The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MAY 26, 1836.

was upon him. Whether a similar fate is likely at
any time to repay the Irish agitators for their many
deceptions, we need not now stop to consider ; but we
feel very confident that the present attempt to make a
disturbance in the empire, by crying aloud, and not
only complaining, but threatening, when no real
grievance oppresses them, will be treated by the Eng-
lish public with the cold and contemptuous neglect
which it deserves. The Irish Roman Catholics " agi-
tated" for emancipation, and they obtained it ; they
also " agitated" for Parliamentary Reform, and they
obtainefit. But if they suppose that either of these
were obtained merely by their agitation—if they
imagine that the British nation had regard only
to their complaints, or to their serious aspect of
disturbance, when it granted them these political
rights, they greatly deceive themselves. It was the
general conviction throughout Great Britain that
these rights ought to be granted ; a conviction ante-
cedent to, and independent of, their " agitation,"
which caused them to be granted ; and if no such con-
viction had existed, they might have agitated until the
" crack of doom ;" or, at all events, until the national
character and spirit of Great Britain had undergone a
total change, without obtaining these concessions. The
Irish agitators are, therefore, quite mistaken in sup-
posing that whatever they want they can force from
Great Britain, by producing a great and annoying dis-
turbance. If they want to succeed they must begin
by persuading us that either on general or particular
grounds—either on the ground of universal and ab-
stract political justice, or the ground of their own pe-
culiar deserts—they have a good right to what they
ask. With regard to the Irish Municipal Corpora-
tions, we have, on former occasions, shown the rea-
sons that Mr. O'Connell's Bill—for such we are jus-
tified in calling it, though adopted by the Government
—would not be an act of political justice, but the con-
trary. It would not be a gift of liberty to. the people, but
a gift of additional power to a set of political leaders who
have grossly abused the power already in their hands ;
neither would it be an act of justice with reference to
the particular merits of those who demand that it may
be made law, for their conduct has been such as to
merit punishment, rather than favour. Hitherto that
which has been conceded, has not been to them, but
to their cause ;. and most fully have they shown, that
if to them, and not to their cause, the concessions
had been made, they would have been most rash and
unjustifiable concessions. They have no merits of
their own to plead. They have not been grateful—
they have not been even honest ; but turning every
good
ogiven them into a weapon of offence,
they clash their arms thus acquired, and think to frighten
us by the sound, into whatever terms they may choose
to dictate. The agitators will find, however, that Eng-
land has profited by her experience, and will laugh to
scorn any attempt to extort from her fears that which
her sense of right does not prompt her voluntarily to
afford. The machinery of the new agitation has been
sufficiently exposed. It has not even the excuse of being
the outpouring of erroneous popular sentiment. It is
not the work of the people, but of a few persons, who
use the ignorant masses as the instruments of their own
advancement to notoriety and power. It is absurd to
call such petitions as will be procured from Ireland on
the subject of the Corporations Bill, the petitions of
the people. We have seen that the people are directed
by the Committee of agitators in Dublin to prepare these
petitions. Were the people really aggrieved they would
need no prompting of this kind. But there is in truth
no public feeling or intelligence among the Irish Ro-
man Catholic people. They are kept in that state that
the agitators may do with them what they will ; and if
the petitions are evidence of any thing, it is merely this,
than they who have got them up can wield at will the
fierce democracy in Ireland. They are no evidence
that the democracy has any intelligence or even will of
its own. If an absolute tyrant got possession of the
British Government, and Mr. O'Connell and the priests
found it their interest (as very probably they would)
to agitate in his favour, they could procure addresses
to the tyrant just as readily as they can procure peti-
tions against the integrity of our free Constitution.
The Irish masses are like masses of gunpowder, which
may lie harmlessly enough, or may be usefully applied;
but the agitators arc the men who carry the burning
brands, and explode this material, where they think
it will do most mischief. To attribute political de-
sign, or political thought to the " millions," of whom
Mr. O'Connell talks so glibly, is as erroneous as it
would be attribute design to the powder. which
the engineer explodes. The agitators have an un-
doubted right to all the odium, and all the responsibi-
lity, of whatever may seem to be done by the Irish
Roman Catholic people ; and we trust that the British
public will not withhold from them one jot or tittle of
this right. But whatever strew or semblance of reason
there might be in Irish " agitation" to promote an Irish
question by the ordinary means of British legislation,
we are sure that no such resemblance can be found in
the monstrous audacity of the present attempt. No-
thing less will now serve the unprincipled leaders of
these unintelligent masses, but a revolution in the Br:-
tish Constitution itself. They must, forsooth, judge
for us ; and, because they are not satisfied with our
House of Lords, agitate for its overthrow. If the Mi-
nisters of the Crown are mean and spiritless enough to
countenance these attempts from such a quarter, we
are sure they will meet with no sympathy from the
British people. Such advocacy were enough almost
to bring reform itself into disrepute, and certainly will
not tend to make sober Englishmen in love with revo-
lution. Ministers must give the English public very
little credit for observation if they think that the coun-
tenance shewn to Mr. O'Connell's present attempt will
pass without notice, and very little credit for national
spirit if they suppose that being noticed, it will not be
resented.—Morning Herald.
Lord Palmerston appears to be very appropriately
represented at Madrid by the resident British Minister
there, Mr. Villiers. Whoever is able to persuade
himself that the Chief of the Foreign Office in London
is an able servant of the Crown, and administrator for
the public, would find little difficulty in coming to a
similar opinion respecting the agent at Madrid. On
the other hand, they who cannot avoid the conviction
that our Foreign Minister-in-Chief is a man of little
wisdom and 'much vanity—a man very weak and very
obstinate—very haughty and imperious where he is
openly and honestly opposed, yet capable of being
made a tool of by any one who condescends to the
trouble of humouring his foibles—they who have these
convictions concerning the Minister-in-Chief will
scarcely fail to think similarly of his deputy at Madrid.
As a politician, Mr. Villiers is a Lord Palmerston in
a small way, and that must be something very small in-
deed. For two or three years of Lord Palmerston's
distinguished career in the Foreign
canoet
iffilwecaes same hpeerws
soaonsrat
personally.
dupe and the instrument of the French Government.
conveniencel'a' l Talleyrand made
that
ifs
him,gold-headed politically,
The French Government no longer requires the good
offices of Lord Palmerston, and has latterly takenb
pains to play upon his weakness. The consequence
is, that his Lordship is no longer so devoted to the
" intimate union as he once was. But his friend at
Madrid has got but a little beyond the commencement
of that course which his Lordship has so characteristi-
cally completed. M. de Rayneval has just succeeded
in out-manceuvering Mr. Villiers as completely as ever
M. de Talleyrand did the Noble Secretary for Foreign
Affairs. The only difference is that the Frenchman at
Madrid, less expert than the great master of his pro-
fession in London, has allowed Mr. Villiers to see
that he has been outwitted, while the Noble Lord in
Downing-street did the work of the Freen,dtchhinsMgtat butiensismtearn,
and suffered himself to be duped over and over again,
his
einwhu beliefapp thatyuncon unconsciousness tthhaet
best
-dressed
about town, and the least vulgar. While Mendizabal
was Chief Minister at Madrid the English interest
was confessedly all-powerful; and most undoubtedly,
whatever may have been the value of that influence,
Lord Palmerston ought in reason to have had it, for
he has made the British nation pay dearly enough for
it. To say nothing of the money lent by British sub-
jects, under the circumstance of the favour and pro-
tection shown by our foreign department to the Go-
vernment of Madrid, we have furnished in munitions
of war, and in services as watchmen along the coast,
quite enough to have deserved all the advantage which
our paramount interest with that Government could pos-
sibly afford ; but that is gone. In spite of all the assist-
ance which his radical Privy Councillor (for such he has

at Madrid) could give Mr. Villiers, he has been over-
come—his Prime Minister has been obliged to give
way, and M. de Rayneval, and the Government which
he represents, are clearly in the ascendant. The
causes of this change are said to be immediately con-
nected with military matters. The assistance which
Great Britain has afforded having been effectual only
to plunge the Government at Madrid more deeply in
debt, the Queen-Regent and her General-in-Chief are
said to be of opinion. that nothing but the military
assistance of France will restore the North of Spain

to obedience, and that nothing was less likely to lead
to that assistance than the evident connection of the
Prime Minister, Mendizabal, with the English party.
From whom this latter opinion. was derived it is not
difficult to (mess ; and it may have been perfectly safe
for M. de guess
to go thus far without committing
himself by any promise that such assistance would ac-
tually be given. As for Cordova, it has long been
understood that he despairs of dislodging Don Carlos,
except by a great additional force, or by an attack from
the French side of his position. It may also be pre-
sumed, without much risk of error, that Cordova is desi-
rous that the overthrow of Don Carlos, if it ever does take
place, may not be attributed to the exertions of foreign
mercenaries, under the command of an officer who, in the
army of his own country, holds a very subordinate rank.
The English Minister ial papers having heard something
of Cordova's concern in the late change at Madrid
threaten him, after their manner, with " disaffection"
in his army. There is some incaution in this. If
Cordova's troops be held by so slight a rein of dis-
cipline that suspiciim of his interference in politics at
Madrid will cause them to become disaffected, what sort
of dependence can be placed upon them under any cir-
cumstances ? But the insinuation that the suspicion of
any disinclination towards the foreign mercenaries
would shake the influence of Cordova with his soldiers '
is without a particle of foundation in truth or even pro-
bability. On the contrary, nothing would bind them
to him more than a firm belief that he hated those fo-
reigners, who eat the provisions and receive the pay
which the Spaniards think they ought to have all to
themselves. But will France give the assistance
which Cordova—supposing him really an enemy
of Don Carlos—wishes to have ? Very proba-
bly she will not ; but in the meantime the Eng-
lish influence is overthrown, and the encouragement
which it gave to the progress of the democratic prin-
ciple is arrested. France—that is Louis Philippe—
will do nothing with respect to Spain, except for the
ultimate object of preventing democratic disturbance.
Hitherto the position of Don Carlos has stood in the
way of such Republican movements as would have
been made, were it not that he must be attended to first.
Louis Phillippe and his crowned friends -in the North
understand this very well ; and they will not allow a
change to be made, except under some arrangements
which will secure Spain against the Republicans. Bri-
tish ascendancy, under the present direction of British
affairs, would not favour such arrangements, and there-
fore that ascendancy was, at all events, to be got rid of.
The Proem adores, however inclined to storm at first,
may be brought to reason, or, if found pertinacious,
they may be dissolved. If there be any energy left in
the de,facto Government of Spain, there are abundant
means in the hands of Government to get a majority
by a new election.—Morning Post.

The Tories are already awed at the consequences
likely to result from their attempt to destroy popular
influence in the municipal government of Ireland—
and their partisans of the press endeavour to shift the
responsibility from the shoulders of their patrons to
those of the Ministers, whose liberal intentions they
have for a while marred by labouring through a mire
of falsehood, sophistry, and shameless audacity, to
show that " if there is to be a quarrel—riot—a dis-
turbance—danger—destruction"—the cause is attri-
butable to the 'Reformers, and not to their opponents.
Amongst other fallacies, equally atrocious, it is asserted
that the measure substituted by the . Lords for the
Ministerial measure of Irish Municipal Reform, and
which does not contain more than eight out of one
hundred and forty-one clauses which constituted the
original Bill, is identical in principle with the measure
which it has substituted. This assertion is too flagrant
to require refutation, and need be mentioned only
to excite contempt. The main principle of the Mi-
nisterial measure was reform—that of the Lyndhurst
measure is abolition. Are these principles identical
Let the present outbreak of popular indignation re-
spond to the query. The Peers themselves sanctioned
one principle at the second nailing of the Bill, and in
Committee rejected the principle of their adoption, and
introduced one diametrically opposed to it. The Bill
of the Commons abolished the old Corporations of Ire-
land, with a view to reconstruction—but that of the
Lords proposes the retention of the greatest nui-
sances of the old system, such as the preservation
of the franchise to existing freemen, and the se-
curing to the old corporators the plunder, pay, and
emolument of which they are now in possession.
To prove their consistency, the very party wh o
opposed the Irish Constabulary' Bill, on the plea of
its vesting excessive patronage in the Lord Lieu-
tenant, now propose to place the fifty-one corporate
towns which are to be deprived of their charter, under
the irresponsible authority of that functionary, who
is also to have the nomination of the seven Commis-
sioners, Recorders, Registrars of Courts of Conscience,
Registrars of Courts of Record, Sheriffs, Justices,
Clerks of the Crown, Clerks of the Peace, Police-
men, Constables, Coroners, Clerks of Markets, Weigh-
master, Assay-masters, Butter-tasters, &c., &c. This
alone is sufficient to prove the total disregard of cha-
racter and political principle which distinguish the
abettors of the Lyndhurst Corporation Abolition Bill
—and yet these outcast politicians do not blush to
talk of honesty—as if the term was not defiled by their
very utterance of it. But the day of retribution is
fast approaching, and those who now profanely appeal
to justice, will be smitten with a judgment as righ-
teous as their transgressions are inquitous.—Morning
Advertiser.

VIOE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

POWYS V. MANSFIELD.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL made a novel motion in this
case. The question, it will be recollected, was whether
the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of ten thousand pounds
under the will of Sir John Barrington, in addition to a sum
of ten thousand pounds, settled by Sir John on the mar-
riage of his niece with the plaintiff. The cause was heard
in November last ; but his Honour reserved his judgment
till the 22d of January last, when he pronounced a decree,
bearing that date, in favour of the plaintiff, which is now
the subject of an appeal. Sir John and Lady Simeon,
and Mr. Simeon their infant son, were defendants. On
the part of Mr. Simeon a common infant's answer had
been put in. At the hearing the evidence of Mr. Hearne,
the solicitor for these defendants, was adduced, which
tended to prove that the plaintiff, at the time of his mar-
riage, was aware of Sir John Barrington's will, and
of his intention to give his niece one sum of ten
thousand pounds, and that the plaintiff said on that
occasion he would prefer a deed to the will, as the
former was irrevocable. This evidence was rejected, on
the ground that it had not been put in issue by the answers
of the adults. It was then tendered on the part of Mr.
Simeon, the infant ; but his Honour held it was equally
inadmissible on his behalf. The decree having in the
usual manner reserved to Mr. Simeon six months to show
cause against it after be should come of age, and be served
with a copy of it, the present motion was now made on his
behalf for liberty to file a new answer, and set up a now
defence to the bill. Mr. Simeon was of age on the
7th of February last. The arguments upon the rights of
an infant defendant in such a case as this occupied the
Court the whole day.
Mr. KNIGHT opposed the motion.
His HONOUR considered the reservation in the decree in
favour of Mr. Simeon as amounting to nothing, it being the
fact that Mr. Simeon was of age when when the decree was
pronounced. But he would reserve his judgment for a
week, to allow the cases to be examined.

KING'S BENCH.-WEDNESDA Y.

HICHCOCK V. COKER.

Lord DENMAN delivered the judgment of the Court in
this case. This was an action brought upon an agreement
by which the defendant, who had been in the employ of the
plaintiff, a druggist at Taunton, had entered into an agree-
ment not to carry on that business within three miles of
that town, or to pay the plaintiff 5001. The defendant
subsequently left the service of the plaintiff, and set up in
business as a chemist and druggist in the town of Taunton.
The plaintiff upon that brought his action to recover the
5001. The Jury found for the plaintiff. An application
had afterwards been made to the Court to arrest the jadg•

ment. The Court, after taking time to consider, thought
that this agreement was illegal. The judgment must there-
fore be arrested.

-- -
POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HO USE.

A female, named Sarah Slow, respectably dressed, and
about thirty years of age, was brought, in the custody of
John Forsyth the officer, before Sir PETER LAURIE, who
sat for the Lord Mayor, charged with having committed a
forgery under rather extraordinary circumstances. Mr.
Bush, the solicitor to the Committee of Bankers for pro-
tection against forgeries and frauds, attended for the prose-
cution, and Mr. Humphries appeared for the prisoner.
Mr. Bush, in describing the case, said that the prisoner
called herself Mrs. Hutchinson, but it was ascertained that
her 'name was Sarah Slow.

Sir PETER LAURIE desired to know from the prisoner
what her name was ?

Mr. Humphries—There is no occasion for her to tell
who or what she is.

The prisoner—I shall leave the business in the hands of
my solicitor.
Mr. Robert Milner, of the firm of Bailey, Milner, and
Co., mercers, St. Paul's Church-yard, deposed, that on the
25th of April, a person who to the best of his recollection
was the prisoner, obtained of him a check for the sum of
Si., in exchange for eight sovereigns. After having had
some conversation with one of the shopmen, and paid for
some articles which she purchased, she asked witness whe-
ther he could oblige her with a check for the 81. for gold,
as she wanted to send the money into the country, and the
transmission of it in cash would be awkward. Witness
acquiesced, and wrote down the lady's name and address,
viz., Mrs. Cunningham, No. 1, Connaught-terrace, Edg-
ware, Paddington. There were many ladies in the shop at
the time, but witness believed her to be the female who got
from him his check for the money.
Mr. HUMPHRIES—Were you sent for to see her yester-
day? Witness—l was.
Mr. HUMPHRIES—And did you not say when you first
saw her that she was not the person ? Witness—l did.
She was much excited, but when I heard her voice I was
satisfied that she was the female who had had the check,
and I expressed myself strongly to that effect.
Mr. John Lent, a clerk at Messrs. Hankey's banking-
house, on the 25th of April, paid three 201. notes, and 201.
in gold to a female, who presented him a check for what
appeared to him to be 801., drawn by Mr. Milner. The
notes were numbered and dated, 6,682, March 25, 1836 ;
6,683, March 25, 1836 ; and 7,769, March 29, 1836. He
had a strong impression that the prisoner was the person
who presented the check. He now believed that a forgery
had been committed in the check by.the addition of the let-
ter " y," and the introduction " 0" after 8, by which the ori-
ginal sum for which it was drawn was altered from 8/. to 80/.
Mr. John Chamberlain, shopman to Mr. Howell, of No.
79, Gracechurch-street, mercer, deposed that the prisoner
called at the shop on the 25th of April, between four and
five o'clock, and made purchases to the amount of 71., for
which she paid with one of the 20/. notes now produced.
She was remanded for a week.