The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-28 00:00:00

Til)

LONDON,
THURSDAY EVENING, JULY 28, 1836.

The Newcastle Election has terminated in the return
of Mr. HouGsox—the Candidate nominally put for-
ward on the Conservative interest, but who is, in fact,
a good Reformer. The reason why Mr. BLACKETT
his opponent, who professed to stand on the Liberal
interest, was rejected, was that neither Whigs nor
Radicals could place any confidence in him. He was
suspected very properly as to the sincerity of his profes-
sions in the cause of Reform, for he would neither
promise to vote for Triennial Parliaments nor the Vote
by Ballot—quite enough of themselves to disgust the
true Refotmers. But these were not all—Mr.
BLACKETT sat in former Parliamentsas the Nominee
of the Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND, and actually
voted against the Reform Bill !! ! Knowing these
things, our wonder is how such a trimmer should have
been put forward at all, unless some of his good-
natured friends did it to mortify him, by the hope of
being elected, in order to embitter his disappointment.
As it is, Mr. HODGSON is by far the better man.
Though he may have a taint of Toryism, he is,:not-
withstanding, a gentleman who may safely be
trusted, for such is his honesty of purpose that he will
vote according to his conscience. He voted with
Triennial Parliaments, and against the Duke of WEL-
LINGTON on the Pension List.

We have no doubt that he will be found voting for
Ministers on all those great points which he may deem
for the good of the country, though he may enter-
tain scruple§ on others. Mr. BLACKETT has got his
reward.

The Lords' Amendments to the Prisoners' Counsel
Bill were taken into consideration by the House of
Commons last night. Mr. EWART, to whom the
public is much indebted for his endeavours to do away
with the cruel anomaly of the law, which debars the
man accused of felony from the means of defence
allowed in lighter cases of crime, in moving the Order
of the Day, recommended the adoption of some of the
amendments made by the Lords. There was however
one important alteration, which met with almost
unanimous disapprobation of the House—we mean that
which deprives the prisoner of the last word. By. the
Bill, as sent down to the Commons, it is enacted, that
the prisoner's Counsel may make a speech in his de-
fence if he think fit ; but that, in such case, the
Counsel for the prosecution shall have a right to reply.
Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK, whose talents and expe-
rience as a lawyer entitle his opinion to great weight,
deprecated the adoption of the amendment, and de-
clared that it would be much better for a prisoner to he
left to the operation of the law as it exists, than to
be subjected to the disadvantages which must be the
consequence of denying him the right of a final reply.
This seemed to be the general feeling of the House,
and there is little doubt that the Lords will be brought
to acquiesce in the view taken of the matter by all
the eminent lawyers in the country, and also in former
times by the mighty oracle to whom the great majority
of them now look up with such implicit confidence.
The discussion ended by referring the amendments
to a Select Committee, for the purpose of considering
the best means of reconciling the difference of opinion
on this point between the two Houses.

A somewhat irregular discussion took place last
night in the House of Commons, on the presentation
by Mr. WALTER of a petition from certain magistrates
and clergymen of two or three parishes in Sussex,
complaining of the regulations laid down by the Poor
Law Commissioners, with respect to the relief of the
poor. The Hon. Member for Berkshire entered
into a variety of statements, in order to shew the in-
justice and inhumanity of tl►e New Poor Law system.
As these statements, however, were founded on private
communications, and as there was evidently a ten-
dency towards exaggeration—a leaning towards the
extravagant view of the working of the New
Poor Law, taken by a " misleading" Journal, with
which " The last Rose of Summer" is supposed to be
not altogether unconnected—it was judged right that the
discussion of the subject should be take❑ in the regu-
lar way, after due notice. Monday was accordingly
appointed 'for that purpose, when we hope the mat-
ter will be fully gone into, and this and other noisy
clamourers silenced.

The Tory Lords are evidently uneasy about the
Stafford Disfranchisement Bill, or they would not be
in such extreme hurry to have it deferred until next

' f,

Session, on the flimsy plea that " their Lordships
might he enabled to form a better judgment upon the
whole subject." This was the plea alleged last night
by Lord ASHBURTON ; and a more untenable or ab-
surd one he any one aspiring to

7,”
t" c;-r .7...)" tatcsman. yv rlai iurthiH• ';'?lrr.,----
tion can their Lordships possibly require on the Staf-
ford Bill ? The question lies In a nnt-shell. ji
simply whether or not this borough has been guilty of
electioneering misdeeds sufficient to justify its disfran-
chisement ; and the evidence already given abundantly
proves that it has. To doubt the wholesale corruption
of Stafford, l 3 tit doubt that the sun shines by day, and
the moon by night ; to doubt that Sit ANDREW AG-
NE* is a Saint, and the Morning' Moth/ an old
WoMin i col iiiiy undeniable truism. But the
eortuption of this borough is that which endears it to
their Lordships. Toryism has a natural leaning
to political mal-practices, and the greater the
Sinner in this way, the greater in its cycs
the Saint. Whether this Session, or the next,
the Tory Lords will struggle hard to save Stafford,
and finding this impossible—as most assuredly they
will find it—they will next endeavour to have it let off
on as easy terms as is consistent with a due respect
for appearances. Nothing beyond this is to be ex-
pected at their Lordships' hands. Whether the ques-
tion regard the disfranchisement of a rotten borough,
or the conceding to Ireland an equitable measure of
Ecclesiastical or Corporate Reform, still the policy of
the House of Lards is the same—to run counter to
the prevailing interests of the community, and turn a
deaf ear to all its remonstrances. We repeat, there-
fore, what we have urged a hundred times al-
ready, that the Institution must be subjected to a
prompt and searching measure of Reform. The at-
tention of the whole country should now be directed to
this point, for it is one of paramount importance.

A gentleman of the highest legal standing has ad
dressed us a letter on the subject of the Registration
clause in the Newspaper Stamp Duties Bill, which
letter, we regret to state, we are not at liberty to pub-
lish. He assures us, that as the law of libel now
stands, the registration of the whole of the proprietors
of a public journal will serve no other purpose, than to
expose them to the cupidity or the malice of every
pettifogging attorney, who can construe the just censure
of political profligacy or personal indecency into the
groundwork of a wholesale action for damages. Though
he is of opinion that the clause would greatly tend to
satisfy inquisitive persons, to foster the appetite for
personal scandal, and to raise a sort of genteel clamour
against the possession of newspaper property—all
matters very desirable on many accounts by a very
numerous class of busy-bodies--nevertheless, he main-
tains that it may as safely be omitted, inasmuch as the
actual writers must of necessity remain unknown
—even to many of those thus made responsible for
their opinions. As we have before stated, we are our-
selves personally indifferent with respect to this clause;
but if it be calculated to injure our Contemporaries,
as our legal correspondent would lead us to suppose,
then we say at once let it be struck out of the Bill.
We will not countenance the infliction of wrong upon
any journal to gratify the revengeful feelings of private
individuals—no matter how closely connected with the
Government. As the Registration clause is not a revenue
clause, the Lords can strike it out of the Bill without
touching its principle, or invading any privilege claimed
by the lower House. We say this distinctly, because
the Clause itself is not essentially a Money
Clause, though some of the enactments of the
Bill are pecuniary in their character, and give to
it the complexion of a measure relating solely to the
revenue of the country. But, should their Lordships be
of a different opinion, the Commons may, after the Bill
has passed the Upper House, still strike out the ob-
jectionable clause. GOD knows the law of libel is
severe enough, and the appetite for personal abuse has
sufficient to feed,upon, without adding to the injustice
of the one, and the offal of the other. A newspaper,
in so intelligent a country as England, can be no more
than a reflection of the political opinions of its readers;
for the moment it sets itself against them it ceases to
be read, and consequently loses all influence. Where is
then the use of seeking to ascertain who are its pro-
prietors more than who are its readers ?. The regis-
tration of two proprietors will serve all the ends of jus-
tice ; and as for the rest they will be equally well—
nay a thousand times better met, by enforcing a regis-
tration of the readers of each Journal. According to
our Correspondent's view of the case, the one recom-
mendation would not be more preposterous than the other.

The French Government has thought proper again
to address an official note to the Swiss Directory,
complaining of the refuge afforded to political offend-
ers, and threatening that if more regard be not paid to
the wishes of His Most Christian MAJESTY, un-
pleasant results will follow. The attempts which
France has so repeatedly made since the Revolution of
1830, to prevent the Swiss Executive from harbour-

ing suspected emigrants, are a reproach upon the
the KING personally, disgraceful to his advisers, and
a direct censure upon the boasted vigilance and patrio-
tism of the French police. The following extract from
this official communication, which is signed by the Duke
of MONTEBELLO, French Ambassador to the Swiss
Confederation, will show the paltry spirit in which
the Government of France views the issue between itself
and the Directory :

It cannot be the Government of France which would inva-

lidate the right of asylum, which France and England both
observe with no less generosity than Switzerland. But this
right, like every other, has its limits and its duties ;:nor can it
exist but on the condition that it be not contrary to interna-
tional rights, and the security of other States. This security
has exigencies more or less legitimate according to the geo-
graphical position and political state of the countries harbour-
ing refugees. England, for example, insulated by the sea, or
France in possession of a powerful army and central adminis-
tration, can give more extension to this right than Switzerland
divided into so many states, with different laws and principles
of administration, and consequently far less able to watch and
repress the attempts of political refugees. The attempt at
Savoy is a striking example, for the Swiss Executive were
unable to prevent it, though fraught with the greatest incor►-
venience, and most serious consequences to the country. But
it is not Germany or Italy which alone has reason to complain,
but France herself, since it has been averred that the refugees
in Switzerland are in communication with the French anar-
chists, and since their indiscretion has shown their knowledge
of the abominable project of regicide, or shown at least the
alliance of their hopes with such crimes. Such a state of
things cannot last. The Government, menaced by such de-
signs, would be under the imperious necessity of taking mea-
sures for their own security ; and the Confederation has the
strongest interest to prevent the necessity of any such deter-
mination.

Stripped of the mere verbiage in which the mean-
ing of this passage is enveloped, the import of it is,
that no State ought to be permitted to afford
sanctuary to political offenders, unless every man,
woman, and child within its territory are under the
surveillance of the police I But what does the French
Government mean by the •" alliance of the hopes" of
the French refugees in Switzerland " with the crimes
of regicidal plots ?" Does the Duke of MONTE-
BELLO blame the Swiss Executive for not punishing
refugees for crimes committed only in thought ? Such
a sentiment might do for Austria ; but it is neither
suited to the dignity nor the boasted freedom of
France.

The French Journals of Tuesday have have been
received. The Moniteur states that letters have been
received from Oviedo of the 16th inst., announcini,
that the band of GomEz was then in a very critical
position. That desertion and the energetic pursuit of
General ESPARTERO had reduced it to between 1,500
and 1,600 men. The Ministerial organ observes, by
way of commentary, that further desertion is ine-
vitable, as GomEz s band was composed chiefly of
Christino soldiers, captured by the Carlists, and
forced to join them on pain of being shot. That
these men only waited a safe opportunity of re-
joining their companions in arms, they had them-
selves intimated to ESPARTERO'S divis►on, through
such of their comrades as contrived to desert on the
march. "It is only necessary to cast one's eyes upon
the map," continues the i%loniteur, " in order to be
convinced that GOMEZ has no chance of success. I,►

the position in which he finds himself, pursued by
forces superior in number, before whom he is conti-
nually flying, what is he to do ? To return upon his
steps ? But he would have to cut his way through the
division of ESPARTERO, which he is unable to re-
sist ; to go along the coast, and to enter Gallicia by
the side of Ribadeo ? But this movement would be of
extreme difficulty and imprudence, for he would have