1843.) THE GARDENERS CHRONICLE. 
831 
— 
ated. Perhaps so; but then these latter States have not 
paid. But what is the difference between a man who says 
““T don’t owe you anything, and will not pay you,’’ and 
another who says ‘I do owe you asum,’”’ and who having 
admitted the debt never pays it? There seems in the first 
to be some slight colour of right, but the second is broad, 
blazing, refulgent, meridian fraud. It may be very true 
that rich and educated men in Pennsylvania wish to pay 
the debt, and that the real objectors are the Dutch and 
German agriculturists who cannot be made to understand 
the effect of character upon clover. All this may be very 
true, but it isa domestic quarrel. Their churchwardens of 
repudiation must make a private rate of infamy for them- 
Selves—we have nothing to do with this rate. The real 
quarrel is the Unpaid World versus the State of Peunsyl- 
Vania. And now, dear Jonathan, let me beg of you to 
follow. the advice of a real friend, who will say to you 
what Wat Tyler had not the virtue to say, and what all 
Speakers in the eleven recent Pennsylvanian elections 
have cautiously abstained from saying, ‘‘ make a great 
effort ; book up at once and pay.”” You have no concep- 
tion of the obloquy and contempt to which you are exposing 
Yourselves all over Europe. Bull is naturally disposed to 
Ove you; but he loves nobody who does not pay him. 
His imaginary paradise is some planet of punctual pay- 
ment, where ready money prevails, and where debt and 
discount are unknown. As for me, as soon as I hear that 
the last farthing is paid to the last creditor, I will appear 
on my knees at the bar of the Pennsylvanian Senate, in 
the plumeopicean robe of American controversy. Each 
Conscript Jonathan shall trickle over me a few drops of tar, 
and help to decorate me with those penal plumes in which 
the vanquished reasoner of the ‘Transatlantic world does 
homage to the physical superiority of his opponents. 
ad now, having eased my soul of its indignation, and sold 
my stock at 40 per cent. discount, I sulkily retire from 
the Subject, with a fixed intention of lending no more 
Money to free and enlightened republics, but of employing 
my money henceforth in buying up Abyssinian bonds and 
Purchasing into the Turkish Fours, or the Tunis Three- 
and-a-Half per Cent. Funds.—Sypnzy Smiru, 
dam. 
_ Rows Courr.—The Dale of Brunswick v. The King of Hanover. 
mines Suit was instituted by the Duke of Brunswick against the 
are Was deprived of his duchy by a revoiutionary movement. 
Ne, sea ke of Cambridge was then Viceroy of Hanover. Ata con. 
Nen ton of the Germanic Diet on the 2d December, 1830, they 
ade a decree inviting the plaintiff's brother William to take upon 
bimselt the government, provisionally, but the Diet left it to the 
egitimate agnati of the family to provide for the future govern- 
Ment of the Duchy i illi 
tine wnygtion that the Duke was at that time wasting the for- 
Berow ae he possessed in enterprise alike impossible, and dan- 
the hes oth to himself and other persons, in seeking to damage 
te claims which certain persons interested now and here- 
p 
fro; aK that the only method of preserving his fortuni 
fore ‘fed ‘ves to appoint a guardian over him. They there- 
him raewent that the Du hould have a guardian ov 
Male oF that he should be chosen from amongst the noble 
of cions of their hous Jt then appointed the 
Possession ee curator, which office h Q ted, and took 
(Or, Fee the Teal estates of the plaiutiif in Brunswick, 
Du o th of his Majesty William [V., in Jun 1837, the 
of Cumb, ambridge transferred his office of curator to the Duke 
to hi ey ho had become King of Hanover, and accounted 
1 
K po; the estates of the plaintiff. The defendant after this 
dered Rae Of the estates and property of plaintiff, but ren. 
fit eran ‘The defendant demurred to this bill; he did not 
aD ‘80 the title of King, and accept the bill in the character 
to the ch the Lord Chancellor, who had carried his authority 
in » Could have stopped the suit in limine. The suit 
diction of Upon a transaction out of the reach of the} 
1 ‘he Court, and the suit ought to be stopped upon the 
8 in thi 
Ubon a MS court, not -w 
‘or: 4 pon a transact: 
Minsactions Witte There were some doubts whether Gout 
in principle, and he was entitled to the b 
appear; but the Lord Chancellor though 
properly i 
arose, and upon what their exercise was 
that the Sovereign of this kingdom could 
ich were undertaken by virtue of Proceedings 
him,” however, was not now important to consider whether 
at common law the King could or could not have been sued ; the 
Cri uld now onl: sued by petition of right. The principle 
stice to another person, 
tering justice upon the technical form, 
Applicable to a foreign Sovereign, whose 
©Wn dominions, if a subject of England asserted aright against 
him, it was said that right could not be maintained in our 
fere with the rights of their own nation, 
Ment yielded to its own subjects in preference, 
counsel cited Storey’s Conflict of Laws, and argued at length that 
was no personal incapacity founded either ujon principle 
who if not sued in this 
country could not be sued anywhere else, and no other jurisdic 
tion was attempted to be shown. He then went through the 
the deed of curatorship 
of 1833 was, as stated by the bill, wholly void, was so admitted 
= 
or authority of the defendant to be sued, 
facts stated in the bill, contending that 
by the demurrer, and that the suit relate 
but to the personal property of the plaint 
an account. Mr. Heathfield followed 
e us: 
ters missive, was a deci 
the Court had jurisdictio 1 1 
the oath of allegiance, had submitted him 
country. The suit was against the defendant, not as King of 
Hanover, but as curator of the plaintiff, 
ward [. ruled that none should sue the King but only pet 
I 
tion between a right existing in British subj 
existing in the foreign Sovereign. Upon principles of interna- 
tional law, and on the comity of nations, no country was 
bound to regard the privileges of other countries so as to inter. 
i Justice was not to be 
administered otherwise than in the most decorot manner 
towards the Sovereigns or subjects of foreign countries, but it 
Was a right to be administered, and a right which every Govern- 
The learned 
in a foreign court the accidental coming to this country of the 
party gave this court the power of administering that trust. But 
a sovereign either came or was supposed to come here u Jon a 
Safe-conduct, and though in effect it was not issued, still it existed 
enefit of it. 
many forms of such documents upon the register, and both a sove- 
reign and an ambassador could claim to hav 
of objection, put here the King of Hanover did not appear until 
he had applied to the Lord Chancellor to discharge the Jetters 
missive to him, when he contended that he was not bound to 
re also ted aremedy, 
of sup courts, th: 
ion was, ere 
Supposing it, however, to 
only besued by petition 
of right. Whether that was always the rule might be doubted in 
& passage of 16 Viner, 535, title, “« Prerogative,” where it was 
Said, ‘that in the time of Henry IIL, and al 
Might have sued the King asa common person might be sued 
not to affairs of state, 
iff, who was entitled to 
on the same side, and 
of the Lord Chancellor to recall his let- 
the laws of this 
Neither was the sub- 
ject-matter of the suit an act of state, but one of forensic juris- 
diction for an account, to which the plaintiff was entitled.— 
sir C. Wetherell was heard in reply, afte 
i were exti i 
r which Lord Langdale 
said the 
ing had been brought to r 
decide it without full consideration, 
Bait Courr.—The Queen v. the Judge 
Mr. Rogers, Q.C., applied for arule, cal 
the Arches Court of Canterbury to sho’ 
w 
prohibition should not issue to stay all further proceedings in a 
S much learn- 
y, an 
bear upon the case, he should not 
of the Arches Court.— 
Iling upon the Judge of 
se Why a writ o! 
case now pending in that court under the name of « The office 
of Judge promoted by Titmarsh v. Chay 
man.’ The facts of 
the case were given in our last. e foundation of Mr, Rogers’s 
present application for the prohibition was, thatthe construction 
put by the judge of the Arches Court upon the 20th section of 
the statute of Victoria was erroneous 
the vicar did not bury upon the first request. If this view were 
correct, the statute protected the defendant against the present 
suit, ant e judgment of the ecclesias' 
admit the defence was erroneous 
that the judgment of the eccles! 
tical court refusing to 
ustice Wightman thought 
stical court proceeded upon the 
round either that there was a continuing offence between, and 
including the first and second refusal, or that the second refusal 
68th canon. The question was one of ecc 
and if the judgment of the court was erroneous upon the point, 
peal to an ecclesias- 
was by a 
tical court of a higher nature. Upon this ground his Lordship 
r, M‘N 
A. Smith, the banker, 
without effect, horsewhipped Mr. Smithin thestreet. Mr, Kelly, 
for the defence, said that this question was notvow whether 
prosecutor had not so fe 
deprived himself of all right to come 
o this Court and ask 
an aggravated punishment upon the defendant. He sub- 
ee with confidence, that the prosecutor had no such 
right. The provocation given 
serious, His character had been wantonly, and without 
ave maintained his asser- 
The prosecutor could 
Iways before, a man 
ition 
s and aright 
isdie- 
this at the tim 
Lord Denman—The commissioner ¢ 
the defendant’s certificate, saying th: 
Court could hardly be expec! to 
satisfactorily without again looking 
therefore be postponed. 
ter a lon 
Lord Denman said that there fad not 
to induce the Court to say that the di 
exercise of their Lordships 
that, besides the indictin 
indictments against the defendant, 
fact was at the very best a most eq 
any indulgence ¢ 
2 here could be no 
were rightin that decision. It was 
an jt 
pportunities o} 
x the trial, a 
counsel on those afiidavits, 
ment against the detendant, in which 
to-ask for judgment, and he was enti 
ing till those proceed 
Criminal Court had termin. 
sentence on the defend 
the Conrt th 
allowance given in the one for the ot 
ifficulty exce, 
irregular matter, 
charged, and would be discharged as 
who had shown cause against it; b 
might think convenient, it would be 
ditions proposed by his counsel.—Ru 
tred against the defendant 
the Commissioners of Customs under 
A rule had ; 
‘; SUpported it, on the grout 
n au averment that it was prefe! 
iouers of Customs, The ar, 
technical character. Lord Denman a: 
that they ought not to interfere in d 
the rule ought not to be made absolu 
discharged, but without cos 
defendant’s conduct which would j 
had not been sufiicient ¢: 
of the Central Criminal Court, the Jud 
inexpedient to 
not have believed the charge, for otherwise he would have stated 
e that the defendant sought for his certificate. 
id 
th 
deal with all the affidavits 
into them. Judgment would 
commissioners of the 
Court, commanding them to seni up to this 
efendant for a libel and con- 
ument on technical points, 
i use shown 
efendant was entitled to the 
iships’ discretion in his favour. He found 
nent in this Court, there were two other 
and he must say that that 
quivocal reason for granting 
tall to the defendant. In the September sessions 
ges there had thought it 
ass sentence on the defendant, because they 
hether affidavits could be read and counsel heard 
The Judges had afterwards declined to hear 
doubt that their Lordships 
if 
e criminal courts. In this 
finformiug their own minds 
nd by bearing addr 
first pass 
t by 
lant, its sentence would be looked ai 
at next proceeded to pass sentence on him 
her, so that there wor 
ween V. Burnby.—1o this case an indictment had been 
preferr for perjury, alleged to have been 
committed by him in the course of some examinations taken by 
udictment should not be quashed or further pro- 
ceedings stayed. Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Chambers showed cause 
and the Attorney-General, Mr. Thesiger, and 
nd that the indictment must 
red by the authority of the 
guments were purely of a 
nd the other judges decided 
efendant’s favour, and that 
te. The rule was therefore 
ir. Watt’s Voltri (500 
10 agst Mr, Herbert’s Delightful colt ( 
a 
Ongley’s King of the Gipsies (taken); 1000 to 15 gst Mr. 
Maffam’s Dr, Phillimore (taken); ae to 10 agst Lord Nor. 
t Ww 
00 ag: 
manby’s Lorimer; 5000,to1 
RK LANE, Fripay 
Supplies of English Wheat 
» NOVEMBER 24 
have been very 
adstone; 500 ta 15 agst Mr, 
st Sir G. Heathcote’s Cam. 
1000 to 25 agst Mr. Irwin's Foig-a.B; 
; 1000 to 25 agst Mr. Goodman’s Rusning Rein (taken) 
ig-a-Ballagh 
to 20 also taken); 500 to 
taken); 1000 to 15 ¢ 
tminster’s Laura colt, 
-—Since Monday the 
indifferent, and prices 
continue as on that day. Foreign is taken off very slowly at the 
> 
é 
& 
board, during the last fortnig 
be much doing to-da: 
ye 
RITISH, PER IMPERIAL QUARTER, 5. 5. 
uffol White 44 
Bi 
Wheat, Essex, Kent, and Suffolk. 
=——" Norfolk, Lincolashire, and Yorkshire 
yorkshire... B 
een some sales cifected, 
ht, there did not appear to 
White 
Oats, Lincolnshire and Yorkshire ands ee 
Northumberland and Scotch 2.“ e 
cial 9 Se dies te eee erie Feed 
arley ce . ” Malting and distilling 
Malt, pale, ship ap iy? at ndhels 
Rog Herttord and Hssex erst 
RAS Sl ca oa ae es 
Beans, Mazagan, old and new 22 to 29 Tick 
=— | Pigeon, Heligoland . 28 to 36 Winds. 
Peas, White. + + + 180 toig6 aple 
IMPERIAL AVERAGES, 
Wheat. | Barley.) Oats. | Rye. | Bea: ean, 
Oct. 113 per Quarter. 50s Bd} 306 1d 7s10d) ads cd) 308 4d| 394 Tt 
0 era ele 802 ahs aoa o} Fi 
‘97° Stee 50 5 
E OF THE 
Ba Winrix, Drury-lani 
Frith 
treet, Westminster, 
r—J. Bars, St. Geor; 
nemas' D. HINxMAN, 
City, wine-merchant— 
MJonus, Cheapside, City, 
te Cheap: 
on— J ) Ha 
D. Leeper, Billingford, Norfolk, cattle-deale 
AN 
WEEK. 
GAZETTE pss 
BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED.—J. and R. Daviss, Chiswell-st., drapers, 
NKRUPTS.—J. M. W ag 
e, silversmith—H. W. Drastonn, 
geon—R. Bruxpsx, Alton, Southamptonshire, 
place, Hyde Park Corner, tai +. Z. Wi 
Tey-streef, 
—E. P. Busi 
KWMAN, High-street, White. 
jeweller—J, Courson’ and H. 
H. y 
usuxr, Bury- 
i City, 1g in 
t; James's, tailor—J. W. Baxx, Bristol 
Yon, Monmouthshire, J 
T. S. Suantann, Fri wood, Somersets 
North Cer Gloucestershire, farmer— 
av a Narna 
aler—J. 
x, Croydon, statione: 
Diony, Lower Clapton, Middlestx, 
mouthshire, ironmonger+ 
naker—J+ May, Pick 
1, currier—H, H. 
wick, Wiltshire, 
hire, 
F. De 
vi 
he 
yor= 
Rast and ings 
Di Nn 's, Lawrance Pow 
needle-manufacturers—W. Ri 
FH, heapside, 
hina-deal , Marah-plac 
a son 
Arunpur and Sunrey, of a daughter—On the 
P. Frosr, Pembroke-place, Cambridge, of a son. 
=D—On t. 
ey. C-R. Davy, to CATHERINE Ai 
8. 
M.P.—On the 20th inst., at 82, Re 
of Winchmore-hill, Esq., in her 67th yearmOn 
Bognor, the Countess of Maxo. 
late W. Dwarais, Esq., of Golden Groy, 
Suucknurax, Esq., 
Saran Enizaneta, 
Jamaica—On the 
UsusrA, youngest daughter of A 
Magistrate and 
On the 17th 
Ke, aged 
ut, third son of Sir W. Foruxrr, 
nx, wife of S. Tunwan, 
the 19th inst. at Bersted Lodge, 
