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

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The public has reason to be satieflea with the con-
stitution of the Committee appointed to inquire into
the Administration of the Itoval Dublin Society. It
is composed of gentlemen,distin-guisbed for the most
part by intelligence, who will prosecute their inquiries
efficiently, and adopt such conclusions as a Clear and
independent view of the question shalt suggest. Their
object, as defined by the resolution of the House, is to
find out if the Society is capable of being so adminis-
tered as to ensure a wider extension of the advantages
derived from the Parliamentary grant. If they shall
be of opinion that the institution is already on a (suffi-
ciently wide and liberal basis, they will express their
approval of it ; but if, as we anticipate, it shall appear
to there that the affairs of the Society are conducted on
a narrow principle, such as the public cannot approve
or concur in, that the benefaction of the nation is, in
fact, managed and dispensed by a party which arrogates
to itself all the literary patronage of the country,
the Committee will not hesitate to recommend
alterations in the constitution of the Society cal-
culated to extend its popularity and its usefulness.
Merely to suspend the yearly grant, and leave
so flourishipg an este.'olishment in hands which
now exercise•thotabsolute mastery over it, would be to
yield the palm of 'victory to that principle of pitiful
jealousy and, exclusion, which is incompatible with the
successful pursuit of liberal science. We suspect the
knot-which manages the Dublin Society would desire
nothing better. 'For the funds at their command,
from the accumulations of former bounties, would
amply supply the uses most dear to their scientific
aspirations. But the institution should be preserved
for the public, whose it is ; and for that purpose, if
its present managers are incapable, or their method
vicious and defective, an amended system ought to be
proposed, and responsible trustees invested with au-
thority to give it effect. It is quite clear that Par-
liament has a right to impose laws and internal
regulations upon Societies which depend, in a
great measure, upon its.,bounty for support. And
the evidence which shall be laid before this Com-
mittee will leave little doubt as to the propriety
of Parliament exercising its right in the present
case. The Society or rather the cabal which directs
its affairs, is making some awkward plunges to
get out of the gasconading attitude it had as-
sumed. They have qow come out with some lame and
tardy explanations in-the form of a memorial to the
Lord Lieutenant, which pretends to be an answer to
Mr. Drummond's masterly exposure of their trickery
and ignoran‘se. But with the usual fate of such at-
tempts, it. has only served to fix them deeper in the
mire. Without explaining why they excluded Arch-
bishop Murray from their body, they " disclaim most
unequivocally the existence of any political feeling in
the Society." But on the very day before they made
this shuffling disavowal, Mr. Shaw, in their name, and
we doubt not well informed by some of themselves, de-
clared in the House of Commons that Dr. Murray had
been excluded because " he had connected himself
with the publication of a work which had justly caused
much public evsitement and disgust in the minds of
the Protestant population of Ireland ; and"—mark this,
reader,--because " he had stepped from his former
comparative retirement, to become the political partisan
9fthe lion. and Learned Member for Dublin, by sub-
scaibing to what was termed his Tribute." Mr. Shaw's fa-
ther is a Vice-President of the Society, and was in the
chair when the memorial disclaiming all political feeling
was adopted by a majority of 62. But perhaps we
shall be told that Dens' Theology and the O'Connell
Tribute are not political topics. Be it so. But inde-
pendent of this little admission by the Recorder, how
could the Society venture to disclaim such motives in
the face of the citizens of Dublin, who had seen their
walls, for several days before the ballot took place,
placarded with appeals to the " Loyal Protestants" to
come forward and reject the Popish Dignitary ? How
can they account for the list of Orange functionaries
and marksmen, who flocked in from all quarters to
obey that summons ? Can they deny that in order to
make the insult to the Catholic Archbishop more
marked, they elected a bootmaker into their Society, on
the very next public day after Dr. Murray's rejection. ?
It is alleged again that the rejection of candidates
is not a common practice. There have been only
four rejections in 35 years. But the exclusion
practised by this Society is not to be measured
by the number of persons actually rejected_
For, as we olaspresa on a former occasion, it was their
obvious pOilny rather to prevent unwelcome candidates
from approaching their confines, than rudely to push
them back from the door. Their determination to be
select was well known, and that was enough to deter,
not four, but forty times four, from having their names
proposed at all. There are few men whose station and
character are sufficiently high to enable them to brave
the contumely of a repulse ; and accordingly numbers
have shrunk from the attempt to gain admittance into
that Society, daunted by the averted visage over the
door. For, like the Chian Diana, the Society wore a
SOW aspect to strangers who would enter the temple,
and a mighty bland and smiling one, if they would but
worship her at a distance. Such a man as Dr. Mur-
ray could afford to stand the hazard ; for the disgrace
of a rejection could not in any degree affect him. It
recoiled instantly upon its authors. But private indivi-
duals must feel the sting of such an insult acutely, and
therefore would naturally avoid it, by keeping out of
the way. Others who might not regard the annoy-
ance of a rejection, would stand back from a feeling of
disgust and indignation, at witnessing the unworthy
treatment of those whom they respected. Such an
effect would be general amongst Roman Catholics,
especially after the gross insult offered to one of the
heads of their Church. And we understand that it
has occurred in a very remarkable instance. An Irish
Catholic clergyman named Magawlay has attained a
very high reputation in his own country as a man of
science. At a meeting of the British Association in
Dublin last summer he distinguished himself by some
valuable discoveries which he had made in mechanical
science ; and the eminent men who were assembled there
vied with his partial countrymen in admiration of
his genius, and esteem for his modest and unas-
suming deportment. Some days ago this gen-
tleman was solicited to become a member of
the Royal Dublin Society. Whether the proposal
came immediately or indirectly from the party which
had black-beaned Dr. Murray, we cannot tell. On
the principle of cui Bono, we are disposed to think that
it did emanate from that quarter; for doubtless they
would be most happy in an opportunity of exemplify-
inf., their want of -political feeling by admitting a Ca-
tholic priest or two into their society just now. But
from whatever source the offer may have proceeded,
Mr. Magaway rejected it with honest and virtuous
contempt,. He would not associate himself with a body
which'had insulted his Archbishop. Such a spirit is
high,..y honourable to the individual. But the circum-
stance shows how injuriously to the promotion of
science, and the intellectual improvement of a people,
the narrow system of exclusion we denounce operates
in an institution endowed for the support and encou-
ragement of those objects.—Morning Chronicle.
Our readers may remember that, some short time
ago, Sir It. Vyvyan told Lord John Russell on the
floor of the House of Commons, that the exercise of
Ministerial influence in the Home Department was de-
cidedly corrupt. The Noble Lord, having taken time
to consider, assured the Honourable Baronet that if he
(sir R. Vyvyan) did not impeach the Minister so de-
nounced, the charge could only be considered as the
`vilification of a calumniator. Various remarks were
made in the course of the evening for the purpose of
eliciting some apology or explanation from Sir R. Vy..
vvan. They failed ; and the Speaker, naturally anxious
that one to whom he was so deeply indebted for his .
elevation to the Chair should be left the quiet en-
joyment of the " Home Department, requested that
the debate should not close till the Noble Lord and
the Honourable Baronet had interchanged satisfactory
explanations. Hereupon Lord John Russell declared
that he felt no personal injury from the remarks of the
Hon. Member whom he had denounced as a calumni-
ator, and Sir R. Vyvyan having equally exonerated
the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment the Parliamentary compliments on the one
side and the other, were consigned to oblivion.
So much for Lord J. Russell's indignant disclaim,
and subsequent endurance. In justice, howev"
the lion. Member for Bristol, we think it rig} to

the widest circulation to the corroborative testiniany
borne by his tonstituents with referenee to this Charge
of mal-administration in the appultament of justices
for the borough of Bristol. An authentic chrz,-,;,rneut
now lies before us, bearing date April 2,11816 j
gnat at a meetly of the
*Om which we learn
tants of likistol and its Wigieindled on the sub-
lett of the proceedinw§ öt his Majesty's Ministers in
reference W the municipal justices for that city, W.
vripp, Esq., mayor, in the resolutions were
passed expressive tit confidence and attachment to T.
Daniels Esq., a gentleman not thought 'worthy by
the Whig dispensers of patronage to till that, office,
for which his fellow-citizens deemed him eminently
qualified. In their first resolution these respectable
gentlemen state, that an affront has been offered to Mr.
Daniel, and the city of Bristol in his person, by the
rejection by his Majesty's Ministers of his name, and
the names of five other gentlemen associated with him
in the same measure of exclusion. By the terms of
that resolution the meeting vote an affectionate address
to Mr. Daniel. This address we here subjoin, and
we beg our readers to hear in mind that Sir Richard
Vyvyan, when denouncing the conduct of Lord John
Russell, was advocating the cause of so distinguished
a member of the constituency who sent him to Parlia-
ment, so thoroughly respectable a member of a great
commercial city, as Mr. Thomas Daniel. They will
then, if we mistake not, participate in his indignation
at the gross and unjustifiable disregard of all conside-
rations, save those of party influence, by which the
•Whig Government are disgracefully distinguished :

" TO THOMAS DANIEL, ESQ.

" At a moment, Sir, when by a most arbitrary and wan-
ton act of Ministerial power the city finds itself deprived
of the services of the oldest, the most experienced, and
the most respected of its magistrates, we, your brother-
citizens, indignant at the affront which has been offered
to you, and to our city in your person, are led by a strong
feeling of what is due to long-proved worth and excellence
to mark, by some public expression, our sense of the enor-
mity of this proceeding, and to assure you that it has only
served to increase, if possible, the estimation in which you
are held amongst us.
" That in the evening of an active and well-spent life, so
large a portion of which has been devoted to the general
good, you should have felt a reluctance to embark in any
new course of public labours, it was natural to expect ;
your declining, therefore, to undertake the office of mayor,
to which, under the new system of municipal administration,
you had, with the universal approbation of your fellow-
citizens, been elected, could not be a matter of surprise
to any ; still, however, looking to the vigour of mind and
health with which it bath pleased the Almighty to bless
you, we had indulged the hope that, on the bench of
justices, you would have yet continued, for many years, to
dispense to the city the benefit of your intelligence and ex-
perience. You may judge, therefore, of the mingled feel-
ings of astonishment and disgust with which we learned
that your name had been rejected from the list of gentlemen
returned by the town-council as proper persons to be ap-
pointed justices for the borough—an outrage on the feelings
of the citizens wholly unmerited, and which, if meant as a
degradation of the individual against whom it was directed,
has signally failed of its object, the only effect it has pro-
duced having been, to bring into more prominent view those
virtues and merits which, by his Majesty's Government,
have been thought worthy of such a reward.
" To the other respectable gentlemen of the Corporation
whose names have been included with yours in the same
measure of rejection, and probably for the same reason—
their zeal in the defence of the institutions of their country
—it must be a subject of just pride that they have been
deemed deserving of being so associated.
" The exemplary manner in which your, Sir, have ful-
filled the various relations of life, as a. magistrate, as a mer-
chant, as the head of a family—in a word, as a good citi-
zen and good subject, anxious for the public welfare, and
ever ready to step forward in its support, is a theme upon
which, however grateful to us, our respect for your feelings
forbids us to dwell. Thus much, however, we may be per-
mitted to say, that the firmness and constancy displayed by
you in the discharge of your public duties, and the inte-
grity and urbanity which have marked your intercourse
with society, have secured to you the affections and esteem
of your fellow-citizens—a reflection which, to your mind,
must, we are sure, be a source of pure and lasting grati-
fication."

It will be remembered, that Lord J. Russell conde-
scended to rest his rejection of this gentleman upon
the authority of statements made to him, that Mr.
Daniel had been heard to complain of occasional
deafness, and to lament that he could not rely upon►
his memory so confidently as he could wish. The
imputation of physical imbecility thus offensively
cast upon a gentleman whom age would never have
rendered unfit for the bench, if independence had
not made him unpopular in Downing-street, is indig-
nantly rebutted by the affectionate address of his fel-
low-citizens. Proud of this testimony to the regard in
which he is held, Mr. Daniel may safely despise the
slight which has been put upon him. " The only
effect it has produced has been to bring into more pro-
minent view those virtues and merits which by His
Majesty's Government have been thought worthy of
such a reward." To Mr. Daniel, at the close of a
long and honourable career, such a testimony from his
fellow-citizens must indeed be invaluable ; but the
passage of this address which to us appears to bear
out the indignant denunciation of Sir Richard Vyvyan
against the Whig-Radical Government is the fol-
lowing :
" To the other respectable gentlemen of the corporation
whose names have been included with yours in the same
measure of rejection, and probably for the same reasons—
their zeal in the defence of the institutions of their country,
—it must be a subject of just pride that they have been
deemed deserving of being so associated."

The citizens of Bristol may be assured that the
class of those whose zeal in the defence of the institu-
tions of their country has given umbrage to a dena-
tionalized Government is a most comprehensive one,
and that the just pride of being associated with that
class is the holdfast of the patriotism of England.—
Times.

The foreign appointments of the Government are
not of a nature to inspire confidence or afford satis-
faction. When we name Lords Napier, Gosford,
Sligo, and Elphinstone, Sir Robert Grant, and Sir
Francis tlead, and when we crown all these with that
of our Ambassador at the Court of the Czar, who is
there but must tremble at the consequences which so
many mistaken delegations of the Kingly power but
too fearfully represent ? Nothing is more irksome
than the attempt to analyse unfavourably personal
character. From this, therefore, we are anxious to
refrain, only observing that mere negative merit, or the
absence of palpable demerit, though they may qualify
a man for taking part in the common concerns of life,
and for public situations of a lower grade, and of little
or no responsibility, establish of themselves his unfit-
ness for exercising even more than Kingly power in
distant settlements, where no recourse can be had till
too late to a better judgment to correct their own.
Whether we point to India or to Canada—to the
West Indies or, St. Petersburgh—when was there
a period when more skill, more prudence, prompti-
tude, and energy were required in those to whom
our interests are confided ?—While, looking at the
names which we have furnished, what confidence
can the country place in them, one and all, as
likely to realise its just expectations at so important
a crisis ? In sonic instances it would seem as if the
most improper persons had actually been singled out
for the most important appointments, and as if the
dull and untalented, the ill-tempered and indiscreet
classes of society had been ransacked, to discover. who
were the most deficient in the requisites which our
colonial and diplomatic interests at this time so loudly
called for. Though we may appear to express our-
selves strongly, we do so much more in sorrow than in
anger.
We have no spleen or personal dislikes to
gratify,
in speaking as we have done of the great bulk
of the foreign appointments' which we have lately wit-
nessed. leit were true that the country actually had
not first-rate talents to employ in her service—if she
can rerilly find none more fitting than a Lord of the
Bedcb.amber to rule over millibns of subjects in a dis-
turbed and distant province—then, indeed, it behoves
her
to submit in silence to her fate. But as such is
not. the case, and as the evil, we are persuaded, rests
soi,ely in an indiscriminate tl •
half of nrsfor pa ronage, t t on be-
half whose qualifications for what they
sc;ek are least of all considered, we feel it our duty to
etenouri
coun'.a.y, e
an it as a system most fatally ruinous to the
d one which, in the worst days of an unre-
f°%med Parliament, would never have been allowed to
pass in that silent acquiescence with which it is now
received,--Morning Herald.
To abolish the system of black slavery in our colo-
nies, and to perpetuate the system of white slavery in

THE SUN, LONDON, T

the centEd
the empire, is the anomaly which Eng- •
land presents to the civilized world at the present day.
For the
of this latter species of slavery the
late—able and philanthropic Mr. Sadler laboured in
vaitty et hull altogether in vain. The facts which he
collected, and the knowledge which he diffused of that
situation and sufferings of the infant victims of the
mautifaciiiring Moloch, haVe not been lost upon the
mind of society, although our Government and our
House of Commons were far too "liberal " to be
either humane df just: That information---moral,
Mf. Sadler prOcuredi .
showing the dreadful working of the system, has not
perished with the eloquent and indefatigable advocate
of the cause of the helpless factory children—it is
not buried in his grave. Like the knowledge col-
lected by the venerable Clarkson on the slave trade,
it has worked effects upon public opinion, which,
though not visible at once, will eventually overcome
the obstacles that sordid cupidity oppose to the vindi-
cation of the rights of outraged humanity. At this
time, when the supporters of the factory system
have the audacity to attempt a repeal of the Act
which was passed to afford a scanty and imperfect pro-
tection to the factory children, instead of the full and
efficient relief which the Bill of Mr. Sadler, subse-
quently introduced by Lord Ashley, would have given,
it becomes not unnecessary to remind the public of the
evidence which was obtained by the Select Committee
of the House of Commons in 1832—evidence which
proves that the very liberal philosophers, who regard
the poor and their offspring as mere machines for the
increase of the rich man's wealth, are as ruthless tor-.
turers and destroyers of the human race as the most
callous tyrants that ever slaughtered mankind for their
ambition or pastime. There sre many persons who
assume the name of " Liberals" in this country, whose
" liberality" is as much opposed to all the generous
qualities of human nature, and to every sense of jus-
tice, as can be imagined. Such persons Dr. Chal-
mers did not too strongly depict in the revolting
colours of their heartless doctrines, when he described
them as persons who " look on human beings as so
many pieces of machinery, and the living principle
within them as the power which set the machinery in
motion, and their sole object to get out of the ma-
chinery as much work as possible at the least expense."
The two grand provisions of Mr. Sadler's Bill were
to prevent children under nine years of age from being
worked in factories, and to confine the labour of the
employed children to ten hours a day. Upon this sub-
ject Sir Anthony Carlisle, whose talents, great expe-
rience, and high character as a surgeon, gives peculiar
weight to his testimony, says, " I think beyond 10
hours' labour quite incompatible with health and moral
propriety, for if the creature is to be a moral agent, and
not a machine or mere animal, you must have some
consideration for its moral character as well as its
health." "My own opinion is, that to labour in the
factory a child under nine years of age is to condemn
and treat it as a criminal. It is a punishment which
inflicts upon it ruin of its bodily and moral health, and
renders it an inefficient member of the community, both
to itself and progeny. It is to my mind an offence
against nature, which, alas, is visited upon the innocent
creature instead of its oppressor, by the loss of its health
or the premature destruction of its race." Again—
" Factory children demand legislative protection for their
own sakes, and for the sake of future generations of
English labourers, because every succeeding generation
will be progressively deteriorated, V you do not stop
these sins against nature and humanity." The cele-
brated Sir William Blizard, who was Surgeon to the
London Hospital for half a century, and nearly half
that time Lecturer on Surgery, Anatomy, and Phy-
siology in that Hospital, and in the Royal College of
Surgeons, was asked whether he could have any doubt
in saving that such a degree of labour as extended to
13, 14, or 15 hours out of the twenty-four, and some-
times to 17 or 18, must, in a great plurality of cases,
be injurious to the health and constitution. His an-
swer was, horribly so. He was asked, "Do you
think the average of such hours of labour would be an
extravagant imposition on the human frame ?" His
answer was, dreadful. He also stated that not more
than ten hours' actual labour ought to be demanded in
behalf of young persons between nine and eighteen,
and added, " I heartily concur in that opinion of my
late honoured friend, Dr. Baillie, that the duration of a
day's actual labour of ten hours is quite enough, and
as much as can be ordinarily endured at any age with
impunity." Sir Charles Bell, Professor to the Royal
College, &c., says—" From .nine to eighteen years
of age, ten hours' labour a day, to which must
be added the time necessary for taking meals and
refreshment, making twelve hours a day, is as
much as can be endured, generally speaking, with
impunity by those so occupied, and more than that is
painful in idea." Joseph Henry Green, F.R.S.,
Surgeon of St. Thomas's Hospital, and Professor of
Surgery at King's College, says, " This is indeed a
melancholy list of maladies (scrofula tending to pro-
duce spinal complaints, white swellings, pulmonary
consumptions, &c.) and one which, I am sorry to say,
might be greatly augmented, as traceable to the neg-
lect and improper management of those whose tender
years demand, and lay claim to our sympathy and kind-
est care and attention." He emphatically adds, " I
fear that this country will have much to answer for in
permitting the growth of that system of employing
children in factories, which tends directly to the crea-
tion_ of all those circumstances which inevitably lead
to disease." To Mr. Poulett Thomson, the great
statesman of the mill-owners, and his coadjutors in the
work of getting as much labour as possible, at the
least expense, out of the infant machines, we recom-
mend for the present these portions of the medical
evidence. Other portions of the evidence we shall
bring under the notice of the legislative upholders of
infant white slavery, and the Government that favours
them, as occasion serves.—Morning Herald.
Our readers cannot have forgotten the statement re-
specting the appointment of justices for the city of
Bristol made to the House of Commons by Sir Ro-
bert Peel, and uncontradicted by Lord John Russell.
The majority of the Town-councillors is Conservative.
That majority, following the example set them by
other Town-councils of which the majority is De-
structive, might have recommended to the Home-office
a list composed exclusively of Conservative names.
They acted with greater moderation than is customary
with their political opponents. They admitted that it
was desirable to free the bench of justice from even
the suspicion of partiality. They consented, for the
full accomplishment of this object, that of twenty-four
names to be recommended to the Home-office twelve
should be selected by the Tory majority, and
twelve by the Whig minority. This • compact
having been made, . twelve gentlemen were no-
minated on each side. On the whole, an un-
objectionable choice was made. Nevertheless, it
must be mentioned that some exceptions were
taken to one or two individuals of the Radical list,
while of the Tory list there was not one upon
whom a shade of scruple could rest. The twenty-four
names were submitted to Lord John Russell. Of the
twelve names selected by the Radical minority Lord
John Russell rejected none ; of the twelve' names se-
lected by the Tory majority Lord J. Russell rejected
six. The six gentlemen whom the Noble Lord deems
unfit to perform the functions of which the advisers, in
whom lie professes implicit confidence, held them per-
fectly capable, are all well worthy of the reliance re-
posed on them by those who know them best. But
amongst them there happens to be one individual so
much distinguished above the rest by the veneration
and love of his fellow-citizens, that Lord John Russell
seems to have singled him out for exclusion, in order to
show that long experience, strict integrity, blameless
character, become disqualifications for the judicial
office, when they are found in the person, of a political
opponent. We believe there are scarcely tobefounnadmae
score of men in Bristol, whatever their rank and what-
ever their opinions, who, being asked what
should be first inscribed on the roll of the new justices
for the city, would nothe am
natoen, therefore,cehave
Mr. Thomas Daniel. The
Thomas Daniel is erased by Lord John Russell
from the list. When Sir R. Peel appealed to the
was
forcibly
he l
y list
r ug of
urged upon
House of Commons upon the subject of the appoint-
ment of justices under the nev.irel in Act, the rejection of
magis-
tratest he name
for of
the Mr.oity of
ThoßmraisatDolan
the attention of Lord J. Russell, as a procedure of

ESDANT, APRIL 5, 1836.

which, in justice to a highly respectable person, and
in justice to a numerous body of his townsmen, his
Lordship ought to give some explanation. His
Lordship accordingly explained that he did not dis-
pute Mr. Daniel's uprightness, 'knowledge, experi-
ence ; but that he had understood Mr. Daniel was grow-
ing old—he had heard that Mr. Daniel bad declined
to be mayor -on the score of his advancing years-,
and had been informed on good authority that Mr.
Daniel had complained more than once that his me-
mory was not so sound as it had been twenty years
ago: It was replied, most conclusively, by Sir R.
Vyvyan, that if Mr. Daniel was growing old he was
not yet so old Eifi some gentlemen in other bo-
roughs, who, being supporters of the Melbourne
' Cabinet, had not been reckoned too infirm for a
seat upon the. magistrates' bench ; that if Mr. Daniel
had declined to accept the mayoralty, the offer of it
testified the belief entertained of his capacity, while his
'reluctance to undertake the new duties of the presi-
dency of a new system of municipal government could
not fairly be construed into a desire to escape from the
continued performance of those duties which he had
long ably discharged ; and that, if Mr. Daniel had
complained of an occasional lapse of memory, it was
sheer malignity to found a serious charge of mental de-
bility upon the casual confessions of one who jests
cheerfully at the infirmities which commonly belong to
his age, before they are either felt by himself or per-
ceived by others. But a more complete answer to the
unworthy insinuations of Lord John Russell is found
in an address which is shortly to be presented to Mr.
Daniel, and of which we insert a copy in another co-
lumn. 'The excellent .man whom the Home Office has
vainly insulted may, well be proud of the tribute here
paid to his venerable and virtuous old age.—Morning
Post.

The restoration of Lord Brudenell to active service
and full pay, is a measure with which the public get
more and more dissatisfied:* It is altogether an " un-
toward affair," and has done much to injure the Ad-
ministration of Lord Melbourne. It is to be hoped
that the discussions which have taken place on the
subject, both within and without the walls of Parlia-
ment, will have the effect of obviating the present
anomalous state of patronage in the army. At pre-
sent there can hardly be said to exist any responsibility
in the case of improper appointments. Lord Hill, as
the Commander-in-Chief, has, in the first instance, the
right of nominating any person he thinks proper to any
of the higher offices in the army ; but his appoint-
ments are all subject to the approval of the Go-
vernment. Hence all responsibility is taken from
him, while it cannot be said to be transferred to
Ministers, inasmuch as they never interfere with
the way in which he administers his patronage.
This is a state of things which must no longer be
suffered to exist. It is of the utmost importance to
the character of the Army itself that a tangible respon-
sibility should exist somewhere ; and it is equally es-
sential to the character of the Ministry that they should
not labour under the imputation of being guilty of the
improper acts of other parties by a supposed sanction
of them. The anomaly may be easily obviated. Why
not vest the responsibility in the Secretary at War ?
Why not let the right of all appointments in the army
centre in him, instead of making it a mere nominal
affair in the hands of the Ministry as a body ? Until
some such determination has been come to by Govern-
ment, we will never have any guarantee for proper ap-
pointments, nor any responsibility in the case of im-
proper ones. Of Lord Brudenell's appointment, we
can say nothing that has not been already stated. A
more improper act than that of thrusting him again on
the army, under all the circumstances of the case, was
never performed by any Commander-in-Chief. Such
appointments at once lower the character of him who
makes them, and of the Ministry who are supposed
to sanction them, besides doing infinite injury to the
service.—Morning Advertises.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HO USE.

Yesterday, a man who looked like bricklayer's labourer,
and whose name is William Roberts, was brought before
the LORD MAYOR, charged by Mr. Samuel Jones Loyd,
of the house of Jones, Loyd and Co., the bankers of Loth-
bury, under the following circumstances :
Mr. Loyd said that the firm owned some houses in
Tokenhouse-yard, which were uninhabited, and that the
prisoner was observed to go deliberately in front of one them
and strip the entablature over the hall-door of lead ; some
days after which he again appeared, and made another at-
tempt, which, however, did not prove so successful. The
prisoner was wholly unknown to the firm, but appeared to
do the business with as much ease as if he had been regu-
larly engaged to clear away the lead.
A female who resides in the house opposite to those in
the possession of the prosecutors, stated that she saw the
prisoner about three weeks ago remove the lead from over
the door, and carry it away. She thought, as it was done
deliberately, and in the broad day, that the man was em-
ployed to do the job, especially as he carried the lead up
a passage, which she supposed led to some premises, but
she afterwards ascertained that it was a thoroughfare. On
Thursday she saw the prisoner again on the spot. He
tried to remove a leaden pipe from the house, but could
not pluck it away, although he shook it with all his might.
The prisoner had a ladder, and he ascended it, raised the
window of the first floor, and endeavoured to push in the
shutter, but was unsuccessful. Witness was looking at him
from the opposite house, and believed that he saw her
watching ; for he descended the ladder and went away,
leaving the ladder behind him. Some time afterwards,
however, he returned, and took the latter, but was appre-
hended before he went far. _ _ _

Another female deposed that she saw the back of the
prisoner when he tried to get into the house. She was
sure she could not be mistakea. _

A. gentleman named Faircloth, who resides opposite to
the houses of Messrs. Jones, Lloyd, and Co., stated that
he saw the prisoner bring a ladder at half-past 2on Thurs-
day, and place it against one of the houses, the window-
shutters of which he attempted to open with violence.
Witness immediately went to the banking-house and asked
whether they bad employed any person to take away the
lead. He was told that no one was authorized to do so,
and reqUested, if he saw the person who had endeavoured
to enter the premises again, to cause him to be taken into
custody. Upon witness's return the prisoner was gone, but
after some time the prisonor returned, and was coolly con-
veying away the ladder when he was taken into custody.
The lead which was taken from the penthouse over the
door, was about two yards in length.
The prisoner—I went to take away the ladder, but I
never stole anything in my life. Besides, these women
said they could not swear that I was the person they saw
before.

The girls said that they had expressed an unwillingness
to swear, because they had never before sworn, but they
had no hesitation about the prisoner's identity.
The employer of the prisoner stated that he never had
known the man to act dishonestly. He employed fifty
men, but he did not make any inquiry into the character of
the prisoner when he gave him work.
The prisoner was fully committed.