The Sun.
London, England, 1834-12-12 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

Lord Stanley has refused to join the Duke's Admi-
nistration, and the Tories now say that they will be
better without him. This is the old story of the Fox and
the Sour Grapes. The Standard, not having yet been
instructed to abuse his Lordship, observes—" We
have not heard how far his answer favours the hope
that his Lordship will give to the Administration the
aid of his great talents and noble character—we mean
as a member of the Government, for of his zealously-
supporting Sir Robert Peel's Ministry, as a member
of Parliament, there can be no doubt whatever?' We
suspect our Contemporary will find that he has here
counted without his host. It is understood that he will
give his support in South Lancashire to the Liberal
candidate. This is certain, that he has declined to
favour the pretensions of Lord Francis Egerton (for-
merly Leveson Gower), to the great displeasure and
mortification of the Tories. We do not wonder that
Lord Stanley should be disgusted at the conduct of
the wolves in sheep's clothing, now forming a pseudo-
Reform Ministry. Whatever his faults, Lord Stanley
is honest and straight•forward. He scorns to conceal
his sentiments, and still more to profess opinions which
he does not entertain. He may be proud, but he is '
not mean nor hypocritical. The Peel-Wellington Ad-
ministration is-to be purely and exclusively Tory. The
Standard tells us that the Earl of Carnarvon is likely
to hold the Privy Seal, and that Sir Edward Knatch-
buil will probably be a member of the Cabinet. The
candidates for office are, it seems, numerous. " The
Conservatives (says our contemporary) can easily af-
ford three or four every way worthy and competent to
discharge the duties of every Cabinet office." They
are quite perplexed with this embarras des richesses, as
our contemporary phrases it. Sir R. Peel has only
to say the word, and Mr. Goulburn, or Mr. Herries,
or Mr. William Holmes, are ready to take his place of
First Lord of the Treasury. Mr. Horace Twiss, or
Mr. Praed, or Mr. Halcomb, are equally ready to re-
lieve Lord Lyndhurst from his toils. Mr. Croker can
fill every situation., Four Statesmen fit for every office
in the Cabinet, amount to about half a hundred in all
a great source of embarrassment, no doubt. Why
they should have done such injustice to these prime
Statesmen, as to run about the country after Lord
Stanley and Sir James Graham, is inexplicable. The
Times, which has now gone fairly round to the
Tories, in what the Standard terms " an admirable
article, in which are presented with great force
and fidelity the personal* characters of the Mi-
nisters who have already taken office," attempts
to explain why the Duke of Wellington remained ig-
norant of all that a politician ought to know, till his
sixty sixth year, and then suddenly became one of the
greatest of Statesmen. On the 15th May, 1832, the
Times asked—" Who is there that would now change
places with the Duke of 'Wellington ? With a hardi-
ness of infatuation, of which there is no example, lie
goes on doggedly in this miserable work of building
up a Cabinet, without one sound material [ Sir Robert
Peel, Lord Lyndhurst, &c. were in those days un-
sound]—a Cabinet, of which the first condition is,
that every man who enters it must leave his good name
behind him ; yes, let it be written over the doorway,
' Principle and reputation are the price of admission
here." The Duke and Sir Robert and Co. were in
1832, according to the Times, men without principle
and reputation, and no men of principle and reputa-
tion could join them. Down to the 23d June, 1834,
after his Grace had entered into his 66th year, he
was, according to the Times, " honestly and pro-
foundly in the dark as to almost everything that men
thought and felt- throughout the larger portion of
educated society," and " celebrated as a Minister for
his ignorance of public opinion." Our Contemporary's
estimates of his Grace since his advancement to power
have been very various ; but according to the latest,
so highly extolled by the Standard, his Grace had
seen so much cause in the Peninsula to regret the ex-
periments which subverted despotism and the Inquisi-
tion, that he only recovered from his hatred of innova-
tion on the dismissal of the Melbourne Ministry.
" When the Duke of Wellington (says the Times)
made his declarations against Reform, he did no
more than manifest the repugnance of a States
man who never had been an experimentalist in
politics towards any great and vital change in the old
institutions of his country. , He had seen in other parts
of Europe, more of political experiment, or of its con-
sequences, and been compelled to meditate it more
closely and anxiously, than perhaps any other man ex-
isting. He had witnessed its progress, and its per-
verse, wayward, and uncertain action in the Penin-
sula ; and in France, the effects of 28 years of inces-
sant change, which had been such that no fixed prin-
ciples of government were then relied upon, save only
those of arbitrary, that is of military, power. It would
be little wonder, if a man, long disgusted by the want
of stable and respected institutions elsewhere, brought
home a mind impressed above all things with the
persuasion that repose must be a master-element
in the political system of a nation desirous to
be happy." The Times thus admits that the
Duke was attached to the Holy Alliance principles ;
that every alteration was wrung from him. But then
comes the old song--" The Reform Bill is now the law ;
the powers and privileges which it conferred are le-
galized." The powers and privileges which it con-
ferred have been legalized these two years ; and yet,
during these two years, the Times has been constantly
abusing the Grey and Melbourne Cabinet, for not
availing itself more boldly of those powers and privi-
leges to obtain for the people the ameliorations for
which the Reform Bill was demanded as a means, and
abusing the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel
still more for their blind opposition to the measures pro-
posed by the Whigs. If the Duke of Wellington, during
two years, opposed himself to all measures of reform,
notwithstanding they followed necessarily from the
Reform Bill, he cannot propose the same measures
himself, without confessing either that his ignorance
unfits him for conducting Government under the
Bill, or that he is a man utterly unprincipled, ready
to oppose one day what he supports the next, like our
contemporary itself. Really the Times ought to have
some mercy on the three-fourths of the people of
England whose political opinions are guided by it ;
for there are contradictions enough in the single article
to which we are adverting, to drive a thousand High
Dutch commentators to desperation. First, the Duke
of Wellington acquired his politics in the Peninsula
and France, whereby he was indisposed to innovations ;
—then the Reform Bill having become law, " the con-
stitutional action of our representative Reform, or the
constitutional progress of those further reforms to which
its enactment has given birth," cannot be defeated by
him ;—then we have his Grace for two years seeking
to defeat the constitutional progress of those further
reforms, and arraying the Lords against the Corn-
mons ; then we have his Grace plotting the dismissal
of the Melbourne Administration, on account of their
proposing what it is imperative on himself now to do.
What contempt for its readers does this journal mani-
fest ? The plain common sense of the people of Eng-
land cannot be made to comprehend the juggling tricks
of the Tories, one day opposing all Reform, and the
next affecting to be hearty Reformers. In vain the
Times flounders on with its attempts to show that the
Government, in now coming forward with measures of
Reform, would not be guilty of political apostacy, be-
cause the people have at length made it feel, that poli-
tical dishonesty must inevitably destroy political confi-
dence. But unfortunately for such Janus-faced
reasoners, they almost always furnish the wea-
pons of their own destruction. The Times says—". The
plain truth is, that all derivative Reforms, ecclesiasti-
cal, municipal, and every other, stand upon the same
identical foundation as the Reform of Parliament
itself." Precisely, and therefore they who opposed
reform in Parliament—to wit, Sir Robert Peel and the
Duke of Wellington—must, on " the same identical
foundation," oppose these derivative reforms. If not,
they are apostates. Why did they oppose reform in
Parliament ? Not simply on its own account—not
merely because it changed the Representative ma-
chinery ; but because they knew it would be the cause
of an effect--a means to an end. If it had not been
a measure calculated to lead to those very "derivative
reforms," they would not have opposed it. These "de-
rivative reforms," which the Times treats so lightly, con-
stituted the whole question at issue between the Tories
and the people of England. Had it not been to obtain
them, the people of England would never have struggled

for Parliamentary Reform ; had it not been to:prevent
the possibility of their ever being carried, the Tories
would never have fought so fierce and desperate a
battle. Yet the Times would persuade us that they,
who moved heaven and earth to destroy the cause, will
now use every exertion to hasten the effect which they
deprecated, and fairly carry out those ends, the means-
of accomplishing which they protested against, solely
because they were means to those very ends. How
strange that Sir Robert Peel and the Duke should
become so suddenly clear-sighted as to the extreme
impropriety of any attempt to, in the language of their
new organ, " clog,' or vex, or impede the constitu-
tional action of our representative reform, or the con-
stitutional progress of those further reforms to which
its enactment has given birth, and the completion of
which it has necessitated !" How strange that they
should still have continued to defend the corruptions
of Liverpool, Warwick, and Stamford, to denounce
Corporation reform, to resist the purification of the
Church, and even yet to direct the thunders of
their eloquence, such as it is, against the rash
and daring innovators who propose these mere mat-
ter-of-course measures ! Strange that the pretext
for turning out their predecessors should be the
intention of those predecessors to do that which
the Times tells us they are so exceedingly anxious
should be done ! The plain English is, the Times
is attempting to put a cheat on the people of Eng-
land. The Tories have come in, not to forward Re-
form, but to " clog, vex, and impede it." They will
propose no reforms that will not be illusory ; they will
keep no promise to the ear which they will not break
to the hope. Whatever their promises of Reform,
those very promises must constitute an act of apostacy
—apostacy without parallel—treachery towards the .r
party hitherto unequalled. We tell the Times that,
despite of its special pleading, the people of England
are too keen to be deceived, too cautious to be betrayed,
too determined to be defeated, and too honest to place
their confidence in those whose only claims upon it
are base . treachery and sordid apostacy. This sub-
ject was admirably handled by Dr. Lushington
at the Tower Hamlets meeting, of which we
have given a report elsewhere. " When (said the
Doctor) I hear people say, Oh, for God's
sake, trust the Duke !—for heaven's sake, listen
kindly to Sir Robert Peel, who' carried Catholic Eman-
cipation cannot help exclaiming against such fay
and absurdity. The man who patiently listens to such
stuff is an idiot—the man who avows his belief in
them is a traitor.—(Cheers.) How do men act in
private life? 'Do you confide in those you know to
be convicted swindlers ?—(Loud cheers.) If you seek
a woman to be your companion for life, do you take r s
a wife, or as a mother to your families, a prostitute
from the streets ?—(Hear, hear.) If then, men are
governed in private life by such feelings, should they
not feel equally jealous of the character of those wh.o
govern them ? Every man of common sense is go-
verned in his dealings with an individual by his expe-
rience of his past conduct ; and what safer or wiser
course can we pursue with regard to those men called
to the councils of the Sovereign, than be warned by the
past, instead of blindly trusting to hope for the future ?
—(Cheers.)" We leave the Duke and Sir Robert,
and their organ the Times, to digest this as they may.
—Morning Chronicle.

Here we are still I Whigs, Radicals, and Conser-
vatives ; all lumped in one heap, and without a Go-
vernment I We have got indeed a Commander of the
Forces, and a Commander in Chief, in the persons of
Sir R. Peel and the Duke of Wellington, but the
troops are perfectly abroad, to use a fancy phrase,
both for a Quarter-master and for Generals of Divi-
sion. The Conservative army, which has taken the
citadel of reform by stratagem and fraud, can boast of
chiefs—but of nothing more ; for although a con-
temporary print boasts that the " Conservative party
presents this honourable contrast to the party
which it succeeds, that while the latter was con-
fessedly unable " (this is a great lie, to say the least
of it) "to find men decently qualified for the of-
fices of Government, the Conservatives can easily
afford three or four every way worthy and com-
petent to discharge the duties of ever, Cabinet
office"—yet we find that they are catching at every
straw that floats upon the surface of the dirty water in
which it is their province to angle--that they cannot
keep within the verge of their own manors, but, for the
sake of catching game of any kind, must poach upon
un-tithed ground. What, in fact, can demonstrate
more thoroughly the extreme poverty of the Tory party
—their utter absence of resources, as well as absence
of principle, than their begging letters to Sir James
Graham and Mr. Stanley—their humble entreaties
that they would allow themselves to be Gazetted as a
portion of the Tory Cabinet—or, if not, that they
would, at all events, allow it to be said that they would
give their support to it ? Neither of these gentlemen
are Tories in the true sense of the word—they never
did belong to the Tory faction—and yet, although,
as the Standard has it, that there are four Tories
perfectly qualified for every vacant office in the Go-
vernment, the leaders of the party practically say that
such is not the fact, and that they cannot either form,
or exist, as an Administration, unless they receive
assistance from the Whig camp—in the shape of such
moderate and highly aristocratic gentlemen as Stanley
and Graham I However, nothing is more evident
than that a deadly blow is now aimed both at Whigs
and Radicals—that it is the object of the new Admi-
nistration to extirpate both—and, consequently, that it
is the policy of both to extirpate them, as the common
enemy to both ! Thank Heaven, the union between
the two parties is all but perfect, and against that
union no Government can possibly stand. The
Tories may concoct an Administration—they may
meet, or they may not meet the present Parliament
—they may dissolve,- or they may not dissolve it :
let Reformers be united, and upon the first Ministerial
motion, an amendment will be moved and carried
which will destroy the Anti-Reform Cabinet, for
once and for ever, before it has breathed one dishonest
breath. Let the word be (to parody Burns), " Ho-
nest men and honest measures !' and the result is cer-
tain. Before dropping the subject, we beg to be al-
lowed to mention that every sort of rumour is sent
forth from the Tory camp, to delude—to deceive—to
ingratiate. The window tax is to be taken off! the
malt tax is to be reduced one-half ! the Church is to
be reformed a la Stanley I and many other reforms,
are to astonish the natives of this island—in a word,
everything is to be done, in order that no thorough
reform may be demanded ! This is the object to be
foiled by the new Cabinet. Reform is what they
Irate, whatever guise it may assume—and to
prevent Reform they will do anything and everything
which can keep the lion quiet ; but if we know any-
thing of the people of England,
.they are not the gulls
to be deceived by this sinister policy. If they are
wise and staunch, as we believe them to be, they will
have nothing to do with these wolves in sheep's
clothing—they will come forward as men of principle,
of honour, and of integrity, and declare with one
voice that they will have no reforms—no retrenchments
—no reductions of taxes—from men who were always
opposed to all these measures—in whom they can, in
consequence, place no confidence—and who, if they
bring them forward at all, do so only in order that
they may shirk other measures which are infinitely
more important to the future well-being of the country.
0, for the Sheridans and Foxes of former days How
they would smash the pitiful creatures—the wretched
and disgustful imps—whose only title to office is their
hold of 'a lady's petticoat, and whose nightly prayer,
if they have any conscientious care for themselves and
their party, ought to be, " Rid us of office"—" save
us from Ministerial responsibility."—Morning Ad-
vertiser.

On the subject of a dissolution of Parliament opi-
nions are at present considerably divided, which, in-
deed, must always be the case where no means of cer-
tainty exist. It is too much to suppose that any one
can be acquainted with the intentiono of a Govern-
ment not yet formed, and that upon a subject which,
even after its formation, will require muck.ll previous
consultation to decide upon. As far as conjeettire may
be allowed to take the place of certainty, we. should Iva
inclined to imagine that the question of di.ssolving
present Parliament is, and will be, one m' Hely of tin ie.
To dissolve the Parliament before the v arious official
appointments are made, would invc4l ve those wh o
are included in them in the nr ieecsity and the

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1834.

risk of two elections,._ whereas by: waiting till
they are completed, each candidate'lso.,; situated
will go before his electors, clothed in the real
character which he is to bear. There is an-
other reason, and in our minds a powerful one,
why the dissolution of -Parliament should not be
hurried ; and that is this, that it is desirable not only
that the Administration should be first formed, but that
something like an expose of its principles should be
put forth, before the country is called upon by a
-ffeneral election to sanction or condemn it. This is
not only an act of justice which the new Administra-
tion owes to itself, but one which the country has
almost a right to demand at its hands, rather than
having to proceed in the dark to the most important
duty which they can have to perform. We say this
in the full confidence that such a knowledge would
be highly favourable to the new Cabinet itself,
whose general policy, we feel strongly persuaded,
will be such as calls for no concealment, and ,
which, therefore, would probably in the end find
itself greatly prejudiced by a contrary course. Let
the dissolution take place when it will, it will
place the new constituencies under the Reform Bill
more decidedly upon their trial than the novelty and
excitement attendant upon the first general election
could fairly do. As warm friends of Reform, we are
anxious to see many of these bodies rescue themselves
from the disgrace which the results of the last election,
in too many instances, brought down upon them.
Surely it is not every upstart, talking adventurer who
ought to be chosen Delegate of free and enlightened
men, to watch after their dearest interests, and to
decide the fate of nations. In choosing an agent,
an executor, or a trustee—to look after their per-
sonal "interests—great caution is naturally used ;
and why should not that man undergo a somewhat
similar scrutiny who asks our confidence in matters
at least as remotely, if not as immediately, important,
as those entrusted to persons acting in any of the
above capacities ? We are aware that in too many in.;
stances the electors have, in fact, for a time, disfran-
chised themselves by an indifference (a criminal indiffe-
rence we should call it) as to seeing their names pro-
perly placed upon the respective registers where they
are entitled to appear. This we have at all times de-
precated and its consequences will, in all probability,
be but too apparent whenever a general election takes
place. In many of the boroughs we have good reason
to know, that while the members of the Established
Church have shamefully neglected their duties in this
respect, Dissenters of all descriptions have, on the con-
trary, been actively alive to having their names placed
on tilt register, wherever eligible, a circumstance which
we have no doubt will be seen and felt in too many in-
stances. Still electors, whether Churchmen or Dis-
senters, will be alive, we trust, to other considerations
than mere differences of opinion on the subject of re-
ligion, and will. pause before they give their votes to
candidates who, as in too many instances at the last
election, have, if we may be excused the equivoque,
no pretensions beyond mere pretension to their suf-
frages.—Morning Herald.

Whig materials to keep lithem out- of office--The
Whigs appear to have been, for most practical pur-
poses, in the vulgar phrase, " used up," as it was ;
and 'during the last session the ultra-Radicals, when
the fancy seized them, were in the habit of giving the
Ministry a twirl round their thumbs, which set the
whole Treasury Bench reeling for days afterwards, as
often as their tormentors were in a sportive humour.
Four times was Lord Althorp forced to tender his re-
signation, so barbarous and so formidable was the
ultra -Radical squeeze. But we are charged with a
new-bor►x " approbation of the Stanley section of the
Whigs," by way of asking countenance for a false-
hood, impudent falsehood, that we " shall throw over
the question of Church reform." Whoever says we shall
throw over that great question, we will prove by our
acts to be a liar. For Mr. Stanley's high talents and
honourable character, when we most warmly disputed
his opinions, we never failed to express our unfeigned
respect. But neither from deference to him, nor to
any man, will this journal betray an avowed principle,
or leave a pledge unredeemed. As for the mention
made of Lord Durham to insinuate a charge against
us, we never identified ourselves with that Nobleman's
cause or doctrines ; and this we state from no disre-
spect to his talents, his character, or the direct and
uncompromising manner of stating his opinions,—from
which opinions, however, as sometimes specified, we
have repeatedly stated that we differed. If the Radi-
cals look speedily to a Prime Minister in Lord Dur-
ham, they harbour a vain expectation: We have but
time to notice without answering a letter from a corre-
spondent, signed " An Old Subscriber," who seems to
be swallowed up by a monstrous chimera,—viz., that
the Duke of Wellington is, by means of a Tory
Parliament, to repeal the Reform Bill, and play the
deuce with the country after the old boroughmonger
fashion. But, good friend, the Duke must first catch
Ms Tory Parliament. He cannot conveniently, re-
' peal the Reform Bill before a general election. Then,
if the people of England know anything of business,
they must be aware they have the remedy—we mean
the prevention of a Tory Parliament—in their own
hands, and are great fools if they choose anti-Re-
formers for their representatives. Is it not very easy
for the electors to give their votes for stanch, and
pledged, and known Reformers, as contradistinguisded
on one side from the ultra-Radicals or Revolution-
ists, and on the other from those few fanatics who
would, if they could, bring back the rotton borough
dynasty ? As to the Duke, or any man attempting,
to repeal the Reform Bill, he might as well (as was
said on the occasion of some similar bugbear) propose
the re-establishment of the Heptarchy, or that our
countrymen and women, instead of wearing decent
clothing, should walk about like their naked ances-
tors, with their flesh painted blue, red, and yellow.
That is the only replication we can make to our own
correspondent, the " Old Subcriber."—Times.

COURT OF CHANCERY.—DEc. 11.

CAMERON V. CAMERON.

One of our contemporary prints is alike generous
in supplying us with motives for our actions, and
candid in construing those which we ourselves pro-
fess. The scribe has, it appears, " watched with
some interest the gradual sidling of the Times,
from the character of a Reformer, into that of a
Conservative." Now, if this means that our lan-
guage indicates, or that our most secret thoughts
contemplate, one inch greater divergence from the
straight and broad and well-defined path of reform in
Church and State, than was avowed by us twelve
months ago, the writer alluded to does, for a grave per-
sonage, give utterance to an absurd, as well as an abo-
minable, falsehood. What shadow of pretence can be
discovered in any one word or deed of ours for the use
of such vulgar impertinence as follows :—" He" (the
Times) " has now, in his own opinion, exhausted the,
necessity of caution," &c. How does this jackanapes
know what we have or have not, " in our own opinion,"
exhausted ? Did we ever tell him our opinion ?
or have we, to the minds of the public, furnished
any ground for crediting what this simpleton, aiming
to be a conjuror, asserts to be passing within us ?
The declaration we first started with we now adhere
to. If the Duke of Wellington rules England on re-
form principles, he shall have our support of the mea-
sures.founded on such principles, and as much sup-
port from others of our fellow-subjects as we are able
to procure for him. In so far as he deserts those
principles and attempts to throw obstacles in the way
of reform, he shall find in us a firm, steady, and inve-
terate opponent. What could we ever say more than
this ? When have we ever fallen short of it ? When
we yesterday expressed a doubt whether any Govern-
ment, failing the present, could be formed which did
not present a large admixture of men, in whose hands
" the property of the country and its religious institu-
tions, and the integrity of the empire," would be alto-
gether unsafe, we did not, as the conceited prig assumes,
mean by property " the pension list," or the abuse of
" the corporation funds." Our avowal has always been,
that " the pension list" onet forthwith to be revised, and
that " corporation funds, after being restored to their
original uses, should be placed under the guardianship
of the local community interested in their pure admi-
nistration. By property we did mean whatever comes
under that name, whether ecclesiastical, which ought
not to be transferred from the Church to the landlords,
English or Irish,' while the ministers of religion went
bare ; or lay property, which has been threatened with
extinction by a banditti of projectors, who stand up
for what they term the " rights of labour"—in other
words, the right of indefinite spoliation ; or, lastly,
the property of those, or of their representatives, who
have lent money to the State, but who might, under
certain circumstances, be. exposed to the tender mer-
cies of such a Finance Minister as Mr. Daniel O'Con-
nell, who was not hooted out of the House of Com-
mons, when he insulted it by laughing at the " cant of
public faith." Again, by "the Church," the scribe is an
ignorant or unprincipled slanderer, for asserting that we
mean, or ever did mean, " pluralities or ecclesiastical
sinecures, the starvation of curates, and the degradation
of Dissenters." For years we have been pressing upon
public attention the necessity of reforming the Church
in all its departments, as the only means of having any
Church at all; and the expediency of granting the in-
dulgences claimed by the Dissenters, as To whatever
concerned the rights of conscience and the comforts of
life in all their private relations—adding it as our strong
conviction, that they ought to have a University char-
tered for themselves, as soon as that University, in-
stead of being a Joint-Stock Company, should have
the solid foundation of permanent funds. But by those
in whose hands the Church of England would be
deemed unsafe, we did mean to stigmatize and exclude
from public confidence, all—and a troublesome gang
of brawlers they. are—who have made it their business
to preach up incessantly a separation between Church
and State, which, as these agitators understand it,
means an abolition of both. Then, in fine, the " inte-
grity of the empire" is construed for us into an up-
holding of every enormous abuse which has driven
" the oppressed people of Ireland" into the despe-
rate " but not unaccountable demand for a Repeal of
that Union which has given them over to the domina-
tion of a foreign bigotry." Here is a tolerably frank
confession, and a pretty large dose of something like
" apostacy" also. How long is it since this small-
minded pedant has turned Repealer ? But this honest
critic affects to leave us no alternative between the
adopting all his misconstructions of our own terms,
and " attempting to terrify the public with alarms the
most fastantic ; and fastening on public men the im-
putation of designs the most abhorrent to their foel-
ings." Abhorrent toswhose feelings we should like to
know ? Is it not a manifest truth, that every one of
the designs we refer to has been entertained and puffed
by those whom the calumniator of our sentiments
describes by the mild epithet of " public," instead of
notorious, ' men ? Is it not true that an " equitable
adjustment"—that an attack on " accumulated" capi-
tal—that a " separation of Church and State," and that
a dissolution of the empire, under the name of Repeal
of the Union, have every one been adopted by bodies
of the bad or misled among the King's subjects, each as
an infallible panacea for its own especial and correlative
grievance? But then we are asked, how do you make
it out that such people as these would of necessity
make part of any new " liberal" Administration ?
Why, because, as we have already stated, there are no

Mr. COOPER moved in this cause for leave to serve a
subpoena on the defendant, who at present resides in Scot-
land. This motion was founded on the 2d and 3d of
William I V., c. 33, an Act which gave authority for that
purpose, and which Act was extended by a subsequent Act
of last Session of Parliament. There could be no doubt
of the jurisdiction of the Court, for it was expressly stated
to extend to Great Britain and Wales ; but the Learned
Counsel thought it right to apprise his Lordship that Lord
Brougham refused a similar application when made to him,
because Lord Plunket, who brought in the Bill, had in
conversation informed him that he did not intend the Act to
extend to Scotland.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—What does that signify, Mr.
Cooper, if the words of the Act say so ?
Mr. CooPEß—That's what I thought at the time, my
Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR granted the order as prayed.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.—DEc. 11.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

THE KING V. ROBINSON.
In this case, which was not concluded yesterday when
we went to press, the Jury returned a verdict of Guilty.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEc.ll. -„i

GIBBONS V. LORD HILLSBOROUGH.

This was an action on a bill of exchange for 5001. The
plaintiff was a silversmith and jeweller in London, who had
received the bill for the purpose of discounting it, and who
had given full value for it. The defence was that in 1832,
when the defendant gave the bill, he was not of age, that
he had received no consideration for it from the person to
whom he gave it, and that the bill was not valid according
to the law of Scotland. The only part of the defence
attempted to be proved was that the defendant was not of
age in 1832. The proof of the fact was given by Lady
Amherst, who stated that her daughter, the Marchioness
of Downshire, was married in 1811, and that her son, the
defendant, was born in 1812.

The Jury returned a verdict declaring that the plaintiff
had given full and sufficient consideration for the bill, but
that when the defendant accepted it he was under age.

Mr. Justice GASELEE directed this verdict to be entered
as a verdict for the defendant.

SURREY SESSIONS, DEC. 11.

Mary Garry, one of the inmates of Bridewell House of
Occupation, stood indicted for wilfully attempting to set
fire to the above institution.

Mr. Joseph Myall, the Superintendent of the Institution,
on Sunday night, the 16th of November, was called down
into the laundry between ten and eleven o'clock. Upon
entering the place, he found two of the task mistresses
there, who were busily engaged in endeavouring to extin-
guish the flames arising from three baskets of linen, which
were on fire. He assisted also, and found some hot cinders
in one of the baskets. A great quantity of linen was
destroyed on the occasion, and the baskets which contained
it were partly burnt. He added, that the Institution ad-
joined Bethlem Hospital, in St. George's-fields:
Mrs. E. Simpson, the matron of the Institution, was also
called down into the laundry on the night in question, and
assisted in extinguishing the linen on fire. The next morn-

ing she saw the -prii.one-r, and said, " What is this I have
been hearing about you ?" The prisoner said, " Oh, Madam,
has Brown told you ?" and added, " that if she forgave
her, she would tell her all about it." Witness declined
making any promise, and the prisoner then said that she
put a shovel-full of hot cinders out of the fire-place into the
clothes-basket to set fire to them, adding that she had been
" gamed" to it. •
Mr. Jemmett took some
_legal objections to the indict-
ment, which, however, were overruled, and after an inge-
nious defence for the prisoner the Chairman summed up,
and the jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
The Chairman sentenced the prisoner to six month's im-
prisonment, observing that had the premises been burnt
she would have stood at another bar for the capital offence.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

Yesterday a case of rather an unusual kind came on be-
fore the LORD MAYOR.

A Gentleman, named Hart, who resides at Brixton, made
a complaint at the Mansion-house some months ago against
a very respectable Benefit Society, called the Mutual In-
surance Benefit Institution, of which he was a member, in
consequence of his expulsion from the Institution. The
complainant upon that occasion stated that the society had
thought proper to inflict upon him the penalty of dismissal
from its benefits, because he and other members had taken
the liberty of attempting to investigate the accounts, in
which they apprehended there were some instances of mis-
application. The 50th rule, pronounces expulsion and
exclusion from all advantages won any member, officer,
or servant, who' should at any time prove himself an
enemy to the institution by not accounting for, or by
withholding any of its funds or property, or by eneda-
vouring to excite dissension among the members. There
are several other grounds of expulsion mentioned, but
that of having excited dissension amongst the members was
the plea upon which Mr. Hart said he had been dismissed,
although his object had been to guard as much as possible
against misappropriation of the funds. The result of this
complaint was, that the Magistrate who presided directed
the case to be submitted to arbitration. This was accord-
ingly done, and the arbitrators decided in favour of Mr.
Hart, who of course considered himself re-instated. He
was, however, not quite accurate in his calculation. The
officers of the society refused to restore him to his place,
until he should produce the award of the arbitrators, the
production of which would cost him the sum of three
guineas, and not having a fancy to pay what he considered
a most unwarrantable demand, he submitted the case once
more to the Chief Magistrate, and yesterday the parties
attended.

The LORD MAYOR—I never heard any thing more mon-
strous or ridiculous. What ! inflict a:fine of three guineas
upon an acquitted man, when all he is to forfeit if the deci-
sion had been against him would have been ten shillings. 1
never heard of greater nonsense.
The officers then bowed to the Lord Mayor, and informed
him that the society would pay the expense of the award.
Mr. Hart stated that the expense incurred by the society
by the proceedings against him amounted to 36/. There
are, it appears, other cases submitted to arbitration.
A young man, named Jack Williame, a costermonger,
was charged under the followinc, singular circumstances :
A woman who keeps a shop in Houndsditch was un-
lucky enough to take a base half-crown piece from one of
the utterers with whom the city abounds. The prisoner,
who was doubtless a companion of the successful utterer,
finding that the counterfeit had gone off easily, was deter-
mined to try the poor woman's judgment with a larger sized
coin, and went into the shop to buy a small saw, marked
sevenpence, for which he tendered a pewter crown-piece.
She had, however, ascertained that the half-crown was bad
by this time, and she raised an outcry. The prisoner im-
mediately whipped up the pewter-crown, jerked it over the
houses on the opposite side of the street, and afterwards
snatched the base half-crown, which lay upon the counter,
and said," Here goes for a guzzle," and instantly swallowed
it. Upon being taken into custody, he said the lady must
be mistaken, for he never had had the pleasure of seeing
her before he went in to see what was the matter, when he
heard her cry out.
Mr. Powell (the mint solicitor) said that the prisoner
was a notorious utterer of base coin, and had been con-
victed. The witness then incidentally mentioned that a
quaker at Birmingham, who was a great manufacturer of
pewter spoons and pewter articles of other descriptions, had
found out a way of manufacturing goods in such a manner
as to make it impossible for coiners to use the metal for the
purposes of substituting the coin of the realm. The bene-
volent tradesman had determined to give up the trade alto-
gether,if he had not by his ingenuity been enabled to check
as far as he was concerned the facilities for committing an
offence of so serious a nature.