The Sun. — London, England, 1832-12-03 00:00:00

PIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. It will be seen from our report of the county meeting at Hertford, which appears in -another column, that Lord Deere, aided by several par tisans of the present Government, succeeded in deafeating a resolution against the Dutch war. Never was a question - cregs:.?d more distinctly upon party grounds than the . vestion of peace or war was, argued, upon this occasion, by his Lordship, and the speakers who followed him on the sarr e side. If the proposition had been, " Will you prefer a Tory to a Whig ? will you turn out a Reforming Administration ? or will you reinstate your old adversaries in power ? " the arguments adduced by the Noble Mover of the amendment, and his friends, could not have been more plainly directed to those topics than they were upon the very different proposition of interfering to prevent hostilities against Hol land. The manoeuvre answered the purpost for which it was resorted to. The old preju dices of Whig and Tory, the recent conflicts of Reformer and Anti-Reformer, were all pressed into the service of Ministers by their adherents : and the decision of the meeting was in con formity with their recommendation, that, be cause of considerations which had nothing to do with the matter, it was expedient to leave Hol land to its fate, and the Ministers to their career of aggression and war. But, though this result may be fi,Airly enough appealed to as a proof of the str e n g th o f Wh ig influence in the county, it will scarcely be regarded as a set-ofi against the great city meeting, where com mercial and practical men of all parties carried a resolution similar to that which was lost in Hertfordshire. There still remains the opinion of Parliament, and of the nation ; and a little time will show whether the approbation vouch safed to Ministers, from Hertfordshire and other places, bears any proportion to that which the public in general are prepared to recognise as their own.—Morning Herald. On Friday morning last the citadel of Ant werp, which all along has been acknowledged even by the Dutch themselves to belong tc Belgium, was summoned to surrender to its lawful owner—the King of Belgium, and re plied to by a cannon-shot from the military re presentative of the King of Holland, who has no claim, and pretends to no right of possessing that fortress. The question, therefore, which has agitated Europe for the last two years, and which ought long ago to have been decided b 3 the treaty of the 15th of November, 1831, is now to be settled—not by diplomacy, but b\ arms. Never, certainly, did a wilful or ambi tious Monarch throw himself into the arena of contest with more reckless folly, or with the anti cipation of more desperate results. He is per fectly aware that the citadel of Antwerp cannot long withstand the attacks of a large French force in occupation of the city,—he must be con vinced that, unassisted by the absolute Powers of Europe, he cannot run the hazard of invading Belgium to relieve the siege,—and he must, therefore, know that unless he has the certainty of inure blood being shed, the blood which fu now sheds will be of as little value as the ditch water in his own stagnating canals. Yet, in the face of these frightful contingencies, he begins the war by asserting a hostile occupation o 4 territory which he acknowledges not to be his own, and which never belonged to Holland. Need we say anything more to annihilate the pretended admiration of Dutch patriotism, or to excite the indignation of British virtue on this melancholy occasion? We broadly state tilt fact (and we challenge all the world to deny it) that the King of Holland has only one object in view—the recovery of Belgium; and that he hopes to attain that one object only by one means, viz., the absurd resistance of the Dutch to the freedom of the Scheldt, and the contingencie , which that resistance may produce. Hence, with a feeling probably not better than that of the incendiary who set fire to the temple of Ephesus, he has ordered the first shot to be discharged from the citadel of Antwerp, which may kindle a general war. Let us, therefore, hear no further hnmbug about the patriotic firm ness or religious feelings of his Dutch Ma jesty, who has shown all the perfidious and cruel ambition of a conqueror under the mask of ait unjust and monopolizing trader. When the wretched Tory creatures who now oppose their own Government, and take part with Holland. on the question of the Scheldt, shall have told us that they are decided to recommend the re newal of the treaty of Westphalia, we shall be enabled to deal with them. It would be hazard ous to calculate at present all the consequences of Dutch resistance to the occupation of the citadel of Antwerp. They may end—and we hope they will end—with the reduction of the Place • but should a Dutch army invade Belgium to support the operations of the Dutch garrison of this advanced fortress, it will then appear evident that perfidy has been more extensively at work than was at first suspected, and that a general war of opinion is to be provoked by the party most likely to suffer from its results.— Times. The county meeting of Hertford, which had been convened by the Conservatives to provoke a general war, by hypocritically calling for peace with Holland, has turned out to be, as at New castle, a signal failure. Though the Lord- Lieutenant of the county was in the list of the requisitionists,—though his Lordship spoke at the meeting against the Government to whom he owes his commission,—and who ought in stantly to show their sense of his factious con duct by withdrawing it,—the monstrous alliance of the Tories and their hired rabble was defeated by a majority of 10 to 1. The public now understand the meaning of these ridiculous farces of our pacific Conservatives. They know that a petition for a peace with Holland is merely intended to be an electioneering ma muvre,—that the animals who stir in such a business, however little wisdom they may posses themselves, presume on the laudable love of peace and the perfect ignorance of politics of those whom they address,—and that they can only succeed by misrepres en t a ti on an d 'false hood. When the Conservatives are fairly met, as they were at Hertford by Lord Dacre and Sir John Sebright, .they are sure to be reduced to their origin al insignificance, or to be routed with signal disgrace. W e h ave so often discussed the question of the Belgic settlement—we have so often shown that the present arrangement offered the only chance of preventing a general war—and we have so often proved that the Eve Courts fully adopted the principles which two of them are now endeavour ing to enforce, with no wish to act hostilely against the very Power whose obstinacy they are compelled to check, that it would be superfluous now to enter further into the subject. Au in nocent gentleman who appeared among the Con servatives at Hertford, told the people " that the only real point in dispute was the right to certain tolls—it wa3 a mete dispute about a certain number of guilders, and he asked, was gold to be put in competition with human blood ?" Exquisite simpleton ! and does he not know that the demand of " these same certain number of guilders" at the mouth of the Scheldt, as the condition of entering the river, must have obstructed the entire trade of Antwerp ? Does he not know that most wars have arisen from the denia! of well-defined rights or the demand of enormous fines for reasonable immunities ? Has he forgotten, or did he not know, that the pretended right of cutting logwood in the bay of Campeachy led us to a sanguinary war with Spain ? The truth is, that the question of the Scheldt, taken in connexion with the treaty of Vienna, and the original law of nations, would furnish a better ground for a war than almost any other which a common genius for inventingwarUe pretexts could devise or desire. We beg, in conclusion, to call the 'attention of Lord Grey's Government to the follO%;:ing very mild, but not the less important, notice of Lord Verulam's conduct. What did the Tories do in the case of the venerable Earl Fit zwilliam ?: " I am friendly, and always have been, to public meet ,ngs, an i have been a party to promoe many, but never would I convene a meeting during such a fevrrish anxiety ,f the inhabitants of the county and of Englmd at lar,-e, when within a fortnight so much better opportunity would have been afforded for its expresion. With the sincere , t ottachment to the Noble Lord (Veruhm), I regret exceed ingly that be should have permitted himself to become a party in this affair. I lament it on account of his being laced at the Lead of this county by his Sovereign to main. , ain its p,!ace, when instead it produces agitation. His moo -ices, I know, are excellent, and may have emanated from :misconception of the object the projectors had in view, in unnecessarily calling the county together at this memento" Times. It would appear that we are to have a couple of Conservative candidates for Westminster, Sir George Murray and Sir George Cockburn. This is a natural consequence of the division of tlie popular interest. We confess we regret this division Of the popular interest. With regard to Sir Francis Burdett, the cause of Reform is greatly indebted to him. He was a Reformer in times when it required some courage to be one. Sir John Hobhousc is not exactly in the same predicament. He may be said to have derived his consequence from Reform. The cause had taken deep root in Westminster, when he was put forward by the electors as a determined and zealous Reformer, ready to go all lengths in the cause. We have on more occasions than one shown that we do not entertain the highest opinion of the views on matters of legislation entertained by Sir Francis. He has rather inore than an average share of aristocratical prejudices, and sometimes in the House delivers himself of what, without any great lack of candour, may be termed pure twaddle —as, for instance, when he declared that one sentence in \Tapia Charta (a mere declaration, liable, like dl general declarations, to the utmost latitude of interpretation) was worth ail the modern discoveries in politics and legislation. The - ruth is, Sir Francis, with good natural parts, has the besetting sin of most rich men—he is too lazy to apply himself to anything that demands exertion, and there is no Royal road to knowledge. Sir John Hobhouse has fewer prejudices and more industry than Sir Francis ; hut the staple is greatly inferior. it has been .charged against the two Members for Westmin ster by a Sunday contemporary (the Examiner) that they wish the Reform to be turned to no ccount " The Ballot (says our contemporary) would give to be existing Parliamentary Constitution the best cif- et of which it is capable; and will Sir John vote for the Bal!ot, 'or which he has argued as strongly as for a Reform ex- Teding the measure contemplated by Mr. Lamb (house older suffrage, gcc.) which, let it be observed, exceeds 'he present much-vaunted Reform ? We are certain that he will not. He will not advance to the extent which he called small' in 1819 ; and he will not give the short measure the egree of efficacy of which it allows, by affording to the constituency the protection of secret voting. His voucher, sir F Burdett, is for resting where we are, and abstain ing from any attempts at improvement. His language is, Have you not got the Bill? What more would you have ?' " ' My son, here is a drum, take it and play with it; .muse yourself, but make no noise.' "'My man, you are hungry: here is a horn spoon, take it, be satisfied, be grateful, but by no means help yourself to soup. Be content: what more would you have? You were starving ! Well, have you not got a qpoon, and would you have more ? Would you insist on using it ? Would you eat ? Oh, fie! this is gluttonous —this is grasping. We should not have given you the poor, if we had a notion that you were for employing it, :Ind had set your mind on the food. The spoon was a anal gift : nothing mote was contemplated.'" We should be sorry to think that in the next Parliament there will not he many men pos sessed of both the will and the power to make the Reform Bill produce its fruits. The Re form Bill is but a means to an end—good go vernment ; and to obtain good government, the representatives of the people must make the ex ertions which are necessary to remove the nume rous abuses that now press on the people. The great security for the people is, that if they re turn a proper House of Commons, Ministers must propose efficient measures, and they can do so without apprehension from the efforts of fac tion. The electors should, of course, endeavour to have the assurance that they whom they send to Parliament will really and truly give effect to their views. Both Sir Francis and Sir John Hobhouse have shown a degree of testiness on the subject of pledges quite un called for. There are points on which it is of the utmost consequence that the electors and representatives should come to a correct under standing. It is for the electors to determine What opinions shall be entertained by the men whom they send to Parliament as their repre sentatives ; and no candidate should hesitate to enter into the fullest explanations to satisfy the electors. Appeals to the past will not do, be cause the Reform Bill has changed entirely the nature of the warfare in Parliament between the r people and their enemies. It would be absurd to say that a man in place is disqualified from representing a city like Westminster. But then the candidate should not the less explain his views on all points respecting which the electors are anxious to obtain explanation. It is true, the. candidate cannot pledge the Ministry to support any particular measure, and while he forms part of a Ministry he cannot pledge himself to support what the Ministry does not support ; but then he can cease to form part of the Ministry which refuses to propose the measures which he has agreed to support. Where the constituency and the Ministry are at variance, the duty to the constit uency ought to prevail. We are far, there fore, from approving the course adopted by tl►e two Baronets in all particulars, and think they have carried matters with too high a hand. Still we regret that an opposition has been started. We have n o hesitation in saying that if we thought that throughout the country a number of determined Reformers and efficient men of business would not be elected, we might attach more importance to the representatio n of Westminster. But, under all circumstances, it would have been, we think, better not to risk the throwing Conservatives into Westminster. We have only to add, that it i s a p oor compliment to Ministers to suppose that they intended the people to make no use of the powers given to them under the Reform Bill. There is no dis position to undervalue the services rendered to the country by Ministers ; and we are sure, that if they endeavour to give effect to the Reform Bill, they always receive the support of a Reformed Parliament. On one point, we have no hesitation in saying, that if the Westminster electors do not require a pledge—namely, the ballot—they will certainly be fools ; whether their representatives, after giving the pledge, would prove knaves, is their concern.—Morn ing Chronicle. The degree of respect entertained by the Mi nisterial Press for the understandings of its readers may be inferred by the manner in which it shuf fles under the charge of inconsistency upon the subject of pledges. The Journals in the service , of Government have one solitary argument, by the incessant repetition of which they labour to reconcile the diametrically opposite opinions which they have each and all advanced at dif ferent periods upon this subject. It was, they pretend, wise and patriotic to advise the electors to demand a pledge from candidates to support the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," as this pledge included no more than a single question which had already been amply discussed, and upon which the country had fully made up its mind. But the case, they tell us, is widely different now that the voters in certain counties and boroughs show a disposition to extort pledges in favour of a great number and variety of measures of practical policy. To sanction this course would be silly, unconstitutional, and fac tious—a direct attack upon the principle, a violent extinction of the authority, and an indecent mockery of the use and purpose of representative government. In this apology for the inconsistency of the Ministerial writers and candidates who now treat with such high disdain a practice which they formerly upheld by precept and example, there is manifest bad faith, and such a degree of bad f a ith as i m pli es great contempt for those to whom it is addressed. It is in truth a very impudent juggle. The pledge to support the Reform Bill, expressly in a great majority of cases, and in all the rest by well-un derstood implication, involved the further pledge to support all the measures, be they what they might, of the Reform Ministry. It fettered the candidates who were so weak or unprinci pled as to submit to the dictation of those who are now the enemies of pledges, not merely upon the question of the Bill, not merely upon any other question or any given number of questions in the actual contem plation of the electors at the time of ex torting it, but upon every possible question that time or circumstances might bring forth pending the discussion of the Reform Bill, upon every new act of Grey or Plunket rapacity, upon every job of Lord Brougham, upon every blun der of Lord Althorp, upon every reckless project that might be engendered in the brain of Mr. Poulett Thomson or of Dr. Bowring. But considering the Reform pledge apart from the unmitigated helotry to the Ministry of the day, which it was understood to include, can any thing be imagined more remote from truth than the representation that it was a pledge upon one single question, which question the electors had well considered and fully under stood ? It was a pledge upon questions and principles more numerous by far than the clauses in the 13ill. It was a pledge upon questions and principles of the magnitude and importance of which, of the number even of which, the electors knew nothing, and still know but little, although they seem to know more than they did, there being probably no constituency in the three kingdoms that would not now if it could modify the Bill in a great variety of particulars. This by no means implies that the electoral bodies who extorted pledges did not understand the measure as well as the puppets they were about to set up, or as well even as the authors of the measure in whose support those puppets were to act. To establish a new Constitution for the government of an extensive and diversified em pire like that of Great Britain must inevitably be almost, if not altogether, a leap in the dark ; and upon the countless multiplicity of questions which appertain to such an undertaking it is, therefore, less rational and more dangerous than upon any other imaginable occasion to exclude the faint anti imperfect glimmerings of light which the most candid, dispassionate, and unpre judiced discussion might happen to elicit. What becomes, then, of the consistency of our Ministe rial partisans of the Press and the hustings who were eager in their demands, and no less eager in their tenders of pledges, in favour of the Re form Bill, and who now profess the opinion that candidates who give pledges, and electors who require them, upon subjects infinitely less diffi cult, infinitely less important, and infinitely bet ter and more generally understood, violate, not only the principles of the Constitution, but the plainest dictates of common sense? The opinion is correct enough, no doubt, but where is the consistency ? Would it not be much better for these persons to say at once that their opinion is changed ? The change is from error to truth, and why should they be ashamed of it ? It is bad policy to shuffle upon such occasions. The most charitable observers are thereby led to sus pect that neither error nor truth has touch to do with the matter, and that the system of pledges, which was once so good and is now so bad, has only changed its character because the electors will no longer require the precise pledges which suit the purposes of existing power.-Morn.Post. Nothing can be more truly ludicrous, incon sistent, or irrational—nothing less defensible, in every point of view—than the conduct o f th ose candidates for the representation of the people in the ensuing Parliament, who condemn all pledges for the removal of abuses as a species of wholesale slavery. With one breath they condemn them in the lump, from what quarter soever they may be demanded, and, with the same, they give pledges in such abundance, and to such an extent, that one is at first apt to dis credit even the evidence of their senses as to the identity of the individual who is guilty of suc h inconsistent conduct. Among the foremost of those who are amenable to this charge are M r . William Brougham, one of th e can did ates for the ‘ rrepresentation of Southwark, and the Secre tary atWar, who stands in some risk oflo s i ng his seat for Westminster. The former is most elo in defence o f the qne n tf though ceeaid i neoatsyversyysctozincailiiid ag a i nst t h e g, adoption of pledges, in any shape or guise, and under any circumstances — the latter, if not so diffuse upon the subject, is no less determined in a similar view of the matter. " If yuu abk Mt, " bays Mr. Brougham, " t o p l e d ge myself upon particular questions, you doubt my integrity, you distru6t my judgment—you impair my uaefulness. You doubt my integrity, because, knoWing what I have been, you discredit me in future. You distrust my judg ment, because yon deprive me of my free agency, and send me iota Parliament a mere puppet. You impair my use fulness, because you take from me the power of delibera tion ; for who can pretend to discuss the merits of a ques tion when he goes to the discussion pledged and bound to vote in one way only? You discuss! you argue !' it would be said, ' why, you have already decided; you are a mere tool delegated by others to affirm or deny, right or wrong, convinced or unconvinced ; you have no choice ; you must put your own judgment in your pocket, and vote as you have been ordered." An evening contemporary, in commenting on the above sentiments, says—" Nothing can be added to this ; the absurdity of the practice, and the mutual degradation of those who would sub mit to it, and of those who exact it, are lid bare with a masterly hand." Now, with all due de ference to the , opinion of our contemporary, that the "absurdity of the practice is laid bare with a masterly hand," we beg to observe that we cannot trace in this " masterly hand" sort of de clamation any point, argument, or common sense. The demand for pledges implies no distrust in the integrity of the candidate, but, on the con trary, presupposes that the person from whom they are demanded is a person of integrity, and will faithfully redeem whatever pledges he may find it agreeable to his conscience and reason to give ; for who would think for a moment of ex acting pledges from one of whose honest inten tions to fulfil them he had reason to entertain a doubt ? As little distrust is there implied in the judgment of the party from whom the exaction is made ; for his judgment may be very sound and very excellent, although opposed to that of his constituents, who are the party, we take it, unless we mistake the meaning of the Reform Bill, whose judgment ought to be preferred, and not that of the person who is desirous of repre senting them. It is the interests of the former that are at stake in the matter, not those of the representative, who, if representation be any thing else than a mere word, signifying nothing means that the candidate should represent, ex press, and advocate, the opinions, sentiments, wishes, and interests of the majority of his con stituents, and not those which he personally en tertains or is actuated by. If we are wrong in this matter, what is representation but a mockery, the House of Commons but an irresponsible assembly of petty despots, and the Govern ment itself but a well-cloaked tyranny ? With regard to the charge that the usefulness of a Member of Parliament would be impaired by the exaction of pledges on particular questions, we reply that common sense, coupled with the im possibility of exacting pledges on all points which may come under discussion in the Legislature, not only point out the proper line of demarca tion, beyond which pledges can neither be given nor exacted, but furnish a complete and most satis factory answer to it. The points, in fact, on which the people have thought of demanding are few ; but having made up their minds on them, would they not act the silliest part that can possibly be imagined, if, having the power in their hands, they were to neglect the present golden op portunity of having their sentiments represented ? So much for Mr. Brougham's arguments against pledges—now for his consistency, on which sub ject we borrow the following brief illustration from the Spectator of yesterday " Lord Henley, after expressing his horror of pledges, gives two very distinct pledges—promising, first, to vote for the prompt abolition of slavery; second, to vote against Atheism—meaning retrenchment. " Alderman Waithman, after vowing that he will give no pledges, gives half a dozen at least. " Mr. William Brougham, after declaring to the elec tors of Southwark that will not accept a seat in Par liament if he is to be fettered and bound down by pledges,' promises, in the most distinct tei Ina, to vote, Ist, against ' pluralities of livings, which ought to be abolished;' 2d, against the tithe system, which was a tax on improve ment, a most obnoxious impost—to do away with which he would cordially support any measure ;' 3d, against Bishops sitting in the House of Lords;' 4th, for al teration in the corn laws, which be would go any length to support;' sth, ' for a repeal of the assessed taxes he, would frankly vote; 6th, for a well-modified property tax ;' 7th, for the repeal of Mr. S. Bourne's Vestry Act; Sth, for the repeal of the taxes on knowledge,' to which he was a decided opponent; 9th, for triennial Par liaments;' 10th, for ' emancipation of the slave popula tion ;' and 11th, for the abolition of military flogging.' Eleven pledges in all ; but notwithstanding all these spe cific pledges, he will not consent to accept a seat in Par liament if he is to be fettered and bound down by specific pledges' —no, that he won't ! Mr. Sergeant Spankie declares that ' he cannot con sent to go into the House of Commons fettered by pledges;' and then distinctly pledges himself to defend the East' India Company, whose Counsel he is, with a good salary ; and ' to support the Administration, not only against ancient ope❑ enemies, but against the more dingermis hostilities of Reformers, doing the work of Anti-.lleformers, whatever disguise or denomination they may assume.' " Alderman Wood says, ' I object to pledges :' and then specifically pledges himself to vote for the abolition of tithes, slavery, the assessed taxes, and the taxes on knowledge, for shortening the duration of Parliaments, and for extending the suffrage. " Mr. Lyall, who speaks of pledges as an abomination, pledges himself very distinctly to support our glorious Con stitution in Church and State, with all its abuses. " Mr. Alexander Baring pledges himself to vote for the Agricultural intexest; which means, coming from him, that he will vote the other way. If be had treated the farmers of Essex to some abuse of the corn laws, they might have reckoned on his vote for maintaining those laws. But, at any rate, he pledges himself, and in terms not to be mistaken by those who know his habit of speak ing, on one side and voting on the other. " We cannot learn with precision what pledges have been given by " Lord Aileshury's candidates for Marlborough, " Lord &IHomy's candidates for Hertford, " Lord Westmoreland's candidate for Lyme, " Lord Exeter's candidates for Stamford, or " The Duke of Newcastle's candidates for Newark. But this is well known, that all these candidates, and many more of the same class, both Whig and Tory, arc under positive engagement to vote according to the views of their constituents, the Lords and Dukes hy whom they expect to be sent to Parliament, and, what is more, to re sign their seats in case they should feel disposed to vote in opposition t , ) the said Lords and Dukes. " Mr. Briscoe and Mr. Hurtle, candidates of the atheis ive specific piedges, without any declamation abouttieal Y Pa b r o t ni g s, fetters, delegates, and so forth; as do those poor, ignorant, hungry revolutionists: " Mr. Grote, the banker, " Mr. Thornely, of Liverpool, " And Mr. Marshall, of Leeds. Beauclerk offers a s t r i ng o f p l e d ges to th:ele l c r t . or A s n o lierY f East Surrey ; who, as they pass a resolution declaring that they will elect him, exclaim—' We pledge ourselves!' that is, they pledge themselves to support a man who promises to support their opinions in the House of Cominons. 44 31 e . Wakefield, in his address to the electors of Lam beth, tells them that, if they elect him after reading his pl e dges, they will have pledged themselves to let him vote as he pleases; a way of describing pledges, which, though more new-fangled' than pledges even, deserves the atten tion of all electors. slavish, ba se , d esp i ca b le, and what not, 6, Th e number of candidate@ wh o ra il aga i nst p l e d ges p as ie n d; W in - g fa t n lfem le tlves at the same time, most specifically, to support his Majesty's patriotic Ministers,' is very great indeed ; as might have been exp ecte d , see i ng that h i s Ma jesty's patriotic Ministers have nearly as much patronage as any Ministers ever had, and a great deal more, some think, than they ought to have. .4 On the other band— it sir Richard Vyvyan pledges himself to oppose his Majesty's Revolutionary Ministers. A n d Sir Charles Wetherell pledges himself to wage eternal war with his Majesty's Jacobin, tricoloured, Swing Mi nisters. .‘ Sir John Hobhouse is by no means singular in de l ac ing that he ' will not give any pledges at all ;' but h is unique in nut giving pledges after that declaration. All other declaimers against pledges proceed to do the very thing which they have just declared that nothing on earth shall induce them to do; the Minister at War alone means what he says. But perhaps half of Westminster is Sir John Hobhouse's own ;' and if so, we are not surprised, seeing the wonderful change which Reform has worked in him, that he should think he has a right to do what he likes with it." To conclude :—the opponents of pledges pretend to be the friends of the people, and yet will not pledge themselves to aid in carrying their wishes into effect—many of them have placed in their hands an instrument of great power, and would willingly flatter their vanity by allowing them to play with it as . a child do es with a rattle, but they object to its being em ployed for its legitimate ends and purposes— they have allowed the steed to be taken from the stable—to be bridled, saddled and mounted, but would lock the stable by way of preventing him from being rode ! When the fate of the Reform Bill was doubtful, they not only pledged themselves to support it in all its entirety, but made the most incessant and urgent appeals to the people not to elect any candidate who would not pledge himself to follow a similar line of con duct—and now that it is about to come into operation, and its utility, as an instrument of good, to be tried, they object to the very con duct which they found to be good under pre cisely the same circumstances ! But let not the pledge-refusers deceive themselves. They may triumph in a few places, and for a short time— but it will be only for a short time. The ocean of popular opinion has been set in motion—its waters upheaved from their bed in all their strength and in all their majesty ; and what petty stream is it that will stem its tide or check its flow ?—Morning Advertiser. KING'S BENCH, DEC. 1. BIRD V. STOVIN. This was an action on a bill of exchange for 250/. The plaintiff sued as endorsee. The bill bad been drawn by the defendant, accepted by the Hon. Mrs. Leigh (the sister of Lord Byron), endorsed by the defendant to a Mr. Met; and by Metz to the plaintiff. The defence was, usury. It was stated by Mr. PLATT for the defendant, that the bill had been discounted by Metz, and that a sum of not less than 451. had been taken of the defendant. The only evidence for the defence was Metz, who discounted the bill at the ordinary interest, and sent it to the plaintiff, an attorney at Birming ham, with whom he kept an account, and he re ceived from the plaintiff a check on his bankers for the amount (deducting 301., which the plaintiff owed him). The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE told the Jury that the plaintiff had given valuable consideration for the bill, and it did not appear that he was aware of any usury in the transaction ; they must find for the plaintiff. —Verdict accordingly. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, DEC. I. SPURR V. MARSHALL. This was an action for false imprisonment. The plaintiff, a working jeweller, was employed by the defendant, a silversmith, in Oxford -street, to mend a pair of earrings left with him for that purpose by a customer. The plaintiff did not return the ear rings, and after some time the parties met in the defendant's shop, when the plaintiff, in excuse, said he had spoiled their colour. The defendant, whose wife was very much enraged, said, " That is no reason why you should not return them. You have swindled me out of them, and I will give you in charge." He accordingly did send for an officer who took the plaintiff into custody to the police-office, but the Magistrates having departed before their arrival,the plaintiff was detained until they returned at 7 o'clock in the evening, when the charge was heard and dis missed, the Magistrate thinking as the earrings were delivered to the plaintiff by the defendant, there was only a civil injury committed in not returning them, but no criminal offence. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages one farthing. VYSE V. CLARK. Mr. COWLING opened the pleadings. It was an action for goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had drawn a bill of ex change upon him for the amount, 291. Its. 6d., which he had accepted and delivered to the plain tiff. The plaintiff replied that he had not drawn the bill. Mr. CRESWELL, for the defendant, said that the plaintiff was a dealer in straw bats in Cripplegate buildings ; the defendant was a tradesman in Kirby moorside, Yorkshire, and had ordered of the plain tiff the goods which had been supplied. The plaintiff's traveller called for payment, and finding the defendant out of cash drew upon him at two months, and he accepted the bill, notwithstanding which he was a few days afterwards arrested. The plaintiff by receiving the bill, and not returning it, had adopted the act of his traveller, and ought nor to have resorted to legal proceedings until the bill became due. James Edmonds, the plaintiff's traveller, called in January, 1831, at the defendant's shop ; he had called twice before ; he pressed very hard for money, but not being able to get it, he drew the bill. (The bill was here handed up by the plaintiff.) The de fendant accepted the bill, payable in London, but witness did not put any name to it as a drawer. The bill was complete, with the exception of the drawer's name. He had no authority to draw for the Mr. FOLLETT, for the plaintiff, contended that there was no defence, because the plaintiff had not drawn the bill, which was the issue to be tried. Mr. Baron VAUCHIAN--The issue is, whether the plaintiff did or did riot draw a bill of exchange. The traveller having no authority to sign, he bad no authority to draw. Mr. CRESWELL pressed his Lordship to reserve the point, and one of the Jury said, the bill ought to have been returned before the arrest. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—da mages 291. l ls. 6d., and after some discussion, His LottristitP said, if the money were brought into Court within ten days, he would reserve the point ; if not, execution might issue in a fortnight. :N NIARKI all kinds of In . .—Nov. if Grain t, ty, and EDINBURGH COR ' We had a large supply of the sales were brisk in general. Wheat. Barley. Oats. I Pease. Beans. First 6os Od 35s 6d 22s Od 31s Od 315 Od Second 546 Od 32s Od 19s Od 29s Od 296 Od Third 43s Od 24. 6d 14s Sd 27. Od 27s Od PRICES OF PROVISIONS, &C. Beef, per lb. Os. 3. toOs. 6d. Freshßutter, lb. Q. 93. to Is. Id. Mutton.„ 0 31 0 6 Salt 0 9 010 Veal 0 6 010 Ditto, per co t. 80 0 90 0 0 4 0 6 Eggs, per dos. 1 2 0 0 Lamb, per qr. 1 0 2 6 OatStraw(kpl.) 6 0 7 0 Tallow, cwt.... 35 6 38 0 Wheat Ditto.. 5 0 6 0 Puartern Loaf 0 8 0 0 Barley Ditto 4 f 5 0 otatoes, 171 lb. 0 0 0 4 Hay, per 0 8 I 0 EDINBURGH MEA] The supply of Oatmeal at this cold heavily, at last week's price Per Sack of 280th. Imp. First Oatmeal Second ditto 1 8 0 Barleymeal 1 5 0 Peasenseal. 1 5 0 Pot Barley—No. 1, per cwt. 12 . L MARKET. —Nov. 27. day's market was middling, and Per Stone of 141 b. Imp. First Oatmeal ..... £0 1 Second ditto Barleymeal... ..... ,„„„ () 1 6 Peasemeal .-2d, 145.-3 d, 165.-I'ea t 1 '2OB. GLASGOW CORN MARKET.—Nov. 23. We have a good arrival of Grain from Ireland, and the ma r ' ket steady all descriptions. Wheat, per 2,101 b. s. d. s. d. Oats, per 2641 b. Y . d. ~ d. British, old 23 oto3o 0 Irish l3 oto 15 new 23 0 27 0 Briti s h — 0 Canada, free 26 0 29 0 Beans, per 2601 b. Irish ° ig Barley, per 3201 b. Scottish English 0 0 Pease, Scottish ... 16 0 :•-; 0 Scottish 24 0 26 6 Oatmeal, per 1401 b. 13 0 46 iq 0 20Irish CORNWALL MARKETS. Tauno—Wheat (average) 225.04.—8ar1ey, Bs. lAi• ST. AUSTELL—Wheat, —s. to 21s.—Barley,—s. to 115.-0 8 "' Os. to S 5. 6d. PENZANCE—Wheat, 21s. to 22.5. --Barley, Ils. to 12. 5 .—.0 ., a 0 :2 7s. to Bs. Od.—Beef and Mutton, OS. to :A—Pork,. l K 6 Butter, 12d. per lb. LAUNCESTON—Wheat (average) 21s. 05.—Barley,1 I s. 7s 05.—Beef, sd.—Mutton, 65. LISKEARD—Wheat, —S. to S32s. Od.—Barley, 105. 6d.--oa.s, O s, to 7s. 6d. BODMIN—Wheat (average) 21s. o.l.—Barley, I Is.—Oats, 7s 61 ' HEI.STON-Wheat, 21s. od.—Barley, 105 65. ST. Cotuma—Wheat, '2ls. to —s.—Barley, Ils. to 125.•—•8 and Mutton, sd. to 6d.—Veal, od.—Lamb, Od. 1111NINC INTELLIGENCE. Tons. o°, l Quantity of Copper Ore sold at Redruth last Thurday 3,567 v , Quantity of fine Average Produce 8% Amount of Sale, 24,046/. Os. Od.—Average Standard. 1104 u"' LIVERPOOL MARKETS, Nov. 30. CORN.—A favourable change of w i n d s i nce T ues day bai Um , ght a fresh supply of wheat, oats, flower, and oative 3 from Ireland, including a few small parcels of grain CO' t; ways, and 1,343 qrs. of wh ea t f rom C ana d a . A t our tilatir.r today there was a moderate att e ndan ce o f our t o wn 1: 01 ' i ; lers and a few buyers from the country. Good fresh ne‘ e wheats met a tolerable inquiry, and several parcels We r e taken off on the terms last noted ; hut extraordinary O qualities being held a t a n a d vanc e of Id. to 2d. F er 701 h., which was very partially complied with, the tape actions on the whole were not extensive, and in old whea t : little business was done. Fine bright English barley I still very scarce, and rather exceeds our quotations; of ti, , secondary qualities some sales have been made for JO' tillation at late prices, but for grinding purposes the de' 'nand is trivial. Malt and beans continue in slow re q uest' at our last currency. Having no good boiling pease I' S market,. such would bring a t l eas t 45 5. to 46 5. per quar ter' but for other kinds there is little or no sale at present; Oats have been taken off very sparingly to-day, wit h°° change in prices, an d th e b est oatmeal scarcely exce eded 235. 6d, per sack, Flour was dull of sale at former price r . PRovisioNs.—W e h ave h a d very li tt l e i n b ut t e r ib is week, and prices are again lower. We quote Belfast, Sze, to 88s. ; Coleraine, 84s. ; D err y, 84 s . ; B a i n b r idge, t o to 81s.; Sligo, 81 s . ; C ar l ow , 78 s . to 81 s. ; N ew ry, el to 701. ; Cork dry 3d s , 72 5 . ; p i c kl e d gd s , 8 0 3 . °,.. a e t , and pork steady at our last quot at i ons . B acon dull,l 3 e!"ci a 445. to 48s. per cwt. Dri e d h ams , 58 s . to Os. lard, 50a. to 545. ; bladdered, 543. to 60s. per cw_ti, BIRTHS. f t he On the 30th ult. at the Rectory, Amershans, the lady Rev..).daugher. . t x.” On the 3 0 th ul t . i n in Euston- t square, Mrs. James Keith I °r of a daughter. MARRIED. , C .r. .1" On the Ist inst. at Trinity Church, St. Marylebone, .-.-., Hayne, of Fuge House, De v o n , t o L ous i a , on l y d a ugM Richard Jennings, Esq., of Portland.place. tlb On the 29th ult. at St. Gil es ' s , C am b erwe ll , J o h n F . .“S o lste, Esq., of St Thomas's, S ou th war k , to A nn, w id ow o f the lid John Wrench, Esq., of Camberwell, and second daugD` the late Thomas Lett, Esq., of Lambeth. e er' On the Ist inst. at St. J o h n ' s th e E vange li s t, W es trn- M W. D. Cuthbertson, E:q., to Miss Bevan. f. ^ On the Ist i ' - ..•”'g .k - inste r, to . , _ nst. at John's the Evangelist, Westmilt„„, Dover, Esq., of Great C oram - s t ree t, R usse ll -square, surg v ..e'r, Emma Agnes, younger daughter of William Burridge, Milibank-street, Westminster. S i On the Ist in s t. at C ro yd on Ch urc h, S urre y, M r. J. V • ff . son, of Lower Th ames-s t ree t, t o J ess y, fourth daughter o Tarrat, of Regent -street, and of Croydon-heath-cottage•_---•" WINTER ASSIZES. HOME CIRCUIT. EZRTFORD, DEC. 1. The Winter Assizes for the county of Herts commenced on Thursday, before Mr . .. Justice LITTLE DALE and Mr. Baron GURNEY. The calendar con tained the names of 46 prisoners; but with the ex ception of the three cases of which we here subjoin an account, and which were tried on Saturday, their offences were of a trifling character. Sarah Thomas was charged with feloniously set ting fire to a house in the occupation of William Hampton, at Aspenden. Mr. YORKE prosecuted, and Mr. DOWLING de fended. The Jury, after hearing evidence, returned a ver dict of acquittal, without permitting the Judge to STIII Sup. Jonathan Wacket was indicted for a violent assault. The prosecutrix, Harriet Curtis, was in a field about eleven o'clock on the morning of the 10th of September last, gathering sticks, when she was accosted by the prisoner, whom she had known before, and was asked by him to shake hands with him, which she refused, and he then threw her down in the field and committed the offence. From the evidence of Mr. Evans, the surgeon, it appeared extremely doubtful whether the offer ce had been completed.—The prisoner was acquittA d. Win. Johnson was indicted for the wilful murder of Samuel Poulter, on the 29th of September, at the parish of Redbourn. Thomas Peacock called—l am a sawyer, and lye at Redbourn. On Saturday, the 29th of Septem her, I was going from St. Alban's to Redbourft when I overtook the deceased, Samuel Poulter. He was an old man, abot 60 years of age, and had a hump-back. We walked together about a mile, when we met the prisoner and another man. They joined him, and told him to take the child off his hack (meaning his hump). The deceased made no answer, and the prisoner then struck the deceased on the head with a rabbit skin he had in his hand. The hat of the deceased fell on the ground, and he picked it up. The deceased said it was a shame for the prisoner to strike an old man so. The prisoner threw away a shovel which he had in his hand, and struck the deceased on the face with his fist. He fell with his face against the footpath. \%e then lifted up the old man, and at first he was sensible. He tried to walk, but he could not. He then became insensible, and we laid him down between the pal ings at the sule of the footpath, James ain a waggoner. About six o'clock on the morning of Sunddy; the, 30th of September, I saw the body of the deceased lyii4 at the read-side. He was quite dead, cold, and stiff. Richard Webster—l am a surgeon at St. Alban's. I examined tha body of the deceased at the work house. The lower jaw was broken, and there were several bruises on the side of the head s near the temple. The Jury, after a few minutes' conversation, re turned a verdict of Guilty of Manslaughter. Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE said the sentence of the Court was, that the prisoner should be transported for the term of his natural life. The prisoner heard the sentence quite unmoved, and walked away from the hat with perfect coolness. COUNTRY CORN MARKETS Per Quarter. Carlisle Hexham Morpeth Penrith Sheffield _ Winchester Per Bushel. Carmarthen Coventry Newcastle (Staff.) Northallerton Swansea Warwick Per 8011. Barnardcastle Durham Richmond Stockton. _ S. to a. 54 48 42 DURING LAST WEEK. Whet. Barley, z. to s. 60 28 33 52 28 32 52 57 36 58 24 32 s.d. s.d. s.d. 63 30 33 90 48 54 8 9 6 4 6 6 93 3 6 46 93 56 6 0 72 39 42 Oats. 10 0 4 6 50 'l2O 166 80 86 1116 17 3 80 90 'l2 0 180 90 100 ,116 130 96 100 t. to t. lq IS 17 22 I no s. d. s. d. 13 18 36 40 33 39 33 40 30 39 22 24 22 26 48 54 46 63 50 66 44 58 WAKEFIELD CORN MARKET.—Nov, 30 Wheat, Red, Norfolk and Suffblk —s. 465. to 555. fine We. Lin. and Cam. ----- Yorkshire —s. 425. to 525. fine sa. White _ —B. 475. to 595. fine 645. Foreign, Red —B. —s. to 445. White —s. —S. to —4 Barley, Norfolk and Suffolk Lincolnshire 498. to Ws. Yorkshire Vold 3ls. to 365. Foreign —s. to —6. Beans, Small fine 576. nne eige. fine 4/e. fine 386. fine 375. fine —s. fine Sag. Tick 325. to 345. tine 35s Oats, Potato 20s to 225. fine 225. Poland —s. 18s. to 20s. fine 225. Friezland and Small Mealing Shelling 2ls. to 265. Od. per Load. Malt 33s 42s fine 45s per Load. Rapeseed 201. Os. W. Os. 231. 10s:perlist. SCOTCH MARKETS. Wheat.. Aberdeen 8erwick,,,,..,., Coldstream C u pa r Dundee —.— Elgin Irierness— Kelso . Perth n. The size 40 48 30 36 30 36 48 70 50 60 45 53 40 46 33 38 40 45 51 57 of the m, Beans. s. s. 4 , 1 " - -, 30 32 —.. 40 42 46 s.d. r. d. 00 00 56 60 54 59 56 60 64 70 00 00 73 76 100 109 11 0 1 , 20 90 100 00 00 Ltmeal =t, • 30 31 22 24 19 20 26 29 30 31 23 30 23 30 23 24 45 48 20 30 I ... .... ;bout the count* .... ••••• ~,, am. 46 •-•' _ -.., 4 - i 0 Barley I Oats. I Beans. 20 24 20 21 18 20 28 32 30 33 28 30 24 '2B 20 24 27 39 29 31 asure va DIED. ip ele the 17th ult. in Old Aberdeen, Miss Jane Gerard, . 64th year of her age. On the 21st ult. at Aberdeen, Alexander Crom E - ' 4 " Phesdo, in the county of Kincardine. rrt, 0 05 On the 30th ult. Mrs. Sarah Golden, the wife of A Golden, Eaq., Streatham Paragon, Brixton-hill, aged 5 4 . ,i3re . On the 30th ult. John Burnet, Esq., surgeon, of Golden On th PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY MURDO VOit N Air Td SUN OFFICE, Ll 2, STRAND, LONDON, 14 17 13 17 14 15 20 24 20 25 18 21 16 23 14 16 25 32 21 24 vies throul