The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-23 00:00:00

ITALY.

. Letters have been received at Marseilles confirm-
'n g the report of the second victory of GARIBALDI,
over the
journ
Neapolitans. He took 1,500 prisoners. The
Gaeta virtually admit the fact of the defeat
13f the is of
Neapolitans. They speak of a battle in which
much blood was shed, without leading to any
result."

SICILY.
A report was current at Naples that Filangieri had
defeated the Palermitan troops, who to the amount
of 15,000 had sallied forth to give him battle
on the 10th, and that the city had surrendered ;
but inasmuch as, according to this same
rumour, he had not entered Palermo on
the 14th, we are inclined to consider the
whole as an invention of the Neapolitan
Ministers, to be used as a set-off against the
defeat of the Neapolitans at Rome, more especially
when we consider that the same Ministers caused a
Te Deum to be sung, on account of the victory of the
King of Naples over Garibaldi, with the nature
, of which victory we are already acquainted.
Another account states that the Sicilian troops
embarked on board the foreign ships at Palermo on
the 10th, and that the Neapolitans entered the city
without opposition. These are, however mere ru-
mours, which need confirmation.

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE
METROPOLITAN REFORM ASSOCIATION.
Sir,—On Monday the 21st the Incurabteedreius work,
d Estates
(Ireland) Bill went through Committee. A
but it may be hoped is destined to produce sameo
results in Ireland, and finally elsewhere. The Parlia-
mentary Oaths Bill drags its slow length along, to the
Manifest advantage of those who hope to see the scotch'd
snake of ecclesiastical monopoly patch itself together
again. The last thing heard of it, was that it was to be
read a third time on the 11th of June. The Landlord
and Tenant Bill, another weary business, attained the
same step of advancement to a third reading on
Thursday.
On Tuesday came on the annual question of voting
the
the adjournment of the House over the Derby day. On
1,3. present occasion the adjournment was carried by
13? ttgainst 119. Last year I believe the majority was
the 'o that the racing interest may be considered as on
advance. On.
03e.Eyillna same evening the Member for Lambeth
tion of
lO,ourt) made his motion for shortening the dura-
the Primaerliaments; which, after an adverse speech from
Woul Minister, was carried by 46 against 41. There
thi d appear to be some significance in the fact, that
th 8 and the Ballot question have both arrived at exactly
the same step of the ladder.
The ji
ouse was counted out, at a quarter past eight.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant.
AN OLD REFORMER.

London, May 23, 1849.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
The continued indisposition of the Lord Chancellor pre.
'mitt(' his Lordship sitting again to-day.

--.
THROLLS' COURT.,
CO.(THIS
V. DIMES.DAY )
—.TUOGNIENT.
The MASTER of the rictus gave judgment to-day in this
case, which our readers will recollect came before his Lord-
ship upon a motion referred to him by the Lord Chancellor,
under the following circumstances :—A suit had been insti-
tuted by Mr. Dimes against the Grand Junction Canal Com-
pany, and upon its being heard before the Vice-Chancellor of
F.ngland,that Learned J udge made a decree against Mr. Dimes.
From that decree Mr. Dimes presented a petition of re-hearing
to the Lord Chancellor, but during the pending of that peti-
tion
Mr. Dimes, discovering that the Lord Chancellor held
!hares in the company, asserted that his Lordship, being an
interested party, was incapacitated from signing the decree
made by the Vice-Chancellor of England ; and that, there-
fore, all the proceedings that had taken place were of no
effect, and ought to be considered as a nullity. On the case
belnVatiationetl to the itortl clltaloll9r3 his 144'414 di-

rected the Master of the Rolls to hear a motion on the bebali
of Mr. Dimes, that he might be placed in the same position 1
as if the Vice-Chancellor of England had pronounced no
decision in the case. Upon that motion the Master of thie
Rolls now gave judgment.
His Lonnsmr, after going at considerable length into the c is
stated his clear opinion to be that the Lord Chancellor as
not incapacitated from signing the decree of the Vice-C' 3 an-
cellor of England, in consequence of any interest he In id in
the Company, because, if' he was, there would be virtua Ily a
denial of justice; because Mr. Dimes, unless the decre s was
signed by the Lord Chancellor, could not appeal to the louse
of Lords. lie should therefore humbly advise the :Lord
Chancellor that the present motion ought to be refuse& ,with,
costs.
Nothing of any interest occurred in the other Equity
Courts.