The Sun.
London, England, 1832-08-09 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The French papers have stated, rather in-
correctly, that the Government of Wurtemherg
Ills protested against the late resolutions of the
Diet at Frankfort. NVere this the case, it would
require to be explained why we observe the name
of the Plenipotentiary of Wurtemberg attached
to the protocol of the Diet, without any such
expression of dissent or remonstrance. By the
Bth article of the Acte Final, or definitive Con-
stitution of the Germanic Union, we find it ex-
pressly declared, that " the Plenipotentiaries to
the Diet are individually dependent on their
respective Sovereigns, and responsible to them
alone for the faithful execution of their instruc-
tions, as in general for the exercise of their
functions." The Plenipotentiary of Wurtem-
berg could not, therefore, affix his signature to
the resolutions of the Diet without the sanction
of his Government, and that Government could
not be expected to protest so immediately against
its own acts. The administration of this mem•
her of the Confederacy has, however, taken some
steps to calm the growing agitation, and to allay
the well-founded alarms of the people, which, we
hope, will be followed by other States. It has
issued a decree or explanation, in the absence of
the King, which, though it does not protest
against the late tyrannical resolutions of the
Diet, claims for Wurtemberg the right of inter-
preting these resolutions consistently with the
ntiaintenance of its own constitution. If this be
possible, the wording of the Wurtemberg consti-
tution must be very vague, or its well-defined
rights must be very limited. The following is
the decree of the Wurtemberg Government to
which we have alluded, and which we hesitated
to publish before, because some of the well-in-
formed French journals doubted its authenticity.
There is now, however, every reason to believe it
genuine :
"The six following articles were decreed in the 2.V
sitting of the Federal Diet, held on the 25th of June.
1832. (Here follow the six articles,) In making these
Federal resolutions known to the public, by these presents,
we at the same time declare, in order to obviate all mis.
untlerstanding as to their true meaning, and in the name
of his Majesty, who has invested us with his powers, that
these resolutions do not, and cannot have been intended
to suspend, in any wise, the constitution of this country,
seeing that by the 56th article of the acte final of \Tient.
it is expressly declared—' The acknowledged constitutions
cannot be altered in any of their enactments, otherwise
than by the constitutional mode,' and therefore theme is in
no tespect any reason to fear any application whatever el
these federal resolutions not in harmony with the consti-
tution. Consequently the Government of this State will
continue to maintain, with scrupulous fidelity, all the pro-
visions of the constitution, whether they relate to the
participation of tke States in legislative enactments, or to
their right of imposing taxes, or any other right whatever
of the subjects of the kingdom of Wurtemberg.
"In the absence of the King, and specially investe,
with full power,

" MAUCLER. " SCHWAB.
" VON HOGEL. " HERZOG.

WEISHAAR.

Now the right of refusing imposts till griev-
ances are redressed—till abuses are removed—
or till necessary improvements are established,
is not only " part and parcel" of every free
constitutional government, but the very essence
of such an institution—" the one thing needful
for the people"—the indispensable condition of
limited power—the recognised inlet to popular
control without armed insurrection—the means
ot. compulsion without violence—the check on
tire executive without the excesses of rebellion.
Yet this indispensable right of the Legislative
Chambers of the constitutional States, is abso-
lutely abolished by the resolutions of the Ger-
manic Diet. 1 t is there expressly declared, and
is maintained in the most audacious manner,
that the Legislative Assemblies cannot re-
fuse the taxes demanded of them by their
Princes, and that, if they refuse them,
their territory may be invaded and plun-
dered by the army of the Confederation. 01
what use, then, is the 56th article, cited in sup-
port of the rights of their constitution by the
members of the Wurtemberg Government
That article is already violated in every letter—
it is torn from the ode
.final, and cast away in
mockery by the enslaved and enslaving band of
Plenipotentiaries, who signed the late Protocol
under the dictation of the two foreign despots,
who have no Legislative Assemblies of their own,
and who are determined to nullify the action of
those whose establishment they could net prevent.
Wurtein berg has not yet established the freedom of
the Press, and therefore cannot be required to
abolish that right ; but suppose that the Go-
vernment of that kingdom were to place itself in
the situation of the Government of the Grand
Duchy of Baden, which has passed a law grant-
ing freedom to political thought, could it be said
that the late resolutions could be executed con-
sistently with the maintenance of the constitu-
tional rights and independence of the people
Could the Grand Duke of Baden issue an ex-
planatory decree, like that of Wurtemberg, and
appeal to the same article of the acte
without constituting himself a rebel against the
Diet, or without insulting the common sense of
his own subjects ? The Confederation pretends
that it leaves the internal Government of each
principality free, and does not dictate in matters
of internal regulation. Can the observation of
this principle be maintained, in the face of a
decree issuing from Frankfort to suppress a par-
ticular Journal, mentioned by name, or to abro-
gate a particular law, likewise specified ? Yet
this is what has been done in Baden by the re-
cent decrees promulgated by the Diet on the sth
and 19th ult. The troops of the Confederation
have not as yet, indeed, invaded the territory of
the Grand Duchy, because the slavish satrap him-
self has executed the command of his masters ;
but, unless he felt himself disposed to constitute
himself a rebel in the eyes of Austria and Prus-
sia, and was prepared to appeal to foreign aid
to secure his domestic independence, he would
no more have refused to fulfil the order
of the Diet, than the Sheriff of an English
county could refuse to execute a writ proceed-
ing from the Crown Office. Was this the
independence intended to be secured to the se-
condary States of Germany by the treaty of
Vienna, to which we were parties ? and was it
for the establishment of constitutions like this
—liable every moment to be invaded with an
armed force, when a deputy speaks in a legisla-
tive assembly with a freedom displeasing to
Prince Metternich, or when a newspaper trans-
gresses the licence warranted by the military code
of Berlin--that wf, and all the Powers of Eu-
rope, guatanteed the 13th article of the funda-
mental compact of 1815 ? Many of the
English public who reason on the recent events
of Germany, have but a very imperfect idea of
the constitution of the Germanic Diet. Some
of our Tory, prints particularly,—in the grossness
of their ignorance,—have compared the German
Confederation to the body of States which com-
pose the North American union, and the German
Diet at Frankfort to the American Congress of
Washington. Yet there is scarcely any thing
in common between the two, but the words
",States" and " Confederation." The German
Confederation was never intended to destroy the

independent action of any of the States. It is
merely an association of independent Powers for
mutual defence against external attack, and for
the preservation of peace among its individual
members. It possesses, therefore, a confederated
army for these purposes, and has established cer-
tain rules for regulating external alliances. But
the German States have no common adminis-
tration,—no common general government,—
no common power to regulate trade,—no
common imposts,—no common judicial system
for the trial of state offenders,—no common
coin,—nothing, in fact, like the constitution of
the United States of America. The seven-
teen sage gentlemen who assemble at Frank-
fort to pass resolutions like those which
have lately excited the disgust and detes-
tation of Europe, are not delegates or represen-
tatives of the people of Germany, like the Con-
' gress of Washington, but Plenipotentiaries of
the little or great Sovereigns who bear the
German name, or speak the German language.
They are, in fact, a body of petty ambassadors,
who draw up protocols, and sign them in the
name of their respective Courts,—who receive
instructions from these Courts on every part of
their functions,—who have no free discussion,—
no tribune,—no oratory,—no audience, but sit
like mutes round a green table, to register the
acts of the two dominant Powers of the Confe-
deration. Are we to allow 15 such diplomatic
slaves, representing the smaller Princes, to be-
tray from corruption, or to abandon from timi-
dity, the independence of the 36 States which
we have solemnly guaranteed, or the liberties of
12,000,000 of people which we have engaged
to protect, into the hands of two despotic Courts,
on which our exertions alone conferred in 1815
the power of doing mischief ? We can safely
intrust the English Government, and the Eng-
lish people, with the answer of such a question.
—Times.

The renewed discussion of the Polish ques-
tion, on the motion of Colonel Evans, though
it led to no legislative result, cannot fail to be
productive of advantage to England and to
Europe. Unhappy Poland, by her sufferings,
her heroism, her patriotism, and her passion for
liberty, furnishes an inexhaustible subject of ad-
miration and gratitude to all the lovers of free-
dom and national independence) while, by her
desertion and downfall, she reflects disgrace on
the civilized states of Europe. Her fortunes
and her fate, therefore, cannot be too frequently
brought before the English public, to warm
their patriotic sympathies, and to excite
their detestation of Russian despotism. Since
the publication of the ukase which destroyed
the nationality of this glorious but unhappy
people, the public mind of England has under-
gone a remarkable change. Though it was a
doubtful question whether, amid the embarrass-
ing circumstances, both foreign and domestic,
of the summer of 1831, we ought to have
hazarded a more direct interference in favour of
the struggling Poles, while the Court of
St. Peteisburgh always pretended to subdue their
resistance only in order to reinstate them in their
former rights, it admits of no doubt that our in-
terference ought to have been more active, had
our Government been aware of the detestable
projects which the Russian Emperor has founded
on his unmerited success. While the war con-
tinued, the Courts both of London and Paris
were assured, that whatever might be the result
of the contest, the faith of European treaties
would be observed, and, consequently, the inde-
pendence of Poland would be respected. The
Emperor Nicholas, even to the very hour of the
fall of Warsaw—with a perfidy peculiarly his
own—made solemn protestations to the English
and French Ambassadors at his Court, that he
would make no other use of his victory than the
re-establishment of his former authority, under
the Constitutional Government of Poland. It,
perhaps, betrayed unstatesman-like simplicity, to
trust such assurances from such a quarter; but
the belief of them, whether reasonable or not,
forms the only excuse for not assisting
Poland while a Polish force remained in
he field. With the fall of Warsaw, and the
dispersion of the Polish army, all the
fair promises of Russia, and all the illu-
sions of civilized nations, were dissipated. But
it was probably then too late to resort to active
measures, to punishment or coercion, and we
are still under the dominion of an unproductive
diplomacy. We agree in almost every word that
fell from Sir Francis Burdett on this subject,
though the Hon. Baronet, in reviewing the
field of our foreign politics, probably made too
light of some of the difficulties and inequalities
with which it was beset. His speech, however,
of Tuesday night is a noble specimen of Eng-
lish feeling, and worthy the best days of Eng-
lish eloquence, while we almost blush to read
the sentiments which are ascribed to Lord J.
Russell. Can office really so modify the politi-
cal character ? We admit, indeed, the diffi-
culty of obtaining all the advantages of a mili-
tary interference in favour of the oppressed with-
out the expenses and the hazards of a war for
their support ; but we must unequivocally de-
nounce the barbarous indifference to tyranny
and perfidy which is inculcated by those who
take the side of the Russian Autocrat. If we
are not to expose our resources, let us at least
preserve our feelings—if we are not to meet the
barbarians on their way to Siberia with their
victims for the purpose of rescuing them, let us
not surrender the right of denouncing the atroci-
ties of the exile. The woes and the sufferings
of Poland should never be allowed to escape
from the view of the British public, till the na-
tionality and freedom of its glorious people are
restored—the barbarities of Russia should be
incessantly recorded for the detestation of man-
kind, till human nature be no longer able to
tolerate their continued perpetration. Enter-
taining this idea, we highly approve of every at.
tempt made in the Legislature to keep alive the
subject, and cannot applaud too highly the ob-
jects and zeal of the Literary Association for
collecting materials on Polish history, from whose
new publication,
entitled Polonia, we have ex-
tracted the interesting address of the states of
Galicia to the Emperor of Austria, in favour of
their persecuted Polish brethren. Austria, it
will be recollected, has behaved better towards
the Poles than Prussia, though we cannot, of
course, trust the flattering language of the Gal-
lic= petitioners.— Times.
We have obtained in the Reform Bill, with
all its defects, the means of carrying improve-
ment into all the departments of the State The
present Parliament may be defined the tool-
making Parliament—it has supplied us with the
tools with which we can hew down the tree of
corruption. We have no hesitation in saying,
that without extensive retrenchments the country
will never be satisfied. Last night, in a Com-
mittee of the whole House on the Consolidated
Fund Bill, for the purpose of moving the Ap-
propriation Clause, Mr. Hume took the oppor-
tunity of explaining why he had not objected to
many of the votes of the House. He wished,

not to occupy that time which was required for
the Reform Bill. In a future Session of Par-
liament, however, he said he would bring forth
the whole of the Civil List. The expenditure
of the country, he observed, was at present up-
wards of forty-five millions, but he had no doubt
that a Reformed Parliament would, in a year or
two, bring it under forty millions. He compli-
mented the Secretary of the Treasury, for the
clearness he had introduced into the public ac-
counts; but he hoped that before next Session
such accounts would be laid before the House
as would show the real amount drawn from the
pockets of the people, and put an end to the
juggle of deducting the cost of collection from
the taxes, before laying an account of them be-
fore the House. It was stated by Mr. Spring
Rice, that the reductions last year amounted in
all to 2,000,0001., and that in the last year and
a half a greater reduction had been made in sa-
laries than in the three years before the present
Government came into office. This is all well as far
as it goes; but we have no hesitation in saying, that
the retrenchment must be carried much farther, in
order to satisfy the people. The wages ofthe working
classes in England, in several cases, do not ex-
ceed the wages paid in other countries, and in
no cases exceed much the wages paid on the
Continent. But here the resemblance between
England and all other countries ceases. All the
higher functionaries of England are paid ex-
travagantly. The prices in Paris are not above
twenty per cent. lower than in London. But
the Judges of the Court of Cessation in Paris—
men distinguished for learning and talents, and
against whose honour no suspicions are enter-
tained—receive only 12,000 francs a year, or
less than 500/. The Chief Justice of the Court
of King's Bench receives more than twenty times
the allowance of a Judge of the Court of Cas-
sation, and a Puisne Judge about fourteen times
as much. The Archbishop of Canterbury re-
ceives thirty times more than the Archbishop of
Paris. This is the sore part of the English sys-
tem, and it must be cauterized. There is no
difficulty in pointing out how the evil has origi-
nated. It has originated in our defective repre-
sentation, which enabled the aristocracy to pre-
serve their estates by quartering their children on
the public. The middling classes are forced to
distribute their property fairly among their
children. When the higher ranks are no longer
allowed to quarter their children on the public,
they will be obliged to provide for them out of
their private fortunes ; and this will, as a matter
of course, lower, in an easy way, the incomes of
the aristocracy. The high incomes of the aristo-
cracy lead to the necessity of giving high incomes
to all who associate with the aristocracy. A Judge
does not require 10,000/. a year for the supply of
his wants, but in order to enable him to live in
the style of the Nobility. A Judge in Holland
or France is probably much happier on his mo-
derate income than a Judge in England. But
the Reform Bill will gradually work the cure of
this evil. Let the people only return men
pledged to a severe economy in the expenditure
of the public money, and property will, as a
matter of course, be better distributed. The
existence of a large class, in any country, in the
possession of large incomes for generations, is
alone a proof of misgovernment, because, in the
natural course of things, properties must conti-
nually change ; and it is only by means of the
public money that this natural order of things •
can be prevented from taking place. Thus, a
man with six children, in possession of 9,0001.
a year, would, without the public purse, leave
1,500/. a year to each. In the second genera-
Lion, the 1,500/. a year would probably be 300/.
But then, other men receiving 3001. a year,
would again be constantly rising to wealth. The
people of England are not generally aware how
much the existence of the Church contributes to
the perpetuation of this objectionable state of
things. The prizes in the Church fall generally
to the lot of the Aristocracy, and are a powerful
means of perpetuating the great inequalities of
fortune which lead to the extravagant allowances
to all who serve the public. But we are antici-
pating the march of events. We have no doubt,
however, that the Reform Bill will in time pro-
duce a better distribution of property, which
again will be the source of numberless advantages
in a moral point of view.—Morning Chronicle.
The charlatan coterie of political economists,
cuckoo-like, have again put forth their thou-
sandth-time repeated manifesto " that there is
no principle better settled, either in public or
domestic economy, than this—that it is for the
interest of consumers to buy commodities at
the best and cheapest rate." There is something
so plausible, and palatable too, in this assertion,
to all selfish and narrow-minded people, that
they implicitly assent to its being true, withoUt
giving themselves any trouble to examine its va-
rious bearings ; but, admitting it to be true, it
does not follow that false reasoning may not be
founded on a true basis as well as on a false one.
The assertion has been repeated, to form a basis
on. which to found other assertions—viz. " that
although the introduction of foreign manufac-
tures has a tendency to produce a temporary de-
rangement by throwing some workmen out of
employment, and changing the direction of the
demand for labour—that as those who sell must
buy, there cannot be any trade, either between
nations or individuals, except on fair principles
of reciprocity ; and, therefore, that if one demand
for labour he closed by the abolition of restric-
tion in a particular instance, it is quite clear,"
say they, " that an equivalent demand must be
opened in some other quarter ; and, therefore,
that the aggregate demand for labour in the
country cannot be at all diminished." Now all
this is as fallacious as the basis on which it is
founded is questionable. The subject, in its
most comprehensive bearings and relations, in-
volves other considerations than the bare ex-
change of commodities ; it involves considerations
of fixed money obligations and mechanical power
in opposition to manual labour, as well as all
the various degrees and proportions of ma-
terial, labour, and skill, which enter into the
composition of all the various productions or
articles of exchange. A given number of pieces
of ribands or embroidery may be equal to the
labour of 5,000 persons for a year, while their
equivalent of money value in wool, or various
other articles of natural production, may not em-
ploy half the number of labourers for a day.
Again, A, for the sake of buying cheap, may
admit frippery at a low or nominal rate of duty,
while B may levy 50 to 90 per cent: on the sub-
stantial articles received in exchange. And
further, the money value of fi-4Tery, or haber-
dashery, may be composed mainly of manual
labour, while the articles received in exchange
may be either natural productions, or rendered
useltil by mechanical power, with the aid of the
lowest number of manual labourers. It will be a
waste of time to contest further the fallacies rela-
ting to all trade necessarily tieing reciprocal, and
demand for labour equal. The main question,
however, of its being the interest of the consumer
to buy cheap is so far unanswered. If we sup-

pose the champion of this doctrine of reciprocity
and equality, or any of his toad-eaters, to be in
the annual receipt of any fixed money amount—
say 14,0001. a year, it seems a self-evident sort
of proposition that it is his interest not to give
2s. for a pair of English gloves, when he can
buy a pair of French ones, of equal quality, for
ls.; or to giv.e. 655. for a quarter of English
wheat, when he can get a quarter of Polish for
40s. ; yet if these disproportions are to occasion
misery and wretchedness, disquietude and woe,
among the English producers (and who can
deny that all these do not exist ?), the interest
of the consumer in buying cheap is not so self-
evident ; the misery and wretchedness created,
and disquietude produced, may require contribu-
tions to maintain subjugation more than equal to
the difference between buying cheap and buying
dear. In a community, however, as numerous
and so highly involved and artificial as that of
England now is, there will always be some indi-
viduals whose self-sufficiency and meanness—
qualities which generally co-exist--will induce
them to advocate interests opposed to the well-
being of the whole. The greatest calamity which
England at present labours under is, that she
is unhappily cursed with an unusually numerous
tribe of economical harpies, who generate equi-
vocally all monstrous, all ridiculous theories;
who deck themselves in divine attributes, but
who, in reality, are a set of mean, shallow, self-
sufficient, conceited charlatans.—Morn. Herald.
The Irish Reform and Boundary Bills having
received the Royal Assent, and the work of con-
stitutional innovation being thus complete, the
next thing is to wait for the splendid manifesta-
tions of national joy, the brilliant illuminations,
which were to follow in four days after the con-
summation of this glorious work. We like to
be particular as to dates, and next Saturday
would be the day on which all the Reformers of
England ought to burn tallow and oil in cele-
bration of the glorious Reform ; all the Re-
formers of England, not excepting even the
7,000 out of 10,000 in the parish of Maryle-
bone whom the Reform Bill has disfranchised ;
nor yet the 1,000 out of 1,500 who are equally
disfranchised in the parish of St. John the Evan-
gelist, Westminster ; nor the 250 out of 550
who are equally disfranchised in the parish
of St. Paul, Covent Garden ; nor the 1,700
out of 2,700 who are equally disfran-
chised in the parish of St. Ann, Westminster ;
nor the four out of every five who are disfran-
chised in the borough of Southwark ; nor the
two hundred thousand out of every three
hundred thousand voters in possession or
expectancy who are equally disfranchised through-
out the rest of Great Britain ;—all these, en-
franchised and disfranchised alike, must illumi-
nate on Saturday next ; for did not the decree go
forth from a meeting over which the arch-Re-
former, Sir Francis Burdett, presided ? And is
the decree not to be obeyed now that the effect
of the Reform Bill is discovered to be such
as to render the re• election of that great Re-
former, and the little Reformer, his colleague
for Westminster, a matter of the greatest
uncertainty ? Illuminate, we say, Gentle-
men Reformers, by all means ; we almost
think we can upon this occasion venture to
join you. The present position of the revolu-
tionary party does not merely realize, it exceeds,
our expectations. We always said that the 101.
household franchise would, if it were really be-
stowed, create a dangerous and worthless con-
stituency. Are not our predictions fulfilled be-
yond measure ? An attempt has been made to
bestow this franchise, and the presumed reci-
pients are found by experience to be incapable
of the gift. All that was required was no more
than this—that those to whom the franchise was
offered should be able to pay their legal rates
and taxes a month or two before the time at
which, in the usual course, a distress would have
been levied ; and that they should have such a
regard to the gift as to ensure this very slight
exertion in order to secure it; and behold two out
of every three of them throughout the kingdom are
acknowledged to have failed in these very easy
conditions. Can it, after this, be pretended that
the Reform •Bill is a proof of the wisdom of its
authors ? But if the authors of this Bill had
proved their incapacity to frame a Bill of Reform,
they were willing enough to try to patch up the
ricketty and useless machine which, under the
name of a Bill of Reform, and after two years
devoted exclusively to the subject, they had
manufactured. Lord Althorp proposed the
other night, by means of a new Reform Bill,
to give his ptiuper or thankless voters a month
longer time to qualify themselves for the
new dignity he had assigned them.—
He would, at the fag-end of a Session,
and in Houses of Parliament, composed
almost exclusively of the official retainers of
s t h
e e
havessr
uuei
sr i
sure
Go-
vernment, have essentially altered an Act which
had employed the whole wisdom of the Legisla-
nd
tures.
e
would, forto
be two
sure, entire
ettSrouetshnso aki
ordinance substance,convictionsTf
beenuill ofa m
merer
. Stanley,
whenever Government prosecutes, would be,
had it been, to the disgrace of legislation, per-
mitted to pass) ; but fortunately Lord Althorp
was fairly scoffed down. He was compelled to
withdraw his precious piece of patchwork legis-
lation, and the elections are to proceed, if at all
under the Reform Bill, with the aid of a very
small number indeed of the ten-pounders, whom
the Noble Lord and his Colleagues affected to
prize so highly.—Morning Post.

It seems the general opinion both among
Tories and Liberals, that it would have been far
more creditable to the Lord Chancellor, and
better for his character and reputation, had he
persisted in maintaining the silence he so long
preserved with respect to his gross language to-
wards Sir E. Sugden. His apology amounts to
nothing, or is rather an aggravation of the offence,
for he reiterates his unjustifiable attack, and does
not deny the use of the gross expressions attri-
buted to him. Yet, according to the statement
of a Noble Lord and colleague in the House of
Commons, he authorized that Noble Lord to
disclaim those expressions on his behalf. He
therefore wands in the following predica-
ment :—He either did make use of those expres-
sions or he did not. In the latter case he is
guilty of meanness amid paltry subterfuge in not
having personally disclaimed them in his at-
tempted apology on Tuesday evening; and, in
the former, he either accuses his Noble Friend,
or convicts himself of having stated what was
false.—Morning Post.

Early on Monday morning a house in the
north-east division of the Green, in Aberdeen, was de-
stroyed by fire. A man and two women f-11 victims to
the catastrophe, they having been surrounded by the flames
before they could be aroused from sleep. A woman and a
boy were injured by dropping from a window.—Scotsman.
LUTHER, and RABELAIS, the French sa-
tirist, the one the reformer of religious error, the other the
scourge of political imposture, were both born in 1483, the
vear in which that bigot and political fox Louis XI. ter-
minated his career.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

G UILDHALL.

George Hit chman, an elderly man. of respectable ap-
pearance, was brought up for re-examination, charged
with defrauding Mr. Bull, the landlord of the King's Arms
Tavern, Holborn.
The prisoner, it was stated, went into the house, or-
dered a bed, and called for a supper, gin and water, &c.,
and ran up a score of 4s. before the landlord entered the
room, and recognized him as a person who favoured him
with his custom nine years ago, and ran up a longer
score, without having a sixpence in his pocket towards
discharging it. At that time he was on remarkably good
terms with himself, and full of anecdotes and compliments
—the cognac was the finest he had yet met with, the
wine was quite delightful, and the cigars the best he ever
tasted. As Mr. Bull expected, lie found the prisoner
again without the means of paying his reckoning; and,
when spoken to on the dishonesty of the thing, lie smiled,
and tranquilly quaffing his cigar, replied, " I suppose
you will transport me." He had observed, no doubt, in
the newspapers, that Magistrates generally hold it to be
merely a matter of debt when a person, without making
use of any false pretence, goes into an eating-house or a
public-house, and regales himself, knowing he has not a
farthing to pay the reckoning.
To tell the truth, publicans and eating•-house keepers
are not on these occasions protected equally with other
tradesmen, and the Magistrates make the law appear an
odd jumble. If a person goes into a shop, and being
served with an article he asks for, instantly walks off with
it in his hand, not intending to pay, and the shopkeeper
not intending or consenting to give him credit, that is
deemed a stealing ; but let the person contrive to walk off
with the shopkeeper's goods in his belly, instead of his
hand, and he is no longer a thief; and yet it isnot maintain-
ed that things which can be eaten or drunk, are things
in which there can be no property, and which cannot be
the subject of an indictment for felony.
The prisoner was a linen-draper's shopman, out of
employ.

Mr: Alderman WOOD should call on the prisoner to
find two sureties in 201., for his good behaviour hereafter,
and in default of such sureties, he committed him to gaol.

MARLBORO UGH-STREET.

Three Polish officers, accompanied by M. Berthold, as
their spokesman, came to this office to complain that they
had been unjustly taken into custody on a charge of felony,
by George Ellis, police constable C, 66.
M. Berthold said, the three gentlemen who accompa-
nied him had been yesterday apprehended on a charge of
having been concerned in a robbery. The policeman
who took them into custody having discovered that be had
got hold of the wrong parties, begged the gentlemen's par-
don, when they were released, after having been kept in
custody for some time. The gentlemen, who had held
considerable rank in the Polish army, having all that nice
sense of honour which distinguishes military men, felt the
indignity more acutely, as they were apprehended in bread
day light, while walking in Hyde-park. They had
fought and bad suffered in the first of all causes—their
country's liberties ; and they did not expect when they
reached the shores of England, to be charged as common
felons.

The policeman, who was present, said that information
had been given to him that a robbery had been committed
by three foreigners, answering the description of the gen-
tlemen present, consequently he took them into custody,
and as what he had done was in the discharge of his duty,
he hoped they would allow him again to apologise.
Mr. DYER said the mistake was certainly an unfor-
tunate one ; but, under all the circumstances, he thought
the parties ought to be satisfied with the constable's
apology.
M. Berthold differed with the worthy Magistrate. He
thought some penalty ought to be inflicted, if only to
teach proper caution.

Mr. DYER replied, that the remedy lay in a civil action,
but he should, nevertheless, advise the parties to accept
the apology. The applicants then withdrew.

UNION-HALL.

Yesterday, a Mr. Cheshire, who resides in Denmark-
row, Camberwell, appeared to answer a charge of endan-
gering the life of a Mr. Beagley, while he was engaged at
shooting at a mark.
Mr. Beagley resides near the defendant, who, with an-
other gentleman, amused themselves, the other day, at
firing at a mask with a gun which carried a considerable
distance. I❑ the course of their amusement, one of them
overshot the mark, which was against the wall, and the
whole charge entered the complainant's bed-room, where
his wife was lying extremely ill at the time, smashing
eight panes of glass, and several of the shot penetrating
the head-board of the bedstead. The moment com-
plainant was apprised of what had happened, he went to
the defendant, and,rnentioned the fact, and the narrow
escape of his wife from being wounded; but all the satis-
faction he received from that gentleman was an expression,
on his part, that he was glad to hear his gun carried such
a distance.

The defendant was extremely sorry the thing should
have occurred ; but declared moat solemnly that be had not
fired the shot in question, a friend of his being the person.

Mr. CHANIBER:S was inclined to hold the defendant to
bail to answer the charge ; but the complainant having
expressed a disinclination to attend the Asszes, the Ma-
gistrates disposed of the case by permitting the defendant
to pay the sum of 2/. to a charity, besides the complainant's
expenses.