The Sun.
London, England, 1825-03-18 00:00:00

single syllable.—Mr. Hart Davis brought in a'
Bill to repeal the Bristol Port dues on vessels
proceeding to and from Ireland and England.—
Mr. Secretary Peel gave three notices for this
evening, first, to move for a Bill to amend the
Police Acts; secondly, to amend the law regard-
ing the sending of threatening,: letters; and thirdly,
to amend the- laws and define the - rights of
capital' convicts, &c. With respect to the' first
motion, Mr. Peel remarked that it was his inten-
tion to embody in the proposed Bill a provision
to increase the salaries of the Police Magistrates.
Mr. Hume moved for a series of Returns, the
first of which was an Address to his Majesty for
an account" of all persons in Holy Orders hold-
ing offices in Borough Corporation and other
Ci-
vil offices." In support of such motion, he said
there were many Clergymen who were Mayors,
and who, in their corporate capacity, went to
Church on Sundays, in corporate state, preced-
ed by beadles, scarlet costumes, &c. Others
were cotton spinners, Ile wished to gain ac-
curate information, as such conduct on the part
of Clergymen was injurious to the Church, occa-
sioned much ill blood in parishes, and mingled
the clerical character far too much with worldly
affairs. Dr. Phillimore resisted the motion,
contending, that the Clergymen did no more than
they were legally entitled to do ; and that the
motion was a covert attack on the Church through
the Clergymen.

EN tiiV TIMES.)
Intelligence was received from India yesterday
by the arrival of the Mellish, Capt. Cole, from
Calcutta. This vessel sailed from thence on the
15th, and the Sandheads on the ‘23d of Novem-
ber, and has brought letters and papers to the
19th of that month. The information they contain
is not of much importance, although it is rather
of a disagreeable kind. Mr. Thackeray, a collec-
tor in the Madras Presidency, with a small body
of troops, had been destroyed by some-refrac-
tory natives, and private letters state, that in Ben-
gal the lives of two of the Civil Servants of the
Company had been attempted by natives in the
like manner. Active preparations were making
for the approaching campaign, and we are sorry
to see it stated, that at Rangoon great sickness
existed amongst the troops. Sir E. Paget was on
the eve of joining the Army at Dacca. On a full
consideration of all the intelligence that has yet
arrived respecting the mutiny at Barrackpore,
we are confirmed in our original opinion, that
the alarm at first excited in the public mind was
greater than the circumstances would justify.
We cannot learn that the mutineers discharged a
single musket; and we deeply regret the neces-
sity that compelled the destruction of so many
brave men ; but it was a necessity that could
not be avoided, for subordination is the very life
and soul of military duty, and mutinies must
be put down instantly at whatever sacrifice. Some
persons have inconsiderately thrown blame on
the Governor-General for this lamentable event.
The truth is, that he had not, and could notp
have any thing to do with the matter. It is
clearly proved to have originated in _the discon.:
tent of a single regiment ; what the causes of that
discontent were is not so plain, but it is certain that
they were not at all of a politicalnature,and did not
extend beyond the single corps in which they broke
out. The idea at first entertained that they had
demanded double batta, seems unfounded, as they
never had such an allowance. Possibly they
may have wished for more carriage for their
baggage, or for some allowance similar to that
received by those who embarked on board ship ;
but these petty matters would never have pro-
duced so serious an explosion had there not pre-
viously existed some far more serious grounds of
dissatisfaction.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

KINGSTON, 111ARca 17.

SURREY THEATRE.—WILLIAMS v. COOKE AND OTHERS.
This was an action of trespass, for dispossessing the plaintiff
of the Surrey Theatre. The defendants pleaded the general issue.
The case proved in evidence was this :—The plaintiff, Mr.
Williams, had been tenant to Mr. West of the Surrey Theatre
at a rent of 1,2001. per annum. , In the month of December,
1823, the defendants, Mr. Cooke and Mr Mitchell, sued out a
commission of bankrupt against him, and on the 6th of that
month the defendants, one of whom was Hamber, the messen-
ger, and Mr. Niblett, the solicitor to the commission, together
with several other persons, went to the theatre in the evening
before the house opened, and took possession. At that time the
Sheriff. was also in possession under an execution for 1,201. at
e suit of the plaintiff's mother. An arrangement then tool: place,
by which it was agreed that the performances at the theatre
should. go on, a person being appointed at the instance of the de-
fendants to overlook the money-takers, and keep an account of
the receipts. Next day some printed handbills were posted in St.
Ueorge's-fields, and at the theatre, announcing that the house
was closed until a day therein mentioned ; but in the course
of the same day most of them were torn down, or covered with
fresh bills. It did not appear at whose instance this advertise-
ment was made. No stop to the performances, however,
took place. On the 15th of December the commission against
the plaintiff was superseded by the Lord Chancellor, and on
that day the defendants, who had retained possession till
then, restored it the plaintiff. In the iaterval there had been
performances every night at the theatre. Under these circum-
stances the present action was brought. It was alleged that
the commission had been sued out against the plaintiff, with
knowledge on the part of the defendants that it could not be
sustained—that their object in doing this was to ruin the
plaintiff, and that they had acted under the sinister influence
of some of the plaintiff's enemies. Of these allegations, how-
ever, there was no proof. The plaintiff was described in the
proceedings under the commission as a vintner of the Old Bai-
ley, but no evidence was given of trading, petitioning creditor's
debt, or alleged act of bankruptcy. It appeared on the cross-
examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, that ::bout the period ,
of the alleged bankruptcy, he was in embarrassed circumstances,
and about that time was not always visible at the theatre. The
effect of the proceedings taken against the plaintiff was to bring
his creditors upon him, who had thrown him into the Fleet
prison, where he is now confined as a prisoner fo: debt. The
defendants had paid the costs of superseding the commission.
Mr. ADO erft u s addressed the jury in mitigationi. of damages,
and contended that there was no pretence for this action. There
was no proof of any serious injury sustained by the plaintiff'.
The defendants had acted in good filial, and under the advice
of their solicitor, who had been of opinion that the commission
of bankruptcy was sustainable. A verdict for a shilling would,
he submitted, amply satisfy the justice of the case.
No witnesses were called in defence.
The LORD CHIEF Banos summed up the case to the jury.
The Jury found their verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1001.

WILLIAMS v. DELAFOitCE AND OTHERS.
This was n action on the case by the same plaintiff,
the defendan , for damage done to the scenery of the Surrey
Theatre, whn st the latter was tenant thereof to the plaintiff:
The Jury, under the learned Judge's directions, futta.i their
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 501. against

SUICIDE.—The body of an elegantly dressed
female %l as found yesterday morning in the
Paddington Canal, above the second bridge from
Paddington. The deceased proved to be Mrs.
CaowDER, who not long ago cut a dashing ap-
pearance in the lobbies of the Theatres, under
the protection of a Military Officer, but who had
lately been in reduced circuritstunces.