The Sun.
London, England, 1837-08-07 00:00:00

O'Connell was the Ministry. But we now want to
know whether this identity is to be equally maintained
in the Parliament just springing into existence.
Do the Ministerial speakers and writers, when
they boast of the accession of strength which
the Administration is to derive from the Irish elec-
tions—an accession of strength plainly and avow-
edly not their own, but that of Mr. 'O'Connell—
mean to intimate that Mr. O'Connell and the
Administration arc to stand in the same relation to-
wards each other during the existence of the next
Parliament as that in which they stood during the ex-
istence of the last? To this question we scarcely ex-
pect at the present moment any very distinct or intel-
ligible answer. But it is a question which, neverthe-
less, cannot long remain unanswered. The current of
affairs will not fail, in due season, to furnish a suffi-
ciently intelligible and distinct reply to this perplexing
interrogatory, and it is enough to know that it can-
not for long be postponed or eluded. Whether it
may be answered in the negative or the affirmative is
a matter of the least imaginable importance, so far
as the fate of the present Ministry is concerned. If
Lord Melbourne's Ministry and Mr. O'Connell's
faction are not to be one and the same thing iir the
next Parliament, as they were in the last, in this
case Ministers have no right, and will certainly
have no reason, to boast the victories of Mr. O'Con-
nell in the Irish elections as victories of which they
are to partake either the glory or the spoil. If, on the
other hand, Lord Melbourne's Ministry and Mr.
O'Connell's faction are to be still as heretofore identi-
cal in motive and object, in principle and feeling, then
we must go back to the English and Scotch elections,
and revise our own estimate of the effect they are cal-
culated to produce upon the spirit and conduct of the
House of Commons. The people of England at the
recent elections have manifested a repugnance to the
existing alliance between the Ministry and the O'Con-
nell faction much more decisive than is indicated by
the mere numerical strength which they have with-
drawn from the Parliamentary ranks of the Ad,ninis-
tration ; witness the expulsion at Middlesex and 4
elsewhere of the Ministerial candidates who sup-
ported the Melbourne Government on account of
this alliance, and the retention of those who tole-
rated the Government in spite of it. Upon this
subject the sense of the people of England has been
manifested less by the substitution of Conservative for
Ministerial Members of the House of Commons than
by the preference everywhere shown to such of the
latter as were supposed merely to have endured the
Melbourne O'Connell alliance over such as were known
to have approved and cemented it. And the sense of
the people of England, decisively expressed as it has
been, cannot be without its effect in the future pro-
ceedings of Parliament. Let then Mr. O'Connell's
gains in Ireland be appropriated by the Administra-
tionin the only way in which they can be appro-
priated, and it will speedily be found that the increase
of strength acquired by the constitutional party in the
elections of Great Britain exceeds in the proportion of
three to one the numerical estimate of the most san-
guine or the most Conservative calculator.—Morning
Post.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

TICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Aria. 5.

BENNETT AND HIND V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
This was an application for an injunction to restrain the
defendants from continuing to make a road over certain
lands in the county of Middlesex, adjoining to the Grand
Junction Canal. The land had been ranted by the plain-
tiff, with an undertaking on their part to furnish a specified
number of bricks every year, to be made from the earth of
the field. A contract had been made with the Railway
Company to empower them to continue their works over
the field of the plaintiffs, but that plaintiffs should be at li-
berty to finish making bricks upon the field during the pre-
sent season, and that all necessary conveniences should be
allowed them for that purpose. The Railway- Company
have, however, commenced making their road, which will
go through some of the chief works of the plaintiffs, and
thereby put them to great expense, and at the same time
prevent the possibility of a sufficient number of bricks being
made to enable them to fulfil their agreement.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said it appeared to him the
only question was whether the plaintiffs were to give notice.
His Honour gave leave for notice of motion to be served on
Monday next.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Aua. 5.
JUDGMENT..---BAKER V. HAREWOOD.

This is a suit respecting the validity of the will of Mr.
Thomas Edward Baker, who died on the 27th of March,
1833, being a widower, without children, and possessed of
real property to the value of between 400/. and 500/. per
annum, and a personalty amounting to 17,000/. or 18,0001.
The next of kin of the deceased were two cousins, Maria
Baker, one of the parties to the cause, and her sister,
who are in indigent circumstances. There are some un-
executed papers of the deceased, bearing date 1831, by
which it appears that he intended to leave a large pro.
party to his wife, who had previously been his house-
keeper, and in whom, it is alleged, he had always placed
the greatest confidence, and some legacies to his next of
kin and most intimate friends. The will now propunded
was, it is pleaded, prepared on the 27th of March, a few
hours previous to the death of the deceased, he having
given instructions to Mr. Knight, a solicitor, who had
been sent for; but after the instructions .had been deli-
livered, the deceased fell into a stupor, from which he
never recovered. The paper is, therefore, unexecuted.
It bequeaths the whole property to his wife, " for her
sole use and disposal, to do with it as she thinks proper ;"
and appointed her sole executrix and universal legatee.
Probate of the paper was taken out, and a caveat was
entered on behalf of Mr. George Baker, whose interest was
denied. Mrs. Baker subsequently married Mr. Harwood,
the party propounding the will, and, dying, left him the
whole of her property, as bequeathed to her by her first
husband. The former will is now opposed on the ground
that the testator was not of testamentary capacity.
The Learned JUDGE gave his decision this day. The
Court did not consider it necessary to go at any length into
the minute facts of the case ; and thinking that there was
not sufficient evidence to establish the validity of the will
pronounced against it, and at the same time revoked the
probate which had been issued.