The Sun.
London, England, 1826-08-24 00:00:00

Atrt

PRICE 7D.

riety of the transaction, if it had passed in his own district, would
have produced.
In the mean time the action which Mr. Hart had instituted
against him was proceeding ; and as Mr. Burnett did not 'repair
to Cape-Town according to the summons, or employ an advocate
there in his defence, sentence was pronounced against him on the
26th July, 1821, by default, after four separate summonses bad,
according to the practice of the Court, been duly served upon him
by the 'messenger of the district of Albany. It has .been asserted
by Mr. Burnett that these forms were conducted in the Dutch lan-
guage, which he did not understand : but we have every reason
to believe that they were accompanied by English translations.--a
practice that is observed in all cases where there are English par-
ties ; more especially as to every one of the summonses that were
served 14 the messenger, Mr. Burnett invariably replied in Eng-
lish, and in a manner that .proved his entire acquaintance with the
nature of the proceedings. The sentence of condemnation of
payment was transmitted by the sequestrator (she officer who
executes writs) to his agent in the Albany District, on the 27th
October, 1821.
On being summoned to point out property in payment of this
debt, Mr. Burnett produced before the landdrost of the district (the
agent to the sequestrator) a notarial act of assignment of all-his
property to the flip of Messrs. Ebden and Eaton, together with
a power of attorney from them to act as their agent in the admi-
nistration of the property. He further declared, that since the
passing of this deed, no property of any description had become
bona fide his, and that he had no property of which he could ren-
der an inventory.
Considering this declaration to he somewhat unusual, the se-
questrator required that it should he confirmed by the oath of Mr.
Burnett—a precaution that had been already taken by the agent.
A similar declaration having been made by Mr. Burnett, in an.
swer to another sentence that was issued against him, the seques-
trator proceeded to advertise, in the Cape Town Gazette, of
April, 1822, a notice to the creditors of Bishop Burnett to send
in their claims in consequence of his insolvency.
In a conversation that took place between the sequestrator and
the principal creditors of Mr. Burnett, at Cape Town, on present-
ing the account of his claims, the former baring but an imperfect
knowledge of the English language, seems to have mistaken a de-
claration of this creditor's wish to defer the sale of the property of
Mr. Burnett, for an undertaking to arrange the payment of his
debts; and under this belief, dispatched an order to his agent, to
suspend the proceedings against Mr. Burnett, and to call his cre-
diteretogether, and submit to them the proposals he had made for
the gradual payment of their claims. These proposals having
bean withdrawn by Mr. Burnett himself, and no satisfactory ad-
justment having been made with the -sequestrator, his agent, at
Graham's-town, at the instance of Mr. Hart, who contended that
he WWI entitled to the possession of his farm, proceeded to a valua-
tion of the improvements that Mr. Burnett had made upon it.
The valuation was made by two persons appointed by the land-
drost, but no other steps appear to have been adopted for Mr. Bur-
nett's removal.
Both parties feeling dissatisfied with this state of things, Mr.
Hart being disappointed in not being able to recover his debt, or
the possession of his farm, and Mr. Burnett having been injured
in his credit by the public declaration of hie insolvency, addressed
complainis to the Government and to the Court of Justice, and
brought actions against each other before the Court of Circuit in
the year 1822, the first to cancel the lease, and to eject the tenant
on account of his insolvency ; and the latter to recover damages
for illegally attempting to eject him, and for serving him with
notice to quit.
In the fin lit action Hart relied upon the declaration of Burnett's
insolvency, ifnd produced a Gazette in proof of it ; but Burnett
having alleged that he had no opportunity of obtaining the docu-
ments necessary for his defence, and as the. Court found, upon re-
ferring to the landdrost of the district, that a correspondence was
still open with the sequestrator upon the subject, resolved that the
further consideration of the case should be postponed, and that
time should be allowed to the defendant to disprove the allegation
of insolveney.: ' •
The adieu of aisrmat against Hart fir illegally attempting to
dispossess Mtn, was,didirssed by consent, and upon a suggestion
from the Court that she entry of the cause should be amended by
making the sequestrator aparty, to the defence. It is alleged by
Mr. Burnett that the commissioners of Circuit in the year:lll22 '
made a formal declaration of the irregularity of the proceedings
of the sequestrator, but we do not find that any mention of such
a declaration is entered upon the records of the Court. It has
been stated by a very competent witness, that he heard one of the
Commissioners of the Court declare that the proceedings were
irregular for want of a schedule of the debts and credits ; but e'en
if this declaration had been so made, it would not have had the
effect of superseding the act of the sequestrator, for the terms on
which the postponement of the trial was granted implied a neces.
shy of obtaining further evidence. We have referred to the COIn.
rniesioners of ,Circuit upon this point, and find that, although
they, differ in their recollection of what was said by one of thein
upon this occasion, yet • they have finally concurred in thinking
that the consideration of the question of insolvency was suspended
and left open to future discussion : we cannot therefore concur in
the assertion made, and often repeated by Mr. Burnett, that his
insolvency had been declared by the Court in 1822 to be irregular
or unjust.

Mi.. Burnett was thus enabled to retain the possession of the
farm for another year, and he has asserted that he made a tender
of the rent to the Secretary of the district; but it is positively
asserted by the Secretary that Mr. Burnett only requested to know.
whether he would receive the rent, and upon his declining it, as
not being part of hie duty, Mr. Burnett retired and did not repeat
his request.

In the month of May, of the year 1823, Mr. Hart renewed his
action of ejectment before the Court of Justice in Cape-Town, but
his claim was referred to the then ensuing commission of circuit
'that arrived in Grafiam's-town 'in the month of October, Pre-
vious to that period, cross actions had been entered before the (16.-
okt-clerk, amounting in number to nine, but which were reduced
to six by the Court with consent of the parties. The order in
which it determined to hear them, was opposed by Burnett on the
irotind Of its disturbing the arrangementbe had made for hit de-
fence, which was framed upon an understanding that the priority
that, had been given to each cause by the district clerk would be
observed in the hearing. The Court, however, having considered
that the causes that had been postponed from , the former year
ought to have precedence, resolved to proceed in the trial of the
action of ejectment, brought by Mr. Hart for recovering the poi-
session of his farm, and for cancelling the lease under which it was
held, intimating at the same time that it would give no decision
upon any of the causes until all had been heard. •

In the action of ejectment the plaintiff, Hart, relied upon the
declaration of Burnett's insolvency ; and now added for further
ground of action, the breach of tt condition in the non-payment of
rent for two years. The late contained no positive terms for the
payment of the rrent; yet Mr. Hart contended that the words
" annuel payMent of 600 dollars" clearly implied that thin sum
was to be paid in every year. In support of this position, he was
permitted to exhibit a certificate of the notary by whom the lease
was drawn, attesting; that at the time of its execution, an under-
standing prevailed between thl parties that the payment of the
rent should be annual. It was contended by the defendant, Bur-
nett, that the lease bore an opposite construction ; that no rent
was due until the expiration of the first three years; that it p."l
optional with him to extend his occupation of the farm until the I
end of the following three. Ile offered no evidence, and the
Court,, at the termination of their union, decided that the plaintiff
was entitled to enter on the possession of the farm, and condemned
the, defendant to quit it immediately.
In the next Winn thit was tried, Mr. Bishop Burnett was
plaintiff, and complained of the illegal warning that had been
given hiM by
Mr. Hart to quit the farm, and of an absolute order
that he had received to leave it in the month of April of the cur-
rent year. It was agreed to join to this case an action that he had
entered for damage* from these notices. Proof was given of the
interruption of the Meurer,' whom Mr. Burnett had emplo ed '
bark andpreparing charm in • y in
procuring
given.of the profits that might have been
derived from thevas
also
sale of
green forage, but dependent,
always upon the on '
ng of it The • rP°"tuntiea' that
might exist of -ialv •four,.rejected the pkinfiff
claith.for damages, m consequence of the otice a;
who justified .it by the public declarationP given by the de-
tin
joiniveney,
arai
of
44,
expiration
the lease
of the plain-
of lease in the month of
the
jusy;
cos ts 8.
;.and the Court also condemned the plaintiff to pay

The maim' brought by Burnett against Mr. Hart; and the se-
queetrator, for damage. arising from their having 11444 eon-

spired to eject him from the farm called Doom Valley, and which
bad been deferred in the year 1822, was next heard. The plain-
tiff proved, that an order had been given by the sagnestrator to
his agent at Graham's Town, dated 28th of January, 1822, stat-
ing, that in consequence of the firm of Mesas. Ebden and Eaton
having declared that Mr. Bishop Burnett was not their 'gent,
but that he was indebted to them in a considerable sum; he ires
forthwith to proceed in seizing and selling all hi, property, This
order had been attempted to be enforced by the Landdrost, but
had been met by a protest by Mr. Burnett against it as illegal,
and a declaration of his intention of retaining possession of the
farm until compelled by actual force to quit it. On the part of
one of the defendants, Hart, it was contended, that no conspi-
racy was proved—that he had done no act in conjunction with
the sequestrator—that he had repaired to Graham's Town, in
consequence of an order of the Landdrost, to take over the
farm, and was there informed, that in consequence of subsequent
orders, that proceeding was to be suspended, and a valuation of
the improvements on the farm was to be made.
The same defendant further contended for the legality of hie
proceeding against the plaintiff, who had attempted to defeat the
claims of just creditors, by making over all hie property to one
individual, and had thus exposed himself to the consequence of a
declared insolvency; one of which was the avoidance of the lease,
and of all right to continue in possession of the farm. A memo-
rial was submitted to the Court on behalf of the sequestrator,
that the lateness of the notice of trial precluded his attendance ;
and, independent of this circumstance, he contended thet the
plaintiff should have qualified himself to bring this action, by fittg
obtaining a veniana agendi, a form that is observed in the colonial
Courts, whenever a public ofEeer of rank is summoned. The
Court, in pursuance of a power given to them by a proclamation
of the year 1813, referred the cause to the decision of the full
Court.

In an action for rent brought by Hart for the occupation of the
Earns, the sum df 1,200 fix-dollars was decreed to be paid to him
by Burnett, together with interest from the 25th of May, the day
on which the lease expired.
The nest action was brought by Mr. Hart against Burnett, to
recover damage. for removing fruit-trees from his farm, and for
destroying two buildings that were standing upon it at the com-
mencement of his !ea.*, and the loss of the harvest of the current
year, in consequence of the defendant having continued to occupy
the farm beyond the expiation of it. After hearing the evidence,
the Court rejected the claim for damages, hut compensated the
plaintiff by allowing him rent from the expiration of the lease oft
the 25th of May, 1828, to the period of the defendant quitting tliN
farm in the month of October. The plaintiff, however, was con.
demned in the costs of the action.
The defence to these actions was made by Mr. Bishop Burnett
in writing, and was permitted to be read to the Court. It abounds
in violent invective against the Government, and some of the pub.
1k functionaries ; and, some passages were considered to be so ca-
lumnious, as to induce the Commiasioners of the Court of Qircuit
to transmit the document to the cognisance of the Fiscal; but it
does not appear that any prosecution was founded upon it.
When the trials were concluded, the memorials of certain cre-
ditors of Bishop Burnett were heard, complaining of the delay in
executing the sentences they had obtained against him ; and, in
one of them, a charge was made against Burnett of having coat-
mitted acts that were in fraud of bis creditors; the Court of Cif.
cuit ordered that Burnett should again be summoned to give set
account of his property to satisfy the demands of his creditors, and
that in failure thereof, an inventory should forthwith be taken by
the Landdrost and forwarded to the aequestrator. The charge of
fraud that had been made against him waseommitted to the in-
quiry of the Landdroat and the Heenfreaden of the district.
Against all these declaims, except the last, Wallop Burnett
entered appeals ; but instead of prosecuting them before the High
Court of Appeal, he transmitted a memorial to. the Governor,
charging the two Commissioners of circuit with gross ignorance
of their judicial duties, and with corruption, partiality, and in-
justice.

Shortly after the proceedings had been concluded, the sale of
Burnett'. property took place, and produced the sum of 4,850
rix-dollars, which was given for the grant of land that was con-
ferred upon him by the acting Governor ; a great part of the per-
sonal property had been disposed of by Burnett himself, between
the period in which the first inventory was trade, andthe conehre
lion of the proceedings by the Commission of circuit. In the
same interval, also, very heavy storms of rain had occurred, by
which the improvement, that he had effected upon the farm, and
in the garden of Mr. Hart, had suffered great injury ; and one of
the houses that had been injudiciously placed near the cowls of
the river wart destroyed.
We have been induced to enter thus minutely into the eircume
stances of these proceedings, as Mr. Burnett has made thein. the
principal ground. of his complaint, both in this colony and In
England, and the pretext for a very violent representation to the.
Governor, for which he was called upon to answer criminally be-
fore the Court of Ji.stice. In hie first complaint, he adverted to
the vindictive spirit by which Mr. Hart 'was actuated in compel".
ing payment of his claim for SOO rix-dollars, and his attempt to
appropriate to himself the improvements he had made and WAll
making upon his farm. If it were necessary to seek a justification
of this proceeding on the part of Hart, it might, we think, be na-
turally found in the very questionable transaction, that has, in fact,
as well es in law, been the cause of all Mr. Burnett's difficulties.
After his draughts upon England had been publicly declined nt
Cape Town, and after he had incurred debts to two 'individuals
for the means of cultivating his land, he made an assignment of all
his property, for the purpose of securing a particular, creditor, and
avowedly for that of defeating the just claims of others. He farther
states, that au attempt was made by Mr. Hart to obtain posse*.
sion of the laud contiguous to his farm, that had been granted-to
him by the Government, and has complained of the injustice of
snaking it liable to execution, when the grants of other eat-
tiers were not liable until the expiration of three year', at which
time they were to receive their titled. Mr. Burnett forgets, how:
ever, to state, that he received the title to his grant at the eXpitier tion of the first year, at the solicitation of the creditors to when*,
he very soon after assigned it, for the twofold purpos4 of enabling
him 'to give security for the advances that had been Intuit to him,
and to protect the property from the claims of others; be justified
this proceeding, we observe, by a reference to the preferential na-
ture of the debt, in which he can by no means concur. The debts
for which he was pressed by Mr. Hart and another creditor, arose
from the supplies of cattle and stock, by which he was enabled to
cultivate his hula, while the debt of the commercial firm consisted partly of a pecuniary advance made to Mr. Burnett on his snivel
in the colony, of furniture for his house, and of a certain quantity
of tea, which was evidently intended for the purpose of retail or
commercial profit in the district.
Mr. Burnett alleges that he has expended the very considerable
sum of 20,000 rix-dollars upon the farm of Mr. Hart, and that it
was an act of great injustice in him to attempt to appropriate
such a sum to himself; but it' is necessary to observe, thet.the
improvements that were made by Mr. Burnett were not such as
to increase the value of the farm in the opinion of a practical settler.
nor were they made with the knowledge and consent ofMr. Hart.
the landlord. The rustic lodge that he built was a fanciful structure,
and the garden was laid out more with a view to embellishment than
to profitable cultivation. The number of fruit trees, however, was
greatly aumented, and some pains were taken to select the best kinds.
Much stress is laid by Mr, Burnett upon the incompetence of
the persons who were appointed by the Landdrost of the district
to appraise the imprrwements ; one of them, we find, was a builder,
and the other was the Veld Cornet of the district, and persons who,
from their habits, might be considered competent to appraise the
value of the ordinary buildings and agricultural improvements in
the district.

Upon► a review of the evidence that was given, respecting the
value of these improvements, before the Court of Circuit, cud
allowing for the novelty of some of them, tee do not conceive that
the sum of 1,315 rix-dollars, fixed by the appraisers, was toe low
an estimate.

We bay. had occasion to advert to the declaration that was Mil4;10
either
tlluernett,
his possessing no
much of his embarraasn' o.
planation by which they
other creditors, for a
filltionthiltheibthy their benefit. It appesta to us that
of the year 1822, or duringdecia
before the agent of the sequestratorw of
property,
a just ground, absence of an
tile imui`e in Cape-tow Yi!ra"d of having assigned it to a Meryealle:
dtheenpcefiroThewtitaiiptlatte)r.veei'dridfeln.heyishreal‘eitrs.ecnßtti,tti‘:saurigirrlttini,ahlii°4elotitt::ttlwehta;itb:ltht‘iiilia'tlsnobial:ln'ile'lvfievuthe'll:ilabitre, or e
:;(sliired ikiul:sliii:tinl:ll:fitiitv'e'ewBtdihitkeehe"7:dchne;retilatn:::itrit:tl2.ll 's
to On the first occasioneyth poitponed to give him time
offered any that tended to show that the property that he had
been allowed to hold was sufficient to discharge the debts that
were brought against him, or that his creditors were willing to
accept terms, or enter into arrangements for future payment.._.
lie kindly complained of the infraction by Mr. Hart of the terms
of the lease, in deManding payment of the tent before it was
due ; but upon this point he had nothing to oppose to the
fame atropin.,
fae of having paid the rent for the first year, and having mad .
a go,,eiee tender of it for the second ; nor to the equitable cow..
struction of the lease, in which the farm is described to fd be let '
upefoprr,tilinetinlisueedpmati;e;ohafnottrhtihyTeretpytatatortrtisheseralhe'ardrtinfiikticiaaytteatigloreeferdtah,tetatoinodf
utio6lolloerswrithro:oddodllarett
the payment of the rent should be annual.
. _

It illy doubt had remained upon our minds rerryeeting that
fact, it would have been removed by perusing the contents of a

letter suldremed by Mr. Banta to his commercial friend in Cape-
town, dated 2d March; 1824 let which he expresses his hope
that remittemase from
,England, or his sales of green forage, will
enable, him to, discharge Mr. Hart's demand for 900 rix-dollars,
"as welt as hia,rent, due the end of May." With this evidenee
before them, it cannot be matter of minim that the Commis-
sioners of the Court of Circuit should have held that the native
of the ejectment was legally given ; that the lease was cancelled
for the. nomparnent
,of rent, and that Mv, Hart was entitled to
be put into itamediete possession,
Mr. Burnett bag also compleined'of the conduct of the segues-
trator, both in publishing his insolvency, and in suspending the
proceedings after it had been declared ; and 'he has imputed the
last of these side. hatenne sinister, influence of a person whom be
does not, name. From the best view we have been able to take
of the order of stispenlion that was issued by the sequetstrator,
we are led to believe that it arose out of his mistake of the inten-
tions of Messre. Deka and-Eaton with regard to Mr. Burnett,
and his imperfect knowledge of the language in which the? were
conveyed, and further from not having given clear instructions to
his agents at Graham's-town. It is attributable also to certain
defects in the ssoneritutiun or the sequestrator's offsets, and the mode
in which. the business of it was conducted.
It remains for us to consider the vehement accusations that ME.
Burnett has brought forward against the Commissioners of the
Court of Circuit, in the year 1823. We have already had occa-
sion to notice the arrangement that was made by these gentlemen
reipecting the priority in which the several causes should be taken,
and the reduction that was proposed in the number of them, stud
acquieeced in by the parties. They gave precedence to the action
that had been postponed at the circuit of the former year, both on
account of its importance to the parties themselves, as well as of
that whiC.,h it derived. frons having been made the subject of special
reference to them by the Court of Justice, before whom it bed
been brought iu the month of May' precoling.
Mr. Burnett alleges that it was the duty of the Commissioners
to have decided at osice upon the question of his insolvency. This
point was certaioly sit issue in the year 1822, when the action of
ejectment was brought by Mr. Hart, and when time wee given to
Mr. Burnett to disprove it; but during the iuterval that hail
elapsed between the circuit of 1822 and 1823, more than two
years' rent lied become due ; Mr. Hurt was allowed. to add this
claim to his former grounds of action ; the Court was of opinion
that the. payment of rent was annual and not triennial, and the
action'and sentence of ejectment were mainteined upon this ground,
although em declaration to that effect appears in the sentence. We
should not, indeed, have ventured to assert the grounds of this de-
rision, if we bad nut been able to collect them from a subsequent
explanation affisrded us by one of the Commissioners, who has de-
flared that it was the opinion of the Court of Circuit that the
question of insolvency could not fairly be tried sinless the sequese
trator was made a party. By a colonial law of rather recent date;
this officer combines the executive duties that in England are
performed by the Sheriff, with those of Conservator and Judge of
bankrupt and insolvent estates. An indefinite kind of appeal is
allowed against his decisions to the Court of Justice, where they
do not appear to receive the prompt consideration which the uses
tore of such ret4ences require. In this case, however, instead of
addressing himself to time Court of Justice against the declaration
of insolvency of which he so much complained,' Mr. Burnett trans-
rnitted a memorial to the Governor, by whom it was referred to
the Landthseil and agent of the sequestrator in the Albany district,
as well ,as the sequestrator himself, for explanation. The Court
of Justice, therefore, was never in possession of the question of
insolvepcy until the action above-mentioned had been referred to
their coguitance by the Commission of Circuit.
It is nemesia), to, observe, that as no profesaional assistance is
to be obtained in the several districts of the colony, the proceed-
lags of the Court of Circuit are not conducted with the regularity
that is desirable, and that parties frequently suffer from their igno-
rance of the forms which, however, are in themselves exceedingly,
simple end intelligible. On the present occasion the parties con-
ducted their own causes, and Mr. Burnett delivered a written,
defence, in the course of which he indulged in a strain of virulent,
abuse of Mr. Hart, which the Court- found it difficult to cheek.
The interrogation of the witnesses appears to' have been irregular ;
and although every. opportunity seems to have. been given by the.
Commissioners of Circuit for the investigation of the grounds of.
action, and of defence, a studious silence and reserve of their opi-
nion is, however, observable upon the question of insolvency,
which was undoubtedly mixed up with others, notwithstanding
the references that they subsequently mule of it to the full Court, •
Appeals were .wmtered by Mr: Burnett to the Court of the Govem
nor, against all the 'decisions, at the same time that the, agent of
the sequestrator was instructed brthe Ptitident of the Court It
Justice, stud after vonmunication with the Court of itppsals„
proceed to the'eXeCtititott of time semosmee of ejectment, and the
sale of Mr. Bishop Burnett's property, in satisfaction of the other
sentences that had been obtained against him, and which had
been long delayed.
It was timid that the personal property had been much dimi-
nished, and certain articles of merchandise that had been sent by
Mr. Burnett to Cape Town for sale, were arrested by the segues•
trator in the hinds of the consignee, and the proceeds were added
to the estate for the benefit of the creditors.
From the account that hail been rendered by the sequestrator, it
appears that the assets, after the deduction pf the costa end duties
payable to Government, amount to 4,431 i rix-dollarr ; and that
after the payments of the preferent debts, there will be a deficiency
of 7,061 rix-dollars.
We have already had the honour to state, that the decision upon
the action brought by Mr. Burnett past the sequestrator and
Mr. Hart, for conspiring unlawfully to eject him from the farm,
was referred by the Commissioners of Circuit, in the year 1823,
to the consideration of the full Court. The tenor of a very recant
communication from the President and members, does not enable
nuts state' in direct terms the nature of their decision ; but from
the evidence that has been submitted to them, and that is to he
found' in the proceedings; we have no reason to doubt that the
charge. of conspiracy either will be, or has been, dismissed. The
investigation that was Mitered into the charge against Mr. Bur-
nett, of fraud against his creditors, was returned to the Court of
Justice some time ago, but the consideration of it has been ordered
to he postpened until the liquidation of the estate by the sequestra-
tor has been effected. .
We think that this eyetem of perpetual reference and delay is
much to be regretted, although the decision of the queshon of
fraud will nest materially affect the scheme of distribution of the
proceeds of the estate that has been submitted by the sequestrator
to the creditors, and is now waiting the result of another tedious
reference to the Court of Justice.
With reference to the pecussiary resources that Mr. Burnett
might have possessed, or to his ultimate hope of being able to ex,
tricot, himself from aribarreesrnesit, we think it is clear that his
sole dependence, either for the means of reimbursing the aliveness*
that had been made, or for payment of the debts that he had in-
curred, was this annual produce of his term. To the failure of
the harirest in 1820 he imputes his incapacity to discharge the
debt of Mr. Hart, and hie disappointment in the amount of the
produee that he had estimated at 7,000 rix-dollars. He specu-
lated at the mane time on the purchase of Mr. Hare, farm when
he had no oimins of effecting it, end was making preparations for
establishing a distillery of spirits from the fruit trees which he
had planted, without any reaionable assurance of becoming the
Were owner of the land upon which they grew.
Respecting the question of insolvency, which Mr. Burnett has
always made it prominent ono (and there can he little doubt that the
ftehlteetien of it, as well as the notoriety of the action brought
against him by Mr. Hatt, had a fatal influence upon his credit in
the district.), we, are unable tat discover the grounds upon which it.l
could he impeached or set aside. The speculative value of his
own grant.or the contingent interest that he claimed in Mr. Hart's
farm, could not be taken into ealculidion by the, sequestrator as
affording a satisfactory incense( tulitcning the pressing claims of
creditors.
If the farm had been given sip icy Harnett when poseeseion wax
demanded in the: year ItsU, ins crtglitora woad have bad the be-
nefit of the improvements that Imedbeini made Nam it, but he per-
sisted in holding it until the. end of the year 1623, when their
Value had been entirely deetreyml, sea i„„„h of what had been
constructed In wood had been removed by hinuself..
From the impreosion that, we have received from the evidence
and etatameOse laid before us, we. have hooted to consider that'
the injury anti leo of whirl' he eouthleittst were imputable to hit
too aanguine reliance upon !sources of credit that t
provedn to be pre,
calicoes, .M the bad calculations he, had made u the product of
agricultural labour in the district in which lie settled, and to a
g 't.
waVbeofjuedeicßialnl.m:oucticednilitiguestrisif:wllinb her efottintitiirlaeinilenhirtravyeelnsteti:eiya
furnished us with grounds for pr
117° sjlinstration, and although
the several branches a the J'l4-esa.l Pillini uof
uncertainty
we find that they arenorkett with the same
and delay, that we had occaeion to observe in other esses,that htve
C are not prepared to say, tnat under
been brooght hefore
a more perfect a..m.thstrat.ou
on
the
noun.
hand
we
are
; i;ce, YPit of the laws, result to Mr. Bur-
nett would have been different ; tubule
firmly convinced that the proceedings furnish no grounds.t
. wl,i)arte_vrer.
fot the chargea that he lots made of i0.1"4", partiality,
ruption.
161r.11"rtiett aims endeavoured to, connect
.with,w hnt thesei
the' refusal Of ient-Criltinel Somerect to alit
eate of tlw receipt of a certain -quantity of gratis that he alleged to
have hero Cut from his estate for the use of the Cape cavalry ; we
do not find that this eircumetanee has any direct connection with
the iateial Ptoceedlulile fors although we observe that Mr. But-

nett has alleged to your Lordship that be mentioned his claim
upon the Cornmissariat-departmant for payment of this grass to
the Landdrost and agent of the sequestrator, as a means 'of dis-
charging his debt to Mr. Hart, and that'he protested Against the
Landdrost's refusal to receive it, yet we find that this assertion is
positively contradicted by the Landdrost ; and we think it extra-
ordinary, that when lib•. 13urnett was required to declare upon
oath what proi,erty be possessed that was applicable to the pay-
ment of the debts that were judicially demanded, he ahould not
at the same time have made an exception of this claim upon the
Commissariat-department, which, if admitted and certified to he
just, would have enabled him to relieve himself in sonic degree
from his embiulassments. •
Mr. Burnett has contended that the foraging parties of the
Cape cavalry cut from his estate, at different times, quantities of
grass, amounting in value to the sum of 1,280,rix-dollars ; and
that although he has frequently applied to the proper authorities,
he hes never been able to obtain an authentic receipt or certificate,
by which alone he could obtain payment from the Commissariat
Department. In the year 1821, ha brought an action for the
purpose of compelling the officer, then in commend of the cavalry,
to deliver to him a certificate for 256 loads of grass. Ppon pre-
vious 'application, the officer declared, that although he found that
grass had been taken from Mr. Burnett's land, contrary to . his
strict injunctions, • yet, after the strictest inquiry, he could only
find that '44 loads had been taken, and for these Mr. Burnett
received the sum of 220 rix-dollars in payment. It appears
this grass had been. taken at a period in which the land-marks
of his grant had not been fixed, and the foraging parties had
not observed the boundaries that divided it from a tract

of Government land, to which they were accustomed to resort for
grass. The Court not deeming the officer responsible for any
quantity that had been taken subsequent to the period of his Corn.;.
maul, relieved him from the claim, but reserved to the plaintiff,
Burnett, the right of instituting bisection against such other per-
suns as in law were liable. - Mr. Burnett then made application to
Lieutenant-Colonel Somerset for a certificate of the quantity of
grass that had been taken during his command. It is admitted
by Lieutenant-Colonel Somerset that he gave a promise to Mr.
Burnett that he should obtain a receipt for such quantity of grass
'as appeared by the regimental hooks to have been received. On
Lieutenant-Colonel Sometimes departure, this inquiry was left to
the care of the officer who "succeeded him, and who, when called
upon, excused himself .froM responsibility for any quantity of
grass that was cut after he ceased to be in command. Mr, Burnett
was thus left to his remedy against Lieutenant-Colonel SoMerset,
to whom he more than once made applieation, both personally
and through another person, who overtook him on • his road
from Graham's timin to Uitenhage. We observe that Colonel
Somerset has not alluded to this interview, nor has he pointedly
contradicted the assertion that he promised to giVe the cer-
tificate. •We think it most probable, that any promise that he
did give was conditional ; but on the other hand, it is much
to be regretted that a claim or 'this nature had not been imme-
diately brought to a decision by some more formal and satisfac-
tory mode of investigation than that which he had assigned to it.
The complaint was preferred to the acting Governor, Sir Ruftme
,Donkin, who declined to interfere in it, or order payment of
any military account without a proper certifiate ; and it was pre-
ferred, at a later period, to his Excellency Lord Charles Somer-
set, who, in an interview' that is' correctly described by Mr.
Burnett, promised to use his best exertions in his behalf. The
result of this interview was a proposal to submit the investigation
of the claim to a regimental hoard of officers, which rlr. Burnett
declined, and the question remains still subject to dispute: The
discussion of it has given occasion to Mr. Burnett to notice in
strong terms the mode in which the green forage was supplied to
the Cape cavalry, and the unjust and partial exclusion of hiinself
and others from a share, in the supply.

(To be continued.)

FRENCH PAPERS.

(From the Etoile of Tuesday.)
CONTINUATION OF THE MA AN DISSOLVING THE CORES OF THE

JANISSARIES.

In consequence of this decision, notice was given to the
Janissaries, that every individual who should oppose the
execution of this measure, unanimously adopted, whether
by acting or speaking against it, idniuld be punished with
all the rigour of the laws. The' enrolments were begun,
soma and uniforms were dititributed, and order was given
last week to begin the new exercises: All these prepartt•
tiOna were at the expence of the Treasury. - But, without
regard for the commands of religion, or the orders, of the
law, the Janissaries mutinied dosing the night of Thhrs-
day last, attacked the palace of their Aga, and even the
Sublime Porte, the palace of the Grand Vilier, and se-
veral others; and, after having plundered these residences,
they cut in pieces with a knife a holy book (the Koran),
wherever they found it, and committed a thousand ' ex-
cesses, crying, " We will not have any exercise."
The Janissaries, therefore, having respected neither the
Divine Law, nor its organ, nor the Sublime Porte, nor
the Ulemas—having dared, with sacrilegious hands, .to
turn against the most exalted power the arms which had
been delivered to them by the Law of the Prophet,-and
having thereby shown that they have neither faith nor re-
ligion, have become the object of general execration.
Immediately the respectable Muftis, retired or in office,
the noble Kadileskeers (Supreme Judges in Europe and
Asia), the august Grand Vizier, the learned Ulemas,
whose number may the Almighty increase 'to the day of
the resurrection, the dicers on duty, and all the , other
Mussehuen, hastened to the Imperial Palace, brought thi-
ther the Standard of the Prophet, to which salutation and
prayer may be addressed, and then went to the mosque of
the Sultan Achrnet. Thence they sent criers into all parts
of the city, to invite all good Musielmen to come and
place themselves under the standard of Mahomet. Though
the number of the faithful, who immediately, and with
zeal, obeyed this summons, was universal, the seditious
persisted in their detestable design, and occupied the
place of assembly, which was become the theatre of their
iniquities, the only object of which was to effect the total
ruin of the Ottoman Empire, to make the state fall into
the talons of the enemies of the Faith, 'and to tread all
good Mussehnen under foot.
Under such circumstances, the law commands blood to
be shed without mercy. An armed force was therefore
sent against them, their barracks were burnt, and the
Omnipotent God punished them for their crime, by bend-
ing their heads under the sword of the law. •
As it .was positively known, that seditious and ill dil:
posed individuals, and other corporations had secretly ex-
cited and supported the revolt of the Janissaries, prepara-
dons were made to make them undergo the same fate.—
All these events have produced a conviction, that the in.
stitution of the Janissaries, the original principles 01
which were bravery and obedience, had, in process o
time, assumed a very different, character, and was now
founded on perversity and insubordination, so that the
title of Janissary, the name Yoldaset (comrade), and the
badges of this corps, had become the shield of all those
worthless individuals who wished to domineer over honest

men.
It has happened, that among those who have
have been
been ar.
rested and executed on this occasion, wretches
discovered, who had marked on one arm the, Sign of the
75 Orta, and the Cross of the Christians, a certain proof
that men of all sects bad enlisted among them, and that
there were always wretches among them, who, under the
Musselnian habit, concealed the character of spies. It has
.been observed, that whenever proposals have been made
to them to purge their corps, by the expulsion of this ver-
min, they have always made the greatest resistance, and
that it has never been possible to recal them to the ob-
ject of their primitive institittion, so that the men of ho-
nour among the Ages, and other commanders of their
i',,o:rtiete.iisii,orietoii:lnd
way
longer corttroul them. As it lies been
tanus, as it were, pointed out with the finger, that their
impossible, and that there was abso-
lby dien:nrrainrntliostiosfixti.:goftltTime
reussvefuelo,
bloc
Muftis, of
is day:
's of the
Vibelmas"adil”keers, of the august Viziers, of the learned
covent,mtat,onfniglll honest men heartily devoted to the
good, with; the to
the Janissaries,religion, assembled for- the public
ultait Acitniet,
chin
Standard,' *in the Mosque of
arum .nd the -name of the:Corporation of
statutes. . given another form to their ancient
infoPrlmltsist:s ofA Air,. 1,--
'':llll;iii‘-tolitt.,?it°frthreroranisSiattairaiensicaliti PS:l6oi tiiiivcelll.
The Journals of the
both sides of the question, full of exaggerated new!
The Indicator announces troubles in resinlielecte rt t°
emaPlu°rart,uagandi
on