The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-24 00:00:00

to accomplish any good, but, by their stupid obstinacy,
in " agitating" that which they could neither direct
nor subdue, they have accomplished a great deal of
evil. Thus also is it likely to be, in a greater or
less degree, with everything they attempt under the
name of internal Reform. Reform which is not
undertaken for the sake of improvement, but to gra-
tify the bitter resentment of a faction, can never come
to good, and must be resisted by all friends of honest
legislation. Probably there are many well-disposed
people in England who have been so imposed upon
by the perpetual concealment of truth and assertion
of falsehood on the part of the Ministerial press that
they may be inclined to reply to us in this way :
" You have shown why the Whig-Radicals fail, and
why they ought to fail, in the schemes which they have
undertaken under the name of Reforms ; but if you
Conservatives had the Government you would give us
no Reforms at all—you were against the Reform Bill,
and you will try to repeal that instead of following it
up by practical improvements." Such we know is the
impression which the continual misrepresentations
of the Ministerial journals are calculated to effect ;
but we must beg of those who have listened to
such untruths to turn to some better authority. From
the time the Reform Bill passed, the Conservatives, who
had opposed it, became, in conformity with their politi-
cal principles, obedient to its letter, and its spirit, be-
cause it had become the law of the land. When Sir R.
Peel became Prime Minister his language was this :
"After the passing M the Reform Bill I saw that a great
change had taken place ; that there had been a complete
revolution in the possession of power, and that neces-
sarily there must be on the part of public men, who
mean honestly by their country, a spirit of accommo-
dation in their public course to the altered circum-
stances of Government. I, however, cannot say that
I intend in power, or as a condition on which to ob-
tain power, to adopt any course differing in principle
from that which I pursued in Opposition, subsequently
to the passing of the Bill of Reform." Thus it is
plain that the Conservatives, speaking by the mouth
of their leader, did adopt the spirit of the Reform Bill,
and that not (as has been asserted) for the sake of
keeping the Government, when they obtained it, by the
spontaneous will of the King, in November, 1834,
but at the time that the Reform Bill became, and be-
cause it had become, the law of the land. It is
impossible for language to be more explicit than
was the language of Sir Robert Peel respect-
ing his adoption of the Reform Bill, and his
determination to act up to its spirit in the course and
conduct of his Government. He said, in his place in
Parliament, that the rule of his conduct in office would
be that which he had taken for his rule out of office—
to make no sacrifice of public principle, but at the
same time not to stand in fruitless opposition to the
operation of changes in our institutions, the making of
which he certainly deprecated, but which, when made,
he was among the first to recognize as final and irre-
vocable. Thus it appears that the representations of
Ministerialists to the effect that Conservatives are hos-
tile to Reform are as false as their own attempts to
substitute revolution for practical improvements have
been futile. And the result of the whole is, that if
the public desire a fair and moderate system of im-
provement to go forward in our institutions, which im-
provement will be undertaken and received in a friendly
spirit, they must look to the Conservative leaders, and
;o them alone, for such a system.—Mo7 fling Post.

men are too shrewd for superstition. They are too
mercenary and low-minded to be capable of enthu-
siasm. They are hypocrites wearing the garb of fa-
natics. They betray the tyrant in tlleir very petitions
for justice. There is in them, however, nothing new.
Modified, and that but slightly, by the circumstances
of that period, it is the same odious and insufferable
tribe that made England, under the long Parliament
and its parricide offspring, Cromwell, a den of cupi-
dity, cruelty, and persecution. It is not liberty these
men want, but power. It is not to escape from oppres-
sion, but to exercise it. Thank Heaven for the Mu-
nicipal Bill amongst other blessings, for it has made
these dissenting nuisances known to their neighbours,
and exposed the base hollowness of their pretensions to
any spark of public spirit or integrity. With regard
to the other branch of the alternative—lrish Popery,
and its action upon the public weal of the empire—
frequent opportunities have arisen, and others may
arise, for the expression of our unalterable sentiments.
—Times.
Conservative dinners, which but a few weeks since
were as plentiful as the blackberries of Falstriff; are now
become exceedingly rare, so that when one does come
in our way we are enabled to give more of our atten-
tion to the subject, than we could when dozens of
" festivals," or, to speak in Tory phraseology, " ma-
nifestations," were pressing their claims on us all at
once. The latest exhibition of this kind took place al
Colchester, on Tuesday. It is stated in the introduc•
tory flourish to the report of the proceedings, that 250
sat down to dinner, and that had there been a suffi-
ciency of room, double the number would have been
present. We do not doubt it. The Tories are as na-
turally attracted to the " Three Cups Hotel," where
this feed came off, or to any other hotel where a good
dinner is to be had, as the needle is to the loadstone.
The plain truth is, that Toryism and gormandizing are
but synonymous terms. The Tories are just as fond
of a good " guzzle"—the term is a homely, but ex-
pressive one—as Falstaff was of sack. It is only on
the theory of dining well (at the public expense) that
any man can rationally account for the existence of
that class of politicians. We by no means wish to be
supposed that the Tories at Colchester, or at any of
the other places where the process of mastication has
been lately exhibited on so extensive a scale, dined
on those particular occasions at the public expense.
Nothing of the kind. We have no doubt that every
Conservative, however conservative of his cash in
other cases, duly paid his guinea for his ticket, for
this plain reason, that no credit is given on such oc
casions by country hotel-keepers—they know the Con-
servative propensities of the Tories too well for that.
But the question is, what were the motives that
prompted so many of the Tories of late to put them-
,' selves to the expense of a guinea per head for a good
feed ? First of all, there was the proverbial Tory
love of the solids and liquids which graced the table.
This is at all times a strong motive with a Tory ; but
then it by no means satisfactorily accounts for the
hordes of Country Conservatives who recently, like so
many locusts, threatened to devour every thing eatable in
the land. They could have got their bellies as well filled
at half the expense had they gone privately to work.
The grand motive was of a compound nature—it was
the love of a good dinner, coupled with the hope, that
by thus dining at their own expense just now, they
were paving the way for the restoration of their party
to power, and, by consequence, vastly increasing their
own individual chances of being able to dine at the
nation's expense afterwards, by being helped to some
snug Government berth or other. As for any abstract
attachment to Tory principles, the thirng is absurd in
the highest degree. Convince the Conservatives—
which we are confident, obstinate and unteachable as
they proverbially arc, the events of the next six months
will do—convince the Conservatives that the game is
fairly and for ever up with them, and we venture to
say that not one of them will stir a foot for Tory
principles, for the Constitution, the Church or the
State, or for any of those other cant things which are
everlastingly in their mouths. Tory dinners would
then be a matter of history. A Conservative's prin-
ciples are always inseparably associated with his per-
sonal interests. On the speeches delivered at the Col-
chester festival, it is not necessary that we should be.
stow a word. That would be a complete waste of
that space which we can always, we hope, occupy with
matter of instruction and interest to our readers. The
harangues consisted of the usual balderdash. The
changes were rung on the old story about preserving
the venerable institutions of the country unimpaired—
loyalty to the King—glorious Constitution—Church
and State—progress of revolution—House of Lords,
Sec. Of course, there was the accustomed quantum
of cheering ; and the greater the nonsense spoken the
louder were the plaudits. It is hardly necessary to
add, that there was a tolerable sprinkling of clergymen
around the festive board. We understand that the
distinction they earned for themselves by the violence
of their speeches, was fully equalled by that they had
previously acquired in paying their respects to the va-
rious articles in which the well-furnished table re-
joiced.—Morning Advertiser.
There is one indisputable truth, which furnishes a
decisive answer to nine-tenths of the stupid vitupera-
tion by which the recent policy of the Conservative
party is assailed. That truth is, that the Whig-Radi-
cals are themselves alone to blame for the non-settle-
ment of the Irish Church question. The Conserva-
tives have been not only most willing, but most anxious
to make some legislative arrangement, which should
remove the practical grievances complained of—they
even acceded to the leading features of the arrange-
ment proposed by the Administration, so far as the re-
moval of those grievances was concerned. Why, then,
was not that important matter settled ? The obsti-
nacy of the Ministers themselves was the cause. They
complained that great practical grievances existed, and
when the opportunity to remove them was in their
hands they twice threw away the opportunity, be-
cause they would not be allowed to accompany it
with the legislative assertion of a principle hostile
to the independence of the Church—because they
would not be allowed to disfigure useful reform
by the intermixture of insult and oppression ! In
this important matter, as in every other, we be-
hold the monstrous evil arising from the business
of useful reform being placed in hands which,
either from inclination or necessity, are hostile to
the very thing which they ought to desire to im-
prove out of a sentiment of good-will. Conservatives
are as well aware as their opponents can be of the
anomalous position of the National Church in many
parts of the kingdom of Ireland. They see as well as
their opponents can see the practical difficulties by
which the National Church Establishment in that
kingdom is encompassed ; and they are most desirous
to do all that the nature of the case will permit to
render the position of that Church less anomalous, and
to mitigate the practical difficulties which no legisla-
tion can wholly remove, because no legislation can re-
form the religious errors of a people, and lead them
from the superstitions of Popery into that reformed
Church which the State acknowledges and upholds, as
professing "the true religion. If, then, the present
Ministers, really desired, or were permitted by that au-
thority to which the necessities' of party compel them
to defer, to put the Church Establishment in Ireland
upon a better footing—to free it from disturbance—
to render it more efficient for teaching the reformed
doctrines—to remove the strife and heart-burning
which arises from collectingthe revenues of the
Church from poor occupiers of the Roman Catholic
persuasion—
if these were the objects of the Govern-
ment, set about in a kindly temper towards the na-
tional Church, they
-would have found very little ob-
stacle or difficulty of any kind in their accomplishment.
The Conservatives certainly would have thrown no dif-
ficulty in their they chose to set about their
reformt, way. But e
themselves very
worst spirit of tyrannous hostility.
with a violent Popish enemy
They in
leagued d
of the national Church. They did all that a careless
and insulting temper could devise to exasperate the
faithful adherents of the Church,
ecclesiastical and
civil. They raised up enemies where, by a moderate
and judicious policy, they might have had the assis-
tance of friends. They found the Church Establish-
ment in Ireland a labyrinth of difficulties ; and, as if
that were not enough, they placed in the midst a dra-
gon of faction, breathing from its pestilential nostrils
the " appropriation clause." The consequence of their
bad management is, that they have made matters much
worse than they were before. They have utterly failed

VOLTAIRE THE INTRODUCER OF SHAKSPEARE
INTO FRANCE.—" Voltaire was the first who made Shak-
speare known in France. The first judgment he pronounced
on the English dramatist was, like most of his first judg-
ments, marked by moderation, taste, and impartiality. In
1730 be thus wrote to Lord Bolingbroke :—‘ With what
pleasure have I witnessed in London the performance of
your tragedy, .Julius Ccesar, which for a hundred and fifty
years has been the admiration of your countrymen.' "

Chateanbriand's Sketches of English Literature.

THE SUPPLEMENT TO WALPOLE'S CORRES
PONDENCE WITH SIR HORACE MANN.—Mr. Colburn's
new and cheaper edition of the great body of Horace Wal-
pole's Correspondence with George Montagu and other
distinguished persons, will, by close printing, be included in
only three octavo volumes, so as to form a companion to
this delightful writer's letters to Sir Horace Mann. But
it will contain double the quantity of matter. The pre-
sent letters extend over a period of twenty-four years
(from 1735 to 1759), during which time Walpole was in
constant communication with Mr. Montagu, the Hon. H.
S. Conway, Lady Hervey, the Poet Gray, Countess of
Ailcsbury, Earl of Strafford, Lady Craven, Mrs. Hannah
More, and other learned and celebrated characters of the
time, with whom he was on habits of the closest intimacy.
The present collection has also the advantage of being en-
riched with valuable notes, now first added, illustrative of
the persons mentioned in the correspondence. The work
will appear in a few days.
BRUTAL ROBBERY.—William Williams, about
thirty, was charged at Chester, on Thursday, with a rob-
bery as singular as it was brutal. Mary Williams (the
prosecutrix), one of that class of unfortunate girls that herd
in Hanbridge, deposed that she is between eighteen and
nineteen. Saturday night, the 29th of October, she was
in company with Hannah Lee, at a tavern in Bridge-
street. The prisoner was there with another man. A few
minutes past eleven o'clock a watchman turned them all
' out, and she proceeded towards Hanbridge. The prisoner
overtook her, and induced her to accompany him on the
Walls. They proceeded round the Castle and over the
New Bridge. and passed the toll lodges. They continued
to walk together on the highway, and proceeded half-way
over the common, when he suddenly seized her wrist, and,
exhibiting an open knife, said, " Now, Madam, strip them
clothes off, and give them to me, or I'll stick this knife
into you." He then pulled her bonnet, cap, and shawl off,
and she, in her fright, pulled off her frock, stays, two pet-
ticoats, shoes, and stockings, leaving nothing on her person
but her under garment. This she did under the appre-
hension of danger from the knife, which ho brandished
over her. But, not satisfied with this, he tore her chemise
from her body, and, on her shrieking murder, knocked her
down and kicked her when on the ground, leaving her in-
sensible. She remained in that state, on one of the most
inclement nights of the season, about an hour, when, re-
gaining her consciousness, she made her way to a lodging-
house, kept by Hannah Bradshaw, in Hanbridge, where
she was put to bed, but she has been very ill since. Seve-
ral witnesses corroborated this statement. The prisoner is
a native of the neighbourhood, but resided several years in
Manchester. He has a wife and family. He was com-
mitted for trial.
TILE MAN WITH Two WI yrs.—Much excite-
ment, it appears, has for some time past existed amongst
the working classes in Braintree, in consequence of its
having been discovered that James Wright, a journeyman
brush-maker, had taken unto himself a larger portion of
"lovely womankind" than the laws of England allow. The
very tin kettles and broken saucepans have risen night after
night in judgment against the offender, sending forth sounds
emblematic of his domestic disquiet, and ram's-horns have
been seen stalking from street to street, warning frail man-
kind of the consequences if they allow their pledged hearts
and hands to wander from their plighted loves. Mister
Wright, it seems, was wearing away his span of life at Brain-
tree with Angelina, his apparent lawful wife, when his father,
who is a brushmaker at Witham, dropped in one unfortunate
day, accompanied by a lady named Fanny, who broadly al-
leged that the aforesaid Angelina was a usurper of her conju-
gal rights ; and, moreover, that the identical Mr. James we
have named, was the father of the child which she (Mrs.
Fanny) carried in her arms—the fact being that she had
just come from London to compel him to redeem his pro-
mise of having and holding her till death did them part.
The shock of this domestic earthquake, of course, upset
Angelina, but a
lady in distress was never yet left unpro-
tected amongst journeymen brush-makers, and accordingly
five of Wright's fellow workmen sallied forth to assert her
rights. The first step:was to rescue Angelina and her lord
from the parental frown and the conjugal finger-nails,—and
the next to hunt and hoot the besiegers of James's domestic
hearth from spot to spot, and from public-house to public-
house, till Fanny really wished herself amidst the hubbub
of London, and her paternal guardian making scrubbing-
brushes at Witham, for indeed the town of Braintree, like
Troy of old, appeared likely to be annihilated in a lady's
quarrel. Even the unoffending donkey which had brought
the wronged and slighted Fanny to Braintree was attacked,
the cart upset, and the whole party promised a visit to the
bottom of a horse-pond—no very flattering compliment in
the month of November, with the glass down to 28.
When father, mother, and supposed pseudo wife had been
fairly frightened from the town, the double-hearted James
Wright was led from his concealment, with Angelina upon
his arm, to the George public-house, where a bed-room was
engaged for them, and the conquerors left not till the pair
had marched off to the realms of old care-soothing Somrius,
being fully determined to maintain the supremacy of the
Braintree-bride. But then came the turning of the tables.
Wright, the father alleged that he had suffered assault and
battery, and to-day the five knight-errants, William Smith,
and others, were called upon to answer fur the assault.- -
The Bench were unanimously of opinion that the chage
of assault was proved against all the defendants.—Essex
Herald.

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1836.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nor. 23.
SCOTT V. LATIMER.
The plaintiff and defendant entered into a partnership
as wine merchants, in Oxford-street, in 1826, the conditions
of the partnership being that Latimer, who had an old and
well-established business, was to receive from Scott a sum of
1,500/. for a fourth share of that business, and to take at a
valuation a fourth part of the stock on hand, which was al-
ways to be kept up to the amount of 8,0001. The partner-
ship was to continue for twenty-one years ; but, as Latimer
had a large family, it was stipulated that at the expiration
of five years he might give notice to Scott to dissolve the
partnership ; and that, if a dissolution took place, Scott was
to receive a fourth part of the value of the stock, and a
sum of 3001. as a bonus, on condition that he did not
commence business as a wine merchant within fifteen miles
of the city of Oxford ; but if he did so commence busi-
ness then no bonus was to be paid. It was, moreover,
stipulated on the part of Scott that if Latimer dis-
solved the partnership, then Scott was to receive back a
proportion of his 1,500/., paid for good-will, to be calculated
on the number of years remaining to make up the twenty-
one which formed the period of the articles. These
conditions were strictly complied with, the money was
paid by Scott, and he continued to carry on the business
in the name of Latimer and Scott till 1832, when some
disagreements arose, and Latimer, who was at Birmingham
in the December of that year, wrote a note to Scott, in
which he offered him two things—to purchase Latimer 's
three-fourths of the business, or to dissolve the partner-
ship. The matter remained unsettled until the return of
Latimer to Oxford, when a circular, signed by both par-
ties, was sent to their customers, announcing the dissolu-
tion of partnership, and requiring an immediate settlement
of accounts. This good understanding between the par-
ties ceased, however, as the period for the termination of
the partnership approached. Latimer refused to sanction
the dissolution, to have the stock valued, or to pay Scott
any portion of his premium, and Scott retired from the
premises, commenced business iu another house in the vi-
cinity, and filed a bill in this Court to compel the dissolu-
tion, and have an account of the partnership property.
This bill and a cross bill, filed by Latimer, were heard be-
fore the Vice-Chancellor in February last, and his Honour
pronounced a decree in favour of Scott, and dismissed the
cross bill of Latimer with costs. Against this decree Mr.
Latimer brought the present appeal.
Mr. KNIGHT appeared in support of his Honour's decree.
Mr. WRAY was heard for the appellant up to the rising
of the Court.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Ifor. 23.
THE KING 14 THE GUARDIANS OF THE FOOR OF ST

PANCRAS.

In this case, which was not concluded yesterday when
we went to press,
Lord DENMAN said that the Judges would consider the
question, and come to a decision before the end of the pre-
sent Term.
Judgment postponed accordingly.
EX-PARTE CHARLES LAWRENCE, ESQ., V. THE LIVERPOOL