The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-17 00:00:00

manufacturing and commercial power of this country—the
protective system—which every year will inevitably render
at once more deeply destructive and mere difficult to deal
with—will be continued. Peel and protection are now one
and indivisible, and an income-tax their necessary attendant.
STANDARD.—Sir Robert Peel's financial statement left
night was characterised by Members of the Opposition as, in
its propositions, "unexpected," "unlooked for," " surprising,'
" bold," "gigantic"—and was generally admitted by all to be
sound in principle, and eminently promising of good to the
industrious and humbler classes of society. The state-
sent— otherwise a lucid and business-like detail, which
' rose into the higher order of eloquence only when the speaker
I had occasion to refer to the "magnificent economy "of the
Queen—deserves all that was said of it by the Opposition
speakers; its propositions are indeed bold and gigantic, and
directed principally to the permanent benefit of the humbler
and industrious classes, amounting to the reduction of nearly
three millions and a half of taxes, all pressing with undue weight
upon the classes in question, while, concurrently with this
relief, the defensive establishments of the empire are to be
fully maintained, and the naval department augmented to the
extent of 4,000 men. This is a proud and encouraging por-
trait of the British empire at this day ; and if we may so
speak, the artist who had to exhibit it to the view of his
fellow-subjects, gave the best proof of good taste allowing
his work to speak for itself. Here is a reduction of nearly
three millions and a half of taxes, the greater part of them
very old taxes, reduced at a stroke, net in submission to
popular clamour, for there has been no clamour on the sub-
ject ; not in pursuit of !popularity, for the Minister was
never so strong in Parliament or in the country ; not in
concession to public distress, for the country enjoys un-
exampled prosperity; but because the Minister can make
the reduction with safety ; and he can make thi reduction
with safety, because his measures have, in three years of
their operation, converted a deficit of more than three
millions annually into a clear surplus of five millions ; for so
great will be the surplus on th sth of April.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Fel). 15.
IN THE MATTCR OP THE LUDLOW CHARITIES.
The further arguments in this part-heard case occupied the
Court the whole day.
The Lord Chancellor sits in the House of Lords on Monday and
Tuesday next to hear appeals and writs of error. The Judges are
also expected to attend.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Feb. 15.
The Vice-Chancellor of England waa occupied the whole morn-
ing with the further arguments in the part-heard cases of Pearce
o. Brooks.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 15.
Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord DENMAN and a specia;
jury.)
BAKER r. LOWE. _ . .

This was an action brought ,by the plaintiff, who is a sur-
geon, residing at Hampton, against the defendant, who is a
half-pay officer, to recover a sum of 1931., for services per-
formed by the plaintiff for the defendant in his professional
capacity—also for medicine.
Mr. Chambers, Mr. Peacock, and Mr. Sewell, were for
the plaintiff ; and Mr. Crowder conducted the defendant's
case.
It appeared that the defendant was attacked on the 16th
of September, 1842, with spontaneous gangrene of the toe,
being this period about sixty-one years of age, and in pre-
vious good health. At first he felt a severe pain, and in four
days Mr. Baker amputated the toe. Inflammation proceeded,
and on the 6th of December Mr. Liston was called in,
and ordered a soothing treatment, a stimulating one, con-
sisting of brandy and wine, having been used by Mr. Baker.
The gangrene bad extended so far, that the defendant lost
his leg. Mr. Baker sent in his bill of 193/., but the defendant
said that he lost his leg in consequence of the injudicious
treatment of Mr. Baker. However, he offered to allow the
plaintiff 94/., which was refused.
The principal interest resulted from the different opinions
of the medical men who were examined.
Mr. Liston, Mr. Partridge, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Bransby
Cooper were examined on the part of the plaintiff, who indi-
cated—some of them more cautiously than others—that '
the application of stimuli was not improper treatment, and
that the application of the knife was right where what was
called " the line of demarcation" was properly marked.
On the part of the defendant, Mr. Lawrence gave a decided
opinion that a stimulating treatment was improper in this
case; that it was always better to leave nature to throw off the
diseased part, and that it was impossible for the line of
justify
the to be sufficiently marked in four days to
the use of the knife. Mr. Aston Key and Mr. Skey gave
pretty nearly similar evidence
The foot of the unfortunate gentleman was in Court to
assist the surgical gentlemen in their operations.
His Loßnsiiir having summed up the evidence,
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 138/. 14s. ;
also finding that there was no want of skill in the plaintiffi

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 14.

.Sittings at Nisi Prius before the LORD CHIEF BARON
and Special Juries.
GREEN V. PRICE.