The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-28 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE DAILY PAPERS OPv•YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—In the case which has just occurred in
Paris, there has been a most disgraceful perversion of
every recognised rule of law, and every principle of
equity, for the purpose of punishing M. Dupoty, not so
much on account of any enormity in his alleged offence,
but almost avowedly with the design of warning the Edi-
tors of other Papers against the consequences of express-
ing their sentiments with what those who are the subjects
of censure may consider an unpalatable degree cf lati-
tude. In order to effect this object, Dupoty is accused
of writing certain articles with the view of bringing
about a certain event, which never was accomplished ;
but some other circumstances of an unlawful nature
having occurred at another time, the intentions of the
writer are dovetailed to the illegal acts of others, which
it is confessed he did not in any way prompt ; but he
is nevertheless condemned, because he is said to
have, some time back, penned seditious articles, and
because seditious doings afterwards occurred, though
the latter were in no way connected with the for-
mer, and did not arise out of them. The case of
Dupoty may be illustrated thus ; and its enormity
is not less than would attach to one we are about to
compaie it to :—A man tells a party of well disposed
personTto do an illegal act ; they refuse to proceed on
his advice, and the deed is not performed—but some
individuals, without instigation, go and commit a
crime of totally a different kind to that which the
others had been advised to perpetrate, and the man
who gave his counsel, which was not followed in either
instance, is declared to have prompted the second
offence, and is punished accordingly. We are not
surprised that the French Press should have taken
up a determined position against a principle so dan-
gerous to its freedom, and to the personal liberty of
its members, as that involved in the sentence we have
alluded to. Articles written long since may be
brought against them whenever a political offence is
perpetrated, ao matter how remote the writer may have
been, either in fact or intention, from having prompted
it, er desired to instigate its commission. If Dupoty's
writings were amenable to law, they should have been
prosecuted, at least if the Government thought fit to
take measures for punishment ; but it is a disgrace to
the Court of Peers to have pronounced a man guilty of
an alleged offence long gone by, and wholly without re-
sult, under a prosecution for another crime, of which he
is avowedly entirely innocent.
STANDARD.----We understand a document has
received the sanction of some few influential names, by
which it is proposed to the two Committees of Mr.
Garbett and Mr. Williams that these two gentlemen
should be withdrawn, with a view to the substitution of
some third candidate, who might be elected without op-
position. The reason assigned is, a desire to avoid un-
seemly contests in the University, and an apparent
difference of opinion in the Church. This is all very
specious and fair-spoken, and is likely to meet the
wishes of many very excellent men, who possess in a
high degree
"That drivelling virtue of this moral age,
Candour, that softens party's headlong rage ;"
and it wilt be very convenient besides to those who
may have private reasons of their own for not wish-
ing to displease either party in Convocation, and who
know that to abstain from voting, if it go to a
poll, would be to displease both. But surely those
gentlemen, if they reflect a little, must see that such a
course is exceedingly unjust towards the stronger can-
didate ; and since his Committee cannot, as men of
sense, listen for a moment to any such pro-
position, the only effect of it must be to embar-
rass him and them, and expose Cam, in the opinion
of those who have more candour than acuteness and
discrimination, to the reflection, which they have not
deserved, of piotractiag a religious controversy. This
may be a very good reason why the proposal should
meet with favour from friends of the weaker candidate
who would thus convert into a drawn battle what is
now a certain defeat ; it is of course an equally good
reason why the staunch friends of the good cause
should very carefully avoid all contact with it.
Party feeling has had no doubt a good deal to do
with this question on both sides. But Mr. Garbett's
Committee have very properly disclaimed its first in-
troduction, and we call upon them now to say whether
they are prepared to withdraw their candidate in consi-
deration that his opponent shall also be withdrawn ? If
they are, they falsity all their professions, and show the
world plainly that they fought not at all for their can.
didate—but altogether for or against a party. They
will betray their candidate and stultify themselves.
The President and Fellows of Trinity had the
game in their own hands. The only name which would
be at all likely to succeed is that of Mr. Claughton.
Why did not they put forward Mr. Claughton at first ?
He is a member, the most distinguished member, of their
own College. By whose instigation, and to servo what
purely academical purpose they were induced to bring
forward Mr. Williams, let them now answer. They
have only themselves ti blame ; the consequences they
must take.
COURIER.—We, on Friday, in reference to Mr.
Christopher's speech at Lincoln, adverted to the grati-
fying proof it afforded of the readiness of British land-
owners to meet the wishes of those who have assumed
an attitude of hostility and antagonism towards them,
hoping, rather than expecting, that the manifestation of
such a feeling on their parts would have allayed some-
what of the bitterness that had been exhibited towards
them ; but it seems only to have inflamed it the more,
augmenting its intensity by the insolence of anticipated
triumph. Mr. Christopher's well-meant and generous
offer, for peace-sake, has been treated as " a signal'of dis-
tress by the organs of that party which affects so much
anxiety for a settlement of the Corn-law question. Surely
it may be permitted to us to doubt the sincerity of
advocates, who beviaiiingly admit the superiority of the
agricultural interest in both branches of the Legislature,
and then pretend to deride and strive to misrepresent
the liberal and extensive concessions which the guar-
dians
of that interest are willing to make, in order to se-
cure an equitable adjustment of the much-vexed ques-
tion. This is surely neither politic nor just ; it evinces
more of hostility against opponents than of anxiety for
the successful issue of the cause 'of which it has as-
sumed the advocacy, and aims rather at the prostra-
tion of one great interest in the State, than at
the maintenance and salvation of all. It may
serve the purpose of those who live upon dis-
sension and glory in party strife to vituperate
and menace " the squires "—to misrepresent their
actions, and malign their motives —to excite feel-
ings of hatred against them and then boast of the deed ;
but sure we are that no beneficial result can follow either
to the capitalist or the operative, and that whatever
effect such a line of advocacy may be attended with, i
tends to the obstruction rather than the advancement o
the so earnestly-desired settlement.

MONEY MARKET and CITY NE WS.
POST.—It is a somewhat remarkable coincidence
that the great Exchequer bill fraud of 1808, and the one
which has lately engaged public attention should have
involved amounts that may be said to be identical with
each other. The total, in Smith's case, so far as it has
been ascertained, would appear to be 316,000/. At
the Bank meeting, held for the purpose of declaring a
dividend subsequently to the trial of Robert Astlett, of
the Cashier's Office, it became necessary for the Chair-
man of the Court of Directors to state the loss the
Company had sustained by that person. The actual
loss, be said, was 320,0004, or thereabouts. Some
78,000/., he added, bad been employed in sources
from which the Directors thought they should be able
to recover, and they were determined to prosecute for
the purpose. In the meanwhile so prosperous was
the condition of the Bank, that no alteration
was made in the dividends. The property em-
bezzled amounted to nearly the sum payable for the
half year, but it was considered that the Board was in
no way answerable for the mal-practices of Astlett.
He succeeded in making away with the effects of the
corporation by interlining sums, and other artful con-
trivances, a very detailed explanation of which was
afforded. We shall give an outline of the trial, from
which it will be seen that the Bank was denied the
prompt and full satisfaction at the hands of public jus-
tice which the case seemed to call for. Astlett was, in
the first instance, acquitted, on the ground that there
was some irregularity in the signature of the Exche-
quer biro abstracted, a point that it may be as well
to keep in view, the more particularly as, in the
report of the proceedings, we do not find that a
syllable was urged on the score of stampings or sta-
tionery. Astlett was put to the bar of the Old Bailey,
on the indictment that he, a servant employed by the
Governor and Company of the Bank of England, was
entrusted with a certain paper writing, called an Ex-
chequer bill, of the value of 1,000/., another of the same
value, and a third of the same value ; and that on the
26th of February, he being such servant, &c., did felo-
niously secrete and embezzle the said Exchequer bills,
and did run away with them so belonging to the said
Governor and Company. There were no less than ten
different counts to the same effect. Mr. Garrow was
counsel for the prosecution, and Mr. Erskine
for the prisoner. The former stated that tke
Bank being in the customary habit of purcha-
sing Exchequer bills on account of Govern-
ment, such bills were either brought to the Bank
by one particular house or by the Bank broker, who
purchased the bills in the market. On the delivery of
these to the cashier, Mr. Astlett, he gave an order for
payment, and the Exchequer bills remained with him
till a sufficient quantity was collected, and made up into
bundles to deliver into the custody of the Directors in
the parlour. These bundles were then counted, and a
voucher given to the cashier on their delivery. They
were placed in a strong closet, shut under three keys,
and two of the keys were kept by the Directors.
Conformably to this practice, on February 26, 1803,
these were transferred from the custody of Mr. Astlett,
the cashier, to the parlour, one bundle to the value of
100,000/., another to that of 200,000/., and a third to
that of 400,000/. An entry was made in the parlour
book, and its correctness vouched by the signature of
two Directors. The entry thus vouched was, neverthe-
less, afterwards found to be for bills to the amount of
200,000/. more than the actual value of the bundles.