The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-08 00:00:00

s, had been treacherously led." If the French Aar.-
don the subjects of the Pope before they obtain an
ameliorated government, they will, according to
Sir Richard's logic, behave treacherously to them.
Sir Richard wishes amelioration in the government
of Modena, and, wishing such amelioration, he
would have approved of French interference to effect
it; but he disapproved of an interference which
stopped short of effecting the amelioration. To ob-
tain his approbation, the French must not abandon
the subjects of the Pope till they are secured in the
blessings of good government. Sir Robert Peel
went somewhat more craftily to work :
" He would not have it supposed (he said) that the
Members of the British Parliament were not to do what
they conceived to be their duty, lest, forsooth, they should
give offence to France.—(Hear.) He was nut aware
what reasons Austria might have for sending to France
for troops to assist in quelling rebellion in Italy ; but he had
received information which persuaded him that France
had sent her troops into Italy without any intimation pre-
viou-ly given to the other Powers.—(Hear, hear.) Such
a proceeding he could not view without anxiety, not so
much for the act itself, but for the consequences to which
it might lead. He trusted a full explanation would he
given of the circumstances which occasioned, and might
he supposed to justify, that proceeding. If it should prove
that the purpose of the French Government was only to
conciliate the good will of the party which for some time
past had agitated the peace of France itself, then his ap-
prehensions would be much increased.—(Hear.) Within
the last few months he had seen France advance a large
army into Belgium, without having made any previous
communication to the other Powers.—(Hear, hear.) He
also saw at present a large territory upon the coast of
the Mediterranean—Algiers, Oran, and Bona—in the
occupation of France.—(Hear.) He also saw the troops
of France occupying parts of Greece, remaining there
still, perhaps fur good reasons, and, perhaps, onjustifi-
able grounds."—(Hear, hear.)
Not a word from Sir Robert when the Austrians
entered the Papal territories to enable the Pope to
trample on his subjects. Not a word of commise-
ration for the unfortunate Poles, the victims of the
foulest blot on modern history. But the Govern-
ment of France is not entirely in the interest of the
Holy Alliance ; it is obliged to make some conces-
sions " to conciliate the good-will of the party,
which, for some time past, had agitated the peace
of France itself"—that party which placed the
Duke of Orleans on the throne, and sent the legi-
timate K ng to Edinburgh ; and the interference of
such a Government is very different from Austrian
or Russian interference. Austria may overcome
Italy from one extremity to the other; France, un-
der a legitimate Bourbon, may overrun Spain with-
out even a shadow of justification; but the French,
under a Constitutional King, must not send even
a handful of troops to Ancona. The proverb says,
" one man may steal a horse, while another is hanged
for looking over the hedge." France endangers the
balance of power, by keeping troops in Greece, in
Algiers, and at Ancona; and then France marched
an army into Belgium to prevent a war in Europe.
The state of things which Sir Robert would de-
light to see, is Russia and Prussia overawing Ger-
many, Austria overawing Italy, Don Miguel filling
the prisons of Portugal with impunity, that there
might be no hope of improvement in the social can-
diiion of the nations. Sir Robert has no objection
to the organised conspiracy of the Despots against
the nations, and in their interference he sees nothing
but good ; but he suspects that in the handful of
French soldiers at Ancona may be found men
imbued with the generous feelings that led to
the revolution of July. To Propagate the princi-
ples of the revolution of July is an evil of a
serious nature. The principles of the revolution of
July threaten the sacred cause of European Aristo-
cracy, of which the Tories of England are the main
support. Pope or Pagan, whoever abets misgo-
vernment in any corner of the world is sacred in the
eyes of the Tories of England, who would deluge
Europe with blood to defeat the hopes of the peo-
ple of England, and who would shed the blood of
the people of England if their power were only
equal to their good will.—elforning Chronick.
Having, during several years past, contended for
the propriety of abolishing imprisonment for debt,
especially on niesne process,—having availed our-
selves of every favourable opportunity to show the
injustice of a law which constituted a man a judge
in his own case to inflict punishment before any debt
had been proved—the impolicy of a law which en-
courages a vicious system of credit, the cause of ruin
to thousands—the cruelty of a law which confounds
misfortune with crime,—it gives us peculiar satisfac-
tion to find that the Common Law Commissioners
have reported in favour of abolition. We mentioned
some time ago that this question was the principal
one which engaged the attention of the Commissioners
preparatory to the production of their fourth report.
Our readers have seen that, in moving for a copy of
that report to be laid on the table of the House of
Lords, on Tuesday evening, the Lord Chancellor
took occasion to express his approbation c.f the
labours of the Commissioners, and his full and
perfect concurrence in the conclusion at which
they hail arrived. His Lordship observed that
the ground taken up by the Commissioners
as the result of the investigation, and as the
conviction produced on them by evidence, was
that imprisonment for debt on mesne process should
be abolished—and in execution if practicable. His
Lordship added, what we have always contended
for, that " every means should be given to the cre-
ditors for the recovery of their legal demands—that
every means should be given to creditors for obtain-
ing possession of the property of those who were
indebted to them,—that every means should be
given to creditors to compel debtors attempting to
defraud them to surrender their effects,—that all the
anomalies which at present existed with regard to
imprisonment for debt—that all the inconsistencies
which appeared between the principle and the prac-
tice of the law, and which were caused by defects
in the law as it now stood, should be gradually,
temperately, but effectually, removed." Such
are the opinions of the Commissioners, which
the Learned Lord at the head of the admi-
nistration of the law adopts as his own, arid which
must meet the assent of every reflecting and ju-
dicious mind. It is certainly a gross anomaly in our
law that one species of property should be liable to
be taken in satisfaction for debt and not another;—
that personal or chattel property should be liable to
be taken in execution, and that real property should
he sacred arid inviolable, unless in the excepted
cases of a statute-merchant or a statute-staple, or
an elegit, which gives possession of a moiety, of the
lands for the satisfaction of a judgment of debt or
damages, if the goods and chattels be not sufficient.
These modes of levying the debt upon the real pro-
perty of the debtor are, however, only available
under particular circumstances, the general rule being
that real property is not liable to be taken in execu-
tion for debt, nor is that sort of personal property
which consists of stock in the public funds. The Lord
Chancellor says " It is only reasonable that the pro-
perty of the debtor should be et the disposal of the
law for the liquidation of his debts, and neither he nor
their Lordships could see why one description of
property should have an exemption more than any
other." His Lordship says truly, and as the law at
present stands, a debtor may have property far be-
yond what is sufficient to pay his debts, and may
choose to remain in prison and hold over that pro-
perty from his creditors. He may have every eon,
verneirce and luxury within his prison walls, because
he has the means of paying, and even liberty itself
he may enjoy to a certin extent, by purchasing day-
rules, while nominally in a state of confinement. All
these things he pays for out o!' the property which
;Lett: harpies
in liquidation of his debts; besides the
ought to go
gaolers,
the creditor cannot. touch. All
turnkey,exorb tat
Sheriff'
dou
officers,reur andto 11,1 at
hrseh ahl
whom the law allows to plunder that property of
thisth
requires debtor
wtohibele4 reformed. \S here there is pro-
perty it should be made available. for debt, without
any regard to those ancient feudal principles by
which a distinction was made bet ween Tcal
and chattel property that ought not to have
outlasted the semi-barbarous system which cre-
ated that and many other anomalies, which
were unknown to the ancient common law of ,

Ergland. It is as just and wise that every species
of property should be liable for the payment of debts,
as it absurd and cruel that human liberty should be
taken where property cannot be had. If a man
have the means of paying his debts, let the law
appropriate those means to that object; but if he
have not the means, the deprivation of liberty can-
not enable him to pay. To drag such a debtor to
prison may gratify revenge; but the law should not
lend itself to vindictive feelings. The stroke of
misfortune might often be retrieved by honest dili-
gence,
.if the loss of liberty did not follow, and
complete, by process of law, the ruin of the victim.
Captivity is a difficult thing for a strong man to
bear who cannot afford to purchase the indulgencies
of a prison; but let any one think on the condition
of the aged and infirm, and, above all, the friend-
less female—accustomed to the comforts of life in
her better days, and still mindful of its decencies
—the widow, whom the loss of her husband has
reduced from comparative affluence to sudden want ;
let one think of such a person, shut up with the
worst characters of our gaols—exposed to the rude
taunts of turnkeys, whose iron hearts are only
to be softened by the touch of gold—compelled to
mingle in the association of vice and profane-
ness, and drink the cup of misery to the dregs,—and
surely the law of imprisonment for debt will appear
to be one of the darkest blots upon the humanity
and civilization of England. We observe, from the
speech of the Lord Chancellor, that there is one
case itr which it is intended to retain the law of
imprisonment upon mesne process, and that is when
the debtor meditates flying from the country, with
a view to avoid the payment of his debts. If so,
strict evidence of that fact should be required—or,
at least, evidence that makes it highly probable such
is his intention ; for, if this exception were allowed
upon loose and vague suggestions, the exception
might at length, in practice, supersede the rule.
Another exception, we presume, alludes to a debtor
in execution, who has the means of satisfying his
creditor, and refuses to do so ; but we should think
the property could be made available without hold-
ing in pledge the body of the debtor. As to the
imprisonment of persons who are proved to have
fraudulentlij contracted debts, we look upon such
imprisonment, provided it be not excessive, as a
just punishment of a criminal act ; and, therefore,
such imprisonment does not confound misfortune
with crime. We are sure interested persons,
especially of the law, will make an outcry against
this wholesome reform, but we hope the Lord
Chancellor will persevere.—Morning Herald.
Lord Plunket and his friends are singularly unfor-
tunate in their attempts at recrimination upon every
occasion when the exemplary care of his family
evinced by this good father and disinterested States-
man are made the subject of remark. We charac-
terise the Noble and Learned Lord as a good father
and disinterested Statesman in preference to calling
him a " venal politician ;" the latter description
having, we recollect, when employed in his usual
blunt, frank, and manly manner by the Marquis of
Londonderry, excited the peculiar disapprobation of
Earl Grey, whom it might be dangerous for us too
deeply to offend, and who acutely sympathises in
every wound inflicted upon the Irish Chancellor, be-
tween whose official character and conduct and those
of the Noble Earl there certainly may be traced no
slight similarity. We are very far from objecting
to recrimination on the part of a person who is
smarting under an attack. It is a very natural over-
flow of excited feeling in any case, and, when intro-
duced only as a pungent seasoning to the more
substantial viands of an effective defence, is
frequently by no means disagreeable. But
when, as in the case of Lord Plunket, neither
the party accused nor any of his advocates
think of meeting express and grave accusa-
tions with any thing but recrimination, they
offer to the public a banquet very similar to that
with which Petruchio proposed to regale his wife—
all mustard and no beef. This by possibility may
proceed from mere vexation and ill-temper in the
Noble and Learned Lord himself ; but when his
friends and supporters lay before us no better,.
fare, the inference is unavoidable that their nig-
gardliness is to be ascribed to the poverty of the
larder; that the materials of a substantial and sa-
tisfactory vindication are utterly wanting. As
an apology for Lord Plunket, who, in the com-
paratively few years in which he has served dif-
ferent and irreconcileable Administrations, has con-
trived to accumulate about twenty places, of the an-
nual value of twenty-eight thousand a year, in the
hands of himself and his immediate relations, a
friend of the Noble arid Learned Lord's adduced the
other night in the House of Commons the example
of the Earl of Eldon, who during the period of a
quarter of a century, in which he served his coun-
try with consistency and honour, bestowed six
places upon his son, two of which are in reversion,
and may probably never be enjoyed by him. The recri-
mination in this instance, if nothing remained to be
added to the above statement, would seem singu-
larly injudicious and ineffective. But unfortun-
ately for the reputation of the Irish Chancellor
there is much to be added. The gravamen of the
charge against his Lordship is, that having already
grasped an excessive and (except perhaps in the
kindred case of Earl Grey) unparalleled number
of places for his family, amounting in value to some-
thing like 26,0001. per annum, he manifested a
disposition so revoltingly grasping, "as if increase
of appetite had grown by what it fed on,"
that he proceeded to add to this number
another place, and to this value another 2,000/.
a year, by the exercise of patronage of questionable
legality ; and that he has employed his power
as a Judge and a Minister to prevent a satisfactory
decision of the legal question, endeavouring in the
meanwhile to extort from the adverse interest a gua-
rantee that, in the event of the decision being against
him and his family, they shall nevertheless continue
to enjoy undisturbed and undiminished the emolu-
ments of which, in that case, they will have been
shewn to have possessed themselves illegally. Did
the Earl of Eldon or any other living man ever
attempt any thing like this ? Did the venerable
Earl ever usurp patronage not belonging to
his office ? Did he, above all, ever obstruct the
course of justice, arid strive by means of the ob-
struction to force his adversary, in a question of
pounds, shillings, and pence, into an unfair bargain ?
It is unquestionably derogatory to the character of
Lord Plunket as a mart, that he should have
plunged into the mire of such a transaction, taking
the most favourable view of it. But the over-
whelming influence of mercenary considerations
upon the mind of the Noble and Learned Lord
cannot be half appreciated, without referring toahe
situation in which, rather than run the risk of
losing a pecuniary advantage, he has descended
to place himself as a Lawyer and a Judge. No
just man would desire to retain emoluments longer
than he can persuade himself that he has a legal
and moral right to them. But what can be
thought of the man who, having the reputa-
tion of an acute lawyer, and the character
of the highest judicial seat in Ireland to main-
tain, is so overpowered by the apprehension of
losing for his family a given number of pounds ster-
ling a year, that he forgets entirely the Lawyer and
the Judge, and proposes to obtain a judicial deci-
sionis the House of Lords,
in circumstances which every lawyer knows
would make the decision utterly worthless ? Are
tChoeur highests f Justice—abovec o ur t
in the
kingdom—to be employed
to suit the purposes of Lord Plunket or of any other
man in deciding abstract questions of right ? Or
would their decision of an abstract case, without any
parties before them so interested in the decision as
to give a tolerable certainty of the merits on both
sides being fairly and fully brought forth, be of any
value whatever ? Will arty man of ordinary infors
rnation venture to answer these questions in the
affirmative ? Then what was the meaning of Lord
Plunket's proposition ? Simply and obviously this :
that his mind is under the dominion of a ruling
passion so absolute and overwhelming as to render
him incapable of any other consideration, as a man, a
Lawyer, or a Judge, but the single consideration
how it may be the most abundantly and securely