The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-04 00:00:00

rei:Fon

t)r. LUSIIINGTON assented to that proposal, and
Sir iIEanEHT .JENNER accordingly assi7,ned Mr. Attwood
to extract probate on the next Court or to nominate a
Perron to ANhoin the administration shouid be granted.
Dr. ADDAMM for his party, claimed the costs.

The COURT bored that tbey n•ould not be preF,ed for, but
RS they were be. was compelled by the practice to conderna
Mr. Attwood in costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

HATTON-GARDEN.
Yesterday George Sharpe, Edward Eric,William .Davies,
mid George Vincent, P-..eeps, were brought before Mr. BEN.
NETT and Mr. HALI-,, charged by hieing(' Bird. the street-
keeper of Bedfor( -row, Holborn, with hang created a dis-
turbance, and: assaulting him.
`f he prisoners were dressed up ill an eccentric style, Sharpe
and Ellis were clowns; Davis \vas papered and spangled as
.4 My Lord," and 'Vincent, as "Jack in th:: Green."
Bird stated that yesterd.y morning, about twelve o'clock,
the prisoners entered
,P,Alfortl-rolv with a fife and drum.
followed by an immense treowd of persons, when tbey com-
menced daneing awl disturbing, th 2 whale of the neigh.
bourLood. He ,ordeled them to retnove, when they refused;
and, on makinr; an effort to remove them, Davies struck him,
nnd he nas Immediately surrounded and beaten by them,
and he ATunld have been murdered had it not teen for the
arrival of the police.
A witness corroborated this evidence.

Mr. BENNETT asked Davis what he had to say ? -
Davies (in a gruff vo;.,„!e)—Vy, my Lord, I am a serveep;
my father Was a scrycep afore me; and we always was 'lowed
to r,-c, about in Maw. "1:-.1e beadle pushed us along, yen I sar-
tainly did strike but he hit my child on its head.
Mr, PEN:if:TT asked Bird why he used his stiff? Bird—l
was 'bliged in self-defence. They were all upon mc, your
'Worship.
Mr. BENNETT—YOU have acted rather intemperately ; you
ought not to have iteti your staff.
Davies—We :Lod him if we might have a dance, and vile
ve wer in thr2. Teel round " Jack in the Green," he cued and
turned ',ts a-ay for nuffen votsumdever ; there are some o'
thes;,, pre chaps Tot goes about vet are not servceps (pulling
V,e his trowsers) but if yer Vorship vants to be satisfied on
Otat ere subject, only look at my knees (showing large
corns on his knee-pans) I assure yer Vorship ye arc rc.,,lar
flue-flakers, and I've been op the smallest flues in the country.
I WAS born a servecp, I've lived a serveep: and I'll die.a
serveep.—( Laughter.)
Mr. BENNETT—I certainly must say that it is very irregu-
lar for such persons to go about the streets creating a mob
and disturbance, but it is an ancient custom, antl they ought
not to be interfered with. (To Bird)-_I think you would act
wifely not to press the matter.
Bird said he would not, and the whole of the prisoners were

LONDON,
WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 4, 1836.

We recommend to our readers a careful perusal of
the debate on the motion brought forward last night in
the House of Comthons by Sir WILLIA M MOLES-
WORTH, for a Select Committee to inquire into the
coaduct of the COMMA NDER-IN-CIIIEF, 'in appoint-
ing Lord Bnun ENEL L to the Lieutenant-Coloneley of
the 11th Light Dragoons. The great point at issue
in this question is not the merit or demerit of the un-
fortunate person who has been thus gibbeted before the
public, and whose conduct appears the more indefen-
sible the more his case is investigated ; but whether the
COMMANDER of the FORCES is responsible to the
Representatives of the people for the manner in which
he discharges his important office. This is the question
raised by Sir W. MOLES WORTH'S motion, and the
House of Commons has decided it in the negative by
a' great majority. What the real grounds of this
decision may have been we do not pretend to know ;
hut of this we are sure, that the ostensible ones put
forth by the opponents of the motion, will not be very
satisfactory to the country. The plea, that to insti-
tute such an inquiry as that proposed would be an in-
fringement of the Royal prerogative, is almost too
contemptible for, notice. In what respect is it so ? If
the conduct of those whom the KING places at the
head of other departments of the executive Govern-
ment is subject to the control of Parliament,
why is the Head of the Army to be exempted ? Is
there not, on the contrary, the greatest reason for exer-
cising a more titan usually vigilant superintendance
over the military branch of the Executive ? Has it not
always been inculcated as sound constitutional doc-
trine by the liberal party in the State at least, that we
ought to entertain the greatest jealousy towards
those who have the army at their diAposal—
mais nous arsons change tout cela. A new light has
broken in upon us in these days of Reform. Instead
of having the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF fully respon-
sible to the people for all his acts, we have the
convenient doctrine of a quasi-zesponsibility—a re-
sponsibility of that peculiar kind which makes a man