The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-22 00:00:00

DRURY-LANE THEATRE.

dutterold's Zampa, under the title of The Corsair, was pro
e.eti at this house last night. The story is founded upon
eidents not dissimilar to those of Don Juan, and the catas-
tropheit is nearly the same, for a statue carries the hero without
Ytit° " the regions below," the chief difference being, that
Vasn.instance he goes upon his journey supperless. The
Thu`si°E the
opera was, to say the least of it, as good as the
hiefte deserved : it included Miss Shirreff, Miss H. Cawse,
theyrs• H. Phillips, Templeton, Guibelci, and Duruset, and
tatfin sang very faultlessly, considering it was a first represen-
rdTn ; they are all so well known that it would be a waste of
ns to go over them and their merits with any particularity.
not
conclusion exhibiting an eruption of Mount Etna, was
62401 contrived; and, but for this circumstance, the per-
ivat7ance would have gone off with unmixed applause ; as it
nbvi we heard considerable hissing, which was made the more
ten„cis by Cooper, who came forward to state that " in con-
Tirence of the approbation" the opera would be repeated on
liis„l2.rsdaY• This trifling lapsus lingua added laughter to the
\vig, but both were mixed up With considerable applause.
sh:,thillk that some of the scenes might be advantageously
~vhr‘ened, and part of the music omitted, particularly that in
its le,h something necessary to the understanding of the story
4.leia,tea
; our English singers
Inca generally such
beefective
attleulation, that hardly one word
13eQ:4* We do not know by whom this version of Zampa has
rear prepared for the stage, but we must own that we never
took more common-place rhymes than were inserted in the
444 staies°ngs ; the epithets were sometimes ludicrously trite

HOUSE OF LORDS.-MONDAY.

APPEALS.-SCARLETT AND OTHERS V. THE GOVERNORS

OF LUCTON SCHOOL.
This was an appeal from a decree of the Court of Ex-
chequer in the time of Chief Baron Alexander. The
question relates to the right of the respondents to tithes,
which they assert are rectorial and general tithes, but
which the appellants, who are occupiers of the lands,
alledge are particular tithes, and the respondents only
patronists.
Mr. BOTELER opened the case for the appellants.
Mr. TINNEY had not concluded his argument on behalf
of the respondents when the Court rose. The further
hearing was adjourned to Friday.—Adjourned accordingly.
HODGES'S DIVORCE BILL.
Mr. D. Por-Locx appeared at the bar in support of the
petitioner in this case, Edward Hodges, Esq., of Bolton-
street, Piccadilly, who seeks to obtain a divorce from his
wife Clara, on account of an adulterous intercourse carried
en between her and T. Walsh, Esq., a Barrister.
A witness proved that notice of the second reading was
served upon Mrs. Hodges during the present month. She
is living on the Continent with Mr. Walsh, at Rotterdam.
The marriage was also proved as having taken place at
Clapham, on the 28th of February, 1818.
The clerk of Mr. Hodges' solicitor produced an office
copy of the judgment given in an action brought by Mr.
Hodges against Mr. Walsh, and the damages awarded
amounted to 1,2001.
Lord LYNDHURST—Have those damages been paid ?
Yes, my Lord.
A person named A ndis, a waiter at the White Hart Inn,
Harwich, proved that a gentleman and lady arrived late
there in the night of the 12th of October last, or rather
early in the morning of the 13th. The family had gone to
bed. They arrived, too, in a post-chaise from Colchester.
They had some refreshment before retiring to bed. They
both occupied one bed-room. It was a double-bedded
room. 'Witness spoke to a portmanteau which they
brought, having upon it, upon a brass plate, the name of
" Hodges," and a lady's trunk with the in►tials " C. H."
- Mr. PoLLocx here said that Mrs. Hodges's Christian
name was Clara.
Witness (in continuation)—The following day, about
three o'clock, the lady and gentleman went off to sea in a
vessel. I saw them off.
Mr. Oakley examined—l am acquainted with Mr. and
Mrs. Hodges. I have known them for the last eight or
ten years. They lived together in the utmost harmony
and affection. I know Mr. Walsh, having frequently met
him at Mr. Hodges'. By Mr. Hodges' directions I went
last October to trace Mr. Walsh and Mrs. Hodges, about
ten days after she had eloped. I went over to Rotterdam.
I could not find any persons residing there of the name of
Walsh, but 1 had letters to the British Consul, and he
sent his secretary to assist me in tracing them out. I
found them ultimately lodging at a German bookseller's.
They were living under the name of Mr. and Mrs. Fre-
derick Wilson. I found Mr. Walsh down stairs, as well
as Mrs. Hodges. She was en dishabille. They were
seated at breakfast together. The immediate object of
my visit was, to endeavour to persuade her to return to
England, where an asylum would be provided for her at her
sister's, and a comfortable allowance would be made for
her. She refused to comply with these terms. Mr. Walsh
and Mrs. Hodges were living there together as man and
wife. The apartments they occupied were only one sit-
ting-room and one bed-room. I entertain no doubt what-
ever that they were cohabiting together.
A conversation then ensued as to the day when it would
be most convenient to move the second reading, and the
LORD CrtANcELLort appointed Thursday for that purpose,
until which day the further hearing was adjourned.