The Sun.
London, England, 1806-11-27 00:00:00

Mr. p4uLL.

.. •

An,attempt haS lately been made by this Gentle-
man,(in a-Morning Paper, to explain the meaning of
his expression of " indelible sense of past oblirations"
to Lord WELLES/.EY ~but his "sensibility" has not
yet permitted him to offer Any explanation of that
excessive wisp and literal system of policy
.which
distinguished every. act of his. Lordship's .Adnuniitra-
tion; or to recolleet the Man " to whom even the
concerns of an humble individual Were not indif-
ferent," and " to whom no man ever complained in
vain who complained with justice !" •
It is curi,o9s.:. to observe the .gradation of Mr,
assAtlons First, he had,the permission
of the.Couirt.o DireEtors to return -to Lucknow ;
„then the order,it; of the Court that he should be per-.,
miried to , ;
and, lastly, he demanded of. Lord;
WE LLESaY to return to that city. Now, in the
first place-, no man who-could write to Lord VEL:
LESLEY in so.• humble a strain as that which distin--,-
guisbed Mr. Patmes Letter to: that Noblemattof
the 'sth of December, 1802, would, in the motith
,of July Ofthe same year, have demanded that which,
:several months after its accomplishment, he declared
had entailed upop. him-" an indelible sense of Ob-
ligation in the next place we assert, with-
-out 'thelear of contradiction, that 'the Court of Di-
Teetors merely. granted Mr. PAULL leave to return.
to India ;• and that in their written permission there
is no mention Whatever of Lueknow

BUteven if the Court. had (as has been falsely
'aSSerted by Mr. PAULL) granted him permission to
returviTo'lSiteknow, still Mr. PAULL himself de-
elates' that the Nabob obje&ed to his return to that
'NoW, Aft* PAULL does not mean surely to
assert; that. the; :Nabob was not to have a voice on
`this VaaSiotr,i)d
Srhat the Government was bound
to obtain r -this advocate. of • the. Nabob's rights
a-ftweitie entry, and to compel the Nabob to admit-
Mr. NOLL, contrary to his .flighness'S deliberate,
judginent;and-iphis. declared inclination ! It is evi-
de•tit;Hherefbre,. that even under these circum-
stances'the whole_was, a question of. discretiGn , on.
the lar't of fife Government, who, according 'to
Mr. PAuLifs own principles cif obedience, would at
least have-been justified in referring the case, under
its new icily?, to the Court. of Direelors. But what
would- iNvek.liecome of Mr. PAULL, in the ,mean
time, o his-U(4s, and of.his extensive " concerns ?"
What Were'l.qt. PAULL's claims on the East India
Company, that the Court of Areaors were to vio-
late iii his'faour their engagement 'with their good
Ally the. Nabob, and to co7npc/ him to receive into
his dominions 'a person whom he despised , and
hated'? It is not certainly going, too far to say, that
by Lofd WELLESLEY'S friendly •and early interposi-;
tidy, Mr. PAULL was enabled, Ist, to return tp
Lucknow ; 2dly, to remain there unmolested ; and,
lastly, to complete the commercial speculation which
had been entrusted to. his "superiuteudance, and on
the- success or failure of which depended either the
'realization of .hislortilne, ar .the entire ruin of his
prospeas', together with the loss of ail .the property
which ber.and his friends. haciembirked 'in those
extensive concerns that•dernanded Mr. liAuLL's pre-
sence at. Lucknow.

But there are-other parts of Mr. PAULL4S letter to
Lord WELLESLEY, of the sth of December, that
requireleiplanation, and that appear to have wholly
slippedLlyat of his memory, on which, to use his
owtp-words, they ought to have made an indelible
innrc.ession.

;)C';

At the late .'Westminster Ele6tion, the keeP4rof
a notorious, gambling-houSe iiY St. Ann's parish,•on
being, about to. give his' vote, was' askedvhiit hi§
trade was. After a' little hesitation, he
I'm - IvoriTzirnei- •
Sir FRANCIS .13uaDiTT,.it Seethe, has presented
draft of one4housand.poundi to Mr. PAVLL's earn--
rnittee, for, the purpose of' carrying *a. Petition"' to
Parliament respe&ing the W4nsuninster
it -might !De supposed that' it PIiANCIS had already
squan4rgt.senough upin elation matters ; but be
se4m3s444ft ,determined, through life: to exemPlify
the adage,nespeaing the sort of man who i 3 ever
ready to pllrit:l7;lih his:mine!).
-Yesterfln morning;'- about six o'clock, a -fire
brokeov't in the house of Mr.' PORTER, the Clerk
of the Wewhouse, •at Majesty's Viauating
()ace,. Deptford, which, after consuming. the whom,
Pr. the furniture in the front parlour, was oxtim-
guished without farther damage.

~~i~ ~:E~ ~D~~'

tOVItt OF KING's BENCH, Nov, 26.

Mr. G,iktAci*-.ruOved for A MandaMuS to It. C.
BMith, Esq. one of the Jiisti'cas of the Peace for the
County of 'Surrey, to receive an infOrmation made
hefore'him, and proceed to hear and adjudicate the
same., :No.. -imputation of blame attached to the
-Magistrate ni the,Mandaus was only to dire& hiM
in the exercise of his office. The infOrMation was
laid on the '39 Geo. a: c: 7. " for more easily sup.:
pressing-societies meeting for treasonable purposes,"
Whereby it; ena&ed, that, if any person shall print
any book orppapert to•be dispersed or, publiShed,
whether- the Samei is't6 he Sold or given away, the
name of the printer, his place. of abode; &c..shall
be printed on one part.,.of the last sheet, &c: and
every person omitting to print such name, &c. and
every person .p.ublishing or distributing' such paper,
&c. or assisting id disp6rsitig thesame, either gratis,
or for money, withotit..the name, &c. shall, for
• evtry copy so diSpersed, pay 201. to be recovered,
&c. one Moiety7tO the Informer. The' information
was,exhibited by a Mr. Bleeze, 'and stated, that a
paper was distributed, and one given to.him, in the
'presence of several persons, by one H. Bolton, as
follows :--c! Mr. J. Bleeze lake 'notice,' I hereby
warn you, not to come on anrof. my manors at Lea=
therhead and other places • (naming them),. or .
else Where in the County of Surrey; ,on . any. pre-
tence - whatsoever. Signed H. Boltob."- This pa-'
per having no pijriter's Dame attached to it, was
the ground of the,intbmiation ; but- the' Magistrate
thought it iiot 'WiOin.the.A.a,. and would hot re-
ceive it. .

. . ,
Sir VICARY would now have shewed cause;
but the-Court would not hear him at this time, as it
would he an interruption to the regular business at
the Court.

'Lord ELLF.NTOROUgir, Chief Justice, said, it was
a paper addressed to an individual,' aiid did not ap-
pear to be inrended.fiii'dispersion ; but he should
not decide' without looking more into the A. 61. .
Sir VIOARY Gums said, that .was his case, and
his Lordship had, in tad, shewn cause for him;
but a Rule to spew cause was nevertheless granted.