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

Ministers meant to bring in any measure to put a
stop to duelling.
Lord MELBOURNE admitted the importance of
the subject, but was not prepared to bring in any
measure with reference to duelling.
In a brief conversation on the subject of the
Poor-law (Ireland), the Earl of GLENGALL com-
plained of the mode in which it was worked.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said directions had

been given to follow a strict principle; but Go-
vernment did not mean to bring in a Bill to
amend the law.
Lord BROUGHAM presented two or three peti-

tions ; and amongst them one from a gentleman
seventy years of age, complaining that a suit for
the recovery of property had lasted twenty years,
and was not yet decided. The Noble Lord ex-
pressed a hope that this embarrassing cause
might be disposed of on the return of the
Judges from circuit.
The Bishop of EXETER is on Tuesday to pre-
sent a petition from Canada about St. Sulpice,
and of course to make a speech on that day.
Lord BROUGHAM, in laying on the table a re-
turn of the number of days the Committee of the

Privy Council had sat, again defended that C:.;ur
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 GLENGALL 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 a 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. VERNON SMITH said the Govern-
ment had no official information on the subject.
On the Order of the Day for the second read-
ing of the Registration of Voters (England) Bill,
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN 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 franchise. 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. G ISBORNE 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 R. PEEL and
Lord PALMERSTON in reference to the North-
Eastern Boundary question, it was stated that
the English and American Governments had
agreed, on the principle of settling the dispute,
but had not agreed as to the details. Both Go-
vernments had 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.

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
that his Right Honourable client, standing before
them on his honour, is not to be found guilty,
though that client know that there is not, and
cannot be, the smallest doubt as to the person
wounded—because there is a technical difficulty
in establishing his identity, why should not the
Earl OfCARDIGAN be allowed, like SHEEN, who cut
off a child's head, to have recorded against him a
verdict of not guilty ? All the world knows that
the Earl of CARDIGAN did fight a duel, did
wound a gentleman, and did thereby incur pe-
nalties prescribed for that offence by the Statute ;
but why should not the Peers, on their honour,
pronounce him not guilty, whatever their know-
ledge may be, when the ATTORNEY-GENERAL
tailed to lay before them at that moment the
technical proof that the person wounded by
he Earl of CARDIGAN was Captain HARVEY
rUCKETT? The Ndble Earl has, on that point,
had no more favour nor affection shown him
than any other person indicted for a crime
and we cannot see any reason to find fault with
the Court of the LORD HIGH STEWARD for its
decision, whatever blame may attach to the law
itself, or to the prosecutors.
Why the prosecutor did not establish the
identity of the person shot at and wounded by
the Earl of CARDIGAN on Sept. 142, with the Cap-
tain HARVEY PHIPPS GARNETT TUCKETT named
in the indictment, or why, if he could not
establish that identity, the wounded person was
riot described as unknown, does not appear.
The offence was fully proved. Mr. DANN, his
wife, and son, established the fact that the Earl
of CARDIGAN shot at and wounded a man—but
what man ? The prosecutors averred that it was
Captain HARVEY TUCKETT. Why did they not
prove it ? The coachman who drove him from
the field, accompanied by Sir JAMES ANDER-
SON, could have been found ; he might have
been traced to Hamilton-street, to the Magis-
trates who examined him, and to whom he gave
his name, and one, or all of these parties, might
have identified the person shot by the Earl of
CARDIGAN with Captain HARVEY TUCKETT.
Why this was not done is unexplained, and at
present a stigma lies on the reputation of the
prosecutor. If the omission were designed, what
can be said for the prosecutor's honesty and
fidelity ? If it were accidental, what for his
? In caller cave bir Jon CAMPBELL Und
Mr. WADDINGTON Will suffer in reputation, if
not in fortune ; and the labours of wally years

THE SUN, L

will not retrieve their losses on the 16th instant.
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL spoke of the offence he
was prosecuting in the softest terms, so that
he was not zealous in his undertaking. He is
indirectly accused by the bar of having violated
its rules, by not having done his utmost to obfain
a verdict. Sir JOHN showed no such want of
zeal when he prosecuted Mr. HETHERINGTON,
and he made no such mistake when he indicted
the Chartists in various parts of the kingdom.
We are not surprised, therefore, at the resolu-
tions adopted by the Finsbury Working Men's
Association; if there be not one law for the rich
and another for the poor, as they say, there
are unquestionably such different modes of ad-
ministering the same law, that one man may by
it be persecuted to death, and another find it
a protection from punishment, for a palpable and
an admitted offence. We are less disposed,
however, to blame the Court, which only fol-
lowed the ordinary rules of criminal procedure,
than the manner in which the prosecutor set
about proving the offence charged in the indict-
ment.
But if the proceedings were according to law,
and the acquittal according to the rules of evi-
dence, what opinion must we form of them ?
The whole executive power is founded on the
idea of giving active protection to the members
of the Community, who in return promise it obe-
dience. It establishes Courts and subjects the
community to considerable expense to obtain
that end. Its especial business is to uphold and
vindicate the law. In this pursuit it spares no
expense, and is regardless of life. It had, in this
case, made great preparations to vindicate the
law against a man of high rank. An unusual Court
was established—great expense was incurred—for
nearly a month public attention had been fixed
on the proceedings—even the business of one
branch of the Legislature was suspended, and the
result was, while the offence was admitted, that
the offender was acquitted. Guilt was proclaimed
in the presence of the executive, and the rules
laid down for the guidance of the Court com-
pelled it to pronounce the guilty free. We can
come to no other conclusion on such a result than
that the rules of law and evidence which brought
it about are absurd, and quite unfit to be the
guides of conduct.
Some of our Contemporaries, however, prefer
these technicalities to substantial justice, and
would have a man acquitted or condemned, flot
because he has or has not committed an offence,
but because his Christian name might not be cor-
rectly known. Unless these technicalities be ri-
gidly observed, we are taught to believe that
justice cannot be administered.
" Erglishmen, instead of being protected by the law,"
says the Herald, "tried by the administrators of the law—
convicted or acquitted according to law—would hold their
lives and liberties at the arbitrary caprice of lawless tribu-
nals—bound by no fixed principles—submitting to no uni-
versal rules of justice, but delivering their own crade and
inconsiderate dicta, mixed up with the passions, the pre-
judices, the hasty feelirga of the occasion. Anarchical
confusion would succeed to legal crier and method. The
voice of pur.,, firm, impartial, considerate, awl passionless
justice would no mere be hcari in the balls where its
throne has long stood amid all orders and authorities of the
monarchy, commanding, unassailable, and supreme."
This is fine writing ; but the laws so much
boasted of are gross absurdities, which lead gen-
tlemen to say " Not guilty, upon my honour,"
when the guilt of shooting at another man, and
wounding him, is clearly proved ; and which
lead those whose duty and pride it is to vindicate
the law, to be parties to its violation. " Passion-
less justice " are fine words, but they mean in the
above sentence the fictions and rules laid down
by very passionate men, and very often laid down
to serve a bad purpose. To dignify the absurd
technicalities which lead to the acquittal of a
SHEEN and a CARDIGAN as passionless justice, is
to degrade one of the noblest attributes of na-
ture. Justice we understand to be what GOD or
Nature.commands ; the passionless justice of the
Herald is a mixture of antique iniquity and
modern falsehood, condemned by all experience.
It is a mistake, we believe, to suppose that such
rules keep Judges honest, and ensure the due
administration of justice. Those who make these
rules can always twist them to their purposes,
and the only guarantee we have of their honesty,
is
.that publicity which some Judges are ever
anxious to get rid of.
Though we admit that the Court of the LORD
HIGH STEWARD followed with great readiness
the ordinary rules of Criminal Courts, as they
happened to accord-with its inclination, we must
not be understood .as praising the consti-
tution of that Court. Suppose a Peer must be
tried by his Peers, why cannot a few of them be
selected by ballot, to constitute a Jury to try
him. In ancient times that was the practice.
Why must a Peer be tried by the whole body of
the Peerage ? Are these men of honour so afraid
that they will not trust a few ? Do they dread a
packed Court? Such an apprehension, Black-
stone says, was the origin of the practice of sum-
moning all the Peers, which puts into our hands
the Peers' measure of the honesty of the Peer-
age. They sought protection from the vices of
individuals by appealing to the whole body.
They fled to universal suffrage as their best pro-
tection, but whenever the people appeal to the
same principle, they are sternly repelled, and
told to rely on that principle on which the Peers,
when their own lives or property are at stake,
will not rely—the verdict of a select few.
Again, this multitudinous Court dispenses with
an oath. Why? It feels and knows that the ob-
ligation to speak truth and act justly, is just
as great whether it be enforced by an oath
or not. An appeal to GoD does not in the case
of a Peer enhance the obligation. But the Peers,
setting such a just value on an oath in their own
case, impose oaths on other people as the only
security for truth telling. They trust themselves
and trust no other men. We are not aware of
any reason why the declaration of any other man
on his honour or on his word should not be held
as valid as the declaration of a Peer ; and as the
Gospel commands men to swear not all, they may
think it right to follow the example of the Peers
in preference to obeying their commands, and
object to take oaths that they will do right or
tell the truth.
This multitudinous Court differs from all the
other Courts of the kingdom. It is established
for a special occasion—they are always in exist-
ence. It is constituted to try one of its own
members, and must come prejudiced to the in-
vestigation. They have not, except on rare oc-
casions, a special mission, but try causes in the
ordinary run of their every day business. It is
very numerous—they consist of a few persons,
and in several cases of a single Judge. It deli-
vers its opinions on its honour ; other Courts are
bound by stringent oaths. But totally opposite
as these institutions are, we shall be told by our
Tory Contemporaries, in defiance of reason, that
they are adapted to produce the same effects;
that both are perfection, and make Great Britain
the admiration of the world. The Radicals can-
not stomach such revolting inconsistencies, and
while they admit the general good character of
our ordinary tribunals, they assert that no better
means can be devised to protect a criminal than
to subject him to a special Court of his own fel-
lows, appointed for the occasion, and dissolved
pstEh;:ebrt
llemijconof,mincaeanAtndißtypwi
of
fwork is done. The trial of the
CARDIGAN l
hasten
aehs
ta
es
n,
existingi
either
ti fale cr
at
bi
tsrevealedst rreformd ities
ot
orof
our
destruction.
TI

tie more we report the proceedings of the
Court of Commissioners of Sewers the greater
necessity do we see for a special observance of
their doings present and past. In our Jour-
nal of this day will
Obeecufrorueld id
so
fa
a RerpboarctktoausehlBinoBg
and 1832. It would appear that the Commis-
sioners of the " good old times" could as readily
whitewash a dirty job as some of their worthy
successors can attempt to make the worse ap-
pear the better cause. But the public will
naturally ask how has such a system been
allowed to evade the light of inquiry so
long ? We presume the reason to be that
there were no Members of Parliament in the
Commission, or if there were, that they did
not like to soil their gloves by stirring in such
muddy waters. Private interest andpublicbenefit
seem to have been convertible terms in
ti,e thosewoik i,r-
-,.1
well then, people of the
responsible times ;, ac; the
day :,!,;t1
exclaim, " why not let well alone ?" Be it so, it
the householders of this vast metropolis are CQII-,