The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, -AIOIb\TIIL'AT, APRIL C, 1835.

expunges from his mind the becoming sentiments of
indignation and disgust which were excited in it by
O'Connell's ruffianly assaults upon him and his policy,
and that of the Ministry of which he was the organ—
attacks which- charged the warmest friends of good
and equal government in Ireland with contemptible
ignorance, or desperate indifference, or aristocratic pre-
judice, or Saxon enmity to the Irish race and name—
if Lord Duncannon can wipe out of his recollection
those wounds and bruises,inflicted upon him through
a spirit of calculating and sordid craft, it will be an
earnest to the Protestants of Ireland that from the
Whig England of 1688 as a protectress, they have no-
thing more of guardianship to anticipate, and that Pro-
testant ascendancy, so hotly stigmatized, has been super-
seded by an ascendancy of conjoint despotism and su-
perstition, of which tyrannical demagogues and griping
priests are the directors, and of which everything inde-
pendent and enlightened in the land, everything cha-
racteristic of constitutional liberty, of honesty indus-
try, and progressive civilization will be the studied
victims. It is for the Whig statesmen and their ad-
visers to bethink themselves whether they can meet
the public opinion of England on such ground as this.
It is for them to reflect whether they have any more
favourable ground to stand upon—whether they can so
metamorphose the nature of O'Connell, and so purify
his motives of action, or elevate hiS views of his own
self interest, as to make him govern Ireland for the sake
of Ireland, and not in the same spirit in which he
strives to accumulate "rent," to monopolize power,
and to turn the stream of popular hatred against what-
ever bears the stamp of law or gospel—or whether, as
the sole alternative, they can dare to execute Lord John
Russell's threat and do without O'Connell. Yes, it
is as clear as the sun, that the difficulties of the Oppo-
sition are tenfold those by which the Ministers are
surrounded, and their situation incalculably more per-%
plexed and conflicted. Ministers have none to fear
but their enemies—the Whigs arc night-mared by
their allies. The, Ministers have nothing to deprecate
for themselves or their country but the frustration of
their own acknowledged measures ; the Whigl`• know
not which most to tremble at—a victory or a defeat.
Hence the palpable confusion in their councilshence
a repetition of the same wretched childishness with
which we ourselves so often taxed them while they
were Ministers—an incessant change of will, retracta-
tion of declared projects, vacillation, tremour, and im-
becility of purpose. Since the commencement of the
present Session, in what one object but the choice of
a Speaker have they persevered ? Stoppage of Sup-
plies—votes of censure—all—all abandoned !—not
even in the avowed scheme of carrying up their reso-
lution passed last Friday to the Throne do they dare
persist. For them there is no " sticking place," be-
cause in them there is no courage founded on conscious
rectitude and good sense.—Times.
The report which was so generally circulated on
Saturday, which appeared first in the Times, and
was, in consequence, copied, with a variety of, com-
ment and observation, but withont any contradiction,
both in the evening papers of Saturday, and in
the papers of yesterday morning—to the effect that
Lord John Russell and Sir Robert Peel had come to
an understanding that a clause, founded on the re-
solution of Thursday, should be proposed in the
Committee on the Tithes Bill, and that this, if
carried, would be considered a death-blow to the
Government, is totally without foundation. Sir
Ro-
bert Peel and his coadjutors would, no doubt,
have been extremely pleased to have entrapped
the liberal party into such a delay, because the
delay would have weakened their opponents in
public estimation ; but Lord John Russell was not to
be caught, and the victory of Thursday will not only
be followed up by another victory to-night in the Com-
mittee upon the Resolution—but upon the Report
there will be another—and upon the Address another
still—the last, according to Peel's admission, being the
victory which will cause his resignation. We state
these matters positively, and without the slightest re-
servation. It is, indeed, time that the present -most
preposterous state of affairs—preposterous as regards
the state of the Government—the stability of the
throne—and the commercial transactions of the coun-
try—should be put an end to. The country cannot,
and ought not, to bear with it any longer.—Morning
Advertiser.

COURT OF CHANCERY.

guineas, had indemnified him. This action was therefore
brought to try the question. •
Mr. LOUGHBOROUGH, the Solicitor for the plaintiff,
proved having had a conversation with the defendant, in
which he disavowed any claim to erect booths. On the
notice being served, he, however, claimed the right, and
said that lie cared nothing for the action, as be was indem-
nified by the Racing Committee.
Edward Scott, the bailiff of the manor, proved having
received payments from parties for turf and gravel, and paid
them over to the steward of the manor.

Mr. Lindsay, also solicitor for the plaintiff, who had been
steward of the manor of Epsom for twenty-one years, proved
that the Epsom Race Downs formed part of it.' He had
gone the boundaries, and, therefore, knew.
The conveyance of the manor of Epsom to Sir Joseph
Morbey, dated, the 12th of January, 1771, was put in,
and read.

The rolls of the Leet. Court were also put in and read,
from which it appeared that certain parties were prosecuted
by the Juries for not paying rent for land on the race downs.
Mr. PLATT, for the defendant, said, the defendant, Mr.
Roberts, claimed, as an inhabitant of Epsom, the right to
erect, booths, and to hold races on the Downs at all sea-
sonable times of the year. Now, in support of the claim,
he would call a great many witnesses who would prove that
a usage had existed for upwards of sixty years of holding
the races and erecting booths, and that they had constantly
attended them, and paid ground rent to collectors, who in-
formed them that the money went, not as had been stated,
into the pockets of the Lord of the Manor, but,
towards keeping the race-course in repair, and the
money collected had invariably been applied to that pur-
pose. A committee was formed of the inhabitants of
Epsom, who felt the advantage they and those resident in
the adjacent towns derived from the races, and-they took
upon themselves the management, making collections in
their own town and in the adjacent ones, and applying all
the money collected during the races to the common pur-
pose of keeping the course in preservation, and in fur-
therance of the races. They continued their services
uninterrupted until Mr. Briscoe thought fit to interfere, in
order, as they alleged, to put an end to the amusement
altogether. They, therefore, were determined to dispute
his right, and they defended this action on three grounds—
ht.. That the soil and freehold were not in Mr. Briscoe's
but in Baron de. Tessier, a gentleman of property, residing
at Woodcot Park, in this county. 2dly. That the de-
fendant had leave .and license to erect the booths ; ,and
idly. That the inhabitants of Epsom had a .prescriptive
right to hold races and erect booths at all seasonable times
of the year. .
Certain documentary evidence was then put in to prove
Baron de Tessier's claim to the soil, but it appeared that
the Baron had only an easement in the land, a sheep walk
for 400 sheep ; the plea was therefore abandoned.

Ancient witnesses were also called to prove that they
had attended the races for a long period, and had paid rent
to the collectors, who invariably told them the money
.was
applied for the purposes of the course. The witnesses on
either side who gave the foregoing testimony were prin-
cipally a class of persons calleStravellers, who keep booths
for refreshments, &c., at races and fairs.

Mr. TUESSIGER replied, after which
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 51.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.-MONMOUTH, APRIL 2.
REX V. IVAYS.

This. was a case perhaps without precedent in the an-
nals of criminal proceedings, but establishing the point
that innkeepers who exercise their own caprice as to the
reception of guests, are indictable at common law.
Mr. WHITMORE conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
GORDON the defence.

The Counsel for the prosecution stated that by the com-
mon law of England, as laid down by Sergeant Hawkins,
an innkeeper who, without just cause, refused a traveller
admittance was guilty of an indictable offence.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty.
He was sentenced to pay a fine of one pound to the King.
_ _

John James, aged 33, John Griffiths, aged 19, Milk&
Jenkins, aped 31, and Thomas Jarman, aged 33, were ca-
pitally indicted for burglariously entering the house of
Thomas Rees, at Bedretty, on the night of the .sth of
January last, and stealing 135 sovereigns, and 64/. in
bank notes.

The prisoners attempted to prove an alibi.
The Jury, after three-quarters of an hour, returned a
verdict of Guilty against James and Jenkins.
Next day his Lordship in a most solemn address pro-
nounced sentence of Death on the prisoners.