The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-21 00:00:00

DISTRICT&

West—Kensington St. George
( Hanover-square), Westmin-
ster,St. Martin in the Fields,

St. 'James .

300,705 135

North—St. Mary-le-bone, St.
Pancras, Islington, Hackney 365,660 162 156 145
Central—Saint Giles and Saint
George, Strand, Clerkenwell,
Holborn, St. Luke, East Lon-
don, West London, City of
London 373,806 138 179 138
East—Shoreditcb,Whitechapel,
Bethnal Green, St. George
in the East, Stepney, Poplar 392,498 206 190 158
South—St Saviour, St. Olave,
St. George( Southwark),Ber-
mondeey, Newington. Lam-
beth, Camberwell, Bother-
hitlae, Greenwich .... ...... —.438,060 221 210 201

Total 1,870,727 912

It is stated that under the term Metropolis are comprised du.
32 districts herein mentioned, which include the City of Lon-
don with and without the walls, the City and Liberties of
Westminster, the out-parishes within the Bills of Mortality—.
and the parishes of St. MArylebone, St. Pancras, Kensington,
Fulham, Hammersmith, Chapelry), St. Luke (Chelsea), Pad-
dington, St. Mary (Stoke Newington), St. Leonard Brom-
ley), St. Mary-le-bow; Camberwell, Greenwich, St. Nicholas
and St. Paul (Deptford), and Woolwich. The population, as
enumerated in 1831, was 1,594,890; and in June 1841, was
1,870,727. The weekly average for 1838, 1839, 1840, and
1841, was obtained by dividing the deaths in the four years by
208, and the deaths in the four winters by 52.
'KENPENATIJNE IN THE WELTS ENDING
May 7. May 14.
70° 65°
42 42
56 54
19, 1642.

Highest

LoWest
Daily Mean ..
General Register Office, May

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
GLOBE.—Lord Stanley is of opinion that it is not
worth while to enter into discussion of the doctrines
he may have stated eight or nine years ago. We
should advise the Noble Colonial Secretary and his
faits Achates of the Home Department, whose zeal
for Church interests is now so conspicuous (that
we may not say, ostentatious), to obtain from
the party which they now adorn, and which can
just now pass what it pleases, a Statute of Limi-
tation beyond which opinions shall not be referred
hack to. This, like the Standing Order against
debating on petitions, would much promote
the despatch of business, especially when its
principal departments happen to be in hands like
the present. Only, for the especial convenience of
the Home and Colonial Secretaries, we should re-
commend that narrower limits than eight or nine
years • should restrict references to Hansard. 'We
agree with most of the speakers who succeeded Sir
James Graham last night, in the discussion of the
Ecclesiastical Corporations Leasing Bill; that it pro-
ceeds on inconsistent principles towards corporations
sole and corporations aggregate. But we extend the
charge of inconsistency to his arguments, as well as
.his proposals. Sir James Graham, in his zeal for Church
in:eres.s, repeated more than once that he thought
it inexpedient and unjust to appropriate Church
incomes to State purposes. Now this is no answer to
the 'objection to their application to individual pur-
poses. The enrichment of an incumbent,- and his
.successors, is hardly an ecclesiastical purpose, in
any apestolical interpretation of that expression.
Yet that will be the only consequence of the dis-
tinction most objected to in the Bill. Again, repairs
of the fabrics of the Church itself are surely
s Church purpose. That was the appropriation
proposed by the late Government of the increased
value intended to. be given to Church property. But
s7r_James Graham's distinction between Church and
State purposes cuts two ways, and it will hardly be
convenient to him to maintain it, if he supports Sir
Robert Inglis. It will be necessary, in arguing for
Church extension, to maintain that Church exten-
sion is a legitimate State purpose. Church purposes,
as such, can be no good argument for taxing non-
Churchmen. There are, indeed, Churchmen, like
Lord John Manners, who, we hope, will grow older
and wiser, who are quite prepared to take the high-
flying theocratic view of this subject. But that is
not the view to which political Churchmen will now
commit themselves. If they venture to advocate
Church extension, it must be on State principles.
STANDARD.—In the House of Commons, Sir
John Walsh's motion for limiting the subject of in-
•.quir3r by Mr. Roebuck's Committee, dropped, in con-
wequence of the Hon. Baronet's absence when the
44rder for the motion was read. A question by Ma-
jor Vivian called for an explanation by Sir Robert
Peel as to the course pursued by the Government
with reference to Captain Warner's invention. It
was proposed to the gallant inventor, that his ex-
periment should be tested at the public expense,
• with the assistance of two persons appointed by
#'the Ministers, who should report upon the re-
sults; but Captain Warner declined the proposi-
4ion, except upon the condition that a large sum of
money should be it cured to him in the event
of the experiments proving satisfactory. We cannot
easily enter into Captain Warner's feeling of jealousy
upon this subject. That he is entitled to a liberal,
2nd even a munificent reward, if he adds in anything
:like the proportion he promises to the strength of the
country cannot be doubted, and of such a reward he
must have a perfect certainty if his invention prove
at all like what he describes it ; but on the other
side, we deny that he, or any other Englishman,
is entitled to any re ,vard fur not arming the
enemies of his country with the means of her de-
struction. If an individual soldier or sailor transfer
his aid, though but such aid as any individual
can afford, to an enemy, 'we hang him—and we
are warranted in doing so by the eternal principles of
justice; and we do not see why the same principles
would not justify the same treatment of one who
should transfer to our enemy more efficient and for-
midable means of injuring us. We make this remark,
because Captain Warner's not having communicated
his invention to some foreign State is put forward as a
plea of merit on his part, and doubtless constitutes an
element in the calculation of the reward claimed for
him. Allowing all that it is possible to say of the
value of his invention, it appears to us that the
offer made to him is a perfectly fair one, and such
as a just and honourable man, who remembers that
he owes at least frankness and confidence to his
country, if he owes, nothing else, must accept, after a
little deliberation.
COURIER.—The affair of the Caroline, of the
Creole, and the Right of Search question, sink into
insignificance compared with that of the Boundary.

Private letters from the accredited quarters in the
Union, are all unanimous in this respect. Opinion
strongly prevailed with the_ majority_ id influential
men that the case of the Caroline is not rightfully
one on which America can found a grievance, or
prefer a claim for redress. On the subject of the
Creole opinions were perhaps more divided, but
still a feeling prevailed that it was one susceptible
of explanation and adjustment, for the opinions un-
animously expressed in this country, both in Par-
liament and out, by the first publicists of all parties,.
on the utterly untenable nature of the pretensions
of the United States, according to every sound‘con-
struction of the principles of international law, had
evidently made a profound impression at Washington.
But on the Boundary question there was no division
of sentiment; all were alike unanimous in conviction
of the indisputable right and justice of the claims to
the territory in dispute, according to the treaty of
1783, from South to North, from New Orleans to the
Penobscot. It was no longer the comparatively
isolated opinion and interest of Maine and Massachu-
setts, but that of the whole Union. Here, therefore,
will be the grand, if not insuperable, difficulty of
coming to satisfactory terms of compromise—here the
real labours of Lord Aberdeen and Lord Ashburton
will commence and be found. The public will await,
therefore, with the deepest interest the appearance of
the Report and documents which Sir Robert Peel has
announced as being in preparation and about to be
laid on the table of the House.

STANNARIES COURT-DUCHY
OF CORNWALL.

(BEFORE HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE
ALBERT-THIS DAY.)

APPEAL.--THOMAS V. VICE AND BENNETT.
The early hour of eight o'clock this morning having
been fixed by Prince Albert, the Lord Warden of the
Stannaries Court, for hearing an appeal in the case
of Thomas v. Vice and Bennett, his Royal Highness
arrived at Somerset House shortly before the time
appointed. The Prince had been preceded by the
Lord Chancellor, Lord Langdale, the Master of the
Rolls, Lord Brougham, Vice-Chancellor Wigram,
and Baron Parke.
The Prince having been conducted to his robing-
room by Mr. Gardiner, the auditor of the Court, was
received by the Lord Chancellor and the other Judges

' present.
At a few minutes after .eight his Royal Highness
entered the Court, habited in his splendid robe of
green velvet, collared and trimmed with white ermine,
and lined with crimson satin; and carrying in his
right hand his crimson velvet cap, turned up with
white ermine. Mr. Gardiner carried the purse before
him, and an offieer of the Court bore his train. His
Royal Highness bowed graciously to the persons pre-
sent as he entered, and took his seat in an elegant
gilt chair placed on a raised platform, the Lord Chan-
cellor-and the Master of the Rolls sitting on his right
hand, and Lord Brougham, Vice-Chancellor Wigram,
and Baron Parke on his left. His Royal Highness
looked remarkably well.
The Prince was also attended by the Earl of Lin-
coln, Lord Portman, Sir Henry Wheatley, Mr. Pem-
berton, and Mr. Anson, Members of the Duchy of
Cornwall.
The title of the case having been read,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, who appeared on be-
half of the appellant& or defendants, rose to address
the Court. He had the honour to appear before his
Royal Highness and their Lordships in this case
which was an appeal against a decree of the Vice-
Warden of this Court. One of the principal grounds
of objection to this decree was, as they (the appel-
lants) alleged, the want in this Court of jurisdiction
to entertain questions of equity ; that it had no
power to proceed in any manner contrary to the
principles of common law; and that the Crown had
no power to create a Court of Equity in the Duchy
of Cornwall. The Learned Gentleman then went
into a short history of the Stannaries Courts, and
proceeded to argue at great length, and cite cases in
support of his argument, tending to show that there
were no provisions in the constitution of these Courts,
empowering them to exercise the jurisdiction of
Courts of Equity.
The LORD CHANCELLOR- suggested that there were
many Courts having such jurisdiction ; the Court of
the County Palatine of Chester for instance.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL submitted that SUCh WAS
undoubtedly the case, but there was a difference be-
tween the Court of the County Palatine of Chester
and the Courts in question, which latter, although
they possessed many jury regalia, did not possess the
power of acting as Courts of Equity. The City of
London had its own Court of Chancery, but its powers
had been confirmed by an Act of Parliament. The
distinction between the Courts was pointed out in
" Cumming's Digest."
The LORD CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the
Stannaries Court had exercised such jurisdiction in
the reign of Charles I.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—Yes, but it was a
modern assumption. The case out of which the pre-
sent appeal arose was this :—On the 12th of August,
1825, John Ennis, of Cornwall, being lawfully
possessed of a certain mine or tin bounds, called the
Polbero Mine, granted full and free liberty, license,
power, and authority to the present plaintiff to dig,
work, and search for tin ore for 21 years, and that
in 1834 William Vice and others forcibly and
fraudulently took, kept, and still keep possession
of the same, digging, working, searching for, and
carrying away tin ores of divers values; to the
manifest injury of the petitioner, and contrary to the
law of the Stannaries. The petitioner thereupon
called upon them to deliver up an account of the
tin and tin ores so dug and taken away, but the
defendants had hitherto refused, and still did re-
fuse, to deliver up the said account, the tin, tin
ores, or any part of them. Now this petition in-
volved a question of title to property, for it called
upon the Court to turn out the parties now working
the mine, and give possession to the petitioner. If the
plaintiff were legally right, he could recover posses-
sion by common law, by means of an action of eject-
ment, or by an action of recovery. And while this
was the case, was it equitable, just, or right, that
this petition should be allowed ? If the decree of
the Court was right, the Vice-Warden would be
called upon to adjudge the question of title to lands
and most valuable property in the county of Corn-
wall. Now, was there any jurisdiction in a Court
of Equity to deliver up possession of property to
which there was a legal title ? He (the Solicitor-
General) apprehended there was not. Such a prac-
tice was contrary to the invariable rule of the law in
such cases.
Mr. SHARPE followed on the same side.
Mr. ERLE at great length addressed the Court in
support of the petition and the possession of the
equitable jurisdiction of the Court, adducing many
learned arguments, and citing many cases from the
time of Edward the Black Prince downwards, to show
that the Court had, beyond the time of legal memory,'
exercised such power and jurisdiction, and was con-
stituted both for law and for equity ; and concluded
by calling upon his Royal Highness and their Lord-
ships to affirm the petition, grounded as it was upon
the customary jurisdiction of the Court.
Mr. 13AuLow followed on the same side.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL having replied,
The COURT took time to consider their judgment.
Prince Albert then took his departure, shortly after
two o'clock ; his Royal Highness having sat in his
Court for more than six hours.

FRENCH 'RAM WAY ACCIDEN TS
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.-SITTING OF MAY 16.

This sitting was almost exclusively occupied with
a discussion on the means of preventing, by the
adoption of precautionary measures, the recurrence
of accidents on railroads. The chief points to be
considered were-Ist, the comparative advantages
and dangers of four-wheeled and six-wheeled loco-
motives ; 2dly, the number of locomotives proper to
be applied to trains, and the mode of placing them ;
idly, the advantages and inconveniences of large and
small trains ; 4th, the distance which should be left
between the locomotives and carriages for passengers ;
.sth, the rupture of axletrees, their frequency, their
causes, and an account of the accidents which
have resulted from them on the different railroads
in England. M. Delessert opened the discussion
by reading a letter, from one of the Directors
of the London and Birmingham railway, on the
late deplorable accident near Meudon. This gentle-
man attributes the accident to the excessive rapidity
of the train. As to four-wheeled locomotives, it is
far, he says, from being proved that they are more
dangerous than those with six wheels, and, in his
opinion, undue haste has been exhibited in condemn-
ing the use of them. It results, he says, from an
attentive comparison of these two sorts
machines,
from repeated experiments on both, and particularly
from an exact examination of the accidents which have
occurred on lines where six-wheeled locomotives were
used, as well as on that from London to Birmingham,
where four-wheeled locomotives alone are employed,
that these latter appear to have the advantage as far
as safety is concerned. This result may easily be
understood, adds the writer, when the enormous
weight of six-wheeled locomotives is considered, being
at least a third heavier than the others. This weight
is a leading cause of the breaking of axletrees, and,
in such case, the locomotive is more apt to get off the
rail, and is not kept up, as is generally supposed, by
the four wheels which remain. If the small pair of
wheels in front or rear fall, the large wheels in the
centre, being deprived of flange, do not present the
advantages which are attributed to them, and
d cannotother
retain the locomotive on the rail. If, on
hand, the axletree of the large wheels gives way, the
distance which exists between the front and hind
wheels, in a machine of so much length, cause the
wabbling motion and derangement which tend, parti-
cularly on curves, to drive the machine off the rails
Besides, in case of accidents, the shocks are much
greater with large locomotives, and the operation of ,