The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-23 00:00:00

are directed to the personal and selfish objects of oust-
ing the Ministry, and obtaining power and place for
themselves, they have already made manifest by their
opposition to Sir C. Manners Sutton, the most qualified
of all men to fill the Chair of the new House of Com-
mons, but whom 18 years of service, during which his
pre-eminent merits were attested b, all parties, could
not protect against the efforts of party ravening for
power. That they are not at all scrupulous about the
means which they adopt to carry their point, was also
abundantly, proved by the invention and repetition of
calumnies which the authors of them dared not attempt
at, the last moment to sustain, but -which were fatally
injurious to the slandered party against whom this
e.)tem of fraudulent representation was sc long worked.
Another proof is now afforded of the " disinterested
patriotism" of the Whig-Radicals, and the spirit in
which the Opposition mean to evince their regard for
the public interests, by the following announcement in
the Courier of Saturday evening
We are enabled to announce that an amendment to the
Address t 3 his Majesty will unquesionably be moved in the
liOuse of Commons on Tuesday."
The Opposition know nothing at present of the con-
tents of the Speech from the Throne, of which the Ad-
dress will be, as usual, an echo. But, knowing no-
thing of the contents of the Speech, they have resolved,
it deems, to move an amendment to the Address, what
ever its contents may be. It is quite clear from this
pridetermination that if the Speech be such a one as
ought to satisfy the reasonable expectations of the
country, as to measures -of Reform, it will not satisfy
the Whig-Radical Opposition—no, not if it were the
speech of an angel. What is this but the passion, the
blindness, the fury of faction ? Wiii the good sense and
right feeling of the country sulanit to such factious
prOceedings ? Will the country allow good measures to
beset aside when proffered by Ministers capable of
Carrying them into effect, merely because Mr. O'Con-
nell and Lord John Russell have resolved on having
a •political partnership in the loaves and fishes, and
oeause the Whigs.will not allow others to carry into
effect those liberal but- safe measures of reforM which,
when in power, they had neither the inclination nor the
capacity to execute themselves ? We much mistake
the country, and the spirit that was evinced throughout
England during the late elections, if conduct so plainly
ami divracefully factious will raise the Whig-Radicals
in public estimation. Even Mr. Walley said the other
day, that if Sir Robert Peel bran Jit in sound measures
of reform, he would have the ardent support of the
people. But it is quite clear that the Whig rump,
rather than be out of office, would march to power
through paths of destruction and over the ruins of the
Constitution.—Morning Herald.

:No Member can vote on ih.? Address without
having previously taken the oalL. It is indispensable;
therefore, that every. Reformer attend and be
sworn btforefour o'clock to-nu»Tow, when the debate
on, the Address will take place. An amendment will
positively be proposed, and the country looks with in-
tense anxiety to the result. The muster of the Tory
corps on the late division will not fail to have been
closely examined by the Reformers ; only seven of all
that furious faction were absent, and their last
struggle of despair will not evince less zeal. The
friends of popular rights ought ;iirely to be 'at- least
egnally vigilant. Conscientious Reformers will do their
duty ;an increased majority in favour-of the amend-
ment to the Ministerial Address is fully expected ; it
will give confidence to the liberal electors, and be a
death-blow to the- Tories. The triumph to be gained
on this occasion will ensure. practical reforms; through
the discomfiture of a party who, having long existed as
the greatest scourge to their country, _are now striving,
by all possible devices, to regain their dominion.
Truth and honesty demand that they shall be treated
with the scorn and indignation due to their hypocrisy.
—Morning Chronicle.
The present Ministers took office by virtue of the
Royal prerogative, exercised without any assigned or
assignable reason : they proceeded to dissolve a most
popular Parliament, in the second year of its exist-
ence, by a like exercise of sheer prerogative ; and we
are now told they are resolved so far to forget their
duty and gratitude even to the Crown as to retain their
places, in despite of the Commons of England, upon
the narrow and invidious basis of royal prerogative.
Having ousted a Ministry that had no trial, and that
was preparing to effect measures in accordance with
well known principles of its Members, these intrusive
Ministers now presume to ask for what they call a fair
trial, in order, as they promise, that they may effect
measures-in direct contradiction to all the-former-prin,'
ciples of their lives. So profligate a Ministry, standing
upon grounds so- dangerous an:l so nearly unconstitu-
tional, has seldom dared to look the country in the face ;
and yet it has the effrontery to call those who oppose- it
factious. Let them read what Mr. Burke wrote on
an occasion infinitely less strong than this ; Iris is a
plain doctrine, according to which, " The King is in-
trusted with the deliberative choice and election to
office; the people have the negative in a Parliamentary
refusal to support. - Formerly (he says) this power of
control was what kept Ministers in awe of Parliaments,
and Parliaments in reverence with the people. If the
use of this poWer of control on the system and persons
of administration is gone, every thine- is lost—Parlia,
ment and all.
..We may assure ourselves that if Par-
liament will tamely see evil men take possession of all
the strongholds of their country, and allow them time
and means to-fortify themseltes, under a pretence of
giving them a fair
.trial, and upon a hope of disco- 1
vering whether they will not be reformed by powers
and whether their measures will not be better than
their prinCiples, such a Parliament will give coun-
tenance to their measures also, whatever that Parlia-
ment may pretend, and whatever ,those measures may
be ."7-11:torning Chronicle.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

ATTORNEY-GENEP.AL V. GROCER'S COMPANY.

This was an action brought to-co7imel the Grocers' Com-
pany to raise a surn of 4,6204, with interest since 1687, and
render it available for the charitable purpose for which it
was originally intended.
Sir W. HORNE said, that in 1C;37, when a Commission
was issued for the purpose of inquiring into the state of the
various charitable institutions then existing in London, it
appeared that the Grocers' Company had, among other
monies, a sum of 4,6201., deposited with them, to be lent
out at an easy rate of interest to poor members of the Com-
pany. The Commission decreed that the Company should
raise this money in twenty years, -and that till it was raised
-it should stand. as a charge on tl:vir property. This was
never done, and the intentions of the donors bad been
defeated.

Sir C. WETHERELL addressed the Court for the defen-
dants. The case was adjourned.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

HARVIE V. HICKFORD AND OTHERS.

This was an action against the defendants, as common
carriers, for negligence in the loss of goods sent from Lon-
don to the defendants' wharf at Liverpool. The defendants
pleaded first not guilty ; and, secondiV, that they had pub-
lished a notice that they would riot he answerable for the
loss of any goods directed to be left till called for, for the
convenience of the sending the same ; and that there was a
particular usage at Liverpool that the consignees of- goods,
after notice given them of the arrival of such goods, should
send to the carrier's and take them away. The plaintiffs
replied and admitted the usage, but averred that within a
reasonable time after notice of the arrival of the goods, the
plaintiff did send to take them away; but they were then lost.
Sir J. CAMPBELL stated the case, and called witnesses.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the Jury for the
defendant, and several witnesses were. called to prove the
general knowledge the consignees had of the practice of im-
mediately sending for the goods on their arrival at the wharf.
Sir J. CAMPBELL replied.
The -Jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
200/. ; observing that they were of opinion that there was
not reasonable time to remove the goods on the day the
freight note was delivered.

COURT OF COMNIoN PLEAS.

MOORE V. DICKINSON.

This was an action of assault brought by the plaintiff, a
bricklayer, against the defendant, who is in the shoe line.
The CHIEF JUSTICE having summed up, the .Tury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 101.