The Sun.
London, England, 1832-08-04 00:00:00

DINNER TO DR. BOWRING.

(From the Blackburn Gazelle.)
On Wednesday evening, a public dinner was given to Dr.
Bowling by the electors of Blackburn, in the large room of
the New Inn, JAMES PILKINGTON, Esq., in the chair,
when about two hundred respectable inhabitants sat down to
an entertainment which was indeed a " feast of reason and a
flow of soul."

The CHAIRMAN rose to propose the first toast, and in do-
ing so observed, that a communication had just been received
from one of the principal inhabitants of Clitheroe, saying that
he would have been present at the dinner but for the horrible
butchery perpetrated there by the military, at the instigation
of the Tory candidate, and a set of infatuated Magistrates.—
(Shame, shame.) Toast,—" The People, the only source of
legitimate power."—(Drunk with three times three, and loud
applause.)

The next toast was,—" The King—the first Magistrate of a
free people."—(Drunk with three times three.)
The CHAIRMAN then gave,—" Our distinguished guest,
Dr. Bowring."

Dr. BO WRING rose and said—Gentlemen, I want a strong
voice—and I have only a weak one now—because I wish to
give vent to all that indignation with which my mind is shaken
in bringing before you the deplorable history, the details of
which I hold in my hand. I allude to the butchery at Clitheroe.
—(Hear, hear.) I could scarcely believe the details which I
have read, were it not that they come from an honourable and
undoubted source. I am told, that yesterday, when the people
who assembled together in Clitheroe, and scouted the Tory
candidate from amongst them, had most of them retired,
—when the remainder were 'enjoying themselves, as upon
a festival that was to celebrate the cause of liberty,
—and when the scene of enjoyment had more the
appearance of a fair day than of any thing else,—a
candidate, a man who in his place in Parliament has opposed
all Reform—a West India proprietor, who on all occasion has
resisted the demands of those whom he call. slaves, but who I
call his brothers—(Loud cheers)—that man, headed by sol.
diers, forced his way through the people—and those people were
sabred that his presence might be intruded on them.—(Tremen-
dous cheering.) It is stated that the Bailiff of the place, the
principal authority, opposed this inhuman—this flagitious in-
trusion, but that the magistrates persisted in calling out the
military, and in drawing the sword which no brave men ever
drew on such an occasion, to attack the defenceless, and dip
their weapons in the blood of their countrymen.—(Cheers.) I
did not believe that the scenes witnessed in this neighbourhood
some years ago would have been repeated ; but so convinced
am I of the desperate determination of the enemies of
the people—so sure am I that the lesson taught to them
ought to be most severe, that if I had been in Parliament, I
would have lent my feeble assistance to bring about an inquiry
even now into the atrocities of Peterloo.—(Loud cheers.)—
The proceedings at Clitheroe are even more flagitious than the
Manchester massacre, for we know that so tender, op tenacious
is our law in all matters connected with the exercise of the
electoral franchise, that soldiers are not allowed to approach a
town when an election is going on, lest there should be any im-
proper influence used to prevent the free exercise of the elective
right.—(Hear, hear.) But here are the soldiery leagued with
and used by men who are the enemies of Reform, or in other
words, the enemies of the people. In what terms of insult and
efikontery did these hunters of their fellow men attack the
defenceless ? What can be ones feelings when the ministers
of a Church called national are found countenancing and en-
couraging proceedings like these ? Can any one believe that

the Church of England can remain unreformed when her mi
nisters head massacres like that at Clitheroe ?—(Cheers.) Does
any body believe that the public indignation will consent that
the concerns of a national church shall remain much longer in
hands so unholy—so daring—so murderous—so uninstructed
by the past—so heedless of the present—and so indifferent to
the future? Do these men believe that they will be allowed
to sow the wind—the wind of passion—the wind of calumny
—the wind of fury—and that they will not reap the whirlwind
of public indignation ?—(Loud cheering.) Is this a time,
when the people are entering into their heritage, for such
frightful—such bloody experiments to be made? I hope not. I
hope the advocates of the people will be on the alert, and that
they will stamp deserved ignomy on the foreheads of those who
are so regardless of every thing—so deaf to all instruction—
so incorrigible that they have nothing to learn from our suffer-
ings, and nothing to diminish from the excess of their own
passions.—(Cheers.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.---(THIS DAY.)

JUDGMENTS.-EX-PARTE ELSEE IN THE MATTER
OF JOYNER.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, in giving judgment in this
matter, stated that there were several points in contest : one
important question was, whether the joint estate ought to be
at liberty to prove against the separate estates, for the monies
taken out of the concern by Surridge and Joyner, jun., for
stock.jobbing transactions, unknown to Joyner, sen. ; and
upon the whole, and upon the authorities, the Court felt
bound to decide that question affirmatively in favour of the
petitioners. With respect to an item of 600/., which had
been paid in full by the assignees, to a gentleman of the name
of Turner, for notes he had received after the commission had
issued, his Lordship was by no means satisfied that that transac-
tion could: stand, and therefore directed an inquiry into the
facts respecting it, as well as upon some other minor points.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN submitted, that the petitioners
were at once entitled to their costs, on the ground that the pro-
ceedings had very materially benefitted the estate.
The LORD CHANCELLOR felt at present disposed to re-
serve that question. The conduct of the assignees did not en.
title him at present to say they ought to pay the costs ; but
his Lordship was by no means disposed to think the estate
would not ultimately be very materially benefitted by the pro.
ceedings that had been instituted by the petitioners.