The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-30 00:00:00

EYI4‘.N ING EDITION.

SECOND EDITION.

S ,2%.* OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM TUE EVENT:IG PAPERS CV THIS DAY.
(From the Globe.)
Mr. Joseph Sturge and the Herald are emp;oyed in
the agremble occupation of quoting one another, and
trying to show that the opium meeting of Friday last
was of some importance. They accuse a portion of
the London press of endeavouring to depreciate the
said meeting by the use of " falsehood and ridicule."
Of the former they must know we were not in-
tentionally guilty, as we stated the numbers on the
authority of the Post—accurately we still believe. On
Monday the Herald became angry, called names, and
said at one period the room contained 800 persons ; and
to-day it is a thousand, and " crosided." We were not
there, but should be glad to know at what hour " by
Shrewsbury clock" it would have been difficult to
swing a cat in the crowd. At this rate of progres-
sMn we shall not be surprised to hear in about
a week that many hundreds of respectable. per-
sons—"
in buckram suits"—were unable to obtain ad- '
mittance. Mr. Sturge says—" A conclusive proof, if
any further were wanting, of the number and respecta-
biiity of the meeting, was the triumphant defeat of a
large and apparently a regularly organised number of
persons who attended the meeting for the purpose of
opposing the objects for which it was convened, and
moving amendments on the resolution." Yet this nu-
merous body, according to the Herald, mustered only
five bands in support of their amendment. No doubt
the majority was with Mr. Sturgr, hut that is surely no
proof of the respentibility of the meeting. That,
moreover, is a point which we did not dispute. We only
said that it was unimportant, and that the only names
which we had ever heard before were those of the Chair-
man, Mr. Burnett, the Reverend Boatswain Smith, and
Mr. Sturge. Had any other person whose name was
given ever sail or done anything worth mentioning, we
do not doubt that Mr. Sturge-and the Herald would
have told us. In the absence of all information on this
head, we still boll that the meeting was insignificant.
(From the Standard.)
_ . ..

I It is well to remind the Duke of Wellington ar.d
his friends, as the Times does with characteristic abi-
lity, that no one of the conditions, upon the fulfilineut
of which it was intimated that a favourable conside-
ration might be given to the Municipal Bill, has,
in fact, been fulfilled : far from it—every one of
the douses guarded against by these conditions has
been practised with shameless effrontery ; but we
say again, that if ev(ry one of these conditions
had been fulfilled with perfect fidelity, new proofs of the
dengor of the Municipal Bill arising in other quar-
ters ought to be decisive against entertaining it. And
have we not these new proofs in the present tem-
per of the Irish, Romanists, which is said by the
hroniele to be, in a " fierce flame," and
iviaase;" agitation ."7 werlearn from the same authority
"is starmy:ifild univerSiik" And why ? Because it
is proposed to prevent the practice of fraud, and
,eersotiation, and perjury at elections. Is this the
neeperit for cUnferring power upon persons animated by
4‘.llAmes " and " storms ?•',! Are persons who can be so
gaily affected by a danger threatened only to perjury,
fraud, and personation, exactly the men in whose
bands it is safe to place at any time the govern-
ment of their more peaceable fellow-subjects, with
a power of tax itiou ? Again, is the repeal of the
action likely to be retarded or •to be accelerated
by incorporating the masses of repeulers by char-
ter, and giving them money and authority to
promote their objects ? But some one will say,
perkaps, though we can scarcely imagine the notion to
come from any one who has not " outslept Endymion"
_concede the Municipal Lord Stanley with-
draw his measure of reform, and the Romanists will be
content. To such simple siumberers of the last twelve
years we reply, in the words of Mr. Daniel O'Connell
himself at his mob-meeting of Tuesday-
- Why, ticy did not give us religious liberty until the
year 1829—and then did they give it to us, even? Was
it a free gift? Were wo not imploring them to give it to us
before they consented ? Oh ! yes, we were imploring, to
be sure, but we implored. with five or six millions at our
backs. Whenever you want to persuade a stubborn fellow,
wet) won't go on, bring five or six and twenty fellows with
yee•_.if p,u want to cow a fellow who won't do what is right,
by all means have as many of your neighbours lookinir at
you a, you earl. - So ccc cock five or six mi lions to look
at Wellington- and Peel and Co., and behold they 1.01,k
the infection ',in:it as if we fad the cholera. Pea and
Wellington took the emancipation cholera, and we Boc-
ce( ded in infteting• them:—( Great cheering.) Yes, v e
got tne emancipation, and how ? We got it, and no thanks
to them—that is the way we got it."
Tnis is the gratitude to be .expected from Mr.
O'Ct naell and his party, this is the peace that is bought
by conee;sion. [Gratitude truly I Gratitude for
what ? Far granting what- could no longer be re-
fused—Catholic Emancipation l This is sheer absurdity.
—En. Sias.] . _

(From the Courier.)

The assassination of Mr. Gaudin; West, the bro-
ther of the late Conservative Member for Dublin, is an
addition to the enormous mass of guilt, which a b got ed
and infuriated faction have accumulated upon our un-
happy Sistur Kingdom. After this atrocious murder, i!.
.
will be difficult for the most unscrupulous advocate of
the s 3 stem that preserves an Administration in offices,
of which it does not appear to comprehend any one of
the duties, to contend that the measures of the Whigs
for the government of Ireland are not calculated to
render life and property there worth the purchase of a
day, or even an hour. The murder of Lord Norbury,
which took p!aae on his own grounds,in the broad light of
day, and nritii the foreknowledge of the vicinity, through
whose criminal misprision the assassins have hitherto
eluded the hands of justice, ought to have caused an
immediate and thorough revision of the Whig system of
misgovernment. To these murders we may add the
numerous crimes of all descriptions arising from poli-
-6,111 agitation and priest.), encouragement, which were
brought to light by Lent Roden's Committee. A fur-
ther proof of the miserable condition to which Ireland
has been reduced in order that Ministers may continue
to receive unearned salaries, is found in the official
returns on the state of crime, which, although some
were obvious y garbed, corroborated the fact, that the
R.. roan Catholic populat.on of Irel .nd, under the
;to,;pi.teS of the L.beral Whigs, render their country a
I.,i.:..azit upon civil sed Europe.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-CIHIS DAY.)

(S.ttings in Banco.)
SCALES V. KEY.

This was an action which hadlleen brought by Mr.
Michael Scales against Sir John Key, who was Lord
Mayor of London in 1831, for a false return to a man-
damus. It wilt be in the recollect'on of our readers,
that in 1831 M. Scales was elected Alderman of the
Ward of Port! oken, but that the Court of Aldermen
refused to swear him in, whereupon be obtained a writ
of mandamus, calling. upon the Lord Mayor and Court
of Aldermen to admit him. The return to the man-
damus stated that, from time immemorial, a right had
existed on the part of the Court of Aldermen, not only
of examining into the details of elections of Aldermen,
but also into the qual fications of persons elected as
.Aldermen, and if, on a petition from any persons in-
terested, they should find a person so elected was not a
fit and proper person, then the Court had always
exercised the right of rejecting such person.
To try the validity of this return the present
action had been brought ; it had been tried before
Lord Denman, and the Jury had found that the custom
bad existed from time immemorial, up to 1699. This
the Lord Chief Justice had ordered to be entered as a
verdict far the defendant. The counsel for the plaintiff
had requested the Learned Judge to ask the Jury if the
right had existed since that period ; this his Lord Ship
had refused to do, saying the Jury could not find that,
as it was a matter of law. In 1834 a rule had been
obtained to show cause why the verdict should not be
entered for the plaintiff, or a new trial had. The case
bad, however, been put off from time to time, as the
very same question had arisen in the case of Scales v.
Johnson, which had been carried by writ of error into
the Exchequer Chamber, and eventually into the House
of Lords, and by the decision in that case the present
case would be regulated.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and the RECORDER. of the
CITY of Loarnox this day showed cause against the
rule, and Mr. MICHAEL SCALES was heard in support
of it in a long rambling speech, during the course of
which he was frequently interrupted by their Lordships,
and desired to confine himself to the matters bztore
the Court.
The arguments hay.'ng been concluded,

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE having gone into the facts
of the case, said that the custom having been proved to
exist up to 1699, it remained to see it any thing bad
occurred since that time to set it aside, and he consi-
dered that all the Acts of Common Council and the
Act of George 11., which had been relied on as having
done away with the custom, had no Ming on earth
to do with it, but related solely to the elections 01
Aldermen by the Wardmote, and not to the
manner in which such elections tver., afterwards
dealt with by the Court of Aldermen. The question
had already bee❑ decided in the Exchequer Guatliber,
hut if even it had not been so decided he should have
been of opinion that the verdict of the Jury was
rightly entered as a verdict ter the defendant, and,
ti,cretore, that the rule must be discharged.
The other Judges concurred.—Rule discharged.
EXCHEQUER, COURT. THIS DAY.

VAUGHAN V. WATT.
Th's was an action of trover, brought to retre:),y.erithe
value of a quantity of linen pledged with the
by the plaintiff ~wife. It was tried before Mr.
lirar'ionitt
Rolfe, when a verdict was found fur the plaintiff;
Last term Mr. IVHITE moved for, and obtained a
rule N:si, for a new trial upon tip: ground of ouist-
re(C,a; on tbe part of the Lcaned Judge.
Mr. PIKE now showed caL:c against the rule, an