The Sun. — London, England, 1830-05-03 00:00:00

either party, it is the Attorney-General's particular wish that you cause to be summoned for the Crown Court a panel of the most respectable freeholders of }'our county, Protestant and Catholic, without reli gious di..tiuetion." To which the High Sheriff makes the following answer :—" If duties devolving on me as Sheriff of the county are to be prescribed by the Attorney-General or by any other officer of the, Crown, the patent whi c h I have th e h onour to h o ld from his 'Majesty may be forthwith reversed, end another Sheriff appointed in my place." This an swer has given offence—it is stigmatised as ill-timed and petulant—the reproach which the sycophants of power would naturally cast upon any hottest and spirited assertion of official independerree. To say the least of it, the interference of the Attorney- General with the peculiar fuactions of the High Sheriff, was indecorous end in bad taste. It might also be drawn into a precedent most prejudicial to the administration of justice ; for, if the principle be once allowed of the Crown prosecutor dictating to the Sheriff what description of Jury he is to re turn, it would come to the same thing as if the At torney-General himself selected the Jury who were to determine cases of which he was the prosecutor ! Now we say this is a monstrous doctrine, and justly held in abhorrence by the English Constitution. We do not say that the directions of the Attorney- General were in this instance given for any im proper purpose. On the Contrary, the motive that dictated them seem to have been a good and laudable one--.namely, an anxiety for an impartial jury, to try causes arising out of bitter party feeling and political animosity. But it is the principle of such interference that we object to, and in discussing principles, we must leave oat or view those temporary circumstances for which they are too often sacrificed. It was a wise and salutary statute which prohibited all interference by any power or party, with the duties of the Sheriff in • summoning Juries; and made it an offence for any person to " denominate," as the Statute has it, to that officer the Jury whom he is to return. •If the spirit of the Statute is to be contravened, and the prosecutor for the Crown in political trials is to have a right of interference in the appointment of the Jury, one of the great safeguards of Trial by Jury is gone ; and, in bad times, with a vindictive and tyrannical Government, such as at some former periods of our history, existed, and may exist again, the consequences would be dreadful. The inter ference in the present case, it is true, was to procure an impartial Jury, and one above all suspicion of prejudice or favour ; but just as readily might similar interference be exercised to procure a partial and complaisant panel. Therefore we protest against it, and denounce it as unknown to the spirit, and foreign to the practice of, the laws of England. The Sheriff was originally a popular officer—that is, he was chosen by the people, meaning thereby the freeholders of the county, as the Coroner is at present. With the exception of one or two instances the appointment of that efficer is now in the Crown. But though appointed by the Crown, he is the servant of the Constitution. That Constitution defines the duties which he is to perform, and the ex tent of responsibility which attaches to them. The Attorney-General has no more right to interfere with his office, than he has to interfere with the office of the Attorney-Gt neral. He must stand in different between the Crown and the accused. He must not listen to the recommendations of either in the summoning .of Juries. He is the minister of justice, not the minion of power, and should submit to no dictation but that of the law—no suggestion but that of an upright conscience. If he must learn his duty from others, he it; unfit fer the situation, and the Crown should not have appointed him. It is in the power of the Government to chose none bot competent and impartial men to fill this high office, and having once made the choice they should not stultify their own selection. He must be utterly unfit for the office of High Sheriff who re quires to receive lessons as to his official conduct from the Attorney-General. We are sure no She tiff in Esgland would submit to such dictation, and we are equally sure that the gentleman to whom we allude, imtendering his resignation under such cir cumstances acted only with a becoming spirit. Had lie not taken so decided a step, he would have sur rendered the independence of his office, as far as the servile compliance of an individual could do so, into the keeping of the Law Officers of the Crown, and have compromised the rights and privileges of his successors. We have dwelt upon this subject, not on account of the circumstances out of which it nrose, and which are transitory, but because of the great principle which it involves.—Morn. Herald. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer an nounced that Ministers had at length resolved to put an end to the brewers' monopoly, not one per son in a thousand imagined that the repeal of the tax on beer would be of much service to the pub lic, but nearly all were convinced that the destruc tion of the shameful " licensing system," that is to say, of the brewers' monopoly, would be extremely beneficial to the community by throwing open the trade in beer to public competition. Not one Mem ber of Parliament, we believe, thanked the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer for the repeal of the beer tax, but many spoke warmly in favour of the other division of the measure—the opening of the trade to all who should wish to embark in it. From one end of the country to the other the knell of the licensing system was heard with joy, if we except only the sorrow of the great breweis and their dependents, the publicans. Every man, we were told, would soon be able to brew, or buy, and then sell, beer, like other commodities not sub ject to monopoly—the trade was to be " thrown open"—the enormous monopoly profits of the brewers and licensed victuallers were to be divided amongst the public—no man was any longer to pos sess the power of forcing his immediate neighbours to drink beer-and -water, or poisonous beer —every public-house was to have its rival—and the seller of beer, like the seller of bread, was to drive a trade, great or small, in proportion to the goodness or bad ness, the cheapness or dearness, of the article which he should sell. 'these were grand promises to this beer-drinking community. They were heard with satisfaction by those who are not beer drinkers, be cause they held out a prospect of real advantage to the most numerous class, which is always the most miserable, and that to which every hu mane roan of the other classes is most anxious to afford relief. These promises were consi dered so important that they tended, at least, to produce a general feeling in favour of Mr. Goulburn, who, until ; he made those promises, had not the slightest claim to public respect. Those promises were made gravely, even solemnly, if the word be not unsuited to the subject; but it appears that they were false promises, and that the hopes to - which they gave rise were entirely delusive. The courier of Saturday announces, officially, that " a clause is.to be introduced into the bill now. before Parliament for the sale of beer to the effect that the licenses to retail beer to be granted under the act shall not authorise the persons receiving them to sell beer to be consumed on their premises, o r to keep rooms for the entertainment of com pany." In other words, the trade in beer is not to be thrown open to general competition. The Go vernment hacks (what is Goulburn but a hark of the Duke of Wellington %) may contend that the clause in question will not preserve th• monopoly; that every man will still be able to brew, or buy, and sell beer without hindrance from the great brewers ; and that, conse quently, the promises of the Government will not be forfeited. But it will be plain to all that this is a mere shuffle to evade the spirit of the promise without departing from its letter. The retail trade in beer, like those of the tavern-keeper, the pastry-cook, the letter of lodgings, the deli list, the theatrelatentee, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, IS no trade at all unless it be con ducted "on the premises." The consumption of beer on the spot where it is sold is as much an essential feature of' the beer trade as is the use of a fixed and known official residence oi the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Goulburn would treat with indignation t rn oose] to make him the strolling Chancellor of the Exchequer; yet he would give us hawkers of beer. Seriously it would be less preposterous to make the Chancellor of the Exchequer wait upon all the persons with Whom he may have to transact business than to force the sellers of beer to be in constant pursuit of their customers ? But this is not the worst part of the " clause" - - announced by the Courier. Mr. Goulburn knoWs very well that there can he no tetadt in beer unless the buyer may consume the commodity "on the premises." The " dense" is not to affect those who now possess the monopoly of the beer trade; it is to apply only to those who may endeavour to compete with the monopolists. It is then, in point of fact, a declara tion that the monopoly shall not be touched. Mr. Goulburn has been threatened by the great brewers, his fears have conquered his wish to obtain some little popularity. Thus vanish his grand promises. All the rejoicings with which the repeal of the beer tax was received will be converted into angry dis appointment. But what matters the public feeling when set against the votes of the great brewers? The brewing interest will support Mr. Goulburn, and the public will be sacrificed; but then we may console ourselves by constantly exclaiming—was there ever " so independent and vigorous" a Mi nistry !—Morning Journal. In Blackwood's Magazine for May, there is an attempt to account for the horror in which the Scotch hold Jury trials. " The fault of the Ene fish system," says the writer, "is, that it is a sys tem of humbug, and frequently of perjury. The Jury are set apart in a box, and told that they are Judges. The Pleaders address them as Judges.— The Judge addresses them as Judges. To be sure he tells them flatly that they must not meddle with • the law, and that they must take it from his mouth ; but he tells them also that they are Judges of the fact, although he and his brethren at the next Term may probably annul their verdict, because they have misjudged the fact. This mode of treat ing them as Judges flatters their vanity, and flatters the vanity of the populace, who are told they are judged by their country—meaning thereby, that they are judged by each other; whereas, in reality, their transactions are judged of according to law, as expounded by professional lawyers. Some Jury men, thinking themselves Judges, occasionally try to judge for themselves, but oppressed by the law of unanimity, and their own want of experience in business, they are compelled to yield, after an in effectual struggle, and to give way to the majority of their brethren, who usually obey the direction of the Judge." Farther on the writer observes— " Hence chicane and dexterity have been re commended to us. A plaintiff tries to leave out some bit of evidence necessary to his antagonist, to force him to lead evidence, while -the other is tempted to hazard the want of proof on his part to avoid the effect on an ignorant Jury of the persua sion of his opponent's Counsel. This dexterity end stratagem are substituted for the grave and deli berate investigation of truth. The minds both of practitioners and litigants are corrupted. All these and other absurdities stared Scoichmen in the face when the Jury Court appeared among them. They gazed with wonder and disappointment on the far famed English Trial by Jury in civil causes. Like'' travellers in a strange country, they perceived a thousand absurdities in the procedure to which the natives, by habit and familiarity, had become insen sible." However, as Mr. Brougham's Courts are for England, in which the people are used to them, it is proper there should be an option. But it does not require the gift of prophecy to foretell that Juries will seldom be wished for. We observe that on Friday night some allusion was made in the House to the Lord AdvocateN Bill. We shall conclude these observations with the following letter from the author of the Pamphlet on the Lord Advocate's Bill, which we noticed some days ago. It is in answer to some strictures on the Pamphlet in an article ill the Chronicle, made by an Edinburgh newspaper. Our readers will see from it what the Court is which the Lord Advocate wishes to super sede : London, 30th April, 1830. have just perused an article by the Editor of an Edinburgh paper, entitled the North Briton, comment. ing on your Review of the Pamphlet upon that part of the Lord Alvocate's Bill which relates to the Scotch Com missary or Consistorial Court. The article meets none of the arguments in either the Patnplilet or your Review; but substitutes sweeping averments, which can impose only cn the uninforrned. The Editor referred to is a Scotch Advocate, practising before the Court of Session—a circumstance which, no doubt, sharpened his desire to get as many causes as he can to that Court ; particularly as in the Consistorial Court (where these Advocates may, the ugh they do not neces sarily fail to be employed), he has had little practice; for he very simi ly admits he " never was personally con cerned in any Commissary case but one." Upon this notable case, which is called M'Kenzie v. 11•Kenzie, his main attack depends. He says it lasted four years. But if he will examine in that case, we believe he will find that intervals front three to six. and eight months, and even for a longer period, occurred between the different steps taken by the Pursuer. The defendant could have hindered this if he had plea-ed, and the case might have lain over and over, if both parties hid pleased. Then as to the expence of that case, we shall only re quest him again to look to the record, and he will find that his desire to monopolise all sorts of business for the Court of Session, has led him into as great an error as it has done in regard to the delay. But it is idle to fix on any one case as affording a fair specimen of the whole. If he shall attempt to do so with the one in question, we will at once point out wherein it differed from almost every other ; and how much its ex pence was increased by a peculiar line of defence adopted on his side, for want of a better. In such special detaill, however, the public can take no interest. But the following facts, which are of general interest, can never be impugned : In a list which I have seen of twenty-three Scotch Consistorial cases, finally decided within the last four years or so, the expenses stood as follows: —ln three of them the expences were under 101. In three under 12/. In six under 15/. In severs under 201. In one under 211. In two under 231. ; and one only reached 26/. In all of those cases a full proof was led, and judgment was given only after deciding on that proof . . . The list to - which I refer was nut made up with a view to show how long each of these cases remained in Court. But it happens to show the following, viz., one case lasted three months, one four months, one five months, one six months, and two lasted seven months. Yet the Editor of the North Briton sets forth that it is high time a Court should be abolished whose " antiquated forms altogether disqu,lify it for the expeditious and effective administra tion of justice"—•a Court where justice can bg got in a few months, and for a few pounds—in order that the litigants may be cent to the Court of Session, the vaca tions of which last for about seven months out of the year ; and the expense of which is actually proverbial— and all this on the strength of the'` one" case in which we" (the said Editor) " were personally concerned"— in utter forgetfulness, too, of what the Learned Gentle man might have learned from the " Pamphlet," and the Lord Advocate's Bid proposes to remove these " antiquated forms" without improvement to the Court of Si ssion. The question of expense and delay being thus fairly set tled, let us see what more this Legal Editor can say against ti,e Scotch Consistorial Court. He says—l. (forgetting that justice speedily admi nistered, often renders suits unnecessary), that the Consts torial causes are not numerous ; and in support of this (by mistake, we are bound to presume), he gives the number of one class of cases, as if it were the number of the whole. But if he were right, could it be worth his while to make so strenuous an effort to force these causes to the Court of Session? To force the neglected and starving wife to sue tin- her weekly aliment of b.. in the Court of Session? It is not any saving to the public revenue which could induce such in step ; for with one Judge the Court would cost the country only 8001. a year, while the saving of this 8001. will occasion an annual expense of probably as many thousands in another quarter. 2. A decree in absence, says the Editor, may be got even cheaper in the Court of Session th in a decree in the Commissary Court. This is comparing two things that have no resemblance. To prevent collusive suits, no de cree, without sufficient evidence being led, is ever obtained in the Consistorial Court. We challenge him to point out any one case in the Court of Session► with its double em ployment of Counsel and agent, printing, and fee fund dues, &C. where evidence has actually been led, where the ex- Pence will net be at least three or four times greater than the same proceedings would have cost in the Connuis , an Court. The result is, justice, strict and impartial justice, is obtained cheaply and speedily in the Commissary Court. It can never he got too cheaply nor too quickly. Tin very names of the Consistorial causes show that in then, this is peculiarly necessary. Notice, for instance, the cc tions. of adherence, and all alimentary questions between husband and wife, and actions of separation on account of danger of life. For obvious reasons the Northern Editor does not once allude t any of these cases. bat would consign them all to the delays and expence of the Court of Session : and why ? because "collusion" may exist in cases of divorce, though be does not aver that it can exist in any other case. As to the alleged fear of collusion in cases of divorce, this learned Editor surely knows that any evil which he may conjure up as resulting from cheap justice is guarded against in Scotland by a variety of simple and efficient checks. 1. An existing Scotch Statute prohibits the guilty party from ever marrying the individual with whom the guilt was committed, and for ever bastardises the pro geny of such illicit connection. And 2. By the law of Scotland in all civil questions which can occur between the divorced pair, the guilty party is held to be civilly dead, so that a guilty wile has no claim for aliment against the husband, and a guilty husband has no claims against tie wife's estate. A contemporary (the Tinzes), in commenting on Mr. Brougham's able speech of Thursday night, ob serves—" We would also venture to suggest, that while an appeal is allowed, except under very special circumstances, it is hopeless to expect speedy or cheap justice. A very little dexterity in an attorney can swell a 101. debt to 201., and a very little know ledge can discover a legal quibble for discussion be fore a superior Court. There should be no appeal, except there is gross error evident on the face of the whole proceedings." Cheap justice is good, but then it ought to be justice. Now we are confident that the greatest injustice would be constantly taking place in local courts if there were no appeal to a su perior tribunal. With respect to small sums (though no doubt, as Mr. Peel said, " the sums trifling to one man might be important to another, and he who appealed for the recovery of his wager, the amount of which might appear to some of little concern, might feel the loss of his few shillings more severely than those who legislated might feel the loss of 1001."), a Judge of the rank of those now proposed cart hardly be supposed to be under any improper bias in his decision ; and it is upon the whole, perhaps, as well that, under the limits fixed by Mr. Brougham, the decision should be final. But what security would there be for a proper decision, where the litigation related to large sums, if the Judge were not to have the knowledge that a superior Court was overlooking him ? To say nothing of local in fluence, a Judge would relapse into laziness, and fail to make himself acquainted with the changes of the law, were he not to have a flapper now and then from the Court above. The Solicitor-General in deed, with admirable inconsistency, thought that a local Judge, however respectable at first, " would degenerate from year to year ;" but still, " as to the appeal to the Judge of Assize, with whom he was to sit during the hearing, he thought nothing could be more objectionable, because nothing could more strongly tend to lower this local Judge in his own opinion, or hi that of the persons amongst whom he administered justice." This is a very strange appli cation of the doctrine of judicial infallability. So, became Judges residing in their districts, and not in constant communication with the bright luminaries of the Common Law, and Chancery Courts, would degenerate, and because the only mode of preventing their degeneracy—the correction of superior tribunals—would lower them in their own opinion, we ought to have no Local Courts, and consequently the people ought to be altogether without justice. Admirable logic ! Mr. Brougham's plan is essentially necessary, both to the impartiality of the tribunal, and the uniformity of the law; for the Court above will prevent all deviation into anomalies, which might otherwise be the case hi the different districts, without appeal. But while we contend fur appeal, as a sine qua non in judicial matters, we would wish to guard ourselves against the endless appeals now allowed both in England and Scotland. " Then afterwards (says Vulture, in the farce) toss him through all the Courts of West minster like a tennis-ball; slap from the Common Pleas to the King's Bench, and then hurl him into the Exchequer, and after souse him over head and ears in Chancery, and when he thinks he's cockshure of the game, I turn up an appeal to the House of Peers." Appeals may be abused, but sure we are without appeals there will never be good tri bunals. It is because there is no appeal from the Unpaid, or rather because there is such an ap peal as from the Chancellor in Chancery to the Chancellor in the House of Lords, that the Magistrates of this country act often so very oppres sively. We do not see why there should be any limit to the sum. If a local Judge can determine in a case under 1001., be can determine in a case above that sum. However, we will not now enter on that matter. With respect to Juries, Mr. Brougham very properly leaves an option to the parties. " If the Judge says there is no necessity for a reference to a Jury, and if the parties themselves are willing to admit that it should not be referred to a Jury, then I say no mischief can be done by allowing the .Judge and the patties to dispose of the case in a manner which may seem most agreeable to them." We have no doubt that, in general, the decision of the Judge would be preferred to that of a Jury. The Scotch, who are less wedded to their own practices than the English, and by no means indis posed to innovations, allowed themselves to be the dupes of the eulogies on Jury trial, pronounced with so much complacency by their southern neighbours. They soon, however, found to their cost what a Jury trial was; and at present a scoundrel has only to threaten another with a Jury trial to force him almost to any terms. At a Meeting of the county of Renfrew, On Saturday last, one of the speakers, Mr. Gardner, observed : " The Jury must be paid. The litigant has not the power as he has in the Sheriff Court, to take only such witnesses at once as he thinks may make out his c,:se; but he must summon every person who he thinks has the slightest knowledge of the case ; and instead of two, he may have forty witnesses to pay, besides all tie other in cidental expences. The immense expence of the Jury Court is, in fact, so well known, as to have rendered it abhorrent to all Scotsmen. But this is not all the evil. The Judge directs the Jury, who generally nod assent. They are bound to take the law from the Judge in connec tion with the evidence, and they, therefore, wait on the Judge's opinion. After getting a secondary opinion from the Jury, it may be that there is a new trial. There may be bills of exceptions on various grounds, and at the end the parties are not one whit nearer than if the case had been left with the Sheriff. At last Circuit there was a case seat from Paisley, to which fifty witnesses were summoned ; and, after all, the Judge heard the case and decided it without one witness being examined. They had already Juries; appointed in the Sheriff Courts re garding roads, bridges, and public buildings ; yet they were not resorted to. He believed no one preferred it to the Sheriff Court, where the cases might be decided at I-10th of the expence. In fact, no one was satisfied with them. As an instance, lie would mention a case, in which the Commissioners of the building in which they were had seven years ago taken possession of property, which they had nut yet paid for, from the objection of the proprietor to a Jury ; and he would rather continue to lie out of his 'money than to go to a Jury. He expected that those who were so much in favour - of a Jury Court would have shown that it would decide causes with less expellee, and with more expedition. He would say Jury Trial was impracticable, because the parties would require to have all their witnesses forward in one day; and would therefore require to have every one forward who knew anything at all about the case. Witnesses might be unwell, and the litigants would be obliged to go on and close their cases in the absence of pa r t o f t h e i r proof; or pay the witnesses and the Jury for a double attend ance, which it is not likely they are to give for nothing." These two provisions, viz. —the prohibition against marrying the party with. whom the guilt was committed, and the forfeiture of all civil claims at the instance et the guilty party, impose both a powerful restraint on the con duct of the married pair, and also prevent the remedy of divorce from being abused. There are also various checks peculiar to the Consis torial Court, which are impracticable in the Court of Sesson ; and on the whole, we believe that, instead of disturbing the Consistorial law of Scotland, it would be well were Parliament to consider - how far the law of Eng land might he assimilated to it. In that case we wouli no longer see such scenes in England as the profligate wife ruining the industrious husband because he is too poor t' get an Act of the Legislature for his relief—nor be nau seated by the demoralising, details of• the rich passing through Parliament, to the interruption of its public business. One word more to the Northern Editor. He says, "would this writer take the trouble to inform us in how many defended causes Counsel were not em ployed at some stage or other of the proceedings?" We answer-1. That Counsel were probably not employed in one out of fifteen or twenty of these defended causes. 2. That Vie case of eleclarator of marriage, mentioned in the pamphlet, WilB one where Counsel were not em played on the side of the woman—and where Counsel were employed on the side of the defendant. who lost his cause ;—as happened to the party in the only Consistorial case for whom the Learned Editor appeared. S. And we can add, that it is, when Counsel are em• played in the Scotch Consistorial Court, that the case invariably becomes an expensive one. They are, there fore, not employed in every case; and, indeed, we never knew one c.,:sa in which it (lid not turn out in the end— that it had been left to the ordinary practitioners of that Court, who are necessarily well acquainted with its pecu liar causes, and who combine the characters both of Counsel and Agent.-1 remain, Sir, Your obedient Servant, —Morning Chronicle. A BARRISTER. We observe that the second reading of the Jews' ReFel Bill stands first on the orders of the Com mons for this day, and therefore we presume that question will be debated to-night. We have re ceived a number of communications in behalf of the claims of the Jews, and it was our intention to have inserted some of them this day, had we had sufficient space at our disposal. The Jews unfortunately are worse off than they were before the emancipation of the Catholics; for the oath then imposed by Par liament excludes them from professions previously within their reach. In a letter addressed to us several days ago, the writer enters into a minute statement of the footing on which the Jews exist in most of the Continental countries. In all the countries possessed of any title to liberality, there is no distinction between Jews and Christians. Eve❑ " in Austria, the least enlightened of the Conti nental States, Jews have privileges. They were even ennobled, and called to high offices. The Wctzlars, Ahrensteins, and Rothschilds are Barons of the Austrian empire; two of the latter are Consuls-General in Paris and in London." After this statement of foreign liberality, the writer ob serves— " In England, free England, that boasts, and justly too, of being the freest country in Europe, the Jews, I am sorry to say, have not those privileges which they enjoy in France, in Belgium, and in some of the German and Prussian States. It is true, a British-born Jew can ptir• chase freehold property, vote at elections, and .noose parish officers ; but they are shut out from Parliament, from the Bar, and cannot even become notaries or attor neys, unless they take the oath that Christians take. Ha Jew serves an apprenticeship to a freeman, he cannot take up his freedom unless he takes an oath, which, as a Jew, he cannot take. it is true there are at this time three Jews Members of Parliament, viz.:—Messrs. Ricardo, Bernal, and Sir Manasseh Lopez. The late Sir Samp son Gideon, his son, Lord Eardley, and Mr. Thompson, were also Members of Parliament ; Sir Morris Ximenes, a Jew, was a High Sheriff about twenty years ago; but, although Jews, they were obliged to take the Oaths as Christians. Several English Jews are respectably known as Barristers, Notaries, Attorneys (who must take the .Outh as Christians), Physicians, Authors, Poets, Singers, Artists, Musical Composers, &c. As France, Holland, Prussia, Bavaria, and Austria have emancipated the Jews from thraldom, surely England ought not, nay, cannot refuse to grant Jews those privileges which they enjoy under Governments less enlightened." Every office is operi, at present, to a British Jew, provided only he perjure himself. The very idea of imposing an oath as a test in order to exclude Jews fiorn office, supposes them to possess a regard for truth, and therefore to be the very last men who ought to be excluded from any office of profit or honour for which they are fitted. Prince Metter nich is said to have a particular dislike to employ honest and conscientious men, conceiving that knaves are always more easily managed. We do not believe that the tests which, ever since the civil wars, have been so lavishly imposed in this country, had for express object the excluding all but knaves from office. Yet it is certain, that if it were in tended to demoralize a nation, a better method could not be devised. Richard Baxter, in his Auto biography, tells us that from the introduction of these tests in the time of the Long Parliament, men played fast and loose with dreadful oaths, as if there bonds were as easily shaken off as Sampson's cords. The Church of England Divines gulped down oaths like water. They pleaded, he says " the irresistibility of the imposers, and they found starting holes in the terms, viz. that by the Corn menwealth, they will mean the present Common wealth iu gcnere, and by established they will mean only de facto mid not de jure,andby without a King, &c. they mean not quatenus, but Etsi ; and that only de facto po tempore ; q. d. I will be true to the Government of England, though at the present the King and House of Lords are put out of the exercise of their power. These were the expositions of many episcopal men, and others then -took it. But I endeavoured to evince, that this is mere juggling and jesting with matters too great to be jested with; and that as they might easily know that the imposers had another sense, so as easily might they know that the words in their own ob vious sense among men must be taken as the pro mise or engagement of a subject as such to a form of Government now pretended to be established; and that the subject's allegiance or fidelity to his rulers can be acknowledged and given in no plainer words ; and that by such interpretations and stretch ings of conscience, any treasonable oath or promise may be taken, and no bonds of society can signify much with such interpreters." The same distin guished individual, in his preface to his Holy Com monwealth, addressed to the Army, after recounting the numerous wheelings, all regularly sworn to, ob serves, " And now we are wheel'd about again.— And would you have had all the nation sworn or engaged to all these various forms, and - that so sud denly before they can feel well where they stand ? . . . Should we be called to as frequent engage ments as you have made mutations in the Govern ment, were it not the way to banish conscience out of the land, and to teach men to swallow any thing that is offered, and to sin till they believe that no thing is a sits .? honest men will not go against their consciences, whatever it cost them, when others will : And, there fore, unnecessary engagements will strengthen the unconscionable, and engage you in a persecution of the best—and who will have the worst of that at last ?" It is no wonder that Louis the Fourteenth declared that the English of his day were a people regardless of oaths, and the Clergy the worst of all, as they furnished the people with arguments in favour of peijury. It would no doubt be no difficult matter for the Jews to imitate their Christian brethren in the discovery of quibbles such as those above referred to; but why should they be exposed to a temptation which even the Clergy of the Church of England could not resist ? There is quite enough of unnecessary peijury among Christians, through University oaths, &c., without the addition of Jewish perjury. We observe that in a printed letter the proposition is combated. " That the admission of Jews to civil power is inconsistent with the dictum of Chief Justice Hale, that Chris tianity is part end parcel of the law of the land.' In the Correspondence of Mr. Jefferson, it is shown that this saying of Hale is founded on a gross blun der. "It may amuse you (says Jefferson) to show when, and by what means, they stole this law in upon us. In a case of quare impedit in the Year Book, 34. Hen. VI., folio 38 (anno 1458), a ques tion was made how far the Ecclesiastical Law was to be respected in a Common Law Court ? And Prisot, Chief Justice, gives his opinion in these words:----' A tiel leis qu'ils de seint eglise out en anczen Scripture, covient a nous a donner credence; cor ceo common ley stir quell touts manners leis sont fond Cs. Et any, Sir, nous sumus olsl. , ;(as de eonustre lour ley de saint eglise : et semblablement ils sont obliges de conustre notre ley. Et, Sir, si poit apperer or a nous I'evesque ad fait come un ordinary fern en tiel cas, adong nous devons ceo adjurer bon, on auterment nervy,' &c.— See S. C. Fitz!). Abr. Qt. imp. 89, Bro. Abr. Qu. imp. 12. Finch, in his fist book, c. 3, is the first artersvarda who quotes this case, and mistakes it thus To such laws of the Church as have warrant in Hely Scripture, our law giveth credence:—And cites Prisot ; mistranslatiog 4 Ancient Scripture' into Holy Scripture.' Whereas Prisot palpably says, ' To such laws as those of holy church, have, in Antient Writing, it is proper for us to give credence ;' to wit, to their ancient written laws. This was in 1613, a century and a half after the dictum of Prisot. Wingate, in 1658, erects this false translation into a maxim of the Common Law. copying the words of Finch, but citing Prisot. Wing., Max. 3. And Sheppard, title Religion,' in 1675, copies the same mistranslation, quoting the Y. B. Finch and Wingate. Hales expresses it in these words Christianity is parcel of the laws of England,' 1 Ventr. 293,3 Keb. 607. But he quotes no authority. By these echoings and re-echoings from one to another, it had become Fo esta blished in 1728, that in the case of the King v. Woolston, 2 Still. 834., the Court would not stiffer it to be debated whether to write against Christianity was punishable in the temporal Court of commonlaw."—So much for this dictum of Hale. Surely after the tests intended to exclude the Dis. senters and Catholics have been dome away with, it will be deemed Ilene:lth the dignity of the country to retain this paltry remnant of persecution. The Jews born in England are English subjects, and ought to have all the privileges of English subjects. Why should the Christians, because they are the majority, impose an osth, which compels the Jew either to perjure himself or to punish himself by his honesty ? This remnant of intolerance is unworthy of a great nation—is unworthy of the age.—illorn ing Chronicle. • It affords us much pleasure to have it in our power to state, for the information of the Licensed Victuallers, that the most obnoxious and most in jurious part of the Sale of Beer Bill—we mean that part of it which, if passed into a law, would have authorized beer to be consumed on the premises of the intended new beer-shops—is to be abandoned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that the proposed throwing open of the trade in beer is to be limited to the simple power of sale by retail. This was announced in the Courier of Saturday, and has since been confirmed to us by authority on which we can rely. The second reading of the Bill stands for this evening ; and it is probable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will embrace that opportunity of stating his relinquishment of a mea sure which had injustice for its basis—impolicy for its directing principle—and ruin to a most merito rious, and, in many other respects, severely op pressed, class of the community, as its inevitable result. Looking at all its consequences, in fact, we cannot help expressing our surprise, not that the clause is about to be abandoned, but that any Mi nister of the Crown should have ever dreamed of passing it into a law. In every point of view it was most objectionable, and the community, as well as the Licensed Victuallers, whose property it affected, have good reason to be thankful that they have escaped the infliction of such an intolerable nuisance. While on this subject we shall take the opportunity of stating, that there is another part of the Bill, and which also formed part of Mr. Estcourt's Act, which ought not to pass into a law—we mean that part of it which quarters the military upon the licensed victuallers, whether they are inclined to receive them or not, and which is a perpetual source of loss and annoyance on the one hand, and of ty ranny and insult on the other. We have no wish that the military should not be properly accommo dated; but, on the other hand, there can be no good reason for converting a respectable inn into a stable yard, or driving from it every respectable inmate, in consequence of the riots, the noise, and the inso lence to which the quartering of soldius on victual ling-houses almost invariably gives rise. It is the cause of great loss and annoyance to the landlord, and is otherwise calculated to destroy those habits of discipline and insubordination to the civil power, which it ought to be the object of those who are placed at the head of the army to improve, instead of loosening.—llforn. Advertiser. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAT I. ROWLANDS V. GARGRAVE. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved in this case, on the part of the defendant, for a rule to show cause why the verdict for the plaintiff should not be set aside, and a new trial had. The action was brought by Mr. Rowlands, u jeweller, residing in Coventry street, Haymarket, against Mr. Gargrave, an attor ney, to recover a balance of 168/. 2s. for jewellery, plate, &c., supplied upon the order of the de fendant's wife, and the question of the trial on the 22d of lust month was, whether the wife had an implied authority from her husband to purchase the articles which formed the subject of the de mand, or whether they had been furnished without his knowledge or consent. It was argued at the trial, on the part of the defendant, that the implied credit which the wife had from her husband was ap plicable only to articles which were suitable to her station, and did not extend to articles which neither she nor her husband had occasion for; and it was pressed very strongly upon the Jury, that the articles which formed the subject of the plaintiff's demand came within this description, and that there fore, and as they were furnished without the know ledge or authority of the defendant, he was not liable to pay for them. The observations made by Lord Tenterden in the course of his summing'up were in favour of this view of the case, but the Jury, nevertheless, found for the plaintiff for the full amount of his demand. The Learned Counsel having now submitted the facts to the Court, their Lordships without hesitation granted a rule nisi for a new trial. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MAY 1. WARD V. WEEKS. This was an action of slander, which was tried be fore Mr. Justice Bosanquet at the last Taunton Assizes. The words complained of were—that the plaintiff was a swindler. They were uttered by the defendant to a third person, by whom they were re peated to another person, who in consequence re fused to trust the plaintiff. This refusal was al leged by way of special:damage, the words not being actionable of themselves. The Learned Judge was of opinion, that as the special damage was not the immediate consequence of the act of the defendant, but that of an intermediate party, the action was not sustainable against him, and therefore he non suited the plaintiff. Mr. Serjeant BOMPAS now moved to set aside that nonsuit, and contended, upon the authority of Lord Northampton's case, as reported by Lord Coke, that the intermediate party having mentioned the name of the original author of the slander, when he re peated it, the action was properly brought against the defendant, who was the original author. The COURT thought the question well deserving of consideration, and granted a rule to show cause. CONSISTORY COUR I', MAY 1 GLOVER V. BILTON. Dr. LUSHINGTON gave sentence in this eise, which was reported last term. It was a suit pro moted by a parishioner of Bow against Mr. Thomas Bilton, for smiting Mr. Michael Scales in the vestry room, in the church-yard, and adjoining the chinch, whence it was constituted an ecclesiastical offence, punishable by excommunication or the penalties substituted by a recent statute. The affray has al ready been the subject of a suit in this Court, and an action in the Court of Common Pleas, in both which Mr. Scales was the defendant; in the former, he was pronounced guilty J A smiting; and i n the latter, a verdict of 51. damages %vent against bird , for an assault on the defendant -in this suit. The Learned Judge was bound to say, that on a careful c3nsideration of the evident.., the smiting had not been proved. He therefore dismissed the patty, but he should not give costs. COUNTRY CORN MARKETS. DURING LAST WEEK. , Barley. Oats. Ter Quarter. Is.to s. :s.to s. Catlisle — fFi 32 s. to s. S. to s• ...0 Carmarthen.,,.,,_.. :; 58 24 : 52 '72 33 41 orpet h 22 29 23 2ts 23 36 ". 50 55 A 55 Pt•niith SNetheld 21 25 s.d. s.d. 36 O tt 39 43 33 40 36 40 29 33 33 40 7- 42 41. s.d. 1 56 6 56 68 56 6 7'2 9O 0 0 73 66 79 50 7( 70 86 48 76 96 12 8 it o 1 1 n o Iv& 08 02; .65 30 32 - 73 60 -31 Winchester Ifo 71 127 34 Per Bushel. s. d. s. cl. s. (1. s, d. Coventry -1 7 0 9 0 4 8 5 4 Newcastle (Stag) :10 0 10 6 4 6 5 6 Northallurton -1 7 0 9 3 3 6 4 6 Stafford 9 0 941 5 9 6 2 Swansea 8 4 8 6 4 4 4 6 Warwick - 90 10 0, 46 50 Per Boil. Barnardeastle -115 6 IS 01 Btt 9 0 Durham 0 17 01 9 0 10 0 Richmond IV?. 0 16 0! 0 0 10 Stockton 1•2 6 14 61 6 0 9 0 BIRMINGHAM CORN MARKET.—ApriI V. s. d. to s. u• AVlleat, per 621 b. 7 6 9 Barley, per Imperial quarter 12 0 41 0 Malts 2 0 62 u Pease 3B 0 41 n 0 v Beans, per bag of 10 score gross Oats, per 391 b. Fine Flour, per sack of 2801 b. 0 v Seconds 49 0 51 WAKEFIELD CORN MARKET.—ApriI 30. There is a large supply of Wheat fresh up here t 0 ,14: and the sale of all descriptions has been exceedingly dui" at a decline of Is. per quarter upon the best, 2s. per quo' ter upon middling descriptions, and the inferior soft eoei ditioned samples are un sa l ea bl e a t any t o l era bl e p r i ce , and up to the close of the market very little business has he done. Oats fully maintain the rates of last Friday. I ,", e i weather having set i n ver y warm, Barley has met q' s ile, and scarcely supports last week's prices. Beans Ar d in very trifling demand, and are the tarn lower. Mora. money is asked for Malt, but the buyers are not dispose' to comply with any advance to-day. Wheat, Red, Norfolk and Suflblk 555. 60s. to Ms. fine 685. New 60s. 655. to Gls. fine 78s. White Old 63e. 665. to 735. fine 715. - New 60s. 61s. to tiSs. fine 635. - Foreign, Red ....... sss. 60s. to 675. fine 695. White 625. 665. to 695. fine 71s. Barley, Norfolk and Suffolk - Lincolnshire 3ls. to 345. fine 'i:d. Yorkshire \i old 3ls. to :W. fine SEis. Foreign —s. to —s. fine --a• Beans, Old - New 345. to 365. fine 11 81 . Oats, Potato - ' 2is. to 295. fine 31 5 . Poland 235. 255. to 775. fine 2 3 ' Friezland and Small ..... ..... 2:3s. 245. to 265. fine 2 7 * itlealing 'l234d. to 14d. per S_ ,tOO 6 Shelling 3ls. to 335. Od. per Load' Mal. 3 B s: 40s. fine 435. per 1.01`" _ _ _ . - Rapeseed SCOTCH MARKETS. Wheat. Barley Oats. Beans. Oat;1 1 _ 0 , 031 " Aberdeen 53 74 24 29 20 23 30 3 , 5 Berwick— 40 43 20 22 16 19 j 22 24 34 Coldstream 42 43 21 23 17 19 24 26 -- Cupar 51 70 30 32 22 23 24 27 Dundee—. 58 78 32 33 26 28 30 11gin-- 50 60 20 25 20 23 19 21 Inverness—. 53 58 26 281 19 22 24 26 40 Kelso 40 46 22 17 19 24 27 -- Kirkalciy, ~ i6O 76 3.3 33 26 32 30 :11 -••• Perth 52 70 19 21 16 19 28 32 •-• l'he size of the measure varies throughout the cotnit.2::o, EDINBURGH CORN 111ARK.1 , :T.—Apri128. Our supply of all kinds of Grain was full, eXceP t B:rley, and prices were lower. Barley sold freely at lO C week's quotations, except for malting purposes, whie> brought higher. Wheat. Barley. Oats. Pease. First '76s Od 38s Od 2Ss Od —s Od Second 7ls Od 368 6d 26s Od —s 05 Third PRICES OF PROVISIONS, &C. Beet; per lb. Os. 3d. to Os.sd. Fresh Butter,lb.s.lod. tOI S I Ck O L Button 0 4 0 5 Salt 0 9 ? 0 Veal 0 3 0 6 Ditto, per cvtt. 84 0 rof, 0 Pork 0 3 0 4 Eggs, per doz. 0 6 I 0 Lamb, per qr. 4 0 6 0 O a ttitraw(kpl.) 6 0 u n 0 Tallow, cwt.... 27 0 28 0 Wheat Ditto... '7 0 8 Quartern Loaf 010 011 Barley Ditto «. 0 0 6ei Potatoes, 1711 b. 0 5 0 6 Hay, per 0 6 0 s Bears. 376 36s od 35L Ad EDINBURGH MEAL MA [MEL—April 27. We had a middling supply of Oatmeal at to-day's mar'mar'ket, which met with very dull sale at last week's prices' The supply of Barley and Peasemeal today was larger than usual, but no alteration in the price. Per Sack of 2801 b. Imp. Per Stone of 14W. IMP- 0 First Oatmeal £2 0 0 First Oatmeal £0 2 Second ditto 1 18 0 Second ditto „ 1 111 Barleyineal ll2 0 8ar1eymea1............... ' jel Peasemeal 1 10 0 Peasemeal ,_I Pot Barley—No. t, per cwt. 125.-2 d, 14...-3 4 i. 18& — I'eai I 7.14 GLASGOW CORN A fair business doing in the prices of last week. Ti MARKET.—ApriI 28. a!1 kinds of Grain, at *bat 'here have bees coneideiable sales of Wheat in bond. Wheat, per 2101 b. s. d. s. d. Oats, per 1 0.5-11 b. B. d. 0. cl -0 British, old 3l 6t036 0 Irish l9 °toil ••••••••••••••. new Canada, free • 35 0 37 0 Beans, per 2601 b. 6 Irish - al 0 Barley, per 320th. Scottish English 27 0 29 0 Pease, Scottish ... 18 0 no Scottish 27 0 29 0 Oatmeal, per 110Ib. IT 0 r, 0 Irish 25 0 27 0 Flour. per 2801 h.... 500 o' CORNWALL. MARKETS. Tat:no.-Wheat (average) 27a.-Barley, 13s. 6d.-Oats, 10s. 64 ' Sr. A usTeLL-Wheat, 245. to 26.5.-Barley, 148. to 16.5.--0 81 b 9s. to 10s. Od. Bonm N-Wh eat (average) 275. 01-Barley, 13s. Od.--Oats, LAUNCESTON-Wheat (average) 19s. Od.-Barley, 9s. (kt..-Oath Bs. 0.1.-Beef, 511.-Mutton, 511. ilr(.a•rov-Wheat, 265. Od.-Barley, 13s. Od. PENZANCE-Wheat, 235. to 24.5.-Barley„ -s. to 1:33.-.oat 4 Os. to 12s. 04.-Beef and Mutton, 4d. to 511-Pork, 31. to Oil , ' Butter, 9d. per lb. Ltsaßano-Wheat, 21s. Oct to 255. 94.-Barley, 125.-Oats, IN' to 10s. 6d. Sr. COLUSI3-Wheat, 255. to 265.-Barley, 12s. to 13.1.-Xce 6 and Mutton, sd. to 6d.-Veal and Lamb, 5d to 7d. . MINING INTELLIGENCE. Tons. Civt. Quantity of Copper Ore sold at Redruth last Thursday 3,543 0 0 Average Produce 7% Quantity of fine Copper 26t ta Amount of Sale, 18,5651. fis. Ca—Average Standard; 1071;4s. 0.4- EQUESTRIAN FEAT EXPLAINED.—The properties of compounded motions cause some of the cquee' trian feats exhibited at public spectacles to be performed by a kind of exertion very different from that the spectating generally attribute to the performer. For example, the horseman standing on the saddle leaps over a garter er tended over the horse at right angles to his motion ; the horse passing under the garter, the rider lights upon the .addle at the opposite side. The exertion of the performer , in this case, is not that which he would use were he te leap from the ground over a garter at the same height', In the latter case, h e w ou ld make an exertion to rise, an d at the same time, to project his body forward. In the case, however, of the horseman, he merely makes that ear ertion which is necessary to rise directly upwards to A sob ficient height to clear the garter. • The motion which be has in common with the horse, compounded .with elevation acquired by his muscular power, accomplishes the leap.—Dr. Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopedia. BIRTHS. On the Ist inst. in Chester-street, Grosvenor-place, the !Ay of J. Key, Esq., of a daughter. On the 29th ult. in Grosvenor-plaae, the Lady Georgiapo Cholmeley, of a son and heir. On the 29th ult. at Highwood-hill, the lady of the Rev. S. Wilberforce, of a daughter. MARRIED. On the Ist inst. at St. Margaret's, Westminster, Sir Edward Blackett, of Matzen Hall, to Miss Monel, daughter of Sir Charles Monck, of Bels ky, in Northumberland. - On the Ist inst. Henry Kekuble, Esq. of Grove-hill' Camberwell, to Rachel Do‘kree, second daughter of the late P. Melvin, E.q., Lieutenant-G,kvernor of Pendenois Castle, Cornwall. On the Ist inst. at St. Pancras, E. Lowrance, Esq.? of Bucklershury, to Mary Anne, second daughter of G. Rule, Esq., of Guildford -street, Russell-square. DIED. On the 2d inst. at the house of his brother, Dr. Ainslie , in Dover-street, Mountague Farrer Ainslie, Esq., Bender of Gray's-inn, and Senior Fellow of Trinity College► Cambridge, aged 71. On the 24th ult. at die house of her uncle, Thoutile Gore, Esq. Nottingham.place, Ellen, daughter of the late Charles Orlando Gore, Esq. formerly of Tring-part' Hertfordshire. On the 25th ult. at Bennington, Catherine, Alegi daughter of the late J. Chesshyre, Esq. On the 30th ult. in Abingilou-street, Westminster► Geo. Pink, Esq., of the Ordnance Department, aged7 l ' On Monday last, at Cirtlett, near Hiverfordwest, 110 0 Ann Griffiths, of Solve, Pembrokeshire, the trial of whil o cause against the Rev. Thos. Williams, appeared in oaf last. She fill a victim to her feelings, and in her last ►i'° merits she uttered a blessing on her bttrayer. Her delicate frame unable to withstand the repeated shocks it received► sunk under their weight,— cambriau. P&INTED AND PUBLISHED BY MURDO YOUNG, .0 THE SUN OFFICE, 112, STRAND, LONDON. • LIC Pr HE 7 TAN ERN Ice Royal y‘ l t. fileadei alr. Capron 14r. Harris , t ,norough. Hayter Henvi Limon Gi .1 1 , 4 r. Hill SI r. <Tasks()) Kenn .altaietr takers 4 ' 4 4 so b the 'raver I S, 01(1 I ----, P. Powerful Moauow eisely, fu r FARI General S N. 13._ tised in o'clock. THI of R au -street , Quested ti any p erso receive a stitn e to t' P tcription, Scotch ar ItaizeT ar eign and and liar] every cola fringed made. tariety o 11 11 the RA FOX a tietifotd-s lOR TI WA Fruit Tre Proved di other art Well as t the above JA? IN "=ll9njeu N. 11.— need only Tll is day wi, NE` Meta Containi of the V adapted f L icentiat Prof tofid o Yard ~..,_u This d l Dedicate PA tsinin g ior the L Outlines of st. i Print Church- This ds Price COITCC A, PROPI to be ex tural an, perfectic obviate Rector 1 Trini the Print Church- This da pR Priests the Use th e i r 0 Ilarsual appropr Lond ptbl'• ( 1 • 1! 2. 14 3. COUR CIPLE 4. L New E, This d M demo _ ___ • garitho Sines, several also, tt Low Parbu r W. Jo, T. Bur San, al Deight AN MATI Just pt prov prey E` and GI necessi flower. hot -ho tical d also re aeo tni tirati e cultur By 'I T HI Seve gone. Prof Loi J. Nu J. Bc Co. ; Whitt Simp, Hon