The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-27 00:00:00

terest arising from its possession, be once affirmed
!for Ireland ; what, we would confidently ask, is to im-
pede or even delay the introduction of the Fame de-
seriptiota of franchise into England ald Selland y On
the other hand, should this import int proposition of
the Government be thii night scouted lay the House
of Commons, what we wculd demand is the con-
dition-of her Majesty's Ministers ? Can a Govern-
ment, which in February proposes a plan for the
scttLment of a great question ; which alters that
plan in March ; and is defeated even in its
amended scheme is Apra—can such a Government be
said to possess the qualifications or the means of settling
any point el-of carrying any doubtful measure ? We
may be sanguine in ascribing an honest conviction of
any kind t 3 her Majesty's Ministers, but we do
declare our belief that if defeated this esening their
further continuance in office is utterly impracticable.
Now, let us look to the business which will this
evening come before the House. First, there is
the Government plan for a mere occupation franchise ;
—in other words, that a pauper who holds as much
land as is u °rib eight pounds, but who pays for it six-
teen, that is twice as much as it is worth, shall have
the franchise! and this is the sober proposition of Lord
Morpeth. We all in this country know well the p!o-
-verbial anxiety of the Irish labourer to obtain possession
of a portion of land at any price. This is his
highest ambition, ned to gratify this, to be the owner
of his field, he voi 1 give such a rent for it, as reduces his
a,aual candltion below the daily labourer whom he hires.
He will live in filth and misery to pay this rack-rent to
his landlord ; and yet if such a human being pays a
sufficient amount of such rent—that is to say, eight
pounds a year—he is to bo one of the constituency of
Ireland. To this proposal Lord Howick says N 0 !
You shall not depart from the principle of the English
law and the nominal principle of the existing Irish
one. You shall sea that the man not only holds
and occupies a sufficient portion of land, but that
he shall hold it at such a rent as to leave him as
much profit, as great a " beneficial interest" as will en-
able him to live like a human being, and not like
an Indian or a beast of burthen. But, continues his
Lordship, the present law demands too high an
amount. Ten pounds is too much, aid I propose
to reduce it from ten pounds to FIVE. This
is Lord Howick's ameadment for this even-
ing. But on what data does he ask the House of
Commons to entertain it ? What information is he
[
possessed of or has he gives to show what the effect of
his proposal may be? Has he any access to facts by
which to show what constituency he expects to create
by the new Reform Bill? Will it be the same in
amount as the present? He cannot tell. Mr. C.
Wood declared on Thursday night that lie could not.
Will it give a greater constituency than the present ?
He-does not know. Will it give a less ' He is equal-
ly ignorant ; and yet he comes down to the house to
ask it gravely, and seriously, and deliberately, to
commit itself to the hap hazard experiment, and up-
set the existing law without knowing either the ne-
cessity or the affect of the change. Tu both these
propositions, we should say the Conservative mem-
bers of the House must necessarily be opposed.
COURIER.—The extraordinary and increasing
number of Post-office robberies, that is, of abstractions
of money from, or the theft of, letters with inclosures, by
Post-office clerks and letter-carriers, under the penny
system, is the subject of common remark and general
discontent. It is scarcely possible to take up a news-
paper, in town or country, without encountering, under
the heads of police or assize reports, a variety of aggra-
vated cases of post-office plunder, whilst detection, con-
viction, and punishment, far from leading to the de-
crease of this class of crime seem only to stimulate to
its commission. The Solicitor of the Post-office, than
whom a more humane and meritorious functionary need
not be desired, instead of the sinecure birth to which he
was to be condemned,according to the exaggerated fan-
cies of penny-post wisdom, must find his labours quad-
rupled or quintupled in the special and least grateful
department of criminal prosecution. As, exclusive of
the large economical benefits which were to result,
to say nothing of the fiscal profits for the
realization of which its advocates are now con-
tent to draw upon the next century, it was strenu-
ously contended that the morals and education of the
people at large were to be wondrously improved and
refined by penny postage, this first beginning in the
demoralisation of the Post-office itself looks singularly
inauspicious, and not less suspicious for prospective per-
formance of the original contract set forth. For prima
facie it is difficult to imagine how the morals, say of
the industrious classes, can be materially amended.by a
system under which they can be, and are, so readily de-
frauded of money, gifts, payments, or earnings, coming
to them by post. It should rather seem that, as ex-
ample is better than precept, finding themselves plun-
dered with impunity, and without the chance of re-
dress, they should be'ake themselves to retaliatory
practices in some other line, so as to adjust their
morals by the new Post-office standard. T,lis, to be sure,
would be an ungracious as insufferable retort for all
those strategic resources contrived by the Whigs for
reinforcing the outworks, at the same time as throwing
up so many inner defences, on which, in case of
aced, national morality may fall back for support and re-
' invigoration. If the penny post line of morality
be forced, as it is, the poor, who are put to the
rout and ruined by the disaster, have only to re-
treat
under cover of the new Poor-law, the eminent
merit of which consists io starving them first, as a pre-
paration for moralizing them after ; a beautiful applica-
tion to morals of that operative process by which birds
or animals are half slain and half mangled, in order to
establish by experiment some theory in physics. Then,
besides new Poor-laws, there are education laws, drain-
age bills, &c. &c., all, if Mr. Ewart may bo believed,
contrived to improve the moral 'condition of the poor,
whilst the Chancellor of the Exchequer performs his
Smagrado operations for purifying their physical and
plethoric habits by the drastic purgation of supplemen-
tary taxation.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, ArniL 26.
The Lord Chancellor did not attend Court to-day.

ROLLS COURT, APRIL 26.
SANDERS V. BENSON AND OTHERS.
The arguments in this suit, which were partly heard on
Saturday were resumed this morning. Tha suit was insti•
tuted to'cbarge the defendants, Thomas Starling Benson
and others, with the rent and covenants of an indenture of
lease, bearing date 2811 September, 1795, and made by
Samuel Sanders, deceased, father of the plaintiff, to John
Oxley and Frederick Tench, viregar merchant,. The
premises leased co:lsis:el of a house, yard, and lanai, in
Cartwright-street, and Derby-street, in the par:bh of St..
13otclph- without Aldgate, and were leased for 34 years at
the rent of 761. per annum, with covenant for the tenants
to repair. The plaintiffs also sought to charge defendants,
as asalgr;ees of the lease, with the costs, damages, and ex-
pense; resulting from various ac ions and suits respecting the
rents of eavenaLts of the lease, and the dilapidations of the
prriatm.

Ili; Lcumilp, ark'. i etring Mr. Pemberton and Mr.
L~f ti Wigtam fir the plaintiffs, and Mr. Kindersley and
Mr, flacon for the defendants, reserved his judgment to a
future day.

PR3DEN V KINDON.

This wai an execrion to the Master's report, by which
it was found that ti:re was a legacy due upon an instru-
ment on which probate had been grante3, and application
Was now made to withhold payment until another suit,
cii.irg out of the same instrument, should be dispot,ed of.
Al,. Pemberton and Mr. 13,:thrl fur the plaintiff, and
Mr. Kindersloy and Mr. Dixon fur the defendant.
LottPstuP said such a course would be directly con-
trary to the ordinary practice of the Cour', and an order
must, th-refore, be made for payment of the legacy and
costs out of the funds, with liberty to apply for their transfer.

VICE-CfIAiVCELLOR'S COURT, APRIL 26.

SMITH AM OTHERS V. COLEMAN.
The arguments in thin C3SC,
which was an application
for an ialunetion to restrain the dVeadant from taking
Fecurities alleged to.
legal proceedings on ea.taiu bills of exelanga and other
have been frauduiently givon, and
which was partly reported in our paper of Saturday, were
resumed this morning.

Mr. JACOB and Mr LITTLE
the defendant, con..
een his client and
moneyfirrr borrowedT had
tended that there was no collusioi
in the Mr. .Lock, nor aoy evidence that theet
strongquity
ctco'
not btien employed for the benefit of the plain.
Itcircumstancesogethc. r ftti failed to
suspicionshow any
slifficiently e
otira.sanl'Yad
authorise their appliortion for an injunction, which they
therefore trusted his Honour would refice.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said it was his opinion that
the plaintiffs cught to have moved fir an inju::(t' on, and
he also thought the money duo upon the noo,
should be paid i-ito Court. These gentlemen we;,
in partnership together, and the motion cf a part_
if
nership implied a coctract. Then Mr. CA:lea-tan
knaw that they were partners, he knew there ,was a
contract, and he had in that Court constructive notice of
all the terms which bound the partners together, one of
which was that no one partner should use the signa-
ture of the firm for any other than partnership
purposes. Therefore, %then the defendant advanced money
to Mr. Lock upon the signature which Mr. Lock gave, it
scared to him that :t lay on the defendant to show that
the money so advanced was advanced for partnership pun-
pwo3. He might have supposed from some statement of
Mr. Lock that it was so advanced, but it struck him (the
Vicc.Ctiancellor) that if the conversation that had been
given in evidence led to this inference, it olio lel to the in-
ference that the money borrowed was not borrowed
for partnership purposes. Enough, therefore, had op-
pearei for inquiry in that Court as to the circumstances
cjin
injunction,
the equity of the plaintiffs in poiat of law.
The therefore, was gran,ed, and the money
paid into Court.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Ar!lL 26.
THE M R ATO AND COhPORATION OF CHESTER V. BEARS.
The
COURT gave judgment is this case, which was an
action against the toaster of a mud, to recover a sum of
Is., 'Demi; the. amount of dues claimed by the Corpora-
tion, for entering the port of Chester. The Jury found a
verdict omn platffs, and an application was made to set
thu ground of improper evidence, agi2e verdict
tits
feo r the
mis-
direction, and the verdict being against evidence. It was
urged that the toll being payable to the water bailiff, the
actionshould have been brought by him; the the bailiff being
in the employrrm,t of the Corporation, and the tolls being
allowed him in lieu of salary, he was merely the sersant of
the Corporation, and received the tolls ftft their use; it
Wa3 also said that the toll had been originally an anchorage
toll , but it bail been given in evidence that vetoes which