The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-04 00:00:00

dered more conspicuous by clubbing their wits to-
gether
to produce it, is a clear proof upon record
that the system under which such appointments
have been made requires to be altered. The second
case is quite as ridiculous as the first ; but one is
startled to think how easily a man's character may
be lost for want of a little common sense in the Ma-
gistrate before whom he is accused in malice or in
error. It is not every man who may meet with the
same misfortune that Mr. Tatham and his friend ex-
perienced, who can bring such a host of witnesses
to wipe off every imputation. A poor or a humble

•
individual, though the circumstances were as strong
in his favour, could not be expected to produce
such evidence as determined the Magistrate in this
case to alter his first opinion. We do not ask for
the appointment of deep-read luwyers to the bench
as a security against such occurrences; but surely
we are justified in requiring that an ordinary portion
of judgment shall not be wanting on the part of
these who are often called upon to decide between
conflicting evidence and disputed facts.—Morning
Herald.

The doctrine held by Viscount Milton, Lord
John Russell, and Sir Robert Peel, on the exclu-
sion of strangers from the House of Commons,—that
is, the exclusion of those who are not Members of
the House, from the possibility of seeing the per-
sons or hearing the speeches of those who are Mem-
bers,—has created considerable indignation abroad,
and produced us a variety of remonstrances. With
respect to Sir Robert Peel, that Right Hon. Gentle-
man's opinion on this subject is consistent with his
general principles, and the uniform course of his
public life, and needs therefore now create no sur-
prise; but it seems a desertion of the cause of the
people by the friends of the people to find the two
Noble Lords contending for debates with closed
doors, at the will of any individual Member whom
pride, caprice, conceit, petulance, or a thousand
other evil motives, may incite to move " the stand-
ing order." If any one asks what the practice has
been, there can be no doubt upon that point,—the
nation will concede at once,—that the House has
immemorially been in possession of the privilege, if
it be a privilege, which is now the subject of dis-
cussion, and has often exercised it very scanda-
lously. But let it be observed, that it is to reform
the practice of the House of Commons, as well as
purify the materialsof which it is composed, that the
whole nation is now in a ferment, and it can never
tend to the preservation of the useful and rational
rights of the House to strive for an usage that
is at once pernicious and absurd. The House
would undoubtedly have the right to exclude
the public from its debates as often as it
pleased, or when any Member pleased, if those de-
bates related only to the private concerns of the
Members themselves, or of any individual Mem-
ber, if the subject-matter of them were that in
which the people of England had no concern : but
the business of the House being the business of the
people, transmitted thither for discussion and de-
spatch by the people to its representatives, it is dif-
ficult to conceive upon what principle of common
sense the people should be excluded from all possi-
bility of knowing how it is handled, except surrepti-
tiously, by connivance, and under the liability of
punishment. Further also, as we stated in our last
observations, the representatives are chosen for a
limited period, under a responsibility for their con-
duct to their constituents at the close of that period.

This, we presume, will be acknowledged to be a
fundamental principle of the Constitution ; but what
responsibility can there be, when the elector is ex-
cluded from all knowledge of the proceedings of the
elected ? People may talk wl at they please
about the ballot, but the dark and insidious se-

crecy claimed by the House of Commons for its pro-
ceeding•, if the practice were according to the
theory, (and no practice ought to deviate much from
theory) is infinitely more detestable than its worst
enemies have ever been able, by the grossest exag-
geration, to represent the ballot. If the principle be
that the House transacts the affairs of the public in
secret, that its proceedings cannot in any case be
known but by connivance, and that an individual
Member may at any time irrevocably close even this
outlet, then in God's name let the practice coincide
with the theory. Let the doors be shut altogether
arid the galleries taken away, and let not a loop-hole
be left open to entrap individuals and cheat the
public of its due information at intervals, not on a
question like that of poor Mr. Perceval, but perhaps
on one of the greatest national import. Let it be
observed that we are not, in these reasonings, which
to us appear unanswerable, and which we know
point to a hat will from henceforth be the practice,
attempting to deny that occasions may occur in
which it may be advisable " to exclude strangers,"
according to the common interpretation of those
words ; but when that is done, let it be by the sense
of the House, not by the nonsense of a single indi-
vidual in it,—by the will of the majority, as in other
cases, not the caprice of one man. Some gentle-
men have spoken of official reporters appointed by
the House, and amenable to it. We have no interest
in the matter, and should have no personal, or, if we
may use the word, professional objection to the
course; but still we think the present system, with
some slight improvement of better accommodation,
preferable. If the reporters were appointed by the
House, their reports would be liable to its inspection
before their publication; and the country would be
but moderately instructed by such cold, castrated,
formal productions. The rivalry of conflicting talent,
and the competition for superiority in the leading
Journals, have rendered the art of reporting, we believe,
human errors excepted, almost perfect.—Tones
We refer our readers to our Queen-square police

report for an account of the issue in the case of
Messrs. Fordham and Tatham, and Esther Tompkins
the fruiterer, of Charing Cross. On reading the
account of the case, o❑ Thursday morning, the nu-
merous friends of the gentlemen were thunder-
struck. Mr. Gurney, the barrister, who had known
Mr. Fordham for thirty years, having prevailed on
Mr. Marriott to have the case re-heard, the accused
had yesterday an opportunity of producing a host of
respectable witrosses to their respectability, and the
committing Magistrate had also an opportunity of
endeavouring to account for the strange sort of
hallucination under which he seems to have laboured.
We never supposed the committing Magistrate was
actuated by any corrupt motive ; but he shared the
surprise of all who read the report of the proceedings,
that there could be a man so strangely constituted
in mind as to believe for one moment that Mr. Ford-
ham could have any intention to defraud the woman.
There are acts which leave no doubt as to inten-
tion. If a man is found at night in the house of
another breaking open a bureau, the intention to rob
is evident. If a man is seen applying a torch to a
stack, the intention tocommit arson is equally evident.
But where two persons come before a Magistrate,
the one saying she had given change for a sovereign
without receiving the sovereign, and the other main-
taining that he had paid the sovereign, there is here a
dispute about the fact, but nothing from which inten-
tion cart be discovered. Circumstances indicative of an
intention to defraud ought to have been received in
evidence, before the Magistrate, in such a case, was
warranted in inferring fraud. But not only were
no such circumstances proved, but the age and ap-
pearance of Mr. Fordham, the circumstance of his
being accompanied by the son of a respectable trades-
' man living opposite to the fruiterer, the appearance of
that tradesman himself, bearing testimony to the re-
spectability of Mr. Furdham ; the readiness with
which Colonel Howell gave him a letter to Mr.
Mayne, his colleague, and Mr. Mayne a letter to the
Inspector of the A division; the liberation by the
Inspector in consequence of the respectability of the
party—all formed a body of evidence indicative of
the utter improbability of such tin intention. But,
not content with supposing Mr. Fordham capable
of the fraud, he entertained the monstrous idea that
a conspiracy was formed by these two gentlemen
to defraud the fruiterer of this paltry sum. We ac-
quit `L•. Marriott of any corrupt intention, because
it is impossible to suppose that he could have any
corrupt motive for what he did ; but, without env
reference to proceedings of yesterday, when the