The Sun.
London, England, 1837-01-05 00:00:00

CEN TRAL

Of the many dangers whieh encompass this nation
by the reason of the existence of the present mean and
vicious Government, that of bad measures is not the
greatest. It is the dishonest and dishonourable sys-
tem by which public affairs are managed which
threatens the degradation of the national spirit and
character. This is the greatest evil which we think
it impossible for men of true British sense and feel-
ing to contemplate without indignation and grief.
From bad measures we may recover with comparative
ease. Experience may teach us the injuriousness of
them, and if the mind of the nation be not vitiated—
if its energies be not impaired—we may retrace our
steps. But it is not easy, and, perhaps we might say
it is not impossible, for men who have descenaed to
paltry, disingenuous, and sordid habits in the conduct
of great affairs to return to the plain highway of intre-
pid honesty and manly discretion. Error may be re-
formed, and the mind which blazed as a fire of destruction
may become a glorious and salutary light to the na-
tions ; but the low knavery of no-principled politicians is
as hopeless as it is hateful, and it is against this
which we would warn all who love and revere the
ancient character of our country. We are not indulg-
ing in abstract speculation. Would to God that we
had no facts to appeal to, such as render our warning
necessary ; but we have these facts to appeal to—they
are but too apparent, too disgustingly and shamelessly
prominent—and it is time that honest men, for the
sake of honesty, should band themselves together
against the impudent fraud in the spirit of which pub-
lic affairs are conducted. First, let us look at the
King's Ministers. If they were honest politicians
they would long ago have plainly declared what their
principles are upon what are called vital questions,
and there would exist a public certainty that by these
principles the Government would stand or fall. But
how does the matter really stand ? They have at one
time declared themselves firm to certain views of things,
and at another they have appeared to take very dif-
ferent views ; that which one day they appeared
willing to protect they at another abandon to injury ;
and there is not at this hour any thing like a public
certainty of the course they will take in the next Ses-
sion of Parliament upon the very same questions
which they solemnly delivered their opinion upon in
the last. Instead of taking upon them, as British
Ministers ought to take, the responsibility of accom-
plishing certain definite purposes, they meanly submit
themselves to external influences, and profess their rea-
diness to accommodate their principles of policy to the
humours of other people. If they have any permanent
principle it is that which, with astonishing shameless-
ness, they avow, namely, that they will continue as long
as ever they can in the situation of Ministers. To this
principle they sacrifice every other, and no human being
can depend upon their firm adherence to anything else.
`This
is a course so mean, so grovelling, and so sordid,
that until now we should have deemed it impossible
that British Ministers could have punned it. Until
now we should have thought that Ministers capable
of this ostentatious degradation of themselves would
have been driven from their position by the unanimous
execration of the country. That this has not been the
case affords a melancholy proof of the decay of the old
spirit of honesty from among our people. To come a little
more to particulars—does any man in his senses be-
lieve that if the Prime Minister had said to his Ma-
jesty, when kissing hands as First Lord of the Trea-
sury, that in the conducting of the Government it
would be necessary for him to " strike a heavy blow
at Protestantism in Ireland, and in the name of the
King's Government to give " a great discourage-
ment" to the same—can any man, we say, believe
that if Lord Viscount Melbourne had had the ho-
nesty to say this to the King, he would have been
suffered to leave the Royal presence a Minister
of the Crown ? No man can believe it. From
the hands of the King he received power, and
immediately he went forth to abuse it. As the
servant of the King he was bound to support
and encourage Protestantism, and upon this tacit con-
dition the authority of Government was put in his
hands. As the million of O'Connell, he was forced
to beat down and discourage Protestantism, and upon
this expressed condition the majority of the House of
Commons was put into his hands. Can this be con-
sidered the honest dealing which becomes a British
Minister ? No man can honestly serve two such
masters as the King of England and Daniel O'Con-
nell. Our Ministers attempt to do so, but that in-
stance forms no exception to the principle. In the
last session of Parliament the King's Ministers dis-
tinctly and emphatically opposed the ballot, the pro-
position for triennial Parliaments, and the abolition of
the general rate for the support of churches. if these
men were honest—we use the word with reference to
their political character—it would be a matter of certainty
that in the coming session of Parliament they would do
the same, or show that some new matter (other than
their own intense desire to remain in office) has arisen
to make them take a different course. But there is no
such public impression. On the contrary, the uni-
versal opinion is, that if a change of policy on these
questions be necessary to their continuance in office,
they will make the change ; but otherwise not. It
is not imagined that any alteration has taken place in
their convictions, but it is supposed that an alteration
may have taken place in the terms upon which their
tenure of office will be permitted by the Radical party.
Is it not miserably degrading to the British nation that
a Ministry should exist, respecting which the country
speculates in such a manner? The conduct of the
Ministerial Radicals is almost every whit as dishonest
as that of the Ministers themselves, and if possible more
wretchedly mean. They seem to have no conception
that there is any moral obligation upon a public man
to declare his views openly, and to take no underhand
advantage, arising from the weakness or worthlessness
of those with whom they have to deal. Upon the sys-
tem which the Ministerial Radicals pursue, we are left
no room to doubt, that if it were their policy to wea-
ken the finances of any foreign State, they would have
no objection to league with picklocks, or any other
sort of desperate vagabonds, who might undertake for
their own benefit to rob the treasure of the State which
it should be considered expedient to weaken. These
Radical legislators seem to have no objection whatever
to give their assent to what they believe to be false,
provided the thing to which they assent appears to
lead to what they desire—to be "an instalment" of
what they demand ! When, for example, the Minis-
ter proposes to sacrifice a certain part of corporate
property, in order to satisfy them, and to ensure the
security of the rest, they give their assent, and say
nothing at all against the condition ; but as soon as
the sacrifice is made they boast of the advantage
aained, as a blow against the security of the whole,
and forget the condition altogether. This is not po-
licy—it is mere rascality ; but the days have come,
even to Great Britain and Ireland, in which these two
things are much confounded with one another. If we
would survive as a nation an end must be put to this.
—Morning Post.

The undermentioned officers retired from the army
last week :—Captain Loraine, sth Dragoon Guards ;
Lieutenant Carrington, 15th Light Dragoons ; Captain
Hamilton, 7th Foot ; Captain Gordon, 93d Foot ;
Lieutenant Welch, 95th Foot ; and Lieutenant Russell,
97th Foot.—United Service Gazette.

OLD COURT.
Mr. Justice PARK directed that John Grove, convicted
in the September Session, 1835, for embezzling a large sum
of money, the property of his employers, Messrs. Master-
man and Co., the bankers, be sent for.

On the prisoner being placed at the bar,
Mr. Justice PARK observed that he had been tried and
convicted, some considerable time back, of having embezzled
a large sum of money (5001.), the property of his employers,
Messrs. Masterman, the bankers, with whom he lived, and
filled a most confidential situation, that of cashier ; and after
a long investigation the jury found him guilty. The Learned
Gentleman who defended him had raised an objection, which
involved a point of law, and which the Learned Judge who
tried the case reserved. Since then the whole of the Judges
had assembled, and the point had been argued at great
length. He was free to confess that a difference of opinion
existed amongst the Learned Judges : some of them were
of opinion that the objection was a valid one ; the majority,
however, held the conviction to be good. Although the in-
dictment charged him with embezzling the sum of 5001., he
believed it to have been originally 1,309/. ; but of this sum
3001. had been accounted for, leaving still a very large sum
unaccounted for. As there were some extenuating circum-
stances in his case, and as the opinion of the Learned Judge
who tried him was in favour of the objection, the sentence
of the Court was that he should be imprisoned for two years,
to commence from the time his trial took place. He would
consequently have to suffer a further imprisonment of nine
months. The offence of which the prisoner has been found
guilty was committed on the 19th of August, 1835.
The Judges tried several other cases, but none of them
possessed any public interest. Shortly after five o'clock their
Lordships retired, and were succeeded by the Recorder,
who sat until nine o'clock, trying petty cases.

SURREY SESSIONS-WEDNESDAY

In the course of the day the Grand Jury brought in a
true bill against James Jones, for an assault on Anne Lo-
vett, with intent to murder her.
The complainant, an elderly woman, the wife of a farmer
at Carshalton, went out on the night of the 12th ult., for
the purpose of seeing that the horses were all safe in the
stables, at the back of the premises. She had a lantern in
her hand at the time, and on entering the stable she saw
the prisoner standing behind the door, with a large club in
his hand. On seeing him she ejaculated his name, upon
which he raised the weapon and struck her with great force
over the forehead, and knocked her down. He repeated
the blow, and, on giving an alarm, the servants ran to the
spot, and saw their mistress stretched upon the ground,
bleeding profusely from a deep wound inflicted with the
club, and at that time in a state of perfect insensibility.
Jones, the man who had committed the outrage, made his
escape, but he was discovered soon afterwards concealed in
a haystack, at a neighbouring farm-yard, and from thence
taken before the Magistrates of the district, who committed
him for the misdemeanour. Since the offence was com-
mitted the woman who has been so seriously injured has
continued in great danger. The Grand Jury, however, on
examining the different witnesses, and from their evidence,
considering that it was a case of a most aggravated descrip-
tion, found a bill for the capital offence against the prisoner,
who will be tried before another tribunal.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

A man named Anderson, who stated that he had been a
dealer in fish for many years, was brought before the Loan
MAYOR, charged with having stolen a fowl, the property of
Mr. Gill, a respectable poulterer in Leadenhall Market.
The prisoner was seen, as he passed by the stall, to snatch
up the fowl, and walk off quickly. No ingenuity was ex-
hibited by him in committing the theft, and he said, upon
being apprehended, that be could get no work ; that he
had a wife and four children starving ; and that his appli-

cations to the parish in which he resided were completely

scouted.

The LORD MAYOR—Where do you reside ?—Prisoner•

In Spitalfields.
The LORD MAYOR—And you say that you applied to
your parish?—Prisoner—Many a time have I applied for
assistance and work, but it was quite useless. They would
not give me a farthing. They turned me away.
The LORD MAYOR—You seem to be able to work ?
Prisoner—l am well able, my Lord, but there has been no-
thing doing in my way this severe weather. Nothing but
misery could make me do what I have done.
The policeman who apprehended the prisoner said the
man's wife and family were in the next room, and that there
was no doubt as to their deep distress.
The wife and four children were then sent for, and the
Lord Mayor learned quite enough from them to be con-
vinced that the offence was committed because they all
wanted bread.

Mr. Gill entertained no idea of prosecuting the unfortu-
nate man.

The LORD MAYOR asked the wife whether her husband
frequented public-houses ?—She replied that he was a most
laborious and sober man, and had been always in the habit
of taking home all his earnings.
Mr. Hobler said it was evident, from the appearance of
the prisoner and his family, that no money went in gin.
The LORD MAYOR (to the prisoner)—This is a very
desperate game you have resorted to. It is impossible that
any parish-officers, who have hearts not made of stone in
their bosoms, could resist an application from such a family.
The prisoner—They care nothing about it, not if he
were to perish before their eyes.
The LORD MAYOR—You had better try once more.
The Magistrates have the power to compel them to assist
in so desperate an extremity.
The prisoner—It is all useless, your Lordship. They've
said they won't do anything, and they'll keep their word.
The LORD MAYOR—WeII, I can't help it. But I shall
give you a letter to Mr. Gregory, an extensive potatoe
dealer, in the district in which you live, and he, I am sure,
will do something for you.
Catherine Purcell (and not Ann Horrigan, as she was
erroneously named in the list of prisoners on the preced-
ing day) was brought up for re-examination on the charge
of having left her two illegitimate children at the house of
Mr. Isaacs, the father of their father, in Duke's-place.
The Lord Mayor had issued a summons requiring the at-
tendance of the alleged father of the children, and Mr.
Wilson, one of the overseers of St. James's, Duke-place, to
whose protection the children were removed, attended for
the parish.
Isaac Isaacs, the reputed father, having made his appear-
ance, was confronted with the girl, who repeated what she
had stated on the preceding day without the slightest varia-
tion, viz., that be had for ten or eleven months contributed
to the support of his twins, but had within the last three
months totally abandoned them and her, and threatened to
use violence towards her if she persisted in applying to him.
In consequence of all of which she had, to save the chil-
dren's lives, left them at his father's house.
Isaacs most solemnly declared that he never in his life
had such knowledge of the girl as she pretended he had.
To be sure he was aware that she had been a servant in
his brother's house.
The LORD MAYOR—Why did you give her money when
she was lying in, and for ten months afterwards supply her,
if you were not aware the children were yours ? Isaacs—
Well) my Cot, I never gave her a farden in my life.
The Girl—Oh, Isaac ! how can you say so ? Didn't
you often and often come to me with two, and three, and
four shillings at a time. Isaacs—Never, s'elp me Cot.
Please you, my Lord, if they was mine, I'd support 'em
like a man ; but she can't bring nobody to prove I'm the

father.
The Girl—Oh, Isaac 1 and didn't you ax me to let the
boy be a Jew, and didn't I consent, and the girl was to be
a Catholic, like me ? Isaacs—Not a bit of it. I'll swear
I knows nothing at all of you. Please you, my Lord, she's
bin touted to this by the Irish.
The Girl—Oh ! it went against my heart to part
with my poor children, but I couldn't see 'em starve. He
knows as well as I do that he's the father ; and if he
helped me ever so little I'd have strove to keep the life in
them.
The LORD MAYOR (to the Overseer)—What sort of
character does this young woman bear in the parish ? Mr.
Wilson—I always knew her to be a steady, sober, decent
person.
Elizabeth Wren knew Catherine Purcell about three
years, and she lived as servant where that young woman
had lived before the birth of the children.
The Lord MAYOR—Did he ever say that he was father
of the children ? Witness—l never heard him say so, but
it was uuderstood that he was the father, and she told me
he was.
Mr. Hobler—Did he send money to her by you ? Wit-
ness—Often. He has given money to me for her when she
was lying-in, and said to me, " Take this to Kitty," which
he used always to call her.
Mr. Hobler—Did anybody else bring money to you from
him. The Girl—Nobody. This woman and himself are
the only persons that brought me money, but I sent an-
other to him.
Jemima Dobley, a married woman, stated that Catherine
Purcell lodged at her mother's house, and at the girl's re-
quest she went to Isaacs to bring him to her after her lying-
in. At another time witness went to Isaacs when Kitty was
very ill, for a little relief for the two children. Upon see-
ing him she said that Kitty and the children, who were ac-
tually starving, were in the greatest distress, and she begged
ho would send them a trifle. He said he would consider of
it, and walked away. Witness had one of the children in
her arms at the time.
The LORD .MAYOR (to Isaacs)—Will you say you know
nothing of the girl now ? Isaacs—Nothing at all, my