The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-21 00:00:00

`.PI.R.IT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

PROM TITS MCItNING PAPERS OP TIIIS DAY.
• (From the Morning Chronicle.)
Our readers would not fail to notice a paragraph in ycs-
terday's Chronicle under the head of " The late aristocra-
tic outrage at Hampton," in which it was stated that the
Earl of Waldegrave and a Captain Duff, had been held to
bail by Captain"Jelfe Sharp and C. K. Murray, Esq.,
Magistrates, at Tviickenham, to appear and answer at
the next ensuin-4 Middlesex Sessions, but that, owing
to some mistake as to the day on which the Sessions
would commence, the recognizances of the defendants
and witnesses were made returnable on the Monday
week following, whereas the Sessions commenced on
the following Monday, a circumstance which was not
discovered until the Monday morning, when the
witnesses- were summoned together, and despetched
to Hieks'a Hal;, Clerkenwell, but on their arrival they
were too late, the Gcand Jury having been discharged half
an hour. I; is instructive to ob3crye bow admirably, in
eases in which rich men are offenders, all sorts of acci-
dents befriend them. The two Magistrates only held a
Peer of the Realm and his friend to bail 'in 100.
each, which was very. considerate no doubt. It next h.ir-
pens, that these Magistrates are unacquainted widi the
week on which the Seesions arc held. It night be
cu:ious to ascertain whether these Magistrates ever reads
a mistake of a we; k in holelinsi poor men to bail, and
and hew providential it was fee Lord Waldegrave and Cop
tain Duff that the-ignorance should have occurred so op-
portunely for them ! Bat it seems the Commissioners cf
police, having been baulked of the above two individuals,
and having ascertained that two persons who also have
titles, were implicated in the outrage, have instructed Mr.
Hobler, jun., the solicitor, to proceed with the prosecution
of them, regardless of their high rank. We do not sup-
pose that another mistake will be committed as to the time
of holding the Sessions; but we think we may venture to
say that it will turn out that,thc individuals against whom
justice is about to busy herself, will be able to prove that
they weie in another part of England when the outrage
was committed. We again repeat,• that when a man of
rank in this country chooses to set public opinion at defi•
ance, he has nothing to fear from justice.
(From the Times.)
Why does not the present Regency Bill contain a pro-
vision disabling, the Regent from giving the • Royal Assent
to any Bill for repealing or altering the fifth article of the
union with Ireland? Why, by providing only against the
repeal or alteration of the English Act of Uniformity and
the Scottish Act for securing the Protestant religion, does
in proceed upon the basis of a state of things which has
totally passed away, ever since Ireland was incorporated
into the United Kingdom, and the Church of England
merged in the united Church, We suppose the answer
will be given, that the same omission was made in the Acts
of 1811 and 1830. But it is manifest that in those Acts

the clause in question W 3.2 merely copied from the previous
Acts of 1751 and 1765, without due consideration of the
change of circumstances eff.;cted by the union with
Ireland. There was nothing in the prospects of the
Church of Ireland at either of those periois which was
at all calculated to remind the Legislature that she
might practically stand in need of ouch a protection.
And in 1830, especially, it was certain that the contem-
plated Regency, even if it should take t fleet, would not
be of long duration. But it is not material to inquire into
the causes of any inadvertence which prevented due pre-
caution from being used on former occasions. The ques-
tion is rather, whether every constitutional principle which
requires the insertion of restrictive, clauses in a Regency
Bill for the protection of the Churches of England and
Scotland does not require the same restrictions to be ex-
tended to Ireland also; whether it is not practically as
much needed ; whether a precedent is to be established
in the frame of Bills of this nature, which, while it for-
mally recognivs the validity of obligations solemnly con-
tracted with the Parliaments of England and Scotland
while separatekingdoms, refuses to recognize as of like vali-
dity precisely the same obligations contracted in precisely the
same manner with the Parliament of Ireland ? We com-
mend these matters to the consideration of those whom i-
may concern.