The Sun. — London, England, 1831-04-01 00:00:00

(-PIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS• The Select Committee appointed to report on the salaries and emoluments of office, have, in our opinion, very properly recommended to the House of Commons, that it is expedient to repeal the Act which enables the Crown to recompense the , ser vices of persons holding certain high civil offices; arid that any case of public service, considered t o be deserving, should be submitted to the decisio n of the House. Mr. Goulburn has objected to the introduction of this topic into the report, as a de parture from the proper object of inquiry referred to the Committee, and an invasion of the right's of the Sovereign. As to the former objection, it is, at the best, but a technical one, foe if the recommendation be a just and reasonable on e , we t hi n k Parliament i ought to adopt r, from whatever scarce it comes; but, even on technical grounds the objection does not appear to be a corr ect one . A C omm i ttee ap pointed pointed to inquire into the salaries and emoluments of civil office had surely a right to turn their atten tion to superannuated allowances, and retiring pen sions, and to recommend to the House any alteration which seemed to them to be necessary, either es to the amount of such allowances, or the principle on which they are granted. Thee- have thought it their duty to recommend that the principle should be changed, and that no such allowances oc ee tiring pensions should be hereafter given to the classes of public functionaries to whom the repent refers but under the advice and sanction of Parlia ment. This brings us to the second objection of Mr. Goulburn—namely, that to adopt such it mea sure would be to invade the rights of the Sove reign, and to violate the principles of the Constitu tion. As far as the Constitution is concerned the question is easily settled, for the Sovereign has not this power by the ancient Constitution, but by a modern Act of Parliament. There was a time whin several of the great Officers of State now ap pointed by the Crown were tilled up by Parlia ment. We think it right that the power of appoint ment to those offices should remain exclusively in the hands of the Crown—but it seems equally clear that the pecuniary rewards and compensation for the past services of the holders of such civil offices should at least have the approval of the Great Council of the Nation. It is an essential principle of the Constitution that the House of Commons is the legitimate guardian of the public purse, and it is of the last importance to the interests of the country, that such a maxim should not only be maintained in theory, but rigidly enforced in practice. The Act by which Ministers, when they had a most subservient House of Com mons, secured pensions for themselves, indepen dently of all controul by Parliament over the merits of each particular caee, was itself a gross violation of this constitutional maxim. It is neither for the dignity of the Crown nor the interests of the country that a Minister should have a prospective and indefeasible right to a pension, in right of filling a certain office, without any consideration as to the manner in which he may have performed its duties. This is to place the indolent, the corrupt, the dishonest, and the inefficient Minister, on a level as to compensation with a Statesman of the most able and upright character, whose talents may have adorned the history of his country, and whose services may have entitled him to its gratitude. Par liament should have that controul over the conduct of the public servants of the state, which consists in exercising the power of investigating their claim to compensation and pensions on their retirement from cffice, and advising the Crown to grant et re fuse such allowance. 'P his is not to take away the power of rewarding civil officers from the Crown, but only to qualify and regulate it, by connecting it with the salutary application of a great constitu tional principle.—Morning Herald. It has been stated that "there are 25 livings in the Ile of Ely, one of which is of the value of 6,0001. per annum, two of 2,4001. each, four be tween 1,5001. and 2,000!., four between 1,000/. and 1,5001., two of 1,0001., two of 8501., one of .5001., and nine under 3004, and in the whole hut two resident Incumbents! ' The same authority states a near relative of the ilishop of the diocese as possessing no less than six pieces of preferment, amounting in value to 5,400/. ; five of them de manding constant residence. Now, when any alto sion is made to these or similar abuses which un happily are allowed to exist, an outcry is generally raised by the possessors and expectants of these dis graceful pluralities, that it is done by enemies of the Church, with a view of bringing it and religion into contempt. To such persons Lord Brougham's admirable allusion to the charitable conscatntions ness of Judas Iscariot is the best answer. Such persons are no more friends to the Church or to religion than Judas was to the poor. They arc not the. true shepherds, but mercenary hirelings, whose vo ces the sheep know not. The time is happily i gone by for such delusion as this to have any weight, and people must be blind indeed if they imagine that, when the spirit of Reform is afloat, such monstrous abuses as these can pass unre dressed. Would it not then be wiser in those who have it in their power to check such abuses rather than cherish and increase them—and to ask their own conscience, if they have any, whether they ar e not themselves inflicting more fatal wounds on the Church than any which its bitterest foes can be the cause of ? Reform generally is too long in coming, to assume always so moderate a character, when it arrives, as it would have done had its opponents yielded sooner. The Church has, in this point of view, much more to fear from within than from with our; and, as the keys of its safety are still in the hands of those most interested in its preservation, they must be insane indeed if they do not protect it while they can.—Morning Herald. The affairs of Belgium now assume a very alarm ing- appearance. The intrigues of the House of Orange, abetted too much, we fear, by other Powers, have provoked the indignation of the people against the supposed friends of that house. Serious ex cesses have been committed. The House of Orange are further than ever from their object. The affairs of Belgium are so secondary an affair to this country, that we trust the Government will not allow us to be drawn into a war, whatever may be the result of the present disturbances. The national honour is not implicated, and we are sure that no object, to be purchased by a war, can render it our interest to en gage in one. Let those merchants who are con stantly raving about the Scheldt, bear in mind that a maritime war throws the whole of the carrying trade into the hands of the Americans, that this brings with it the question of right of search, which the Americans will assuredly resist. The result may be disadvantageous to America as well as to ourselves ; but that is no reason for rushing on danger with our eyes open. All our management hitherto has only counteracted the object we had in view. If a war takes place, Belgium will, as a mafter of course, throw herself into the arms of France ; and it would not be possible for us to wrest Antwerp from France, except by taking part in a war which might be as tedious and expensive as the last. It would be well to reflect before embarking ill a war, that of all the wars of the last century, there is hardly one, which is not condemned by his tory.—.2tforning Chronicle. The entrance of the Austrian troops into Bologna ott the 20th March is now no longer involved in doubt. The consnuences of this step must be continental war. We cannot for a moment believe that the Austrian General would take such a step without the express direction s o f hi s G overnment, and neither can we behave that the Austrian Go vernment would take such a step without weighing all the consequences of it, and withoixthavin deter mined to brave them. The speech of M.' Casimir Perrier in the Chamber of Deputies oh Monday,‘ is ffi suciently indicative of the course which France mu st now take. That speech is moderate in its language, and such as it becomes. the first Alinister of a great nation to use on the eve of such events as are now,Shadowed forth; but it discloses a fixed determination, at the . same time, to enter on eke ree:i negociations with Austria with the alternative of following them up by recourse to arms, if Austria persist in her purpose. " The events of Italy," he s iye, " naturally call our attention. The situation of that country, such as has been regulated by treaties; the distribution of its forces under the sanction of the Great Powers is the general interest of Europe, of which the Roman State forms a part, demands at present explanations and guarantees.— Gentlemen, the present Ministers desire order and peace; but they only wish order in a respect for the rights of all, and in the development of these rights. We should, however, be unworthy of maintaining peeree—nay, more, incapable of doing so—if eve 'lid not show ourselves to be the zealous defenders of the interests of France, the wise and proud guardians of her power and her honour.—( Loud cries of bravo')." There is no mistaking this language. The French Government, under very trying circum stences, has contrived to throw the responsibility of disturbing the tranquillity of Europe on the abso lute Powers. Belgium was, unquestionably, a strong temptationt but Belgium was left to itself. The Emperor of Russia evidently meditated an attack on France in the spring ; but the conduct of Russia was overlooked, though the temptation to aid the Poles, who threw th'emselves between the two Powers, was eleeost irresistible. Even the suppressicn of the revolution in Modena and Ferrara, gelling its it was to the nation, would net have led to hostilities. But there is a limit to patience ; for when Austria invaded the territories of a great central State of Italy, it became obvious that forbearance only led to More daring aggression, W..e rejoice that France has not drawn on herself the responsibility of plung ing Europe into another war. For the sake of the grand principle with which France is identified, we rejoice that she will enter on this awful struggle without incurring the reproach of having given cause to the lovers of peace and tranquillity to associate that principle in their minds with war and blood shed. The despotic Governments have sought war. They know that the principle of their Governments is at variance: with the spirit of the age : they dread arid distrust their own subjects ; and, impelled by a mad wish to counteract the tendencies which the present state of European civilization beets, they plunge Europe in a war, which it were impious to suppose can have any result which shall not leave despotic rMers in greater danger than ever from the inclinations of the people, in whore, every day, the sense of o right to the blessings of good Govern ment gains, and must continue to gain, increased strength. The armies on which they trust are bondsmen, and oppressive to the people; but they will prove me security in the day of trial. France will !Inv?. with her the sympathies of the people of every nation, elevated in any degree shove the con dition of the brutes that perish. May she always remember, in the course of this struggle, that the opinion of Europe is a tower of strength, and cau tiousle abstain from all that is calculated to deprive her of the sympathies of the inhabitants of the countries into which her armies may penetrate. Better far to sacrifice her own treasure than rase up to herself a host of enemies, by oppressing the people, as her armies too often did in the wars which followed the Revolution. With respect to the people of this country, we ere sure that we should be libelling them to suppose for one moment their sympathies would not be with the French in this grand struggle between Constitutional Governments arid Despotisms. The Tories, even, must take the part of France against Austria. Sir Robert Peel said, in the House of Commons, en the 18th February last, that— " He had such confidence in the progress of knowledge— such confidence in the force of justice throughout the world, that he was per•uaded that whatever country pro yoked an unjust war against the.wishes of Europe, bring ing on it that moat terrible of. all inflictions the human race could suffer—a war,—without a just cause; he had such confidence in the force of public opinion, and the sense of justice, that let the financial resources of that country be what they might—let her military means be ever so great—the might and valour of her soldiers ever so noble, he was sure that she must ultimately fall a vie ! tim to the force of public opinion, which, he was sure, would heal all internal dissensions, and rallying the whole of Europe round one object, vindicate the great cause of peace and justice.—( Hear, hear, and (Cheers.) He said this with perfect confidence—if France, when 3he vindicated her own rights, when she ' revolted against the unjust proceedings of her late Mo narch—if France bad then been assai!ed by the Powers of Europe, in a confederacy to prevent Frnnce . from choos ing her own Government, he was confident that the Powers of Europe would have been unable to cnntroul her actions, and he was confident that their tmjnst cause must ultimately have failed.—(Cheers.") These cheers testify that Sir Robert was speak. ing the sentiments of many of the assembly which he addressed. The case which he put has actually happened. The people of the Roman State have chosen their own Government. Austria has deter mined that they shall not ; and her legions have entered the city of Bologna, driving the Constitu tional force to the mountains. Austria, therefore, has incurred the guilt of making war without a just cause, and deserves the execrations of Europe. It is no defence for Austria that the example of suc cessful revolution at Rome might ultimately en danger her tenure of Lombardy. A State is not justified in interfering to prevent all improvement in another, because it is hated by its own subjects, who might be incited by the example to rake rediess into their own hands. There never would be wanting excuses for the intervention of States in the affairs of each other weie this justification to be allowed. One evil, the constrained obedience of a people, cannot justify another, the constraining u neighbour ing people, that the latter may facilitate the former. France is a powerful country, inhabited by a much more breve, un ted, and intelligent people than the motley tribes under the sceptre of Austria. In this case, too, the Austrians aie in the country of an enemy ; the French will find friends every where.— As far as I'aly is concerned, the result of the war can hardly be doubtful. But the war will not be confined to Italy. 'We can hardly believe that there is not an understanding between Russia, Austria, and Prussia, to support each other in this conflict. As Prussia is much mote critically circumstanced than the other te:o States, she will, probably, be the greatest sufferer from a general war.—ltforning Chronicle. In looking over the debates in both Houses of Parliament on the question of Reform, we have been compelled moct reluctantly to entertain the ' opinion —not, perhaps, quite respectful to certain persons, however conscientious and involuntary on our parts—that the enemies of the measure have actually lost their wits. That innocent and single hearied gentleman the Duke of Buckingham, to whose generous indignation w e have before alluded, was almost petrified by the reports which appeared to have reached him for the first time on Wednesday evening, to the effect that such a thing existed as the sale of seats in Parliament, and that indivi duals had come madly forward to defend the prac tice as constitutional and wholesome. His Grace, we say, who manifestly knows nothing about bo roughs, was. so astonished and dismayed by what he then for the first time heard, that he sprung from his seat (and it was no Slight effort) to give the libel a flat contradiction. The Duke of Bucking ham asked " whether any one in their Lordships' House, or in the House of Commons, had• ventured to defend that • proflgate traffic" in seats for rotten boroughs ? His Grace further, and with exemplary purity and delicacy of principle, declared that one of his objections to the present Bill was its failing to make any provision against that gross abuse—viz, the traffic in returning Mem bers to • Parliament, •or rather its extending that traffic. Now, if the Duke of Buckingham's vote for or against the Bill should really depend on the fact of the sale of seats, —or, what is the same thing, the purchase of them being established or refuted 'by a reference to the debates in Parliament, we shall merely and most respectfully solicit his Grace to read the reports of the last three weeks' proceedings in the House of Commons; or, if he discredits the reports of those vile things called newspapers, we do entreat the Noble Duke' to -• • • . - inquire amongst his nutnereuslacquaintances in that House, whether one half of the arguments employed in defence of nomination boroughs did not turn on the facility which they afforded for the en trance of the commercial interest into Parliament, by virtue of certain sums of money. What was Mr. Baring's complaint, but that henceforth mer• chants would be unable to make their way into Parliament without such a ruinous. , devotion to the business of electioneeringe and consequent desertion of their r ountinfg-honses, as must speedily lead to the cehibition of their names in the Gareth?? What :yes Mr. Shelley's boast, but that the Member who bought his 'eat was the most (nay, the only) inde pendent man in Parliament. No defenders of the rotten boroughs I Why, the whole opposition to he Bill is a defence of such boroughs, (not indeed by name, for, as we have before stated, the name is never mentioned), and of the standalous modes of entering the House of Commons which are fur nished by them ; and where borough proprietors do not take the price of their seats in money, do they tint insist on having an equal value in kind? Where they do not take .5,000/. in cash, er an annuity of 1,0004 per session, leaving the occupsnt of the scat to indemnify himself as well as he can by huckster ing for his vote with the Minister, ie it not notorious that they put in some puppet who will sit on what side of the House they direct, and speak on what side of each question they feel inclined to affirm or to negative—that whether his talents be those of a bear, a dancing dog, or monkey, they lead, or drive, or whip him if he be a sluggard, into the display of them for their own proper be nefit—keeping the wretched warming-pan as a counter wherewith to mark the tricks and ho nours (honours I) of their game against the Treasury, discarding him when he shirks his offen sive labours or becomes incapable of them, and all the while branding as jecobins and revolutionists all Englishmen who presume to say that such liveried menials are not representatives of the people? Yes, we can assure the Duke of Buckingham that the system' has defend, rs, and loud ones too, and we therefore claim his vote. For, let us ask, what is that system ? It is a despotism, under the mesk of a Constitutional and limited monarchy ; it is a fourth estate—not King, not Lords, (for more than two-thirds of the House of Lords have nothing to do with boroughs), notoriously not the Commons of England, but a thing until lately never acknow ledged to exist, (indeed, how could an indictable offence be avowed ?) and when in any case glanced iat by statesmen of a former day, as a tinter of speculation or suspicion, made use of merely as a text on which to hang the s!rongest terms of oblo quy, reproach, and disgust, that the most copious vocabuiaries of the English tongue could furnish. The Duke of Wellington—we say it with regret and mortification—the Duke of Wellington laments the n.editated subversion of the rotten boroughs, because it e ill disable an arbitrary Minister from domineering so completely as he might wish to do over the representatives of the people. What a view for a British Statesman to confess that he has taken of the free Constitution of his country'.— what an acknowledgment of the imperious necessity for this Bill, and of its inestimable value to us, t he British nation. But Lord Grey has been assaulted by some desperadoes of the oligarchy, for saying that the Constitution of England is founded on " representation, and not on nomieation." On the contrary, allege these myemidons, the old Kings of England used to nominate the boroughs which they would authorise to send up Members to Parliattent —(did they nominate the Members ?) and as an ar gutnent for Englishmen of the 19th century, they send us back to the end of the 14th. This will not de. We rest our cleims on the great event of the lith century, and on the whole spirit and usage of the 18th, continued to this hour. We tell the Bri tish Polignacs that the throne, not the Parliament,is founded on nomination—on nomination by the people of England. The house of Brunswick has no other title. We close these remarks by a few extracts from the discourse of a Speaker of the House of Commons, who did not understand the principles of represen tation as they are understood by the Newcastle and the Attwood race,—a Speaker who would have leaped from his chair, had he heard in that assem bly an avowal that to buy a seat was to be a repre sentative of the people, or that to quell such traffic was to overthrow the British Constitutien. With respect, Sir, to the next question, whether these practices are any Parliamentary offence ? That it is a high offence, every page of our history, statutes, and journals, appears to me to bear evidence. * In the description of these off:nces, which constitute a violation of our privileges, there is nothing technically narrow, but the rule is to be tried by its substantial effects. Force, fraud, corrupt practices, and undue in. fluence of any sort, by which the freedom of elections is controlled, have been reprobated in all ages. a But, Sir, beyond this :—practices of this descrip_ Lion are not only offences by the law of Parliament, they have been long since') adjudged to he criminal by the corn. mon law of the realm. The bribery of votes was adjudged by the Court of King's Bench, in the early part of the present reign, to have been a common law offence, even though no precedents could he adduced to show it, and to have been punishable as such long before its increased prevalence made Parliament deem it necessary to restrain it by special statutes. And in like manner any previous agreement, or compact, to controul the votes of electors (even although the electors are not themselves bribed) has hem adjudged to he illegal, upon general grounds of policy and jurisprudence."— Earl Grey, in replying the other night to the just and conclusive observations of Lord Farnham, in opposition to the revolution, gave a new proof, either of his ignorance of the British Constitution, or of his consciousness that the Ministers can sup port their .Licobin measure of innovation only by grossly and wilfully misrepresenting it. The Noble Earl insisted that the close boroughs never were part of the British Constitution, and that the Bri tish Constitution is founded upon representation and not upon nom nation. This the Noble Lord must have known to be false, or his ignorance is gross and inexcusable. The British Constitution is not founded upon either representation or nomi nation, or any other special and exclusive mode of calling together the House of Commons. What the British Constitution has established, and requires continually and unchangeably to exist, is the due ba lance or harmonious combination in the State of the monarchical, the aristocratical, and the popular power, and it follows of necessity that whatever mode of calling together the House of Commons serves to secure and perpetuate this balance is constitu tional, and whatever mode threatens to disturb it, is revolutionary. It is said by the advocates of the Revolutionary Bill, that in order to maintain in violate the principles of the Constitution, it is neces sary to vary occasionally its forms and mode of action, in order to adapt it to the innovations which time has wrought. There is much truth in this. Let us see, however, how it applies to the Revolu tionary Bill. Among the changes which time has wrought, that of stripping the Crown of the whole of its independent hereditary revenue is one. A vast increase of the necesssiy expenses of the State, including the annual provision for the interest of an immense national debt, is another. The means of exciting, concentrating, and directing popular senti ment in relation to public affairs, are greatly im proved. This is another great change. The House of Commons has gradually become the sole con stitutional depository and organ of this over whelming arid irresistible public opinion, while it has acquired the absolute and exclusive power of giving . or withholding the supplies upon which the daily safety of the State depends. Are not these great and important changes ? The result of these various changes, the work of the great innovator, Time, has been to place the whole essential poweis of Government in the House of Commons. This is not and cannot be denied. The King, it is universally admitted, cannot, like his pre decessors, refuse the Royal assent, with any degree of prudence or safety, to any measure passed by Parliament, nor can he choose, like them, the Mi nisters by whom the administration of affairs in his name shall be conducted, without the most obsequi ous attention to the wishes of Parliament: This is the actual situation of the monarchy, in consequence of the changes produced by the silent working of time. And what is the situation of the Aristocracy, the Constitutional support of the Throne, the body by whom the Monarch might expect assistance in resisting any unconstitutional encroachment of the Democracy ? Would it have the power of resisting any measure proposed by the House of Commons, ttnd enforced by means of popular excitement ? It is quite certain that it would possess no such power. A measure proposed by the Commons, however obnoxions to the Monarchy or AristoCracy, would be blended, whenever any persevering and effective resistance was expected, with some Bill of Supply, of a nature absolutely indispensable to the immediate safety of the State, end thus the power of resistance would be disarmed by the visible pre sence of urgent and pressing danger. This isio clear that nobody even affects to doubt it. For more than half a century the power of the House • of Commons to enforce its resolutions, in opposi tion to the united authority of the two other branches of the Legistature, has been unquestion able and unquestioned. What then is the leeisla tive change now proposed, in order, as it is pre tended, to preserve the principles of our mixed Constitution from the innovating and deteriorating operation of time? Is it to throw some new powers or some augmentation of influence into the hands of the Monarch and the Aristocracy, in or der thus to compensate for their Constitutional power and influence, which the tide of time and cir cumstances has swept away ? Is it to ratify and confirm that intermixture of the influence of both with that of the Democracy, which has gradually taken place in the House of Commons itself during the period in which their separate and independent authority has been -in a state of progressive and, rapid decay, and io which the House of Commons has risen to supreme and irresistible power ? Is it to give a more consonant and less precarious opera tion to that indirect influence of the more ancient and elevated order of the State, which has alone enabled them to withstand the torrent of democracy, and which at this moment is the only vestige that remains of their Constitutional power ? It is la mentable to say that the proposed change is of a nature entirely the reverse of that which the antecedent changes produced by time must have plainly dictated to any Statesmen desirous of renovating and preserving the British Con stitution. Has the political power of the Crown and the Aristocracy been impa;red ? It is to be impaired still further. Have these or ders of the State sought and found protection and security in the dive of their weakness by the esta blishment of an influence in the Huse of Com mons, to which the varied structure and the multi farious inlets of that omnipotent assembly afforded them the means ? From this their last refuge they are to be abruptly driven. Has the House of Com mons graduals- monopolized all the essential rowers of the State 9' By the rigorous exclusion from that body of every other influence than that of the de mocracy, the character of the British Government is henceforth to be rendered, without mitigation or alloy, republican. That England will he essen tially a republic from the moment the Reform Bill shall have received the Royal Assent, no man who is not so far entangled in forms as entirely to over lo , k the substance of things, can for a moment doubt. Follow] will from that moment be subject to a republican government of the worst and most pernicious kind—to a republican government, from which the influence of property, of talents, and of character will he nearly excluded—to a republican oligarchy, in which the delegates of shopkeepers and small traders will possess the supreme and un controulable power.—Aforning Post. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. G U ILD HALL. A Mr. John Niggling attended yesterday, upon an information charging him with delivering two chid drons and a half of coals, which were found to be deficient. It stared that every one of the thirty-two sacks was found to contain less than the proper (rattail, and the whole taken together showed a deficiency of 153 bushels. A written order had been taken on the 14th instant to Mr. Devey's wharf, Whitefriars, for the delivery of five chaldrons of coals at the ward watch-house, in Queen's-head-passage, Newgive-street: They were sent in on the morning of the 16th of March, in two waggons. The con tenis of the first waggon were delivered without being tneastired, except as to the last two sacks, which were found to be deficient each half a bushel. When the second waggon arrived, the regular no tices for a re-measurement were served,and Vaughan, a meter, came. On the part of the defendant it was wilted that he was a sort of middle man, between the wholesale dealer and the consumer. On this occasion, having received the ordee for the coals, he went to Devev's wharf and purchased a room of coals, which he marked with the first letter of his name. Ile gave a notice to the ward beadle, who had ordered the coals, to attend at the wharf on the 15th, to see them taken from the barge, but he did not go. The defendant attended himself, but as the work was impeded by the rain, Mr. Devey told him, that if he went away, he (Mr. Devey) would see the work done as well as if h e stayed himself. These facts were deposed to by Mr. Devev's clerk. Mr. Devey said, that the bad measure had arisen from his receiving bad mea sure from the ship. Mr_ Alderman ATKINS should inflict the highest penalty he could, 191. 45., being 12s. per sack; and he asked what would become of us when the present cheeks to fraud were abolished. Mr. Bodkin (who attended for the defendant), turning to Mr. Devey, hoped he would forthwith give a,cheque for the fine, but Mr. Devey declined doing so, and the parties retired. QUEEN-SQUARE. Henry .site, a'private in the Ist regiment of Gre nadier Guards, was brought up for final examination, charged with robbing Thomas Griffin, a private of the same regiment, of five sovereigns, and also With unlawfully pawning his watch. The parties had quarrelled at a public-house in St. Ann's-lane, West mirster, and the prosecutor left his watch for the payment of some glass which was broken. After they left the house, the prisoner knocked the prose cutor down, took the . five sovereigns out of his pocket,"nnd afterwards went back to the public house 4:id redeemed the watch, which lie pledged for 11. 178. lie was fully committed for the rob bery, and was fined 5/. for unlawfully pawning the watch. UNION-HALL. A young man, named Harman, was brought up by the parish officers of St. George's, Southwark, for refusing to maintain his wife. The defendant stated, that the ground of his re fusal was, that his wife had another husband living. That husband's !Janie was Denby, and he having abc)lt three years ago been convicted of bigamy, and sentenced, he (the defendant) married Mrs. Denby, conceiving that he might legally do so. He should not have abandoned her, had it not been for the vio lence oCher temper. Mr. CitAmßEßs could not legally decide that the defendant was bound to maintain the complainant, she having a former husb an d alive. THAMES POLICE. Mr. Frederick Bowry, formerly in business as an oil and colourman in Old Gravel-lane, was charged with an assault on Mr. Chapman, of Sutton street, Commercial-road, and with firing a pistol at him. It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Chapman, that the prisoner and himself had been on intimate terms fcr many years, and Mr. Bowry had taken up his residence in his house. On Wednesday night an altt•rcation arose between them, and Mr. Bowry called him a liar. Witness retorted, and was imme diately struck by the prisoner: he returned the blow, and several hits were exchanged. At length he gave the prisoner a very severe blow in the eye, which knocked him down. On rising, lie went up stairs to his bed-roOm and brought down a large horse-pistol, which he presented at witness, but it misled fire. He immediately advanced, put the weapon in his face, and fired it off. The report stunned him, and he fell backwards on the ground. lie could not say whether the pistol was loaded.— The wadding struck his eye, the sght of which was much imp&red. The prisoner, who appeared much agitated, had no intention to injure Mr. Chapman. He was ex cited at the time, and quite unconscious of what he was about. Mr. and Mrs. Chapman earnestly entreated of the Magistrates to pass a lenient sentence, and said they would be content wilh an apology. The Magistrates, however, said the case must go before a Jury, for such an unmanly outrage could not be passed over lightly; but they consented to take bail. LENT ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. KINGSTON, .31.4Rcit 31. EDGCOAIBE v. AMOS. This ‘‘as an action of crim. con. The parties are tradesmen in a respectable way of business. Th e plaintiff was married to his wife in 1821, and thry lived happily together until 1829, at which time the plaintiff's tiffairs became embarrassed, and he was confined in the King's Bench prison : he sold his house and business to the defendant, who was one of his principal creditors, and soon afterwards the defendant took possession. The plaintiff's wife re mained in the house, in order to introduce him to the customers, and the plaintiff, on 'obtaining his discharge from prison, and going home, learnt that his wife was living in adultery with the defendant. The above was the statement of the plaintiff's coun sel, Mr. flurctitNsoN._ _ _ _ Joseph Edgcombe, the plaintiff's brother, stated that the plaintiff and his wife lived happily together until the last five years. Since then she - had com plained to him of her husband's conduct in attend ing prize-fights, coming home drunk, neglecting- his business, &c. The Learned Judge suggested that the case had better be stopped. Same other evidence was, however, given, and the Jury, without hearing the defendant'F. Counsel, found a verdict for one farthing. Mr. Baron JAYLEY would certify to deprve the plaintiff of his costs. WAR WICK, MA RCH 3O. TILE KING V. LOYD. This was an indictment for an assault upon Ke aiali Waring, with intent to take liberties with her person, amounting to a capital felony. The defer:. dant is a gentleman of fortune, between fifty and sixty years of age, residing at Leamington, and the father of several children. The prosecutrix, P, girl of rather pleasing features, fifteen years of age, had lived as under nurse-maid in his family for nine weeks. She afterwards went to live in the service of a Mr. Stafford, a dealer in porter, at Leaming ton. On the night of the 29th of July last, she was carrying half-a-dozen of porter in a basket to a customer at Leamington, and having occasion to cross the canal bridge, she then saw the defendant sitting on the parapet. He called to her to come over to him, but she replied she had something else to do, on which, according to her statement, be erossel over to her, seized her by the arm and at tempted to take liberties with her. She screamed murder, and he let her go. The next night but one she was again rudely assailed by the defendant in passing over the same bridge, but she escaped from him. On the first occasion her screams were bean, by a gentleman's servant at a stable in the neigh bourhood ; and on the second her master came out with her in search of the defendant. The Jury found the prisoner Guilty of a common assault, and Lord LYNDHURST sentenced him to . one month's imprisonment, and to pay a fine of 200/. LOWE, GENT. V. HODGETTS. This was an action of libel against the proprietor of the Birmingham Journal newspaper. The article complained of consisted of a report of the trial of an appeal at Guernsey, which was copied from the Comet, a Guernsey paper, into the Birmingham Journal. It set forth a statement of facts under the head of " case ;" which facts had been opened by the Attorney General, but they were not described in the report as being contained merely in the speech of Counsel ; they purported to be the facts of the case. In this statement the conduct of the plaintiff (an attorney) was reflected upon, and it was imputed to him that being aware of a Mrs. Jones having eloped from her husband with a perion named Evans, with whom she lived until her death, he had been ancillary to that lady's making a will in favour of Mr. Evans, and be queathing 2001. to himself by writing to her two letters, stating that her husband was dead, she having previously refused to execute the will during her husband's life-time; but no such letters were proved in evidence. The article was copied into the defendant's paper, with no other alteration than the addition of the plaintiff's phice of residence, near Birmingham, in the title of the cause.—Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages Is. YORK, MARCH SO. REX V. PEASE AND OTHERS. This was an indictment for a nuisance, against the directors of the Stockton and Darlington Rail way Company. By an Act of Parliament passed in 1821, the de fendants were authorized to form a rail-way from Darlington to Sunderland, and by another Act, passed in 1823, they were authorized to use loco motive engines thereon. The rail-way, which it was agreed had been formed upon the line pointed out in the Act of Parliament, was opened for public use in 1825. Only one steam-carriage was at first used ; but the number has gradually increased, and there are now seven steam-carriages in operation. For about a mile and three quarters the rail-way runs parallel with the high road leading from Yarm to Stockton, the two roads being at an average dis tance of fifty yards from each other. The nuisance complained of was the fright and danger which the noise and smoke of the steam-engines occasioned to passengers on this part of the high-way. A variety of witnesses proved that accidents frequently hap pened in consequence of horses taking fright at the steam-engines. Mr. POLLOCK was willing to admit that the de fendants had been guilty of a nuisance, unless their conduct was justified by the Act of Parliament. He suggested, that the best mode would be for the Jury to return a special verdict, finding the facts already proved, and also that the defendants had used the best engines they could procure, and availed them selves of every improvement that had been offered. Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE approved of the sug gestion, observing that the question was one of great importance, as it would affect nut only the railway now in question, but all the railways in the kingdom. Mr. WILLIAMS, after soma deliberation, agreed to the proposal, and a verdict of Guilty was accord ingly entered. A PRisoNER STARVED TO DEATH.—On the 23d nit, an inquest was held at Rochdale, on the hod:, of a young man named RICHARD PILLING, a pauper in the Wardleworth workhouse. It appeared that the de ceased had been taken to the prison and confined in a solitary cell, in which there was no bed, no covering, nor any thing for him to lie down upon but a bench of wood of about a yard broad ; that he had been confined therein 15 days, and was discovered by a person (who was ap pointed to consign another wretched being to the Caine den) lying naked on the stone floor, which was covered with filth ! He was in a dying state, with a portion of his clothes in his mouth, and he had been in that state nearly the whole of his imprisonment. In consequence of representations made by the person who discovered the unhappy man, he was carried, about ten o'clock that night, to the workhouse, where he died in ten hours afterwards! The Jury returned a verdict that he " Died from hunger; and in consequence RICHARD HARGRRAVEs, ELIZAHRTH (otherwise BETTY) Ruakows, and HANNAH HoLr, were committed to Lancaster for manslaughter.--- Manchester Herald. COMMON COUNCIL. A Court of Common Council was held yesterday. Mr. TICKNER presented a report from the Navi gation Committee, on the subject of the Bill intro duced into Parliament on behalf of the West India Dock Company. By the existing regulations of the Company, it is incumbent on them to have four Aldermen and four Common Councilmen of the city of London in their Directory ; and the object of the Bill is to give the Company t e unrestricted choice of their Directors. The Navigation Com mittee reported that the Corporation of London had now no interest whatevcr in connection with the Welt India Dock Company, and recommended the Court to offer no opposition to the Bill before Par liarnen•. A short comersation ensued upon this motion, in the course of which it was stated that the Corpo, rat;on had disposed of the stock it held of the West India Duck Company as long hack as twenty-seven ye,rs. At the conclusion of the discussion the Court a),Teed to the report, at the same time &feet ing a reference to be made to the Committee to ascertiin what to 'Owl's of that Court had been Directors of the West India Dock C:)mpany, mode of the'r appointment, the amount of their emoluments, and every circunist ince relating to their situation. S. VOTE of THANKS TO LORD JoHN RUSSELL. Mr. Alderman VENABLES rose to move a vote of thatilis to Lord John Russell, as a testimony of the approbation of the Court, fur the able manner in which he had introduced the Bills for reforming the representation of the people in the Commons House of Parliament, and for his constant and persevering exertions in the same cause. He said that he was convinced that the proposed measure of Reform was in unison with the feelings of the country, and he trusted that it would he passed into a law.— (Hear, hear.)—He considered it incumbent on that Court to come forward now and uphold the Noble Lord, because he felt convinced that it exercised considerable influence on the opinions of the country, and be trusted that it would ever continue to do so. 4 —(Hear.)—The worthy Alderman then described the conduct of Lord John Russell in Parliament, a and mentioned the varous periods when he had brought forward motions for Reform. Upon the whole it appeared that no less than nineteen motions for reforming the representation had been made by. Lord John Russell, in the comae of eleven or twelve vears.—(Hear, hear.)—He thought the conduct of 'Lord J. Russel!, with respect to the question of Re ferm, deserving the respect of that Court; a•id he was also entitled to the gratitude of the people for the exertions he had made in favour of religious liberty, by the course he had followed with respect to the Teet and Corporation Acts.—(Applause.)— '• The worthy Alderman concluded by moving " that 1 the Right Hon. Lard John Russell having been se• lected by his Msjesiy's Ministers to bring forward a Bill for the Reform of the representation of the people in the Commons House of Parliament, this Court eine. the'r most grateful thanks to the Noble Lord for the able and distinguished manner in which 3 he had introduced and supported the measure, and for his constant exertions, and various efforts in the - same cause."—(Applause.) Mr. Alderman WatrnsraN seconded the motion. He hail been an observer of the Noble Lord's con duet, and he had never wit nessed greater ability dis pl,.yed, more temper or firmness exhibited, than had I distinguished the whole conduct of the Noble Lord, with respect to the question of Reform.—(Hear, hear.)—That Court had always beets the advocate Ji of Reform ; and it became them to stand up and support the Noble Lord, now that he was struggling for the cause. It was impossible fur any Govern ment to go on with the boroughmongers.(Hear.) There were about 200 of them, and they were al- i ways wanting places for themselves or their relatives, . - while the nuisance existed.—(Hear, and laughter.) Mr. J. RICHARDSON hod an amendment to move. (Much laughter.) He meant to move, that the fur+ her consideration of this question should be ad journed—(Cries of No ! no I)—until the Court should be satisfied that the privileges of the citizens .• of the City would not Le endangered by the pro posed e, measure of Reform. He thought that if that measure passed into a law, the commercial influence of the City ran the chance of being destroyed.— [ l ' ((.reat laughter.) If the franchise of•the out-voter; was taken away, a serious injury would be inflicted on the cotnmerce of the City.—(" Nonsense !") That respec•able body, the Stock-Exchange— (Laughter)—Lloyd's, the Bank of England, the East and West Indian interests, would not find them selves so well represented in Parliament as at pre sent, if the Bill passed. He was no advocate for monopoly, but he would stand up in defence of the franchise of the citizens of London, which he con- . sidered the best in the world.—(Question, question.) A great deal had been said of the out-voters. Now he only wished that every member of that Court had in his pocket the liveremen of London.—(Great laughter.) If reference was made to the list of the liverymen it would be found that very few lived at a great distance from London, and he was sure that when an election occurred not 1001. was spent in . bringing up the out-voters.—(ou! oh !) If 1,000 liverymen were to be corrupted under the present system, he was sure that under the operation of the proposed Bill there would be 5,000/.—(No, no.) He concluded by moving the amendment, the object of which he described upon rising, but no one in Court rose to second it. b 7 , 1 OS! ig The original question was then put and carried, there being only one hand held up against it. Mr. Alderman VENAHLES then 'moved, that the' freedom- of the City be presented in a box, of the value of 100 guineas, to Lord John Russell, in tes timony of the high sense which the Court enter tained of his able and patriotic conduct. • After ra few words from Mr. CURTIS and Mr. THORNHILL in support of the motion, the question was put and carried, two hands only being held up against it. Wednesday last, in the Kerry Record Court, before Baron PENNEvAntett, a weaver of the name of KEals brought an action of damages against the Rev. MURPHY, of Kiltallagh, for the seduction of his daugh ter, a young and pretty girl, who gave her evidence with great composure. Au eloquent and .powerful statemeut, was made for the plaintiff by Mr. LIOLWELL WALSHE: I Mr. GEORGE BENKEtt was engaged for the defendant, but did not call any witnesses.—Verdict for the Cergy man, with 6d. costs. On Saturday se'nuight, as ANN WINSLADE, ; a young woman of Thurloston, was walking through Buir4.ekati linch. in the parish of West Monkton, near Taunton, an adder sung her leg so severely, that before she could reach home the limb had swollen to double its usual size, causing most intense pain. Medical assistance was speedily called in ; but it was not until Saturday that the symptoms took t a change for the better, and that a prospect of her re covery presented itself. Sweet oil, it cannot be too generally known, is the best application to the bites of venomous , reptiles. t — ; . 0n the 210 - 1 . ult. in Drunnsv.l-iitcrikliPilaSe.e, Regent's-park. th e l a l o to f rio J ,i . , 01;h 61)t. Mieville, Esq., of a daught er. . , On the 26th ult. Mrs. Benjamin Ware, of Tower-street, o f a daughter. On the 29th ult. Mrs. J. A. Adamthwaite, of Stoke Newing. , a e "In il ult. in London-street, Fitzroy-square, the lady of S. F. Eyre, Esq. of a daughter, that lived but a few hours. At Camberwell, the lady of the Rev. Henry m e i vi i i, of a daughter. "DIED. . On the 31st ult. after a lingering illness, at Bilderston House, in the county of Suffolk, Hannah, i t s he beloved wife of Richard' regretted. at Dover, Mrs. Jane Clarke, aged 45, ' On the 2tth ult. wife at Wilson, Esq. of Lineoln's-inn-tieh ', universally esteemed and 3 :30th ult. George, second .son of B. Harrison, Esq., or On the m aged 17. ClaPha m-c ` mun( i't aged 53 W C • • on the 30th u ~ W. Graves, Es-. .i late of the War Office. F. Clarke, Esq., , Ilth ult. at Sichnouth, W. F. Mackie, Es formerly On the - q , • li-mber of the Bombay Medical Board. senior . - late of St!eatharn. n the loth ult. in New Burlington-street, Mrs. Croasdaile, Thomas Stafford, second son 'of On the V.Sth ult. in St. Swithi n ' s- l ane, Lombard-strget, Ms.. S ou thern, relict of the late It. S ou th ern, E sq., o f Yor/C. • -.."--• H. the i,, , g i t c h ot u e l , t. 4. Brighton, vßorkin AND Puli.csuEn to.; MUILDO • SK:N.OFFICE, • i STRAND. LONDON. ( .11 ae t LA. LAI sibl hihi emu Fa.l Co, Pric Pu .and of VIA a~~~ t sees out 'tan Will be Lon Mar dam sdle acp trati of tl RA] '~s~ nu; fau aha Wal stai and Th 4 the hin hin the but be ain spc an( cot be e btit for ins are at bet op, the het lar