The Sun.
London, England, 1824-07-22 00:00:00

was some time ago obeyed, when she commanded
the horrible sacrifices to be performed, of which
a detail has been laid before the public. The Ca-
tholics in Wexford haying already, the belief in
the continuance of miracles (a belief which they
share with not a few Protestants),had been heated
by their priest, and were prepared for any extrava-
gance. There is another subject which may with
both Protestants and Catholics be made the
handle to much mischief, we mean Prophecies.
Many well-informed people consider Pastorini's
Prophecies by no means inoperative in Ireland
at thb present moment; and we all know the
alarm which was excited in this country.by the
prophecies of Brothers, which were implicitly
believed by crowds about the beginning of the
French Revolution. Much of the fanaticism of
the present day has been produced by the higher
ranks, who were so frightened by the Frenchß.e-
-volution, that they discouraged every thing like
the exercise of the reasoning powers on the
part of the lower orders, and thought they
could never be too irrational.—They were griev-
ously mistaken in all this, as they may yet have
'occasion to find. No man is so little to be de-
pended on as he who is commanded by his ima-
gination. It is the interest of people of property
that the people should be rational and sober-
minded, for you may calculate on the course
which a reasoning man will pursue, but you can
:not calculate on enthusiasm. The Machiavelians,
therefore, who speculate on the debasement of
the people, are as wicked as they are unwise.

LAWINTELLIGINCE.

COVRT OF CHANCERY, JULY 21.

TOM PAINE'S BONESI TAE NAVY, AND THE BAR.
HALSTED AND COLTHORP.
Mr. SHADWELL stated the circumstances of the case. Sir
Laurence Halsted purchased from the plaintiff the land tax of
an estate for 2901., and received the legal title-deeds. A dispute
arose as to the right of paying the expences of the conveyance,
amounting to 71.,each party contending that he ought not to pay
it. The matter was brought into Chancery. His Honour, the
Vice-Chancellor, decided that the plaintiff should pay the 71.,
and made a decree directing Sir L. heisted to pay the purchase
money and the interest on it, accumulated since he had received
possession of the purchased property. The gallant Admiral ap-
pealed to:his Lordship, who confirmed his Honour's decree,
and ordered the Admiral to pay the purchase money and the
interest. . The Admiral left the country in the interim, having
been ordered in his Majesty's ship Iris to the West India sta.
lion. The object of the present motion was, that a notice of
the order served on the Admiral's legal agent, might be allowed
by his hardship to stand as a valid service on the Admiral him-
.self, Mr. Shadwell's clients had made, though flushed with
victory, the fairest and most moderate offers to the gallintAd-
miral. They proposed, in the spirit of conciliation, that he
should either pay them the purchase money and subsequent
interest without proceeding to further litigation, or surrender
the purchased property back to them. He would do neither.
The Lone CHANCELLOII.--They may as well have asked
the Admiral to surrender a twenty-four gun ship to them with-
out firing a Shot.
Mr. AGAR, for Admiral Halsted, contended that the proceed-
ing had not reached that point of consummation stated on the
other side. His client had given notice of a motion to discharge
his Lordship's confirmatory order on the ground of its irregu-
larity. That motion was not yet disposed of; the matter of
litigation was still pending; he trusted therefore that his Lord-
ship would not make any conclusive order until that motion
should have been decided. As to the boasted spirit of concili-
ation, the adverse party showed no such thing ; in fact, they
were actuated through all this cause by a spirit of decided hos-
tility, and that arising from no common circumstance, viz. the
importation of Tom Paine's bones The admirers of that per-
son's politics appointed a public procession on the occasion
ofhis arrival. Among the other processional ornaments, they
r lilted banners and flags. Sir Laurance had won several from
the enemy in the course of lila naval battles,
.and hung them up
in Alton church, which stood near his mansion. The ritinites
took the liberty of pulling them down, nua carrying them
among the other funeral decorations in the proccaalon. • In the
Connie• of their recto Onoy ail vatleutk ay..% uo e Us 815 l_nu.
rence's lodge,who having learned the uses to which the trophies
of his,laird-earned victoxies were perverted, ordered them to
be removed from the , procession, and restored to their sacred
depository.' Some of the legal advisers of . the present pro-
ceeding's' were friends to the memory of Paine, and of course
unfriendly to the Admiral for his conduct on the occasion of the
procession ; from this' arose, the present hostility. Mr. Agar
concluded a train of ingenious reasoning by expressing his
hope that his' Lordship would dismiss the motion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the motion to discharge
the order was not disposed of
yet. The sum of money which
was the bone of contention in this case was not very large, but
probably it would appear larger in the eyes of an Admiral of
the White, Red, or Blue, than an Admiral of the Black (silk).
His Lordship regretted the feeling of hostility in this case ; but
Admirals would- sometimes lose their good humour towards
the Bar, and sometimes with good reason. They did not ge-
nerally hold Very high opinions of the Bar. His Lordship re.
merobered en Admiral, and one of high character too, who
candidly told his Lordship' that he did not " think he could do
greater service to the country than by hanging up 290 lawyers.
When t).lo4;ordship expressed his surprise at the opinion, and
asked the Gallant Admiral what were, in his estinietioe, the
constituents of a lawyer, he said he considered every man who
could read or write to
be a lawyer. The quarrel on the present
'occasion was .about 71. His Lordship thought sonna time ago
that he sltdithi hear no more of the business; but if people
would quarrel. about 'nothing, his Lordship could 'not prevent
it. Ile remenibered Lord Thurlow to have said in West-
minater Hall, that he would rather hear &dispute about a penny
than about 500/. ; it would be more amusing, and less injurious.
—Since the parties here wished to cume'into conflict, his Lord-
ship should help them to do it—but by a judgment which one
of them would not like.—Motion refused.

COURT OF' KING'S BENCH, JULY I.
• CURIOUS CASE.—YOUNG v. WRITE.
Mr. SCAR LETT stated that this action was brought to recover
4311. Ss. 3d. paid as purchase money, and auction duty, to the
defendant, an auctioneer. A person named John Franks, late
of Dorking, Surrey, left by will a freehold estate to his son.
The son and Testator both died, and the Trustees put up the
property to sale. The plaintiff being.deiirous of bidding, at.
tended the auction at Dorking, and became a purchaser. lie
paid the defendant 4311. It then appeared that a difficulty
occurred in getting a conveyance. Two of the Trustees had died,
and the third was a lunatic. Mr. Young consulted a conveyancer,
and on looking at the will, they found the property by the
bequest was for the benefit of children alive at the death of the
Testator. Three were living, and it was stated that they might
join in making a conveyance, but a new difficulty arose. A
fourth child was born two days after the grandfather was
hatried, and about a week after his death. This child was held
Wl* alive at the death' of the testator, and according to a welt"
known deCisien in the House of. Lords, as well as the Statute
of William, in favour of posthumous children, was considered
entitled to share the awe.
Conveyance, and. flee plaintiff could get no title to the property.
Under these circumstatices he sought to recover back his de-
posit. This infant could not execute a
The bill of sale and defendant's receipt for the money were
Put in and proved.
The Solicitor to the Trustees under the will of Mr. John
Franks, proved the order for sale, the death of two of the trus-
tees, and lunasy of the third.
The Commisaion of Lunacy taken out in Middlesex against
the said trustee was also given in evidence.
The will of John Franks was produced.
Mr. 111 RYATT, in behalf of the defendant, took several
objections. He admitted that-the House of Lords had decided
that a child born in due time after the death of the parent.
would take under a will. The lOtit and llth of Nlitiliam
also gave that right to posthutnous children, but be did net con-
sider the case before the Court one to which the above detision
would apply. The will gave the property to such children as
might be hying at the death of the testator, but the testator did
not contemplate a child unborn. Had it been a clear case of
a posthumous -child claiming an estate after the death of the
father, it would have been Ldifferent question. The Learned
Counsel also contended that the. Venue was wrong. It ought
to have bein in Surrey where the sale took place, and the
cause of action arose,

Mr. SCAIILETT, upon, the licit point, said, ise relied on. the
Cominiasion of ,Lunacy against• one of. the Trustees, having
been taken out hi Middlesex: That matter he considerect itn-
)Artant in the cause of action, and sufficient to justify the venue
bean 'laid in Middleaerc.
The Lotto CHM" JUSTICE said, if all the children had
been adults the Lord Chancellor would have directed a convey.