The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-10 00:00:00

city it would be a deer reflection upon his judgment to
suppose him ignorant—thus making himself respon-
sible for their acts. He uselessly exposed the legion
to the mortification of nominal defeats by permitting,
it, before it was properly disciplined, to witness skir-
mishes between the Christinos and Carlists, in which
it was not suffered to take a part. In all such cases
'this must have had the worst possible effect upon the
spirits of the men. He likewise allowed himself
to be cajoled and humbugged by the Queen's
Generals—by traitors who did all in their power to
betray him, and his gallant handful of British soldiers,
into the hands of Don CARLOS. CORDOVA did all
in his power to ruin General EVANS, and nothing but
the bravery and ability of the Hon. and Gallant Mem-
ber for Westminster prevented ,his being a prisoner
at the head-quarters of the Pretender, long before the
fall of the treacherous Commander-in-Chief. Now we
verily believe that RODIL is not a jot better disposed
towards EVANS than was his predecessor CORDOVA.
Nay, we are confident that he would rejoice to learn
that the Carlists were in possession of San Sebastian,
provided the victory was purchased at the expense of
General Ev ANs's military reputation. We blame Ge-
neral EvAN-s, therefore, for putting the slightest trust
in the professions of the QUEEN'S Commander-in-chief,
knowing, as he now does, how hollow such profes-
sions generally are. The withdrawal of the Spanish
auxiliary force of 2,500 men from the garrison of San
Sebastian, under the plea of interrupting the march of
-SAz upon Oviedo, must have convinced him that the
QuEEl7',: Generals determined to sacrifice him. Per-
haps it is this -'9llviction suddenly breaking in upon
him, joined to the rrlZ:ny privations to which his troops
are exposed, that noc' determines him to quit
Spain. If so, wherefore .:al
it ? Why not
proclaim in the face of Europe the ;,:ltrigues which
have been employed against him ? He pre-
fer making such disclosures in the House of
Commons ; but we beg to assure him that the present
is the fitting moment. He owes it to his own character—
to the character of the men under his command, and to
England, whose name he has mixed up with his service
in the Peninsula—to express his convictions and opi-
nions upon this head freely, openly, and without re-
serve. We anxiously await the issue of this affair.

Our accounts from Spain this day are mere details
of events some two days before the public. The re-
tirement of MENDIZABAL from the Ministry was
talked of in 'Madrid on the Ist inst.

We have received the whole of the Paris papers
of Tuesday. Whatever is important in their columns
will be found in another part of The Sun.

We beg to direct attention to the Speech of his
Majesty the King of the BELGIANS, on opening the
Session of the Chambers on the Bth instant. We give
it at full length in our columns of this day.

CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

CAMPBELL V. MACKAY.

The LORD CHANCELLOR was occupied the whole morn-
ing with the appeal petition in the case from the decision
of the Vice-Chancellor allowing Lady Campbell to fake
her children to France:out of the jurisdiction of the Court.
As the appellants only have been heard, we shall forbear
giving the facts till the case is concluded.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

LARKMAN V. LARKMAN.

Mr. SIDEBOTTOBI applied ex-parte for a special injunc-
tion to restrain the defendant, who is the husband of the
plaintiff, from selling certain household furniture and farm-
ing stock. It appeared that the plaintiff, by her former hus-
band, became possessed of furniture and farming-stock, to
the value of upwards of 5001. Upon her marriage
with the defendant, she settled that property in moiety
upon the children of the former marriage and the defen-
dant. Notwithstanding this, the defendant had threatened
to sell the whole property, to restrain him from doing which
was the object of the present application. The defendant
had conducted himself in a most extraordinary manner to-
wards the plaintiff, and articles of the peace had been exhi-
bited against him.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR granted the injunction.

ROLLS' COURT.--(THIS DAY.)

ANSDELL V. WHITE.

This was a bill filed to compel the defendant to deliver
up a bond executed by the plaintiff, to be cancelled, and
praying that the defendant might pay the costs of actions
at law which he had brought against the plaintiff ; but in
case the Court should be of opinion that he was to hold
the bond, then that he might make good the payment of a
sum of 6921., which appeared to be clue upon the taking
of the partnership accounts, and that the same might be
applied in payment of the debts due from the partnership,
to relieve the plaintiff from his liability of surety. The
defendant and a Mr. Isaac, in the month of September, 1832,
entered into an agreement to become partners in the business of
musical instrument makers. White and Isaac carried on busi-
ness in Charlotte-street, Rathbone-place, but in the month of
November 1833 it was agreed the partnership should be
dissolved. An agreement was entered into by which Isaac
was to retain the books, and collect in the partnership
debts. The plaintiff, by bond, became surety for Isaac,
but the defendant. White, having commenced an action
against the plaintiff, for the recovery of a debt alleged to
be due to the partnership, the plaintiff had obtained the
common injunction to restrain such proceedings at law.
Mr. KINDERSLEY and Mr. Parker now moved to dissolve
the injunction, and contended that the plaintiff had only
obtained the injunction in order to prevent the recovery of
a just debt due from him.
The case was not finished when we went to press.