The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-26 00:00:00

But there is another motive. Besides the re.

proach of a man's own conscience, he may know
that were his own humanity to be no obstacle
in the way of his prosecuting, his neighbours
and acquaintances would not cease to reproach
him for his inhumanity ; for it seldom happens
that the consciences of men, however sleepy in
their own case, are disposed to much indulgence
towards others. The prosecutor would be punished
by the disesteem in which he would be held for
being accessary to the death of a fellow-creature.
There may, therefore, be a variety of motivesio
deter from prosecution. When the sanguinary
laws were passed, the English were a sanguinary
people. It was not intended that the laws should
remain a dead letter, and accordingly they were
carried rigorously into effect. But were they ef-
fective ? When blood is shed profusely, the
punishment of death is disregarded. Chancellor
Fortescue tells us that in his time more men
were hanged in England in a year for robbery
and manslaughter than in France for the same crime
in seven years, and he boasts that if an English-
man be poor and see another having riches which
may be taken from him, he will not spare to do
so. Estienne Perlin, a French physician, who
was in England two years in the reign of Edward
the Sixth, tells us that no man durst go into a
field to labour without having his buckler and
sword, and sometimes a bow beside him, and
that blood was poured out like water.
" In England (he says) justice is very cruel, for they
put a man to death for next to nothing ; for where, in
France, they would sentence a man to be whipped, there
they would infallibly condemn him to death. In truth,
they have only two kinds of justice—hanging and behead
ing ; and hence, malefactors are no better off when they
du little mischief than when they do a great deal, which
ought not to be; and we manage matters better in France;
for there arc several sorts of punishment according to the
offence. In this island they have no wheel, nor other in-
struments of punishment than those two I have mentioned.
They put always the poor criminals to death out of the
town on gibbets of wood, except Milords, who are put to
death in L, ndon to cause terror to the people."
In short, when capital punishments are fre•
Tient they are disregarded. Were we, therefore,
able to carry our sanguinary code into effect, we
should gain nothing even in the way of striking
terror. But in the present day life is held in
high regard, and therefore a sanguinary law
could not be carried into effect. But, whether
the code does or does not attach capital punish-
ments to offences against property, it is clear
that the law can have no effect, if it is only en-
forced in one case out of a hundred. Thieves
are not such fools as Lord Eldon would have
them to be.—Morning Chronicle.

The Paris papers of Saturday mention that
Prince Talleyrand had arrived in Paris. The most
popular of these journals mention the rumour
of the Prince's accession to the Cabinet, as

President of the Council, but add sulfide!)

reasons why that event is considered i►npossible.
It would be superfluous, therefore, to enter into

any further discussion on the subject. It was
stated in the Paris ministerial journals, in an-
nouncing the arrest of NI. de Chateaubriand,
of M. Hyde de Neuville, and the Duke of
Fitzjames, that these distinguished Carlists had
been apprehended on information respecting
their projects and conduct supplied by M.
Berryer, the well-known advocate, who has
been seized, imprisoned, and examined at
Nantes. NI. Berryer, on seeing this report in
the journals, has written a letter to one of
them, declaring that he had made no communi-
cation to i•nplicate any body,—and that the ar-
rests at Paris had actually taken place before
he was asked a single question at Nantes.
This fact seems now evident from the dates of the
two transactions. On what information the Go-
vernment proceeded, therefore, in their arrest of the
Royalists, we have as yet no knowledge. NI. Hyde
de Neuville, who has protested, in the man-
lier of the Duke of Fitzjames, against his ar-
rest, declares that, whatever others may hive
dine to compromise him, he has committed
himself no act which can warrant the treatment
which he has endured. These men, exalted in
rank or fortune, and formerly in possession of
power, seem by their own admissions to have no
.)ther cause of complaint against the Govern-
nent than the bare fact of their arrest and impri-
sonment. No outrage has been offered to their
feelings by the ostentatious display .‘ of the little
nriefauthority" over them ; no hardship has been
.nflicted on their persons. They have been
treated with great indulgence, if not with
kindness. They all declare that they are well
lodged, and that they feel no other incon-

venience than the temporary deprivation of
their liberty. This is not the treatment of all
the State Prisoners however, nor even of some
who ought to be treated with similar indulgence.
On the contrary, we find a letter in the Tribune
from M. Raspail, who is both a journalist and
man of science, detailing treatment the most in •
suiting and barbarous, though his alleged crime
was not so great as that ascribed to the Royalist
Peers and Ex-Ministers. If the account in this
letter be correct, it cannot fail to afflict the humane
feelings, or rouse the generous indignation, oi
all the friends of constitutional liberty. M.
Raspail mentions that he was conducted on foot
and handcuffed from the prison at Versailles to
Passy, at the head of a band of military convicts,

-that on his arrival he was thrown on a quan-

tity of straw without the form of a bed, in a dark 1
dungeon,—that he was thence, on the following
morning, dragged through all Paris on foot,
with the manacles on his hands, to the Palais
de Justice,—that he was thence transferred
to the Prefecture of Police, where he was
lodged in a small apartment with five other per-
sons, and that from this he was again transported
to Versailles, to the prison destined for felons,
though he had been informed that he might be
imprisoned in Sainte Pelagie, and had actually
ordered his friends to supply him with some
furniture for his room in that place of confine-
ment. We see no reason to doubt this narra-
tive, though it appears to betray a vindictive spi-
rit in the authorities. The Government of the
Bourbons behaved in the same cruel and barba-
rous manner to the writers who had offended
them. A person of the name of Magallon was
dragged in the same way, handcuffed, through
the streets of Paris, in the time of Charles X.,
and lodged among felons. He was even obliged
to put on the prison dress, and to work at bas-
ket-making like the other prisoners. In this
way the Bourbons supposed that they could sub-
due the rebellious spirit of freedom, and obtain
a command over the press by terror. It is
needless to add that they were signally de-
feated, and that under no other reign or
dynasty can such a system of brutal severity be
successful. We allude to this case in order to

mention that our French neighbours, with all
their pretensions to superior freedom and civili-
zation, have often very imperfect notions of
what is due to the calm dignity of justice, or the
impartial majesty of law. We have observed
that almost every prisoner lately apprehended,
complains that he was treated with great cruelty
by the police or national guard, that they were
wounded after they had surrendered, that their
clothes were nearly torn off their backs, and that
they had to submit to every kind of insult and
indignity. This may probably be one of the ge-
neral results produced by the violence of parties
in times of political excitement, and may not be
peculiar to France, but it certainty has been
more complained of among our neighbours than
it has been with us for some time past.—Times.
The growing disinclination of the public to
the infliction ofdeath punishment, at least to the
almost indiscriminate infliction of it, which has
long been peculiar to the legislation of this coun-
try, is not likely to be arrested by the discussion
which took place in the House of Lords last
night. It is true that Lords Eldon, Tenterden,
and Wynford did their best for the law as it
stands, but, in addition
.to other able speeches
on the enlightened and reforming side of the
question, the Lord Chancellor opposed the
weight of his abilities to the short-sighted views
of those eminent lawyers, who seldom open their
mouths as politicians without satisfying their
hearers of the limitation of the human facul-

ties. Even left to themselves, the speeches
of the distinguished lawyers first alluded to
would have done no great harm, for the
question has been discussed too ofteen, and is
understood too well to allow their opinions to
pass for more than they are worth. But, ac-
companied with the able commentary of the
Lord Chancellor, they sink in utter insignifi-
cance, and lose the power of imposing, even for
a moment, upon any unprejudiced mind. There
was one observation of Lord Tenterden's, to
which, as it has something of a plausible sound,
we would direct attention. His Lordship
stated, in rather a triumphant tone, " amongst all
the complaints which were made of the severity
of the law of England, he had heard none of the
manner in which the law was administered." Now
there is a want of ingenuousness in this mode of
putting the argument. Uncertainty of punish.
ment is one of the topics relied upon by the ad-
vocates of an ameliorated code to show that the
practical working of a sanguinary code is bad.
But nothing could be farther from the intention
of those who urged the topic than that it should
be tortured into a compliment to " the manner
in which the law is administered." On the con-

trary, we defy his Lordship to point out any
speech or publication, on that side of the ques-
tion, which does not lament the multitude of in-
stances in which those savage laws are carried
into execution that are administered every year,
to the outrage of all mercy and humanity. His
Lordship must have studied but one side of the
question, if, indeed, he continues in ignorance,
up to this moment, that any complaints have
been made against the manner in which those
laws are administered.—Morning Herald.

When we called the attention of our readers
yesterday to the motion intended to have been made by
Colonel EVANS this evening, but which, in consequence
of the adjournment of the House till to-morrow, is neces_
sarily postponed, wt were not aware of the important
facts of the great reduction in the amount of the army,
and the great saving of expense which would be effected
by its being carried. We can now state, on the authority
of a correspondent who has thoroughly investigated the
matter, that the reduction in the amount of the army
which would ensue from the motion being carried, would
he no h so than 15,000 men, and the saving of an expense
of about a million and a half ! We trust that the Hon.
Member will, under such circumstances, persevere in his
motion, and thereby furnish to the country an additional
test whereby to distinguish its friends from its foes.--
Morrring ildeertiser.

DANDO ON HIS TRAVELS T.—On Monday,
DANDO, the celebrated oyster-eater, was committed to
St. Augustine's gaol, on a charge of vagrancy, by J. 13.
WILDMAN, Esq. It appears that he had visited a beer-
shop in the parish of Chilham, and regaled himself very
bountifully, without having the means to pay his score.
As DA NDO will shortly be out of gaol, we give the follow-
ing description of him for the benefit of oyster-dealers and
tile public in general. He stands five feet seven inches in
height, 29 years of age, and is lame of the right foot ; his
'air is brown, complexion fair, and he generally wears a
gaol dress.—Kentish Gazette.

A singular natural phenomenon has been com-
municated to us. An old officer, who has seen hard ser
vice, and whose head has been hoary for nearly 30 years
vast, has this week been surprised with a young growing
crop of jet black hair, not only on his head, but his what
whiskers and beard have also been superseded by black
shoots, and a round spot on his crown, the seat of a wound
received
inyoouthilsamewhich has been bald for 50 years, ha-
al° budded forth hairs of the sae colour iu luxuriant
'
fertility. Lieut. STYLES, R.N. of Stoke, the gallant officer
in question, a healthy veteran of the Old School, is highly
amused at the prospect of wearing a fine head of }outhfui
hair in his ilst year, but is desirous of having the pheno
menon accounted for, if it be in the power of any of out
scientific readers, and has requested us to state that h.
will be happy to gratify the curious in such matters by
submitting it to their inspection. —Deronport Telegraph.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JUNE 25.

BERNARD AND ANOTHER, V. HALL, AND OTHERS, EX-

ECUTORS.

The plaintiffs in this case are coach-makers, car-
rying on business in Bond-street, the defendants
Pxecutors of a Mr. Nesbett, lately an officer in the
Life Guards, who died in consequence of a fall from
his gig, in August 1831.
This was an action to recover the sum of 1,5401.
for business done, and articles supplied by the
plaintiffs in their line to Mr. Nesbett.
The defendants pleaded infancy and plene ad-
ministravit, to which the plaintiffs replied that part
Hof the goods supplied were necessaries, and as to the
-esiduP, that Mr. Nesbett promised to pay for them,
after he came of age.
The probate of Mr. Nesbett's will was then put
in, from which it appeared that he bequeathed to
his wife (previously to her marriage, Miss Mor-
dant, of Covent-garden theatre) the interest of
15,0001 for her life; to his mother the interest of
8,0001. for life ; to his sister the sum of 5,0001.; to
his mother the sum of 2,0001.; the principal of the
two first sums to be given to his children, if he
should have any, and the residue to his wife. The
personal property was sworn to be under 20,000/.
An agreement entered into between Mr. Nesbett
and the plaintiffs in 1829, respecting a chaise de
poste, whereby it was covenanted that he should
have the use of the chaise de poste until he came of
age, at a certain hire, and that afterwards he might
return or keep it at a certain price if he thought
proper, was also put in ; and evidence produced to
show that after he came of age he drove this chaise
de poste to Scotland and back again, and was heard
to say he should retain it.
A servant of his heard Mr. Nesbett say after he
came of age he should pay the demand of the

plaintiffs. -
Mr. PLATT addressed the jury on behalf of the
defendants. If the plaintiffs suffered by supplying
these articles, no person was to blame but them-
selves ; for as soon as Lady Nesbett had learned that
they were furnishing him with carriages, she called
on them to countermand it, and told them that the
trustees would not pay them. Mr. Nesbett was
allowed 500/. a year since the death of his father,
besides his pay as Sub-Lieutenant in the Guards,
amounting to about 1201. a year, making in all 620/.
This annuity was sufficient to procure him neces-
saries. It appeared that items to the amount of
1,200/. were supplied in 1830. Could any reason-
able man say that it was necessary for a Sub-Lieu-
tenant in the army to expend that sum in one year
on carriages ? Was it not the height of extrava-
gance ? Yet while he was running up this bill with
the plaintiffs, he incurred debts to the amount of
nearly 7001. for similar articles, with other coach-
makers.
Lady Nesbett, mother of the deceased Mr. Nes-
bett, who was born on the 7th of June, 1810—I
heard of the plaintiffs having supplied him with
carriages early in 1829. I called on them several
times, and requested of them not to do so. I told
them his guardians would not pay. The plaintiff.,
said they had full confidence in his own honour, and
they would not trouble him for payment until he
came of age. My son married bliss M'Namara
(Miss Mordant) in January, 1831. When my son
became of age he sold out 25,0001.'s worth of the
property. Of that sum he gave 5,000/. to Mr.
Ford (one of the executors), to pay debts of honour.
Re-examined—My son married by bans, not by
license. He got no fortune with his wife. He was
no gambler. By debts of honour, I mean debts for
horses which he bought of gentlemen.
The Countess Montard, sister of Mr. Nesbett,
went once with her mother to the plaintiffs, when
her mother requested of them not to supply him with
carriages.
Several other witnesses proved that Mr. Nesbett
had 600/. a year, including his pay as Sub-Lieute-
nant ; that his commission had cost 3,000/. and that
the executors had paid debts for him to the amount
of 7,0001.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendants,
on the ground that they had no assets.
They were then called upon to say to what
amount of the goods supplied, they considered ne-
cessaries in order that the plaintiffs might have judg-
ment for it when there should be assets. Having
retired again for some time, they found that the ar-
ticles supplied to the amount of 200/. were neces-
saries. They also found that the plaintiffs were
entitled to 2001. for the chzise de poste, making in
all 400/.