The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-08 00:00:00

hack by the no less enlightened Examiner, assures us
Sir F. Burdett is the advocate, is scarcely more in-
telligible than the other. We really cannot tell what
" stationary principles" may happen to mean, un-
less it be the principles of that very enlightened
personage, Sir John Key, which were so trium-
phantly displayed in the cause of bad politics at the
Mansion House and bad paper to Iris Majesty's Sta-
tionary office. Perhaps the Radicals have a right to
he generous with Sir John Key's principles, as they
arc all their own ; but we would recommend Mr. Grote
to bestow them upon some one that they would fit
better than Sir F. Burdett. If Mr. Grote means by
the use of such affected language that Sir F. Burdett
is opposed to those sentiments in favour of practical im-
provement which were wowed and acted upon by Sir
Robert Peel during his brief Adicinistration in 1835, lie
means to convey that which is not true. The address
of Sir F. Burdett is plainly a declaration in favour of im-
provement, but it is as plainly a declaration that he is
against any more fundamental changes in the nature
of the Legislative power or Executive Government—
that he is determined to support the Protestant
Constitution of Great Britain against the Popish and
Infidel foes who now assail it, backed by the united
force of beggary and blackguardism. We quite agree
that the Westminster contest is a contest not merely
between two individual men, but between great prin-
ciples, and the most powerful sentiments which con-
nect themselves with politics. We consider it a con-
test between the old English principle of upholding a
Protestant King, a Protestant Church, and a tripartite
Legislature of King, Lords, and Commons, and the
new-fangled principle of considering the King a mere
formality, the Church a nuisance, and the absolute
power of the House of Commons the best government
for the British empire. We consider it a contest be-
tween national and manly British sentiment and the
crude cosmopolitan conceit of as heartless a crew of
speculators as ever crawled and wriggled in the dust
and rubbish of a by-gone revolution.—Morn. Post.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Mar 6.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. TILE MAYOR AND CORPORATION

OF NORWICH.

This was an information flied at the instance of Mr.
Bignold, one of the members of the Corporation of Nor-
Wich, alleging that the Corporation intended to divert their
funds from corporate purposes, and praying an injunction
to restrain the Treasurer of the borough from making any
payments for those purposes. To this information the de-
fendants put. in a general demurrer, which was allowed by
the Master of the Rolls, and against that decision the re-
lator appealed.

Sir W. FOLLETT supported the appeal.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was heard on the part of the
Corporation.
Mr. JACOB was about to follow on the satne side, when
his Lordship rose, at three o'clock.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'SCOURT, Mir 6.
PRICE V. DEIVIIURST.

This cause stood for judgment this morning. A person
named Henry Seaton and his wife formerly lived in the
Danish Island of St. Croix. They there made a joint-
will, as by the Danish law they were enabled to do,
under which their four children, a son and three daughters,
were interested. They afterwards came to this country,
where Mr. Seaton died, having made a will which was
proved here, appointing Mrs. Seaton sole executrix. Mrs.
Seaton then died, having made a will, leaving her property
to two of her daughters, Mrs. Hennesy and Mrs. Price,
whom she appointed as her executrixes. This will was also
proved in England. But part of her property being out
upon a mortgage at St. Croix, Mr. Dewhurst, who was the
husband of the third daughter, and other members of the
family there, appointed themselves according to the forms of
the Danish law a Dealing Court, analogous to the Preroga-
tive Court here, and thereby obtained a species of Danish
probate, and formed themselves into a tribunal to deal with
the property of Mrs. Seaton. These persons, in desdite
of the English probate, adjudicated the matter of distri-
bution in their own way, giving themselves a share. Mr.
Price appealed from the decision of this Court of Dealing
to the Supreme Court at Copenhagen, and the appeal was
still pending. Meantime, Mr. Dewhurst came to this
country, whereupon the Bill was filed against him for the
usual amount of the personal property which he had re-
ceived under colour of the proceedings of St. Croix.
His Honour decided that, so far as the foreign judg-
ment tended to give a beneficial interest to those parties
it was fraudulent and void. He should therefore decree
the account, with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, HAY 6.
THE KING V. MUNTZE, PARE, PEARSE, AND FIIOWD.

Sir W. FOLLETT moved for a rule to show cause why a
criminal information should not be filed against the de-
fendants for a riot committed by them in a church. The
Court granted him a rule to show cause.