The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-29 00:00:00

stitutional purpose, is a prerogative as sacredly inhe-
rent in them as any possessed by the Crown ; and no
dangerous, or rather traitorou,, delicacy towardi what
may be thollght the pleasure of the highest personage
in the kingdom, ought to be allowed to interfere with
its just and proper exercise. The KING, we grant,
acts constitutionally in dismissing his Ministers for
any, or for nb reason ; but we are not aware that the
Constitution empowers him to vest the whole autho-
rity of the defunct Cabinet in a single individual, or to
dispense with a Ministry altogether. The maxim that
" the King can do no wiong," presumes the existence
of responsible advisers, otherwise it ceases to hold good,
and Royalty becomes responsible for its own acts. In
an excellent letter addressed by Mr. HUME to the
Electors of Middlesex, and which we publish in
another column, we find the following admirable para-
graph on this subject :
" We are, indeed, placed in an unprecedented situation :
for ten days the whole responsibility of every department of
the Government (save that of Lord Chancellor), has been
vested in one man. It may be ten—it may be twenty more
days ere Sir Robert Peel, on whom it seems, our fate depends,
arrives, to say whether we have or have not an Administra-
tion I ! Had it pleased his Majesty to call to his Councils
Lord William Bentinck from India, instead of Sir Robert
Peel from Italy, we might have been kept in this situation for
a year. If it be competent to one man to hold all the offices
of the State for one week, why not for one year ?"

And if for a year, why not for seven years, or seven
centuries ? The principle once admitted, the conse-
quences are quite legitimate. To admit that the KING
may suspend the Constitution, is to grant that he
may abrogate it altogether. The Conservatives affect

,o despise the alarm which now prevails in all parts of

the country. Are they Englishmen who can-behold
unmoved the whole power of Great Britain trans-

ferred to the grasp of one man, and that man an avowedly
unprincipled soldier, and 3et ridicule the fears of the

people ? Is there no cause for just remonstrance
when we see our army, our fleet, our commerce,
our manufactures—in one word, our lives and
properties all placed under the controul of a
man whose fame is built on the absence of every
quality of head and heart which dignifies, and civi-
vilizes human nature ? We blush for the baseness
of those who feel thus indifferent to the fate of our
country. We cannot stoop to reason with beings so
degraded—so steeped in the mean abjectness of sla-
very—that they would rather hazard the loss of the
Constitution, than run the risk of hurting the personal
vanity of the SOVEREIGN, when acting under the in-

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.-(TIIIS DAY.)

WILKES V. ARGENT.

Mr. THESSIGER (with whom was Mr. MILLER) stated the case.
It was an action for false imprisonment brought by Mrs. Anne
Wilkes, a widow lady in rather humble circumstances, against Mr.
Shadrac Frederick Argent, painter and plumber, of Fetter-lane.
In the month of November, 1832, the plaintiff took a house in
Bury-street, St. Mary Axe, for the purpose of letting
unfurnished lodgings, and employed the defendant to paint
and make some repairs, which amounted to 171. 12s. ; the defend-
ant in his bill made additional charges, amounting to nearly a
pound, for painting directed to be done by one of the lodgers,
which the defendant • subsequently deducted, on Mrs. Wilkes's re-
presentation. Mrs. Wilkes not being fortunate enough to procure
lodgers, was obliged to give up the premises in the month of April
following, and at that time she gave the defendant her acceptance
for 171. 125., he having acknowledged, in the, presence of a wit-
ness, that he had no further claim on her. he plaintiff being
in difficulties, was probably the motive which induced the defend-
ant to resort to the unjustifiable expedient of which his client that
day complained. It was impossible to stigmatize that proceeding
any other than most unjustifiable and illegal. By the well known
law of this country, no person can be arrested for a less
sum than 201., and in order to secure the person of Mrs. Wilkes, the
defendant made affidavit that she owed him a sum of 20/. and up-
wards, and took out a writ of capias, upon which the poor woman
was arrested, torn from her family—her children left unprotected,
and she was carried to a lock-up house in Cursitor-street, Chan-
cery-lane, and remained there in confinement from Saturday until
the following Tuesday, when she succeeded in procuring two friends
to become bail for her. Mr. Argent subsequently refused to
bring his case into Court, and his client was obliged to move
for judgment, as in case of a nonsuit, the rule was made absolute,
and Mr. Argent was compelled to pay the costs of the action. He was
at aloss to know what defence could be made. He would leave it to the
Jury to say what damages they would award for this gross and grievous
act of oppression, and what judgment they would pronounce upon a
proceeding which would go to convert that law framed for the pro-
tection of all into an instrument of cruelty and oppression.
Witnesses were then called to prove the case as stated by the
plaintiff's counsel

Mr. Sergeant AwnnEws addressed the Jury for the defendant.
He contended that the present case was merely an attempt, on the
part of the plaintiff, to avoid the payment of a just debt, and to ob-
tain damages for an injury which she never sustained. The Jury
would pause before they would take it for granted that a
respectable young tradesman would voluntarily make affi-
davit to a falsehood. He would call a witness to prove
that there was extra work done, amounting on the whole to
201.185. 61., and when the defendant applied for payment, Mrs. Wilkes
said she could only give him a bill for the first agreement, amount-
ing to 171. 125., and that the remainder should be deferred to ano-
ther time. This accounted for the bill of exchange being only
drawn for 171. 12s.

Mr. Weiss, agent to the landlord of Mrs. Wilkes's house, was
examined, and deposed that he heard Mrs. W. say she had laid
out 171. on painting; at this time there was work going on, under
the defendant's directions. Witness thought the painting work well
worth 201., he had heard a bad character of Mrs. Wilkes with re-
spect to money matters, and recommended Air. Argent to be cau-
tious in any pecuniary transactions with her.
Mr. THESSIGER replied, in a very eloquent and animated
manner.

Lord DENMAN summed up, and the Jury, after deliberating for
ten minutes, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages 40s.

NEW CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.
Robert Henry Franks, otherwise Henry Franks, was indicted
for wilful and corrupt perjury, under the new Mutiny Act.
Mr. ADOLPHUS, for the prosecution, said it was instituted by the
Master-General of the Ordnance upon that clause of the Mutiny
Act, which was introduced for the nurpose of preventing men from
enlisting into and receiving bounties from more than one regiment.
After stating the points, which were afterwards elicited, he called
witnesses. After which—
The Jury found the prisoner guilty upon the second count, which
charged him with perjury in swearing that he had never been in
the army before.
Mr. ADOLPHUS said the young man having been found guilty, it
was his duty to state that the Master-General of the Ordnance had
no wish to press heavily upon him, and wished the Court to deal
as leniently with him as possible.
Mr. Justice PARKE said the prisoner ought to be very much
obliged to the prosecutors, for their recommendation. As the case
was the first under the new act of Parliament, it was most pro-
bable the Court would pass a very lenient sentence.
James Ogden, the young man who was lately charged at Hatton
Garden with transposing the marks of the Goldsmith's Company
from one ring to another, was now indicted for the offence. The
facts of the case were so recently before the public, that we con-
sider it unnecessary now to repeat them.
Mr. Pimars and Mr. BODKIN appeared for the prosecution, and
Mr. ADOLPHUS for the prisoner.
A great number of most respectable jewellers, and other persons
in trade, gave the prisoner a most excellent character for honesty ;
many of them had known him for from six to ten years.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up the evidence, told the
Jury that the case was one requiring the utmost attention, for the
prisoner, if found guilty, must suffer the punishment of fourteen
years' transportation. If they had the slightest doubt upon the
subject, it would be their duty to give considerable weight to the
high character which the prisoner had received from fifteen or six-
teen most respectable witnesses.
The Jury, after consulting for a quarter of an hour, returned a
verdict of Guilty of transposing the marks from one genuine ring
to another, but without any felonious intent.
Mr. Baron BOLLAND said there was no mention of the intention
with which the act was done.

The Jury required the section of the Act to be read.
After a short consultation between Mr. ADOLPHUS and the
Learned Judge, the latter said he would take it as a verdict of
Guilty, but, of course, he would take a note of the verdict.
The Jury again turned round, and after consulting for a few mo-
ments, returned a verdict of Guilty, with a strong recommendation
to mercy.
Mr. BODKIN, on the part of the Company, also joined in the re-
commendation, and as the Act was express as to the punishment,
they would forward it to another quarter.