The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-13 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

When men have resolved on desperate mea-
sures, they are little guided by fear or shame in
the choice of their pretences. That of the
coronation oath, as a preliminary to the defeat
of, the Church Bill, is at once a folly and a
fraud. The absurdity of such a construction of
an oath, as would assimilate the laws of Eng-
land to those of the Medes and Persians, ren-
dering all change to the end of time impossible,
and rivetting whatever abuses and grievances
have existed in any one generation upon the
necks of all succeeding ones, is obivious to every
body but an idiot. The coronation oath, in
the mind of the Duke of Wellington, was no
bar to the introduction of a law which gave to
an adverse party the power, if they should so
employ it, of injuring the Established Church.
But now, where no new power of injuring the
church is created—where the clergy themselves
admit that bishoprics may be consolidated with-
out disadvantage—where the remedies of ac-
knowledged evils, and ample provision for the
support, convenience, popularity, and stability of
the church itself are faithfully and strictly appro-
priated, from means of which the church was
never before in possession—is there not something
that revolts and disgusts in the childishness of this
attempt to bring down the King's oath as a bar
to the natural progress of legislative improve-
ment ? What was the original object of the
coronation oath now existing ? It was not to
prevent the King from co-operating in the busi-
ness of legislation with the other estates of Par-
liament—he might as well have sworn to abdi-
cate the Kingly office—but it was to frustrate
any assumption of a dispensing power—a power
of illegally defeating and violating by a false ex-
ercise of his prerogative laws already made—a
power within a state paramount to the state itself.
But it is a fraud as well as folly—a watchword
not meaning that which it pretends to signify ;
for it is no regard to coronation oaths, or to
any consideration but that of factious and sordid
interests, which has led the Conservative junta
to hoist their standard for the fight against this
Bill. We find that their plan of action is
determined. They will beat the Ministers
by votes ; but they will not disarm the
King of his remedial power, nor the people
of their means of retaliation. The Duke of
Wellington, the sage of the coronation oath,
will not, it appears, come forth, in the first in-
stance, as a member of the projected Ca-
binet, nor will Sir Robert Peel be found
there,—no, it will be a Cabinet on a mag-
nificent scale. The Speaker will be Pre-
mier, and who else ? Why, another mem-
ber will be the Earl of Wicklow—ay, " the
Irish Narcissus" will be of it ; and that en-
lightened, liberal, and eminently successful ne-
gotiator, the Viscount Strangford I Such a set
for responsible advisers of his Majesty in times
like these ! And what comes next ? The re-
presentatives of the people have still a voice left
.
in it. There will be a call of the House o{
Commons on Thursday next, on the notice of
Sir John Wrottesley, and a resolution carried
by a majority, decisive of the fate of the
Narcissus Cabinet, to the effect that a church
reform, at least equal in magnitude to that
which the Lords will have rejected, is ne-
cessary for the welfare of Church and State,
awl praying his Majesty to provide the means
of accomplishing that salutary measure. It
here then be a collision, who will have caused
it—the Commons, who pass an essential Bill,
or the Lords, who think proper to throw it
out ? We foresee in all this a tremendous con-
flict ; but we anticipate likewise a victory deci-
sive, permanent, and final, on behalf of the
nation and its rights. The faction is not merely,
as a whole, a feeble one, but it is torn to pieces
by internal discord. All the evil passions are
at work amongst them, and will show themselves
on the first general clutching at the loaves and
fishes. The King, too—the honest, manly
King—will stand by his people, and the liberal
measures necessary for their happiness. Half
measures must be laid aside. The man who
now fears to act boldly, can never have virtue to
act honestly. The alternative is the people, and
down with the oligarchs—or oligarchs, and
adieu to all that deserves the name of people.
Can any human creature with a particle of sense
doubt respecting the result ? The Tories have
dug the pit—they are already on its margin :
one push of popular energy, and they are in,
and for ever. What a mixture of unutterable
joy, and contempt as unutterable, will attend this
useful self-immolation of infatuated conceit—of
incurable bigotry—of folly blinder than the mole
and deafer than the adder !—Times.

In the French papers of Monday and Tues-
day, which we received yesterday, we observe two
articles on subjects in which we have ourselves taken
a peculiar interest,—WC mean the regulation of
the Post-office intercourse between England and
France, and the opinion of the French Govern-
ment respecting the present attitude of political
parties in Germany ; the former is contained in
the Constitutionnel, and the latter in the Jour-
nal des Debats, of Monday last. Every atom
of the information which we communicated some
time ago, on the recent negotiation between the
administrators of the French Post-office and our
own, is confirmed by the French journalist ; in
fact, his statement is only a repetition of our
own, accompanied by an expression of feelings
similar to those by which we ourselves had been
actuated. He divides, like us, the subjects of
the negotiation into six heads, and regrets that
only two of them have been gained. The two
thus adopted are a daily estafette between
London and Paris, instead of the transmission
of lettersfour times a week, and the return of
misdirected letters containing money, after such
an interval of delay as to warrant a belief that
the persons to whom they were addressed could
not be found. The other four points--namely,
the optional franking of correspondence, the
mutual transport of journals, the security of
money in recommended letters, and the expedi-
tious transmission of pamphlets, or proof sheets
of works in the press, which have been rejected
—call forth remarks similar to those which we
thought it our duty to make. Wishing to go
much further than our post-office was disposed to
go, it was not likely that the French Govern-
ment would refuse its sanction to -a treaty ‘vhieh,
however imperfect, embraced two unequivocal im-
provements. The King has accordingly ratified
the convention made between our Postmaster-
General and the Director-General of the Posts
in France ; and we have no doubt that these
limited ameliorations will be immediately car-
ried into effect. It cannot enter into any esti-
mate of human motives which we can form,
that there could occur any reason or caprice for
delaying the execution of such a stipulated ar-
rangement, merely because one of the parties has
incurred general disapprobation for not making
further concessions. By this arrangetnent a
steam-packet, with letters for the respective
capitals of France and England, will sail between

Calais and Dover every day in the week ; even
on Sunday the French will send a boat to
Dover, and hand a letter bag to our
Post-office, leaving it to our officers to dis-
tribute the letters or not on that sacred
day, as they shall see meet. The daily trans-
mission of correspondence between London
and Paris, which would appear as useful and
as necessary as between Paris and Brussels, or
between London and Glasgow, is thus se-
cured for the first time by the enlightened
zeal and the liberal spirit of the French Go-
vernment. It is surprising that any difficulty
should ever have occurred on the subject,—it
is surprising that the administrators of the
French post should have been obliged to come
to London to negotiate on so obvious a
matter ; and it is still more surprising that
they should have been resisted in those other
disinterested projects of amelioration in which
their expectations and efforts have been baffled.
By the transmission of journal for journal,
England alone would have profited, as one of
our journals, giving a double sheet, would
make as large a bulk as half of the morning
papers of the French metropolis. And, surely,
to any man who desires the extension of Eng-
lish opinions, and through English opinions,
of English influence, on the continent, a more
ready means could not be found than the
cheap, easy, and unobstructed exchange of
our periodical vehicles of information. 'We
feel quite assured that his Majesty's Go-
vernment will soon be brought to view the
matter in this light, and that the direction
of the Post-office will be almost immediately
rescued from that state of lethargy or corruption
into which no other English institution has fallen
and into which no public establishment should
ever be permitted to fall. The article respecting
Germany in the Journal des Debats is chiefly
interesting from the belief that it proceeds from
Ministerial inspiration. Its very few facts are
avowedly taken from a German paper, and its
single remark or argument has no pretension to
novelty or discovery. Even if inspired by the
French Cabinet, the language of the article,
like that of other revelations, is so dark as to
require an interpreter, and therefore indicates
nothing but vague feelings and wishes. The
Augsburg Gazette had announced a conviction
that France had no right to express any opinion
on the acts of the Germanic Diet, and had
stated that Prussia and Austria acted on this
idea. The demi-official organ of the French
Ministry doubts whether such a notion could
ever have been hazarded by the two chief Pow-
ers of the Confederation, and proceeds to assert
the right of France, by the treaty of Vienna, to
watch over the independence of the separate
principalities of Germany. If ever the question
should demand a solution, by the invasion of
any of the constitutional States or kingdoms of
the Confederation, by the troops of Prussia and
Austria, we shall be found as ready as any por-
tion of the French press in vindicating the claim
of the parties to the treaty of Vienna to prevent
such a violation of its spirit and stipulations.
We regret to observe that, from present appear-
ances, some of the approaching arrivals from
Germany may furnish us with too early an op-
portunity.—Times.

The crisis of our form of Government has at
length arrived, and the Reform Bills begin to
" work." Next week the two Houses of Par-
liament—the hereditary and the elective assem-
blies—will be in direct " collision" on the ques-
tion of a Reform of the Irish Church. The
Tory aristocracy, their partisans, and depen-
dants, are determined to make " a stand," and
to endeavour to repossess themselves of the
reins of power. The consequence of this insane
proceeding no man can foresee, and every re-
fleeting mind looks forward to the result with
fear and trembling. This approaching crisis is
no matter of party or Ministers. The real ques-
tion is, shall we revert to the domination of
Toryism, with the additional curse of being
bereft of the great objects of a reform of the re-
presentation ? The fate of the country depends
on the " Reformed" House of Commons. Will
the Representatives of the people act with be-
coming spirit, decision, promptitude, and wis-
dom ? We rejoice to see that no time is lost
in taking steps to defeat the Tory plots, and to
assert the power of the Commons' House of
Parliament. Sir John Wrottesley gave notice
last night, of a motion on Monday, to move for
a Call of the House for Thursday next. The
Hon. Member is an independent County Re-
presentative, who thinks for himself, and in
whose hands such a motion is most appropriate.
Mr. Wynn, displaying his chronic propensity to
seek his provisions with all parties, required the
reason of Sir John Wrottesley's notice—as
though the Right Honourable Gentleman was
really ignorant of its palpable cause. Rats
always leave au empty barn, but wanting sa-
gacity do not always foresee the arrival of new
grain, and thus Mr. Wynn made a " mistake,"
and when he left the present Ministry, evidently
underrated their stability. There is a material
difference between pedantry and judgment.
Welchmen, indeed, are not always characterised
by clear foresight or nice perception ; and we
suspect that Mr. Wynn will now miss stays in
his new tack. The Tories cannot retake the
old citadel. All the military tactics of their old
sergeant-major—all the shrewdness and finesse
of their slippery but important leader, Sir Ro-
bert Peel—all the devices and false rumours of
the Carlton Club—the experience of their old
unhorsed whipper-in, Mr. Holmes, and the
number and fleetness of their runners, cannot
form a Ministry that could maintain itself against
the present or a newly chosen House of Com-
mons. They must gain two hundred new
Nlembers to their present party in the House of
Commons by a dissolution of Parliament, be-
fore they can even face the reformed assembly ;
and that is impossible. The supplies would be
only granted in exchange for their value in sub-
stantial reforms and retrenchment. The Tories
might probably bid high for the Ultra-Radicals ;
but a repeal of the house and window and malt
taxes, would be only a temporary sop to Cer-
bents. They could devise no substitute ; and
after dwelling a short period in a hornet's nest, they
would, more gladly quit office than they entered it.
I beevils, however, of their return to office would
beincalculable, and its probable fatal results
make the heart tremble. The House of Com-
' mons is no the breakwater between the 'lonics
and revolution ; and if it should prove craven,
it will sink under a load of public disgrace and
humiliation. If Parliament were to be dissolved,
Members would have to face their constituents,
and render an account of their trust. Time Peers
are their subjects, but will try to be their mas-
ters. The Lord Bishops—none of the Lord's
Bishops—will side with such party as they may
suspect to be strongest. The question is not
now " confidence in Ministers,' but whether the

Commons of the Realm or the Lords Spiritl;l
and Temporal shall uphold, in all its abuses, a
supererogatory Protestant church establishment

in Catholic Ireland We animadverted with
great regret and pain on the incestuous vote of
Monday last, when Mr. Hume, Mr. O'Connell,
the Right Hon. Charles Tennyson, and half a
dozen Reformers, voted with the Tories against
the third reading of the Irish Church Bill in
the Commons. Those gentlemen, and some
obtuse Members of the liberal opposition, may
now be placed in a curious dilemma—that of
supporting the Tory Peers against a measure of
Church Reform ! The principle on which they
voted was chagrin at the abandonment of the
appropriation clause, and dissatisfaction with re-
spect to the quantum of ecclesiastical reformation.
But no dispassionate or sane man can possibly
deny that, moderate as the measure is, it is a most
valuable beginning. It would be a curious scene
to witness these few Members of the House of
Commons, after opposing Ministers for an in-
sufficient proposition of Church Reform, back
up the Peers, who refused any, even the smallest
portion ! We do not doubt the discernment,
tact, and good feeling of Mr. O'Connell. He
has shown it on every critical occasion, and re-
cently in his proposed resolution in favour of
the principle of Local Courts. We ardently
hope that all party cabals and separate interests
will be suspended, and that the first Reformed
House of Commons will not fail in its duty.
We repeat that the collision will not be a Mini-
sterial but a national question. It is the first
open rupture—the first declared hostility—be-
tween the two Houses of Legislature ; and
much will depend upon the conduct and spirit
of the Commons. If the latter " play the men,"
the Tories cannot rule. Indeed, circumstances
prematurely and reluctantly urge the Conserva-
tives to snatch at the seals of office ; they are
not prepared ; the Commons should be, and an
infamous party cabal will be assuredly defeated.
The straw will be moved on Monday.—Morn-
ing Chronicle.
At the Northampton Assizes three young
men, nazted Lloyd, Newell, and Marsden, con-
victed of a highway robbery, have been left for
execution. Their case presents no feature of
peculiar atrocity. Their violence consisted in
dragging the prosecutor off his horse, and hold-
ing him on the ground while the robbery was
committed. While attempting to resist he was
kicked on the side, but it does not appear that,
beyond the indignity, any personal injury was in-
flicted. The persons, indeed, made use of very
violent language ; but hard words are not hard
blows. The culprits carried no deadly weapons,
nor is it alleged that they carried weapons of any
sort. They had life in their power, and they
spared it—even the life of him who was the
only witness of their crime. By the commission
of a greater crime they might have destroyed all
evidence of the lesser one. Under such cir-
cumstances, we ask if the law which sacrifices
the life of the criminal ought to be carried into
effect ? We impeach not the evidence—we
make no question of the guilt—two of the pri-
soners, indeed, pleaded guilty, and were also
convicted of another robbery, but unattended
with any violence, on the same day. We put
our objection to the sanguinary enforcement of
law on the ground of public policy, which
does not sanction the confounding of rob-
bery with murder ; for that would be to
offer a bounty on the crime of blood, and
instigate the robber to make sure work of
his victim, by silencing his voice against him
before any earthly tribunal for ever. If we err
in taking this view of the subject—a view which
we have not taken of a sudden, nor adopted
without consideration, it is consolatory to us to
know that we err in company with not a few of
those gifted minds whose progress through our
system has been equally splendid and benefi-
cent, and who have left behind them a long train
of intellectual glory. We have often quoted
arguments in support of our opinions from
Meredith and Romilly—illustrious names
among the more modern reformers of our cri-
minal jurisprudence, which, though considerably
improved of late years, still merits the disgrace-
ful distinction of being the most sanguinary, not
only in Europe, but in the civilized world.
Let us now revert to older but not less zealous

—not less glorious advocates of dispassionate
and Christian legislation. The great moralist,
Doctor Johnson, has handled this subject, as he
did every question of which ethics formed a
part, with masterly force of reasoning and capti-
vating beauty of expression. ‘. The terror of
death," says this eloquent teacher of wisdom
and virtue, " should be reserved as the last resort
of authority, as the strongest and most operative
of prohibitory sanctions, and placed before
the treasure of life to guard from invasion
what cannot be restored. To equal robbery
with murder is to reduce murder to robbery—
to. confound in common minds the gradations
of iniquity, and incite the commission of a
greater crime to prevent the detection of a less.
If only murder were punished with death very
few robbers would stain their hands with blood !
but when, by the last act of cruelty, no new
danger is incurred, and greater security may be
obtained, upon what principle shall we bid them
foi bear ? The gibbet, indeed, certainly, dis-
ables them who die upon it from infesting the
community ; but their death seems not to con-
tribute more to the reformation of their as-
sociates than any other method of reparation.
A thief seldom passes much of his time in re-
collection or anticipation, but from robbery
hastens to riot, and from riot to robbery ; nor
when the grave closes upon his companion has
he any other care than to find another." Again
—" lie who knows not how often rigorous laws
produce total impunity, and how many crimes
are concealed and forgotten, for fear of hurrying
the offender to that state in which there is no
repentance, has conversed very little with man-
kind. And whatever epithets of reproach or
contempt this compassion may incur from
those who confound cruelty with firmness, I
know not whether any wise man would wish
it less powerful or less extensive." " The fre-
quency of capital punishments rarely hinders
the commission of a crime, but naturally and
commonly prevents its detection, and is, if we
proceed only upon prudential principles, chiefly
for that reason to be avoided. Whatever may
be urged by casuists or politicians, the greater
part of mankind, as they can never think that to
pick the pocket and to pierce the heart is
equally criminal, will scarcely believe that two
malefactors, so different in guilt, can be justly
doomed to the same punishment; nor is the
necessity of submitting the conscience to human
laws so plainly evinced, or so generally allowed,
but that the pious, the tender, and the just, will
always scruple to concur
with the community
in an act in which their private judgment cannot
concur." Let us look to the opinions of another
great mail—a much more ancient advocate of
the reform of our criminal law—a man who held
the office of Lord Chancellor of England three
hundred years ago, and who laid down his own
head on the block rather than violate the dictates
of his conscience—we mean, of course, Sir

Thomas More. What does he say ?—" It is
obvious that it is absurd, and of ill consequence
to the Commonwealth, that a thief and a mur-
derer should he equally punished ; for if a. rob-
ber sees that his danger is the same if he is con-
victed of theft as if he were guilty of murder, this
will naturally incite him to kill the person whom
otherwise he would have only robbed—since if
the punishment is the same, there is more secu-
rity, and less danger of discovery, when he who
can best make it is put out of the way; so that
terrifying thieves too much provokes them to
cruelty." This was exemplified in France, when,
with the view of more effectually intimidating
robbers, they were broken alive upon the wheel.
The consequence was that they became desperate
and ferocious as wild beasts, and delighted in mur-
dering the victims whom they robbed, with the
most revolting circumstances of torture and bar-
barity. We want space to quote the opinions
of such enlightened men as Archbishop Moreton,
Sir Edward Coke, the great luminary of the law,
and the unrivalled Bacon, the father of modern
philosophy, also Lord Chancellor of England,
who exclaimed, " Let there be no rubrics of
blood." Little, stunted, and pedantic minds
may boast of the ruthless bigotry with which
they adhere to laws which are equally vindictive
to punish crime, and inefficient to protect pro-
perty; we prefer the doctrines of passionless
justice, consecrated as they are by the advocacy
of exalted genius. But it may be said the laws
are sanguinary, shall they not be executed ? We
answer, the prerogative of mercy is deposited
with the Crown to correct sanguinary laws ; and
mercy ip, therefore, as much a part of the law
as any enactment in the statute-book.—Morning
Herald.

A return of sinecures and offices executed by
deputy, in the civil departments of Government,
and of offices granted in reversion, which was
moved for by Mr. Hume in February last, has
been printed and publi,hed by order of the
House of Commons. A transitory glance at its
pages will show how the revenue of the country
has been misappropriated in past times, and how
much yet remains undone in order effectually to
cleanse out the Augean stable. The Ellenbo-
roughs, Ardens, Fitzroys of all kinds, Percevals,
Roses, Bathursts, Beresfords, and Seymours
shine in these pages under various titles, which
show the absurd and brutal ignorance of arith-
metic and accounts in which were the feudal
but crafty " demi-savages" who invented the
system of nefarious plunder called British
finance. One object of it was to provide for
the various second sons and daughters of the
Norman aristocracy, whom their system of
keeping their acquisitions entire, by investing
them in the eldest son, threw in a state of
naked rapacity on the world. Hence the terms
Cleiks of the Pells, Pipe, Hanaper, Tally
Clerks, &c., which show the barbarous manner
(by scrawling the characters indicative of their
extortions on hides, thrusting notched sticks
down pipes, &c.) in which the hive of Norman
robbers, who invented these systems of plunder,
kept their accounts. This system has been al-
lowed, hitherto, to pass current with the hood-
winked public, under the ample mantle of the
wisdom of our ancestors. At all events the
end has corresponded with the beginning—the
fruit with the root. It has been objected, on
behalf of the honourable pensioners and sine-
curists in these returns—as it has been objected
on behalf of the fair ladies and others who, for
various intelligible considerations, appear in-
scribed on the Civil Pension List—that even
were these sinecures, deputed places, and rever-
sions abolished, the relief to the public would
be very small. If the relief would be, as we
believe it might be shown (and that without re-
ferring to another cognate source of relief, the
overpaid salaries), tantamount to a compe-
tency of taking off the assessed taxes, the
relief would not only not be diminutive
but of a most extensive and effectual character.
The moral benefit of establishing an honest
principle would be still more important ; and
we are sure that such relief would tend more

,o satisfy the public mind, than relief of ten

..
times its pecuniary amount. We are sorry to
see public men, after so many professions on
the hustings and on the Opposition benches,
so fatally deaf to public opinion and public
claims. It is, however, incumbent on us to

tell the Administration plainly, and in no un-
amicable spirit, that the people are fully awake
to the true state of public accounts, and to the
true business-like mode of managing them,
which cannot differ, except in degree, from that
of any private merchant or tradesman. We
warn them, that if they do not take some
effectual steps for relieving the public burdens,
before the twelfth hour strikes, some Neckar
will arise under the auspices and sanction of the
people, to place the public accounts in better
order and keeping, and to prevent the convul-
sion which a blind and self-willed expenditure,
beyond the real means of those who contribute
to it, is calculated to produce. Morning
Advertiser.

All thinking men are looking forward with
lively anxiety to the course about to be pursued
by the House of Lords upon the Irish Church
Temporalities Bill. That anxiety arises not
more from a sense of the mischief which would

follow upon the Bill carried than from an antici-
pation of the consequences which treason would
labour to draw from the Bill rejected. If the
question to be decided by the events of next
week were one relating merely to the preserva-
tion of the Protestant Church in its dignities
and its property, there would be enough to vin-
dicate no common degree of interest in the public
mind ; but another question is asked upon which
it is most necessary that Englishmen should be
prepared to return a sober answer. Are we to
retain our hereditary Peerage, or are we to con-
vert our Constitution into a pure democracy ?
We believe that in a large majority of educated
Englishmen there exists, for the present, a dis-
position to preserve the stability of their
hereditary Throne, and to support the inde-
pendence of their hereditary Peerage. We
know that in many individuals, of whom
some are gifted with more than vulgar
abilities, of whom others are possessed of
more than moderate fortune, there is a determi-
nation to subvert both. Various are the views
by which these men are actuated. There is
your wily plunderer, who would do away the
King and the Lords because in them he appre-
hends resistance to his favourite scheme of
anarchy and confiscation ; there is your visionary
enthusiast, who would do away the King and
the Lords because he cannot find room for them
in the theory he has been carefully building ;
and there is your philosophical fatalist, who
would do away the King and the Lords because
the mind of man is always marching—because
to-day is not yesterday—because circumstances
are frequently imperious, and necessity uniformly
irresistible. But, by whatever motives they may
be influenced, these Ke w Reformers are ready to
take advantage of every accident which may

further their Reform. Let us watch their
manceuvre, for, though they are not numerous
enough to be much dreaded, they are too nu-
merous to be wholly despised. The House
of Lords voted an Address to the King
upon the policy pursued by his Government
towards the competitors for the throne of Por-
tugal. For this the House of Lords was stu •
diously represented by the Levellers as placing
itself in irreconcileable opposition to the feelings
of the nation. With what justice were such as-
sertions made ? No man ventures so foully to
libel the nation as to affirm that its sympathies
are warmly enlisted in the cause of the baffled
intruder who has for so long a time disturbed
the tranquillity of Portugal. The very dema-
gogues who used this theme for the furtherance
of their bad designs mete out to the contending
brothers a most impartial measure of scorn and
condemnation. They who censured the vote
of the House of Lords censured it, not because
they disliked the vote, but because they hated the
House of Lords. The House of Lords de-
feated the Local Courts Bill. For this the
House of Lords was again clamorously as-
sailed as opposed to every improvement, amo-
rous of every abuse. Why ? We have con-
versed with Tories and with Whigs, with barris-
ters and with attorneys, with men of various
opinions, with men of every party. We say deli-
berately that, with whatever honour or disappro-
bation our present system may be regarded, the
changes proposed by Lord Brougham were re•
ceived by all who were in the remotest degree
entitled to judge their merits with an unparal-
leled unanimity of condemnation. They who
censured the defeat of the Local Courts Bill by
the House of Lords censured it, not because
they liked the Local Courts Bill, but because
they hate the House of Lords. The House of
Lords too will reject the Irish Church Tempo-
ralities Bill. And for this the House of Lords
will he once more held up to popular odium as
hostile to all Reform, irretrievably attached to
every corruption. Once more we ask, why ?
Is there any vehement expression cf public opi-
nion in behalf of this Bill ? Is it condemned
by no man but the bigoted, the ignorant, the
intolerant ? Surely Mr. Ronayne is an en-
lightened legislator, and Mr. Ronayne " does
not believe that this Bill will produce the least
good." Surely Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey is a po-
pular Statesman, and Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey
" thinks it better to live upon hope than to adopt
a measure so futile and inadequate." Surely
Mr. Cobbett knows something of the senti-
ments of our tiers etat, and Mr. Cobbett ventures
to tell them " this project is like all the rest
that we have seen brought forward ; wild, in-
efficient for any good ; innovation with mis-
chief ; aria, y- the Lords do not sweep away
the crack-brained stqfir, bit after bit, I will not
say that they ought to be swept away them-
selves, but I agree with Lord Eldon, that they
will cease to be a House of Lords much sooner
than they expect." And lastly, surely the
Member for Dublin is a man of the people,
and the Member for Dublin " records his vote
against the third reading of the Bill, and repu-
diates the measure on the part of the people of
Ireland." They who will censure the rejection
of this Bill by the House of Lords, will cen-
sure it, not because they anticipate benefit from
the success of a measure thus execrated by
those it was meant to conciliate, but, once more,
because they hate the House of Lords. The
struggle is for the continuance or the extinction
of the legislative independence of the House of
Lords. No matter what the merits may be of
any question upon which it may henceforth deli-
berate, if only its decision be made a new point
of attack. If the adherents of our good cause
give way in this conflict, they will soon have to
engage on some other ground, where, perhaps,
they will contend with less vantage, and fall
with less honour.—Morning Post.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

WORSHIP-STREET.

Yesterday, an assault warrant of a serious nature came
on for hearing before Mr. BENETT, in which a Mrs.
Gough, of Kingsland, charged her husband with continu-
ally ill-using her.
The complainant, who possesses a handsome person
and; prepossessing manners, stated that on the day
before, while she was sitting in the garden, sewing, she
saw her husband deliberately take up three stones, which
he threw at her head. He was then outside the garden
gate, and one of the stones came with such force, as to cut
her head severely. Not satisfied with having thus assaulted
her, be afterwards entered through the gate, and although
her little child stood screaming by her side, he seized hold
of three garden pots, and threw them also at her head ;
one of which inflicted a second wound, and broke her
comb. _ . .

vV
Mr. BENETT—Have you any witnesses? Complainant—
Only the child, who is but nine years of age.
Mr. BENETT (to the defendant)—This is a brutal
assault. What have you to say ? Defendant (striking
the desk)—She aggravated me.
Mr. BENETT—Suppose you had killed her ? Defendant
—She is continually aggravating me, through her jea-
lousy. She accuses me of visiting other ladies.
Complainant—And so you do. Your Worship, when
we lived at No. 33, Baker-street, a child was continually
brought there before me, which I was informed was his.—
(Here the complainant burst into tears.)
Brown, the officer who served the warrant, said that
the complainant had brought her husband a large fortune,
and that from inquiries he had made, he bad no doubt that
the defendant was all in the wrong.
Mr. BENETT told the defendant that be should not
part with him until he found good bail to keep the peace
towards his wife.
THAMES POLICE.

COCKNEY SPORTSMEN ON THE BITER,--YeSterday
William Thomas, a waterman, Henry Park, a master
bricklayer, and Philip Burnett, who described himself a
gentleman's valet out of place, were brought before Mr.
BRODERIP, charged with shooting at swans on the river,
and endangering the lives of the Thames Police officers.
Mr. Charles Falconer, a Thames Police surveyor, on
Tuesday night, about half-past nine o'cock, was on duty
on the river, above Battersea bri !ge, close to the Middlesex
shore, and was looking at two large swans, when he heard
the report of a gun, and a quantity of small shot came
whistling about his ears and the crew of his boat. He at
first suspected some one was firing among the reeds, and
looked in that direction ; but be afterwards saw a boat in
the middle of the river, and some smoke about it. He
gave chase, on which the parties in the boat rowed away.
jumped
into a smart pursuit he came up with them, and
into the boat, on which Park made a spring overboard
into the water. NVitness jumped in after him, and after
wailing some distance up to his middle in the water, he
came up with him. Park then b-gan to strike out into
deeper water, and witness threatened to swim alter him
if he did not stop. He then dived under a barge, and
witness followed him, and caught him under the bows.
On returning to the boats, he found the other prisoners
in the custody of his men ; and on searching their wherry
he discavered a powder-flisk, a shot-pouch, and a double-
barrelled gun. The left hand barrel appeared to have just
been discharged.
Mr. BRODERIP inquired if either of these cockney
sportsmen had injured the swans ? Falconer—Oh, not at
all; the sho. did not go within 50 yards of the swans!
but I and my men had a narrow escape.
Thomas, in defence, said he fired the gun not to shoot
the swans but to frighten them, that they might fly up:
and let him and his friends see how big they were.
Mr. BaonEatar said the prisoners did honour to the
race of cockney sportsmen in not being able to hit two
such large birds as the swans. They were excellent marks-
men surely.
Park said the night was hazy, and he thought the swans
were wild fowl and fair game.—(Loud laughter.)
Mr. BRODERIP was not afraid of the prisoners shooting
any thing they might fire at : but if they were allowed to
do this thing again,: they might, by accident, kill some of
his Majesty's subjects passing up and down the river. Ile