The Sun.
London, England, 1831-01-29 00:00:00

ceedings instituted for the suppression of agitation,
by the authority of a Government which con-
•ists of the Marquis of Anglesea and Lord Plun-
kett, the ancient friends and abettors of illegal
agitation. It is wrong, no doubt, that witnesses or
jurors, or any other persons forming part of the
popular machinery by the aid of which the laws are
administered, should ever permit their attention to
the abstract and inherent merits of the case before
them to be disturbed for a moment by any extrinsic
circumstances whatever; but experience abundantly
proves, nevertheless, that extrinsic circumstances do
very frequently and powerfully influence the minds
of such persons. Nor is it possible, we think, for
the imagination to conceive any extrinsic circum-
stance so likely to defe:tt a criminal prosecution,
as the fact that the authorities who institute
it have, by their previous language and conduct,
upheld the moral innocence of the practices which
the prosecution is intended to punish and restrain.
That this is the precise case of the prosecutions
now going on in Ireland, nobody, we suppose, will
be so impudent as to deny. It is impossible to re-
flect upon the mischief and danger, which, in the
present temper and circumstances of Ireland, would
inevitably result from the failure of the prosecution
instituted against Mr. O'Connell and his confede-
rate demagogues, without anxiously wishing that
the persons who must be popularly considered in
that country as the authors of the prosecution were
such as could stand recti in curies. If any mischance
should arise, in a case of which the facts and the
legal merits are so abundantly clear, it will plainly be
impossible to ascribe it to any other cause than the
moral disqualification to which we have alluded on the
partof thechief members of the existing Government.
The present Administration of Great Britain will,
however, have itself exclusively to blame for what-
ever evil may arise in Ireland, whether the dema-
gogues whom it has provoked by withholding from
them place and power, or the ci-devant patrons and
abettors of those same demagogues, to whom it has
confided place and power, should triumph in the
approaching struggle. Why did not Earl Grey's
Administration adopt the obvious and honest policy
of admitting to high office in Ireland none but men
with clean hands—none but men unpolluted by
communion with the cause, the artifices, the crimes
of agitators ? Then the Government of Ireland
would have occupied high ground in its contest
with O'Connell and his fellow-conspirators. Now,
" change places; and, handy-dandy, which is the
justice, which is the thief."—Morning Past.

LAW INTELLIGEL‘CE.

ROLLS COURT, JAN. 26.
GILL V. SIIELLY.

In this case a testatrix had left a certain fund to
" children." It appeared that of the only children
whom she could have contemplated, one was legiti-
mate and the other illegitimate. The question in
the case was, whether the latter should take equally
with the former.
Mr. BACON contended with considerable ingenuity
that unless some intimation was given in a will that
illegitimate children had been intended by the tes-
tator, evidence could not be received to prove such
an intention, and that all property devised to
" children" should go to those alone who were
legitimate, or even to one as in this case.
His HONOUR considered it to be a general rule
that any person was at liberty to give evidence to
prove that he came under a description of legatees.
In this case it appeared that the testatrix must have
been aware that there only existed an illegitimate
and legitimate child—her intention in using the word
" children" could therefore not be doubted. She
must have intended both, and consequently the ille-
gitimate child should take equally with the legiti-
mate one.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 28.
E$- SLING V. TILE „MASTER AND WARDENS, &C. OF

THE MERCHANT TAILORS' COMPANY.

This. case occupied the attention of the Court tu-
day foi' a considerable time. It came on on an ap-
plication made in the last term by Mr. F, Pollock,
for a writ of mandamus to the Master and Wardens
of the Company of Merchant Tailors, commanding
them to permit certain members of the Company
to inspect and take copies of all records, books,
papers, and muniments, belonging to the Company,
or relating to their affairs.
Sir JAMES SCARLEIT now showed cause against
the rule.

In the affidavits of Messrs. Smith and Franks,
members of the Company, it was stated that their at-
tention had been called to the affairs of the Company
from reports that the Company's revenues were mis-
employed in frequent and extravagant feastings, and
by other mal-practices, on the part of those members
who had the management and controul of the Com-
pany's affairs ; that before 1810, the fine for admit-
ting freemen to the Livery of the Company was,thirty
guineas only, and that since then it had been raised
by the Master, Wardens, and Court of Assistants to
.56/. ISs., and afterwards to 801. 18s.; that most
lavish and expensive entertainments, involving the
outlay of thousands of pounds of the common funds
of the society, had been given without the consent
of the mpjority of the members, and for the purpose
of feasting persons who were not members ; that a
person who lately acted as clerk to the Company had
been found to have misappropriated the Company's
funds to the amount of several thousand pounds ;
that the defalcation had not been made good, nor
could the members ascertain, unless they were al-
lowed to look at the charters, by-laws, books, muni-
ments, and documents, whether such their common
funds had been properly applied and duly accounted
for. The affidavit, after disclosing some other matters
of minor importance, went on to state, that by a
charter of Richard 11. the power of electing the,
Master and Wardens was given to the Company at
large, and riot to any select body.
In showing cause against the rule, Sir JAMES
SCARLETT observed, that this application was in the
nature of a bill of discovery, or fishing bill, the ob-
ject of it being to endeavour, by art inspection of
the muniments and documents in the possession of
the Master and Warden, to discover some ground on
which to apply hereafter for a quo warraulo informa-
tion. Tllere was no suit or legal proceeding of any
kind at present pending, and the only reason for
this application was, the hope entertained by these
high-spirited gentlemen, who formed only a small
part of the Livery of the Company, that they should
he able by and by to call in question the title of the
present Master and Wardens. The Learned Counsel
proceeded to detail from the affidavit of Mr. De
Mole, the clerk and solicitor to the Master and
Wardens, the history of the Company, and of their
constitution and affairs.

Mr. GURNEY foiioVred on the same side. Before
he had concluded his observations,
Lord TENTERDEN, without hearing Mr. 6ampbell
or Mr. Coleridge, who were on the tame side, called
upon
Mr. POLLOCK to address the Court in support of
the "rule. The Learned Counsel then made some
observations upon the affidavits, and cited some
cases to shew that the Court had interfered on simi-
lar occasions; and he insisted that as the Liverymen
had sworn to obey the ordinances and 1)3-laws of the
Company, they had a right to inspect the muni-
ments, in order to see what those ordinances and
bylaws HILLw ere.was heard on the same side.

Lord TENTERDEN was of opinion that no suffi-
cient ground had been laid in this case for the man-
damus, and he thought that to call upon a corpora-
tion in this way to inspect all the records and muni-
ments would be productive of ouch inconvenience,
confusion, and uncertainty, that the Court ought
not to authorise such a proceeding.
The other Judges (Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE, Mr.
Justice TAUNTON, and Mr. Justice FATTESON) were
of the same opinion.
Sir J. SCARLETT hoped the Court would dis-
charge the rule with costs.
Lord TENTERDEN--I think the rule must be dis-
charged with costs, because If a person makes un