The Sun.
London, England, 1829-07-09 00:00:00

standing, and (oF what we may denominate with
some liberty of speech) high in office. It only
fills eleven octavo pages, but is too full of matter,
and too piquant in style, to be overlooked. It
is, in fact, the production of a mind of no ordi-
nary calibre—of a Whig of the school of Ju-
nius, and of one who, if he has not imbibed all
his energy, is not assuredly deficient in any
portion of the spirit which moved him. The
writer of the " Memorandum" taxes the Whigs
not only with general incapacity—with general
carelessness and inattention to the public
interests—with weakness and base subserviency
to the " powers that be"—but with having
" submitted to total obliteration" from weak
or venial motives. The grounds on which
the letter writer endeavours to establish his
charge are, first, the practical declaration
of the Whigs on the accession of the
Duke of 'Wellington to the Premiership of their
having no connection with party--secondly,
their junction with Mr. Canning, who only
agreed with them in principal on one question—
that of Catholic emancipation ;—thirdly, the ge-
neral want of talent—the general inadequacy for
the management of public business—and general
absence of that esprit de corps which charac-
terized the party in the days of Fox, which has
lately been manifested ;—and lastly, the truly
pitiful exhibition which they made on the motion
of the Marquis of Blandford for a reform of the
Commons House of Parliament. On more than
one of these points there is assuredly no defence for
the part which the Whigs played. They betray-
ed extreme weakness, and also extreme inca-
pacity. They quarrelled among themselves,
when they ought to have been endeavouring by
every means to keep the common enemy at bay
—they took shelter under Tory wings, when
they ought to have been fighting under their
own standard. All these things were great fol-
lies—in some instances, perhaps, worse than fol-
lies ; but while we concede these things to the
writer of the " Memorandum," we must at the
same time enter our protest against the assertion
that " the repeal of the Corporation and Test
Acts, and the removal of Catholic disabilities,
were a triumph which belongs to the enemies of
liberality." We are not so blinded by prejudice,
or so attached to the exclusive interests of par-
ties, as not to perceive the good sense which has
hitherto guided the proceedings of the Duke of
Wellington, or so utterly unaware of the liberal
principles of the Earl of Aberdeen, as not to give
them credit for being desirous to accomplish what
the writer of the " Memorandum" would confer
on them as an exclusive merit ; but which was
assuredly forced upon them, and would have
been forced on any Government, by the repeated
discussions which had taken place in Parlia-
ment, and the growing increase of know-
ledge and liberality among all classes. The
writer of the " Memorandum," in fact, con-
fesses that such was the case, when he states that

" the strong current of the general mind—sweep-
ing before it the withered bigotries of the last
generation, and the prejudices which obstructed
improvement—hurried even the Tories along its
eventful channels," and made them yield to the
force of things. And as little are we disposed
to allow that the Whigs were guilty of a great
crime to the party which supports them, in
taking office under Mr. Canning. They un-
doubtedly sacrificed themselves, but it was on
the altar of a just cause—they chose the least of
two evils, and that which they did choose was
assuredly considered by every one at the time, as
the least injurious to the country. Notwith-
standing these observations, we commend the
letter in question, to the attention of our readers.
It assuredly merits a perusal from the Whigs.—
Horning Advertiser.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JULY 8.

HAYES V. HARE.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved for an order of
the Court, to compel the defendant to deliver up,
within eight days, the possession of a farm at present
in his occupation, and that in default the defendant
be committed to the Fleet for contempt. The farm
was situated in the county of Lincoln, and consisted
of 26 acres. It had belonged to a Mr. Abbot, who
on his death left it to his widow and six children.—
The defendant had married the widow, and cultivated
the farm, and it was on the ground of mismanage-
ment on the part of the defendant that this applica-
tion was made. It was stated in the affidavits that
the defendant, by improper and forced culture, had
so exhausted the land, that it would take many years
to recover it.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR, with these affidavits
upon the subject of mismanagement on the part of
the defendant, did not see how he could refuse to
make him give up possession of the farm. He should
therefore make an order that the defendant deliver
up possession within eight days after service of the
notice ; but he should not attach to this order any
thing about commitment for contempt.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 8.
EX-PARTE MARY PRICE.

On the motion of Mr. WYBURN, the rule for an
attachment against the husband of Mary Price, for
non-payment to her of a sum of money by way of
alimony, pursuant to an award, was made absolute,
no cause being shown.
THE KING V. THE JUSTICES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE.

Mr. CAMPBELL showed cause against a rule ob-
tained by Mr. Denman, for changing the venue in
this case from the county of Nottingham to that of
Derby, or some other adjoining county. The
Learned Counsel stated, that this application had
been made on the affidavit solely of Colonel Wild-
man, the owner of the manor of Newstead, which
affidavit merely stated " that the deponent verily be-
lieved that a fair and impartial trial of the issue in this
case could not be had in the county of Nottingham."
Lord TENTERDEN—The present affidavit is in-
sufficient, and therefore the rule must be discharged.

WHITMORE AND ANOTHER V. WILKS.
Lord TENTERDEN delivered the judgment of the
Court in this case, which was argued on Saturday
last OR a rule nisi for a nonsuit. or new trial. The
rule for a new trial must be made absolute, without
costs.

NAYLOR 4Np OTHERS V. TAYLOR.
In this case a rule nisi had been obtained to set
aside the verdict for the plaintiffs and enter a non-
suit, and it came on for argument on a former day in
the present term. The action was brought on a
policy of insurance, dated the 6th of March, 1826,
on goods by the ship Monarch. The plaintiffs were
manufacturers at Wakefield, and the defendant, John
Taylor, was an underwriter at Liverpool, who had
subscribed the policy for 2001. The insurance was
" at and (torn Liverpool to any port or ports of the
river Plate, and in the event of a blockade, or being
ordered off the river, with liberty to proceed to any
other port, and there wait or discharge," The ship
sailed from Liverpool with a cargo of haberdashery
and carpet goods on the 11th of March, 1826, on
her voyage to Buenos Ayres, On her arrival, in
May, off Monte Video, a Brazilian frigate (the Pc-
ranga) bore 'town upon her, captured her, and
carried her into that
pa7r. for an
uitittempt, as was
ch the Emperor
alleged, to break the blockade vc..
of the Brazils had previously declared upon 54en"
Ayres and all the ports on the river Plate. The
crew of the Monarch (14 in number) were all, with
the exception of the Captain and three of the seamen,
made prisoners, arid detained at Monte Video about
a month, at the expiration of which time, the fie'