The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-28 00:00:00

upon which the recent transfer of business
from the Old Bailey to Hicks's Hall has been
defended was the saving of expense on the score
of these charges. To be sure it was absurd
enough to hear the same persons on the one
hand using this argument, and on the other, in
the very same breath, attempting to saddle the
county with a salary of 1,2001. to their chair-
man—a sort of " robbing Peter to pay Paul,"
too palpable not to be seen through. It will,
however, well become Parliament, especially
the metropolitan members, to look carefully to
both these objects. The chairman's Salary Bill
seems to have fallen -still-born, and to be dis-
claimed even by its parent. It is most essential
to the already over-burdened rate-payers that
the 1,200/. per annum, from which they have
been spared in one shape, should not be in-
flicted upon them in another ; but which is
likely enough to be the case unless the point we
have alluded to be provided against either in the
proposed act itself or before it comes into ope-
ration.—Morning Herald.
The Duke of Richmond has done a service
to public morals, by directing the attention of
Parliament to the subject of unnecessary oaths.
The multiplication of oaths in this country in
cases where simple declarations would have been

quite as efficient, has, we fear, greatly tended to
bring the solemnity of an oath into contempt,
and hence the multitude of cases of perjury
that one continually hears of in courts of jus-
tice, which are one day employed in
punishing persons upon the evidence of
oaths who are prosecuted for false-swearing
on the next. The adding oath to oath in the
customs and excise departments, and in all the
branches of the revenue, has been a principal
means of depriving an oath of its sanctity in
the mind of the swearer. It is true a bill of
Lord Lansdowne's, some years ago, consider-
ably curtailed the number, but still there are
too many, aed there will be too many, so
long as one remains. Of what use are they ?
Do they prevent fraud ? Do thgy awaken the
dormant conscience? No—they make those who
are in the habit of taking such oaths think lightly of
the solemn obligation when he takes it as a witness
or as a Juror in a Court of Justice, where the

property, the liberty, or the life of another may
be at stake. This is an awful consideration—.
for as long as oaths- are persevered in in Courts
of Justice, the only security which the upright
and innocent have, is the sanctity and reverence
in which an oath should be held by the person
who gives evidence, or the Juror who decides
Upon it. It, therefore, greatly concerns the
interests of justice, that oaths should not be of
such frequent and familiar occurrence in the con-
cerns of society, as to make them cease to affect
with a deep and awful impressiveness the con-
sciences of men. Lord Morpeth's bill relieved
members of the Society of Friends and Mora-
vians from the necessity of taking oaths of office.
We think it would be beneficial to public mora-

lity, if oaths of office were abolished altogether,
and simple declarations .substituted for them.
They are of
,no practical effect, but to lessen the
reverence for oaths. They are no restraint on
bad men, and good men are bound to perform
their duties by a higher motive than swearing.
We say, therefore, let all oaths of office be abo-
lished—and the whole of that mass of swearing
which makes the revenue a fertile source of de-
moralization.—Morning Herald.
The first period, if we may so term it, of the
session of Parliament, for the present year, has
terminated ; and a futile period in many respects
it has been. There has been abundance of dis-
cussion ; but no measure of any moment has
been brought forward and brought to a comple-
tion. The first three weeks of the session were
occupied with the crimination and whitewashing
of Mr. Sheil, as to his sincerity or insincerity
in opposing the Irish Coercion Bill—then came

the Dissenters' Marriages Bill, which failed of
effect, because it came short of the expectations
of the dissenters, and was, indeed, a great poli-
tical failure, in the estimation of all sound-

thinking men—afterwards there were announce-
ments in abundance, of various popular mea-
sures, respecting tithes, poor laws, &c., but
of which we have hitherto seen nothing.
The Lords have done nothing ; and the Com-
mons, though promising much, seem to have
been exhausted by their efforts to carry the Re-
form Bill, and to court ease as a necessary sti-
mulant for future industry. Though little,
however, in the way either of theoretical or
practical improvement has been done, it would
be unfair not to confess that the present session
has been eminently characterised, above all
others, for independence of discussion on the

part of the House, and most laudable economy
on the part of the Government. As a proof of
the former, we may refer to the speech of Mr.
Poulett Thomson on the corn laws—the very
best that has been made during the session—
and with regard to the latter, we have only to
repeat what has already appeared in our co-
lumns—namely, that there is no branch of the
public service which has not encountered a most
useful retrenchment. In the colonies and in
the army—in the miscellaneous department and
in the ordnance—in the navy, and, in a word,
all other departments—the pruning knife has
had free course ; and this, perhaps, after all, is
the best improvement of which the reform Par-

..
liament could have been guilty. What the
people want is a reduction of taxation—but to
pave the way for the reduction, the expenses of
all public departments must be, as they have been
by the present Government, reduced.—Morning
Advertiser.

COURT OF CHANCERY, MARCH 27.

THE ATTOREY-GENERAL V. NEWBURY.

His LORDSHIP said this was an information filed
against the Corporation of Newbury, for the ac-
count of the expenditure of a sum of 4,0001., left to
them in 1624, to build a house for the employment
of the poor, and to be applied to other charitable
uses. A portion of the money was laid out, and it
appeared that the produce of the purchase now
brought in a yearly income of 3101., but it was
sought to ascertain what had become of the remain-
der of the money, the corporation alleging that
they had not spent or misused it, but that it was
mixed up with other moneys, which were applied to
charitable purposes. The Vice-Chancellor made a
decree which directed an account to be furnished by
the corporation from 1825, but the plaintiffs were
dissatisfied with the result, and brought the matter
by appeal before the Lord Chancellor. His Lord-
ship said that a great distinction was unquestionably
to be taken between cases where the funds of a cha-
rity had been mistakenly diverted in the progress of
time from the purposes of the original giver, and
those cases in which the funds were knowingly and
willingly misspent and misapplied by those whose
duty it was to protect them. His Lordship thought
that any corporation ought not to mix up funds that
were left for charitable purposes with moneys which
were diverted to totally different uses. In the pre-
sent instance, considering that the corporation had
purchased an income of 3101., and that there was no
charge of culpable misappropriation, he did not
think that he was bound to go further than the