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

changes. Is there no re-action here ? There is in-
deed the evidence of a great and salutary re-action—
a re-action not against reform, in the correct and ho-
nest sense of that word, but against the destructive
principle which. had assumed its name—a re-action in
favour of safe and salutary reform, because it is a
re-action against revolution. But let us only sup-
pose that the mind of Great Britain had not re-
covered from the delirium into which it had been
dragged by the charlatans that make agitation a
trade, and find " patriotism" a profitable speculation.
Let us suppose that such- empirics in legislation as
the persons whom we have mentioned had succeeded
in inducing the " most thinking people" in the world
to be guilty of the unutterable folly of destroying with
their own hands those noble institutions—the growth
of centuries—the precious bequest of the virtue and
wisdom of their ancestors, which constitute the strength
and glory of the British monarchy, and give to true
liberty its vital protection. Let us suppose, we say,
that such political empirics had succeeded in inducing
the people of England to break to pieces the admirable
machinery of their mixed and balanced Constitution,
what, we ask, would they substitute for it ? Would
they show themselves as able to construct as they are
eager to destroy ? or would the modern Vandals, like
those of former days, only prove their power by the
destruction of the proudest works of genius and the
most venerable monuments of ancient glory ? Would
the destroyers of the constitutional monarchy of
Great Britain—the subverters of the altars of our
national faith, give the people more liberty than they
enjoy under the one, and purer instruction than they
derive from the civilizing Intelligence and morality of
the other ? Let us judge, then, by what they had
vaunted as their greatest work, the Poor Law A mend-
inent Act—and in what light does it exhibit their love
for the liberty and happiness of the people ? In order
to crush and effectually oppress the poor, the philoso-
phical and most liberal authors of that iniquitous act
erected a triple-headed despotism, to which the power
of legislation belonging to King, Lords, and Commons
was transferred. Herein was their love of liberty and
constitutional freedom shown ! Their Christian spirit
was evinced by putting into practice the monstrous
doctrine against which the God of Christianity has set
the eternal canon of his mercy—that poverty should
be treated as crime. Who most loudly applauded
that principle of the atrocious Bill, when pro-
pounded by Lord Althorp, 'and re-echoed by Lord
Brougham ? The pretended' admirers of extreme
liberty, among whom the most prominent were Mr.
Hume, who has lately been rejected by the constitu-
ency of Middlesex, and Mr. Grote, who, we believe,
will soon be exhibited as the rejected of the constitu-
ency of London. Mr. Roebuck and such Radicals
are also ardent admirers of this lair, by which the
flinty-hearted economists convert our national institu-
tion of charity into a grinding system of oppression—
swelling the patronage of the Whig Government with
fat commissionerships, while the pangs of slow starva-
tion are inflicted on the deserving poor, and the coun-
try is covered with enormous bastiles at an expense of
600,000/. Have not then " the masses" of the people
good reason to exclaim; " Deliver us from such deli-
verers, and leave us the consolations and charities of
the Protestant Church, and the protection of the Bri-
tish Constitution !"—Morning Herald.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, ,A.re. 7.

JONES V. - . •
Mr. LovAT in this matter presented a petition to have a
sum of 5001., belonging to a ward of the. Court, paid over
to her husband. The application was made under peculiar
circumstances. The marriage took place without the con-
sent of the Court ; but it was positively sworn' by the hus-
band and the wife that they did not at the time believe that
they wero guilty of contempt of Court, as they were both
ignorant of the fact that the lady had been made award
of the Court. The lady was still under age, but the ap-
plication for the payment of the money was made with the
consent of the lady and her family.
The petition was dismissed.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Aug. 7.

SMITH V. KINGSCOTE.

Mr. KNIGHT moved to dissolve an ex parte injunction,
restraining the defendant from making a railway over the
plaintiff's land. The plaintiff was lessee, under the Coun-
tess of Newburgh, of extensive coal—mines in certain dis-
tricts called Amble and Hawiley, in the county of North-
umberland. Li 1629 the owner of this tract of country
parcelled it -out, reserving the coal-mines, with way leave
and stay leave, and the right to sink pits upon any part of
the land. The plaintiff was the owner of some land in
Amble, subject to this reservation. The lessee of the
coal-mines had lately commenced a rail Way, under Lady
Newburgh's right of way, from pits in passing
over the plaintiff's land in Amble, and lerMinating at -the
Iti%;er Coqaet, where a quay had within the last kw year's
been constructed. The whole question was, whether the
reservatio❑ of way-leave gave him this power, subject of
course to making compensation.
His HoNoutt was of opinion the injunction should be
dissolved.