The Sun.
London, England, 1809-07-06 00:00:00

FRENCH CRITIQUE' ON MILTOK •

Paradise Lost, which- has been so often and
st• unjustly classed by French critics .with those
poems that, like a .dutighill, . sometimes contain,
pearls, has lately received float some- of the most
eminent literary men of France the. praise to which
it is so highly entitled. It is. pleasing to perceive
that the hostility' of war is confined .to armies, -and.
dues not spread over 'the regions of. science and li-
terature, and that learned men of both countries do
not suffer the blind feeling of national enmity to bias
-theirjudgment, or 'check their laudable
The following passage is translated from a work
lately publishe% in Paris, and will sbew the estinia-'
tion in which our Epic Bard's matchless produCtion
is now• held among our political enemies
" Criticism, which has vainly -endeavoured to 4-
preciate the sublime Jaeacnies of. Paradise Lost, has,
however, spared its admirable pidure of Eden, and
the bliss of our first parents in . their 'state of Milo-
cence. No poet tali now be found who, if he p 65-.
se.,ses sufficient knowledge of the English lan- •
gnage, will refuse to acknowledge the stiperiority. of
those excellencies which had no models, and wilFal-
way s dely.imitatiOn. The'fburth book.of the poem
is4raught with a sublimity, of which antiquity gt'vs
us L4O idea. All in it reveals the .union of heavenly:
with earthly things. We see man in all his mjesty,
his candour, and his virtue; woman 'all the.
charms of native. beauty, aid as yet untainted inno-
cence. Robed in moral and physical excellence,
these two pure beings form a type of all human
perfeaions." _ -

Such praise, and'at such a ,time, is dOubly honour-
able to the 'author on I.vhoso work, and the person
by whom it is,bestowerL

The. critique in question -is by the celebrated
Poet Grande Maison. -

Tuesday evening a boat, with four persons in it,
who had been up the river for a day's pleasure, was
stopped between .Vauxhall-stairs arid the Horse-
ferry, by two men in a. ykifF, who robbed them of
upwards of four pounds. The men 'were armed
with pistols, and rowed off to. the
.Lambeth shore.
MELmitHoLv EvarrT.---4)n Monday,. as a poor
woman was sitting on the steps of a . door• in Great
Ormond-Street, with a child playing in her lap,- a
mastiff suddenly seized the latter by the throat and
tore it in-so furious a manner' that the poor child
expired in great agonies in.a few• minutes.

14-Fr -CEPO*PT,

COURT OF.KLNL's

STRATTON V. KIRKMAN.

Mr. GAIqIOW stated this to be. an "action at the
suit of Mr.' Stratton, the great stove and 'patent'
kitchen naandaettiter,-. against the.detenslant, who
kept an hotel at the west*nd
.ot the town, • to reco-
ver a sum of money which, he had paid to certain ,
bricklayers, who bad been employed in potting-up'
and liking- one of these patent kitchens ; for much
skill Was requisite In order to Ore to the ovens, flues,,
s;:e, fair scope for operation, and. a %re.' at- deal of
trouble attended on such occasions, frequently on ac-
count of the diredion of the chimnies, -and from
other causes. Mr. Kirkman had applied to Mr:Strat-
ton for one of these patent kitchens, observing that
he 'might to hav6 one of them at the trade price, in
stead :of commob selling price; since he should
have the best means in the world of advertising shies
valuable article; and of recornme.nding it for sale by
excellently cooked dinners, which be,should be daily
serving up to companieS at his hotel, on which Mr.
Stratton consented to let Mr: Kirkman have one of
these patent kitchens for 421. which sum he.vvas paid;
but he hattpaid_24 to the bricAdayers,,which it was
unreasonable for Mr. Kirkman to expect Mr. Strat-'
. On to pay out of his own pocket.
TWO br three bricklayers were examined,. _who
proved that they had been employed at the Hotel
in setting up this kitchen, under the direction of
' Mr. Stratton ; that it had been set up, pulled down,
ind set up again several times, on acconnt Of -the-
men not having at first received proper directions
from. Mr. Stratton ; that they were there at different
times, froth the beginning of Septettber to• the latter
end (it October upon-this business; and, atiast it was
proptlly set up, fOr %Vhich the charge was altogether,
abbot 201.
Mr...PARK, on behalf of the defendant, stated,
th4t the prantittf, Mr. Stratton, had eng ged, and
that not once only; but repeatedly, to charge no.
Wore; for this`pate.,t. kitchen, and the setting. Of it
up'also, than 471.--qtiat the bticklayers were at the
place,- putting this machine up; pulling it -down,
and setting it up again, from. the begimilt°i of Sep-
' tember, at different times; until the end otOctober,.
only because Mr. Stratton had not giVen them,: at
'first, the right diteCtions-., It Was true; indeed; that
Mr. Stratton:had afterwards given in his bill, as he
. dads now, for 621. ; but he
_was. asked. what he
meant by demanding 62f.. of Mr. Kirkman; • when,
' he himself, had repeaie.diy declared that he would do
the-whole business of setting tin.; machine up for
474.t0 which he assented, and adually took two billS
• ofekeliange, the one payable' at two, ',the other at
three nionths, each of the sum of 231. 103. nicking
the exact sum of 471.-which he had thuS-agreed td
l•• take; and the.bills_Mr. Park held in his hand, as a
proof that they were honoured when they became
due, besides which, Mr. Stratton had written in the
inargin of his' own' bill, settled 'as per bills, &c.
Lord ELL ENBOR-OUGH.--" Is it worthwhile, after
this opening of the. defendant's case, to go
,on to
prove it for that '.tuay be at the expence or some;
more vitiadie to this plaintiff than that whiCh
he 'is seeking' by this aCtion ? It will perhaps,
soon become
.ditlicult to .refer this claim to mis-
take." . .

•Mr.t'Aitaibw then gave up the cause, saying he
could not eip e6t, after the disclosure of these factis,
to contend,,• with success, for this claim of the
•
plaintiff 's.
Lord ELLENBDROUGg..+" You judge very
rightly for your client might else.find that he has
been contending -for something of more valve, to
him than the time which might be consumed in the
further' discussion of this subjeEt.---=Plaintiff non-
.
suited.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, jvtir. i.

BROOKS V. JOHNSON.

This was an action brought by. the Plaintiff, who
is a surveyor, to recover commission on the valuation
of- a quantity of titnber, purchased by the De-
fendant.
It appeared in evidence that the Plaintiff was em-
...ployed to value the timber on the estate of Si John
Boyd,: at Welling, )a Kent, which was estimated
by him (the Plaintiff) to be wortiowobol.•andat that
valuation, entitled him to -be paid at the rate of one
percent: by-the'Defendant., Inconsequence, how-
ever, of the suggestion. of Sir John Boyd, who was
of opinion that the tirriber was not worth so..much
Money,. another-surveyor was employed, who esti-
mated the property at a considerable. sum; less, than
:the value fixed uptin it by the Plaintiff. The lle-_
fendant. consequently refused to pay the demand,
and the 'Plaintiff brought this aetion:: FrOm the
cross-examination of the. Plaintiff'- witnesses, -4 ap
peared that lie had not measured the timber ace**
ing -to the accustomed mode adopted by. other sty-
Veyors, bilt that he.liad lumped together small trees,
which he reckoned as timber, •and that he had in-
cluded in his adineasurainent the branches and arms
of trees, Or the purpose of increasing the amount
of -his demand 'Open the Defendant and further,
that he had also included in his account of the vaiva-
tion of timber, trees which did not exceed six inches
- in girth, which was contrary to the established usage
.of the profession..
Mr-. Serjeant' BEST, after- a few remarks, sub-
mitted
.that there was nothing for the considera-
' tion of the Jury, and that the Plaintiff ought to be
nonsuited.

Sir JAMES MANSFIELD having expressed a desire
that the cause should go on,
• Mr. Serjeant BEST proceeded to .call witnesses,
for 'the purpose- of proving the exorbitancy of the
demand.

Mr. Driver, a respectable land and timber surveyor,
of the Kent Road, was then examined; and stated,
that he .had, with accuracy, valued the timber in
question. He parti'cuiarly directed his attention, in
the first instance, to the fir-timber, which it was
alleged by the Plaintiff amounted to 59 loads, when
be found that it did not exceed 39 and 12 feet,
making about one-third difference. Finding thii to
be the case, be did not chuse to go any further;
judging that tht . remainder of the timber was equal-
ly proportioned in value to this. Having had a great
deal of, experience in the valuation of timber, he at
once pronounced to Mr. Johnson, that, in his jtidg-
, ment,.the whole of the wood on Sir John Bovd's

7 • Z:c..• w •
entate was not 0r,141 mote than .5300 r. and t'ile:-.1-Gre
acivised hihrnot to pay the Plgintirs demand until
he had the property re-valued Oy some other person,.
-.l2ne Manner, in Mr., brooks valued the tiMber,
was, M his judgment and knowledg, unitsnal, and
•
contrary to the'escab 'stied practice of surveyors.
Ali,-.'Serjeant ItlEgt was about to call some farther.
evidence, .when
Sir J111‘.15 MANTSVIELD observed that he did not.
know whether he ought; not to haVe stopped this
cause before ; but the rcason-why.he did not was,-
because he wished to, hear some further evidence re-,
speaing the mode of valuation adopted by the
Plaintiff. In his opinion the Praintiff must now be
nonsuited, because it appeared he Ihid made wie of
a new,and .uncommon mode of.va,luation, which, he
had no right. to do without the express
,pncti,ii,
"ot, at least, the knowledge of his employer.
.Plaintitf wag therefOre

OLD BAILEY.

kv EQ:kESDAY,

Beni-y Martin Stredder was conviEted of stealing),
and Richard Brewer of receiving, knoWing thein to.
be stolen;• six crank winders belonging register
stoves, the property of Mr. Wm, Bound, of:Clerken-.
well, furnishing ironmonger,_ by whom the Prise
had been for some time Cinployed.'
The Court, to atrord its proteaion to nianufatiur-
ing- houses, immediately -sentenced Martin to bc-
transported,seven years, and Brewer, 14 years.
Same- day the Sessions ended, when sentence of
death was passed On James Brown; for horse-steal-;
ing; Thom-as Bone, 'for house-breaking; William.
Higgins, .for stealing goods,
.value 41. 9,;4.. in a dwell-
ing-house; Wm—Lowe, for stealing goods, value
41s. in a dwelling-house; Matthew Powell, roc
stealing goods, value 121. in adwelling-house.; Wm.
Jones; alias Henry Sinclair, ,alias-John•Sell, for for-
gery ; Chas. Henry RAvenscroft, for a like offence;
John Warner, for -stealing goods, value i6t.' tss'. iit
a dwelling-house; _ James Marsden, for stealing
goods, value 71. in a dwelling-house ; Raton White
and James Smith, for burglarionsly breaking and
entering, the dwelling-house of Francis Sitwell,, Esq..
With intent to steal-; Win. Lowe, for, returning from
transportation ;
.and Joseph Heady; for stealing. goods,
.value 91. in a dwelling-house.
Loutk was . sentenced to be trarisiorted The
the term of his natural life.

Twenty:-three were ordered to be transported for
stven years, viz.—Mary Bates, Ann Brown,, At va
Coopek, Thoebas Flutchinson, John Reed, Sarah
Yates, Mary Parker, John Ciatk, Catharine- Mur-
phy, Mary Newman, Mary Cohen, Margaret.
John
,Coward,. Mary Farrati,, Margaret M`G-I.lirz.,
Charlotte,"' Roberts, John TiolloCk, Thomas' Jones„
rEtotnas Johnson, Elizabeth bari§;' John Beadner.
Thou as Nilson, Henry Martin Stredder.
Richard Blexcr was-senteuced to Ile' transported.
for 14 years. •
Six• were ordered to be imprisoned in the Ho•we
-of Correction at Clerkenwell, for one year.
Eleven were ordered to be imprisonectiatixe same
gaol, for six Calendar triOnths each.:

Fourteen were ordered' to be intprisened. in New-
rate for various periods. •
Eight .I.rere ordered to be privately, and three gab-
hely whipped.

Three fined is: and each and discharged. erg
judgment resOited.—And 2 were'-dischurgt.ct
Proclamation.

Adjourned to tile 20th September next:

. .
Early.iri the morning of Friday, the, 234 111.1,:rts
tome fishermen of Wareham were fishing.
Wareham Channel, they observed an old and a
young porpoise, the former of an enormous size, :;ti:
purSuit of some shoals of Mullet. The :fisharmitn,
observing that these enormous aoimals, by over_
eagerness in pursuit of their prey, were approki.l::;
the Mouth of the Wareham South River, inainzt
diately dropped their nets across the channel, belyat
them, and coustru&cd a-sort of bridge, wiih
boats, to obstrud their *return, to the Sea.—everai
times successively the porpoises, with surpriiir,
strength 'and activity, assailed the iiets-and
and were as repeate:lly repulsed by the fisheriiie:l„
,who with their oars and Some .pikes, drove che:v...
by degrees; before them, up the river, lino shallow
water, near the town, ,where..they surrounded. them,
with several large nets,. and, at length succeeded 441
getting them both on shore. Tbe lamost'porpol,t
was eigtiOliiihdrkt weight, and upwards, -and was
killed in taking—it produced a considerable T. 1416137
of oil ; the young one lived upwards of twenty- lour
hours.. out of Water.

'The' atorrtion Ttiesdi)Y was part calarl j -Mt t
Pimlico and6l-sei.. Thelhonse of Mr. FisnEst,
Belgrave Place, sustained considerable injury. • The
whole of the bell=hangi ngs iiii4re destroyed, and
lightning set fire to some window-curtains in a rocts.
on the secondlloor, and communicated to a book&tse.
There was only a femSle servant in the house, who
being alarmed at the: smell of are, called in swot:
neighbours: They broslie opeo the docir,,an4 by .tho
timely supply of water got it under.