The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-23 00:00:00

Follett is ingeniously exhibited in the brevity of
his answers. In the " scholion" note of Sir
James Scarlett he has christened the Duke of
Wellington and Sir Robert Peel by the Roman
names of Marius and Cinna ; those two States-
men and the nomination boroughs fell a sacrifice
to " Sylla the Dictator," or in plain English to
public opinion—before which also the close
Corporations will fall. Sir James Scarlett, who
was an old Whig, may have a cunning instinct
in the tricks of party, but rats sometimes run
into a wrong hole.—Morning Chronicle.
There is amongst the public men of England
one who has experienced an extraordinary vicis-
situde of fortune, and whose career should not
be forgotten at the present day and hour. This
individual set out in life as a member of that
profession which has not only its peculiar reward,
but leads also to the chief honours of the political
world. He courted the double fortune, and it
smiled upon him. At the Bar his progress was
rapid and steady, until, at length, he attained the
highest estimation amongst his professors, and
was looked upon as an ornament to it, and an
honour to his country. He only wanted poli-

tical connection to have his success consummated
with the investiture of the ermine. This, how-
ever, he had never sought for to the sacrifice of
principle. He connected himself early with the
party which, for its professions, enjoyed the
public esteem, and was not likely to obtain any
more substantial reward. With it he thought
and acted, and he enjoyed its highest confidence.
In council he was sagacious, and in his language
moderate, perspicuous, and impressive. He
rose in the Commons less as a debater than as
an authority, and even by his warmest opponents
was he respected. What is the sequel ? His
party is now established in power ; but where is
he ? Our readers must have felt that we have
been alluding to Sir J. Scarlett. Had he never
separated himself from his party, and the course
of events been uninfluenced by such a circum-
stance, who can doubt that he would now be
either Lord Chancellor or Lord Chief Justice
of England ? But there was nothing base,
nothing treacherous, nothing dishonourable in
the course he pursued in connecting himself
with Canning, or with the Duke of Wellington,
pledged to Catholic emancipation, then the
touchstone of liberal opinions. Others of his
friends had done the like—there was at the

time a disorganization of parties. Wherein,
then, was the unequivocal error which exercised
so decisive an influence on his actions, and
caused so great a change as has taken place in
his course—which has clothed him in the livery
of Toryism, and, upon the restoration of par-
ties, has marshalled him amongst the direct
antagonists of his early friends, the systematic
enemies of a line of policy of which, in the
natural course of events, he should have been
a zealous promoter ? The answer is—in his
prosecutions of the press for libel. That was
the sin by which he fell. For whether those
vindictive proceedings by which he ran down an
obnoxious public writer were prompted by the
Minister under whom he served, or by his
own uninfluenced judgment, it drew upon
him the severe reprehension of the Whigs, which
had the effect of binding him for ever, perhaps
under excited feelings, to the party with
which he then acted, and for ever estranging
him from those with whom he had grown up—
a brother in political principles. His crying
offence was, that he spurned the abstract doc-
trines of Whiisin—the professions of Whigism,
viz., that the law of libel, as applied to political

opinions or strictures upon public men for their
public actions, is inexpedient, and contrary to the
genius of the British Constitution. It was for
his abandonment of this article of his old creed
that Sir James Scarlett drew upon himself the
hostility of his quondam friends. For this has
he been thrown into the depths of Toryism;
for this has he been stripped'of public esteem,
and for this does he now, the first man—the
very first man of the English Bar—labour as
an Advocate. Meantime another Whig, in the
very reign of Whigism, and at the very moment
when he ostentatiously claims credit for his
Whigism, pursues the same obnoxious career,
with this only difference, that he prosecutes for
himself alone, while the ex-Attorney-General
prosecuted for others—for the very public itself
—to which the systematic tirades of his victim
seemed to threaten inconvenience. But the end
crowns the work, and we shall see.—Morning
Herald.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nor. 22.

REECE V. MORGAN.

This was an action of assumpsit tried at the last
Assizes for Carmarthen. The plaintiff was the
holder of a promissory note, accepted by the deceased
husband of the defendant, who was in the situation
of an executor. There was a plea of plene adminia-
travit, and a verdict for the defendant. The Court
was subsequently moved to set aside the verdict
and grant a new trial, and a rule Nisi having been
granted, Mr. EVANS this day opposed it.
The COURT, after attending to the points in dis-
pute, expressed an opinion that the pleadings re-
quired amendment.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, at the rising of the
Court, intimated that new trials would not be taken
to-morrow (this day).

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 22.

ALLESON AND ANOTHER V. DOWNES.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, re-
spectable solicitors, against the defendant, to re-
cover the amount of a bill of costs secured by a
guarantee.
A person of the name of Moreland had certain
proceedings pending before the Court of Review.
His solicitor, being attacked with cholera, died, after
which he (Moreland) was introduced to the plaintiff-,
who declined being concerned for him unless he
could procure them the guarantee of some respec-
table person to secure their costs. The defendant
accordingly passed a general guarantee for plain-
tiffs. A petition was filed in the Court of Review,
but when Moreland's Counsel read the aflidavitsof
the opposite party they advised them to abandon
the case, or he would subjtct himself to a loss of
6001., which he refused to do. Moreland pub-
lished a handbill charging his own solicitor, the
plaintiffs, and his Counsel with having entered into
a conspiracy with the opposite party : and when
the business came next before the Court of Review
the Counsel threw up their briefs on seeing the
handbill, though when they retained them they re-
ceived no fee.

After numerous witnesses were examined on
both sides,

Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS, for the defendant, cor;
tended that the guarantee in question was so gene-
ral it was indefinite.

Mr. Sergeant 60LERIDGE replied, on the part of
the plaintiffs, that it wai absurd to assume that the
defendant was ignorant of the guarantee he had
signed.

—The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for the
sum claimed.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 22.

STOKES V. WHITE.

This was an action on a case stated, to recover
damages sustained by the plaintiff, in consequence
of an improper arrest. The plaintiff's complaint