The Sun.
London, England, 1827-08-04 00:00:00

vernmen,t the periods; referred too, we:have
reason to know ; but we- also know that the of.
ferSiMpoitedra desire la 'procure-for the Greeks
u arrangement more advantageous to them
titan the Turkish Goverinnent, thought it ,ex-;
pedient to grant. . It was an offer to assist thei
Turks ; but it was one, the acceptance of';
which would have involved reward rather than
punishment to the Greeks. The leading Jour-
nal of the present Administration thinks pro-
per, however,- to give implicit credit to this
statement of the Turkish Manifesto, for the pur-
pose of stigmatizing the foreign policy of that
able, and honest servant of the public, the late
Marquis of Londonderry,' and' the living StateS-
men who emulate his virtues ; forgetting that
Air.' Canning, the object of '.its daily 'adoration,
declared openly and boastingly in the'House 'of
Commons, that the policy of -the Marquis of
Londonderry, 'his immediate predecessor' at the
Foreign-Office, 'was the model which he meant
to imitate ; and forgetting,' moreover, which is a
still more remarkable oversight of injudicious
adulation, that Mr.' Canning was. himielf the
Foreign Minister of Engkind at the period of
the Congress of Verona. We do not wonder
that the friends of the Mr. Canning,of'-this day
should wish the nation to forgetbis personal
identity with the Mr. Canning of a • former
period. They are zealous' and welkneaning
friends' no doubt, but they certainly Over-act
their part. The Journal to which we have just
referred contrasts the -foreign 'policy of' the late
with that of the present Administration, as il-
lustrated by the very different, conduct pursued
by them respectively towards the Turks and the
Greeks. The former, it-says, would have assist-
ed the Mussulman to destroy a whole Christian
nation—the latter is anxiously striving to rescue
both from the evils of a destructive and appa-
rentlyt.endless. strife. The accusation against the
late Administration' is an. ignorant 'and brutal
calumny ; and 'if even ib were true, it is plain
that it would only afford an additional rea-
son' why England should hot now have he.
come a party to 'any coercive interference in
favor of the Greeks. One crirrie or error is not
to be corrected- or atinted:for by-thC 'commission
of a crime eiror of an apposite nature. The
march of Governime4ii ought, so far as is pos-
sible, to be even, consistent, and continuous. If,
therefore, an unjust partiality had been shown to
the Turks hitherto, it would have been anew and
,a Very strong reason why an unjust partiality
should not be shown to the Greeks'
,'When the Greek Treaty was first prointilkatedi
we at once declared Our opinion that it was ut-
terly- :repugnant
:to the law of nations, entirely
uncalled for-by any existing circumstances, :and,
as an example pregnant with danger to the 'future
harmony and repose of nations: • We were their
told that it was not the work of the present Ad,
ministration, :and that all the, printipleS it invol-
ved had been discii. ssed and adopted at St.'Peters-
burgh, when England was represented by the
Mike of Wellington. The Treaty is -now, we
;find; to be' employed as a means of contrasting
the present with the late Administration, to the
advantage of the. former. There is something
rather puzzling. in -this. We think, however, we
h.ttre hit upon an explication. When the Treaty
is considered in referenco to the law of nations
and 'the seperate interests of Engiand,lo both 'of
which it is opposed, then it the work of the
Mike of Wellington; but when it is viewed in
connection With the high sounding names 'of
philanthrophy and religion, then it becomes, all
at Once; the work of Mr. Canning.. Your tirtie
partizan, after all, is the man who can the most
perfectly, forget to-day what lie said 'yesterday.--

It is much to be lamented, that afterthe many
boasted improvements which are saki-. to have
ilkeir :place in our laws and iudicial proceedings,
so much of quibble and technicality should still
be found incnnibering the latter.. We are far
from meaning:that legal forms can, or ought to.
be . dispensed with, or that any of those safe-
guards should be abolished, which are equally
necessary to insure, .pn the_ one hand, the:admi-
nistration of...justice, or, on the other, the pro-
tection . due to• persons accused. Yet still we.
cannot for the lives of us see why
.common sense
should not have something to do with such mat-
ters ; or whom mere mystery -can benefit but the
artificers who live by the worship of the Great
Diana. We know well enough, that to attack
profeasional mystery, either in Law, Physic, or
Divinity, is to give mortal offence to all iwho
-deem obscurity wisdom ; yet we, feel :confident
that there is a liberal spirit in the age, which
will go'along • with .us in deprecating the conti-
nuance of mere: form without
.substanee, espe-
cially when: it tendslo defeat, and render in some
degree contemptible, the apparent ends of justice.
The 'acquittal' of the man, Sheen, charged with
the mnrdersof his: child, .has: aforded a striking
instance of this ; .on• Which occasion the 'Whole
justice of the case appears to .have merged. pp
points, which may be, and no doubt are, law, .
but I.vliieW appear, to our dull. apprehension at,
least, as :far removed from . reason .and eommon
eense,- as: the 'r cult has been •mortifying and, un-
,,,tisfactory. As• a further proof of the way in
judicial Arms---deal with obvious things,
we. hav-e'an instauce, at one of the Assizes, of a
person being obliged to travel all the way from
London to. prove not only that " the Earl Of Li-
verpool, Earl )34hurst, Hus-
kisson,'Mr.,Robinson, and.Mr Peel; were Mini-
sters of State,".. but actually to produce the p -
tent under which \they had held ..their offices ;
and that in the case of a mere trumpery
libel-in- which they,happened to be named. Such
things seem, to be as absurd as if because' an in-
dictment. concludes with an averawnt that the
offence, charged in it is " against the peace of
otir:Lord theiKing, his crown and dignity," it
would be. necessary to prove his Majesty to be
King, or to carry .down the . crown from the
Tower, or - some person: who was present at his
Coronation. •Or if a man be charged with
drowning another by, throwing him into the
Thames, it may
,be
,equally necessary to prove
that the Thames is composed of water, and that
water possesses the property, of drowning. This
may appear to be, and is excessive absurdity ; but
we know 'of no better way of illustrating one ati=
surdity than .by opposing it to another.. Again,.
we are told that it has. been gravely held; that
men accused of stealing ducks were acquitted
because they killed them first, which rentleiid.
the dead ducks not the ducks meant in the in-
dictment. Though there is figure of rhetoric
which alloWs the' part to be taken for the
.whole
as a figure of speech, 'we can easily imagine that
a man who steals a beat-steak ought not to be
tried for stealing an ox ; but why the word. ducks
necessarily means live-ducks—or why if they
happen to be charged as live ducks, and yet
happen to be dead and even roasted, that should
make any difference. as to the crime of stealing
them, is beyond our powers of apprehension to .
understand. The,reform of, or rather the doing
away such niceties and cubtilties,as these,.is so
obviously called for, that we wonder how what

ileman; whoever he should turn out to be, be
condemned for this offer, the state of the Greek
nestion, in the cotronencement of 1823, ought
early to be shown ; and it ought also to' be
s town, that the view taken of it, by that unknown
i dividual, was not, under existing circumstances,
t e most humane and enlightened. The Turks
aire followers of Mahomet, and the Greeks are
Christians ; but, although this diversity of
r6ligious belief might very properly turn the
kale in favour of the latter, where the claims of the
two parties were equal, we hope it will not be
airguad, that in the year 1823, we were called on
tb undertake a war in behalf of the Greeks,
' merely becanse they were of the household
of faith. Granting, then, that the proposal was
made (which only this document proves), and
ranting that it was made by a British Minister
which this docoment does not even assert),
until it be shown that, our interposition between
he contending parties, with a view to put an
d to mutual bloodshed by their reconciliation,
as not as fully justified by the circumstances'of
823, as our interposition between them, with a
ieW to terminate the war by their separation, is
y tyros circumstances of 1827—until this is
howl) we cantiot Advance a step in the argument.
hat one State has no right to interfere in the
!Aetna' disputes of another, unless the rights of
ri
the interfering State be compromised, or are in
imminent hazard of being compromised, is, as we
have said above, universally admitted. But,
I ,
vino will contend that one State may not assist
tnOther, with the consent of the latter ? To in-
erfere between Turkey and Greece, as we are

is calted'.l.' Ord.:Mar& ofintellett," eznileare such tow 'interfering',.-`tan only be justified •on the
xcrescenc es in its rear ; and it is quite clear, to principle, that we are exposed to hazard, if we
hs least,, no reform Of the law can f)e pelay our interference. But no such excuse, nor
effectual, which does not bring such. matters as any other excuse, was waittingtO justify an offer
these to" the all-reforming test of COMMON bf assistance to Turkey from England, if Turkey
•
SENSE.—Morning Herald. jrequired, and was willing to accept it. To give a
According to a letter of a highly respectablei 0.4 e in point ; the interference of France; in be,
character from Buenos Ayres, it appears that the half of Ferdinand, in 1823, could only be.con-
diem:lied on the principle that it took. place not
first negociations; commenced under the auspices j
the assent, or at the solicitation of the do-
of Great :Britain, respecting the possession
the Eastern Bank 'of the River Plate,
tninant party, but against their will. Had Fer-
dinand possessed in appearance,' what we firmly
were accompanied by an indication, that . on
account of the' exorbitant demands made by believe he posAessed inbreality, the confidence of
•
each of the cOnternling parties, it would be ex- I
quietly in his palace at Madrid, the majority of the nationadrid, and the had he been seated
pedient to raise the disputed .territories into 'an I
abet-
Independent State,- under the protection andgua-
tors of the Comes confined
,fo an extremity
rantee of such European maritime Power as the of the Peninsula, who will say that the interfe-
inhabitants, duly convened and assembled, might rence would not have been 'completely justified ?
select. -In Such a proposal it was, perhaps, fore_ Will it be asserted that the calling in of the
in
Seen, that the choice was likely to fall on Great Dutch troops, 1688, to put down atyrant
i3ritaiii; but after an extensive correspondence King; or of the HanoYeriarr troops; in 1745,' to
on the subject, it was discovered that there was put 'down a rebellious people, was•not.completely
an insurmountable objection to the scheme, both justifiable ? No blame therefore attaches to the'
on the part of the Emperor of Brazil-offer of assistance in and the 1823, as the TimeS asserts:
United States, although Buenos Ayres seemed nor does the' 'contrary 'course, which has been
to acquiesce in the measure. adopted in The next proposal 1827, afford any just ground for de-
made was, for, Buenos Ayres to pay Brazil claination on the change Of -system, which has,
twenty millions of dollars, for.the relinquish- in truth, changed only in our contemporary's
meat of the possession of -Monte Video and the imagination. -But it is always thus with coarse
whole of the eastern bank of the River Plate, and and vulgar eulogists ; they cannot praise one
the re-establishing the boundaries with Brazil without depreciating another ; the merits of the
as they stood subsequent to the final eject- objects of their admiration are all relative.—New
ment of the Portuguese from La Colonia del Times.
Sacramento in 1762. The proposal was re-
jected by the Emperor of Brazil, 'who declared
that both his father and himself had been put to
an immense expence since the time of Artigus,
in maintaining tranquillity in the territory of the
Eastern Bank ; and the Crown of Portugal had,
besides, claims derived from the right of con-
quest, and possession of La Colonia and the
Eastern Bank prior to the year 1705, when the
Portuguese were dislodged for the. firsrtin3e by
the Spanish settlers' in Buenos Ayres, although
the tight was never surrendered up by any sub-
sequent Treaty, and attempts to recover and en-
force, it were again made in 1724 and 1762.._.
As regarded the sum of money offered, it was
rejected • with disdain, the , Emperor declaring
that as -the Cisplatina Province had been
anb
nexed to the Brazilian Empire by a solemn and
formal act of the inhabitants, specially convened
and legally assembled—as -the Sovereign of a re-
presentative and constitutional Monarchy, after
the oath he had taken, it was out of his power to
alienate or dismember any part of the territory
he had pledged himself to govern and keep whole,
even if his life and crown were in danger.—This
firmness wag by no means expected •at Buenos
Ayres, where the country has long been in a
distracted state, Paraguay, Potosi, La Paz,
Cochabamba, Cordova, and Galba, having re-
fused to accede to any federation with the capi-
tal, which was thus left to carry on the war. it-
self. The,naval-part of the war had
,hitherto
been conducted with great activity, owing chiefly
to the efforts of the foreigners who had joined
the Republican cause ; but the inhabitants began
to be generally &satisfied, being blockaded by
sea, and .by land cut off from all intercourse'
with the, interior. The letter in question adds,
that the Government, fearful of a re-action,
had sent Garcia to Rio, in order to solicit a
peace, on the best terms he could obtain.—
IV/Poling Chronicle.
The Turkish manifesto, which we give in
another part of our Paper,- has already been be-
fore the public in detached portions. What of
novelty it presents is rather in the form than in
the substance, in its reasoning!; more ihali
facts. , One of our contemporaries thinks it is of
Austrian manufacture, and certainly there are
sufficient grounds for concluding that it is the
production of any pen rather than that of a Mus-
sulman.' The mere existence of this -paper, in
any shape, augurs the commencement of a better
state Of things in Turkey, while, .at the same
tiine, it speaks for its origin.. It is aim admission
of no mean importance, when such a despot as
the Sultan condescends to appeal to the intelli7
genre and understanding of the world for a jus,
0
tifieatiOn of his conduct, . This is a breaking
clown 'of the ancient land marks of absolute power.
Again ; the assertion, however unfounded, that
the Greeks had been treated, in every respect, as
Mussulmans;,is a proof the Sultan deems it ne-
cessary, when addressing intelligent men, 'to al-'
low, by implication, their claim to equal treatment
with the disciples of the prophet. The chief
fault of the manifesto is, that, like every other
document whose positions are truisms rather
than•truths, we may grant all it asks, and yet
deny its conclusions, We may grant, for in-
stance, that the Greeks have been placed, by
the benevolence of the reigning Sultan, in a much
better condition than they were at any former
period since the downfall of the Eastern
Empire; and yet deny that the Wave
acted unreasonably in demanding still higher
vileges. We may grant also the impropriety of
interfering between a Monarch and his subjects,
and, indeed, all men grant it, and yet deny that,
under every pos'sible circumstance, the rule must
of necesstty hold. The Times' of yesterday is
not more reasonable than the Sultan, when it
blames the late Marquis of Londonderry, or the
Quite. of Wellington,. or somebody else, for the
object is rather undefined, because,. at the
Congress of Verona, it. was proposed to interfere
between Turkey and the Greeks, with a view to
ft • •
ont down the latter. Before the inueunite gen-

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, AUG. S.
THE LATE DUKE OF QUEENSBERRY.

THOMAS V. MONTGOMERY.
Mr. HEALD stated, that thiFi was a petition pre-
sented by the legatees under the will 'of the late
Duke of Queensberry. There was now the sum of
363,000/. to be paid to the petitioners, and the
question was, whether the interest that had been
paid, or should be paid on the legacies, was
liable to pay duty ? The petitioners contended it
was not; that the claim on the part of the Crown did
not, in its nature, carry interest; that it was a claim,
under the Act of Parliament, and the Act did not
give interest.

His LORbSIIIP observed, that if the legacies had
been paid at the time at which they ought to have
been paid, according to the direction of the will,
namely, within three months after the testator's
death, a portion of the sum would have gone to the
Crown. The part that would have gone to the
legatees might have been laid out at interest until
this moment, and so might the sum the Crown
would haVe been entitled to. His first impressidn,
therefore, was, that the division of the interest
ought now "to he made upon that principle;
that the Crown should have the sum paid to it
that would have gone 'to it at first, with the interest
that had accumulated on that specific portion, and
that that should be paid to•the legatees, which
would have gone to them with the interest that had
accumulated thereon.

The Counsel on behalf of the legatees did not ac-
cede to this—they felt bound to contend that no
accumulation of interest should be paid to the
Crown.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was totally unable to
find out any equity whatever in the proposition of
the legatees. He had to contend that the Crown
was not only entitled to 10 per cent. on the princi-
pal to be paid to the legatees, but to 'lO per cent.
on all the acCumulations and accretions the legatees
might be entitled to under the tiyill, at the time at
which the apportionment was made.. The Crown
had no means.. of compelling the payment of
legacies, and, by connivance, legatees and exe-
cutors might allow the legacies to remain out
at interest before they were paid, until an im-
mense sum of interest had accrued on the
that ought 4—, -
au executor was also the sole legatee, he might per-
mit the principal to lie at interest for any number of
years before he said lie retained it as his legacy,
and unless the Crown was to receive a proportionate
amount of the interest, the:greatest advantage might
be derived by the legatee, and the utmost injustice
done to the Crown.

Mr. BICKERSTETH was with Mr. Solicitor-Ge-
neral. He submitted that though. the Act (36
Geo. 111.. chap. 52) did not in precise words give the
duty on the interest, yet the fair construction on the
whole was that the duty to be paid to the Crown,
was to be on the legacy plus the interest. The
duty was to be on the interest the legatee took un-
der the will at the time of taking it.
There were a great many counsel engaged in'the
case, but
The LORD CHANCELLOR, from his observations,
appeared to have made up his mind to decide against
the petition, by declaring the Crown to be entitled
to the duty on the amount of the interest as well as
of the principal of the legacies.

IN RE THE CORONER or nEETroan.
Mr. HEALD moved, upon a petition from the in-
habitants of Hertford, that the Lord Chancellor
would issue the usual writs de eoronatore amovendo

and de_ eoronatore eligendo, in conse9ueru:e of the
Coroner for the county, Mr. Benjamin Rooke,
having neglected his duty, and having quitted the
neighbourhood. . .

It was then agreed that the writs should issue,
and that the petition should be granted Without costs,.
FRANKLIN AND THE BANK OF ENGLAND.
Mr. SUGDEN stated that this case was compro-
mised, the Bank having agreed to pay the dividends
as decreed by the Master of the Rolls, and not to
bring on the appeal which had been lodged against
that decree.

ROLLS' COURT, AUGUST 3.

GREENWOOD V. TAYLOR AND ANOTHER, EXECUTORS OE

IS LATE ROYAL PIIOHNESS THE DUKE OF YORK.

In this case, which is a suit instituted for a gene-
ral administration of the assets of his late Royal
Highness the Duke of York; and in which a refer-
ence has been made to the Master to take an ac-
count of his late Royal Highness's debts,. &c. a pe-
. tition was presented on the part of a goldspith and
jeweller (Mr. Hamlet, as we understood), praying
an inquiry before the Master on the subject of a sup-
posed lien of the petitioner to certain articles of
plate, &c. of his late Royal Highness, which had
been deposited with the petitiotier,
It appeared that the petitioner had furnished
various articles of plates, &c. to his late Royal High,
ness, to the amount of several hundred pounds, and
that on the occasion of the Duke being about to take
a journey into the country last year, his Royal
Highness deposited with the petitioner certain ar-
ticles " for safe custody," and afterwards gave him
an order for more plate, which was accordingly sup.
plied, the petitioner conceiving, as he stated in his
affidavit, that he "should be entitled to retain the
articles deposited with him as a security for the
amount of his demand on the Duke,: of whom, never-
deless, he took acceptances, for it. It was stated
that the articles 'deposited with the petitioner had
been given up to the executors of the late Duke,
and sold with the other property of his Royal High-
ness,
upon an understanding that the petitioner's
claim to lien should not be prejudiced by that course
of proceeding,

Mr, SuatiEN, on the part of the plaintiff, now ape
peared to oppose the prayer of the petition, which
he said was. quite unprecedented. There was no
pretence for claiming a lien on the articles deposited
with the petitioner by the late Duke. It was clear
that the goods furnished by the former were not fur,
nislied on the credit of any supposed lien, because a
considprable_portion of the amount was incurred be-
fore the deposit.was• made; and the petitioner had
taken the Duke's acceptances for the whole amount
of his demand ; besides, the petitioner's own -affidavit
stated that the articles were deposited with him
Cf for 'safe custody;" and therefore, in the absence of