The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,

b'ames Sir Robert Peel for altering an opinion, whe-
ther fiscal or otherwise. The public are not shocked
by an incident common to us all, and likely enough
to happen to the wisest and the best. The astonish-
ment felt is at a huge hypocrisy, which, if encouraged
and rewarded, must be fatal to all confidence, and in
the highest degree injurious to the public interests.
Disgrace attaches to the revelation. made by Sir
Robert Peel, in 1846, of the instincts which must have
been part and parcel of his nature durirg many a long
year before, because it was made so late. A greater
disgrace will attach to Conservatives if they return to
the arch dissimulator at his bidding, with that revelation
still staring them in the face, and patent to the whole
world. But Conservatives must take Sir Robert,
because no one else will take them. They have
now, in consequence of an unhappy event no
Protectionist leader, and therefore they must
receive back the rejected one. Since the head is
gone, it is but fair to argue that the cause has de-
parted likewise. Such is the Peelite's reasoning in
the columns of our contemporary :—" When a party
has to go about in search of a leader, like Ccelebs in
search of a wife, is it not rather fair to infer that there
is not much to lead ? When no rational man can be
found to conduct an enterprise, is it not an indication
that the enterprise is itself irrational. If the country
gentlemen have to look in vain for any chief of mo-
derate reputation, talents, and acquirements, who will
undertake to undo the work of that treachery which
he denounces . . . has he not good reason to
suspect that no treachery has been committed, that no
return is possible, and that the corn-laws were only
repealed when to retain them longer would have been
madness ?" We will answer the hypothesis by sub-
mitting another. We ask our contemporary whether,
when a leader has to go about in search of a party,lit is
not fair to infer that there is no ardent desire abroad
for his leadership ? When no honourable man can
be found to give his adherence to a chief, is it not an
indication that the chief himself is grievously at fault ?
If the Tamworth gentleman has to look in vain for
any Conservative of moderate reputation, talents, and
acquirements, who will undertake to do the work of
that treachery which he denounces, has the said gen-
tleman not good reason to suspect that no return is
possible, however much it may be desired? The
words are our contemporary's with slight alteration.
Let him not be deceived ! Let him not deceive his
friends ! If the fact is extraordinary that a great
principle, by a variety of concurring circumstances,
is left without its natural vindicators, it is no less ex-
traordinary that a once mighty chief suddenly finds
himself bereft of all the elements that went to consti-
tute his greatness. Both circumstances are the legi-
timate results of the one act of treachery and folly—
treachery that, like ambition, has overleaped itself—
and folly that has placed the country and its welfare
at the mercy of the miserable hands that now rule the
destinies of this great empire.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. I.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday,

HASLETH AND OTHERS V LYNN, CLERK.

Mr. KNOWLES, at the rising of the Court, proceeded
to set before it the arguments in this case, which dif-
fered in little respects from the preceding one.
The COURT granted a rule in both cases, with respect
to the amendment made by the Learned Judge; but de-
clined to do so on the alleged misdirection, intimating at
the same time that the matter was one which they should
be glad to have fully discussed at the proper time.

JENKINS V. BROWN AND ANOTHER.

Mr. WATSON moved for a rule calling upon the de-
fendant-to show cause wby there should not be a new
trial in this case. The -action was brought to recover
the value of three cargoes of corn, which were
eold by the defendants under somewhat pe-
culiar circumstances. The defendants pleaded not
possessed. It appeared,• at the request of the plaintiff,
Messrs. Calendar, of New Orleans, shipped three car•
goes of corn, which were consigned-to Messrs. Brown, of
Liverpool. The defendant's bills of exchange for the
corn accompanied the invoices. Messrs. Brown placed
the bills in the banking-house of Messrs. Dennison, of
London. When they became due on the 17th
of June the plaintiff offered the money; indeed,
he tendered it three times, but owing to the bills hav-
ing been locked up by mistake, and not being forthcom-
ing, he could not pay the money. In the meantime Messrs.
Brown sold the corn on the ground that Messrs. Calm-
der owed them money. The question, therefore, was, how
far a tender of payment under such circumstances went
towards destroying the lien claimed. The case was a novel
one, and he could not, therefore, cite any precedents.
The COURT took time to consider the matter.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 7.
STURGE V. JENRINS.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for a rule to remove
this case from the Queen's Bench, in which it had been
brought, into this court, and to allow it to stand in its
present stage of forwardness. The action was instituted
against an officer of the Customs refusing to deliver
corn without dm payment of duty. It had been agreed by
the parties to reduce it into a special case for argument,
and it was thought advisable to bring it before their
Lordships, who already had jurisdiction over it.
A rule was granted by the Court in accordance with
the ordinary practice in such cases; it was i❑ the first
instance made absolute.