The Sun. — London, England, 1834-04-02 00:00:00

upwards of two centuries. England possesses a general registry as to copyhold property, by means of the court-rolls ; and there exists a re gistry of British shipping. There are several other registries in this country for particular instruments. Most of the British colonies, France, Germany, and nearly all the other countries of Europe, besides the United States of America, have registries, which are considered advantageous ; the only complaint in some of those countries being, that the system does not embrace all interests in real property : in several countries registries have been enlarged and extended, and in no case has a registry been discontinued. The following are a few of the benefits to be expected from a registry :—The prevention of fraud—the simplification and se curity of titles—the diminution of expense in the transfer of property—the supplying the want of lost deeds—the diminishing of litiga tion—and the facilitating the proof of instru ments in legal proceedings. The measure would on all these accounts increase the value of landed property, and render sales and mortgages more easy and expeditious. We trust we have thus shown the expediency of a general regis try, and further, that it is a measure calling pe culiarly for the support of the landed proprie tors, who, from an erroneous view of the sub ject, occasioned chiefly by the misrepresentations of interested persons, have hitherto been its chief opponents. We hope that the landed proprietors will pursue a different course for the future, and that they will at last diligently in quire into the matter and judge for themselves. We have no doubt of the result, being satisfied that the question requires only full investigation in order that every impartial man may be con vinced that the establishment of a general re gistry of deeds must be advantageous to all honest men, and that it can injure none but rogues, who have hitherto plundered, and who will continue to plunder so long as the defects of our laws on this head not only enable them to plunder with impunity, but actually invite and encourage them to dishonest practices.—Times. Whenever we for half an hour withdraw our attention from the details of domestic policy, and look beyond the geographical limits of these islands, the quarter to which the eye almost un consciously turns is the east of Europe, and in the east, the dominant, nay, the single object, is Russia. Were the Russian Government inac tive—were the Czar to remain motionless in the position to which the last three or four years have raised him, still must every man in Eng land, who feels for the security of his own country, and for the repose of Europe, view with distrust and apprehension the offensive at titude which that Sovereign has chosen to as sume, and consider as almost in the nature of a direct aggression upon each individual State in Christendom the new and very formidable rela tion in which Russia has placed herself towards them all. But the Russian Cabinet is not inac tive ; our lagging vigilance is frequently roused by some fresh demonstration on the part of Ni cholas or his servants, of the venom by which the Muscovite counsels have never ceased to be actuated. Scarcely a day passes without pro ducing some proof of the deep-rooted jealousy and hatred which, circumspect as in general Russia is, drives her almost headlong into colli sion with this country—not in Europe only, but in distant quarters of the earth. Scarcely does a foreign journal appear with out containing some article indicative of the fixed and all-pervading hostility between Rus sian aggrandizement and British power. In every paragraph the defensive spirit of Eng lishmen (measures of their Government, alas I there are none), manifested on all occasions against the positive encroachments of Russia, forms a text for grave reproach or insolent de rision ; the Allgemeine Zeitung, the Austrian Observer, letters from Berlin, from the Inn, the Vistula, the Danube, all teem with attacks upon the resistance (as yet no more than moral resistance) presented by the British nation to the grand scheme of Russian supremacy over the east of Europe. Vexation and malignity, but dogged stubbornness of purpose, are appa rent in every line. The German, papers have within the last three days brought one of these effusions, dated " Prussia," v*herein the ob vious aim of the writer, in contrasting the con duct of the British and French Governments at different periods of the last twelve months with each other, is to weaken the influence of their alleged union of sentiment upon public opinion throughout Europe, and thereby to add greater weight to whatever attempts may be made by Russia to coerce the secondary Powers every where into an acquiescence in her own ar rogant and meddling practices. It assumes that the English press " has abandoned its suspicions on the views of Russia with respect to the Porte," as a peg whereon to hang an impertinence against the press of France, for picking up such suspicions, dropped as it were by England. It was necessary to assume the relinquishment of the hostile feeling before expressed by most of the English jour nals towards the last iniquitous and fraudulent treaty of July between Russia and Turkey, to make the false charge of disunion between Fraime and England intelligible ; but if on the part of Great Britain and her press (we can at present say nothing of her Government), an absolute and indignant denial be given to the assertion that this country has abated one jot of her just resentment at the foul play shown by Russia, and an assurance that in all that has been, and all that can be, urged by France in reprobation of such conduct, we heartily and entirely concur, what becomes of the coxcombi cal flourish as to a discrepancy of sentiment be tween these two countries, and a corresponding Ithock experienced by their political alliance ? 'Ad contemptuous language held in the above article with regard to France and the French Ministers, we leave to the parties interested to requite as it deserves ; but when the Russian paragraph writer charges an evening English journal, said to be under the sway of his Majes ty's Government, with "being now satisfied with he Convention of St. Petersburgh," the necessity goings nearer home for some resolute disavowal of an acquiescence in any English breast so disgraceful, and more especially when ascribed to official influence. What is that same Con vention of St. Petersburgh, at which the Eng lish journal in question is said to declare its " satisfaction ?" It is one which for the first time in the history of the world makes the ad mission of English men of war to Constan tinople and the whole of the Black Sea con tingent upon the gracious assent and con descension of Russia, avowing that Turkey is a tributary and vassal of the Czar, and placing in the hands of the latter despot the keys of the commercial intercourse between the Mediter ranean and the Euxine. It is a convention which transfers to Russia the virtual sovereignty of the Turkish empire, and establishes precisely same relations between them as if Constan tinople had been taken by assault, and Nicholas was in military possession of the whole territory from the mouths of the Danube to the western extremity of the Dardanelles. Now, is that a change in the condition of human affairs, which, if brought about by a Russian army England and France would for a moment tolerate? Let us ask, therefore, is it one to be permitted when brought about by a diplomatic fraud? We use this strong expression advisedly. When the Court of St. Petersburgh took credit with Western Europe for having withdrawn her troops and her squadron of men of war from Constantinople, the fair and honest understanding was, that after the retreat of her forces, she should stand in exactly the same situation with regard to Great Britain and France, and by consequence in the same situa tion towards Turkey, as before she had under taken the expedition to the Turkish capital. The plain sense of the thing was, that when she engaged to the other powers to withdraw her troops, she implied an engagement to ab stain from exacting any price for that withdrawal which should operate as an advantage to her self, obtained without the privity of the parties whose demand she had promised to comply with. But how stands the fact ? The troops retired ; but in the mean time Count Orloff had appeared, and as the secret price of the os tensible fulfilment by Nicholas of his en gagements with France and England—a price which those powers would never have per mitted beforehand the Ottoman Porte to in cur—he actually by a stroke of the pen shut out all Europe from the navigation of the Euxine, hitherto an open sea, save only at the will and pleasure of his Muscovite Majesty. This whole transaction is admirably . 4lescribed in the concluding article of the last number of the Foreign Quarterly Review. The article is entitled " Turkey, Egypt, Russia ; the Crisis in the East." We have no time at present to touch pn any other of its extensive topics but that of the policy pursued of late by Russia, and must therefore omit to notice the striking and interesting narrative which it offers of the war between Mehemet Ali and the Sultan. But throughout the whole article, and eminently in his acute development of the intrigues and subtleties of the Russian Cabinet, the author exhibits a knowledge of his subject at once in timate, sound, and well-digested. We agree with him in the deprecation of hasty or ill-con sidered measures by this country, however jus tified on every ground of self-defence and of the law of nations ; but that without a bold and masculine policy,—one for which, we fear, re course must be had, more to acknowledged prin ciple than to any precedent discoverable in the history of England during the last few years, — the projects of unjust supremacy disclosed by Russia can be so much as even momentarily checked in their execution, we are not chimeri cal enough to entertain the slightest hope. We must defer to a future day the concluding ob servations of the writer, which are extremely valuable, as expositions of the general character and designs of Russia, and limit ourselves now to a short extract, illustrative of the dishonest proceedings which terminated in the convention of July. " True it is, however, that on the very day - after the return of the Russian ()Seer who had seen the passage of Ibrahim's army across the Taurus, the Russian commander requested permission of the Turkish go vernment for his troops to return to their own country, which being granted, they actually embarked and sailed. Nobody on the spot thought it probable that they would go ; nobody, indeed, would believe that they had gone until the last vessel had rounded the Symplegades ; then all at once burst forth a general chorus in praise of Russian honour 1 The sincerity of the Emperor's professions and the loyalty of his con duct were everywhere vaunted. Had Russia, indeed, acting in the spirit of her engagement, withdrawn her troops without obtaining any recompense • had she not taken advantage of the weakness of her ally to further her own selfish ends ; then, though she would have acted only with common honour and honesty, yet looking at the general course of her policy, we should have acknowledged with praise that in this instance she had pursued a straightforward course. But this— true to herself—she has not left it in our power to do. The Europeans at Constantinople had not recovered from their surprise at seeing Russia, with openness and readiness, fulfilling her engagements, when a report arose—hardly credited at first, as originating with the dishonest dragomans—that the long interviews between Count Orloff and the Reis Effendi, and subsequently with the Sultan, had not been without result. A treaty was talked of, of what kind does the reader think ?—a treaty of mutual protection between Russia and Turkey ! The report was confirmed, and as no secret in that land of corruption may not be discovered, a copy of it, though not for some time officially given, was soon obtained by the alarmed ambassadors of other countries, who, innocent themselves, ' thinking no ill where no ill seemed,' had been rejoicing over the ter mination of their embarrassments the moment they saw the Russian squadron sailing up the Bosphorus. " The basis of this treaty (of July 8) is declared to be that of reciprocal defence ; its object being the pro tection of the two contracting parties against all at tacks, whether foreign or domestic ; and each engages to give to the other such effective aid and assistance as will insure that object ; and that the auxiliary forces, whether by sea or land, which cirumstances may com pel either party to require by virtue of this treaty, shall not be at the expense of the party who asks for the assistance, except in the supply of provisions. By a separate article, the Porte, acting in the spirit of this treaty, and to promote its object,' engages to close, in case of need, the straits of the Dardanelles. The in tention of the contracting parties is, that this treaty should last for ever, but for the present its duration is limited to eight years. All preceding treaties are con firmed, especially, amongst others, the treaty of Ad rianople, and the parties pledge themselves to everlast ing peace and amity. " Looking at the state of the relations between Turkey and Russia previously to this treaty, we shall find that the latter Power had secured too firm and solid a footing in the other to be easily shaken. By the 9th article of the treaty of Adrianople, Turkey acknowledged a debt of nearly 5,000,0001. sterling, as an indemnity for the war. It was subsequently agreed that this sum should be paid by regular instalments in ten years, during which time Russia was to hold the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia as security for the payment. We need hardly add, that Turkey never will, never can discharge this debt ; and she has the less inducement to do so, since Russia has, by other regulations of the same treaty, so far taken the princi palities under her protection, and deprived the Turks of all advantages from them, that the nominal suze rainete of the Porte, and the equally nominal tribute, cannot be worth possessing, certainly less so than the large sum which must be paid to re cover them. By the same treaty it is agreed that the commerce of Russian subjects is not to be checked in any case, or under any pretence, by any pro hibition, restriction, regulation, or measure, whether of administration or legislation. Russian vessels are never, under any pretext, to -be visited or spoken to, or interfered with in any way, by the Ottoman autho rities ; and Russian subjects, who, be it mentioned, have of late greatly increased in Turkey, are placed throughout that country under the exclusive jurisdiction and police of the ministers and consuls of Russia. By this last treaty of Constantinople the Porte not only binds itself to have the same friends and enemies as Russia, but to close the Dardanelles against the vessels of every other country, in case of need, which means, if it have any meaning, at her request. Is it not little else than a delusion, under these circumstances, to call Turkey an independent country ? • • • . • • • " The fact is, Russia has at last driven into Tur key the end of that fatal wedge by which she has con trived to dispossess so many other countries of their governments and independence, and to substitute her self in their place. She has afforded her protection and gained the right of interference. Her course has then been uniform ; she mixes herself up in every question between the government and its subjects ; she foments the dissensions which she interferes to allay ; she corrupts where there is strength, and oppresses where there is weakness, until exhaustion and treach ery finish for her the work of subjection."— Times of Tuesday. • It is scarcely possible to imagine any thing more provocative of laughter than the bluster and bombast with which the Times vents its reproaches, not only against the Russian go vernment, but against every continental journal ist who ventures to say any thing in the slight est degree opposed to the notions which at the present moment that very consistent and high principled paper thinks fit to proclaim as to the character and objects of Russian policy. Yes terday our contemporary issued the following, with several other equally loud peals of its mimic thunder : " Were, the Russian government inactive--were the Czar to remain motionless in the position to which the last three or four years have raised him—still must every man in England who feels for the security of his own country, and for the repose of Europe, view with distrust and apprehension the offensive attitude which that Sovereign has chosen to assume, and con sider as almost in the nature of a direct aggression upon each individual state in Christendom the new and very formidable relation in which Russia has placed herself towards them all. " But the Russian Cabinet is not inactive ; our lag ging vigilance is frequently roused by some fresh de monstration on the part ofNicholas or his servants of the venom by which the Muscovite Counsels have never ceased to be actuated. Scarcely a day passes without producing some proof of the deep-rooted jealousy and mortal hatred which, circumspect as in general Russia is, drives her almost headlong into collision with this country—not in Europe only, but in distant quarters of the earth. Scarcely does a foreign journal appear without containing some article indicative of the fixed and all-pervading hostility between Russian aggran dizement and British power In every paragraph the defensive spirit of Englishmen (measures of their Go vernment, alas there are none), manifested on all oc casions against the positive encroachments of Russia, forms a text for grave reproach or insolent derision ; the Allgemeine Zeitung, the Austrian Observer, letters from Berlin, from the Inn, the Vistula, the Danube, all teem with attacks upon the resistance (as yet no more than moral resistance) presented by the British nation to the grand scheme of Russian supremacy over the east of Europe. Vexation and malignity, but dogged stubbornness of purpose, are apparent in every line. " What is that same convention of St. Peters burgh ? • * It is one which, for the first time in the history of the world, makes the admission of Eng lish men-of-war to Constantinople and the whole of the Black Sea, contingent upon the gracious assent and condescension of Russia, avowing that Turkey is a tributary and a vassal of the Czar, and placing in the hands of the latter despot the keys of the commercial intercourses between the Mediterranean and the Euxine. It is a convention which transfers to Russia the virtual sovereignty of the Turkish empire, and establishes precisely the same relations between them, as if Con stantinople had been taken by assault, and Nicholas was in military possession of the whole territory from the mouths of the Danube to the western extremity of the Dardanelles. Now is that a change in the condi tion of human affairs which, if brought about by a Russian army, England and France would for a mo ment tolerate ? Let us ask, therefore, is it one to be permitted, when brought about by a diplomatic fraud ?" Now we certainly cannot see how any re proach can be too grave, or how any derision can be justly described as insolent, that may happen to be retorted to such language as this, when it proceeds from a journal notoriously the foremost in applauding and supporting the whole series of measures, on the part of the British Government, which have led, as natu rally as ever cause produced its effect, to the present relative positions of - Russia and Tur key—from a journal which thoroughly and completely identified itself with that policy of which Lord Holland gave the only intelligible exposition, when in the House of Lords he de scribed the Turkish Empire as one the preserva tion of which it would be a folly and a crime in any man to wish—from a journal which, even now, amidst all its fierce denunciations of Rus sian perfidy and ambition, labours assiduously and zealously to maintain in the possession of political power in Great Britain, an administra tion distinguished chiefly by the alacrity it has shown to become the dupe of that perfidy, and the abject submission with which it still conti nues to crouch before the steady march of that ambition. The Times attempts a fraud upon the British public not less unprincipled, although less skilful, and less successful, than any of which the Russian Government can be accused, when it affects alarm and indignation at the spirit of encroachment which characterises the Mus covite Power, while it has no louder note of reprobation than an occasional and parenthe tical alas I for the imbecility, the cowardice, or the treachery in the councils of Great Britain, which have presented, to that aggressive and ambitious policy, temptations too strong to be withstood, and opportunities too auspicious to be neglected.—Morning Post. Trades' Unions are bad things. They are bad in principle, and they lead to consequences in unison with that badness of principle. But they are not worse now, though they have ex cited the wrath of Government, than they were when they enjoyed its patronage, and patronised it in return. We cannot, therefore, go the whole way with an evening contemporary in denouncing them to the law and the legislature as depots of treason, and charging, their leaders at least, with a systematic design for the over throw of the Government, and the appropriation to themselves and their followers of the whole property of the kingdom. What results those formidable combinations may ultimately lead to, further than that we think they can lead to no good, it is not our present purpose to inquire ; but we think it impossible that the directors of this immense mob machinery, supposing them to entertain such a design, could so soon have altered the character of our industrious population as to render them fit instruments al ready for the execution of such atrocious projects. Weak as the present Government confessedly is in public opinion, the Constitution has still a strong hold upon the mind of the nation, and the sacred nature of property is sufficiently recog nised amongst us to be secure against any m ad attempt at robbery which, under the circum stances, none but murderers could contemplate. The mischiefs arising from Trades' Unions and the prospects connected with them are bad enough without such fearful exaggerations as those to which we have been alluding. Our own opinion is that the Trades' Unions, prosperous as they seem at present, carry within themselves the seeds of dissolution. They are founded in despotism, and the fiat has gone forth against every despotic institution which, however it may be disguised for the moment, must, sooner or later, yield to the increasing power of knowledge. The Unions, we say, are founded in despotism— witness their conduct towards individuals who refuse to join them, and their intolerance of any thing like free agency on the part of those who, many of them with great reluctance, are enrolled amongst their members. The bond that holds them together is fear, and it must give way before long. There are also assistant causes of dissolution which can scarcely fail to operate. It is, we should-conceive, impossible but that the distress which their proceedings are calcu lated to bring upon poor families, and the ruin with which they threaten the general interests of trade, must assist in opening the eyes of the 4 majority to the thraldom in which they are held by a few. Adversity is a great purifier of the sight ; it is an acid that stimulates the moral perception exceedingly ; and, if they continue long in the same blind allegiance to their leaders which they manifest at present, they are likely to have enough of it. But in the mean time the whole nation will suffer as a manufacturing nation, and evils will begin to show themselves of which no man can see the end. If it be the intention of Government to take any steps for putting down the domineering power which they once lent their best exertions to foster, it is not by a side-wind that they can hope to accomplish such an object ; neither is it by a verdict, which shows rather the treachery than the energy of the law by throwing the noose of an Act of Parliament over the heads of sleep ing men. No ;if they mean to grapple with the unions, they must do so directly and man fully, and upon proper occasion, not exagge rating the parties into monsters nor their pro jects into miracles, but showing the real mis chief and danger of each, and applying to both a reasonable and a just correction.— Morning Herald. We have been much struck with the folow ing daring article in the Morning Post of yes terday : " Another attempt--another abortive attempt—has been made to fill up the vacant seat at the Treasury board. Mr. John Warre, the very respectable and very dull member for Hastings, was the bold man who thought he could secure his re-election upon taking office under Lord Grey, and he, like his predecessor, has failed ; and for the same reasons that his predeces sor failed—from the universal unpopularity and con tempt which, attaches to any man who consents in any way to connect himself with the present ministry. " Mr. Warre, however, acted with more discretion than the Hobhouses, Berkeleys, and Campbells, who preceded him, by making his acceptance of office con ditional upon his re-election. He has been thrice to Hastings on this errand, and exposed during the late north-easters to the cutting winds, and more cutting refusals of his constituents in every dirty lane and alley of the borough. " Within the last two days he was undecided, ex pecting that the respectable portion of the inhabitants would, if the contest rested between him and the Radi cal candidate, Mr. Elphinstone, prefer him ; but an address from Mr. Planta, formerly member for the borough, and Secretary to the Treasury under the Duke of Wellington's administration, expressing his readiness to come forward if the vacancy occurred, has at once dispelled all hesitation, and Mr. Warre in despair has resigned the Lordship of the Treasury, which he had conditionally accepted. " Thus, after four months' delay, and hawking this office for sale to any one who could venture to vacate his seat, the Reform Ministry find their own bill so im practicable in its working that the wheels of the Go vernment machine are completely locked. They have no Attorney-General for England in the House of Commons and no means of getting him in ; no Attor ney or Solicitor-General for Ireland to assist a Se cretary so confessedly incapable that nothing but the impossibility of introducing a successor into the House of Commons could keep him a week where he now is; in short, such is the state of the King's Government in the House of Commons, that no man, however grasping or ambitious, dares to take office under them ; and out of the House such is their character for mean ness and political profligacy, that nine-tenths of the gentry and educated classes are opposed to them, whilst the radicals use them as the instruments of their ulterior designs, and, by degrading and holding them up to public obloquy, are preparing the public mind to hold all government in contempt. Despised in and out of Parliament, nothing saves them from public indig nation except the selfishness of those who, having got into Parliament by the factious cry of reform, know they will never be returned again, and therefore sup port the men whom, on every other account, they ri dicule and despise." The abuse of Mr. Warre is beneath notice, and we will not follow the example set by our morning contemporary, by abusing Mr. Planta, following the old maxim of de mortuis, &c. When a Secretary to the Treasury under the Duke of Wellington's administration has only to make his appearance in a town of 10,000 inhabitants to drive all other competitors out of the field, we may next expect the dead to rise from their graves. With the borough oligarchy at his back, Mr. Planta might have been for midable in Hastings ; but on the death of oli garchy, Mr. Planta's political death followed as a matter of course. Requiescat in pace. The paragraph is not, however, altogether invention. There is no use ‘ in attempting to mystify the public —supposing we were even to lend our selves to anything of the sort. • Mr. Warre did, it is true, make his acceptance of the vacant seat at the Treasury Board conditional, and he has been at Hastings sounding his constituents, with a view to ascertain the chance of his re-election. He discovered that he would not have been re-elected. In these matters parties are apt to err rather on the san guine side. Mr. Warre, however, by not ac cepting the seat at the Treasury Board, and vacating his seat, tacitly admits that he did not think he would have succeeded. We have been informed by a friend of Mr. Elphinstone, the Radical candidate (we state the source, because the question is one of evidence), that Mr. Warre did not receive more than 105 promises, inclu ding the Tories and Whigs. This was when there were only Mr. Warre and Mr. Howard Elphinstone in the field. Mr. Planta made his appearance at the twelfth hour ; but if he had been betimes in the field, he would have polled about 50 out of the 105 promised to Mr.Warre, has. Wbeeaorreo.ommSuocnhioai formation which M r a n t g ion ss wh f communicated and we do not hesitate to publish it, because (supposing it to be, at all events an approxi mation to the truth) it indicates sufficiently the verydifficult position in which ministers are placed. The Tories are grievously mistaken if they suppose that Mr.Warre s difficulties in Hastings are occa sioned by any reaction in favour of themselves. But they know better. They know that their acceptance of office would rally the whole country, now divided between Whigs and Radi cals, against them. The strength of the Tories is in the Aristocracy and the Church, and the Ministry are less popular than they otherwise would be, were they to be more decided in their giving to the Reform Bill the consequences ex pected from it by many. We may allude to a thorough reform of the Church—the relieving the Bishops from the labour of attending the House of Lords—the unpensioning aristo cratical paupers, who have no claims but family connection to the public money—the opening the magistracy, of which the Tories, through their Lords-Lieutenant, have almost a monopoly, &c. &c. The difficulties of Minis ters are not in the House of Commons. The Members in general feel every disposition to make allowance for the relation in which Minis ters stand to another house. But the people do not make that allowance ; and we need not say, that in the long run, Members must have an eye on their constituents. The House of Lords, as great landholders, must always have much influence in the affairs of this country. But there cannot be two powers in a State. Thore cannot be a House of Commons determining one way, and a House of Lords determining another. Before the reform of Parliament took place, there could be no differ ence of determination between the two Houses, because the House of Lords returned or influ enced a majority in the House of Commons. The theory of the Constitution given in text books was not the true theory. During the struggles of the 17th century, the Commons were more powerful than the Lords, because, from a variety of circumstances, the old nobility had lost much of their property, and the new creations were made by favour of court, and not on account of great possessions, and so gave no fresh strength to the Upper House. All this time immense masses of property had been fall ing into the hands of Commoners. During the 18th century a different policy was pursued. Whenever a man acquired great property, and could influence boroughs, no matter whether he were Jew or Gentile, whether his blood were pure Norman, or " Had crept through scoundrels ever since the flood," he was moved into the House of Peers, and gave unity to the government. The Reform Bill, however, has put an end to the efficiency of this system. The present state of things, however, cannot continue long. There cannot, as we have said, be two powers in a state. Two Houses of Parliament there ought to be ; but they will not remain long as they are now. However, things will find their level without our going out of our way to vaticinate. We trust that the good sense of those who influ ence the people, will teach them that it is pos sible to go too fast, as well as too slow—that if ministers, with the best intentions in the world, go a little too slow, there are others in the country who go a little too fast. They should remember that there is such a thing as com bustion from excessive rapidity of motion.— Morning Chronicle. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—YoRK, MARCH 31. (Before Mr. Justice ALDERSON.) George Taylor, gamekeeper to Lord Muncaster, was indicted for shooting John Paxton, at Mur burnholme, on the 9th of October last, with intent to murder him, or do him some grievous bodily harm. Lord Muncaster, and other witnesses, were called to the prisoner's character. His LORDSHIP summed up, and the jury, after having been out for nearly three hours, returned with a verdict of Acquittal. . . The above is the second case tried at these as sizes against gamekeepers for wounding poachers, under precisely similar circumstances—firing at the dog and hitting the man. William Hackney, Thomas Wilkinson, and Wil liam Thompson, were indicted for the manslaughter of John Brown, on the 30th of October last, near Hornsey. The - deceased and the first prisoner Hackney, had a pugilistic contest on the day named. They fought sixty or seventy rounds, and the fight lasted nearly an hour and half. The fight was " a fair stand-up fight," and there seemed to be nothing unfair " in a fighting sense" practised by either of the parties. The brother of the deceased was the principal wit ness, and he said that the deceased seemed to have the best of the fight. In a struggle in the last round both fell together. The deceased fell on his back and head, and on being lifted up his head fell upon his shoulders, and he was taken off the ground in a gig. He expired that evening. The parties fought for a subscription purse of twenty pounds. The other two prisoners acted as seconds. The Jury found Hackney and Wilkinson Guilty, and acquitted Thompson. His Lordship sentenced the prisoners to four months' imprisonment and hard labour. John Gill: was indicted for a misdemeanor, for obtaining money under false pretences, , from a per son of the name of John Asquith, at Merfield, in December last. Verdict—Guilty. His LORDSHIP said, as the prisoner was an attor ney, he conceived he was bound to inflict the se verest punishment ; and the sentence of the Court was, that the prisoner should be transported for seven years. MIDLAND CIRCUIT.-WARWICK, MARCH 31. The Commission for holding the Assizes for this county was opened on Saturday evening, and the business commenced at ten o'clock this morning be fore Chief Justice TINDAL on the Nisi Prius side. Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE sits on the Crown side. There are the names of 112 prisoners in the ca lendar, and about ten more have been brought in since that was printed ; but the crimes with which they are charged are less atrocious than at any former Assizes that we recollect. The cause list contains 38 cases, five of which are to be tried before special juries, and Sir J. Scar lett is said to be retained in two of them. OXFORD CIRCUIT.—GLOUCESTER, Miami 31 (Before Mr. Justice PARK.) HIGGS V. BRICK. Mr. C. PHILLIPS (with whom was Mr. ALEX ANDER) said that this was an action for criminal con versation. The plaintiff was an innkeeper at Cheltenham, the defendant being a corn-dealer in a large way of business in that town. It would be shown that the defendant used the house of the plaintiff as the place at which he paid his trade debts. This, there fore, caused his visits not to be suspected. How ever, about six months ago, the plaintiff began to suspect that something was wrong, as the manage ment of his house very much fell off, and the temper of his wife became so much worse that she quarrelled with her sister, and this led to some disclosures which confirmed the suspicions of the plaintiff ; and in the end evidence was discovered which left no doubt of the fact imputed to the defendant. Jesse Castle said—l live at Cheltenham. I pro duce the copy of the register of the plaintiff's mar riage. He was married on the 15th of March, 1826. I know the plaintiff. He keeps a public house, the sign of the Cock, at Cheltenham. Within the last two years I have been frequently at the house, and I live next door to it. The plaintiff and his wife appeared to live comfortably together. I never heard them quarrel. The plaintiff's wife ap peared to conduct herself well. Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW—The plaintiff kept a pork-shop before he went to the Cock. I am a constable. I had occasion to go to the plaintiff's house often. Both he and his wife have let me know when suspicious characters came to the house. The house was not frequented by such characters more than any other public-house. I never saw the plaintiff beat his wife. I have heard that the plaintiff's wife took out a summons against her husband. I never saw the defendant take li berties with the plaintiff's wife when her husband was present. I never saw him put his arm round her waist in her husband's presence. The defendant is a corn-dealer in the High -street at Cheltenham. I have seen the plaintiff's wife wearing a watch. She used to carry it in her bosom. I don't know that the defendant's name was upon it. There was no house in Cheltenham more free from prostitutes than the plaintiff's.—(A laugh.) I mean no public house. I have seen girls of the town go in there, and call for a glass, but they were never harboured there, and the plaintiff and his wife would never allow them to sit down, and they stood at the bar to drink what they called for. The defendant is 23 or 24. He is not married. The plaintiff's wife is hard upon 30, and her husband is rather older. Mr. William Fletcher—l was at the marriage of the plaintiff and his wife. I gave her away. Cross-examined—The wedding supper was at my houge. At the supper a female came in and sat down. I do not recollect that she was a woman who walked the streets of Cheltenham at night. The females of the wedding party turned her out. This was at the wedding-night supper. My wife said the female had no business there, and she was turned out. The plaintiff's wife was a servant at the Shakspeare public-house at Cheltenham, at which I have seen trampers during the race time. I do not know whether the plaintiff's wife or chambermaid, as the landlord there keeps but one servant. " b ut Mr. Justice PARK—She was a servant girl, that is no imputation on her moral character. Cross-examination resumed—l never saw th e plaintiff kick or strike his wife. I have heard their grumble at her, as other married men do at their wives. I Thomas Rattenbury said—On the sth o y t went with the plaintiff's wife to the countri• Wes ell to a public-house, called the House i n the Tfree, which is four miles from Cheltenham. 'n i n e de e I dant came there. We returned towards uhelten ham together at about seven o'clock in the even ing : . was barmaid The defendant said he had to call at a fartu'l lans ` which was a mile and a half further on, and he asked a the plaintiff's wife to go with him. I went on 0f little way, and then turned back in con se q uence s ting some suspicion, and I saw the defendant assi the defendant's wife over a hedge, not on the sam e , side of the road as the farm. I got within aboui fifteen yards of where they got over the hedge' s saw them under an elm tree.—(The details of this • fon.) witness's evidence were quite unfit for p ublica i I went on to the Cross Hands, where the defenda.U! f p de li iai intiff t plaintiff sath wife, afterwards joined me. He said the plaintiff's wi fe had gone by the field way. I overtook her, a nd ' went home with her. Cross-examined—l was taking a walk with th e tp a i i i id in she tsiafrms e s h a o i e d u: s n h wi ne with h, would obtuh te r go Igoe did a sit gentle me far o; as the House in the Tree. I have seen the de" ing after the time I have mentioned. I savi t the rl tell him what I had seen for three or I°, a months.. I was not the first who told him. 171 to married man, and I have my happiness to atteui as well as Mr. Higgs has his, and I thought i L; told it it would make discord in the family. '''• i ,„ younger sister of the plaintiff's wife told of it. P : ',," made a communication to theplaintiff , • b ''.. which t doted him to speak to me. The plaintiff did n e " live with his ' • • wife a single day after he knov of this . I had frequently seen the defendant in the Pla intiff's house after that occurred which I have mentioned. He came to pay the people. Re-examined—l never mentioned the m atter t 0 any one before I told the plaintiff. The plaintfe wife's sister is about 15. The plaintiff and his N 1 have a daughter about seven years old. the James Peters said—l was at Gloucester at• last Spring Assizes. I put up at the Black Deg i The defendant and the plaintiff's wife I went a t Gloucester. They were at Mrs. Taylor's. there to look for lodgings, as I could no t .be at t he the voice s inn. I slept there. I n th e n ight I Beard of the defendant and the plaintiff's n the nex t room to me! I knew their voices well. in Mr. Daniel Boucher said—l have a house e d St. George's-place, Cheltenham, which is mortgag to the defendant for 500/. He is a corn-d e aler. his Cross-examined—l have seen the Plai ntiff ' wife, and the defendant at the Fountaini at Glo.11; tester, altogether. I never saw Mrs. or the defendant when her husband was Pre sen " ° I sitting on the defendant's knee when wereusba.u' was present. I might have said they sittingr on the same chair, but their faces were not neare., together than those of persons in conversation. .51, have never said that I had seen the defendant .ki .. the plaintiff ' s wife, but I have seen them more Ile mate than I should have liked. I have seen t a 1 plaintiff's wife conducting herself as a modest wom ~,, ought not to do when her husband was present have seen this three or four times. I have seen their chairs quite close together, and they were drink_lll out of the same glass, with their hands upon F?__ , other, such as putting his hand upon her shoulC7 . her knee, or thigh, when her husband was presea.t, Re-examined—This was when they were spe l' ing jocularly. I saw nothing indecent. the jurY Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW began to address e for the defendant, when it was arr an g ed that a v__ ~,ii : diet should be returned for the p laintiff, with I:4° damages. twit Mr. Justice PARK—I think that is the as ril r as the lady 'deuce 0, was worth, according to the evidence ra ther tio _.. the last which the witness, plaintiff Was wise in calling. w I L L I A H M O s A , I _......ar AO' AND ANOT c This was an action brought to recover daniag 9 for a libel published in the Satirist newsp a per. ..€ The libellous paragraph stated that the pislow I be fir s ' (who was a highly respectable solicitor, of had of Williams and Bethel, of Lincoln's Inn-fiel ds) gr. had his nose pulled and been horsewhipped hY,„, ;e f 1 GEECNITR.,CUV.ITc.uII:INNGsG•rnoNA,mIVI:acii 31. Just Denman, who is the nephew ionhe-Lor Lif o f ] ce, in consequence of a suspici on the P: 103 1 Mr. Denman, that the plaintiff had c arried eu 1 illicit correspondence with his wife. # the . Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE stated the case -° jury. After one witness had been examined, sred Mr. THESSIGER (who, with Mr. Tindal , aPt ei d,, for the defendants) said that as his learned ' l ' t he on the part of Mr. Williams, had made ea be liberal offer of consenting to nominal dainage7heir begged, on the part of his clients, to e%pressf this great regret at being made the instruments ° d i e t. slander ; they would therefore submit io the ' Ter Verdict for the plaintiff, ls. . Captain Scott, the author of " Reec uie d his of a Naval Life,"_ just published, was whenpreseete bis o tt Lord Byron to the King at the last levee, in g manner, to the gallant officer's book, whi ch 'd e rice d from m jes i t t y s w st as rik gr in a g ci i o n u c s id ly en p t l s e , ased to allude, in a verY in deed independently of the great amusem national _„ort ance, as placing in their t e possesses light a niany o f the _ or , cumstances that occurfed in the late mor ale o l her which have been so much misrepresentespokenon of by side of the Atlantic. In all the aff eir „ 9 l ied. c oncer the Captain, he was himself person a BIRTHS. ,i n gleY, °l.° On the 30th ult., at Brompton, IVlrs. W. C . -- - f daughter. . p ay o On the 31st ult., in Dorset-place, Dorset-square, th e ta so p. Major Hitching, Deputy Adjutant-General, Madras , the jag On the 30th ult., at Whitbourne, Herefordsh ire, of the Rev. Robert Biscoe, of a daughter. Av O din' On the 30th ult., in Connaught-square, the la- , ° Washington, Esq., of a son, ._irey cir, On the 4th of Novembe M r A la ß st ß , at: thecol Durham,i lateege, Oxford,t o Joseph P ae Harriet, rnr eldest , Bombay, Alfred Thomas, Esq .... w ent m •01 1 - ~ of the Bth oeg i .. n o Cr' NJ., to Angela, second daughter of the Rev. Th °— 1 , of low, of Marylebone, Middlesex . ....,¢ st '' { On the 31st ult., the Rev. Henry Jenkyns, On the 0 -.Bth ult., the Rev. Edward Perry, Ye u- ' e , iy iell ProfessorEsci'fello,.. ev ati ~] ~, 00. Hobhouse, of Hadspen, Somersetshire. in Gre {lV, On the 31st ult., by special license, at her house o° pill 3, street, Grosvenor-square, Lady East (sister to Mi to „veste er .„l Esq., M.P. for Petersfield) to the Hon. John Craven `t-cotoli' third son of Lord Rosamore, Captain and Lietd ena° At, in the Scots Fusileer Guards. co. -o')''' o , On the 31st ult., at St. John's, Norwich, g r ' . 6 , Cad' e fili. of Bloomfield-street, Finsbury, and Peckhani, wio.tor;-mi, Blake, niece of John Ringer, Esq., o f Tottington-ba r ,, c hSr - st On the Bth ult., at Paris, at the British Arobas s3d° yoe Pge Captain Timings, Bengal Artillery, to Charlotte, Sstl , daughter of Robert Crump, Esq., of CheltenhaM•n .der, , of On the 20th ult., at Papdale, Orkney, Ben i !' '..d3;ogte of Ids , les, advocate, to Elizabeth Dorothy, e n ' Y Samuel Laing, Esq., of Papdale. , AO DIED. stre" Godfrey Meynell, Esq of Upper WimPe''. ~ pcl. , Bradley-hall, Derbyshire. „„ ar, pft , • On the 31st ult., in Dorset-square, William ~- t oe, .0, On the 31st ult., at the house of his grandietio. cal Cruikshank, Gloucester-street, Portman-W ere ' C ~,,igti., daughterof GDor. Greek Thomas'set h einDR Devon ig,viCnv.h o.ii r :oroi 4 , cie iiir ii‘ , second son of Major Darwey, Royal Artillery. ~,,,, 4 " „of On the 29th ult, at the house of J. Sweetland! ' , '":.ily se" mouth, Devon, in his 4th year, Henry Park 0 114 t ocle D i o , Mr. IL R. Hill, of Sidmouth.street, Regent-squer,e'.l3,, JO' On the 26th ult., at the Hewk, near Lockerby, `... 5. le o f youngest child of Captain G. J. Hope Johnstone, 0 , 04,, 1 t° On the 28th ult., Mary, relict of T. J. French , P o ce, Peterborough, Northamptonshire. ces ter - P On the 27th ult., Mr. Wm. Arp thorp, of Glo 7 u 0, Newington, late of Middle-row, Holbor n, aged 7 i on , 3010 On the 28th ult., at Marland-place, Southattilll, eo , A Marianne, the wife of Charles Burnett , Esq-, s - Hants. 111 4° ' 0 y - SR London : Printed and Published by 3 1 '-' S -- d, . till' , at the Sun Office, No. 112'