The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-20 00:00:00

" TO THE EDITOR OF THE GLOBE.

" Sig,—The following observations appear in the lead-
ing article of the Globe newspaper of Friday last, with re-
fercoce to an application made to the Court of King's
I3eneh by Viscount Strangford in Michaelmas Term,
IB2S:

" The affidavits in support of the application did not
satisfy the Court, and the Noble Lord took nothing by
his motion.'
" As his Lordship's solicitors on that occasion, we take
leave to set you right as to the grounds on which that ap•
plication was refused.
The accompanying opinion of his Lordship's Counsel
Rill fully explain the reason why further proceedings
were discontinued in this case, and will also afford the
public an opportunity of learning the opinion of two of the
melt eminent lawyers of the day, that it was only on ac-
count of the non-observance of a technical rule, which it
was almost impossible to have observed, that the Court
refused to grant the information applied fur.
The observations in the Globe would lead to the sup.
position that it was on the merits of the case that the

Court had refused to comply with the application made by
Viscount Strangford.
" We have the honour to remain, Sir,
Your obedient humble servants,
" PICKERING, SMITH, and TOMPSON.
Stone-buildings, Lincoln's Inn, Jan. 18, 1841.
" Copy of opinion of Sir C. Wetherell and Sir N. C

Tindal—in re Lord Strangford.
We are of opinion, that after the decision of the
Court as to the insufficiency of the affidavit upon which
the rule to show cause was granted (and which deci-
sion we arc free to codess was greatly to our surprise),
it will not be advisable to have recourse to further
proceedings. Indeed, the nature and description of the
paragraph originally printed in the Times newspaper
were such that we scarcely see how it was possible to frame
any affidavit which should operate as a denial of every
charge contained in it. All persons who understand the
nature of the case will perceive in a moment that it was
only on account of the non-observance of a technical rule,
which in the particular case it would have been almost
impossible to observe, that the Court refused to grant the
information.

" CHARLES WETHERELL
" N. C. TINDAL.
" Dcc. 1, 1828."

(From the Standard.)

When it is difficult or impossible satisfactorily to
answer a question which has been proposed, it is no un-
common stratagem, to seem to reply by answering a ques-
tion which hIS not been proposed, or to offer a defence
against a charge unjustly assumed to be involved in the
tormenting interrogatory. We yesterday put a ques-
tion, which, as we believe, must, long before we or any
one else of the public had propounded it, have sadly
perplexed the Queen's Ministers, the question—Would
her Majesty's advisers dare in the Royal Speech to re-
fer to the Repeal sedition, or would they dare to pass
over that tremendous danger as undeserving the
notice of the Legislature ? This plain question,?lainly
put, has provoked from the Morning chronicle an angry
article, in which it is assumed that the Ministers are ac-
cused of having created the Repeal sedition, and the at-
tempt is made to fasten the prodaction of the mischief'
upon Lord Stanley's Bill. Now this, RC submit, is
not answering our question. We did not charge
Ministers with having created the Repeal sedition ; in-
deed, we brought no charge of any kind, not even that
which we might have justly brought—the charge of
supinely neglecting the advance of the formidable
evil;; we merely inquired whether it was likely
that Parliament would be expected to close the eye
upon it? As to Lord Stanley's Bill, making even
the ridiculously false admission that the treasonable
movement is the effect of the Bill, still the Morning
Chronicle can make nothing of the admission in
reference to our question. If we are to accept the
doctrines of the Morning Chronicle, Ministers are only
to restrain sedition of their own making, or such as they,
according to their own taste and judgment, do not alto •
gether dislike : but such is not the doctrine of the British
Constitution—by that Constitution Ministers are bound
to protect the institutions of the country whenever
threatened, or upon whatever provocation threatened.
True it is that her Majesty's present advisers have
a sufficiently heavy task in guarding against the con-
sequences of their own misconduct, and it is equally
true that they have a direct and a vital interest in
encouraging whatever may embarrass any mea-
sure that shall check the frauds, the corruptions, and
the prejudices of Irish elections ; but it ought not
to satisfy the nation to hear that Ministers
are too busy in staving off the effect of their political
crimes to give attention to an imminent peril, or too
deeply interested in the collateral purpose of a
sedition threatening the dismemberment of the em-
pire, to offer it to the notice of Parliament. What it
concerns the nation to know is, not the origin, but the
existence of the danger—not the bearing which that
danger may have upon the interest of parties, but its
tendency to the ruin of the empire itself ; and it any
danger of great magnitude really threatens, it is surely
the duly of the executive—all other considerations laid
aside—to communicate the fact to the assembled Par-
liament. Will Ministers dare to do this, or will they
dare to leave it undone ?