The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-05 00:00:00

MR. COHEN'S CASE.

Mr. WIGNEY moved that " a humble address be pre-
sented to his Majesty, praying for a remission of the re-
mainder of the term of imprisonment to which Mr. Cohen
had been sentenocd for a libel published i❑ a Brighton
paper." The bon. member wished to impress ❑pon the
house, that the gravest part of the charge originally made
against Mr. Cohen—that of inching the agriculturists to
incendiarism—that gentleman had been altogether found
innocent of, and the only charge of which he had ken
fount guilty was tint of libelling and attempting to bring
into contempt the magistrates of Sussex, which lib,l, it
had clearly appeared, had crept into the newspaper without
Mr. Cohen's knowledge.

Mr. F. O'CONNOft seconded the motion, which wes
also supported by Mr. KEatr.
The question being put,
Lord HOWICK considered that a more aggravated case
of libel than that for which Mr. Cohen bad been sentenced
hid never come before the court in which it was tried.
Mr. Cohen had attempted to bring the magistrates of
Sussex into contempt and dislike, by asserting that their
otspressions bad driven the people to incendiarism and
other acts of violence—than which a greater libel could
not have been uttered. He (Lord Howick) was not,
as a general thing, a promoter of prosecutions against
persons for seditious libels, as they were called, the
eff,:cts of which he considered would be always neu-
tralis rd if the digestion were left to be decided by
the good sense of the public; but he did think that it was
necessary and proper that there should be a law to protect
pi ivate individuals from the unfounded attacks which
might be made upon them by the public press. Mr.
Cohen was sentenced but to six months' imprisonment,
while on former occasions the propagators of sirnil tr libela
had been adjudged to two years' confinetn-nt—(Hear,
hear)—and a much heavier fine than Mr. Cohen had to
pay, which was but 501. He (Lord Howick) by no
means thought this a case which called for the interference
of the Crown, much less that of the House of Commons.
Besides, nothing had occurred since the passine of the
sentence to warrant the Secretary of State interfering ; on
the contrary, it had appeared that this was not the first
offence of which this person bad been convicted, for this
was the fourth lioel of which he had been found guilty,
from the penalties of one of which he hail only escaped by
becoming bankrup% He (Lord Howick) had not heard
any reason adduced for establishing so dangereus a pre-
cedent as the setting aside by that house of a solemn
and deliberate judgment of the judges of the land. There
had been only two instances in which even an attempt of
this sort bad been made ; one was, that in which an hon.
gentleman had sought to induce the interference of the
house in preventing that part of Lord Cochrane'e sentence
which adjudged him to stand in the pillory ; the second
was an attempt made by the right hon. Paymaster of the
Forces to procure a remission of part of the term of im-
prisonment to which Sir Manasseh Lopez had been ad-
judged for bribery and corruption, and which being a case
of this nature—referring to an election—the house might
have been considered more entitled to interfere with, yet,
although that baronet had paid his fine of 10,0001., and
bad suffered six months of his imprisonment, the house
had shown itself so jealous of instituting any such prece-
dent, that they had objected most strongly to the propo-
sition, which, as well as the former motion with reference
to Lord Cochrane, had been withdrawn by the movers;
nor had Sir Manasseh Lopez's imprisonment been abridged
by more than a month. He (Lord Howick) repeated
that he saw no reason for acceding to the motion, and Le
protested against establishing so dangerous a precedent.
Mr. HAWKINS supported the motion. He differed
with the not,le lord in thinking this no case for the ex-
ercise of the Royal prerogative : on the contrary, be thought
it singularly deserving it. The fact that the law itself
under which the unfortunate Cohen was suffering was this
session to be altered was, in itself, a sufficient recommene
dation for the sufferer. What good would be effected by-
exacting the full amount of punishment ? It might rnakee
the individual a martyr in pocket ; it might ruin. Lim ;
but would it ruin his paper ? Would it put down the
principles conveyed in the paper? No: it would have
a contrary effect; for it would spread, and strengthen,
those principles; and the only benefit derived would be
by the Stamp-office, in the increased number of stamps
which would be necessary for the increased circulation of
the paper. The learned judge had wholly acquitted Mr.
Cohen of the only part of the charge which cou:d have
deservedly subjected him to such punishment as that
to which he was sentenced. As to the minor
offence, that which imputed to Cohen a libel, tend-
ing to bring the magistrates into contempt, Mr. Cohen
had clearly proved that the passage which contained
this libel had crept into the paper without his knowledge.
Few who read the paper in question were not aware that
it was not a journal much inclined to flatter or fall in with
Vie opinions of that house. Indeed, its opinions were
ultra radical.—(Hear, hear.) They were strong, uncom-
promising, perhaps acrimonious, on matters relating to
church and state; yet one thing particularly remarkable
under such circumstances was, that it was singularly free
from personalities.—(Hear, and laughter.) Hon. members
sowed to
doubt this; and yet if time and cirentristances
allowed, he should be able to prove it. Let them adduce,
if they could, instances of the contrary. He would
insist that it was a journal almost entirely free from per-
sonalities. It had been asserted that the article prompted
to outrages of the law. He did not see how such a con-
struction could be even tortured from it. Teis was a
case in which circumstances peculiarly called for the
exercise of the Royal prerogative. Mr. Colten's conduct
since the conviction peculiarly entitled him to clemency.
He never complained of any of the parties engaged in the
prosecution. He acquitted the judge who tried him of
any effort to extend the severity of the law, to which alone
he ate ibuted the extent of his punishment. He (Mr.
Ilasvkine) was glad Mr. Cohen bad adopted that course.
Though it was a severe case that the whole should torn
on a paragraph of 32 lines, and the sentence to be
e,rounded on that, without taking into consideration the
general tendency of the articles published in the paper.
The punishment was certainly undeserved, as it arose out
of the detective stet., or tee law; and now that the law
wets about to th! corrected, it was to be regretted that
.ministers adopted the course they were pursuing. He
(Mr. Hawkins) would strongly urge upon goverumvo tias

wisdom of acceding to the motion, as be did not see in
what possible way the prerogative of the crown would be
placed in a more gratifying light.
Lord G. LENNOX insisted that the paragraph was most
false and infamous, and in this opinion the judge concurred.
Whatever might be the general character of the articles, the
paragraph in question was a gross and scandalous libel.
It accused the magistrate of abusing the labouring classes,
and aiming at their transportation.---(Hear, hear.) It
was to be remembered that the paragraph stated that
" the labourer had no way of making his situation and
wants known, but by setting fire to the stacks of obnoxious
individuals ; and this, forsooth, waestated to be a paragraph-
which crept in by accident. Did the conduct of the paper
since the conviction warrant such an assertion as this ?
On the contrary, other articles of a somewhat similar na-
ture followed, and one of them was an attack on Mr.
Mabbott, who bad nothing to do directly with the
prosecution ; but, with other magistrates, went to Lewes,
where they met with thirteen other magistrates on
county business, when a person belonging to the village
brought the libel under their consideration ; and on read-
ing it, they were of opinion that a prosecution should take
place. Mr. Mahbott was a highly respectable man. He
had only taken his own share in the proceeding, He was
countenanced in what he did by thirteen others ; and yet
he, in a subsequent paragraph of this paper, was singled
out as an object to be pointed out to the populace. Here
the noble lord read some passages from subsequent numbers
—the object of which, be contended, was to vilify the
magistracy. Another ran somewhat thus:—" Can you
patiently submit to be plundered by tax-gatherers, who
trample upon you as you trample the clods on which you
work ?" Was this language which should be used with
impunity?—(Hear, hear.) So gross was the libel, that a
public meeting was called to take cognizance of it. The
majority were of opinion that it should be prosecuted ;
surely the person thus convicted was not the man for
whom the royal clemency could be claimed.
Mr. C. BULLER argued that the question was whether,
under a just state of the law, this was a libel which ought
to be punished so severely, and insisted that the sentence
was one upon which the meditated improvements in the
law ought to exercise an influence. It was a case which
had been tried by a special jury, and special juries were
known to be generally composed of private gentlemen, who
were of necessity anti-reformers. Mr. Cohen had been
aken from under the cognizance of such a jury as might be
looked upon in the light of his natural judges, and brought
before persons whose sentiments on public matters were
quite the opposite of his. In the second place, another
injustice had been committed by lumping together a series
of charges in such a way as that it was difficult to say
upon which, or how many, Mr. Cohen had been convicted.
The court itself, in passing the sentence, made the distinc-
tion, and acquitted Mr. Cohen of that part of the charge
which bad to-Light been made a strong ground of resist-
ance to the motion before the house,—(Cheers.) But
redly, was the house prepared to say that this was an
offence which ought to be so severely punished ?—(Hear.)
He (Mr. Buller) would not undertake to defend the
paragraph, nor to be the champion of its language; but
something was to be allowed for freedom of discussion.
If the expression of public opinion were at all to be allowed,
some extent must be permitted ; and it would be impossible
for government to interfere in every instance to interpret
the temper and the tone.—(Cheere.) It was stated that
this was a libel on a private individual. It was no such
thing; it was a question relating to the government,
which, in all constitutional countries, required and war-
ranted a rigorous looking after on the part of the
press.—(Cheers.) The question, then, was, whether Mr.
Cohen was wrong in discussing the conduct of the magis-
trates of Sussex. Surely a writer on such a subject bad
as good a title to express strong opinions in strong lan-
guage as any gentleman in that house. Let the house
look at the report of the poor law commission, and they
would find somewhat similar in it; nor did be make the
reference for the purpose of blaming that commission,
but on the contrary, to give them credit for having had
the courage to state that the root of many of the evils to
which they adverted was to be found in the magistracy.
The question before the house, it was to be admitted,
was not likely to he palatable, as the house contained many
of the magistracy.—(Hear, hear.) Why should an humble
individual be prosecuted, for that which bad been done by
the poor law commissioners, and why should a punish-
ment be inflicted which was not in accordance with the of-
fence, but rather owing to the abominable nature of a
law, the alteration of which, because of its oppressiveness,
the Government bad now under its consideration ?
(Cheers.) There could be no greater disgrace attaching
to a law than its infliction of a punishment heavier than
the nature of the offence merited.
Mr. HUDSON thought the tendency of the speech
they had just heard was rather to amuse than to excul-
pate. The boo. member argued that it was unjust to
prosecute because the law of libel was about to be altered.
The only effect of the alteration would be to allow of the
justification of the libel ; and there was no proof that
under the proposed alteration a similar verdict would not
have been found.

Mr. GORING said, there were no magistrates on the
jury which hid tried this case. The foreman of the jury
was a respectable yeoman. There was another aggravat-
ing circumstance in the case ; for Mr. Cohen, instead of
expressing regret, only added to his offence, by endeavour-
ing to excite the tenantry against the landlords by asking,
" what was the utility of the squirearchy to the farmers,
and what did they do for them ? Did they administer the
law in justice, or what was the returns which they made
them for their rents?" One would think, from such pas-
sages as these, that the property belonged to the farmers.
Was this the language to be used by one calling on the
landlords of that home to remit his punishment? The
writer also attacked lay impropriators, and asked whether
this imposition should be submitted to, because it was
ordained by law. Did not this language tend to incite to
resistance, and was it not pilpably intended to set tenant
against landlord ?
Mr. HUGHES HUGHES could say that the paper i❑
question abounded in slanders.
Mr. FERGUS O'CONNOR, in reply to the noble
lord (Howick) said the best way of getting rid of these
newspaper articles was not to notice them. The noble
lord argued against the royal clemency being extended in
this case, on two grounds ; first, that it is a libel on an
individual, and next a libel o❑ magistrates ; then it was
stated that there were four libels. All this was the con-
sequence of the complexity of the ►ibel law. Now, it
would nut be fair to make that house both judges and
juror .—(Cheets.) Hon. members might cheer, but there
had been stated to-night several paragraphs which bad no
effect in causing the sentence, and was it fair to make
these the ground of refusing the royal prerogative ?
(Hear, hear.) The instance of the poor law commis-
sioners and their report had been very fairly put, and he
plid not see that a case was made out to prove that this
Ivan ap instance in which the exercise of the royal pre-
rogative could be refused.
Lord ALTHORP said that the continuance of the ob-
noxious paragraphs furnished sufficient reason for the
refusal.

Sir CHARLES BLUNT had been applied to by a
large body of Isis constituents to support the motion. He
did not desire to revive discussion on a matter which had
ao long passed by. The third reason was this, and be was
qabltd to state it to the house as a positive fact, that Mr.
Cohen, shortly previous to his trial, was ready to come
forward and state that he was not the author though the
publisher of the libel.., Nay, more, he was willing to give
up the name of the author, and to express his regret for
having admitted into the columns of his paper a paragraph
which he admitted to be bighlr objectionable. Holding,
aa he did, a situation amongst the magistrates of Sussex,he
felt it his bounden duty to declare that he was no party to
the prosecution. He considered such a prosecution to
be disgraceful to the county where it was instituted.—
(Cheers.) With regard to the gentleman who stood for-
ward as champion for the Sussex magistrates, he knew
him to be a highly honourable and humane man, and he
believed that he acted entirely under a mistaken impression,
and now regretted the part he had taken.—( Hear.)
Lord WILLIAM LENNOX said that the statement of
Mr. Cohen's readiness to give up the author was per-
fectly corract. A serious charge had been brought against
Mr. Cohen of endeavouring to stimulate the peasantry
of Sussex to acts of outrage, but from that charge he
bad been entirely exonerated. He bad been found guilty
of the libel, and the libel alone, and the question was,
whether, after what had been urged in mitigation, the
house did not consider that he had endured sufficient
punishment?—(Hear.) Some paragraphs had been read
by a noble relative of his, but he begged to remind his
noble relative of some other paragraphs which were read
in the other house by a noble relative of theirs, now a
menater of his Majesty's administration, during the go-
vernment of the Duke of Wellington. These paragraphs
were from a report of an inquiry into the poor laws, by
whim itoppeared that hundreds of labourers were em-
ployed in Sussex in mending the roads at 3d. and 4d.
a-chry, and had also to find their own tools.—(Hear.)
_Sorely when this was, the case, the man who said the
labourers of Sussex were trampled on was perfectly justi-
fied in his assertion.--(Hear.) Some allusion bad been
mad by his noble relative to a meeting called at Brighton
in reference to this business, to the requisition for which
she name of a relative of the bon. member for Brighton
appeared; but he should like to know what the result
of that meeting was, for if they bad not followed it up,

' surely they must be considered as equally guilty. The
fact was, the Brighton people were particularly sensitive
and alarmed at the appearance of any article against the
King; not that they were a bit more loyal than other
people, but they were afraid lest the court should take
offence, and not spend so much money in Brighton.
Sir C. BURRELL said, the poor law commissioners,
at the time alluded to, did not so much complain of the
severity of the treatment of the labourers as of the manner
and regulation of their allowances. Every word that had
fallen from the noble lord under the gallery, with reference
to the magistrates, was perfectly correct ; but it was un-
fortunate for the assertion of the hon. baronet, the member
for Lewes, that the prosecutor, though bringing the matter
forward at the request of his brother magistrates, did so
without hesitation, and had said lately that be felt no re-
gret at the part he had taken, because he conceived that
his duty to his brother magistrates compelled him to adopt
that course. That magistrate was indeed a man of
the highest character, and one more just or more humane
could not be found. But what was the conduct of the
person on whose behalf the house was now moved? In
his paper of the 21st, there was a statement of what
had taken place in that house, and in the following
week there was a paragraph as obnoxious as ever. The
writer, addressing the labouring classes, said, that if any
labourer undertook to perform a task which he could not
accomplish he would be called an imposter, but " your
parson and squire magistracy (now, said the hon. baronet,
it is a fact that in Sussex we have no clerical magistrates
at all) have undertaken to preserve order. In your pre-
sent condition, who would give them credit for preserving
order ? They cannot. They are quacks and imposters."
—(Hear.) This was the language of the individual who
now came forward and applied for remission of punish-
ment. He would appeal to the house whether, under
circumstances of so little contrition, he was entitled to any_
lenient consideration. For his part he thought the house
would use its powers extremely ill in interfering with
courts of justice, so long as they did nothing contrary to
'rm.—(Hkar.)
Mr. CURTEIS denied that the prosecution in question
had been undertaken by request of the magistrates of the
county of Sussex ; but the prosecutor was, he believed,
put forward as a tool (he did not wish to use the word
in an obnoxious sense) of two or three gentlemen who
did not wish to show themselves in the business. He
was one of those who tried to stop this prosecution at the
outset. He said then he thought the prosecution likely
to do more mischief than good, and he still thought so;
for the libel had now been spread far and wide, and bad
been read by thousands, who, but for that prosecution,
would never have read it at all.—(Hear.) He put in an
affidavit in mitigation when Mr. Cohen was called up for
judgment, and he did not regret having done so. He had
long been a reader of the Brighton Guardian ; and he
was bound to say that he thought the charge brought
against Mr. Cohen, of endeavouring to excite the humbler
classes to outrage, was most unjust.—(Hear.) When
the outrages on property took place in the county of Sus-
sex, Mr. Cohen wrote several articles in his paper, in
order to point out to the rustic classes the folly and
wickedness of their 'proceedings.—(Hear.) He really
thought the sentence one of very great severity.—(Hear,
hear.) And for what was the charge ? Bringing the
Sussex magistrates into disrepute. He, as a Sussex ma- ,
gistrate, would scorn such a charge. He was independent
of newspaper paragraphs, and he would refer to his own
conduct, and to the estimation of his friends and neigh-
bours, for the refutation of any charges that they might
bring against him.—(Hear, bear.) The prosecution had
done much more mischief than good, and he thought the
offer of giving up the author should have been accepted
as a sufficient atonement.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord A. LENNOX said it was very strange that Mr.
Cohen should have offered to give up the author of the
libel, and that, under such a circumstance, it should not
have been stated in the affidavits in mitigation of punish-
ment.—(Hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said it was certainly mentioned in
Court.

Lord A. LENNOX said it was not stated in the affi-
davits in mitigation.

Major BEAUCLERK looked upon this case as one of
exceeding hardship on the individual who was now suffer-
ing under the oppressive law abbe!. Surely his punish-
ment had been sufficiently severe. He had now been four
months away from his home, his family, and friends, im-
prisoned in what might almost, with regard to him, be
considered a foreign country. He was sorry to see the
members of his Majesty's administration coming town in
full force at this time of night to sacrifice this unfor-
tunate individual, instead of meeting a fair discussion
in a full House.--(Hear, hear.) They and their friends
might give themselves credit for this me mute, but he
was sure that he spoke the sentiments of the country
when he said that the manner in which the adminis-
tration had used this law of libel would do mo: e to
lose them the esteem of the people than any other
act of their government.—(Heir, hear, hear.) The
Whig Government had, in point of fact, made more use
of the libel law, which they bad formerly so much depre-
cated, since they had been in office, than any other ad-
ministration in the same space of time.—(Hear.) It was
allowed even by his opponents, that the punishment
awarded to Mr. Cohen was a severe one. Bringing the
into ,li.r,,pute, indeed ! Why Lord Brutighlill,
when he was in that house, over and over again attacked
the magistracy of England, and represented them in a
much more unfavourable light..(H-ar.) But this
individual, because he happened to write against the Whigs,
and not for them, was doomed to feel the full weight of
their anger ; and the whole treasury bench was brought
down, at two in the morning, to crush one who was
unable to contend with them.—(Hear.)
Mr. WIGNEY replied, and the house then divided,
when there appeared—

For the motion
Against it
Majority
PROSECUTION OF TEIE PILOT.

Mr. O'DWYER moved for "a return, in detiii, of the
expenses of the pro•ecution in the case of the King z'.
Barrett." _ .

Mr. LITTLETON said his only objection to the re-
turn was, that it did not go far enough. He should,
therefore, move an amendment, the effect of which would
be to give all the information required by the hon. mem-
ber, and, in addition to that, to point out the different
stages in which the various expenses had been incurred.
Mr. O'i;WYER objected to this. He admitted he had
an ulterior object in moving for the return.
➢lr. LITTLETON had an object also in his amend-
ment, ‘ll:ich was to throw on the proper parties the ex-
penses incurred by their evasions and delays. His re-
turn would he a much fairer one than the boo. member's.

The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took
place, the amended return being agreed to.
The report of the committee of supply was brought up,
and the various resolutions agreed to.
The Marine Force Regulation Bill was read a first time,
as were also the Mutiny Bill and the Sugar Duties Bill.
The house then adjourne.d at half.past.two this morning.

The Instiluteur, a journal of primary in-
struction, presents the following general results of elemen-
tary instruction in the departments :—The number of
children of both sexes who learn to read is nearly
12,000,000. But almost half the communes of France
refuse to tax themselves voluntarily to assist the govern-
ment in spreading the blessings of popular instruction

NUMBER OF SCHOOLS.
Elementary Primary .
Superior Primary
Private

Total
NUMBER OF PUPILS WHO FREQUENT THE SCHOOLS.
Boys
Girls

Total 1,9u7,011
Total expense of primary instruction, 10,162,7064 19c. ;
portion of this expense paid by the communes, 7,693,793 f.
50c. ; ditto by the departments, 2,054,051 f. 41c. ; by
the state (difference at its charge), 405,811 f. 30c.
Number of communes taxed ex officio 19,032. Amount
of the taxes, 1,994,319 f, 60c.
Arrived at Campbell's Hotel, on Monday,
with his suite, on his way north, the grandson of Prince
Charles Stuart. He was dressed in the full High:and
costume, and appeared to be about 40 years of age. His
mien and gallant appearance reminded us of portraits we
have seen, and of accounts we have read regarding his un-
fortunate ancestor.—Dundee Constitutional.
Prince Hohenlohe has ceased to work miracles,
in consequence of a singular accident. He received one
day a letter enteating him to say four masses for a young
I idy who had her left leg four inches shorter than her
light. The number four had been written in cipher ; the
writing was indistinct; the Prince read eight in place of
four, and said eight massys. His success was complete—
it was even more than complete, for the left leg having
grown an inch at every mass, was now four inches longer
than the right. The Prince was so deeply affi,cted with
this successful result of his prayers, that he has renounced
all future attempts, and transferred his remainin -„stock of
miraculous power to the Frau Schumann, an of man
living at Sommdorf, in Saxony. The credulous ow
direct their steps towards her house ; her int.rceseions,
we understand, prove most effectual when the moon is in
the wane.—Athenaum.

LONDON,
WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 5, 1834.

There is now a fair prospect of redress for
most of the grievances under which the British
sailors have so long suffered. The bill of Sir
JAMES GRAHAM, if filled up with the clauses
mentioned by him, and those alluded to by Lord
ALTHORP, will be of the greatest service, and
at last afford remuneration ar.d protection to an
ill-used class of men. No wonder that the public
have revolted at the cruelties of impressment, for
in no country, however barbarous, were men ever
subjected to greater injustice and more individual
suffering than the impressed sailors of the British
navy. It is of no use to paint their sufferings
now, the system is for ever abolished, and in its
place we hope soon to see a naval code which
will raise the character of the navy, and hold out
a fair remuneration to the best defenders of their
country. Sir JAMES GRAHAM'S plan is too
meagre, it does not go far enough, but so far as
it goes, the spirit of it is good. It will first of
all abolish the practice of sending convicts
to serve on board the fleet, it will raise the
scale of prize money to sailors in the proportion
of five to fifteen facilitate the recovery of
wages abroad, and establish a registry of all
merchant seamen, from which sailors are to be
ballotted as militia men. The system of ballot
is perfectly fair, and places landsmen and sea-
men on the same footing. Impressment is still
to be resorted to in cases of emergency, indeed
hardly one member contended that cases of
danger might not arise when it could
not be dispensed with ; but if it is a ne-
cessary evil, care ought to be taken that it be
mitigated in every possible way—by humane
treatment on board—by providing for the fannly
of the impressed sailor, not as for paupers, from
the. poor rates, but out of the navy estimates,
and by allowing these men the preference in
obtaining their discharge when the number of
sailors could safely be diminished. When the
bill, however, comes before the house, we shall
be better able to form a correct opinion on its
merits.

The discussion on the petition from Devon,
relative to tithes, was interesting, not only as
showing the feeling of the petitioners, and a
great body of the yeomanry of England, but
also the opinion of one of his Majesty's Mi-
nisters. The yeomanry are desirous (as every
one in the kingdom is) to see tithes abolished,
but if the petition spoke the sentiments of that
body, we can only say we do not concur in
them. Abolish tithes by all means—their ex-
istence is a disgrace to the age; but in abo-
lishing them, let not the landlord be the
only gainer : let fair commutation take place,
and let the fund so provided be set apart for the
payment of the clergy and church rates of every
description, and let the surplus be left to the
disposal of Parliament. The petitioners are de-
sirous, however, that the commutation should
be fixed, not by taking the value of a tenth of the
land, but by a tenth of the rent. This might
indeed be called spoliation and robbery, and
who would profit by it ? Not the people, but the
great body of landholders, who already levy an
enormous tax on the people in the shape

of corn laws. Lord EBRINGTON and
Lord JOHN RUSSELL properly denounced
such a scheme on the justest grounds.
Church property, according to the latter, was
intended to be enjoyed and used for the public
good and happiness, and if the Legislature
should fritter away that property, or divert it
from public purposes to the use of the land-
owners, they would be guilty of the grossest
Injustice. The confiscation of land in the reign
of WILLIAM the Conqueror, was justified
on the plea of conquest, and the seizure of a great
part of the church lands, in the time of HENRY
VIII., on the plea that the religion of the state
was changed, but no such defences can be set
up now. Even since the latter period, tithe
has been valued at a tenth of the produce, land
has passed from one hand to another, with a
perfect knowledge of the fact, and if any reduc-
tion be made on them further than an equivalent
for the expense of collection, or compelling pay-
ment of tithes, it will only benefit the landlord
at the expense of the public. No doubt, the
landlord will be glad to put the difference quietly
into his own pocket ; but from what fell from
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, we are glad to find that
no such scheme will be sanctioned by the Bill
for the abolition of tithes.

Mr. COHEN'S case was brought forward last
night in the House of Commons by Mr. WIG..
NEY, but any remission of his sentence, as the
Honourable Mover proposed, was objected to
by Lord HOWICK, who urged that the punish-
ment was by no means disproportioned to the
offence. We cannot hold with his Lordship in
this instance. Mr. COHEN was proved. innocent
of the gravest part of the libel for which he was
prosecuted, and the only charge of which he
was found guilty, was that of libelling the Sussex
magistrates, which libel, it was ascertained, had
been inserted in the Brighton Guardian with-
out his knowledge. Yet his punishment (six
months, and a fine to boot) is not thought
worthy, by Lord HOWICK, of the slightest
remission !

New York Papers to the 4th of February have
been received. The withdrawal of the Bank
deposits still afforded ample discussion to the
several parties interested ; but the papers other-
wise contain no news.
SALES AT THE STOCK EXCHANGE, FEB. 3 --Thirty
Shares, United States B ink, 103 ; 200 ditto Manhattan
Bank, 1191, four months and interest ; 25 ditto Bank
of America, NO.

The French Papers of Monday have been
received. They confirm our previous intelli-
gence respecting the intervention of the French
Government with the German Confedera-
tion or Diet touching the outrage on
M. HANNO, by the Governor of Lux-
emburg. The remonstrance has had the
desired effect, for M. HANNO has been set
at liberty in consequence. But we think the
matter ought not to be suffered to rest here.
Guarantees should be required against any re-
petition of such disgraceful conduct.
It is stated in these papers that tile Emperor
ofAUSTRIA is dangerously ill, but there ap-
' pears no solid foundation for the report.
The accounts from Spain are still unsatisfac-
to►y. The ministers are daily becoming more
unpopular—and the often reported convocation
of the Cortes is now put off till the 27th of
April, that being the birthday of the QUEEN.
FRENCH FUNDS, PARIS, MARCH 3.—Five per Cents., 106 f.
10c. 40c.—Four per Cents., 93f. 25c.—Three per Cents., 76f.
90c. 77f. 25c.

Brussels papers, of the 3d of March, re-
ceived this afternoon, inform us that the Ger-
man Diet had ordered M. HANN° to be im-
mediately set at liberty, in consequence of the
remonstrance of the English ambassador at
Frankfort. It thus appears that both France
and England had made common cause in the
matter, which, as guarantees of Belgian inde-
pendence, they were bound to do. No wonder,
then, that the policy of Holland was overruled.

BRUSSELS, MARCH l.—The Director of the Post-offie inform
the public that, from the 3d March, there will be a new pons
established between Belgium and the Prussian frontier office
at Aix_la-Chapelle. The letters for that city, Cologne, May-
ence, Frankfort-on-the-Maine, and all Southern Germany, will,
by this new route, reach their destination without suffering any
delay.

German papers of the 27th February have
been received, but they make no allusion to
the reported illness of the Emperor of AUSTRIA!

VIENNA, FEB. 22.—Five per Cent. Metalliques, 978 ; Four
per Cents., Sii ; Bank Shares, I,243.—Allgenteine Zeitung,
Feb. 27.

THE ARMY.—Lord Fitzroy Somerset's list
of vi‘itors, yesterday morning, included—Colonel Cash,
Major-General Sir Charles Dalbiac, Colonel Burke, Col.
Conyers, Colonel Lambert, Colonel Sir John Macro.,
Colonel Lewis, Major-General Sir H. Douglas, Colonel
Daubeney, Colonel Webster, Major-General Kng, Colonel
Nicoll, Colonel D'Arcy, and about fifty other officers.

It is somewhat remarkable that Sir J. Camp-
bell and Mr. Hawkes have been three times pitted against
each other as candidates for Parliamentary honours, Mr.
Hawkes having twice disputed the representation of Staf-
ford with Sir John, in both which instances he (Mr.
Hawkes) was defeated.
SUDDEN DEA TH.--abOUt twelve o'clock
last night, the company at the " Old Drury," Brydges.
street, Covent-garden, were alarmed by the servant an-
nouncing that a young gentleman was dying in his room
up stairs. Two gentlemen (we are given to understand
medical students) immediately attended him. and gave it
as their opinion that he was merely " Flaring-up."
The landlord, however, was not satisfied, and sent for
Dr. Snitch, who bled the unfortunate young man in
three arteries, from which be appeared to revive, but
relapsed, and Mr. Snitch had recourse to the temporal
artery. His skill and exertions, however, failed, and
the patient breathed his last. It appears the deceased,
about three months since, took up his abode as above,
when his father called on and induced him to return
home. The night before last he took a sandwich for
his supper, and a small portion of a'e, and retired to rest.
Last night, at twelve o'clock, he retired to rest somewhat
" fresh," to use a nautical phrase, and was discovered by
the servant as above stated. The family of the deceased
are said to reside in the neighbourhood of Re4ent.street,
and domestic troubles are also said to have brought on
apoplexy. A coroner's jury will be summoned to inquire
more particularly into the case this day.
FERMANAGH ASSIZES.—A correspondent
mentions that the sheriff of the county Fermanagh has not
summoned a single Roman Catholic as juror for the March
assizew. There are 200 Orangemen to be tried for a
violation of the act prohibiting illegal processions.—
Dublin Paper.

LIVERPOOL COTTON-MARHET, MARCH 3.
—Sales of cotton to-day 4,000 bales, at an advance of
id., and in some instances -id., on our former currency.
Speculators have taken vet), little. Particulars of the
day's business : —7OO Pernains, 104 d., 114 1., and 40 at
12d. ; 350 Bahia', 250 Miranhains, 120 Surat., 2,000
Americans, Bd. to 91d. per lb.

EAST INDIA HOUSE.-(THIS DAY.)

THE TEA SALE.

This morning, by half-past ten o'clock, the Court Room was
as much crowded with buyers as on any of the former days.
At eleven o'clock the Committee of the Tea Trade entered, and
Mr. Twining was called to the chair.

The Committee had been appointed to consider of the letter
from the Court of Directors to the trade, in answer to their
memorial. They now made a report, which was read to
the meeting. After entering into a full account of the claims
and demands of the trade, and the refusal of the Directors
to grant them any relief for the loss they were likely to sustain
from the large declaration at the present sale, and also disprov-
ing the inferences drawn in the director's letter, it recom-
mended that in consideration of the interests of the public, no
more opposition should be offered to the going on with the sale.
The report was loudly cheered by the meeting, which was then
shortly addressed by the chairman and some other gentlemen.
At twelve o'clock the presiding director (Mr. Ellis) took the
chair, and the sale commenced. A few first lots of Bohea were
sold at Is. 41d. per lb.; but many of the after lots were
scratched,-1. e., there being no advance on the upset price, they
were bought in.

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY)

FROM LLOYD'S.

DEAL, MARCII 4.—Wind W.S.W.—Arrived the Princess
Victoria, from Bengal—sailed the 10th October. Arrived
from the River and remain the Amelia Thompson, Piggott, and
Dunvegan Castle, Laws, for Bengal. Put back the Peter
Proctor, for Bengal ; Edin, Franklin, for Barbadoes ; and
Columbus, for Jamaica, and remain.
PORTSMOUTH, MARCH 4.—Wind W.S. W., fresh.—Arrived
the Nancy, Blyth, from Messina.
FALMOUTH, MARCH 3.—Wind W.S.W., moderate breezes.
—Arrived the David, Handcock, from —.
STANGATE CREEK, MARCH 4.—Arrived the Rosehill, Ninian,
from Chesme ; Louisa Hannah, Bell, from Ancona; Harton,
Seagor, from Palermo; and Betsey, Stewart, from Leghorn.
CowEs, MARCH 4.—Arrived the Britannia, Burgess, and
Mary Barry, Goss, from Rio Janeiro ; and Kelsick Wood, Ro-
binson, from Angostura.
LIVERPOOL, MARCII 3.—Arrived the Concord, Miner, from
Charleston; St. Lawrence, Bunker, from New York; New
Manly, Tyack, and George and James, from Odessa; Traveller,
from Smyrna; Venus, Andrews, from Galipoli ; Hardware,
Seward, Roselle, Davidson, and Effort, Collier, froni Messina;
Nimrod, Barrett, from Marseilles; Gem, M`Kenzie, from Lis.
bon; and Helen, Kinnear, from Charente.
CORK, MARCH '2.— Arrived the Georgio, Costa, from Messina.
DUBLIN, MARCH 3.—Arrived the Visitor, Morrison, from
Palermo; William, Broad, from Gibraltar; Brothers, Squires,
from St. Übes ; and St. John, Decent, from St. Sebastian. The
Corsair, Williams, arrived yesterday from Halifax, was two
days in the ice on the Grand Bank, which severely cut her head
and bottom.

The Sir James Anderson, Fotherington, bound to Liver.
pool, grounded on the flits in Charleston Harbour on the 25th
ult., but would probably be got off.
The John Wells, Carter, from Liverpool, arrived at Phila.
delphia ; and the Northumberland, Mitchell, arrived in th •
Mississippi, after being on shore, and throwing 280 bags of salt
overboard.