The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-27 00:00:00

SH IR_ES.

Chester and Holyheld ( 5 paid)
Eastern Counties (23 paid)
Ditto Registered (81658 d paid)
E 6
Edinburgh and Glasgmo, 50 paid
117
Great Western (75 paid)
Ditto Half Shares (50 paid)
Ditto Fifths, i 2 paid II4
London and Greenwich (l,t. its. 4.1. paid) ......
London and South Western (111. Gs. 10d. paid)...
Ditto Eighths (Iss. paid)
London and Croydon (Trunk) lB%
Ditto, Scrip, 10 paid 19%
Manchester and Birmingham 55%.
Midland Counties (100 paid) BB q
North Midland (100 paid)
Ditto Half Shares, 40 paid
Norwich and Brandon ( 2 paid) 7 4
South Eastern and Dover (3.3 25 4d paid)
Ditto Vew Shares ( 4 paid)
Trent Valley, 2 paid P%
Rouen and Havre, 8 paid ls
Strasbourg and Bale (14 paid) 9%

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
GLOBE—By a piece of paltry manoeuvring, in perfect
keeping with their paltry tactics, the Tories managed on
Thursday night to prevent Mr. Christie front bringing on
motion for inquiry into the constitution and present con-
qlition of the two Universities, with a view to assimilate them
to the changed circumstances of the country, and thus ex-
tend their usefulness, in conformity with the design of their
founders. The mode in which the Conservatives—of all
abuses—effected this was explained by Mr. Christie on the
following evening. To that explanation we refer in
justification of the term we have used to designate their con-
duct. We do not charge this act of disreputable trickery
upon the members of the Government. It was concocted
and executed by honourable, but—except in such duties—
very insignificant, gentlemen who occupy the third and
fourth seats behind the Treasury Bench. These worthy in-
struments of the party seem incapable of any higher eleva-
tion of thought or act. In this instance they had just dis-
cernment enough to see that the statements by which
the Honourable Member for Weymouth would support his
motion for inquiry would open the eyes of the public to facts
they are unwilling should become known ; but without
having sufficient foresight to discern the consequences of
barking those statements. Those who plotted for the pur-
rose of stilling the motion may rest assured that the course
taken to prevent the statements and arguments of the Hon.
Member from meeting the public eye has tended to strengthen
the generally received impression that a searching investi-
gation, with a view to an extensive renovation and reform
in those institutions, is necessary, and must at no distant
period be granted. Exaggerated apprehensions in the public
mind, called up by the efforts at concealment, will tend to
increase the demand for an extensive and salutary change. The
motion fur inquiry is merely postponed; the temporary de-
feat it has sustained will tend to facilitate the object, instead
,of suppressing the investigation. No expectation was enter-
tained that the inquiry would have been obtained, as the im-
mediate result of the motion. It is probable that but little
discussion would have taken place upon it. The mo-
tion would have been negatived—it may be " without a
division." What then ? The speech would, it is true, have
been heard with impatience by those who are always pre-
determined to vote against inquiry, in proportion as the
facts adduced prove the neeessity of reformation. Such
would only have "sat out" the discussion, that they might,
if necessary, record their votes against the motion. But in
the reports supplied by the public journals on the following
day, the speech thus listened to with impatience, or with
listless indifference, in the House of Commons, would have
been read by hundreds of thousands. Sooner or later,
the impression thus produced would operate within the
walls of Parliament, and speak even there " with most
.miraculous organs." The days are long since departed when
a Member of Parliament spoke only to those within the
House of which he was a member. Then the effect he pro-
duced upon those who immediately heard him was every-
thing ; and the impression out of doors was scarcely worth a
thought. The Tories know that another era has dawned
upon the nation. Hence, whenever they can prevent a
motion for inquiry from being brought forward, they do so—
not so much from an apprehension of its effect within,
as Of dread of its results upon those without the walls of Par-
liament. To this apprehension we refer the trick to which
they had recourse on Thursday night. By counting out the
House on Mr. Christie rising to bring forward his motion for
inquiry into the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, with
a view to render them more beneficial to the country ; they
hoped to keep the country in ignorance of matters which
affect the character of the close corporations of learning and
piety at Oxford and Cambridge. The fallacy of that hope
will become apparent.
STANDARD.—Our readers will have known that the Irish
Court of Queen's Bench has refused the motion for a new
trial, that has now occupied it for a term and something
more. Mr. Perrin alone dissented from the refusal as regards
Mr. O'Connell, and Mr. Crampton dissented in the case of
Mr. Tierney ; but as two of the judges agreed to refuse in
every case, the rule for a new trial is refused to all, viz., re-
fused by the whole Court as respects six of the traversers, Dr.
Gray, Messrs. Steele, J. O'Connell, Duffy, Barrett, and Ray;
refused by three of the judges to one, in the case of Mr. Da-
niel O'Connell, refused by two of the judges against two, in
Mr. Tierney's case; but the equal division of the Court
operates as a refusal, because, where the judges are equally
divided upon an affirmative proposition, the negative always
of course prevails. In consideration of the equal divi-
sion in Mr. Tierney's case, the Attorney-General
intimated that he would not call that gentle-
man up for judgment. Mr. Tierney is certainly not the
3east guilty of the eight traversers; on the other hand, he
appears to ns the most criminal, after the master incendiary;
but no doubt the Attorney-General exercises a sound discre-
tion in bowing to the equal division of opinion on the bench.
It is amusing meanwhile to see the use which the Dublin Free-
man's Journal tries to make of Mr. Tierney's escape. "The
most recent fashionable announcement respecting the Irish
Attorney-General was, that the learned functionary
attended the Premier's last ball. He has just returned from
London—his last lesson in prosecution is yet fresh in his
memory, and we must, therefore, look upon his declaration
yesterday, that he would at once demand judgment on the
repealers, as the carrying out of orders issued by the head of
the Cabinet. The wily Minister wishes to keep his hands
off the clergy, and in deference to his known veneration'
for Catholic priests,' he has instructed his officer not to
demand judgment on the Itev. Mr. Tierney. We have no
doubt but the surplice(' ruffians' will duly estimate his
forbearance." Whoever reads the argument of Mr. Jus-
tice Crampton, will see how much Sir Robert Peel's
ieatructions have had to do with Mr. Tierney's good luck.
We have copied from a morning Contemporary (the Herald),
a review of the grounds upon which the Justices Perrin and
Crampton respectively decided against their brethren in the
two cases, in which they did so decide. As this article pretty
exactly expresses our own views, we shall say nothing
_more upon that subject except that every one antici-
pated from the first day of Michaelmas Term, how Mr.
Perrin would act ; such anticipation, however, being wholly
unconnected with any doubt of! the Learned Judge's
iutegrity, and resting solely upon the practical proofs he had
given, when Whig Attorney-General, of his erroneous views
of the law of conspiracy. It were strange, indeed, if the
- Learned Gentleman should not, as judge, have some qualms
at treating, as criminal, what himself had connived at if not
encouraged, when charged with the vindication of thelaw as
first law officer of the Crown. Mr. Crampton, too, had a
difficulty of the same kind, though much less in degree, to
contend with, for he also had been a Whig law officer, but it
was in the earlier and better period of the Whig Administra-
tion. On Saturday the Attorney-General called upon the
counsel for the traversers to offer their motion in arrest of
judgment, if they intended to make one. Sir Coleman
O'Loghlen, on the other side, declared that a motion in
arrest of judgment was intended, but the traversers'
counsel were not ready. Not ready. at the end of
'six months ! The Attorney-General demanded to be
at least informed of the grounds of the motion, and of
the authorities by which it was intended to support it.
in order that on Monday (this day) he might be prepared to
reply instanter, without wasting more time; but for this the
traversers' counsel were not prepared at the end of six
months. The Court interposed with more firmness and de-
•cision than it had previously manifested, and told the learned
advisers of the traversers that they must, in the course
of the same evening, communicate to the Attor-
ney-General the information that he so reasonably re-
quired;—and there the matter rested. The motion in arrest
of judgment being, as every one knows, designed merely for
:delay, will be spread over as many topics as possible; but
as on such a motion there can be no apology for the traver-
sers being allowed separate and distinct counsel, and as the
`Court seams to have awakened to the duty of discounte-
nancing pettifogging quibbling, intended merely to con-
sume the public time, the whole matter may possibly
be disposed of in the course of the present week. Ana
• whether it is or not, i 3 a matter of little consequence, for
• -the case is one
before they are of those that may be said to be forgotten
completed.s Nobody now has reason to re-
. Bret the delay that has occurred, except the traversers, who
have now still before them e whole of that punishment, a
which
-very considerable part of th
would have been already ex
pended, had they not resorted to the dilatory policy.

A young lady offers the followingf
• . .serviceable and
original rules for the guidance of :—" Before
marriage it is necessary that a
situations,
should see
her intended husband in four
viz.-Ist,
tipsy ; 2dly, playing at cards and losing
wait-
ing for his dinner ; and lastly, in a ballfrolTni,dlY'
• " DOG EAT DoG."—Nearly all the lNi ' Prius
;cases this term were eases in which attorneys were
.either plaintiffs of defendants.—Dubin Paper.
--------

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 23.
THE QUDEN V. DOUGLAS.
, • The lion. Mr. DENMAN moved for a rule to show
cause why the defendant should not be discharged out of
the custody of the Marshal of the Queen'e Bench Prison,
on the ground that he had been in prison upwards of 12
_ months, and his debt was under 201. The defendant was
_committed in execution on 23d of February, 1843, for
,a debt of 121. 7s.—Rule granted.

BROWN V. WRAY.
•
Mr. C. JONES applied for a rule to show cause why
the defendant in this case should not be discharged out
of the custody of the Marshal of the Queen's Bench
Prison. It appeared that the defendant had, on a pre-
vious occasion, been in custody for the same debt, and
on the same writ. In March, 1842, defendant had made
" faTangement to pay the debt to the plaintiff by instal-
per month, and the first payment would
:become due on the 23d of April following. On the 14th
t of that month however, he was arrested by another
• creditor, whereupon several detainers, the plaintiff's
• being one of them, were lodged against him. He quickly
settled idle other claims, and on the 18th he sent to in-
' form the attorney of the plaintiff that the Marshal would
not release him unless the detainer of his client were
-withdrawn. That was, thereupon, done, and he was once