The Sun.
London, England, 1823-11-22 00:00:00

some respectable persons are desirous of pro-
inoting such a scheme. We therefore feel it a
duty to our readers to state our sentiments on the
subject explicitly. There are two classes of per-
sons who have arrived here. The first, class
consists of helpless females, children, aged
ersons, and other well disposed (though per-
haps mistaken) individuals. To such we
Should wish to see the national bespitality and
liberality,
,most widely extended : and if by the
labours Of a benevolent and judicious Committee
these unfortunate sufferers can be distinguished
and separated froth less worthy Objecti, such a
Charity would be truly congenial:to the British
Character. We think the task of discrimination
by no means impracticable : and we wish to be
distinctly understood as recommending to the
benevolence of our countrymen all those (what-
ever be their country, their political party,
or their religious communion,) whose con-
duct is free from moral reproach. But there
are Foreigners in this country' of a very
different description, whose sole business is to
practice crime, or to disseminate evil principles;
there are men, who, untaught by the miseries of
revolution in their own country, have come hither
to stir up disaffection, conspiracy, and rebellion
among our own people; there are others who carry
into private life the contagion of immorality and
impiety These are serpents which will sting the
bosom that cherishes them : and yet, under the
Cloak of patriOticprofessions and liberal sentiments,
many of them may probably lay claim to the most
favourable notice and distinction. We must confess
We should be apprehensive that such a subscription
as is above suggested would, unless managed
with equal judgment and impartiality, be con'-
Verted into a source of protection for the more
profligate class of Foreigners ; or if not so,
that it might perhaps become a party engine for
the encouragement of revolutionary principles.-=—
If these evils can be avoided, and relief can he
extended to the blameless, the destitute, and the
unfortunate alone, it will afford us real gratifica-
tion to learn that the undertaking meets with
success. -

[nairisu mess.]
Ferdinand of Spain was expected on the 13
at Madrid, where, it is said, great preparations
were made for his arrival. It is a pity the ex-
pectant Inquisitors cannot, as they did of old for
his predecessors, celebrate an Aulo do Fe, in the
great square of the capital ! The Eloile has
stated, that on the 12th, at Aranjuez, the relent-
ing tyrant would publish the decrees all Spain
so anxiously expected. Reports, it adds, were
prevalent at Madrid, that the functions of Saes
would cease as Minister ; but that he would still
have the power of poisoning his Royal Penitent's
mind, as private Confessor. The epuralions in
the Spanish capital, the Madrid Gazette declares,
were carried into execution with the greatest.
lenity. In place (it assures us) of expelling
from that city nine hundred individuals weekly,
two hundred only were driven from their pursuits
l
and homes ; but even this moderate calculation
would make 800 per month, out of a population
of 100,000. But the Gazette de Madrid does not
limit its example of lenity to this ; the despairing
exiles, it appears, are not absolntely forced to ' I
proceed on foot to the place of their banishment :
such as possess the means, are indulgently permit-
ted to procure any other conveyance they can pay
for! If, as the Cdurier Francais justly remarks,un-
numbered horrid facts did not already reveal
to Europe the afflicting situation of Spain, would
not a full idea of its unparalleled situation be
presented by the portrait afforded by this servile
gazette of tyranny, thus detailing what it. mock-
iugly calls the " greatest lenity." The pro-
scription spread through Madrid was also
at full work within the Palace walls ; not
a single functionary attached to the tyrant's
establishment was suffered to preserve his place ;
not even those who, in the most trying period,
pursued the path of greatest moderation. The
Memorial Bordelais, under the head of its Pri-
vate Correspondence, gives the following details:
—They state that the list of exile within the
Palace already comprised 223 individuals ; but
new additions were expected. Among these
were iUcluded some of the first names in Spain :
the Duke of Medina.Celi, the Marquis of Ga-
mma de in Regalia, De. Cevalles, De Palo-
mores, Albayda, Obiejo, and others. The physi,
clans of the Court, and among them the chief phy-
sician Martinez,were also included in the dark roll.
All these individuals (the correspondent,of the
Memorial Bordelais observes), are not precisely
revolutionary, but had not conducted themselves
with that devotion and fidelity the returned ty-
rant expected from them. The Restauraor of
the 'Bth November, states the arrest of ad
nother
Member of the Cortes ; destined also, we sup-
pose, to the scaffold ; Don Manuel Sainz de
Buruuga, Coat of Calera, a Deputy to the Cortes,
and one of those who voted for Ferdinand's transfer
from Seville to Cadiz, have been arrested, it as-
serts, on the mountains ofCastagnar-de-I ber,w here
he was wandering. lie Will probably follow Kiev)
to another world, and add one other murder on
the, head of the execrable tyrant. What a si-
tuation must that country be in, where acts so
atrocious can be publicly avoed and unblush
ingly defended by the tai teals of an atrocious
despotism! Let us hope that the career now run-
ning in that unhappy country, however appalling
and horrible, may still he limited, and for the
happiness of mankind, only of short duration.

[MORNING HERALD.]
The restrictions which the visiting Magistrates
of Hertford have thought proper to adopt for the
safe keeping of the persons charged with the
late Murder, have given rise to more than the
usual quantum of silly declamatioth—We do
not mean to say these restraints were necessary
or wise, but it may be asked in the very outset,
and on the first. view of the matter, what si-
nister motives—what inexcusable inducement,'
could English Magistrates of reputable condi.
tion and Unimpeached character, have, to employ
useless, or to their knowledge uncalled-for 'rigour
against the unhappy linen, for whose safe custody
they are to account ? Is it in the disposition of
Englishmen to indulge themselves in acte of
wanton severity ? The odium has been rather
exclusively an of
thrown upon one of

these Magistrates, a clergyman, Mr. Lloyd. It
is even stated against him in aggravation, that he
has passed whole hours in and about the prison.
Of Mr. Lloyd we have not the slightestknow ledge,
but, in the name of candour and common sense, is
it to be presumed that any gentleman of his pro-
bable habits and education would as a matter
of luxury, pass his time in such a manner ?
Nothing but the clear evidence of facts should
induce a belief in such strange idleness and de-
pravity of taste. We have said that we do not
justify the restraints imposed upon the inter-
course with the prisoners, but there are, as it
strikes use the clearest grounds to excuse them.
It was most likely—indeed it may be said, Most
certainly, the first time that these Magistrates
were intrusted with a charge of such awful respon-
sibility. Let any man imagine, for a moment,
the situation in which these gentlemen would
stand, with reference to the state, the community,
and Public justice, if the prisoners had escaped.
Now, if ever in any case extreme vigilance was
necessary, it is this. The prisoners, truly or
falsely, have been represented as persons of des-
perate audacity, accustomed to acts of hardihood
and contrivance, and leagued with a host of the
most formidable confederates abroad. Was it
not most natural that the Magistrates should,
in such a cause, use extraordinary vigilance
and restraint ? Was it not natural and ex-
cusable, that, haunted as they were by the
awful responsibility imposed on them, they should
use a degree of rigour beyond reason, and the
exigency of the case? What changes have not
been rung upon the valuable, but somewhat
hackneyed maxim of our law, that—" every
man is to be presumed innocent," and so
on—Why, according to the construction
of this maxim strictly by some of our wise
jurisprudents, these prisoners should be left,
like other innocent men, to their liberty
and other enjoyments. But it will be said that
the restraints necessary for safe custody are
compatible with this maxim—the meaning of
which is, that no infliction or privation shall be
suffered in the way of punishment. Be it so—
und let us see whether any restraint has been im-
posed in this instance, in the way of punishment
—none whatever. It is true, extraordinary re-
straints were imposed ; but who is so ignorant of
the Criminal Law of England in its daily prac-
tice as not to know that it is not merely per-
mits, but directs different degrees of restraint and
privation, according to the degree of offence--
the character of the individual, and various other
considerations of discretion. One person is left at
liberty on his own recognizance, another is ob-
iged to provide bail under heavy penalties—a

rd is refused bail, but allowed intercourse w

lose abroad, whilst a fourth is consigned to so
II confinement:

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CIIANCELLOR'S COURT; Nov. 21.
IMPORTANT DECISION.
WiIITSTONE v. FOWEE.
His HON nun, after he came into Court to-day, stated, than
he had looked into the papers in this case, and the result was,
he was of opinion, thatto file such a bill as was agitated, would
be totally useless, and could only serve to put the parties to
an enormous unnecessary expenee. in this case, the repre-
sentatives of one brother have tiled a bill against the repre-
sentatives of another brother, and the Hope Insurance Com-
pany has a claim to the amount of their policy as against
the plaintiffs, and are made defendants to the bill, and the
question before the Court was, whether it was necessary, in
order to protect the Insurance Company from any loss by the
dispute between the representativea, that the Company should,
independent of this bifi, file a bill of interpleader. It was
argued, that such a bill was necessary. to be filed by them for
them protection, because that protection was to be given by
obtaining an injunction, and the rule of the Court has always
been held to be, that no defendant to a snit can obtain an
injunction against his co-defendant ; therefore, though they
might be protected against the plaintiff; ' yet without filing
a bill of interpleader, they never could be protected against
their co-defendants. Now, that rule of the Cotirt has been
misarplied to cases to which it would not extend. The rule
certainly has been that a defendant cannot obtain an in-
junction against his co-defendant, because that injunction
would have to be obtained upon the merits of his case, and he
would have to afford the co-defendant an oPpertunity of an-
swering those merits as put upon the record, which in this
Court never could be done; but then that rule has. only been
applicable to parties litigant; parties litigant would have to
state a case against their co-defendants, who would have to
leave an opportunity of answering it ; but it was quite obvious
that this rule bad no application whatever to parties not liti-
gant—and in the present case the hope Insurance Company
are mere stake-holders, and have nothing to do with the liti-
gation which is carried on only between the representatives of
the two deceased brothers. In that way of viewing it, if the
stake-holders were to apply to the Court by a motion (having
previously given notice of such motion both to the plaintiffs and
their co-defendants) to pay the money into Court, for the pia-
pose of protecting it to the successful party, the Court could on
no principle refuse to receive that Money, if upon hearing both
plaintiffs and defendants, it entertained a serious doubt, that
by not receiving itinto Court, it would be endangered, nor could
it on any principle refuse to pay it out to the party in whose
favour the suit terminated ; so that in this case a bill of inter.,
Ceader would be aim unnecsary. The consequece was, the
ourt Was of' opinion, that ones all such occasions innfuture the
parties should be ordered to pay the money into COurt ; and if
after this intimation it should be thought fit not to applY by
motion to have the money paid in, but to file another bill on
the part of the hope Insurance Company, the Court shell
think it so vexatious, as that it shall disiniss the bill with
costs. At present the Court would give the Hope Insurance
Company costs, because, down to this day it has been consi-
dered an universal rule, that a defendant could not obtain an
injunction against a co-defendant ; but that has been, because
the principle has been misunderstood, which, however, for the
future, shall be differently applied.
TIAWFIELD V. N ICHOLS ON AND ANOTHER.
This was a motion by the plaintiff; Mr. Barfield, for an In-
junction against the defendants, Messrs. Nicholson and Kelly,
to restrain them from selling a certain work,in weekly numbers,
published under the title of The Prartical Buildir.
Mr. Hvaron said that the plaintiff had been partner formerly
with Mr. Nicholson, in the publication of a book called The
Architectural Dictionary. This book had been got up at a
very considerable expenee ; Ranh/ for 12/. the two volumes,
Ind had cost, in Preparation more than 10,0001.; and in the
course of the last year Mr. Barfield had purchased Mr. Nichol-
son's share in it, paying him a valuable consideration for the
same, and binding him by a covenant not to put forth any
other work.which should diminish its value or interfire with
its sale. Mr. Nicholson in breech of that agreement, was now
publishing a work called 7'he Practical Builder, which was in
substance the same thing with the Architectural Dictionary,
and, being much cheaper, destroyed its calculation ; and it was
for protection against this piracy and violation of contract that
the plaintiff' applied to the COVit.
The covenant between Mr. Barfield and Mr. Nicholson was
put in, and read in terms following :—Mr. Nicholson agreed
" not to write- or, publish, or cause to be written or pub-
lished, any abridgment of the work called The Architectural
Dictionary, or any other kind of publication 'which might prove
detrimental to that work,, or directly or; indirectly impede the
sale of it.
Mr. 'Josiah Taylor, architectural bookseller, swore, by his
affidavit, that the work called The PradiCal :Builder contain.
ell many passage* and plates which were the same with those
of The Architectural Didionary.
Mr. J. Page, a considerable builder believed the two works
to be substantially the same.
It, appeared that the second defendant, Mr. Kelly (Of Pater,
noSter-row), published TheProctical Builder for Mr. Ni-
cholson.
Mr. Pic anEn, for the defendant denied that there was any
case upon which the Court
could interfere. The workimb.
fished in Min-diets was merely it work of
_practical instruc-
kri, and entirely different in character from The Archi.