillings.
The discrepancy, Is not, therefore, so very great,
and consequently, so far as the price of bread affects
the price of labour, the latter Cannot:be enhanced
to any thing like the extent supposed by the silk'
and other manufacturers of this kingdom. In fact
we believe our manufacturers in general are tinder
:a strange delusion.with regard to the price'of la-
hour, and the consequent cost of production in
France compared with that in England. All the
iaquiries which we have made on the subject
tend to confirm this opinion. To postpone the
question until next Session we think good for
other reasons than what we have already stated.
The next Session will be the opening of a new
Parliament. The Members will have the pro-
spect of seven years of 'legislative existence
before them—they will stand more Inde-
pendent thin they do at this (moment, when
they are about to surrender back their political
life to the hands froM which they received
it. They will, at the commencement of a new
career, be more disposed and better able to ex-
ercise their own judgment on such a question as
the Corn Laws, because they will he more free
from the immediate influence of their constituents,
whether of the agricultural or manufacturing in.
terest.- These two great classes unhappily, though
perhaps naturally enough, look to their interests
as separate and opposed. It is the duty of the
statesman to blend and identify,them. It will be
his task to teach each party to concede opfful.thing to
the other, and he will consult the general welfare
of the nation by the judicious protection of both.

rstOßNiso Ppm]
The Parliamentary Representation of so
tinkuished a body as the University of Oxford
is unquestionably one of the highest honours that
can be conferred upon any public man. The
ch9ice to be made by the University, on the
occurrence of any vacancy, becomes naturally
therefore a subject of general interest and curio-
sity; and the principles which ought, or which
are expected to determine its choice, are
pretty freely and extensively discussed. r--
Such a discussion is at this moment proeeeding,
and we are induced to throw in-our small'con-
tribution of argument, certainly not from the
vanity of supposing that learned body in need of
any instruction, or even advice from us, but on
account of some very Startling doctrines promul-
gated by others, who have kindly volunteered
the assistance of their wisdom upon the occasion,
It is attempted (contrary, we know, to the high
feelings of the Right Hon. Gentleman himself ),we
had almost said to hector the University into en
offer of the vacant seat to Mr. Secretary Canning.
We know not what denunciations against bigotry,
narrow-mindedness, and all such nonsense, are
vented by anticipation, perhapi insidiously, if it
shall neglect to make such offer. Mr. Canning,
we are well persuaded, will not feel any great
obligation to thoactiVe, but weak or false-friends,
who thus busy themselves on his behalf. We
know as well as this most zealous even of his real
friends (among whom we are proud to class our-
selves), how to value the high qunlifications of
the' Right Honourable Secretary, Wp know
that eminent Person to possess in no common
measure all the rare and varied endow-
ments which form in their combination the
graceful and accomplished Gentleman —the
elegant and erudite Scholar—the prudent, and
vigorous, and acute Statesman—the distinguished
and commanding Senator. All this, we. should
think, must also be perfectly well known to the
University of Oxford. It is to us, however, we
must own, a novel and startling doctrine, that any
Corporation is liable to censure, because in a
particular instance it does not suffer its value
for individual merit, however splendid, to
outweigh all the sound, and wholesome, and es-
tablished principles of Representation. It is no-
torious that upon one question—and that too a
question which, whatever we or others may think
of its intrinsic importance, is nt least the only
political question involving any thing like a
principle yet remaining in debate—the opinions of
Mr. Canning are directly
opposed to those of the
University. Bigotry and- rancour every man
must condemn ; but we have no wish to see the
spirit of accommodation acquire such strength
as to convert, consistency
into crime, the more
especially when we know that etch consistency is
founded upon the strictest principles of reason
and rectitude, and of the soundest policy. There
is no authority to which we could appeal
with
greater confidence upon this subject than to the
manly understanding and correct taste of Mr.
Canning himstlf. Ile, we are persuaded, 13 not
ambitious of a distinction, which, bestowed at the
expense of conscientious consistency, would be
Shorn of its brightest glory.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCEITMIT9tiRT, FED. 8.
COOPER AND OTHERS V. PETO 4WD
,RENTON.
Mr. TINNEY moved for an injunction to restrain the de-
fendant Fenton from handing over to the• other, defendant Peto
the title:deediof a large hotel called Fenton's Hotel, in St.
James's-street, upon an affidavit which stated that Messrs.
Cooper, who were eminent upholsterers, had fitted up the said
hotel for Fenton, at an expence of 12,0001.•;• and that, in con-
sideration of their doing so, he had agreed to give them a mort-
gage on the said hotel; but that on Thursday last, when they
waited on. Mr. Fenton's solicitor, respecting such mortgage,
they were informed that Mr. Peto was to have a prior mortgage
on the hotel for securing very large sum • whereas they verily
believed, that at the time Fenton entered the above-men-
tioned agreement with them, the said property was wholly un-
incum bored.

His Hotiotin observed, thee there was no need for the inter-
ference of the Court, for if the plaintiff's bill had been served
on the defendants, or left at their residence, as personal service
was not' necessary, the defendant Peto could not, after such
service, acquire any additional title by getting possession of the
deeds, so as to prejudice the interests of the plaintiffs.
WATERS v. TAYLOR.
This was an exception taken by the plaintiff' to the Master's
report, allowing a charge of 6001. upon the Opera-house to a
M-r. Bevan. The circumstances of this case were extremely in-
tricate, and in nowise interesting, excepting to the-parties con.
cerned. After Mr. Sugden had been heard in opposition to the
report, 'his Honour directed the case to stand over untill
morrow, to give the Counsel an opportunity of examining
into some material facts with greater accuracy, so that they
might be enabled to state them more clearly to the Court
to-morrow.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FED. 8.
THE XING y., STEVENS.---THE KING V. RICHARD&
These were Indictments for perjury, similar in substance
and form, respectively preferred against the defendants for
perjury, by Mr. liaise, of St. Ives. 4 The parties were wit.
nesses against Mr. Heise on a prosecution instituted against
him for bribery at the election for that place, on which he
was convicted ; but a rule for a new trial was granted, and
notwithstanding tire affidavits of the defendants, was made lib:
solute.. The first five counts of the present Indictments'
charged each of the defendants with-perjury in his evidence at
Mr. fialse's trial ; the. last count with perjury in an affidavit
made in opposition to the rule for a second inquiry. On these
Indictments the defendants were convicted at the Spring As.:
sizes for Cornwall; but. rules were granted for arresting the
*judgment. The objection raised to the first five counts was,
that they alleged that the defendant, desiring to procure Mr.
liaise to be wrongfully convicted, falsely anti maliciously gave
the evidence on which perjury was assigned, without showing
that he swore " wilfully and corruptly.' The objection to the
last count framed on the affidavit, that all the evidence given 1
by the deponent on the trial was true," was,.-that it merely
charged " that aid evidence was false in the particulars assign.
ed and set forth in the first count," without showing what these
particulars werey or distinctly averring that the party was duly
.sworn as a witness.

•
Mr. AlANtlirto and Mr.. Sergeant WILDE now showed
cause against the rule, and contended that the indictments were
sufficient, inasmuch as the first ,five counts, alleging an evil
motive, and then a false and malicioui deposition, subitantially
charged all the ingredients of perjury ; and that the last count
was good, by reference to the first, which supplied all that was
wanting. ' •
Mr. L. F. WILLIAI4B,-Mr. BAYLEY, and Mr. CARTER,
for the defendants,, urged that the indictments were in the first
five counts inartificial, and in thelast uncertain.
The COURT held all the counts bad.- The words " wilful
and corrupt" were,` Or one of them, at least, was essential to
the legal description of perjury •, and the reference to the first
,count could not Impart into the rest all-the allegations, that
the defendants were sworn, that they gave evidence, and that
such evidence was false. They therefore arrested thejudiiinent.
TilE KING EDWARD. PARR.
This was an indictment against the defendant for keeping a.
disorderly house In the parish of St. Pancras, which was tried
before the Lord Chief Justice at the sittings after Trinity
Term. The defendant had been previously convicted of a si-
milar offence; byt it was alleged on his behalf at the trial, that
he had, before the time specified in the present indictment,
given up all interest in the house. On- this question, contra-
dictory evidence was offered, chiefly from women residing In
the house ; and the Jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
Mr. So.auLETT now, on behalf of the parish, moved for
judgment.
Air. lirtonntcx,.for the defendant, pntsuant to leavepresis
candy given, moved' tor a new trial, and,produced affidavits"'
the object of which was to show that the defendant had ceased
to have any interest in the house, and ltd probably been ails-
taken for his successor.
The COURT held that there was no groundtfor disttirbing
the verdict ; -and after heating an affidavit of the defendant,
that he had altogether refrained from committing the offence
since the indictment was preferred, sentenced him to be impri-
soned and kept to hard labour in the House of Correction, at
Clerkenwell, for six calendar months. •
In consequence of the press of business towards the close of
the terhi, the Court sat till 5 o'clock.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 8.
YItISAIIIII V. CLEMENT.
• This was an action fora libel inserted in the Morning Chro-
nicle, of which the defendant is the proprietor. The libel re.
flected on the plaintiff's character as .Minister Plenipotentiary
and Ambassador Extraordinary front the Republic of Chile
to the Courts of Europe, and more particularly to the country,
in which he negotiated a loan far 1,09,0001. for the service of
the Republic ; and be was by inuepdo . charged with having
made free with 200,0001. of the loan, with Which he set off to
Paris, where he lived in a style of princely rnagniticence. The
_plaintiff Obtained a verdict and 001. damages, but. iberty was
given to die defendant to move to enter nnonsuit, &c.
Sergeant Tamps, on a -former day obtained a rule to
move for a new trials or to set aside the verdict, on the ground
that the Republic of Chile had not beep proved to be an inde-
pendent recognized State, and that,. consequently, the plaintiff'
could have sustained, no •injury m his assumed character,
having acted illegally in negotiating a loan in this country, as
the Republic of Chile had not been 'reconized by' our Govern- ,
ment, nor the plaintiff received at Court in his character of
Ambassador, which allegation had notbeen satisfactorily proved.
Mt. Sergeant VAUGHAN now opposed the rule at great
length, contending that it was a libel on the plaindrs moral
character in his individual sapacity, and that the allegation of
his having been an accredited agent from a sovereign state had
been'proved.
The Loins Critics* JUSTICE said that It must be a sovereign
state before he could be recognized.
Mr. Sergeant Vatipitasr said that it was a sovereign state,
although mot recognized by the Government of the country to
which lie was sent. He Lilted Groans in support of his argu-
ment i that celebrated writer on the law of nations had said
that a community of individuals associated for . mutual advan-
tage, and forming a body politic, constituted an •independent
estate ; and again, that every nation which governed itself was
sovereign state, and had a right to make a figure, and to be re-
ceived in the grand society of umbels.
The liORI) CHIEF JUSTICE..-IVC all knew that the am.
bassadors of Oliver Cromwell were treated by Foreign Powers
-with es much respect as those of any King or England. Hwy,,
province or state throws tattle parent state, and establishes -tit
Independence, it acts for itself, although not recognised by
the perent state. Did not all the states of Europe. recognize
America, and we Holland ? Wicquefort, a tainliterof George,
the First, was a high authority on the eight of ambassadors ;
for, writingon the subject, he said that the DUtch, after hav-
ing declared their abjuration from Spain, lied rent ambassa-
dors to Henry 111. of France
who refused to receive them as
ambassadors, because Holland had not styled them so, for the
country sending always ave the character; but they were even-
tually acknowledged in their proper designation.
Mr. SeNeant Vaughan then cited the case of." Tollyet v.
Ogden," in Henry Blackstone, being an action on a bond be-
tween two British subjects during the American war, and tried
in the Court of King's Bench, Ile also cited the case of" Nutt
v. Wright?" 149 li. Bleclaitone; and the case of " the Canton
of Berne" in 9 Vevey. In the last case the Government of Berne
had invested monies in the English funds. nod a now Govern.
ment taking possession oflierne during the French Iteiolution,
they moved to restrain the Bank of England from permitting
the money to be transferred. The Lord Chancellor at first
doubted on the subject., as the old Government said that the
hew one not having been recognized, could not be heard In
Court. His Lordship, however, reconsidering the point as a
Judge, and not as a Member of the Government, found that
his first impression would not do, so that his mind was grow.
ing, but growing by very slow degrees, to the decision to which
it ultimately came. Lord Thialow, assisted by Lord Kenyon
and Lord Eldon, thus decided the question of recognition. The
Learned Sergeant then discussed time question of legality as af-
fecting the plaintiff's conduct in. negotiating the loan, lie
concluded by saying that Chile was an independent itate—that
the plaintiff' was its accredited agent—and that the defendant,
under the name of a comment on the contract for the loan, had
gone out of his way by writing a gross libel on the plaintiff's
character.
Mr. Serjeant TADDY, for the defendant, contended that his
Learned Friend had not proved any of his three propositions—
first, that Odle 'was an independent State—second, that the
plaintiff had been appointed Lnvoy Extraordinary and Minister
Plenipotentiary—and thirdly, that he had been atithofixed, em.
powered, and directed cap.egiate a loan in this country.
thotius, book 1. see. I. ll, had said that every nation was

ca state independent of others. All tvriteraagree, that to mob'
a state to send Ambassadors, it must be independent. Lor
'Bynkershoek, said that Phillip 11. had put two Ambassador
to death, because they had gone to him without leave. Atr
bassaders could not be sent by part of a State, and the Republi
of Chile had only two provinces and a half out of three. Am
bassadors were sent by the Republic of Genoa to Philip, wh
refused to receive them, because a faction existed in the state s
the time, and he did not know which party held the Governmeni
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—And we acted on it in th,
present case; for Mr. Canning did not receive The plaintiff it
his character of ambassador till he should ascertain that Chili
was independent.
Mr. Sergeant 'FADDY said, how could this country °onside!
any part of the state of Spain, not recognized by Spain, as or
independent state ?
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the case of the !nip
Mary, decided in the Admiralty Court, was iii favour of tht
defendant's case. The brig had anchored near the port of La.
guira, in Venezuela, then in possession of the insurgents ; bui
the Spanish troops coming down, two Englisk.gentlemen, wlic
owned the cargo, and some of the inhabitants, hurried on board
her. The English brig of war Heron cut her out, and the
Government of Venezuela claimed her on the ground of the
neutrality having been broken. Lord Stowell decided, that as
the Government of Venezuela was not recognized, it could not
claim.

Mr. Sergeant PADDY said that thb Judges in Elizabeth's
time, when she had acknowledged Holland, did not dare to
differ with her.

The LORD bniEr JUSTICE was happy that he aid not live
in those times.
-Mr. Sergeant TADDY said that supposing only two of the
provinces had declared themselves independent, and the other
adhered to Spain, could the two send Ambassadors ? •Grotius,
2 book, c. 18, sec. 2 and 3, discussed the question whether parts
of a constituted State could send Ambassadors, and he was of
opinion that they .
could not. But Bynkershoek disagreed with
him, referring to the dispute between Philip and his sons, and.
said that for certain, Powers, or necessity they must send Am-
bassadors to each other. But these writers generally treated
this matter in so large and abstract a view, as to make it
diffi-
cult to bring theta facts. The Learned ergeant then alluded
to dig case of .51‘Gregor and Thwaires.
The LouD CHIEF JUSTICE asked whether 11110regor got
irt verdict ?

, -
Mr. Sergeant TADDIr said that he did not get n beneficial
verdict.—(Laughter.)-tie then contended thq the present loan
was not legal, and if not legal, it was no loan al all, nor was the
allegation affecting his character proved. Suppose a man was
libelled in his business, and that he proved to be a smuggler,
the allegation could not be proved, And no damages would be
obtained.

Mr. Justice Paftr.—Suppotie he sold spirits, and they all
proved to be smuggled ; is he not a dealer in spirits ?
Mr. Sergeant TaDDY—No, not a dealer at all, because A
dealer implies legality. Be then illustrated his argument by
other cases one of which was a libel respecting prize-fighting
and sparring, where an academy had been set up for fencing
and sparring, &c., and in which Lord Chief Justice DAIIO
had directed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff; but
they fbund for the defendant; and the Court afterwards refused
to disturb the verdict. He concluded by saying that the loan
was illegal, and that therefore the plaintiff had not suffered in
character.

Mr. Justice GASELEE asked if the charge of stealing IYIT
of the money did not affect his moral character ?
Mr. Sergeant PADDY said the whole case was so mixed up,
.that the question of fraud was not di►tinguishable.
Mr, Sergeant SPANKIE was about to follow on the same
side,' but

The COURT said there was no time. The argumenr mint
be adjourned.

HIGH COURT OF AIIMIRALTY, FEB. B.
SLAVES SEIZED AT TOItTOLA,
This was an appeal from the judgment of the Vlee-Adfri_al‘
ralty Court of Tortola, one of the Virgin Isles. It lipPolini
that the Messrs. 11111 and Sons, executors of the late,EdwaD•
Bill, possessed estates in the Islands of Tortola, St. Jo,llll,,tt-
and Porto Rico. Those Gentlemen had been in the Dtl
of going from Tortola, where they usually resided, t°,
~;
anti superintend their other estates, and
-in so tieing, it
usual for them to take with them some of the slaves attach'
ed to their residence in the Island of Tortola. Tbe hot
mentioned island is one of the Virgin Isles, belonell
to Great Britain ; the others, Saint John's, belongs to sin'
mark, and Porto Rico belongs to Spain. Those aentl,
men remained for a short time, visiting and ,superinteL
ing then estates, and then they. returned—to Tortola, hir",„; ing the slaves along with them who had accompanied toe-",'
.un their excursion. On their return, and
bad been employed in their usual occupations in the iellnr
they were taken into custody as being forfeited under we
poetsion of the Acts 46th and 47th of the lute
The•first of these Acts prohibits. aliy British subject from cat'
eller those get
rying any slaves, or being accessary to the carrying 44Y-
from any British colony, to any eolony, island, or state unties
the dominion of any foreign power, excepting ouly euel,ll3,,„vac as are, or may be employed about the person, or domestic
cerns of their masters. The other, viz. the 47th of the lute
Ring, which goes to the abolition of slavery altogether, Prevrn
the carrying of slaves by any subject of these-realms frent3
foreign port to a foreign port. Time p D
enalties for a breitSl_l2,:
those Acts are, the forfeiture of the ships and slaves found 'aPP
gressing those Acts.
whoD oacrteortJheealisiessE rirsa.iiiparedlf.ohretlie.earrnesepr torettisarfnitli%.Cilbl,eg:
those eight slaves were seized on the 26th of FebruarYe,,,h
and informations were libelled against them on the of
.x.
following., On the 20th of the same menth,' witnesses wer?„`...,,„
amined on behalf of the executors of the deceased Mr. Muth,
On the 26th of May, 1824, the case came on to be heard in
Vice-Admiralty Court of the Island 'of Tortola. The Judgeht
of that Court gave judgment, ufter mature cieliberntientiiiii
Op slaves should be restored to their masters, the Me" Learned
and both parties should
.pay their own costs. Thcthere
Judge was actuated in this decision by considering that pa
was an apparent show of justice on the part of the seizors, in
that they should be indemnified for-
snaking the seizfl.l;
consequence of this decision, the seizors have brought
peal before this Court, .to have this judgment reverse," tie
submitted that the sentence of the Court below should be con
firmed.
'Sir Citn isToeisEn Ronixsose appeared on the other side.
He said that this-case was of censiderable importune° Trothnee
with respect "to the facts and the law that the sentence
Should be corrected by the Court: iour LordshlPoetet
know from what you have just heard, what is the "Act
ooff.
ptlaiisrliatttnroesnete,utii,o,nhich ItvroishiebisrtsounEdVglioshimeann efxropirnesstran:;,
forting 'drives to 'any other colony, and treating the.,_lllbtea
slaves. With respect. to such a practice, it cannot be,uvil and
that great mischief must inevitably result treat 't ;
that the sentence of the Cuyrt below is erroneous., In
the first . place,' the slaves were, by such practice, the
moved front under die centroul which is exercised V,
Legislature of this country over the Management of the stavo
in etIOSe islands ; but still greater mischief must happen by iheb
trill& in slaves being carried on in violation of the Act for the
,
abolition of slaVerye The facts of the case are these
those Gentlemen are seised of estates in Tortola, Saint John P'
and Porto-Rico, are in the habit of taking with them parties'
lar slaves from their estates in Tortola, and they are in t,"l
habit of sending them from the above-named island to Ss'"
John's, and thence to Porto-Ricci. This is a liberty taken bY
those gentlemen net at all warranted by the law. All there
Ring, which
are contrary, both to the 46th and 47th of the la
Ring, which were enacted for the abolition of the slave tretlo,-,;.
lie requested his Lordship's attention to this Act. It would be
his Lordship's recollection, that in the 46th George 1 1.1.-clrii
52, sec. 1, It shall not be lawful to send, oc carry,•or s9l;,:n
in sending or currying, ant' slave. to any port of any fure„le
state or power ; that any slaves who should he so carried, sl4:°;se
be forfeited." Those were the words used In the Act. '4'l ill
are also some of the words which are still more particular,.oll
the second section of the Act, " no person, or persons, shams
carry, convey, or send, or in any manner abet or assist ft* senor
ing, slaves from any port of Africa, toasty state or Power' tot
the provision of any Foreign Prince." Those words bear tt_.c.,
particularly on the case now before the Court : he would th
fore submit In argument, that the information was n'ellftnin
and that the seizors were authorised in their caption.
a set h Pr*
Dr. LusititeuTme, who was on the. same -t .vergt
Jones, said, that the true intent of the Act was not to Phrestic
masters from being accompanied by slaves for doing do t 4,
go
PUrpo3e3; hue merely to prevent them from being exl)°r seise
any foreign colony. It would be disadvantageous theor-
litruself, to prevent him attending his master for domestic!?
poses. It Is usual for masters to take a large retinue with thennit'ase
place to place, and it is said to be requisite in those hot
Whatever may be the law on offences of this descriptlit'ot. by
was never use of those offences meant to be
g ~se
uarded atis`P's.
the Legislature. This was clear, that the slaves in illuo
tion belonged to the estate of Messrs. Hill, and were ,
for the.onliary purposes of domestic affairs, not for la ee,
poles of the ship. lie felt that they were entitled tr!,`,„se if
vourable consideration of his Lordship. Front the evidence's
appears-that those slaves were only absent from their ITssiele,
residence in the island of Totola ten days. It Was not 111',,,„ere
therefore, to contend that those slaVes veers intended for
whin.
—ewe
arguments.
Sir Vetanserssrlooordn:etr repliedOn2:xtta yo tat
Session
nleferatr IL' or

Printed and Published for the PItOpitfETOBS, 3t the
OFFICE, Na. 112, Strand, by J. B. CansT