The Sun. — London, England, 1832-03-08 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF TEE PUBLIC JOURNALS. Nothing could be more gratifying to every friend of legal improvement than to hear from the Lord Chancellor, on Tuesday evening, in moving for a • copy of the last report of the Common Law Com missioners, that the majority of these Commissioners bad expressed their hostility to the practice of im prisonment for debt, and that his Lordship's own enlightened mind concurred in their opinion. We have repeatedly invited attention to this important subject, and recommended a change in the existing law, not more from a regard to the hardships and sufferings of the debtor, than from a wish to support the rights and to promote the interests of the credi tor. It may be thfficult to persuade the trading portion of the community, who are particularly liable to be imposed upon by the dishonest and frau dulent, to accede to our views; but even they must be convinced, in the progress of the discussion which the recommendation of the Commis sioners will occasion, that the enlightened hu manity and true policy of a law are the same thing—and that they will ultimately gain in the ma nagement of their dealings by the surrender of a kind of penal menace to their customers. Nobody ran pay a moment's attention to the number and character of the persons who fill our debtors' wards, —to the usual motives for which they are hunted to a gaol, or allowed to escape from • it—and to the small—the totally insignificant sums—recovered by this harsh process from the ruins of their estates, without admitting that this legal remedy of the creditor is as inefficient as it is cruel. In many cases not a penny in the pound can be extorted from fraud, or recovered from honest misfortune; and out of the four or five thousand insolvents who are an eually sent to gaol, and then walked out of it through the Insolvent Court into the world anew, with their long schedules in their hands, we question whether the estates of a third part will pay the attorney's bill of their creditors. Practically speak ing, therefore, the exercise of the present law, though it may be accompanied with great suffering, —though it may be made the instrument of brutal ven geance,—though it may inflict upon misfortune all the penalties due to crime,does not " work well" in accom plishing it s object. Nor was it probable a priothhat it should. The shopkeeper, tradesman, or other cre ditor, relying on the terrors which a threat of ims prisonment inspires, is often induced to give trust to a larger amount than he would otherwise do if he only looked to the known estate or visible re sources of his debtor. Dishonest himself, he spe culates on being the first to employ the magic touch of the bailiff's staff, unknown to his neighbours, and expects satisfaction for his debt in a race to gaol with others, who, like him, have trusted the insol eent with a similar delusive; hope. Some of them may be paid to avoid this catastrophe—so long as the debtor has any chance of maintaining his ground and keeping the rest of his creditors at bay. When this is no longer possible, he is hunted to prison, s.vith his numerous dupes in full cry at his heels. They thus consider themselves as having a fair chase; they are all, according to sportsmen's phrase, "in at the death," but, like sportsmen of another kind, they have only the brush for their pains. Were tradesmen deprived of this power of enforcing their demands,—were they taught to look only to the personal resources, and net to the personal punish ment, of their debtor, they would give less credit, — they would incur less risk ;—they would carry on a more steady and less gambling business ; —their profits would be greater at the end of the year ;—they would have fewer bad debts on their books; —they would discourage profligacy, and pre y nt fraud, in the thoughtless or dishonest, loan extent which would not be less felt as an improvement of public murals, than a protection to private fortunes or honest industry. But, after all, what can trades men hope to gain from the imprisonment of the debtor which they could not gain during his enjoy ment of personal freedom ? The threat of a gaol may certainly do something, as in the case above mentioned ; but actual confinement must be produc tive only of hopeless mischief. If the embarrass ments of the prisoner have arisen from misfortune, aid it without the walls of a pi icon he had nothing to pay, how can he find the necessary resources within it, cut off as he is from the power of exer cising his industry,—torn from his usual employ mente,—deprived of the support of his family,— and discredited in the eyes of the uncharitable world ? If, on the other hand, the prisoner has contracted debts without any prospect of being able to pay them,—if he has squandered in profli gacy those means which were pre-engaged to his creditors—if, in short, he has committed acts of dis honesty little short of punishable fraud, still his confinement, not being inflicted as a punishment, can be beneficial neither to his creditors nor to so. ciety. Thus, while we admit that in contracting debt there may be every variety of moral innocence or demerit—that it may, according to circumstances, be viewed a; an object of pity or of indignation— that a debtor may be as pure as a saint, or as crimi nal as a thief --we can see no propriety in that species of treatment which cannot benefit the cre ditor in filling his pockets, and which confounds in one common doom misfortune and guilt, honesty and fraud. But while we contend for the policy of abolishing imprisonment for debt, ae debt, either On mesne process, or on a judgment, we concur in the Lord Chancellor's excellent suggestions, that it • must be reserved by the law for the punishment of contumacy, for concealment of effects, or to enforce compliance with the awards of justice. In shoo, it should be maintained as a penal infliction, and not used as indiscriminate and useless torture.—Thees. The adversaries of Lord Plueket, in both Houses of Parliament, seem resolved never to let him forget that he has the happiness to be the father of a nume rous family, well provided for at the public expense. It probably may not deserve remark in the. present state of Irish excitement, but in ordinary times it would indeed eeern singular, that his Lordship's accusers should all be his own countrymen, and his chief defenders natives of this part of the empire. Are his Lordship's virtues less known, his services less prized, or his talents more dreaded, at home than among strangers ? The attack in which Lon donderry failed, because his artillery was too much within range of his adversary's shells, was on Tues day night attempted with better success by Mr. Dawson in another field. The Right Hon. Gentle man boldly advanced to the charge ire the absence of the chief defendant, and hail beau jeu of the five or six Plunkete, with their nephews and cousins, • Mr. Spring Rice kindly endeavoured to cover them from the assault, or to soften the effect of the blow, by interposing a noble Tory Earl's son wrapped round and enveloped in six enormous sinecures; but he did not succeed. The House st;il saw behind this defence the family of the young Plunkets re joicing in their " multitudinous" emoluments, and they did not think that six places in the hands of one Chancellor's son justified the four soas of another Chancellor for engrossing eight or ten. It is not contended, nor can it be, that these young gentlemen are unequa l to the duties which they have to perform, but it is alleged that the fitness of the places for them has been more thought of than of their fitness for the places.—Times. Some men have strange notions of renown. Lord Grey is said, on respectable authority, to fear that his own reputation with f uture ages 'M might be pre judiced where he to carry th e quest i on of Reformbyany "vio/ent" policy. Has his Lordship, then, no compassion for the pitiable condition of his own fame in the event of his suffering the Reform Bill to be defeated ? Has he. forgotten—has the pro gress of natural decay been so terribly rapid within the last three or four months as to have effaced from the Noble Lord's mind his own declaration, which . remains so vivid on that of every one else in the community—viz., that " if the Reform Bill fell, he must fall with it ?" If Lord Grey, in the face of the King . . and people, staked his political existence on a Reform of Parliament, he being aware how Parliament 'was actually constituted, and what a mass of selfish interests..miust inevitably be roused to oppose him, he could not—it was physically im possible for him to imagine Elea great " violence' would not be resorted to by the Anti-Reform faction for the maintenance of things as they are. He must have been, therefore,—what we arc sure he is not,—the weakest or most hypocritical of mankind, to introduce an alter ation; of such extraordinary magnitude--pro voking, as he knew it would, more than com mon resistance—if he did not lay his account, at the same time, with the obligation of en forcing it by means of more than usual vigour. But, as we put the question yesterday, what re markable energy has he yet displayed in any single instance? His Lordship's whole embarrassment hitherto has arisen from the difficulty of inhaling, without too severe a pressure on his respiratory or gans, the clouds of flattering incense wafted to him from every corner of the credulous nation. Over rugged and untrodden wastes a broad and smooth road of easy ascent has been cut for his Lordship by the manly people of England. Along this high way the people have borne Lord Grey and his col leagues on their shoulders—all that he has yet effected has been to promise us a reform of Parlia ment. In the only thing like a struggle, where he had the power to win, he has once already chosen to be vanquished. Even in his offer of reform, was it not brought forward—ostentatiously brought forward—as no less a tribute to his own personal " consistency," in discharge of a debt of 40 years' standing, than to the good of the realm ? Well, then, we must give Lord Grey to understand, that he has not vindicated his consistency by a barren promise dressed up and garnished out with whatever apparatus of King's speeches, dis solutions, prorogations, bills, tables, schedules, debates, divisions, &c. The question is,— what solid amendment of the old law have we gained ? Where is the Act of Parliament actually authorising Reform ? What is there as yet but smoke from all this fire ? It is a pretty tale for a nation so justly excited, that if Parliamentary Re form could have been carried without the slightest sacrifice of fastidious taste, or Almacks arrogance, or feudal jealousy of a sudden accession to " the order ", Lord Grey would have had no particular objection to let the thing take its course. It is a flattering and gracious boon to the British nation, that when the majority of boroughmonger Lords shall consent to vote the abolition of their own boroughs—then, and not one minute sooner, Lord Grey will fulfil his pledge. For what means the refusal to create new Peers, when the majority of those now existing have positively threatened a second time to throw out the Bill which they have thrown out already ? What, we say, is that refusal on the part of the Prime Minister, but a plain declaration in other words, that so far as depends on him the country may go whistle for Reform ? It never can be too often repeated—it never can be too forcibly im pressed on the people of England—that the real and head opponent to the cause of Reform is not the Duke of Wellington—is not Lord Harrowby— who possess no power except that which the all but treacherous irresolution of others has left in their hands; but that the author of this infanticide— the murderer of his own first-born offspring—will be no other than Lord Grey himself, if he denies the only means of rescuing it from destruction. And on what plea is such a political crime to be exte nuated ? Why, Lord Grey is understood to " fear what posterity may think of him if he resorts to violent measures for carrying the Bill of Reform !" Good Heaven ! but conceive a man so construing the term " violence." Imagine a politician boasting at once of his adour for Reform and his respect for the Constitution—boasting even of the impossibility of withholding a Reform of Parliament from the country, because of the universal determination of the people to hare it let what will happen, and yet the same man dreading more the censure of poste• rity for " violence" by the exercise of a lawful and royal prerogative, than for the certain, lawless, and destructive " violence," to which such conduct tends to drive the people ! But again, what a paltry and selfish plea is this ! We have heard Lord Grey laughed at by foreign diplomatists, for always referring his decision upon the greatest questions to some consideration involving his own personal consistency. Some would say that there must be egregious vanity at the bot tom of such a disposition, though of such a prepon derant feeling we undoubtedly acquit Lord Grey. But will his Lordship reflect for one moment, whe ther it be possible to respect the generosity of that man who professedly decides against a measure em bracing the welfare of millions of men for ages, on personal motives merely; or how he can hope to be thought sincere in his passion for the approval of after times, by incurring deliberately the contempt of the existing generation ? And what is the opinion of posterity respecting ally man but the echo of the opinion of the best and wisest of his contemporaries ? Will Lord Grey throw away the present substance for the future image ? The avowed suggestion of the Tories, well known for some weeks past to Lord Grey, is to make small battle on the second reading, —then to rally for an unrelenting mutilation of the Bill ;—finally, to take their chance that the people of England, when wearied and dismayed, will accept the Bill thus dilapidated. If Lord Grey, according to the guess of some of his supporters, delays the new Peers until after such mutilation shall hare taken place, suspicions will arie on ail sides that he is himself a partner in the Tory scheme, and that he wishes the Reform Bill to be ruined. For any seem ing harshness in the above observations we make no apology. It has been called forth after some months of patient forbearatice4and even credulous acqui. escence, by a zeal which we disdain to compromise; and is, in our opinion, fully justified by the facts as they appear. We shall be most happy to have the opportunity of finding our forebodings felsified.— noes. The Opposition have now taken another Poten tate under their compassionate protection— his Holiness the Pope. It is only when Catholics happen in Le contending for equal rights, and free dom of conscience, that Tories are their enemies The Pope is an idolator when Irish Catholics are striving to escape from Protestant Tithes; but the Pope a legitimate S,vereign, entitled to the sympathy of all good Tories, when he resists the just claims of his subjects to the benefits of good government. That good man the Pope will now share with the Tories the sympathy now engrossed by Don Miguel. Sir Richard Vyvyan made a very good beginning last night. It is about as well established as anything can be established in history, that the Popes have been the great cause of the evils of Italy; that to retain their Sovereignty they have at all times kept the country divided, and betrayed it to foreigners; a.;4 it is well known that at this day the territories of the Pope are the worst governed of any in the whole Peninsu:a,— Sir Robert Peel approved of the invasion of Naples by an Austrian army, though the Neapolitan dominions were at one extremity of the Peninsula, and the Austrian possessions at the other; but then the invasion of Austria had for object to destroy the Neapolitan Constitution. But a ;:iicpicion flits across the minds of the Tories, that the small force sent by the French to Ancona may possibly benefit the subjects of the Pope, aL.I that is quite another affair. Sir Richard Vyvyan is all uneasiness—Sir Robert Peel,who had no doubts in the case of _ustria, is not without " a degree of apprehension and anxiety," with regard to the small French force. Idolators are to he cherished when they have the means of making the people miserable. Sir Richard Vyvyan, with admirable consistency,complained of the French for now interfering between the Pope and his sube jects without the consent of the Pope, and without the justification of contiguity of territory, and for not having interfered some time ago between the Puke of Modena and his subjects without the consent •of the Duke, or the justification of contiguity. " He thought (he said) the interference of France the more repre hensible, because he knew that not long since the sub jects of the Duke of Modena, who suffered under a go s ernment which he should like to see ameliorated, had been induced to rebel by the representations of a party in France, who left them to be put down and severely punished for the rebellion into which they s, had been treacherously led." If the French Aar.- don the subjects of the Pope before they obtain an ameliorated government, they will, according to Sir Richard's logic, behave treacherously to them. Sir Richard wishes amelioration in the government of Modena, and, wishing such amelioration, he would have approved of French interference to effect it; but he disapproved of an interference which stopped short of effecting the amelioration. To ob tain his approbation, the French must not abandon the subjects of the Pope till they are secured in the blessings of good government. Sir Robert Peel went somewhat more craftily to work : " He would not have it supposed (he said) that the Members of the British Parliament were not to do what they conceived to be their duty, lest, forsooth, they should give offence to France.—(Hear.) He was nut aware what reasons Austria might have for sending to France for troops to assist in quelling rebellion in Italy ; but he had received information which persuaded him that France had sent her troops into Italy without any intimation pre viou-ly given to the other Powers.—(Hear, hear.) Such a proceeding he could not view without anxiety, not so much for the act itself, but for th e consequen c e s to which it might lead. He trusted a full explanation would he given of the circumstances which occasioned, and might he supposed to justify, that proceeding. If it should prove that the purpose of the French Government was only to conciliate the good will of the party which for some time past had agitated the peace of France itself, then his ap prehensions would b e muc h i ncrease d.—(H ear .) Within the last few months he had seen France advance a large army into Belgium, without having made any previous communication to the other Powers.—(Hear, hear.) He also saw at present a large territory upon the coast of the Mediterran e a n —Al g i ers , O ran , an d Bona—in the occupation of France.—(Hear.) He also saw the troops of France occ u pyi ng p ar t s o f G r e e ce, remaining there still, perhaps fur good reasons, and, perhaps, onjustifi able grounds."—(Hear, hear.) Not a word from Sir Robert when the Austrians entered the Papal territories to enable the Pope to trample on his subjects. Not a word of commise ration for the unfortunate Poles, the victims of the foulest blot on modern history. But the Govern ment of France is not entirely in the interest of the Holy Alliance ; it is obliged to make some conces sions " to conciliate the good-will of the party, which, for some time past, had agitated the peace of France itself"—that party which placed the Duke of Orleans on the throne, and sent the legi timate K ng to Edinburgh ; and the interference of such a Government is very different from Austrian or Russian interference. Austria may overcome Italy from one extremity to the other; France, un der a legitimate Bourbon, may overrun Spain with out even a shadow of justification; but the French, under a Constitutional King, must not send even a handful of troops to Ancona. The proverb says, " one man may steal a horse, while another is hanged for looking over the hedge." France endangers the balance of power, by keeping troops in Greece, in Algiers, and at Ancona; and then France marched an army into Belgium to prevent a war in Europe. The state of things which Sir Robert would de light to see, is Russia and Prussia overawing Ger many, Austria overawing It a ly, D on Mi gue l fi lling the prisons of Portugal with impunity, that there might be no hope of improvement in the social can diiion of the nations. Sir Robert has no objection to the organised conspiracy of the Despots against the nations, and in their interference he sees nothing but good ; but he suspects that in the handful of French soldiers at Ancona may be found men imbued with the generous feelings that led to the revolution of July. To Propagate the princi ples of the revolution of July is an evil of a serious nature. The principles of the revolution of July threaten the sacred cause of European Aristo cracy, of which the Tories of England are the main support. Pope or Pagan, whoever abets misgo vernment in any corner of the world is sacred in the eyes of the Tories of England, who would deluge Europe with blood to defeat the hopes of the peo ple of England, and who would shed the blood of the people of England if their power were only equal to their good will.—elforning Chronick. Having, during several years past, contended for the propriety of abolishing imprisonment for debt, especially on niesne process,—having availed our selves of every favourable opportunity to show the injustice of a law which constituted a man a judge in his own case to inflict punishment before any debt had been proved—the impolicy of a law which en courages a vicious system of credit, the cause of ruin to thousands—the cruelty of a law which confounds misfortune with crime,—it gives us peculiar satisfac tion to find that the Common Law Commissioners have reported in favour of abolition. We mentioned some time ago that this question was the principal one which engaged the attention of the Commissioners preparatory to the production of their fourth report. Our readers have seen that, in moving for a copy of that report to be laid on the table of the House of Lords, on Tuesday evening, the Lord Chancellor took occasion to express his approbation c.f the labours of the Commissioners, and his full and perfect concurrence in the conclusion at which they hail arrived. His Lordship observed that the ground taken up by the Commissioners as the result of the investigation, and as the conviction produced on them by evidence, was that imprisonment for debt on mesne process should be abolished—and in execution if practicable. His Lordship added, what we have always contended for, that " every means should be given to the cre ditors for the recovery of their legal demands—that every means should be given to creditors for obtain ing possession of the property of those who were indebted to them,—that every means should be given to creditors to compel debtors attempting to defraud them to surrender their effects,—that all the anomalies which at present existed with regard to imprisonment for debt—that all the inconsistencies which appeared between the principle and the prac tice of the law, and which were caused by defects in the law as it now stood, should be gradually, temperately, but effectually, removed." Such are the opinions of the Commissioners, which the Learned Lord at the head of the admi nistration of the law adopts as his own, arid which must meet the assent of every reflecting and ju dicious mind. It is certainly a gross anomaly in our law that one species of property should be liable to be taken in satisfaction for debt and not another; — that personal or chattel property should be liable to be taken in execution, and that real property should he sacred arid inviolable, unless in the excepted cases of a statute-merchant or a statute-staple, or an elegit, which gives possession of a moiety, of the lands for the satisfaction of a judgment of debt or damages, if the goods and chattels be not sufficient. These modes of levying the debt upon the real pro perty of the debtor are, however, only available under particular circumstances, the general rule being that real property is not liable to be tak en in execu tion for debt, nor is that sort of personal property which consists of stock in the public funds. The Lord Chancellor says " It is only reasonable that the pro perty of the debtor should be et the disposal of the law for the liquidation of his debts, and neither he nor their Lordships could see why one description of property should have an exemption more than any other." His Lordship says truly, and as the law at present stands, a debtor may have property far be yond what is sufficient to pay his debts, and may choose to remain in prison and hold over that pro perty from his creditors. He may hav e every eon, verneirce and luxury within his prison walls, because he has the means of paying, and even liberty itself he may enjoy to a certin extent, by purchasing day rules, while nominally in a state of confinement. All these things he pays for out o!' the property which ;Le tt : harpies in liquidation of his debts; besides the ought to go gaolers, the creditor cannot. touch. All turnkey,exorb tat Sheriff' dou officers,reur andto 11 , 1 a t h rs e h a h l whom the law allows to plunder that property of this th requires debtor wtohibele4 reformed. \S here there is pro perty it should be made available . for debt, without any regard to those ancient feudal principles by which a distinction was made bet ween T cal and chattel property that ought not to have outlasted the s emi-barbarous system which cre ated that and many other anom a li es, w hi c h were unknown to the ancient common law of , Ergland. It is as just and wise that every species of property should be liable for the payment of debts, as it absurd and cruel that human liberty should be taken where property cannot be had. If a man have the means of paying his debts, let the law appropriate those means to that object; but if he have not the means, the deprivation of liberty can not enable him to pay. To drag such a debtor to prison may gratify revenge; but the law should not lend itself to vindictive feelings. The stroke of misfortune might often be retrieved by honest dili gence, .if the loss of liberty did not follow, and complete, by process of law, the ruin of the victim. Captivity is a difficult thing for a strong man to bear who cannot afford to purchase the indulgencies of a prison; but let any one think on the condition of the aged and infirm, and, above all, the friend less female—accustomed to the comforts of life in her better days, and still mindful of its decencies —the widow, whom the loss of her husband has reduced from comparative affluence to sudden want ; let one think of such a person, shut up with the worst characters of our gaols—exposed to the rude taunts of turnkeys, whose iron hearts are only to be softened by the touch of gold—compelled to mingle in the association of vice and profane ness, and drink the cup of misery to the dregs,—and surely the law of imprisonment for debt will appear to be one of the darkest blots upon the humanity and civilization of England. We observe, from the speech of the Lord Chancellor, that there is one case itr which it is intended to retain the law of imprisonment upon mesne process, and that is when the debtor meditates flying from the country, with a view to avoid the payment of his debts. If so, strict evidence of that fact should be required —or, at least, evidence that makes it highly probable such is his intention ; for, if this exception were allowed upon loose and vague suggestions, the exception might at length, in practice, supersede the rule. Another exception, we presume, alludes to a debtor in execution, who has the means of satisfying his creditor, and refuses to do so ; but we should think the property could be made available without hold ing in pledge the body of the debtor. As to the imprisonment of persons who are proved to have fraudulentlij contracted debts, we look upon such imprisonment, provided it be not excessive, as a just punishment of a criminal act ; and, therefore, such imprisonment does not confound misfortune with crime. We are sure interested persons, especially of the law, will make an outcry against this wholesome reform, but we hope the Lord Chancellor will persevere.—Morning Herald. Lord Plunket and his friends are singularly unfor tunate in their attempts at recrimination upon every occasion when the exemplary care of his family evinced by this good father and disinterested States man are made the subject of remark. We charac terise the Noble and Learned Lord as a good father and disinterested Statesman in preference to calling him a " venal politician ;" the latter description having, we recollect, when employed in his usual blunt, frank, and manly manner by the Marquis of Londonderry, excited the peculiar disapprobation of Earl Grey, whom it might be dangerous for us too deeply to offend, and who acutely sympathises in every wound inflicted upon the Irish Chancellor, be tween whose official character and conduct and those of the Noble Earl there certainly may be traced no slight similarity. We are very far from objecting to recrimination on the part of a person who is smarting under an attack. It is a very natural over flow of excited feeling in any case, and, when intro duced only as a pungent seasoning to the more substantial viands of an effective defence, is frequently by no means disagreeable. But when, as in the case of Lord Plunket, neither the party accused nor any of his advocates think of meeting express and grave accusa tions with any thing but recrimination, they offer to the public a banquet very similar to that with which Petruchio proposed to regale his wife— all mustard and no beef. This by possibility may proceed from mere vexation and ill-temper in the Noble and Learned Lord himself ; but when his friends and supporters lay before us no better,. fare, the inference is unavoidable that their nig gardliness is to be ascribed to the poverty of the larder; that the materials of a substantial and sa tisfactory vindication are utterly wanting. As an apology for Lord Plunket, who, in the com paratively few years in which he has served dif ferent and irreconcileable Administrations, has con trived to accumulate about twenty places, of the an nual value of twenty-eight thousand a year, in the hands of himself and his immediate relations, a friend of the Noble arid Learned Lord's adduced the other night in the House of Commons the example of the Earl of Eldon, who during the period of a quarter of a century, in which he served his coun try with consistency and honour, bestowed six places upon his son, two of which are in reversion, and may probably never be enjoyed by him. The recri mination in this instance, if nothing remained to be added to the above statement, would seem singu larly injudicious and ineffective. But unfortun ately for the reputation of the Irish Chancellor there is much to be added. The gravamen of the charge against his Lordship is, that having already grasped an excessive and (except perhaps in the kindred case of Earl Grey) unparalleled number of places for his family, amounting in value to some thing like 26,0001. per annum, he manifested a disposition so revoltingly grasping, "as if increase of appetite had grown by what it fed on," that he proceeded to add to this number another place, and to this value another 2,000/. a year, by the exercise of patronage of questionable legality ; and that he has employed his power as a Judge and a Minister to prevent a satisfactory decision of the legal question, endeavouring in the meanwhile to extort from the adverse interest a gua rantee that, in the event of the decision being against him and his family, they shall nevertheless continue to enjoy undisturbed and undiminished the emolu ments of which, in that case, they will have been shewn to have possessed themselves illegally. Did the Earl of Eldon or any other living man ever attempt any thing like this ? Did the venerable Earl ever usurp patronage not belonging to his office ? Did he, above all, ever obstruct the course of justice, arid strive by means of the ob struction to force his adversary, in a question of pounds, shillings, and pence, into an unfair bargain ? It is unquestionably derogatory to the character of Lord Plunket as a mart, that he should have plunged into the mire of such a transaction, taking the most favourable view of it. But the over whelming influence of mercenary considerations upon the mind of the Noble and Learned Lord cannot be half appreciated, without referring toahe situation in which, rather than run the risk of losing a pecuniary advantage, he has descended to place himself as a Lawyer and a Judge. No just man would desire to retain emoluments longer than he can persuade himself that he has a legal and moral right to them. But what can be thought of the man who, having the reputa tion of an acute lawyer, and the character of the highest judicial seat in Ireland to main tain, is so overpowered by the apprehension of losing for his family a given number of pounds ster ling a year, that he forgets entirely the Lawyer and the Judge, and proposes to obtain a judicial deci sionis the H ouse o f L or d s, in circ umst an ces whi ch every lawyer knows w ould make the decision utterly worthless ? A re tChoeur highests f Justice—above c o ur t in the kingdom —to be empl o y e d to suit the purposes of Lord Plunket or of any other man in deciding abstract q uest i ons of right ? Or w ould their decision of an abstract case, without any parties before them so interested in the decision as to give a tolerable certainty of the merits on both sides being fairly and fully brought forth, be of any value whatever ? Will arty man of ordinary infor s rnation venture to answer these questions in the affirmative ? Then what was the meaning of Lord Plunket's proposition ? Simply and obviously this : that his mind is under the dominion of a ruling passion so absolute and overwhelming as to render him incapable of any other consideration, as a man, a Lawyer, or a Judge, but the single consideration how it may be the most abundantly and securely gratified. That the retainers of the Ministry should persist in attempting to prop up Lord Plunket is no doubt injudicious. Nothing can be more detrimen tal to the character of the Administration. It would be indeed utterly incomprehensible (for never more can the Noble and Learned Lord be of the least value to any party), if we did not recol lect that there are some striking points of similarity between his conduct and that of the head of the Administration. The latter of course cannot be deserted. But there are distinctions nevertheless between the two cases which might, one would think, absolve the adherents of the Premier from the ignominious necessity of defending the whole conduct of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The distinctions it is perhaps felt are the result of posi t:on rather than of any other cause. And it must be admitted that the Prime Minister of England has but little temptation to usurp patronage not belong ing to his office.—Morning Post. The discussions in the House of Commons last night turned almost entirely upon the propriety of agreeing to the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for continuing the present duties on sugar, or of partially reducing them. That a re duction has become necessary, if the state of the revenue could possibly allow it, in consequence of the depreciated value of West Indian property and produce, no one can possibly doubt; but on the other hand, if it be not possible, consistently with the interests of the revenue and honesty to the public creditor, there is at once an end to the matter; and on this ground, in consequence, we are prepared to defend the policy of his Majesty's Ministers. Lord Althorp informed the House that he had every in clination to afford the most ample protection to the West India grower of sugar, and that he had a plan in preparation whereby the British public would be enabled to consume a greater quantity of his produce, and of course to extend a greater benefit to him than he could possibly derive from the partial modi fication of the duty on sugar which was proposed; and as a proof of his sincerity, he only called on Parliament for a six months' vote. This candid statement, however, met with no approbation from the thick-and-thin opponents of the Government, whose object was annoyance and delay ; and the consequence was that almost the whole of the time of the House was consumed in discussing, whether it would be better to make a reduction now, which would be of no benefit, or to wait for six months for one of a more extensive and beneficial character. Mr. Hume, we are snrprised to observe, formed part of the phalanx which made head against his Ma jesty's Ministers. He could not surely have seen the snare which was purposely laid to entrap him.— Morning Advertiser. The questions which, sometime ago, agitated the public mind, and were the subject of discussion in all quarters, were, first, " What will the Lords do?" and next, " What shall be done with the Lords?" but those which now occupy the public mind are, " What will Earl Grey do ?" and " What shall be done with the Bishops ?" should they again attempt to aid a miserable faction in its attempt to deprive the people of England of their just rights. With regard to Earl Grey, he will of course exercise the authority with which the King has invested him, of creating as many Peers as circumstances may ren der necessary. On this head no doubt need be en tertained. The Hotspur of the House of Com mons is not likely to become the " impotent" or " irresolute" Member of the House of Lords; and were motives necessary to awake the energy for which he .has always been distin guished, it cannot be denied that he has mo tives enough; first, in the inexorable hosti lity of his opponents ; and, secondly, in the care which a man of Lord Grey's talents and political virtue must necessarily have for his own fame. The creation or non-creation of Peers—the passing or the rejection of the Bill—is the test by which, of all others, he will be tried. The one confers honour and immortality—the other is certain ruin and disgrace; and can he doubt for a moment which side it is either his own interest, or that of the country to adopt ? With regard to the Bishops, they are, under certain circumstances, a species of heavy artillery, which it is not easy to move over difficult passes, or to find a safe passage for over quagmires ; but they may nevertheles be dealt with, as Parliament has dealt with them before—that is, in the way of censure—in case they should change the garments of charity for the raiments of political sin, as will be seen from the following extracts from the " Lex Parliamentaria," with which we have been favoured by a correspondent : POWER OF PARLIAMENT. " What has been, may be." 1 Jac. L-1603. The Bishop of Bristol published a hook, tending to make division anti strife, wrong and dishonour, both to the Lower House and the Lords them. selves, was complai❑ed of by the Commons to the Lords, and he made his recantation— Ist. That be had erred. 2d. That he was sorry for it. 3d. If it were to do again, he would not do it. 4th. But protested, it was done in ignorance, and not of malice. Note.—A case of Dr. Burnett, Bishop of Salisbury, who, for wilting and publishing a book, entitled " King William and Queen Mary, Conquerors," was censured in Parliament, and, as I think, on the Commons' address, removed from being Preceptor to the Duke of Glouces ter, Scc. Note.—Also Bishop Fleetwood's Preface, censured, and burnt by order of the House of Commons. And also see Nalson's Col. p. 9 and 43, ten Bishops at once sent to the Tower by the House of Lords, &c.—Morn. Advertiser SPRING ASSIZES. LINCOLN, .111.4scK 5. The business of the Assizes for this county commenced to-day, Mr. Baron BAYLEY presiding in the Nisi Prius Court, and Mr. Justice J. PARKE on the Crown side. Thirty-three causes are entered for trial ; but the only two defended cases tried to-day were devoid of any general in terest. The calendar contains the names of 34 prisoners, six of whom are charged with arson, and the others with offences of more ordinary occurrence. Jane Harrison was indicted for wilful and corrupt per. jury, in falsely swearin g a child to an elderly gentleman named Hewlett, then 76 years of age, and since dead. The defendant was confined of an illegimate child in the beginning of the summer of 1830 ; and in five weeks after its birth, she was overheard by three men, when convers ing under a hedge with a man named Francis, the sup posed father of the child, to say, in reply to some remon strance on his part, that he was the father and nobody else. When Mr. Hewlett, overseer of the parish, had her taken before a Magistrate, she told the constable on the way, that if he (the constable) did not take care, she would swear it to him. On Mr. Hewlett attending to make her swear the child, she stated on her oath that lie (Mr. Hew lett) himself was the father, although Mr. Hewlett was 75 or 76 years of age, was so ill as to be carried on pillows before the Justice, and had, besides, a complaint of the bladder, which put him to great pain. She was ordered by the Magistrate to be imprisoned for twelve months as a lewd woman. On her liberation, she went to Mr. Hew lett and begged his pardon for what she had done, ad mitting, bAire his daughter and servant, that she had for sworn herself. She was found Guilty, and sentenced to seven years' :ransportation. CHELMSFORD, March 7. James Griffith, aged 13, labourer, was indicted for stealing a till, containing three shillings' worth of half pence, from the shop of William Hopkins, of Strat ford. The prisoner appeared to have been a very accom plished thief: he succeeded in opening the shop-door, and obtaining an entrance, without ringing the alarm-bell attached to it by a spring, and to have been in full retreat with his plunder when detected. Is.n interest was excited by this trial on account of the prisoner being the captain of the notorious gang of " forty thieves , " by which London and its suburbs are infested. He was found guilty of steal ing, but not of breaking open the shop, and recommended to mercy. The gaoler of Hertford deposed that he was a n old offender, and that he had the mark of the " forty thieves" on his person.--Sentenced to seven years' trans portation. William Jcwers, aged 24, Francis Jewels, aged 18 • and Steph en Jetvers, aged 28, labourers, were capital]; indicted for stabbing William Barker. This was a ver y mysterious c a se , and excited intense interest in the C ourt . It appeared that about seven o'clock on th e s t h o f De cemllrr last, the three prisoners were together at the Red Cow public-house, near Colchester, in the neighbourhood of which they reside, using the most horrible and dia. gusting language, asserting that there were body-snatchers in the house ; that they had a weapon about them that would do for any man ; that if they met a man and he did not speak, they would d o f or hi m ; men should capture them.and that no three Mary Ann Fenning, the hostess of the house, deposes to these facts, and also to there being no person on the premises at the time but themselves. They departed in a short time, perfectly sober, and shortly after were met by the prosecutor, William Barker, to whom they were all well known. Francis and Stephen passed by him, without no ticing him, but upon his coming abreast of Wm. Jewers, he received from his band a desperate wound in the loins, in flicted with a knife, afterwards identified as William's, who exclaimed, " You have caught it old boy." The pri soners then passed on, and the prosecutor made for the house of one Byam, a labouring man, within a few rods of the spot on which be was wounded. The clothes sad shirt were here produced ; tbey were perfectly saturated with blood, and presented a horrible appeal anoe. The prisoners next morning were taken into custody. The Jury returned a verdict of guilty against William Jewers, and acquitted the other two. The JUDGE immediately informed him that he should defer pronouncing sentence till the next day, bat advised him to be prepared to suffer the extreme penalty of the law. SPARLINC V. HADDOII. This was an action for a libel contained in a report which appeared in the Colchester Gazette, of which de fendant is the printer and publisher. The plaintiff is an attorney, and brought the action to vindicate his character. He had been employed for a person named Appleby, in an action brought against a butcher named Lines, residing at Thorpe, for a breach of promise of marriage. This action was tried at the last Chelmsford Spring Assizes, when Appleby got a verdict for 300/., and Lines, the butcher, was subsequently summoned before the Bench of Magis trates, to provide for the maintenance of the lady to whom he promised marriage, she being also pregnant by him. In the report of these proceedings, which appeared in the Colchester Gazette, it was stated that Mr. Appleby► said, " I have been put to great expense by the conduct of Mr. Lines towards my daughter, and hitherto I have re ceived no remuneration for it ;" and that Lines replied, " Then you should have employed a more honest lawyer : you wish the money to be paid into his hands." Upon which Mr. Appleby rejoined, " I now give you public notice to pay no more money to him." Mr. Serjeant SraNue amused the Court with a ha mourous speech of some length : the result was a verdict of 20/. damages for the plaintiff. WORCESTER, M.4 Belt 6. John Coz, agtd 62, a gardener, a most repulsive looking old man, was found guilty of having, on the 24th of.fuly last, at the borough of Bewdley, unlawfullly and carnally known and abused Sarah Blakeway, a girl under the age of ten years. The circumstances of the case are not et for publication. The Learned Judge asked the Jury whether, in finding their verdict, they were of opinion that the offence was committed under the old law, or the more recent Act of Parliament. The Jury consulted together, and the Foreman said that they were of opinion that the case was established ;Indic the more recent Act. Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE should reserve the point for the consideration of the twelve Judges. His Lordship then put on the black cap and addressed the prisoner. He implored him to prepare himself for the worst • for, in the event of their Lordships' agreeing with him in opinion, he assured him that he might depend the law would take its course. BEDFORD , MARCII 7. chg t e h d e , tthatth o af certain Jonathan Cr an fi e ld an d Willi am Preston were in dicted forl2 conspiracy.the jurors The indictmentunknown), ar on June last, came i n t o th e par i s h o f C ard i ngton, and was woman (o then actually chargeable to that parish as casual poor ; and that the defendants unlawfully conspired to exonerate the said parish from the charges which might ensue to them from such woman remaining in their parish, and to ag grieve the parish of Hawnes, and to charge them with the maintenance of the woman; and that, in pursuance of such conspiracy, they carried and conveyed her (being then ill and unfit for removal) from the parish of Carslington to that of Hawnes, without any lawful authority, and there left her ; and that she shortly afterwards there died ; by means whereof, the inhabitants of Hawnes were obliged to expend certain moneys in and about burying her. Other counts in the indictment varied the statement. After evidence to these facts hod been adduced, Tne jury found both the prisoners Guilty. Mr. Baron GURNEY then sentenced them to be impri /boned for one calendar month, and to p►y a fine of sor each to the King. THE MARKETS. COAL MARE Per Ton. Adair's Beaumont 16 0 HolywelL l9 0 Killingworth 20 0 Pontop Windsor.—,—.—. 16 tl Shipcote 16 6 0 1 0 Townley l7 6 West Hartley WYlam —. 17 9 Walls End Bell & Co.— 21 0 Dittoßell,ltubsonaitCo. 19 6 Ditto Bewicke and Co. 21 9 Walls End Boundary, * 18 3 Walls End Callerton 16 6 Walls End Carr and Co. 19 0 Ditto Clarke and C 0.... 19 6 Walla End Gosforth 2.2 9 Ships arrived since .ET.—March 7. Per Ton. Walls End Heaton...-. 21s. 64. Walls End Hilda ....... 20 3 Walls End Hotspur... 20 6 Walls End 17 0 Ditto Killingworth 21 0 Walls End Newmarch... 20 9 I)itto Northumberland 19 6 Ditto Peareth.....---. 17 6 Ditto Perkins and C 0... 20 3 Walls F.nd Walker.,... 21 6 Walls End Hetton 26 0 Walls End Adelaide.... 22 0 Cowpen l9 0 Walls End 18 0 Hartley 21 0 Merthyr. .24 0 South Hetton Seam.... 17 0 Tan field Trader 20 6 last market-day, 3. COUNTRY CORN MARKE'T'S DURING THE WEEK. Wheat. Barley. Oats. Beans. Per Quarter. s. to s. s. to s. s. to s. r. to s. Abi ngd 62 81 31 43 22 30 38 Andover-- 73 80 37 41 I Birmingham—,—... 56 66 40 44 124 32 52 ISridport ---. 56 74 32 39 i2g 30 54 Cirencester 50 62 26 38 21 25 aringdon--,54 86 36 40 26 38 46 Guildford 48 74 23 32 26 35 43 Henley- 54 83 30 35 28 30 40 Hereford 84 92 44 48 40 Highworth 62 80 32 42 28 34 56 Maidenhead 65 86 32 46 22 30 37 Monmouth...... 54 61 39 Reading 65 90 31 47 21 27 42 Salisbury 44 62 32 37 21 27 54 Southampton 54 58 37 40 28 32 46 Stroud Tewkesbury 65 74 40 42 30 38 44 Uxbridge , 48 74 27 40 23 33 42 %Vantage 5B 80 30 43 21 30 46 Warminster 45 64 30 43 21 30 46 Windsor Worcester 65 66 44 51 31 32 50 LEWES MARKET.—March 6. White Wheat (per quarter)--X2 18 0 to £3 3 0 Red ditto—.—. 2 16 0 3 0 0 Barley---. 1 0 0 1 6 0 Oats, New 1 1 0 1 2 0 Pease 1 14 0 1 15 0 Oil Cake. 12 0 0 per thousand. HULL MARKET—March 0. -- - - - --- Wheat, Old —5. 565. 585. New .. . ... —s. Ms. 565. Foreign —s. 50s. 545. ln bond, .... —..s, Oats, Poland —s. ‘.. ) os. 225. 01d,,,,,.. —s. . 245. Small or Feed.... —s. 16s. 205.. .................... —s. —s. —a. Foreign —s. 16s. ISs ................ - s —s. Beans 30s. 30s. Ms. F 0reign.,..,.... —..,. 36 5 , 38s, Pease, White —s. 365. 4l's. Grey ............ .„. „. ~. —s. F0reign......... 30 36 fares none. Rapeseed, in bond ......none. Free, per .a --s --4.. 251: 2.6 5 i. F lC o o r r e f i . g & n 5uf...... ............... ...34 ... 5 . ....T . 5 . .. . .L .. i . n .. e . ...8 c.. .................... - -- 2 :. : —34 — ,.. . —361. _Barley, CHELTENHAM Per Bushel. s. d. to s. d. Wheat 6 0 8 0 Beef Barley 4 0 5 6 Mutton .......... ........ 4 0 4 3 Veal ............. .: .... . .. Oats 5 0 ti 0 Pork ... ................... Beans 5 0 7 0 Laud) ................... Pease Hav 3/. lOs to 3/. 15s. Od. • per ton. ________ A 6. l'et lb. d. to d. ti 7 o 7 7 8 7 8 0 0 ---- MANCHESTER, 1 - 1 - 17 ---- a-th Wheat, per 70Ib. 9s. 3d. to Os. 6d. Red 9s. 0,1. to 9s 3d Barley, per 601 b 5 0 5 3 0at5,,,,,, 3 9 4• 0 Beans, per Imperial quarter 42 0 45 0 Pease, White, per Imperial bushel 3 0 6ts Malt, per 6 Imperial bushels 42 0 47 0 Flour, per Sack a 2SOlb 460 _ DUMFRIES MA lIKE'I S.—Fe _____ b '2.9. dozen s.d. s.d. Imp. Bush... 6 9 to 7 0 Butter, 16oz 2 3 2 7 Beef, per lb. Flour, 141 b. .......... 2 2 3 0 Mutton QOaa Barleyt ms Wheat, .e a 1 ..... ~. . . . ..... '.. 2 0 22V e a 1 • potatoes, cwt..... ...... 1 6 1 4 Ouartern host s.d. s.d 0 0 WO 0 00 00 04 05 04 05 04 05 07 0 On the 7th inst. in BIRTHS. a son Cunningham-place, Mrs. Robert Sutton, of . On the 6th inst. in Tavistock-square, the lady of Thomas Jo. shua Platt, Esq., of a daughter. On the 2it inst. Mrs. Grey, of Mil ie Northurnly:rlan.l, a daughter. Az OLP. On the 6th inst. at Hoxtiin'new church, Charles H. A. Kerbev, Esq., of Saville-row, Mile-end, to Helen Eve, second daughter of the late Mr. B. Eve, of the same place. On the 7th inst. at Friends' Meeting-house, Chelmsford, Ed mund Ashworth, of Egerton-hall, Lancashire, to Charlotte, se. coed daughter of Thomas' Christy, Esq., of Broomfield, Es sex. biTV• On the 3d inst. alter a few 'day's' illness, M r . W illiam Davis, a l t g e b'd d C 33 ro . Z.s e - a s r t s re tf.the house of Messrs. Eagle and Back, distillers, Cu the 6th li st, after a few days' acute suffering, Maria Louisa Caroline, the youngest child of Hannibal Evans Lloyd, Esq., of Alderm ,nbury. On the 3d inst. in the South-bank, Regent's park, after a short, though painful illness, Mrs. Dennis 'Withers Wade, in the SOth year of her age, eldest sister of the late ‘Villiam Barry Wade, Esq., of Bindon-house, in the county of Somerset. PRINTED AND PUBLISHED DV M U RDO YOUNG Al THE Su:! OFFICX, 11; STRAND, L9NDON.. - 46 43 40 40 - sfi - 37 - 42 - 54 - 46 - 48 - 44 - 42 - 46 - 46 - 50 - 50