The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-13 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

Having cordially admitted, in some observations
which we made last week on the Parliamentary
Paper entitled " Diplomatic Expenses," that we
have no objections to the reasonable allowances of
our Ambassadors at foreign Courts, and that what-
ever the charges under_ this head may still be, the
present Ministry deserve credit for the reductions
which they have effected, we cannot be suspected
of any wish to cavil, if we recur for an instant to the
subject, on a new return which has just been print-
ed. This return embraces the details of four mis-
sions—viz., those to the Netherlands, to Tuscany,
to Wurtemberg, and to France; together ‘vith some
arrear of the diplomatic expenses to Lisbon. We
stated before that we thought the expenses of the
Belgic and Dutch mission extravagant. We may
well call it Belgic and Dutch, for we find that our
Ambassador considers it his duty to keep a house
both at Brussels and the Hague. Not only do we
pay 3001. a year in house-rent for the annual migra-
tion of the Court from one capital to another, but
we find that Sir Charles Bagot does us the
honour of allowing us to pay his travelling expenses
for this short journey, to the tune of nearly
2001. more. It strikes us that a man, who
has 1,1001, a year of salary, and 1,0001. a year

for house-rent, might easily procure his lodgings and
defray his travelling expenses for a single day's
journey, without making an additional charge of
nearly 500/. a year. The fact is, that our Anras-
sador at the ambulatory Court of the Netherlands
must put the Dutch Ministry to shame. His salary,
as we before mentioned, would pay the saldrks of
all the Dutch Cabinet.. Did Sir C. Baget ever in-
quire into the remuneration of one of his predecessors,
of the name of Sir W. Temple ? The expanses cf
this mission, and grounds on which it is defended,
must be inquired into. Into the items or the Paris
mission we shall not enter. The 11,0001. a year of
salary to the Ambassador, and of 1,1001. to the
Secretary, are placed beyond our reach, till we are
prepared to suggest a new arrangement ; but why
saddle us with the expenses of 294/. for servants,
and 374/. for stationery and pamphlets ? The
Noble Ambassador might as well charge John Bull
with the maintenance of his cook, as with the s,thal
of his porter ; and if he chooses to read pamphle, s,
see no more reason why lie should not pay I,r thtin
himself than for the Champagne or Burgurvly drank
at his table. All the items of extraordiuery ex-
pense, in addition to salaries of 12,1001. a year,
amount to 2,116/. With respect to the Embassy
io Tuscany, we can scarcely venture upon any 012-
servations in addition to what we have formerly
said. In addition to an allowance for himself and
his Secretary, of 4,440/., our Noble Envoy at the
Court of Florence has been paid 6741. for a trip to
Itome. Had his Lordship bribed the Conclave,
and bought the election of a Pope, there mig'rt Lave
been some ground for this charge. Nothing of the
kind of course was done: his Lordship was pro-
bably content to bribe the Pope's Chapel-master for
the score of the last anthem.—Times.

Mr. O'Connell has, it appears, from his own de-
claration in Parliament, made a vow never to tight
again. This being the case, it becomes km, by
all motives of honour and good taste, to be pen-
Early guarded in his language—for a man who will
not tight to use abusive or violent language, is
something like sculking behind what has been
called " the sacred shield of cowardice." We ad-
mit that the rule should be reciprocal, and that the
same abstinence from vehement personal invective
which becomes Mr. O'Connell is no less necessary
for all those who think it worth their while to enter
into discussion with him.—Times.
We are glad to find that the public feeling against
the needless and disgraceful severity of the criminal

law is becoming more manifest every day. It is in,-
possible that a system so repugnant to reason, to
sound policy, to Christian sentiment, and to civi-
lization, can loag withstand the opposing power of
enlightened opinion. Even Sir Robert Peel Las
felt himself compelled to admit that our penal code
is more cruel and sanguinary than that of any other
state in Europe, and yet Sir Robert Peel obtained

the credit of having reformed this code—of having
purified it from batbarism, end made it fit for the
ends of justice among a civilized people I—The
laurels that only belong to humane and judicious
legislation were showered upon him by miters who
were either too ignorant to know the truth, or too
servile to avow it. But Sir Robert Peel, when /to
undertook the task of reforming the laws, not having
the comprehensive intellect or the moral courage
which such a task requires, was not competent to
lead public opinion, and must now be content to fol-
low it ; and even that he will do reluctantly and_ un-
graciously—but still he must do it. It is not in the
power of a Secretary of State, or any other adviser
of the Crown, to resist the progress of that moral
power which has gone forth among the people to de-
nounce and overthrow a system of vindictive justice
that, in the revolting and indiscriminate cruelty of its
punishments, sinks the public abhorrence of crime in
sympathy for the offender. Sir Robert Peel ad-
mits the existence of the evil, but, whenever he is
urged to remove it, he talks of the danger of inno-
vation. Yet in what consists the innovation here ?
Simply in retracing our steps, from :he barbarous
accumulation of cruelties which the Statute-book
presents, to the humanity of the common law. We
should always bear in mind, when treating upon
this question, that all the Statutes (if we recollect
right, upwards of sixty in number) which inflict
death for forgery are of comparatively recent origin.
The common law punished this species of fraud as
a misdemeanour, and inflicted on the offender fine
and imprisonment. It did not terrify prosecutors
from bringing criminals to justice by the dread of
shedding human blood, or turn away the people
with sorrow and disgust from the last cruel and ap-
palling exhibition of its vengeance. As to Sir 110.
bert's new Bill respecting forgery, it is calculated to
do no good whatever, notwithstanding the eulogies
which a sycophantic Press poured forth upon it.
Indeed it is more likely to do harm, because it sub-
stitutes a pretended reform, which many, infl.ienced
by the charm of a name, may mistake for genuine
and substantial improvement. We see, however,
that our exposure of this measure has not been lost
on the country. We showed, at a time when the
Ministerial newspapers described this Bill as the
perfection of legislative wisdom, that, as to all prac-
tical purposes, it was but a deception on the piablie,
inasmuch as it only went to abolish the penalty
of death in cases where, in modern days, it
was not, and dared not be, carried into execu-

tion. We are, therefore, gratified to observe Ow:
the public are beginning to understand this, and, to
learn to treat the Bill as it deserves. There were
several petitions presented last night, in tbo House
of Commons, against the severity of the criminal
laws, and among them was one from respect.tble
and numerous inhabitants of Malffiesbury, in the
county of Wilts, whch was presented by Mr. R.
Gordon, and payed not only for the abolition of
the punishment of death for forgery, but that the
Bill recently introduced by Mr., now Sir Robert

_ .
Peel, might not pass into a law. The petitioners
stated that they saw, with considerable pain, that
all the severity of the old laws was retained in the
Proposed Bill, and they, therefore, supplicated the
Legislature that it might not pass. The advocates
of this cruel principle have no longer the support
of the argument which they derived from the sup-
posed protection which it gave to the property bi
bankers. The bmihers in general bear testi-mony
to its inefficiency. They are aware that it is the
cause of multiplying cases of forgery by preventing
people from coming forward to prosecute. There
are in London and other places several houses
that have borne great losses rather than bring the
culprits to justice under the existing law. Need we
wonder, then, that the bankers have so numerously
signed the petitions for the mitigation of the laiv
both in Englan:l and Scotland ? In Edinburgh
alone, as we have already stated, eighteen bankers
affixed their signatures to the petition. At this me-
mega there is a banker most assiduously exerting
himself in travelling from town to town in his own

county, with a sheet of the Bankers General Peti-
tion, which is at present signing throughout the
kingdom, and which bears exclusively the signatures
of bankers. In a letter which he wrote to a friend
of the cause in Landon, he says, " It may be no-
ticed there is not one individual dissenting banker in
either of the towns I have visited." We have to
add, that the Dublin bankers have signed a similar
petition, as well as those of Belfast ; while in other
parts of Ireland the cause is in a state of rapid ad-
varcement. Of the eventual success of the en-
lightened principles which the friends of a mitigated
code advocate there can be no doubt; but it is only
by great and combined exertion that the triumph
can be as speedy as the interests of the public and
of humanity demand.—Morning Herald.
Among the documents which have just been laid
before the House of Commons, there is one which
deserves the especial attention, both of the Legisla-
ture and the country. It is entitled " Diplomatic
Expenses," and gives an account in detail of the
expenditure of various sums of money by Sir
Charles Bagot, his Majesty's Ambassador at the
Court of the Netherlands—Lord Burghers'', at
the Court;of Tuscany—Mr. Disbrowe, at the Court
of Stu tgard—Lord Stuart de Rothsay, at Paris;
and by Mr. Mandeville, the Secretary of the Em-
bassy at Lisbon. We shall probably find room for
this ex:raordinary document on some future day. In
the mean time we cannot help remarking that some
of the items contrast with one another in a very exs_
traordinary manner. Sir Charles Bagot's salary,
for r-xample, at the Court of the Netherlands i-
-11,0001. a year, with an allowance of another
1,0001. for house rent—that of Lord Stuart de
Rothsay being also 11,0001., and an addition
of 1,1001. for house rent—the two embassies
bAng thus placed upon an equality, which the
relative importance of missions does not in any
respect justify. The Government of the Nether-
lands is, in fact, a sort of nonentity in so far as the
welfare of this country is concerned; and all the
duties belonging to it might, we are confident, be
discharged at the rate of 1,0001. or 1,500/. per an-
num at most, with greater benefit to the community
than is now derived from an expenditure of 11,000/.
The Secretary to the Embassy might easily, we
are convinced, do all that is requisite, and be
amply prod for it, at his present allowance of
1,000/. per annum. In the same way we might ask
what is the use of having an Ambassador at the
Court of Stuttgard, and what the benefit of giving
hint a salary of 3,0001. per annum? Still more
justly may we question the propriety of paying
3,000/. per annum for an Ambassador at the Court
uscany —a Court which, it appears from the
detail of the expenses, costs 7,000/. a-year ! But
not the least extraordinary part of the revelations
of the document, is the incidental charges incurred
by the d'fferent Ambassadors. For instance, the
postages of the Ambassador to the Netherlands,
amounted in the year to only 951.; those of the .
Tuscan Ambassador to .5041.! We must also re-'
mark, that Lord Stuart de Rothsay must read an
immense number of useless pamphlets, and consume
a much greater quantity of stationery than is neces-
sary ; for his account on this head amounts to no
lesi a stun than 3741.! while, for postages (not in-
eluding expresses), there is set down no less a sum
than 525/. We might proceed to mention various
other matte's of the same kind, which deserve the
serious attention of the Legislature—but we hiive
done. We have stated enough to prove a suffi-
cient ground of inquiry ; and further we do not wish
to go. The Ambassadors are, no doubt, all very
" honourable men ;" but their duties, we humbly
opine, might be performed at one-half the charge.-
IWonting Advertiser.

The trials for the Doneraile conspiracy must ytt
be fresh in the recollection of the public. Mr.
O'Connell last night moved for papers to enable him
to bring the subject before the House. "On the
third trial," said Mr. O'Connell, " Patrick Daly
was the principal witness ; he had been a spy of
the Magistrates for six or seven years; and he swore
that the prisoners were committee-men of the con-
spirators—that they gave the order as to the persons
to be killed, and drew up and signed the warrant
for their death. He swore that all this was done on
the 27th of April : that witness made a deposition
on the 29th of April, and not one word of this order
for murder, or of this death-warrant was to be
found in it. Mr. Baron Pennefather, who tried the
ease, produced this deposition, and handed it to him
(Mr. O'Connell) at the time of the trial, and on its
production the prisoners were at once acquitted."
The circumstance on which Mr. O'Connell grounded
his belief in Mr. Doherty's knowledge of the perjury
of this witness was thus stated by him :—" There
were several circumstances which showed that the
Learned Gentleman must have been aware of the cor-
tradiction between the testimony that Daly would
give in Court and the circumstances he had stated in
his deposition. Among these was the fact, that he
told the Jury that Patrick Daly would be confirmed
by ia boy, a relative of his, named Owen Daly, whom
be had taken into the tent, and ordered to mark the
writing of the warrant or paper. Now when that
fact was to be. sworn to by Patrick Daly, and to be
confirmed by Owen Duly, some time after it was
said to have recurred, it was almost impossible that
the Learned Gentleman should not have remarked
its entire omission in the deposition of that wit-
ness—(llear, hear !)—a deposition made within two
days after the occurrence."—(Hear, hear.)—Of
course it was not so much the interest of Mr.
Doherty to discover the perjury of Patrick Daly,
and to discover the innocence of the prisoners, as it
was to discover the innocence of the prisoners at
Borris-o'-Kane. Mr. Doherty did not come out of
the business so well as the world might have been
led to expect he would, after the big language used
by him. Lord Althorp, whose impartiality will not
be impeached, frankly told him he did not explain
satisfactorily this business. But then, who shall
say that a prosecutor should not do all he can to
produce a conviction?—!Morning Chronicle.

There is a magnificent contempt in the speech of
Lord Limerick, in the House of Lords, on Tuesday
last, for that numerous class of the community to
which his Lordship is indebted for all that he is
worth. " He was not surprised," he said, " at the
numbers who had signed the petition (presented by
Earl Darnley for the introduction of poor laws into
Ireland). If London, or any other great city were
canvassed, the lower classes of the people would al-
ways be found disposed to throw the burden of pro-
viding fur the poor upon the higher classes." With-
out the labour of the lower classes, the estates of
the 14,i;er would be of no value. If his Lordship's
estate were in a country without inhabitants, it
would be worthless to him. It is because his Lord-
shr) has the advantage of living in a densely peopled
country, that his estate yields him so much more
than an estate of equal size and fertility in the wilds
of America. The land of a country belongs to the
nation inhabiting it, and the right of property in the
soil given to individuals, as best ccnducing to the
general benefit, does not abrogate the right of all
who are in existence to a maintenance. The obliga-
tion to maintain those who cannot purchase a sub-
sistence 0y their labour is one to which all land is
necessarily subject. His Lordship tnust not think
that he can have the benefits of the social union with-
out discharging the corresponding duties. In a
dense population there will always be many who,
from age, infirmities, and at times disproportion
between the supply of labour and the dennaid for
it, who require charitable relief. It is obvious that,
if these people are not relieved by those who are in
more prosperous circumstances, they must become
the prey of want. But independently of all other
considerations, it is not more the duty than it is the
interest of the rich, to prevent the consequences of
unrelieved poverty. " Let us turn the leaf (says
)fir. Barton) and see if we can contemplate without
i.otion the last act of the tragedy. After long
y&trs of struggle with increasing hardship—years of
poverty, and privation, and suffering on the part of
the labourer--the usual consequences of an over-
growth of population, of a deprivation of wholesome
and sullicielit food, of needful clothing, good lodging,

and the other necessaries of life, begin to make them-
selves manifest in the terrible forms of pestilence."
" I apprehend," he adds, " that no intelligent man
of the present day, whatever opinion he may enter-
tain on the much-disputed question of contagion,
doubtS that the prevalence and malignity of con-
tagious fever is, in a great measure, determined by
the greater or less pressure of poverty among the
labouring classes of the community. That deficiency
of nutriment is the principal source of epidemic
fever,' says Dr. Bateman, who is not a disbeliever
in the existence of contagion, scarcely admit of
dispute. The history of all nations affords abundant
evidence of the constant concurrence of dearth
and pestilence.'" Can Lord Limerick have such an
imperfect sense of moral obligation as to conceive
that the great mass of society ought to be placed
on the footing of the brutes that perish; that the
rich should profit by their toil ; and when they are
worn out, cast them out to all the horrors of desti-
tution ? The poor are of far more consequence in
any country than the rich, because they are more
numerous. If it were necessary to choose between
the destruction of the higher classes of any country
and the destruction of the poor, there can be no
question that the former ought to be sacrificed.
But it is not necessary that either rich or poor
should be sacrificed; and it is necessary that the
rich man should be protected in his property, in
order that the poor should also be protected. But
when rich men talk in this heartless selfish way, as
if the poor were without a title to existence, they
undermine the foundations of social order, and pre-
pare a pit into which they themselves may be the
first to fall. They should never cut the bonds
which hold society together. Abuses have crept,
no doubt, into the Administration of the English
Poor Laws; but in what a state would the poor be
without the protection afforded by these laws, and
in what a state would the rich be in the long run,
for care of the poor is really synonimous with secu-
rity of property ? In the very worst conceivable
case in England, the poor have a home, and a right
to a maintenance, and we know nothing of the com-
binations to burn and murder to which the Irish are
driven by the fear of destitution, and the spectacle
of wretches abandoned to famine and disease, so
frequent in Ireland. The following case in the
Essex Herrld, of Tuesday last, exhibits the Poor
Laws in perhaps their worst aspect :
" William Rolph and Joseph Collis, two labourers, ap-
peared to prefer a complaint against the overseer of the
parish of Writtle, fur refusing to make up their wages to a
sum sufficient for the maintenance of their families.

" The complainants, who appeared to be strong able-
bodied men, stated, that they were employed in hoeing
beans ror Mr. Isaac Humphry, a farmer io Writtle, who,
though they worked very hard, would not give them more
than one shilling a day ; or when he let them a job, did
it on such low terms, that it was impossible they could
earn more ; observing, if they complained, ' there is the
job, if you like to do it—if you don't, leave it.' Mr.
Humphry being a parishioner, they had no alternative but
to do the work at his price, and then apply to the overseer
for 7s. or Ss. each on the Saturday nicfht. Latterly the
overseer had refused to give them anything.
The overseer said, that as the paupers had five chil-
dren each, Le was well aware they could not support them-
selves upon Is. a day ; but his intention in allowing the
complainants to come to the Bench was, that he might be
advised how to proceed as regarded Mr. Humphry. Far-
mers, ho said, in that neighbourhood paid good wages for
their work at this time of the year, so that able-bodied
labourers were enabled to support their families without
any assistance from the parish ; but Mr. Humphry de-
viated from this practice, and would not give his labourers
above one-half the sam paid by his neighbours. In con-
sequence of this, his workmen were compelled to have a
weekly allowance from the parish, some of them as much
as Ss. a week ; and when Mr. Humphry was remonstrated
with upon the subject, he threatened to turn off all his
labourers who belong to the parish of Writtle, and take
others from the neighbouring parish of Blackmore.

" The Bench said that this seas one of those cases
which illustrated the abuses of the present poor laws—
and to which a great part of the degradation, misery, and
pauperism of the peasantry was to be attributed. This
evil would be very properly remedied by Mr. Slaney's
Bill, which, if passed, would enable the overseer to levy
a labour rate ; so that if the farmer would not pay above
half the regular wages to his workmen, the other half
must still come from his own pocket, though in another
shape. As regarded Mr. Humphry, they advised the
overseer to rate hint 201. or 501. a-year more than those
who pail good wages ; and they expressed their opinion,
that the overseer would be able to justify this proceeding
in case of an appeal, because, as Mr. Humphry got his
farm cultivated fin• 20 or 30 per cent. less than the ether
parishioners, it would be so much more profitable to him,
and the rates ought to be assessed in proportion to the
profit made.
" The overseer said he would suggest this plan to the
parishioners, who, he had no doubt, would adopt the
recommendation.
"The complainant was then dismissed."

_
Now what would have been the state of things
here had there been no poor laws ? Is it not ob-
vious that there is a redundancy of labourers, other-
wise Mr. Humphry could not have turned his own
men off, and called in men from the neighbouring
parish ? Were it not, then, for the poor laws, the
farmers of Essex would be able to reduce the wages
of their labourers to a shilling a-day. The humanity
of individuals would be of no avail, for one farmer,
availing himself of the competition of the labourers
for employment, would be able to force his neigh-
bours to pay as little as himself. But the poor laws
step between the labourer and his employer, and say
that a subsistence he shall have, and if he get it not
in the shape of wages, he shall get it in the shape
of rates, so that the rich cannot avail themselves of
the competition of the poor to sink them into that
depth of misery in which they are plunged in Ire-
land. Were it not for the poor laws, the numbers
of the poor would soon sink them to the level of
Irish misery. "No one cause (observes Mr. Bar-
ton) is so destructive of prudent forethought as a
state of abject and miserable poverty; and I appeal
to every man's personal observation whether it is not
just in the very lowest classes of society that the
greatest recklessnes of the future prevails. Nor let
it be said that our poor laws, by averting, in some
measure, from the labourer the fatal consequences of
his own imprudence, have generated this reckless-
ness; for it is in Ireland, where no parochial relief
exists, that population increases with far the greatest
rapidity."—Morning Chronicle.
The Morning Journal Newspaper will be, this
day, for the last time before the public. We have
neither leisure nor spirits to revert, at any length, to
what is past; but those who have watched our pro-
gress from the commencement to the termination of
our career will bear testimony that we have honestly,
and fearlessly, and consistently maintained the prin-
ciples with which we set out, on a hazardous, and,
as it now appears, a fatal voyage. Up to the last
moment we retain the consciousness that we have
practically illustrated the text of one of Britain's best
and bravest : •
" England expects that every man will do his duty."
We confidently appeal to our country, whether,
under a series of persecutions, almost, if not alto-
gether unparalleled, we have not proceeded in .the
same bold and independent course that we held in
the day of our prosperity. While these persecutions
operated more ruinously than ever our persecutors
could possibly hare anticipated, the spirit that
animated us remained unsubdued ; we perse-
vered in opposing, by every means in our
power, the men whom we knew to be dangerous,
arid the measures that we saw were pregnant with
destruction. Though labouring under accumulated
evils—suffering privations at which the f►ee and the
prosperous shudder, with the almost certainty of
ruin to our property—we still continued to give
emphasis to the expression of one of our bitterest
foes, who, under the influence of disappointed rage,
was heard to exclaim
" We 'ye seotch'il the snake, not killed it."
To-day will, however, be a day of triumph to
those who have long resolutely sought our ruin.
They will for awhile imagine that the thorn has
been plucked from their side, and that they may
pursue the evil course without a solitary voice to
ask " Where go ye ?" or a single arm to enforce the
mandate, " Ye shall go no farther ! " But they
deceive themselves—there is a spirit abroad they

cannot crush. The' Ward "liberty" is not yet an
empty sound in Britain, and those who seek to
level with the dust all her most sacred institutions
will speedily find that, though Englishmen can
endure much in patience and in silence, they well
know there is a point beyond which forbearance is
no longer a virtue. It is, however, our desire to
suppress our feelings—feelings to which, indeed, we.
are unable to give adequate expression. It does not
become the oppressed to speak in a tone of even
anticipated triumph, at the very moment when the
Wove of the oppressor hath descended heavily upon
him. It may now matter little whom, as public
journalists, we eulogize or blame—what measures
we uphold or condemn—what principles we abjure
or cherish—the blow of a dying man must be
harmless, though the spirit that suggests the
effort cannot be despised. Powerless we may
now be, but we have still the deep, the un-
dying desire to avert the evils with which,
from the depth of our soul, we believe this
country to be threatened—this desire neither
poverty nor a prison can subdue. But. if our
country is to be the victim of wicked and de-
signing apostacy, or to owe its ruin to apathy or dis-
union, we shall, at least, retain the remembrance that
we fell at our post with our front towards the enemy.
If there be some who will rejoice at our destruction,
we know there are many who will deeply and ear-
nestly sympathise with us. From time to time we
have published declarations on the part of Dearly all
our contemporaries, proving alike to our friends and
our foes the strong feeling that existed relative to
the base, oppreSsive, and unconstitutional efforts
that have been made to effect our ruin. Their sym-
pathy will not be lessened when they find how com-
pletely such efforts have succeeded. There are also
many private individuals—and among them several
of rank and influence—to whom our gratitude is due:
not a few have nobly and generously assisted us—
their patriotic liberality will long be to us the sub-
ject of grateful recollection. If there be some, and
some there unquestionably are, by whom aid was
promised, and looked for, but in vain—who were
ready to acknowledge us in the time of our pro-
sperity, but who, when " fallen upon evil days,"
left us to our fate, not only with hopes unrealized,
but with pledges unredeemed—of such we have only
to say, that we leave them to their own reflections
—to the scorn of their opponents—to the contempt
of all who are friends to consistency and truth.—
Morning Journal.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

lIANSION-HOUSE.

A young man, named Jenkins, was charged by
Mr. Jones, a glover, with having stolen some goods.
The lad's mother was placed next *to him at the
bar, being charged by him with having induced him
to commit the robbery.
.. .

The LORD MAYOR said it was a very dreadful
case, but unfortunately not a singular one. He had
had the misfortune to witness one something similar
the day before. His Lordship then desired the
officers to make strict inquiry into the facts, and both
prisoners were remanded, and ordered to be kept
separate.