The Sun.
London, England, 1832-04-20 00:00:00

—Poland utterly -destroyed! We cannot wonder
ai the arrogance of the Autocrat Ns hen we think
of those conquests, a►►d observi the trembling
solicitude with which the Ministry of Prance and
even the Government of once mighty England,
wait upon his will. A State which, little more
than a century ago, was the weakest of tl►e nations
of Europe, and scarcely European, now threatens
the freedom of all other States. Let England
►►ow consider what new check she is to oppose to
the ambition of Russia for the protection of her
interests in the West of Europe. Let her also
look to her Oriental possessions, for already the
unsatiated vulture of the North scents a nobler
quarry from afar.—Morning Herald.

The dreadful and heartbreaking case of Po-
land has been brought more pointedly before the
public, in consequence of Mr. Cutlar Fergusson's
speech of Wednesday last ; although it was not
left for that Hon. Gentleman to interest, on be-
half of an oppressed and gallant people, a Go-
vernment, every one of whose members, we are
sure, has looked at the position of Poland for
the last 10 or 12 years, and still more at the
calamities endured by her since the autumn of
1830, with deep—we trust not ultimately fruit-
less compassion. Russia affects to justify her
recent treatment of the Poles, and the atrocious
act of annihilating her national existence on the
plea of provocation and security. The late in-
surrection of Poland was a defensive act. The
nation had, in 1815, capitulated with Russia on
certain terms, and, in fulfilment of his portion of
the contract, to the spirit and principles of which
all Europe was a direct party, the Emperor
Alexander gave Poland what was called by his
Majesty, and understood by the Poles to
be, a representative constitution. That con-
stitution was thenceforth to be the standard
to the Polish nation of their duties and
their rights relatively to the Russian sove-
reign. Every enjoyment promised to the Poles,
all the guarantees for their freedom of persons
and property, were successively, though speedily,
demolished by the savage whom Alexander
set over them for Viceroy. Despotism listens
to no remonstrance, and seldom repairs a
wrong. Those inflicted upon Poland were
multiplied every hour, and aggravated rather than
atoned for. The people, hopeless of all other
remedy, had recourse to arms : this, therefore,
was a defensive act. Europe, conscious of the
important truth that the cumulative aggressions
were on the side of Russia, gave its sympathies,
ith its whole sense of right, to the brave and
unhappy people who appealed to Heaven for
justice. So far, therefore, from Russia having
exercised a lawful authority, or merely punished
a rebellious outrage, by first crushing the patriot
armies of Poland, and-next destroying her as a
distinct and independent realm, the very resist-
ance offered to the patriots was itself a crime,
being in support of a criminal and faithlesss
system of government ; while the erasure of the
Polish name from Europe is a crowning of the
whole series of perfidies towards the Poles, by
a glaring and deliberate contempt of treaties to
which the honour of all the great States of Chris-
tendom stood solemnly and reciprocally pledged.
It is impossible to deny, that if' principles were
strictly pushed to their consequences, and obli-
gations discharged with fearless honesty and
truth, four States of Europe would, at this mo-
ment, have either actually made war upon Rus-
sia, or would have called upon her to re-establish
the national sovereignty of Poland, on peril of
immediate hostilities. Nor can it be doubted
that the inclinations as well as honour of every
one of the Powers of Central and Western Eu-
rope are adverse to this revolting offence commit-
ted by the Czar of Muscovy. Austria and
Prussia are not less alive than we are to its dan-
gerous effects upon the safety, and its mischiefs
to the well-being, of the whole European federa-
tion. But times and circumstances are not now
favourable to the vindication, in this instance, of
European rights. Austria 'is too deeply embar-
rassed by her insecure—and we must add immo-
ral—tenure of the soil of Italy, and the Belgic
question has been kept open by Russia, and
cannot yet be substantially settled, that fears and
jealousies among the surrounding states might
produce the very consequence of leaving her un-
molested in her sinister policy towards Poland.
The time, indeed, is pregnant, but the birth
cannot be soon. We are far from distrusting
the zeal, however restrained by prudence, of the
British Government ; and so sure as there exists
a superintending Providence, Poland will vet
raise her noble mien among the nati o n s.— Times.

A contemporary, the Times, almost insinu-
ates, that in throwing doubts on the possibility
of ameliorating the condition of the negroes
under slavery, we entertained the sinister inten-
tion of favouring violence.

" With regard Co the expediency (says our contempo-
rary)—that is to say, the most beneficial mode of giving
effect to the principle of abstract justice—we must say
that nothing appears to us more false or mischievous than
a doctrine put forth by come of our contemporaries, that
nothing can be done for the slave short of positive and en-
tire emancipation. If the Legislature be prohibited from
taLing any but one extreme course, the advocates for the
opposite extreme are at once debarred of all hope, and
confirmed in their utmost violence. If there be no me-
dium, let these irreconcilable politicians inform us which
extreme is to be adopted ? Are the negroes fit for
instantaneous liberty ? Lord Brougham, with equal
manliness and sagacity, declares that no man is wild
enough for that. Then, if not, the other extreme
must he had recourse to, and all idea of emancipation be
'for ever abandoned. We do not believe our Morning
contemporary capable of a sinister or insidious proposi-
tion ; but, to discourage the Government (rout doing that
which Lord Goderich, with much good seme and right
feeling, declares to be the only advantageous policy—
viz. restraining on one side the abuses of power, and on
the other the paroxysms of headlong and extravagant im-,
patience—is to insure r.g,as of the most dreary bondage to
the black, or to both white and Wart: the agonies of a
bloody and terrible convulsion.
" There are, undoubtedly, a number of reg;,:iations
which might be enforced with great . utilty, and without
much difficulty, upon xhe. colonial.assemblies. Saturday
ought to be given up to the ;:egra.for dais temporal atfiirs,
and Sunday for those. of..a .maze .racrect character,, the
Sunday market being transferred to tjae:piieced;rig. Ala-
numissio4o ofight to )e comphiory, upon, the paytmat of
definite sums; .030/1;4&*-4...Dissenaerst and..3lagistrates
rendered legal ;
ankAay.CTP.7.44ci2tots Appointed, but with-
out the power of uninvited vic4azioq. of families at the
caprice the protector—an inquisitorial p;.erotive, and
liable to the pecssest abuse. It would be easy tp have
complaints trazlsttlitt!e4 tp the protector on behalf of a
slave, and then t.woucld 4e,c9i4.e hi° bounden duty to -
at-
tend to them. Gov2romekit ha± Pow &ranted the Com-
mittee of Inquiry so long sol:Li:ted by the Wept-india in-
terests, but without promising to abstain fro the enforce-
ment of the Qrde;s in Council."
It is easy to fra4-10 general regulations, and
we do not mean to contend that some of those
mentioned ty our contemporary might not be
both introduced and observed. It must be the
interest of the Master, while. the slave trade is
prohibited, hot to over-work his slave, and the
masters in general may be brought to consent
to such general regulatiOns respecting holydays
as may not be irreconcilable with their interest.
But it is of the very essence of slavery that there
should be the most complete submission on the
part of the slave. The moment a slave looks
for protection to any. other source than his'
master, a new system commences. The system
of interference between the master and slave, on

which Government have lately entered, will
either be effective Oiirfiisory. If effective, the
sl:ave, knowing that he is not under the absolute
control of his master, will no longer be so
anxious as he was to conciliate his favour,
and the master will feel his power over
the slave diminished. If the protection is
illusory, matters are just where they were.
The planters would of course have no objection
to a tribunal composed of men having a common
interest with themselves. But we apprehend it
is the object of the British Government to give
to the slaves a real and efficient protection
against the abuses of power, by appointing men
to the office of protector in nowise connected by
interest or community of feeling with the
planters, and dependent only on the Government
at home, whose good opinion they will be eager
to merit. To such a protectorship we are sure
the planters will object. Wherever the system
has been tried (and it has been tried in other
countries), it has led to a state of jarring and
contention between master and slave. The Em-
peror Alexander of Russia was sincerely anxious
to ameliorate the condition of the slaves in his
vast dominions, and various means were
adopted for the protection of the slaves in the
Baltic provinces. There is in a German Journal,
which was published at Leipsic, Nov. 11, 1821,
a long article on the State of the Slaves in these
provinces, and the result of the measures
adopted for their protection, which may be con.
suited with advantage at this time. The Russian
Government always claimed the right to call
cruel snd tyrannical masters to account, but in
practice the masters were judges in their own
causes. An idea of the power of the masters
may be formed from a Memorial of the Livonian
Landholders, in answer to a Mandate from the
College of Justice of St. Petersburgh, in 1739,
from which we quote the following passage :

" Though no particular limits can beset to the chas-
tisement, and no definition can be given how far it
should extend, but it must be left entirely to the modera-
tion of the masters, and according to the Edict referred to,
p. 58, no complaints on the part of the villains can be re-
ceived by any tribunals against their masters on ac-
count of immoderate punishment and oppression, yet
every gentleman will be careful not to overstep modera-
tion, nor to render the burdens of the villains intolerable,
as his interest and the prosperity of his estate depends upon
the preservation of the villains," &c.

The regulations, it is said, were much more
harsh than any of the slave regulations in the
West Indies. Alexander endeavoured to put an
end to this horrible state of things ; and let us
hear the success, as stated by a highly-liberal
Journalist :
" Slavery becomes a burden to the masters the moment
the Government begins to limit their power over the
slaves, and allows to the slave a right of complaint against
the master. So long only can slavery be of true benefit to
the master as he retains unlimited power over him, and
so long only is it possible for the master to maintain a tole-
rable relation between himself and the slave. For under
this uncontrolled power the slave perceives that he must
yield unconditional submission, and that it is only by un-
conditional obedience that he can secure good treatment
from his master ; hitherto he looks on the master as a
higher being, whose will he can in no manner constrain.—
What he receives from him he can only view as the effect
of his goodness and favour. Humility and submissiveness
on the part of the slave is, consequently, the only means
in his power to obtain for himself a tolerable existence.—
The masters, on the other hand, consider the slaves, so
long as they are unconditional slaves, as the instruments
of their wealth. As a sensible agriculturist fod,lers his
labouring ox well—and even vanity induces a gentleman to
keep his coach-horses in good condition, that they may
have a good appearance—the masters had the same
notions with regard to their slaves. They took care that
their slaves and their cattle should be in good heart. But
when this arbitrary power ceases, and there is conceded to
the slave the power of summoning his master before a tri-
bunal, and litigating with him, and the master must have
recourse to a Court of Justice when he wishes to constrain
the save to his duty, the master thereby comes into the
most disagreeable situation with regard to the slave; for,
as the most of them entertain a grudge against and love
to spite their masters, they use the new right of summons
to harass their masters, and the master feels the loss of
this litigation much more than the slave. In the first
place, it is possible that the master, when he enters a
complaint against his slave, may not obtain justice—a very
disagreeable matter—whereby the master becomes a
laughing-stock to his slaves, and all the others are en-
couraged to let things take the same course. And i❑
reality the Judges are not indisposed to he unjust towards
the masters, as in that case the masters must pay the
costs, which cannot be obtained from the slave if he loses,
as he has nothing. But if the slave is cast, the master is
always the loser, for he loses the labour of the slave; for,
Ist, he can do nothing when he is at the Court ; 2d, if
he is imprisoned, the master loses his work, and he sleeps
in his dungeon not more uncomfortably than in his dwell-
ing hut ; 3d, if he is castigated, he pretends, on account
of the pain and the consequences of his punishment, that
he is unable to work, and again the master loses the
labour. Who would keep servants with whom he must
litigate respecting the service they are to perform ? Every
master will seek to rid himself of such servants. This,
however, the master of slaves cannot do. For he was ob-
liged to feed his slaves, the State compelled him to do
this, and as he had ❑o other labourers, and they were all
animated by one spirit, be was quite at a stand. Such a
state of things became intolerable to the master, to whom
nothing was so desirable as to rid himself of them."

The Edict of 1804, declaring the slaves free,
was hailed by the masters with satisfaction, but
the writer of this very instructive article tells us
that the slaves or rather %Mains (for they were
predial) viewed this freedom as delivering them
over to beggary. The writer concludes the
article thus :--" We can only lament that what
the Livonian Edict of 1804, respecting the
slaves, so well commenced, has been wholly de-
stroyed. To the slaves, instead of a fixed real
property which they obtained by that law, which
would have led of itself to freedom, there has
been given a naked freedom stript of all pro-
perty." This detail is instructive, as it shows
how necessarily all interference between the
master and slave leads to the destruction of
slavery. ,We hold, therefore, that slavery is un-
suSceptible of amelioration through legal interfe-
rence, because, when the legal interference
commences, the control is weakened, and, con-
sequently, the value of the property is dimi-
nished. In the case of the Baltic landholders,
They gained by the abolition of slavery, and we
apprehend that in Europe slavery has everywhere
worn itself our, from its being unprofitable.—
Where cultivation by free Ihour shall be more
profitable than by slaves, slavery will die out
also of itself. It was hoped that the abolition
of the slave trade would lead to such an in-
crease of population 3s would render slavery un-
profitable ; but the slave trade is carried on in
other colonies with unabated vigour ; and so long
as it can be profitable to buy a slave and work
him to dcaqi, es his place can be supplied on
easier terms than by domegic breeding, the be-
nefit of the abolition is withheld even from
our colonies, because we must compete with
the foreign e,olonies in the market of the world.
We grounded our opinion as to the hostility
of the masters to the mental improvement
of their slaves not merely on general principles,
but on the accounts of the missionaries at the
Cape of Good I-lope, America, and the West
Indies. The master is always jealous lest in-
creased intelligence should inspire the slave with
an increased desire to throw off the yoke. He
does not like his slave to think: Even
a Tory in England instinctively hates the educa-
tion of the poor. 11.1.• Archbishop Of .CAnter,
Canter-
bury may bear testimony to the zeal with which
the planters have seconded the Clergy in the West
Indies 7 but who will bear testimony to the zeal

of the Clergy ? In England, the Church of
England being always essentially Tory, has set
itself against education, and it only yields at the
twelfth hour. Where there is a will there is a
way. No man shall tell us that if the Clergy of
England had wished the education of the poor,
they might not have accomplished that object.
But the masters of slaves always dread their in-
telligence.—Morning Chronicle.

The state to which Poland is reduced excites
much commiseration and sympathy among vari-
ous classes of politicians in this country, and
among some individuals of a class which does
not habitually and systematically afford its sym-
pathy or protection to rebellion. It is imagined
that this country and lirance are bound to inter-
pose to redeem the nationality of Poland,
in virtue of the obligation they contracted by
the treaty of Vienna to guarantee its separate ex-
istence as a nation ; and this would be true if
Russia were now in possession of Poland by
the same title, be it good or bad, by which she
then held domi'iion over that country. But this
is not so. Poland at this moment belongs to,
Russia by the rights of a new and recent con-
quest. The treaty of Vienna, so far as it related
to Poland, has been cancelled by a general
consent clearly implied in the conduct of all the
parties to it ; by the consent of the Polish
nation when they attempted by the force of their
own independent arms to conquer for themselves
the unqualified right of self-government ; by the
consent of Russia when she set herself to the
task of recovering by her own means, and
without the participation of her allies, the
territories of which successful revolt had
deprived her ; and by France, England,
Austria, and Prussia, when they neg-
lected to interpose, while yet the necessity
for reconquering Poland was incomplete, and the
full rights of conquest could not be acquired. It
seems idle to talk of the treaty of Vienna now,
since it was forgotten by every party, and by
none more completely than by the Poles them-
selves, at the time when it would have been
right, and might hare been useful to remember it.
That the revolutions of France and Belgium,
which had practically abrogated the treaty of
Vienna in respect to so many of its provisions,
had in effect abolished it also, so far as their in-
terests were concerned, was, we have no doubt,
the opinion of the Poles themselves at the mo-
ment when they began their insurrection, and
we exceedingly doubt whether had not this opi-
nion prevailed that insurrection would have
taken place at all. When Russia was at war
with Turkey the Poles had the same motives to
revolt, in their own domestic condition, and
much stronger motives in the actual position of
their powerful antagonists, than at the period
immediately following the Revolutions in France
and Belgium. They, however, at this favourable
opportunity abstained from any attempt to recover
their national independence. And why their
inactivity before and their greater alacrity in the
cause of independence after these convulsions
had taken place ? Why, but that they expected
assistance from revolutionized France, which
France under its legitimate Government was
sure not to afford, or why, in other words, but
that they calculated with confidence, after the
French Revolution, that the existing treaties for
the settlement of Europe would be set at nought
in their favour. There is much to admire in
the conduct of the Poles during the progress of
their patriotic insurrection. There is much to
pity in their past sufferings and their present
fate. But the truth may nevertheless be told, that
their love of independence was not sufficient to
rouse them to exertion, even in circumstances
the most favourable, until they were stimulated
from without, and that the treaties which gua-
ranteed the settlement of Europe cannot justly
be pleaded to rescue them from the consequences
of having attempted unsuccessfully to overthrow
that part of the general arrangement in which
they were concerned. In the total desertion
of the unfortunate Poles by France (we
speak not of England, for in matters
of continental policy it is now quite under-
stood that France includes England, though
the latter power cannot be accused of any viola-
tion of treaty) there is ample ground to charge
her with meanness and cruelty. It
.was her ex-
ample and her precepts that stimulated the
Poles to insurrection. By the aid of that insur-
rection, and of the subservient policy of England,
Russia, Prussia, and Austria were at a most cri-
ical period effectually neutralized. The division
of the Low Countries was effected without
opposition. Holland was restrained from re-
occupy ing by her own victorious army valuable
territories of which all the powers had guarati-
teed her the lasting possession. Belgium is re-
served and secured to France, and left ready for
her occupation whenever she may think it con-
venient to enter. There is much cruelty and
baseness in thus beguiling a brave and generous
nation to destruction, in first employing it as an
instrument to promote the selfish designs of
other Powers, and, when those designs are ac-
complished, then leaving it a dupe and a victim,
to deplore unaided the misery and ruin into
which it has been betrayed. This magnani-
mous stroke of policy is altogether French in its
aim, although it is partly English in its execu-
tion. And at present, indeed, Great Britain is
unquestionably entitled upon every subject of
foreign policy to the full benefit of the apology
that she is merely acting the part of a myrmidon.
—Morning Post.

The most bungled piece of diplomacy that
ever disgraced the Statesmen of any civilized
country is advancing, we are told, to some-
thing like a conclusion. Two more of the
seven contracting parties, viz., Austria and
Prussia, have, we believe, at length acceded,
reluctantly and ungraciously, to the treaty which
has long since been published to the Parliament
of Great Britain as the conjoint engagement of
the five Great Powers of Europe with Holland
and Belgium. No such engagement had in
fact been made when it was so published, and
none such is in truth concluded even at this
present moment. The very basis on which the
treaty expressly professes to be founded, an
agreement between Holland and Belgium, is yet
wanting, and Russia still withholds her ratifica-
tion. If the rumours which have reached us
are correct (and we think we can rely upon the
sources from whence they proceed), Russia alone
is acting with wisdom in this negotiation, wherein
the dearest objects of France have been for-
warded by England with a zeal and precipitancy
which has covered the whole transaction with
the character of absurdity. The treaty laid before
Parliament, and ratified by France, England, and
Belgium only, is indeed absurd in the strictest
sense of the word. It assumed to be a conven-
tion between seven Powers, while only three of
them had acceded to it ; it professed to proceed
upon a compact previously made between Hol-
land and Belgium, while not only had no such
agreement been concluded, but while one of the
parties had distinctly refused to enter into it ; it
bound the two principal contracting States to

adopt coercive measures to carry into effect sti-
pulations which had not received the consent of
the Other Great Powers of Europe, and which
were, moreover, repugnant to every principle of
justice and sound policy ; and it placed France
and England in the false and ridiculous position
of having concluded a solemn engagement upon
premises which were not founded in fact, and of
undertaking., in the face of the world, to enforce
certain conditions which neither of them would
really have ventured, or perhaps ever intended
to stir a single step to execute by compulsion.—
We have said that we believe that Russia has
acted with more prudence in this mismanaged
transaction than any of the other parties, because
we feel the most perfect confidence that the
Treaty, as it now stands, cannot be carried into
effect. It must be modified. Holland and
Belgium must be brought to an amicable agree-
ment by some changes in the provisions of the
present Convention, such as may render it con-
sistent with the interests and the honour of both.
To Statesmen of a different calibre from those
with which England is at present blessed this
would in truth be no difficult task, and we do
expect that even these men will ultimately ac-
complish it ; but in the meantime, if Austria and
Prussia have, as it is reported, exchanged their
ratifications, they must be more or less involved
in the same absurdity as that in which the cun-
ning of Prince Talleyrand and the simplicity of
Lord Palmerston have placed this country. They
will have made themselves parties to a Treaty
which they do not and cannot mean strictly and
faithfully to execute.—Morning Post.

We have borne our humble testimony too
often to the high professional merits of the Duke
of Wellington to render it necessary we should
state that we entertain towards his Grace no
other feelings but those which must naturally
belong in common to all men who have a just
pride in their country's renown. But in pro-
portion as we esteem his Grace's merits as a
soldier, the more do we lament his errors as a
statesman—errors which, though he does not in
the end fail to renounce them, he cherishes till
they have accomplished all the mischief they are
capable of. His Grace's conduct on the Ca-
tholic question presents a striking instance of
the truth of this remark ; while on that of Re-
form, instead of betraying any misgivings of his
own judgment, or in any way profiting from the
past, his Grace seems determined that conviction
shall break in upon him even at a later period
than that in which it overthrew a whole previous
life of opposition to Catholic concession. But,
whatever may be our opinion of his Grace's
judgment and discretion in these matters,
we have always looked upon the Duke as a
fair opponent—as one who, in the field of
argument, as in the field of battle, was bent
on giving his antagonist fair play. With this
prepossession it is not without pain that we have
witnessed the Duke, in the late debate on the
Reform Bill, taking what appears to us at least
to be an opposite course. The Duke knows
full well what " a tower of strength" " the
King's name" is, and that it has been hitherto
what they of " the adverse faction"—the Anti-
Reformers—"want." The Duke, too, cannot but
know that our present excellent Monarch has
given the most unequivocal proofs that the
present measure of Reform has his best wishes,
and the Alinisters who are promoting it his
fullest confidence ;—yet, at the eleventh hour,
in the warmth of debate, the Duke, for the
purpose of winning over a stray vote, on the
strength of his high authority, would have the
House of Lords believe that he is the real de-
pository of the King's sentiments, and that they
are, in fact, adverse to the measure. This
ruse de guerre, it is true, failed of its effect.
Like the Duke of Buckingham's promised
Reform Bill—that " dona ferentes" of the
modern Greeks—it failed to recall a solitary
waverer. But we do not the less regret that
the Duke of Wellington's should be the lips
from which so palpable a mistake should issue.
The King not a Reformer, indeed ! Then who
is ? Who is there among his subjects who
has given such earnests of his sincerity as King
William has done ? Who is there who has
made such personal sacrifices in the cause ? To
dwell upon the one, or to recount the other,
would be of itself to admit a doubt upon a point
which amounts to the clearest moral certainty.
But if the argumentum ad homitzem be of any
value, we are entitled to offer to the Duke of
Wellington a proof of the fact, which, both to
the Duke and to the country, must be convincing ;
it isthis—it is because his Majesty is a Reformer
that the Duke of Wellington is not now his Mi-
nister. What better proof does the Duke require
than this ? But, lest he should, we will give
him another, and that in the shape of augury,
which is this—that his Grace never can hope to
return to office but in that very character which
he now repudiates.—Morning Herald.

KING'S BENCH, APRIL 19.

WATTS V. STERNE.

This was an action for criminal conversation,
tried at the last assizes at Chelmsford, before Lord
Lyndhurst, when a verdict was returned for the
plaintiff, damages 50/.
Mr. LAw now moved for a new trial, on the
ground that, from evidence subsequently disclosed,
it appeared there had been no loss of society from
the time the transaction was discovered ; but that
the husband and wife, up to the time of the trial,
had lived together, and that the crime was plumed
and executed under the husband's direction. The
plaintiff was a labourer of the lowest description,
and the defendant a farmer having some property.—
Rule granted.

TIIE MARQUESS OF DOWNSIIIRE V. MAKEPEACE AND

OTHERS.

Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW moved in this case for a
rule to show cause why the verdict found for the
plaintiff should not be set aside, and a new trial had.
The action was for a trespass in breaking and entering
the plaintiff's close at Easthampstead. The defendants
had justified the trespass on the ground that there
was a public right of way over the loctis in quo.
The case was tried at the last as,izes at Reading
before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE and a special jury,
when a verdict was found for the plaintiff on the
first four pleas, with liberty to move as to the fourth
plea, that the verdict should be entered for the de-
fendants. The Learned Sergeant said he now moved
generally for a new trial on two grounds :—First,
that the verdict was against evidence ; and se-
condly, as to part of the case, that the
i
Learned Judge had misdirected the jury n point of
law. After describing the pleadings,
the Learned
Sergeant said that part of the locus in quo
in ass al-
leged to form a parallelogram a new enclosure
lately part of the old Easthampstead-heath. The
road extended 'over an old common. The Mar-
quess of Downshire was the lord of the manor
and lord of the soil, which fact was recited not only
in the Easthampstead Enclosure Act, but also in
the Windsor Forest Act, which passed in 1813.
That part of the common which was enclosed had at
one end of it a public road called Bond's-lane,
and at the other end was a public road called the
Nine-mile-road, which crossed another road leading
to Sandhurst and the great
,western road. The
Bond's-lane had always been a pUblic road, had
been always repaired by the parish, and was at this
moment acknowledged and admitted to be a public