The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LON'DON* SATURDAY

- - -
iAT-110L/C, LAW, AND GENERAL LIFE
ASSURANCE COMPANY, 8, NEW COVENTRY.STREET,
LEICESTER-SQUARE.

London, June 19, 1847.
..Totice is hereby given, that the first ordinary GENERAL
MEETING of this Company will be held on TIIUDAY, the 6th day
of July next, at the Company's Office, as above, at twelve for one
o'clock precisely, for the election of directors, auditors, and other
business. (By order) WM. NORRIS, Secretary.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY ELECTION.
The Hon. C. E. LAW'S COMMITTEE SITS DAILY at
LEY'S HOTEL, No. 1, TRAFALGAR-SQUARE, CHARING-
CROSS.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY ELECTION.
At a numerous Meeting of the Members of the Senate, held
at No. 55, Charing-cross, on Saturday, the 12th of June, Mr. John
G. Shaw Lefevre's Address having been read, the following Resolu-
' tions were unanimously adopted:-
1. That John G. Shaw Lefevre, Esq., from his high academical
reputation, his long connexion with the University, the interest
which he has always taken in the advancement of science, and his
able conduct in various Important public offices, has proved himself
eminently qualified to represent the University in Parliament.
2. That the Members of the Senate present at this Meeting pledge
themselves to use their best endeavours to secure Mr. Lefevre's
return.
A Committee was formed of the following Gentlemen, with power
to add to their number:—
The Right Honourable Sir Edward Ryan, Trinity, Chairman.
The Right Reverend Bishop of Sodor and Man, late Fellow of Mag
dalen.
Andrew Amos, Esq., late Fellow of Trinity.
D. T. Ansted, Esq„ Fellow of Jesus.
J. Armitage, Esq., Fellow of Trinity.
R. Baynes Armstrong, Esq., Q.C., late Fellow of St. John's.
The Honourable D. L. Astley, Trinity.
Charles Austin, Esq., Q.C., Jesus.
' Charles Babbage, Esq., Trinity.
William F. Beadon, Esq„ St. Ralph Bernal, Esq., M.P, Christ's.
John's.
J. E. Drinkwater Bethune, Esq., Trinity.
W. H. Birch, Esq., St. John's.
W. Lloyd Birkbeck, Esq., late Fellow of Trinity.
John Elijah Blunt, Esq., Trinity.
The Honourable E. Pleydell Bouverie, M.P., Trinity.
The Reverend James Brogden, Trinity.
The Reverend W. H. Brookfield, Trinity.
William Brougham, Esq., Master in Chancery, late Fellow of Jesus.
E. H. Bunbury, Esq., late Fellow of Trinity.
George Burrows, Esq., M.D., late Fellow of Callas.
The Honourable Richard Denman, Trinity.
The Honourable George Denman, Fellow of Trinity.
The Honourable and Reverend L. W. Denman, Magdalen.
Frederick Drewe, Esq., Trinity.
Samuel Duckworth, Esq., Master in Chancery, Trinity.
Francis Dumergue, Esq., Trinity.
The Viscount Duncan, M.P., Trinity.
The Very Reverend Dean of Durham, late Fellow of Trinity.
Edward Ellice, Esq., M.P., Trinity.
Thomas Flower Ellis, Esq., late Fellow of Trinity.
The Reverend James Evans, Pembroke.
Sir Robert Ferguson, Bart., M.P., Trinity.
'The Reverend Jehn Hutton Fisher, late Fellow of Trinity.
Frederick S. Flood, Esq. Trinity.
Peter Le Neve Foster, Esq., late Fellow of Trinity Hall.
Francis Galion, Esq., Trinity.
James R. Gardiner, Esq., Trinity.
F. W. Gibbs, Esq., Fellow of Trinity.
Woronzo Greig, Esq., Trinity.
The Reverend John Guthrie, Trinity.
Thomas H. Hall, Esq., late Fellow of King's.
The Reverend Dr. Hawtrey, late Fellow of King's.
Douglas Denon Heath, Esq., late Fellow of Trinity.
Robert Hollond, Esq., M.P., Corpus Christi.
The Honourable Charles Howard, M.P., Trinity.
The Reverend Dr. Jerrard, late Fellow of Caius.
W.lliam John Johnson, Esq., Fellow of Calms.
E. Kay, Esq., Trinity.
John Mitchell Kemble, Esq., Trinity.
The Honourable P. J Locke King, Trinity.
Mr. Sergeant Kinglake, Trinity.
Samuel Laing, Esq., St. John's.
It. G. Latham, Esq., M.D. Fellow of King's.
John Halsey Law, Esq., Fellow of King's.
Samuel Jones Loyd, Esq., Trinity.
Sir John Lubbock, Bart., Trinity.
The Right Honourablo T. Babington Macaulay, M.P., late Fellow of
Trinity.
Edward Maltby, Esq., Trinity.
The Reverend H. Melvill, Principal of Haileybury, late Fellow of
Peterhouse.
The Right Honourable Viscount Palmerston, St. John's.
The Viscount Milton, M.P., Trinity.
The Honourable G. O'Callaghan, St. John's.
The Honourable Charles Pepys, Trinity.
Thomas Jodrell Phillips, Esq., late Fellow of Trinity.
G. R. Phillips, Esq., M.P., Trinity.
The Honourable and Reverend Augustus Phipps, Trinity.
The Reverend Dr. Prendergast, Queen's.
The Honourable Mr. Baron Rolfe, late Fellow of Downing.
John Rollllll3', Esq., M.P., Q.C., Trinity.
The Reverend E. S. P. Serocold, Jesus.
The Reverend R. Sheepshanks, Fellow of Trinity.
James Spedding, Esq., Trinity.
The Reverend W. A. Soames, late Fellow of Trinity,
The Honourable W. C. Spring Rice.
The Right Honourable E. Strutt, M.P., Trinity.
Lawrence Sullivan, Esq., St. John's..
Henry Tancred, Esq., M.P., Q.C., Fellow of Jesus.
W. J. Tayler, Esq., Trinity.
Martin Thackeray, Esq., late Fellow of King's.
Sir. Sergeant Thompson, Queen's.
William Pollard Urquhart, Esq., Trinity.
Horatio Waddington, Esq„ late Fellow of Trinity.
W. H. Whitehead, Esq., Trinity.
The Honourable Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams, Trinity.
W. Page Wood, Esq., Q.C., late Fellow of Trinity.
John Werlledge, Esq., late Fellow of Trinity.
The Reverend J. W. L. HEAVISIDE, Sidney.
Secretaries The E. HEAD LAM, Esq., Trinity.
Those gentlemen who are favourable to the above Resolutions are
earnestly requested to take the earliest opportunity of communicat-
Ng information which may assist in promoting Mr. Lefevre's return
to the Committee, at 55, Charing-cross.

L)OOKS FOR PRESENTS
1. ROGERS'S POEMS. 72 Vignettes. 16s.
2. ITALY. 56 Vignettes. 16s.
3. WORDSWORTH'S POETICAL WORKS. 1 vol. 20s.
4. CAMPBELL'S POETICAL WORKS. 58 Vignettes. 20s
5. TENNYSON'S POEMS. 2 vols. 12s.
6. CAMPBELL'S SHA.KSPEARE. 16s.
7. CHAUCER'S POETICAL WORKS. 16g.
8. TODD'S SPENSER'S WORKS. 16s.
Edward Moxon, 44, Dover-street.

WEATHEII.—SuN OFFICE, JUNE 19.
TunamomETEn, Lowest, 50 ; Highest, 62 ; Noon, 66,

BAROMETER, 29.95.—Wnm W.N.W.; fine.

HIGH WATER AT LONDOIT-BItIDGE. THIS DAY.
Ntirning .. 54 minutes after S. I Evening .. 13 minutes elle, G.

take into consideration, as upon its judicious re-
arrangement depends the commercial prosperity, we
had almost said the commercial existence, of the
nation. Ireland, again, and religious disabilities, are
subjects demanding the most rigid and consistent
scrutiny.

The catechism of the hustings must be conducted
upon a plan altogether dissimilar from that heretofore
prevalent. Party, be it observed for the hundredth
time, is shattered to atoms ; the old vocabulary of
political distinctions has become obsoleta. Candidates
must be judged not so much by the names of political
classification as by their independent views upon the
different questions of legislation. Of the peculiar
views entertained by such tried men as Sir CHARLES
NAPIER and Sir B. HALL no doubt whatever can
exist, and consequently the choice of the Liberal
electors of Marylebone is obvious.

After a lengthened discussion the House of Com-
mons last night decided upon going into Committee
on the Health of Towns' Bill, the Government being
supported by the commanding majority of 141.
Prom the interest we have so long taken in promoting
the question of sanatory reform, we rejoice at the in-
fluential decision to which the representatives of the
people have at length come upon this important sub-
ject. The excellence of the object sought to be at-
tained by Lord MORPETH'S measure is beyond the
pale of controversy. All the objections presented in
yesterday's debate for not proceeding with the Bill,
were, therefore, necessarily directed against its ma-
chinery. The motive for its introduction was un-
impeachable. The objections, however, that were
taken—though from their nature, if entitled to any
weight at all, the proper time for raising them would
have been in Committee—broke down one after an-
other under the salient replies and explanations that
were mutually given by Lord J. RUSSELL and Lord
Moaprrn. Centralisation, patronage, and the
omission of the city of London from its provisions,
constituted the main points of resistance offered to the
progress of the measure. With respect to the first,
if it were valid as an argument, then should many
public institutions, at present in beneficial operation
for the community at large, be forthwith remodelled.
We recollect that similar strictures were made in
Parliament when the present police force was first
proposed to be constituted. It was then said, as now,
" leave the people to manage their own affairs;" but it
was then rejoined, as it was last night observed,
by the Premier, that experience showed that local
bodies could not be entirely trusted for adopting re-
gulations for the efficient protection of life and pro-
perty; and then, in accordance with what is now in-

tended in regard to sanatory reform, the city of
London obtained a separate Act for the management
of its own police. But does any man throughout the
empire desire the repeal of the Police Act on account
of the principle of centralisation on which it is based ?

We venture to say, not one. It answers admirably
all the purposes for which it was passed, which, it is
obvious (or, at any rate, experience imparts the
greatest strength to, the presumption) it never would
have done, in the absence of the controlling powers
incorporated in the Act.

With respect to the objection of patronage
created under Lord MORPETR'S Bill, it is clear that,
if its object be worthy of being compassed by
enactment, certain public officers must be appointed.
When any general measure of reform is needful to
the public welfare, it is inevitably incidental to the
same, that its execution must be intrusted to persons
specially nominated by the Government, by virtue of
the authority of the Legislature, conferred pro re nata%
The only consideration, then, for the House of Com-
mons, as effecting Lord MoßrETn's,Bill, in, reference
to patronage, is, whether it is proposed to carry it to
an extent beyond what is required for the efficient
operation of the scheme. This has not been shown;
and, inasmuch as the objection comes alone from
Colonel SInTHOR?, who rejoices in blissful solitude,

it may be presumed that the proposition of the Go-
vernment in this respect is beyond the reach of any
reasonable exception.

Lastly, as regards the eity of London and its
omission from the Bill, the answer of Ministers is
fraught with practical wisdom. They think, as
every one must, that it would have been better to
have had it included. But, first, the citizens of Lon-
don, a powerful body, are opposed to such an ar-
rangement ; next, the session is too far advanced for
the Government to risk the success of a general mea-
sure of vital importance to the preservation of the
public health, by fighting through twenty or thirty
additional clauses, which it would be necessary to
pass,!provided the city of London were not excluded.
Fever and disease of various kinds are making fearful
inroads in different parts of the empire. Mortality is
already lamentably above the average, compared with
what it would be were proper sanatory measures
in vigorous operation.

If Lord MORPETR'S Bill were passed to-morrow, a
considerable period would elapse before the necessary
plans and surveys could be completed ; so that any
undue procrastination in passing it, come from
what quarter it may, only aggravates the suffer-
ings of millions of our hard-working and poverty-
stricken population. Their health and strength
are daily wasting beneath the blighting effects of
their miserable, ill-ventilated, undrained, and noisome
habitations. Well might the knowledge of the
wretched lot of the masses of his impoverished country-
men induce Lord MoapEnr, in his pathetic speech of
last night, " to mix actual entreaty with his appeal to
the House of Commons to make immediate progress
in the great work of sanatory reform."

In Oriental tales we read of absolute potentates,
who, not content with punishing in an exemplary
manner the actual perpetrator of any heinous offence,
were also accustomed to put his nearest relatives to
death—to sell the more distant connexions to slavery,
and to raze even the foundations of his house, so that
no record should remain of the criminal. In the
earlier ages, and in uncivilised countries, the same
principle was generally adopted. The death of the

guilty person alone was not considered a sufficient

expiation unless his innocent family were involved in
one common destruction. Every person was, therefore,
not merely responsible for his own actions ; it
was not sufficient that he should be a good and faithful
subject, an honest and industrious citizen, well and
efficiently discharging all the duties incidental to his
social position, of approved integrity, and beyond the
reach of reproach or calumny. All might be insuffi-
cient to shield him from the penalties of that law, which
should have been his protection, but which was turned
into an instrument of oppression and persecution, if
he, unhappily, numbered amongst his kindred an
evil-disposed or badly conducted person. As civili-
sation increased, and more just and equitable notions
prevailed, the gross injustice of this system became
manifest, the more obvious and direct punish-
ments were wholly removed. A child could
not be imprisoned because his father had violated
the law ; a woman could not be brought to the
gallows because her husband had committed a mur-
der ; but, even to this day, in our own England—in
the country which arrogates to itself a prominent
position in the scale of nations—which prides itself on
its stern and undeviating justice to all—a similar ini-
quity is indirectly sanctioned, and the crimes of the
fathers are indeed visited on their helpless and in-
offensive children, or on the almost heart-brokers
widows, who have never been even suspected of a
participation in their husband's misdeeds. We are
accustomed to boast of the excellence and purity of
our laws and constitution, and it is only when some
monstrous case is brought prominently forward, and
laid bare before the public in all its enormity, that
we perceive how urgently reform and revision is re-
quired, and how harsh and oppressive may be the
operation of the law.
Among the relics of barbarism still suffered to
exist, and to inflict an indelible stain on our juris-
prudence, is the law relating to escheats and forfei-
tures. Practically they are seldom enforced, the
Crown generally waiving its rights and restoring to
the parties entitled (subject, however, to a heavy
deduction for legal expenditure) the property
which had belonged to an attainted person.
This, however, is a matter of favour and
not of right, an indulgence which need not
be conceded, and which is frequently delayed,
although not often absolutely denied. Why, then,
should the law be retained in its present objectionable
state, more particularly when it is so seldom enforced?
Why should the feelings of the surviving friends be
again harrowed, their wounds re-opened, and the
public mind again disturbed by a renewal of pro..

I ;04\
,
41. AA • " • '"
- ' 411,4.
‘ltrOs 44W. 'Aar r .'Ol/44tA'" ;;,.0* •ea
;;lE-17. r.\.•' M°'4 ROIT .1.: 14,