The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1840.

they are not what the Amerinns can Humaos, and

perhaps they are angels.

When the Tories say they act in obedience to
some great rule of right or to satisfy their own con-
science, what do they mean ? Is that rule any-
thing but a crotchet of their own ? Are their con-
sciences anything but a respect for the teaching of
other men, and very often ignorant and in-
terested men ? Take Lord `
STANLEY'S Re-
gistration Bill as the example. What does
he propose by that, other than to carry out
his own crotchet, that his own shortcoming and
unjust Reform Act for Ireland should not be set
aside ? Or, take Sir R. PEEL'S support of the
Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill : what
does he propose to himself farther than the grati-
fication of his ovtn purpose of carrying religious
instruction, by the priests of the Church of Eng-
land, as far as possible ? Lord STANLEY and
Sir ROBERT PEEL both say these are righteous
objects. They mean only that they are in con-
formity with the teaching of ►heir instructors at
college, or their parents at home, or with their own
personal experience. Why, then, their preference
of what they call principle to popularity comes to
this : they prefer their own experience, or the ex-
perience of their friends and teachers, to the wishes
of the multitude ; they are in love with them-
selves, or their souls are still swayed by the tenets
of their masters ; they despise living men, and
worship some one or two dead men. This may be
right—we say nothing against it—but we say it is
absurd in the Tories to despise popukrity as a merit,
and obey precedent and follow rule, for it turns out,
when the analysis is completed, that both are alike
a deference to the opinions of other men. The
only difference is, that the popularity is a deference
to living, the respect for principle probably
political principle —a deference for dead men.
Alan is still their idol, though for their purpose
they pretend to despise a large portion of the
human family.

We said on Wednesday- that the most horrible
thing of all, in relation to the murder of Lord
WILLIAM RUSSELL, would bz.. that the assassin
should remain undetected. The examination at
Bow-street yesterday has convinced us that there
is something still more horrid,—to bring home the
guilt to a domestic. It will be impossible, after
such a circumstance, for master and servant,
wherever suspicion is the inmate of a bosom, to
live together without dread. 'Wealthy people are
naturally timid, and prone to apprehension. They
have much to lose, and many persons are anxious
to got what they possess. One example of a do-
mestic—that much-trusted class—imbruing his
hands in their blood for the sake of property, will
make every domestic an object of suspicion, and
render the lives of the rich miserable. If they
have not before learnt, they will now learn, that
wealth may be a source of great anxiety.

If there be any who doubt this, it iertet be these
who hold that the more solemn the sanctions by
which a contract is ratified the less binding is it
on the contracting parties. How far this duty
has hitherto been funled, or how far it has been
neglected, it is not our present purpose to inquire.
A more fitting opportunity will occur for adjusting
that question when we come to review serirrtinz
the different proceedings which have marked the
progress of this extraordinary case. As to the
course which it is incumbent on her Majesty's Mi.
nisters to pursue in this affair, what can be more
clearly defined ? Why is Lady CECILIA UN..
DERWOOD raised to the rank of a Duchess? The
answer—the only answer to this question is, " be-
cause she is the wife of the Duke of SUSSEX."
Do we dispute the fact ? GOD forbid. To
suppose that she is not so —to suppese
that Ministers have advised the QUEEN to
bestow the highest dignity in the gift of
the Sovereign, or any dignity at all., on a lady on
whose claim to the title of a lawful wife there
rests the smallest doubt, would be to suppose that
they have lost all regard both for their own character
and for the honour of the Crown. Admitting, then,
that the present marriage of his Royal Highness is
legal, is it more so than his former one ? is the
Duchess of INVERNESS his wife by a stronger tie,
legal or religious, than Lady AUGUSTA MUR-
RAY was ? This will of course not be asserted.
But the effect of this Royal recognition of the one
marriage, while the other—to say the least, an
equally valid one—is left unrecognised, is to pro-
nounce from the Throne a sentence of bastardy
against Sir AUGUSTUS D'EsTE and his sister.
Thus the Sovereign is made to appear in the
light of a party to an act repugnant to justice
and. to the moral feelings of the country.
And in what a light does it make tire
Duke of SUSSEX appear? If her Majesty's
Ministers have really that regard for his Royal
Highness which they profess to have, they must be
anxious to rescue him from the position in which
their proceedings have placed him with respect to
the public ; for that public never will believe that,
if he possessed influence enough with the Go-
vernment to procure the recognition of ►it: second •
marriage, the same influence, had it been used,
would not have procured the recognition of the first
in the only way in which that can now be done—
by the advancement of his children to that rank.
and station to which their birth entitles them, and
from which they have been so long and so cruelly
excluded.

QUEEN's BENCI-I.—(THIS DAY.)

CHURCH-RATES.--THE QUEEN V. JOHN THOROGOOD,
In this"case a rule ha. been nty.linA to show cause why
the writ De contumacip cßpiendo should not be set aside,
and why the defendant should not be discharged out of
custody.

Sir -W. Fe LLETT now appeared to show cause against
the rule. Tne affidavit upon which the rule had been
granted set out the proceedings of the citation, the signi-
ficavi', and the writ of warrant under which Thorogood
was then in custody for contempt.
Sir F. POLLOCK said he might as well here state his
objections to the writ. The Bishop of London had a
Vicar-General and official principal, generally through-
out the diocese. He had also a Commissary for par-
ticular parts of it. Now it, appeared from the ex-
planation of the office of Commissary in Burn's Ec-
clesiastical Law, that in the part of the diocese in which
CAdinsford is situated, the office of Commissary is totally
different from that of Vicar-General of the diocesc at
large. He believed there %yrs no doubt about that. The
objection was that the citation should have been before the
G:rnmis.sary, and not before the Vicar-General ; and
although the two (Bees happened to be held by the sanir
person, the jurisdiction of the Courts was totally different.
The next objection was that the present v‘as a. case for the
recovery of church-rates under 101., and tha.t the jurisdic-
tion of the Court was not sufficiently shown,, but was quite
consistent with what was stated on the fe ce of the signifl-
eavit, that the Court had no jurisdiction at all. It wet
also objected that the form of the statut_e was not observed
in the Court, and that the citation had not been set out.
Lastly, it was urged that there was no suffic.ent addition
within the words of the statute of the sth Elizabeth chap.
23 sec. 13, which provided that all and every such pains
and forfeitures, wanting sufficient addition, should be utterly
void in law.

.t*:lr W 11.1,14111 FOLI ETT then proceeded to show cause
pgainsc the Rule. An application had been made fur
a writ of Habe:4s Corpus to Mr. Baron,Parkey, and three
grounds of objection were urged-Ist, that the citation
had not been issued by proper authority ; 2d, that the sig-
nificavit contained words which were not in the scheduk-
,,f the Act of Parliament; and, lastly. that the return Wa'
insufficient. Now, with respyct to the two first objection=,
the Leal fled Baron decided that they were of no avail,
and he took time to consider the third ; which, after emu-
suiting one of :Lir Lordships then on the bench, he de-
cided also against the application. An application
then made to set aside the writ, and have the defendant
charged out of custody ; and one of the grounds urged was
,at the Ecelesiastic,,i Court had no juridiet.ion. Now he
contended that the Ecclesiastical Court had general jur-
istiie:joa and authority io all ewes of church rates whether
the sum was above or under 101,
Lord DENMAN—Dues it appear that the sum in this case
was under 101. ?

Sir \Vat, FOLLETT—No, my Lord; it does not appear
eit.iier upon the atlioavit or otherwise teat the sum was un-
der 101.
Lord DCNMAN_It appears to me to be a diffiCult argu-
ment to maintain, because the Court had a general authority
in all cases, and it lies upon you, Sir Frederick, to show
how this case is to be taken out of that jurisdiction..
Sir F. Pot.i.ncx—There is another objection which I
omitted to mention. By the Statute it is required th.l
the significavit should have been is-sued within 10 days
after judgment had been pronounced.
Sir W. FOLLETT had heard nothing previously of that
objection,

Lurd DENMAN-13 this person in custody?
Sir F. POLLOCK_Yes, my Lord.
Lord DENMAN-Because, if it was not a matter of press-
ing necessity, Sir W. Follett might wish for more time.
Sir \V. FOLLETT said objections had now been raised
which had not been stated at the time the rule was moved
for.

Sir F. PoLLooK had stated what occurred to him at the
time, and he was not quite certain whether he had men-
tioned the last point to the Caurt. Their Lordships, how-
ever, were aware that in any case where the liberty of the
6ubject was concerned, even if it tuned out at the last
moment, and could be shown that the party was entitled
to his liberty, their Lordships were bound not to turn s
deaf ear to the application.
(The case was proceeding when we went to Press.)