The Sun.
London, England, 1840-10-08 00:00:00

TIIE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1840.

nating Whig opinions. Are these gentlemen and
ladies to be stigmatized as very unfit and impro-
per persons, because they sell opinions of
which they do not exactly approve ? We
think these examples are sufficient to prove that
the doctrine to which Mr. HARMER has been
made a victim, namely, that the proprietor of a
book or a periodical journal is answerable for the
opinions it contains—beyond his legal responsibi-
lity—cannot be maintained without introducing a
complete change into all that concerns the manage-
ment of the Press.

The new doctrine of the Times must virtually
put an end to all anonymous writings. What
Messrs. LONGNIAN, MURRAY, and HARMER
sell, will no longer be the production of some un-
known man of genius, it will be the work of the
publisher, tamed down, at least, to suit his ideas
and views. Would that be for the public advan-
tage ? Of what consequence is it to the public
who says a truth, provided it be said, and
said at the right time ? The greatest writers
of the day have written and now continually write
anonymously ; if always publishing the name might
have prevented their sometimes deviating into in-
consistency, it would have kept many brilliant
things, and not a few moral truths, from being told
at due and proper times. Anonymous writing tells
for what it is worth, and receives no adventitious
greatness from one man's coronet and another man's
wealth. Without descending to particulars and de-
tails, we must state, as our conviction, from some
experience, that anonymous writing is very useful
to the public, and would, we believe, be put an
end to if the proprietor of every work or journal
was to be identified with all the opinions it con-

tains.

The Press has grown up to be of great public
utility ; we believe that society, in its present con-
dition, could as well dispense with the laws as news-
papers. At present, proprietors, editors, and con-
tributors, are generally different persons. He who
is capable of managing the commercial is seldom
adapted to the literary department ; and he
who can discuss the politics of the day is not
uenerally very well fitted to look after the
till. But the new principle insists on
identifying these parties, and making theta one and
the same. If followed out, it will compel the com-
mercial and monied man to be his own editor, and
the literary man to be his own capitalist and book-
keeper. The separation which now exists of
functions of the different classes has grown up
naturally, and is extending every day. In small
towns, and ia the infancy of the press, the proprie-
tor is very generally his own editor. In large towns,
at present, that rarely happens. To make the
commercial man, therefore, responsible for the opi-
nions of the literary man, is in fact, to force back
the press to that primitive state from which it is
continually emerging.
The doctrine against which we write is of some
importance as to the freedom of opinions. If bOok-
sellers are to be held morally, as well as legally, re-
sponsible for all the opinions in the works they
publish or sell, and it every Evangelical Rector
can say to his believing congregation, " Mr.
BIBLIOPOLE, is a very bad man, he persists
in selling the worthless trash that is published
monthly by Mr. BENTLEY and Mr. COLBURN ;
I see he keeps ADAM SMITH'S and Mr.
MACCULLOCII'S works, which inculcate very la.
titudinarian political principles ; he sells GIB-
BON, and has a cheap edition of HUME ; pray
avoid him, be is a very bad man, tainted
,
with the most erroneous and heretical opinions,,,
the circulation of truth will be most mate-
rially impeded, and the freedom of discussion
much abridged. The Bishop of EXETER, and
some other men who dread free discussion, have
sought to establish that principle, and, so far as the
contents of the works they have impugned are
illegal, they have succeeded; but the Times, and
the opponents of Mr. HARMER, have carried it
further, and have punished him for vending opi-
nions that arc not irlcgal.
The common sense of the public is on this point
a great deal more to be confided in than the party-
spirit of the Times; and the former has exone-
rated the publisher from any guilt in selling or pub-
lishing works not condemned by law, on the plain
ground that published opinions depend solely for
the'r effect on the recipient mind, and for that no
publisher or bookseller can be responsible. The
author is responsible only for the truth and correct-
ners of his opinions ; for the effects of them, whe-
thcr good or evil, he must trust to Providence.

who meet at Westminster for six months every
year, and who, not being under the necessity of
earning their living, waste their idle time by taking
care of the community, should make them rub
their eyes, and try to ascertain, if possible, whither
they are running, and to what home they are
likely to conduct us.

The most lamentable part of their system is, that
it is likely to be successful. They have taken so
much care of the people that in many cases the peo-
ple have almost forgotten how to take care of them-
selves. They have so much interfered to
do the
duties of individuals to one another, that individuals
are now apt to throw all
their cares on the State,
and expect it to do what they ought to do for them-
selves. They cannot walk but as it supports them.
Many of them are becoming imbecile. They
have neither sense nor intellect beyond the
law, and see and feel by Act of Parlia-
ment. What the law does not forbid, and
the Magistrate or the police is not by to prevent,
they know no reason why it should not be done.
Hence hundreds and thousands of them, almost as
bad as this Mr. USHER, thrust their infants into
spinning-mills, or lower them into coal-mines, or
employ them in a multitude of unhealthy occupa-
tions, to get rid of them, and make them provide
for themselves.

A great deal has of late been said, in con-
sequence of our contests with China and Egypt,
of the degradation of the people of those coun-
tries ; but if our present system should be continued,
and should succeed to the full extent of the wishes
of the meddlers, we would not answer that the
masses here may not become as degraded as the
Chinese or the Egyptians. Perhaps in this light
the Chartist agitation, which tends to defecate
the standing pool" of the' public' mind, and arouse
the multitude not only to. think, but to act for
themselves, is a great blessing. Chartism, with
teetotalism, socialism, Sze. &c., form the counter irri-
taton which prevents the " pining atrophy," caused
by the never-ending interference of ignorant but
well-meaning legislative quacks, from being as
deadly here as it is in Egypt and China.

We understand that all the information hitherto re-
ceived from Plymouth throws no light on the origin of
the late calamitous tire. The Frenchman, about whom
the Correspondent of a Morning Contemporary writes
an enormoes quantity of twaddle, is supposed to be a
member of a swindling brotherhood, whose occupations
will be put an end to in that neighbourhood. From
Sheerness, we learn that, however strong the suspicions
arc concerning Mr. Henty, it is not likely that he will
be committed for trial. On the contrary, it is antici-
pated that he will be discharged to-day. Whether a
Conrt-martial, should he be subjected to one, would
hold him innocent of most gross negligence, in allowing
such combustible materials to he placed in the ship, or
of some greater crime, we will not venture to
hazard an opinion. We may add, however unwil•
ling we are to inflict injury on an individual, that there
gentleman's former life
and fully awricisho some
directedcire suspicion
justi-
fied the Admiraity in directing a rigid examination into
his proceedings.
-•
utasrpreitcliln thison him,

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

This being the day to which the Parliament stood
prorogued, the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Minto, and
Viscount Melbourne, took their seats on the woolsack
at half-past 2 o'clock, as Lords Commissioners for a
further prorogation.
The Commons having been summoned, were repre-
sented by Mr. Lee, Mr. Bellamy, and other officers.
The Members present were Mr. Dottin, Col. Powell,
and Mr. 8.. Currie.

The Commission having been read by the Clerk at
the table, the Parliament was further prorogued till the
12th November by the Lord Chancellor i.O the usual
form, " to be then and here holden," but not '' for tLe
despatch of business."

(Cheers.) In conclusion, I beg to thank you most sin-
e...rely for the resolution you have just passed.—(Cheers.)
The hail was then dissolved, and
The LORD MAYOR retired amid hooting and hissing,
and cries of " Who borrowed the money ?"

SHERIFF'S COURT (THIS DAY).

ELMES V. STIRLING.

Mr. CHAMBERS, for the plaintiff, stated that this was
an action for false imprisonment, under the following
circumstances :—The plaintiff, who is a market-gar-
dener, residing in Lambeth, took a piece of garden-
ground at Battersea, upon a written agreement from
the defendant, a gentleman of independent property, a
earrister, and the son of the late Coroner for the
County of Middlesex. The rent due at Lady-
day last not being paid immediately, the defend-
ant told the plaintiff he would not let him
have the land any longer ; and, accordingly, be
proceeded to pull up and sell the radishes, which the
plaintiff had planted. They were not fit to be pulled,
and were disposed of by defendant to a gardener in the
neighbourhood. The plaintiff sent a person to tender
the rent due, but Mr. Stirling refused to accept it,
whereupon the plaintiff went into the garden, and see-
ing the defendant's labourer gathering the radishes in a
casket took them from him, and carried them away.
Mr. Stirling then went for a policeman, and gave the
plaintiff into custody, on a charge of felony,
and caused him to be locked up in the station-
house all night. The next morning the Magis-
trates dismissed the charge ; and this action was brought
to recover damages for false imprisonmen..
Wm. Reid, a sergeant in the V divi,.ion of police,
stated that on the 23d of April last be was call'd by
the defendant to take the plaintiff into custody. Upon
hearing the charge, witness said he did net think the
matter was one for a criminal but for a civil action. But
Mr. Stirling told him, that he, as a barrister, knew
better, and bade him to do his duty, and added that the
plaintiff was a very violent fellow, and that witness
ought to have help. Omes, however, went very
quietly. Mr. Stirling and his man accompanied them
to the station-house. The Inspector was unwilling to
take the charge ; but Mr. Stirling pledged his judgment
a 7 a barrister that it was a subStantial charge of felony,
and the Inspector reluctantly took it, requiring Mr.
Stirling to make it in writing. In the course of the even-
ing hail was offered, but it could not be taken in a case
of alleged felony.
The inspector confirmed the sergeant's testimony.
A witness named Ayres, who had lived as coachman
with the late Mr. Stirling proved the letting of the
ground, and also a-deviation from the original written
agreement, which deviation was made at the request of
he defendant. It related to the borders out of which
.he radishes were pulled, and which Mr. Stirling let to
he plaintiff, in exchange for other ground which he had
previously held under the writings.
J. A. Widgeon, a linen-draper residing at Kenning-
ton-common, proved that on the day before the plaintiff
was taken to the station-house on the charge of felony,
he had tendered the rent due on the preceding 25th of
March to the defendant, who refused it, saying he
would keep the ground himself, and sell the crop. This
witness underwent a long and sharp cross-examination
by Mr. Adolphus, but nothing was elicited to affect the
case.
The police sergeant being recalled, stated that the
Magistrate at Wandsworth (Mr. Berridge), before
whom the plaintiff was taken, said there was no ground
for a charge of felony, as it was altogether a question
of tenancy, and a case for a civil action. Mr. Stirling
said he was afraid of violence from the plaintiff, but the
Magistrate did not seem to think there was any neces-
sity for holding the plaintiff to bail.
Robert Perkins, hostler at the Castle Inn, Battersea,
stated, that on the .23d of April, Mr. Stirling, in whose
service he had formerly lived as groom, came to the inn
and said to him, Well, Robert, I hare got rid of that
rascal Dines. I have put him in prisen for robbing,
and he'll be transported." In his cross-examination,
witness said he had not been discharged from Mr. Stir-
ling's service, but had left it to better liiinse'f. He
had the entire care of six race horses. One of them
(Coronation) was in training when he left, and another
(Miss Matilda) was entered for the Derby.
Wood, a labourer, proved that he was employed by
the defendant to pull up some radishes. They were
not at the time fit to be pulled. Plaintiff took them.
and the basket in which they were, from him ; but re-
turned him the basket shortly afterwards. There
were 48 dozen and upwards of radishes, worth at the
time about Is. Gd. the dozen.

Mr. Anowics addressed the jury for the defence,
commenting with great harshness en the evidence for
the plaintiff, and accusing the witness Widgeon (appa-
rently a very respectable man) of falsehood, and the
most hardened impudence he ever saw in the witness-
box. The action, he said, was brought by a cunning
attorney, for the sake of costs, and for the purpose of
drawing money out of the pockets of Mr. Stirling, a
gentleman and a barrister, who had the good fortune to
be independent of his profession, and to have " hot
mutton and a clean shirt" without it. If instead
of allowing, judgment to go by default, Mr.
Stirli.ig had carried the case into a superior
Court, the plaintiff' would ba non-suited. It was
not at ad strange that a barrister sliculd sup-
pose the stealing of the radishes was an act of felony.
He remembered a similar case tried at Chelmsford,
before Lord Ellcnborough, in which members of the
: bir were of the same opinion as the defendant, but
his Lordship decided that the taking of growing crops
was not a felony. .
The UNDER•SHEAIFF summed up, and the Jury,
:liter a short consultation, found a verdict for the plain-
tiff, damages lOU, the full amount laid in the decla-
ra-inn.
Mr. CHAMBERS then addressed the Court, stating
that every effort had been made by thc attorney to
settle the matter with the defendant without bringing it
into Cou.t.
Mr. Anotruus said that the attorney who would
bring such an action would not scruple to tell a falsehood.
A Juror—That is a shameful observation.
The UNDER SHERIFF observed that, under the cir-
cumstances; the overtures ought to have come from
the defendant, who should not have allowed any feeling
of pride to preventhim from compromising.

BOW-STREILT.-(THIS DAY.)

John Haughton, driver of 1,6:31 cabriolet, was brought
up by constable 65 F, charged with furiously driving
his horse while in a str.te of intoxication, and wzsaulting