The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-20 00:00:00

Privy Council had sat, again defended that Court
from the attacks made on it in another place.
The Earl of DEVON brought in a Bill to im-
prove the administration of justice, founded on
the Reports made to the House. There are now
three Bills before Parliament for that object,
and with similar titles.

On moving for some returns about the Poor-
laws in Ireland, the Earl of GLENC ALL ob-
jected to • the valuations; and it was ex-
plained that the valuators of Clogheen had
impertinently fixed the title of " Tory and
disturber" to some tenants of the Noble Earl.
The Irish Peers seem to find nothing too minute
and trifling to bring before Parliament. The
capacity, too, of their Lordships, is most extra-
ordinary, and suffices to govern a poor-house or
an empire. After their Lordships had settled
the question, they adjourned till Monday.
In the CoMmons, a considerable number of
petitions was presented, and amongst them one
from Bury for the release of Mr. HETHERINGTON,
which ought to be followed up. It is a disgrace
to the age that a respectable tradesman is incar-
cerated for selling a book, the language of which
is not according to the canons of gentlemanly
criticism.

Mr. WAKLEY, on presenting petitions against
the New Poor-law, used very strong language,
which will, nevertheless, be echoed in the
country.
Mr. HAWES admitted that he. was ready to
strike out of his Bill for Medical Reform all that
relates to druggists. On a hint from the SPEAKER
he undertook to withdraw it and introdUce it in
a Committee of the whole House as 4 measure
affecting trade.
Mr. HumE adverted to some Bishop at Quebec
having refused 'to allow a tablet to be placed in
the church to 'the memory of Colonel LESTER,
because the Colonel, was not a regular commu-
nicant. Mr. VEIII,I64IfgAIITII said the Govern-
ment had no official information on the subject.
On the Order of the Pay for the second read-
ing of the Registn,tilon of Voters (England) Bill,
Sir EDWARD SUGEREN- expressed his disapproba-
tion of placing in the hands of the SPEAKER the
'power of nominating the Judges of Appeal. He.
character ised it as abdicating the functions of the
House. He also objected to a part of the Bill
which alters the franehise. He did not oppose
the second reading, but gave notice that he would
move clauses in the Committee to make the Bill
agreeable to his own views.
Mr. GISEORNE also objected to some part of the
Bill, but on the whole was much gratified by its
introduction. _ _ _

Mr. WARBURTON thought the Revising Courts
indispensable.
Mr. HumE inquired why the proposed fran-
chise for Ireland was not to be introduced into
England?
Lord J. RUSSELL, in admitting that he intend-
ed to make an alteration in the rate-paying
clauses, said he had no wish or intention to re-
store the 40s. freeholders either in England or
Ireland. The Bill was read a second time.
The Duties on East India Rum Bill was also
read a second time.

In reply to Mr. HUME, Lord PALMERSTON
stated that it was his intention to lay the papers
relative to the Syrian warfare, on the table as
soon as possible.
In a conversation between Sir It. PEEL and
Lord PALMERSTON in reference to the North-
Eastern Boundary question, it was stated that
the English and American Governments had
aneed, on the principle of settling the dispute,
but had not agreed as to the details. Both Go-
vernments ha made propositions which had
been by both rejected. There was no general
Commission acting on behalf of both countries,
but each is seeking to establish its own views of
the details of the plan to accommodate the
dispute.
In reply to Mr. HAWES, Lord J. RUSSELL
stated, that the LORD CHANCELLOR meant to
bring. a Bill into the other House to regulate all
Ecclesiastical Courts.
In answer to Mr. BARING, the Noble Lord
said that a measure would, he believed, be neces-
sary to register voters in municipal corporations.
The House adjourned at a Quarter past Seven,
till Monday.

The trial of the Earl of CARDIGAN, whether
called a solemn farce, a piece of antique humbug.,
a costly mockery of justice, or anything else, con-
tinues to excite the indignation and the wonder
of the public. In the substantial merits and de-
merits of the case we see nothing extraordinary,

any more than in any other criminal indictment
%Which failed because the facts averred in it were
not proved by that which is called legal evidence.
There is no reason why an Earl should not
have the same chance of escape when put on his
trial, or the same protection, as the humblest me-
chanic; and if the ingenuity of a hired counsel
can pick a hole in the indictment, or find a flaw
in the evidence—if he can prove to the Judges

m
i :that his Right Honourable client, standing before
1 tht.Arl c. n his honour, is not to be found guilty,
',bough th2t client know that there is not, and
evvlcullni..:ddiebe_L the smallest doubt as to the person
beciniie there is a technical difficulty
in e „s tablishing his identity, why should not the
arl of CARD 7
child's heao, GAN be allowed, like SHEEN, who cut
E a
to have recorded against him a
off .
verd let of not guilty? .All the world knows that
the Earl of CARDIGAN t..'.
iil fight . a duel, did
woe trid a gentleman, and did - t.ll-..
asreb y incur Pe-
nal ties pre. scribed for that offence by tm'ai: Statute ;
but why sho 'ild not. the Peers, on their honO:l9',
prr mounce him not guilty, whatever their know-
ledge : may be, when the ATTORNEY-GENERAL
failed : to lay before them at that moment the
techr tical proof thot the
.person wounded by
•the Earl of CARDIGA-N was Captain HARVEY
Tucx Err? The Noble Earl has, on that point,
h ad ,no more favour nor affection shown him
th an . any other person Indicted for a crime ;
an d We cannot see any reason to find fault with
the; Court of the' LORD HIGH STEWARD for its
de, is ion, whatever blame may attach to the law
itr elf, c T -to the prosecutors.. .
Why the prosecutor did not establish the
idkutity L If the person shot at and wounded by
the 'Earl c If CARDIGAN on Sept. 12, with the Cap-
tain HARV, vi PHIPPS GARNETT TUCKETT named
in the inch. '=talent, or why, if he Could not •
cats .blish that' I,...4entity, the wounded person was
not. described' "as . Unknown, does not appear.
The offence Tr. Is full,' proved. Mr. DANN, his
wilfte, and son, e stablis.
lled the fact that the Earl
Of CARDIGAN" St of at an' wounded a man—but
What man ? T?lt . prosecutor.
'4 averred that it was
C aPtain. II AaVl' - TUCKETT. Why did they not
pi .ove it 'l, The ,coachman who drove him from
.•, ,
th .e fie7l, acc DliiiXplell .by Sir fr TAMES ANDER-
, sc IN, could ha ire , lik.-eu found; he might have
bc?eYi traced to Hamilton-street, to tLe Magis-
Wales who exam ni'ned i.'hol and to whom he
.gave
his name, and ( as te, or an of these parties, might
ha, ie identified ti to • person shot by . the Earl of
CA RDIG A N with Captain HARVEY TUCKETT.
Wby this was n.ot. done is un.lxplained, and at
Present 'a stigma, 1 ies on the ro.putation of the
prosecutor. If tt e ',omission were designed, what
. can be said for tha prosecutor's' honesty and
fidelity? If .'
mt were accidental, what for his
skill ? In eith€ r case,
,Sir JOHN CAMPBE;.L and
Mr. WADDING.-- lON wilt suffer in reputation, if
'not in fortune ; and the imsbours of many years
will not retries 'e theirlosses
on the I.6th instant.
Sir Jormx C AMPBELL spoke of 'the offence he
'was prosecuti: 'mg in the softest terms, so that
he was not zem dons in his - undertaking. He is
indirectly a'cii sed by the bar 9f having violated
its rules, lm- t 1 • done 1 • --(most to obtain
yno laving his utmost
a verdic' ~ Sim ! JOHN showed no such want of
4.-tit ' hen he prosecuted Mr. HETHERINGTON,
(ma 1 „te made a to such mistake when he indicted
the ! Chartists 5 a various parts of the kingdom.
W a are not SIL rprised, therefore,, at the resolu-
tic 1., "'opted
,'ly the Finsbury Working Men's
A ;saciation, ifs here be not one law for the rich
al id another for the poor, as they say, there
al !e unquestiortt.bol.v such different modes of ad-
n ministering the sa n.le law, that one man may by
it ;be persecuted Wa death, and another find it
r . protection from pt inisi2rnent, for a palpable and
in admitted offence,. we are less disposed,
however, to blmme the Court, which only fol.
lowed the ordimary r tiles of cmimjnal procedure,
\
than the manntr in which the
about proving tie offence charged m_
merit. i.,:rosecutor set
the indict-
, But if the prceeedi rigs were according 14:1 law,