The Sun. — London, England, 1832-04-20 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. At length the fate of Poland has awakened something 'like sympathy in the British House of Commons ; but that sympathy comes too late. It is a poor and barren homage on the tomb of that departed independence, which ; in the living' agony of its great struggle with the giant despotism of the North, was deserted of all, and met with neither sympathy nor support. It will not be honourably recorded, in the future pages of history, of the reforming House of Commons of England, that it looked on in si lence, and with the most perfect indifference, while the great crime was perpetrated which has dosed in massacre and confiscation the melan choly tale of the wrongs of a gallant nation, and erased the name of Poland from the map of Europe. While advocating " Reform" as stre nuously as any of the Members of the House of Commons who had given pledges to their con stituents, and more constitutionally than some, we did not think that the support of that ques tion alone ought to atone for the dereliction of aluty in other respects, or that it could com pensate for a neglect of other great princi ples, or a betrayal of the interests of humanity. We, therefore, supported the cause of Poland, from the beginning, as the cause of a nation to whose independence England stood pledged by a solemn treaty—a treaty from the obligations of which she could not be relieved but by the vio lation of that high principle of honour which was once dearer to her than any other considera tion. Nor was it on this ground alone we sup ported the cause of Poland ; we felt that the interests of England were materially involved, as well as her honour, in the question of the success or down fal of Poland—for the treaty of Polish independence was signed by the representative of England on the ex. press ground of erecting the new kingdom as a check upon the ambition of Russia on the side of Western Europe. Even Lord Castle reagh, at the Congress of Vienna, had sagacity enough to foresee something of the growing am bition of that Power, whose Ruler was then called our magnanimous Ally. He had not only sagacity enou g h to perceive that the " mag nanimous" Alexander and his Cabinet, under the specious pretext of the " deliverance of Eu rope," entertained views incompatible with the future peace of civilized nations; but he had the spirit to avow the sentiment, and did not hesitate to declare, at the Congress in question, that it was necessary to erect the then Duchy of Warsaw into an independent kingdom, as a check upon Russia. Mr. C. Fergusson, in sup porting his motion relative to that country on Wednesday night, eulogized the conduct of Lord Castlereagh on that occasion, and said he had made a manly stand for the independence of Poland. Such praise as this is, however, not borne out by historical facts. He made, indeed, a manly declaration on behalf of Polish inde pendence, but he did not make a manly stand. If he had, he never would have neutralized, by his own act or consent, the principle which he proclaimed; yet he did, in a great degree, neu tralize that principle, by permitting the sove reignty of the newly-created kingdom to be given to the Muscovite Ruler and his successors. It is true it was not given to him as Czar of Russia, but as King of Poland ; and the latter country was not made subject to the former (for then it could not have had even a nominal independence), but placed in a sort of federal union with it, hav ing its own distinct and separate legislature, courts of justice, army, national colours, laws, and customs. Still to make the possessor of the throne of Russia the King of Poland was to counteract the very object for which Lord Castlereagh contended, in having the Duchy of Warsaw erected into an independent kingdom : for who could suppose that, in his double ca pacity of King of Poland and Czar of Museovy, die barbarian Monarch would not prefer the interests of the latter country to the former, and take advantage of his position to make that which was intended to be a rampart against the incursions of Russia a road to her ambition This has been accomplished, and other nations will yet weep tears of blood for the slaughters that reddened the wave of pfie ,Vistula, and the " great murder" of Warsaw. We havedischarged ourselves of all cause of self-accusation on this account, as have some able and zealous fellow labourers on the same side in the press ; but we cannot see how the present Ministry, and the House of Commons can relieve themselves from the charge, which history will assuredly fix upon them, of being passive accomplices in the ruin of Poland. We believe that a decided tone and energetic remonstrance on our part, more especially at the time when the Govern ment of France was willing to cooperate with us, would have saved all Christendom from wit nessing the consummation of the crime in the 19th century, which began in the original rob bery and partition of Poland, which had fixed indelible disgrace on the history of the nations of Europe in the preceding century.—Morning The debate on Mr. Fergussota's motion, in deed, presented the novelty in the House of Commons of a discussion in which there were no dissentients. Every Member who spoke gave utterance to the one expression of sym pathy for the wrongs of Poland, and indignation against the perfidious conduct of the tyrant, who has dared to tear to pieces the treaty to which England was a party, and has annihilated the nationality which that - treaty guaranteed, at a blow. We wonder how those feelings had been so long frozen up that they never thawed into expression in the House of Commons before. Lord Althorp told the House, in the absence of Lord Palmerston, who had too important business elsewhere to allow him to attend on such a trivial question, that Govern ment had no official information whatever as to what the nature of events in that country had been, nor any intimation from the • Court of Russia with respect to. the Autocrat's prodan3a tion. If our Government have not official in-. formation of the barbarous events which have occurred in Poland, and of the exiv:ampled in 'quit which the Autocrat has' offered to England, they have had such historical evidence of the facts as ought to make it their duty to demand official information. And as to the Autocrat's proclamation and his organic statutes, proclaim ing in contemptuous defiance of the treaty of Vienna, and, of course, of England and France, that " Poland is henceforth, for ever, incorpo rated with Russia," we presume . that such solemn acts of state, being published _ in- the. usual way, are evidence of themsetves, and want . no protocol ratification _to' render them our thentic. It is fe4rfuLto in ag grandisement which has,rriade An a few years. Turkey, her great.-Eaistern rival, has been subjugated= Persia tedidetl'into little more than a NI . uscovite:'prOvine7:— ; the hardy tribes of the Caucasus siibcruid—Greete seized by a Russian satrap, and wasted by civil commotion —Poland utterly - destroyed! We cannot wonder ai the arrogance of the Autocrat Ns hen we think of those conquests, a►►d observi the trembling solicitude with which the Ministry of Prance and even the Government of once mighty England, wait upon his will. A State which, little more than a century ago, was the weakest of tl►e nations of Europe, and scarcely European, now threatens the freedom of all other States. Let England ►►ow consider what new check she is to oppose to the ambition of Russia for the protection of her interests in the West of Europe. Let her also look to her Oriental possessions, for already the unsatiated vulture of the North scents a nobler quarry from afar.—Morning Herald. The dreadful and heartbreaking case of Po land has been brought more pointedly before the public, in consequence of Mr. Cutlar Fergusson's speech of Wednesday last ; although it was not left for that Hon. Gentleman to interest, on be half of an oppressed and gallant people, a Go vernment, every one of whose members, we are sure, has looked at the position of Poland for the last 10 or 12 years, and still more at the calamities endured by her since the autumn of 1830, with deep—we trust not ultimately fruit less compassion. Russia affects to justify her recent treatment of the Poles, and the atrocious act of annihilating her national existence on the plea of provocation and security. The late in surrection of Poland was a defensive act. The nation had, in 1815, capitulated with Russia on certain terms, and, in fulfilment of his portion of the contract, to the spirit and principles of which all Europe was a direct party, the Emperor Alexander gave Poland what was called by his Majesty, and understood by the Poles to be, a representative constitution. That con stitution was thenceforth to be the standard to the Polish nation of their duties and their rights relatively to the Russian sove reign. Every enjoyment promised to the Poles, all the guarantees for their freedom of persons and property, were successively, though speedily, demolished by the savage whom Alexander set over them for Viceroy. Despotism listens to no remonstrance, and seldom repairs a wrong. Those inflicted upon Poland were multiplied every hour, and aggravated rather than atoned for. The people, hopeless of all other remedy, had recourse to arms : this, therefore, was a defensive act. Europe, conscious of the important truth that the cumulative aggressions were on the side of Russia, gave its sympathies, ith its whole sense of right, to the brave and unhappy people who appealed to Heaven for justice. So far, therefore, from Russia having exercised a lawful authority, or merely punished a rebellious outrage, by first crushing the patriot armies of Poland, and-next destroying her as a distinct and independent realm, the very resist ance offered to the patriots was itself a crime, being in support of a criminal and faithlesss system of government ; while the erasure of the Polish name from Europe is a crowning of the whole series of perfidies towards the Poles, by a glaring and deliberate contempt of treaties to which the honour of all the great States of Chris tendom stood solemnly and reciprocally pledged. It is impossible to deny, that if' principles were strictly pushed to their consequences, and obli gations discharged with fearless honesty and truth, four States of Europe would, at this mo ment, have either actually made war upon Rus sia, or would have called upon her to re-establish the national sovereignty of Poland, on peril of immediate hostilities. Nor can it be doubted that the inclinations as well as honour of every one of the Powers of Central and Western Eu rope are adverse to this revolting offence commit ted by the Czar of Muscovy. Austria and Prussia are not less alive than we are to its dan gerous effects upon the safety, and its mischiefs to the well-being, of the whole European federa tion. But times and circumstances are not now favourable to the vindication, in this instance, of European rights. Austria 'is too deeply embar rassed by her insecure—and we must add immo ral—tenure of the soil of Italy, and the Belgic question has been kept open by Russia, and cannot yet be substantially settled, that fears and jealousies among the surrounding states might produce the very consequence of leaving her un molested in her sinister policy towards Poland. The time, indeed, is pregnant, but the birth cannot be soon. We are far from distrusting the zeal, however restrained by prudence, of the British Government ; and so sure as there exists a superintending Providence, Poland will vet raise her noble mien among the nati o n s.— Times. A contemporary, the Times, almost insinu ates, that in throwing doubts on the possibility of ameliorating the condition of the negroes under slavery, we entertained the sinister inten tion of favouring violence. " With regard Co the expediency (says our contempo rary)—that is to say, the most beneficial mode of giving effect to the principle of abstract justice—we must say that nothing appears to us more false or mischievous than a doctrine put forth by come of our contemporaries, that nothing can be done for the slave short of positive and en tire emancipation. If the Legislature be prohibited from taLing any but one extreme course, the advocates for the opposite extreme are at once debarred of all hope, and confirmed in their utmost violence. If there be no me dium, let these irreconcilable politicians inform us which extreme is to be adopted ? Are the negroes fit for instantaneous liberty ? Lord Brougham, with equal manliness and sagacity, declares that no man is wild enough for that. Then, if not, the other extreme must he had recourse to, and all idea of emancipation be 'for ever abandoned. We do not believe our Morning contemporary capable of a sinister or insidious proposi tion ; but, to discourage the Government (rout doing that which Lord Goderich, with much good seme and right feeling, declares to be the only advantageous policy— viz. restraining on one side the abuses of power, and on the other the paroxysms of headlong and extravagant im-, patience—is to insure r.g,as of the most dreary bondage to the black, or to both white and Wart: the agonies of a bloody and terrible convulsion. " There are, undoubtedly, a number of reg;,:iations which might be enforced with great . utilty, and without much difficulty, upon xhe. colonial.assemblies. Saturday ought to be given up to the ;:egra.for dais temporal atfiirs, and Sunday for those. of..a .maze .racrect character,, the Sunday market being transferred to tjae:piieced;rig. Ala numissio4o o f ight to )e comphiory, upon, the paytmat of definite sums; .030/1;4&*-4...Dissenaerst and..3lagistrates rendered legal ; ankAay.CTP.7.44ci 2 tots Appointed, b u t with out the power of uninvited vic4azioq. of families at the caprice the protector —an inquisitorial p;.erotive, and liable to the pecssest abuse. It would be easy tp have complaints trazlsttlitt!e4 tp the protector on behalf of a slave, and then t . wou c ld 4e,c9i4.e hi° bounden duty to - at tend to them. Gov2romekit ha± Pow &ranted the Com mittee of Inquiry so long sol:Li:ted by the Wept-india in terests, but without promising to abstain fro the enforce ment of the Qrde;s in Council." It is easy to fra4 - 10 general regulations, and we do not mean to contend that some of those mentioned ty our contemporary might not be both introduced and observed. It must be the interest of the Master, while. the slave trade is prohibited, hot to over-work his slave, and the masters in general may be brought to consent to such general regulatiOns respecting holydays as may not be irreconcilable with their interest. But it is of the very essence of slavery that there should be the most complete submission on the part of the slave. The moment a slave looks for protection to any. other source than his' master, a new system commences. The system of interference between the master and slave, on which Government have lately entered, will either be effective Oiirfiisory. If effective, the sl:ave, knowing that he is not under the absolute control of his master, will no longer be so anxious as he was to conciliate his favour, and the master will feel his power over the slave diminished. If the protection is illusory, matters are just where they were. The planters would of course have no objection to a tribunal composed of men having a common interest with themselves. But we apprehend it is the object of the British Government to giv e to the slaves a real and efficient protection against the abuses of power, by appointing men to the office of protector in nowise connected by interest or community of feeling with the planters, and dependent only on the Government at home, whose good opinion they will be eager to merit. To such a protectorship we are sure the planters will object. Wherever the system has been tried (and it has been tried in other countries), it has led to a state of jarring and contention between master and slave. The Em peror Alexander of Russia was sincerely anxious to ameliorate the condition of the slaves in his vast dominions, and various means were adopted for the protection of the slaves in the Baltic provinces. There is in a German Journal, which was published at Leipsic, Nov. 11, 1821, a long article on the State of the Slaves in these provinces, and the result of the measures adopted for their protection, which may be con. suited with advantage at this time. The Russian Government always claimed the right to call cruel snd tyrannical masters to account, but in practice the masters were judges in their own causes. An idea of the power of the masters may be formed from a Memorial of the Livonian Landholders, in answer to a Mandate from the College of Justice of St. Petersburgh, in 1739, from which we quote the following passage : " Though no particular limits can beset to the chas tisement, and no definition can be given how far it should extend, but it must be left entirely to the modera tion of the masters, and according to the Edict referred to, p. 58, no complaints on the part of the villains can be re ceived by any tribunals against their masters on ac count of immoderate punishment and oppression, yet every gentleman will be careful not to overstep modera tion, nor to render the burdens of the villains intolerable, as his interest and the prosperity of his estate depends upon the preservation of the villains," &c. The regulations, it is said, were much more harsh than any of the slave regulations in the West Indies. Alexander endeavoured to put an end to this horrible state of things ; and let us hear the success, as stated by a highly-liberal Journalist : " Slavery becomes a burden to the masters the moment the Government begins to limit their power over the slaves, and allows to the slave a right of complaint against the master. So long only can slavery be of true benefit to the master as he retains unlimited power over him, and so long only is it possible for the master to maintain a tole rable relation between himself and the slave. For under this uncontrolled power the slave perceives that he must yield unconditional submission, and that it is only by un conditional obedience that he can secure good treatment from his master ; hitherto he looks on the master as a higher being, whose will he can in no manner constrain.— What he receives from him he can only view as the effect of his goodness and favour. Humility and submissiveness on the part of the slave is, consequently, the only means in his power to obtain for himself a tolerable existence.— The masters, on the other hand, consider the slaves, so long as they are unconditional slaves, as the instruments of their wealth. As a sensible agriculturist fod,lers his labouring ox well—and even vanity induces a gentleman to keep his coach-horses in good condition, that they may have a good appearance—the masters had the same notions with regard to their slaves. They took care that their slaves and their cattle should be in good heart. But when this arbitrary power ceases, and there is conceded to the slave the power of summoning his master before a tri bunal, and litigating with him, and the master must have recourse to a Court of Justice when he wishes to constrain the save to his duty, the master thereby comes into the most disagreeable situation with regard to the slave; for, as the most of them entertain a grudge against and love to spite their masters, they use the new right of summons to harass their masters, and the master feels the loss of this litigation much more than the slave. In the first place, it is possible that the master, when he enters a complaint against his slave, may not obtain justice—a very disagreeable matter—whereby the master becomes a laughing-stock to his slaves, and all the others are en couraged to let things take the same course. And i❑ reality the Judges are not indisposed to he unjust towards the masters, as in that case the masters must pay the costs, which cannot be obtained from the slave if he loses, as he has nothing. But if the slave is cast, the master is always the loser, for he loses the labour of the slave; for, Ist, he can do nothing when he is at the Court ; 2d, if he is imprisoned, the master loses his work, and he sleeps in his dungeon not more uncomfortably than in his dwell ing hut ; 3d, if he is castigated, he pretends, on account of the pain and the consequences of his punishment, that he is unable to work, and again the master loses the labour. Who would keep servants with whom he must litigate respecting the service they are to perform ? Every master will seek to rid himself of such servants. This, however, the master of slaves cannot do. For he was ob liged to feed his slaves, the State compelled him to do this, and as he had ❑o other labourers, and they were all animated by one spirit, be was quite at a stand. Such a state of things became intolerable to the master, to whom nothing was so desirable as to rid himself of them." The Edict of 1804, declaring the slaves free, was hailed by the masters with satisfaction, but the writer of this very instructive article tells us that the slaves or rather %Mains (for they were predial) viewed this freedom as delivering them over to beggary. The writer concludes the article thus :--" We can only lament that what the Livonian Edict of 1804, respecting the slaves, so well commenced, has been wholly de stroyed. To the slaves, instead of a fixed real property which they obtained by that law, which would have led of itself to freedom, there has been given a naked freedom stript of all pro perty." This detail is instructive, as it shows how necessarily all interference between the master and slave leads to the destruction of slavery. ,We hold, therefore, that slavery is un suSceptible of amelioration through legal interfe rence, because, when the legal interference commences, the control is weakened, and, con sequently, the value of the property is dimi nished. In the case of the Baltic landholders, They gained by the abolition of slavery, and we apprehend that in Europe slavery has everywhere worn itself our, from its being unprofitable. — Where cultivation by free Ihour shall be m ore profitable than by slaves, slavery will die out also of itself. It was hoped that the abolition of the slave trade would lead to such a n in crease of population 3s would render slavery un profitable ; but the slave trade is carried on in other colonies with unabated vigour ; and so long as it can be profitable to buy a slave and work him to dcaqi, es his place can be supplied on easier terms than by domegic breeding, the be nefit of the abolition is withheld even from our colonies, because we must compete with the foreign e,olonies in the market of the world. We grounded our opinion as to the hostility of the masters to the mental improvement of their slaves not merely on general pri nc iples, but on the accounts of the mission ar i es at the Cape of Good I - lope, America, and the West I n di es . The master is always jealous lest in creased intelligence should inspire the slave with an increased desire to throw off the yoke. He does not like his slave t o t hi n k : E ven a Tory in England instinctively hates the educa tion of the poor. 11.1.• Archbishop Of . CAnter, Canter bury may bear testimony to the zeal with which the planters have seconded the Clergy in the West Indies 7 but who will bear testimony to the zeal of the Clergy ? In England, the Church of England being always essentially Tory, has set itself against education, and it only yields at the twelfth hour. Where there is a will there is a way. No man shall tell us that if the Clergy of England had wished the education of the poor, they might not have accomplished that object. But the masters of slaves always dread their in telligence.—Morning Chronicle. The state to which Poland is reduced excites much commiseration and sympathy among vari ous classes of politicians in this country, and among some individuals of a class which does not habitually and systematically afford its sym pathy or protection to rebellion. It is imagined that this country and lirance are bound to inter pose to redeem the nationality of Poland, in virtue of the obligation they contracted by the treaty of Vienna to guarantee its separate ex istence as a nation ; and this would be true if Russia were now in possession of Poland by the same title, be it good or bad, by which she then held domi'iion over that country. But this is not so. Poland at this moment belongs to, Russia by the rights of a new and recent con quest. The treaty of Vienna, so far as it related to Poland, has been cancelled by a general consent clearly implied in the conduct of all the parties to it ; by the consent of the Polish nation when they attempted by the force of their own independent arms to conquer for themselves the unqualified right of self-government ; by the consent of Russia when she set herself to the task of recovering by her own means, and without the participation of her allies, the territories of which successful revolt had deprived her ; and by France, England, Austria, and Prussia, when they neg lected to interpose, while yet the necessity for reconquering Poland was incomplete, and the full rights of conquest could not be acquired. It seems idle to talk of the treaty of Vienna now, since it was forgotten by every party, and by none more completely than by the Poles them selves, at the time when it would have been right, and might hare been useful to remember it. That the revolutions of France and Belgium, which had practically abrogated the treaty of Vienna in respect to so many of its provisions, had in effect abolished it also, so far as their in terests were concerned, was, we have no doubt, the opinion of the Poles themselves at the mo ment when they began their insurrection, and we exceedingly doubt whether had not this opi nion prevailed that insurrection would have taken place at all. When Russia was at war with Turkey the Poles had the same motives to revolt, in their own domestic condition, and much stronger motives in the actual position of their powerful antagonists, than at the period immediately following the Revolutions in France and Belgium. They, however, at this favourable opportunity abstained from any attempt to recover their national independence. And why their inactivity before and their greater alacrity in the cause of independence after these convulsions had taken place ? Why, but that they expected assistance from revolutionized France, which France under its legitimate Government was sure not to afford, or why, in other words, but that they calculated with confidence, after the French Revolution, that the existing treaties for the settlement of Europe would be set at nought in their favour. There is much to admire in the conduct of the Poles during the progress of their patriotic insurrection. There is much to pity in their past sufferings and their present fate. But the truth may nevertheless be told, that their love of independence was not sufficient to rouse them to exertion, even in circumstances the most favourable, until they were stimulated from without, and that the treaties which gua ranteed the settlement of Europe cannot justly be pleaded to rescue them from the consequences of having attempted unsuccessfully to overthrow that part of the general arrangement in which they were concerned. In the total desertion of the unfortunate Poles by France (we speak not of England, for in matters of continental policy it is now quite under stood that France includes England, though the latter power cannot be accused of any viola tion of treaty) there is ample ground to charge her with meanness and cruelty. It . was her ex ample and her precepts that stimulated the Poles to insurrection. By the aid of that insur rection, and of the subservient policy of England, Russia, Prussia, and Austria were at a most cri ical period effectually neutralized. The division of the Low Countries was effected without opposition. Holland was restrained from re occupy ing by her own victorious army valuable territories of which all the powers had guarati teed her the lasting possession. Belgium is re served and secured to France, and left ready for her occupation whenever she may think it con venient to enter. There is much cruelty and baseness in thus beguiling a brave and generous nation to destruction, in first employing it as an instrument to promote the selfish designs of other Powers, and, when those designs are ac complished, then leaving it a dupe and a victim, to deplore unaided the misery and ruin into which it has been betrayed. This magnani mous stroke of policy is altogether French in its aim, although it is partly English in its execu tion. And at present, indeed, Great Britain is unquestionably entitled upon every subject of foreign policy to the full benefit of the apology that she is merely acting the part of a myrmidon. —Morning Post. The most bungled piece of diplomacy that ever disgraced the Statesmen of any civilized country is advancing, we are told, to some thing like a conclusion. Two more of the seven contracting parties, viz., Austria and Prussia, have, we believe, at length acceded, reluctantly and ungraciously, to the treaty which has long since been published to the Parliament of Great Britain as the conjoint engagement of the five Great Powers of Europe with Holland and Belgium. No such engagement had in fact been made when it was so published, and none such is in truth concluded even at this present moment. The very basis on which the treaty expressly professes to be founded, an agreement between Holland and Belgium, is yet wanting, and Russia still withholds her ratifica tion. If the rumours which have reached us are correct (and we think we can rely upon the sources from whence they proceed), Russia alone is acting with wisdom in this negotiation, wherein the dearest objects of France have been for warded by England with a zeal and precipitancy which has covered the whole transaction with t he character of absurdity. The treaty laid before Parliament, and ratified by France, England, and Belgium only, is indeed absurd in the strictest sense of the word. It assumed to be a conven tion between seven Powers, while only three of them had acceded to it ; it professed to proceed upon a compact previously made between Hol land and Belgium, while not only had no such agreement been concluded, but while one of the parties had distinctly refused to enter into it ; it bound the two principal contracting States to adopt coercive measures to carry into effect sti pulations which had not received the consent of the Other Great Powers of Europe, and which were, moreover, repugnant to every principle of justice and sound policy ; and it placed France and England in the false and ridiculous position of having concluded a solemn engagement upon premises which were not founded in fact, and of undertaking., in the face of the world, to enforce certain conditions which neither of them would really have ventured, or perhaps ever intended to stir a single step to execute by compulsion.— We have said that we believe that Russia has acted with more prudence in this mismanaged transaction than any of the other parties, because we feel the most perfect confidence that the Treaty, as it now stands, cannot be carried into effect. It must be modified. Holland and Belgium must be brought to an amicable agree ment by some changes in the provisions of the present Convention, such as may render it con sistent with the interests and the honour of both. To Statesmen of a different calibre from those with which England is at present blessed this would in truth be no difficult task, and we do expect that even these men will ultimately ac complish it ; but in the meantime, if Austria and Prussia have, as it is reported, exchanged their ratifications, they must be more or less involved in the same absurdity as that in which the cun ning of Prince Talleyrand and the simplicity of Lord Palmerston have placed this country. They will have made themselves parties to a Treaty which they do not and cannot mean strictly and faithfully to execute.—Morning Post. We have borne our humble testimony too often to the high professional merits of the Duke of Wellington to render it necessary we should state that we entertain towards his Grace no other feelings but those which must naturally belong in common to all men who have a just pride in their country's renown. But in pro portion as we esteem his Grace's merits as a soldier, the more do we lament his errors as a statesman—errors which, though he does not in the end fail to renounce them, he cherishes till they have accomplished all the mischief they are capable of. His Grace's conduct on the Ca tholic question presents a striking instance of the truth of this remark ; while on that of Re form, instead of betraying any misgivings of his own judgment, or in any way profiting from the past, his Grace seems determined that conviction shall break in upon him even at a later period than that in which it overthrew a whole previous life of opposition to Catholic concession. But, whatever may be our opinion of his Grace's judgment and discretion in these matters, we have always looked upon the Duke as a fair opponent—as one who, in the field of argument, as in the field of battle, was bent on giving his antagonist fair play. With this prepossession it is not without pain that we have witnessed the Duke, in the late debate on the Reform Bill, taking what appears to us at least to be an opposite course. The Duke knows full well what " a tower of strength" " the King's name" is, and that it has been hitherto what they of " the adverse faction"—the Anti- Reformers—"want." The Duke, too, cannot but know that our present excellent Monarch has given the most unequivocal proofs that the present measure of Reform has his best wishes, and the Alinisters who are promoting it his fullest confidence ;—yet, at the eleventh hour, in the warmth of debate, the Duke, for the purpose of winning over a stray vote, on the strength of his high authority, would have the House of Lords believe that he is the real de pository of the King's sentiments, and that they are, in fact, adverse to the measure. This ruse de guerre, it is true, failed of its effect. Like the Duke of Buckingham's promised Reform Bill—that " dona ferentes" of the modern Greeks—it failed to recall a solitary waverer. But we do not the less regret that the Duke of Wellington's should be the lips from which so palpable a mistake should issue. The King not a Reformer, indeed ! Then who is ? Who is there among his subjects who has given such earnests of his sincerity as King William has done ? Who is there who has made such personal sacrifices in the cause ? To dwell upon the one, or to recount the other, would be of itself to admit a doubt upon a point which amounts to the clearest moral certainty. But if the argumentum ad homitzem be of any value, we are entitled to offer to the Duke of Wellington a proof of the fact, which, both to the Duke and to the country, must be convincing ; it isthis—it is because his Majesty is a Reformer that the Duke of Wellington is not now his Mi nister. What better proof does the Duke require than this ? But, lest he should, we will give him another, and that in the shape of augury, which is this—that his Grace never can hope to return to office but in that very character which he now repudiates.—Morning Herald. KING'S BENCH, APRIL 19. WATTS V. STERNE. This was an action for criminal conversation, tried at the last assizes at Chelmsford, before Lord Lyndhurst, when a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, damages 50/. Mr. LAw now moved for a new trial, on the ground that, from evidence subsequently disclosed, it appeared there had been no loss of society from the time the transaction was discovered ; but that the husband and wife, up to the time of the trial, had lived together, and that the crime was plumed and executed under the husband's direction. The plaintiff was a labourer of the lowest description, and the defendant a farmer having some property. — Rule granted. TIIE MARQUESS OF DOWNSIIIRE V. MAKEPEACE AND OTHERS. Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW moved in this case for a rule to show cause why the verdict found for the plaintiff should not be set aside, and a new trial had. The action was for a trespass in breaking and entering the plaintiff's close at Easthampstead. The defendants had justified the trespass on the ground that there was a public right of way over the loctis in quo. The case was tried at the last as,izes at Reading before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE and a special jury, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff on the first four pleas, with liberty to move as to the fourth plea, that the verdict should be entered for the de fendants. The Learned Sergeant said he now moved generally for a new trial on two grounds :—First, that the verdict was against evidence ; and se condly, as to part of the case, that the i Learned Judge had misdirected the jury n point of law. After describing the pleadings, the Learned Sergeant said that part of the locus in quo in ass al leged to form a parallelogram a new enclosure lately part of the old Easthampstead-heath. The road extended 'over an old common. The Mar quess of Downshire was the lord of the manor and lord of the soil, which fact was recited not only in the Easthampstead Enclosure Act, but also in the Windsor Forest Act, which passed in 1813. That part of the common which was enc l ose d h a d at one end of it a public road called Bond's-lane, and at the other end was a public road called the Nine-mile-road, which crossed another road leading to Sandhurst and the great ,western road. The Bond's-lane had always been a pUblic road, had been always repaired by the parish, and was at this moment acknowledged an d admitted to be a public highway. The road in question was continued in a line from the old Bond's-lane down towards the point at which one road crossed another, that other being the Nine-mile-road. The line of road ever the close in question was part of the old heath, and in fact the end of Bond's-lane lay over the locus zit quo. The question at the trial was, whether or not there had been an ancient highway over the line of road; and if not, whether there had been a dedica l tion of the way to the public. Supposing the jury had found a verdict for the defendants on the ground of there having been a pre-existing road, then, the question arose, whether the road had been pro perly stopped up under the Enclosure Act. That question, however, it was unnecessary at present to consider. Upon the main point, the verdict was against the evidence—that evidence being all one way, and entirely in favonr of the defendants. He had, therefore, to submit to their Lordships that the defendants were entitled to a verdict generally. Rule .iVisi granted. BAIL COURT, APRIL 13. Mr. HumPttarEs moved for leave to show cause why Joseph Brown should not be entitled to be brought up on a writ of Habeas Corpue. Brown, who is at present confined in the gaol of Glamor ganshire, had been prosecuted in the Ecclesiastical Court for defamation of Hannah Birch, by circulat ing reports of her being pregnant, and had been sentenced to make an apology, the form of which concluded with these words :—." I promise to be have in a more Christianlike manner towards her for the future, and I believe her to be, in life and conversation, sober, chaste, and ; honest," To the latter clause Brown objected, and Counsel quoted some authorities to show that the apology ought to extend no lower than the time the offence was com mitted, and that it was unreasonable to call on him to speak as to the present life of the prorecutrix; a great change might have occurred in the interval. Mr. Justice TAUNTON thought the objection hypercritical. Did not the words "to be" mean in this case no more than " have been ?" How ever, there might be a rule to show cause.—Rule granted. CODRINGTON V. WILLIAMS. This was an action to recover the amount of a bill for 1001., and the costs incurred in the reco very of it. Captain Codrington drew this bill on the defendant, Major Williams. An action was subsequentlybrought on it by Mr. Wills, defendant's solicitor, and the amount, with some costs, reco vered of plaintiff. On behalf of Captain Codrington it was said, that the bill was given for the purpose of being dis• counted by defendant for the drawer's use and benefit, while Mr. PLATT contended that it was given as a consideration for procuring the bills of 1,0001. and 3501. to be discounted. The Jury re turned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 100/. COMMON PLEAS, APRIL 19. L actionOirE LL y.Lght byT ANCLsr. brought This was an the plaintiff as lessee of the Northampton tolls, against -the defen dant, to recover Bd. for market-tolls due by him in respect of certain beasts sold at Northampton, and 441. for passage tolls in respect of certain loaded wains or waggons driven through that town. The object of the action was to try the right of the cor poration to two descriptions of tolls claimed by them,—namely, tolls traverse and market-tolls. The cause was tried at the last London sittings before Lord Chief Justice Tindal and a special jury, when, after occupying two whole days, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, establishing the right of the corporation to each kind of toll. Mr. Sergeant JONES now moved for a rule calling on the plaintiff to show cause why that verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial had, on four grounds :—viz. Ist, That an inquisition taken in the reign of Edward I. had been improperly received in evidence, whereas it was not relevant to the cause as it only went to establish the fact that the bailiffs of Northampton were at that time entitled to tolls at Biilingsbridge ; which was th ree m il e f rom Northampo ton, and at Salt street, which was not proved tole a Northampton or an, place el se; 2dl y, that certain deceased treasurers' accounts had been improperly received, as documents which went to charge them selves, whereas they were not proved to have been in their handwriting; and even if they were, they were inadmissible, because they mi g h t h ave b een intended to make evidence for the corporation to which they belonged, and therefore did not come within the usual rule on such subjects ; idly, that the testimony of witnesses who admitted that they had withheld the payment of toll from the plaintiff within the last six years had been improperly re jected ; and 4thly, that the learned judge had un justly detracted from the weight of a piece of evi• dence put in by the defendant. The COURT granted a rule to show cause. PALMER MARSHALL. This was an action on a policy of insurance effected on the yacht Ruby, at and front Bristol to London, in January, 1831. The policy was dated on the 28th of January, but the vessel did not s ail until the 10th of May. The vessel was lost after she had passed the Land's-end. The case .vas tiied before Mr. Justice Park, at the late Dorset assizes, when his Lordship nonsuited the plaintiff, oti the ground that the delay which bad taken place be' fore the sailing of the vessel constituted a deviatioo in point of law. Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS now moved for a rule to set aside the nonsuit, contending that a delay was not of itself a deviation, but must be first shown to be an unreasonable delay, or one which increased the risk to the insurer.—Rule refused. YATES V. DUFF. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, owner of the ship Sesostri4, against the defendant, a Cap' tain in the East India Company's service, to recover 3501., the amount at which the defendant had hired two cabins in the plaintiff's vessel, to convey him self and family to Madras. The defence was, that the plaintiff's broker had promised that the vessel should sail from Portsmouth on the 15th of October► whereas she did not sail before the beginning of November, and the defendant therefore considered himself at liberty to go by another vessel, which he did. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for half the passage-money contracted for, namely, 175 1 ' Mr. sergeant SPA NKIE to-day moved for a new' trial, on the ground that the defendant had clearly contracted to sail on the 15th of October, and not having fulfilled his part of the contract, he was not entitled to hold the defendant to his.—Rule refused. BIRTHS. On the 18th inst. the lady of George Franks, Esq,, of GO Surrey.strect, Blackfriars, of a son, still born. On the lath inst. at Kilbourn, Mrs. John D. Dickinson, of a daughter. MARRIED. of On the 17th inst. at Bathwick ch urc h, M r . F . B ranscom be, Dulverton, Somerset, to Miss Hook, of Bathwick, DIED. On the 15th inst. Georgiana Sophia, second daughter of t / •;,, Hain Gunner, Esq., of Bi s h op ' s W alt h am, Hampshire, in the 1" year of her age, On the 11th inst. a t Sh opperdswell, Kent, after a 'linger 0 p 1 ; , illness, the Rev. John De Chair, M.A. vicar of Brixwa t . Northamptonshire. On the 19th inst., aged nearly eleven months, Charles fl 1: mund John, third and youngest son- of William John Mon.°'" Esq., of Queen Anne-street, ( avendish.square. On the 19th inst. George Munro, Esq. of Chailtcrn; Kent On the 16th i nst. at Paris J after a lon_g and p a i n f u l illues2 ,, Julia, only c hild of the late J. Lousada, Esq., and of his viving widow, Rebecca, daughter of the late It. Franco, Esq., ° London. SarahO On ir t_ , h o e wt l h 9t e l r i . i i n ns t t ie ~ i nB 7to h s 3 n . ca a b r u o r gf - h s te r r e a e g t ,e .R egent's—park, Mrs' On the 19th in s t. a t I s l ewor th, after a short but seve re O sit ne in the 69th year of his age, Mr. H. T. Hodson, bookseller, Wimpole.street On the llith inst. at Brighton, the Hon. Caroline Anne Hughth laughter of the Lord Dinorben. t ;ed 61. On the 19th inst. at Portsmouth, Sl PeOrge Garret, Knife' On the nth ult. at Dublin, Henry Ch r i s ti an Sannemann,Escl•t eterinary surgeon, 1 0 th Royal Hussar s , age d 46. r On the 14 t h Es i ri g s . t : 0 , in f K t e h n e t 38th .t oywena aftero f his a a s g h e, o raet illness.h is re s d Woodside, Finchley.common, James Poole _Es son of the 1 3 ' aged two months. ja o m n es th i ns le th inst. William, youngest son of Newton Lane, Esq'' On the 18th inst. in Co nnaught-square; Helen Crofton; the fant daughter of Charles Gore, Esq. On the 17th inst., after a few days' , illnes_s, Miss Cary, of Wi lli. pole- street, Cavendish. sqnare. aged - PaltiTED AND PUBLISLICD BY MU RDO YOU Nl3, •T T 0 1.! svx OFFICR, 112, STRAND, LO:MQX,