The Sun.
London, England, 1833-10-24 00:00:00

borne. If they coma forward and prosecute,
they are branded as persecutors—as men who,
not satisfied with trusting to contradictions in
other journals, wish to avail themselves of a civil
law to ruin men by a costly law proceeding.
Lord Durham will find himself in the condition
of the drummer, who, whether he hit high or
low, could not satisfy the man under the cat-
o'-nine-tails.—Morning Chronicle.
The speech of the King of Holland, on
opening the session of the States-General, which
we gave exclusively in a Second Edition yester-
day, breathes a calm but determined spirit.
While it avoids any expression which might be
indication,
it into a menace or a hostile
it does not court peace by the sacrifice of the
national honour. While it abstains from all
boastful anticipations, it retracts nothing, aban-
dons no claim, surrenders no right. The moral
courage of the King will, no doubt, receive, as
it has received heretofore, adequate support in
the patriotism of the people. No symptoms of
fear inspired by the violent proceedings of the
Anglo-Gallican Convention are visible in the
language of King William. He even dares to
allude to the " coercive measures" in thestig-
matining terms of severe truth. It is evident
that the " amicable slaughters" of Antwerp, and
Lord Palmerston's " war of an exuberant ima-
gination," have not caused the heart of the de-
scendant of a race of heroes to quail. If our
Government had shown such a bold and intrepid
front to the Northern Autocrat when he inso-
lently violated the treaty of Vienna, as the
Dutch King presents to the united Powers
of France and England, insisting upon anti-
national concessions, Europe would not now
feel from its centre to its extremities the
almost resistless influence of Cossack domination.
England has lost her high position among the
nations of Europe by the moral cowardice of
her Government—the King of Holland has,
by his unshaken and uncompromising intrepidity,
preserved the confidence of his people, and
extorted the admiration of his enemies. The
Dutch King attributes to the " fighting media-
tors" the difficulties which have been thrown in

the way of the final settlement of the Batavo-
Belgic question. He speaks of the obstacles
which have been opposed to the spirit of conces-
sion which had been manifested on his part. We
think his consistency has been more remarkable
than his spirit of concession during the whole of
the negotiations and certainly the combineddisplay
of the tri-colour and the union jack in hostile
demonstration upon the coasts of Holland did
not prove more effective in extorting concessions
from him than the immortal protocols, the work
of that sapient Minister who has done more to
abase the foreign influence of England than any
Minister ever did since the inglorious days of
that Administration which, in disgraceful sub-
mission to the dictates of the Court of Versailles,
made war upon Holland in the reign of Charles
11. The hope of a final settlement of the dis-
pute with Belgium is very vaguely expressed—
" I continue," says the King, " to entertain
hopes of the negotiations being brought to a
reasonable termination." That expression
certainly does not pledge him to any thing.
Nor does it show that, having the fear
of protocols or Anglo—Gallican conven-
tions before his eyes, he is resolved to
change the course which he has hitherto pursued.
It appears that, notwithstanding all the expenses
of an armed truce, which does not differ much
from a state of war, the finances of Holland are
in a good state. This is more than can be said
of our own, although the Whig journals have
repeatedly told us that the " obstinacy" of the
Dutch King was entailing financial burdens on
his people which would induce them to supplant
the monarchy by a republic.—illorning Herald.
Although we think that the penalty of solitary
confinement may be exerted in the most salutary
manner in a variety of cases, it is our persuasion
that the limits of its application should be cor-
rectly defined. Unless so limited, it might be
rendered the most deadly punishment that any
legislative code could inflict. Much depends on
its adjuncts. Under particular circumstances it
was awarded by the ancients, and so it was by
the Inquisition, as a species of torture, and
unless qualified by the maximum of our laws
relative to the term of imprisonment, and by
privileges conducive to health and exercise, it
would doubtless be so here. The Americans,
in some of the States of the Union, inflict it as
a substitute for the punishment of death ; the
confinement, according to the lighter or deeper
tint of the offence, being unlimited or pro-
tracted to a long date. In capital offences,
the principal of seclusion seems well applied,
as a substitute for the sanguinary terrors of our
Draconian code, and we are inclined to concur
with the late Sir Samuel Romilly that such a pu-
nishment—if certain—would have greater ter.
rors, even for the most hardened culprits, than
the present momentary pang of a public execu-
tion. On the alleged shame of this execution
' we believe criminals are prepared to look with
callous indifference, and the chances of escaping
it are notoriously made the subjects of the
coolest and most contemptuous calculation.
Those chances, in cases of felony, may be at
once stated to be in the ratio of 59 to 1. But
a different argument arises in cases of imprison-
ment, where the penalty is meant to be tempo-
rary and probationary, and varying between the
minimum time of a few weeks and the maxi-
mum period of three years, as awarded by the
English law of imprisonment. In the latter cases
we have our doubts of the efficacy of seclusion.
Many of those who, in America and this country,
were once in favour of solitary confinement, now
entertain similar doubts on the point. It appears
to lose much of its effect from repetition. It
cannot always be carried far without injuring the
health of the prisoner ; and there are individuals,
men as well as boys, on whom it is found to
produce little or no effect ; while there are others
so turbulent and outrageous for whom it is ut-
terly insufficient. Besides, the punishment is
Inequitable, as it operates unequally. To a
mind which is susceptible or cultivated, or fond
of society, solitude is a grievous punishment,
and the probability is, that such a mind will
settle down into a confirmed and settled ma'
lignity, through brooding on it. Not so with
a man stupid, ignorant, and gross. Torpid ani-
mals of this description (and they constitute a
large class) will sleep away the time of their
solitude with little inconvenience. We are
afraid, therefore, that the more violent remedies
of corporeal punishment, under due control, must
be sometimes employed. In order to preserve
order and discipline among a large body of men
of vicious habits, there can be no doubt that
severe measures must be resorted to, to a certain
extent. But the adaptation of the penalty to
the crime, as to mode and degree, must also, to
a certain extent, be left to the responsible gover-
nors of the prisons. It must be borne in mind
that our objections to an arbitrary system of
seclusion do knot apply to an equally arbitrary