The Sun.
London, England, 1832-04-17 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS

The Duke of IVciiiug ott has put his name
to a protest, to which we are sorry that such an
ornament has been affixed. It would in some
degree have indemnified those who respect the
Noble Duke, for any slight or- temporary in-
convenience accruing to the cause itself, from so
decided an evidence of the inexorable animosity
which he bears it, had the expression of that
sentiment been conveyed in terms not unworthy
of his Grace's reputation for something like
reasoning power. But, in fact, if the friends of
Reform wanted before Easter any triumph in
addition to that of the second reading of the
Bill, they need only consult the production
which we have just alluded to. Nothing more
vague, inconclusive, or feeble, has yet, we make
bold to say, issued from Tory lips or pen—(and
the Due of Newcastle has not slipped out of
our recollection)—since the discussions on this
great measure have been opened. His Grace of
Wellington begins by reminding the country, that
the Government of Great Britain is and always has
been " a monarchy ; and that this monarchy,
limited by the laws and customs of the realm,
and by the necessity imposed on the Sovereign
of having constant recourse to the advice and
aid of Parliament, is the form of Government
Lest adapted to the habits, wants, and wishes of
the people." And, consequently, the Noble
Duke goes on to say that no changes ought to
he adopted which would either strike at the
principles of the monarchy itself, or would leave
the Sovereign without the power of performing
his high duties, and freely exercising his prero-
gatives, &c. Now, if our readers be not puzzled,
we undoubtedly are so ; but it is by the va-
riety and abundance of unmarketable matter con-
tained in the above paragraph, the first part of
which is quoted literally, and the second abridged
from the text of the illustrious dissentient. His
Grace talks about the " monarchy," as if any
one desired to make an inroad upon that, in sub-
atance, form, or operation ; but his Grace says
not a single word about the oligarchy, which has
sat like an incubus upon both monarchy and
people, and from which it is the true and only
purpose of the Reform Bill to release them. His
Grace says truly, that the monarchy is" limited by
the laws and customs of the realm ;" but he does
r.ot tell us that the oligarchy is so limited. The
law of Parliament, which is the law of England,
makes it a crime for Peers to meddle with elec-
tions, while the " custom" of the oligarchy,
which is not the law of England, but too strong
for it, gives Peers the privilege not merely of
meddling with elections, but of smothering
elections altogether, and returning members to
the House of Commons by an act of their own
will. So, the Duke of Wellington speaks truth
when he tells us that the necessity imposed upon
the Sovereign, of having frequent recourse to
Parliament, is one of the limits applied by the
Constitution to the Royal power : but his Grace
omits to add, that the Parliament, if not a "free
Parliament—ifrepresenting the oligarchy, or the
ministry, instead of the people—is no protec-
tion to popular rights ; and is, in the first case,
the establishment of a power unknown to the
Constitution ; in the second, the vicious extension
of a power which the Constitution, as now exer-
cised, pretends, but is unable, to restrain. So
the " free and independent" use of the Royal
prerogatives is justly stated by the Duke of
W ellington, to be essential to the in -
terests of the people. His Grace ought,
then to have rebuked some of his own sup-
porters, for daring to menace the King's Ma-
jesty, should he now, at a moment of such tre-
mendous need, think fit to avail himself of that
prerogative which his Grace declares ought ever
to be " free and independent." His Grace, in
the second member of his protest, dissents from
the passing of the Reform Bill, because the
Rouse of Commons is already the best institu-
tion in the world for the " protection of the
subject." What ! against its own corruptions
—against the quartering of borough patrons upon
the public purse ?—against the creation of a
debt of 800,000,0001. sterling ? If it be all
this, in the name of Heaven don't think of im-
proving it. The Congress of North America is,
we take it for granted, but a name, and the
written Constitution of England herself a
paradox, prescribing that the House of Com-
mons shall be something very different from
what it is. The Noble Duke talks gravely
of " chartered rights and vested interests "
as about to be sacrificed by this vile
teemblance of Reform. Let us respectfully
remind the Duke of Wellington, that no charter
can sanctify a gross perversion of the trusts
which itself has created, and that no prescrip-
tion can be pleaded in defence of an abuse which
each year serves to aggravate. The Noble Duke
having protested retrospectively against what he
calls (though by a misnomer) the " printiples"
of the Bill, as acknowledged in the second read-
ing, then protests by anticipation, and with an
eye to the Committee, against what, by an
equally severe misnomer, he describes as its se-
rial-ate "provisions." To this end he soundly
thraAes the 10/. housekeepers, blows to pieces
the Members for the metropolis, who, he asserts, •
will be returned by " universal suffrage," and
proves, by a long and elaborate declamation
against mobs, that the soreness which led his
(irace, when Prime Minister, to dissuade King
William from enjoying the festivities prepared
for him by his affectionate citizens of London,
has not yet left the spirit of the Duke of 'Wel-
lington to its wonted setenity and comfort. The
Duke winds up with a panegyric on " disci-
plined" freedom, which is curious enough in
its way. Certainly this Reform Bill, at St.
Petersburgh or Vienna, has long since been con-
demned as a nefarious breach oldrscipline. We
conclude, as we began, with an expression of
rorrow for this protest and compassion tor its
author.—Times.

We published :yesterday Ridgway's List of
the majority and minority on the second reading
of the English Reform Bill in the House of
LoTds, on the memorable division last week.
This red and black record of the friends and
foes of the liberties of the people ought to be
hung up in the House of every Reformer
throughout the kingdom. An analysis of the
component parts of the minority remarkably dis-
plays the effects of the long predominance of
Tory politics. Twenty Lord Lieutenants of
counties, Thirty one pensioners, and Thirty-
four borough proprit tors, voted against the
Government and Reform. Such is the political
and sinister interest arrayed against any effective
amendment of the representation. The Spiritual
Peers somewhat redeemed their character and
their reputation with the nation ; the majority
comprised twelve Bishops, the minority fifteen
Prelates ; and three of ~ the Right Reverend
Fathers in God," viz., Ely, Hereford, and Peter-
borough, did not appear in person or by proxy.
In the Committee, therefore, parties being so
evenly balanced, the Bishops—if the fitteer4
Spiritual Anti-Reformers stand to their text—

will gvie the casting votes against the main
clauses of the Bill. Should this result follow,
the enemies of the Church will rejoice inwardly to
view the heads of the Church thus commit a
deliberate act of suicide ; but we counsel the
Bishops to mark the " signs of the times," to
ponder well the peril of such their hostile posi-
tion against the million laity, and to observe the
fortunate effect on the public mind of the recent
spiritual conversions to the popular cause. II
the fifteen Spiritual Peers—Canterbury, Ar-
magh, Bangor, Bristol, Carlisle, Exeter,
Gloucester, Kilmore, Oxford, Rochester, Clo-
gher, Durham, Salisbury, St. Asaph, and Win
chester—continue their fanatic non-conversion,
they will effectually alienate the hearts of the
people from the Church Establishment, and in-
fallibly work the downfall of the hierarchy. We
do not appeal to the Phillpott genus—to those
who, as they foolishly opine, are worshipping
the rising sun—but we do earnestly beseech the
prejudiced and near-sighted Prelates to pause in
their insane career. Their former banishment
from the House of Lords, in the days of the
Commonwealth, is held out to them as a scare•
crow by the wily boroughmongers, who thus la-
mentably succeeded in misleading the blind and

erring prelates. We call upon them to view the
primary causes of that memorable " weeding of
the House of Lords." Was it not the bigoted

and persecuting conduct of the Stuart Bishops—
was it not their contumacy towards the people
which led to their banishment from all temporal
power in the State ? They were the ever-ready
and active tools of persecution and corruption.
Ignorant of the world—except in the means of
personal advancement and temporal ambition—.
they rushed on their destruction, though fore-
warned by all the enlightened political men of the
seventeenth century, of the inevitable conse-
quences. Too late they discovered the errors of
their ways, and fain would they have retraced
their steps, when the precipice stared them in the
face. The Anti-Reform Bishops are treading
in the shoes of their Stuart predecessors. May
they be saved, say we sincerely, from the brink o;
political perdition ; may they persevere, pray
their enemies, who joyfully behold them working
the destruction of the hierarchy. The Bishops,
we ardently hope, will see the light, and resist
the stale baits thrown out to them by that wily,
but superannuated politician, Lord Eldon (who
is no longer the sole patrons of the "livings"
of the Church), and with an enlightened fore-
sight of the spirit of the times, may they cease
to oppose Reform, if they cannot be induced to
support it. We know that the eyes of the
country are upon them ; their conduct is
unseemly and ungrateful to the people ; they
are blindly undermining the Establishment, and
swelling the ranks of the sectarists. These ob-
servations we make in the spirit of charity, and
we have never been suspected of any affected
love for the Right Reverend Bench. But we
do not desire to see the uses fall in a common
ruin with the abuses of ancient institutions ; we
would wish to see the Church upheld by liber-
ality and enlightened support. We now turn
to lay Lords. The list of absent Peers enrols
some Noblemen who, in person and proxy,
ought, at any sacrifice, to have supported the
Government at this momentous period ; and
among the proxies we notice many Noblemen
who in person ought to have been at their post.
The Commander-in-Chief, Lord Hill, did not
vote in person or proxy! 'Was even-handed
justice dealt out to Sir Henry Parnell, if, on the
great vital question of Reform, the head of the
army is allowed by the Premier to assume
the position of an habitual absentee ? Difficulties
may and do exist in cashiering the recusant Lord-
Lieutenants ; but surely the high officers of the
Government are bound to their allegiance. Cer-
tain we are that energy and determination can
alone carry the Ministry through the rocks and
shoals of the channel of Reform ; they must
'support their friends, and their friends must sup-
port them. The country will jealously watch
the conduct of every Reform Peer. It is the
solemn duty of the liberal Lords to sacrifice
every personal object to a constant and watch-
ful attendance in support of Ministers. Those
who absent themselves from the Committee will,
notwithstanding their votes in favour of the
second reading, and however unjustly, be es-
teemed by the people as the secret and worst
enemies of the Bill. The Peers are equally
with the Commons representatives of the nation.
Let the liberal portion of the Aristocracy con-
sider their stake and deep interest in the success
of the Bill. Let them bear in mind that the
Anti-refirmers are superior drill-sergeants, and
will daily muster all their forces. In political
generalship the Tories ever excelled ; we repeat
that the nation calls on every Peer, friendly to
Reform, to mount guard in defence of the com-
mon liberties. None are so interested as the
Peers generally, in deposing an oligarchy, which
has, in fact, usurped the powers of the whole
Peerage, and robbed every Peer not a borough-
monger, of his ancient and hereditary rights.—
Morning Chronicle.

The result of the division on the Reform Bill
proves the injustice of the intemperate and un-
reasoning attacks which were made in a Morn-
ing Paper upon Earl Grey, for not making a
mob of Peers at all events, to attain that object
which he has attained without any such violent
and dangerous application of the extreme power
of the prerogative. Greatly would the moral
value of the victory have been detracted from if
it had been earned by means which would have
put an end to all deliberation—to all freedom of
action in the Upper House of Parliament, and
established a precedent which might, hereafter,
be fatal to the very existence of that Constitution
which it is the object of the Reform Bill to re-
novate. To apply no more force than is ne-
cessary to obtain a certain result, bespeaks ac-
curacy of judgment, and a knowledge of his
business, whether in the mechanist or the Mi-

!lister. To apply a hundred-horse power to
overcome a resistance for which one of 20
would be sufficient, would argue gross igno-
rance and incompetency in the engineer,
and no less in the statesman. The just
economy of force, whether in mechanics, in
war, or in politics, is a test of skill ; as a super-
fluous application of power is a proof of inca-
pacity. Though the Bill has passed the second
reading, we would not have the country consider
that equivalent to final success, lest we might
thereby contribute to relax that vigilance and
firm exertion which are always most necessary
when a great struggle appears to draw towards.
its conclusion. The House has, undoubtedly,
adopted the priuciples of the Bill, by voting for
the second reading ; but then there arc persons
who would essentially impair it, and deny that
they had interfered with its principles. We ob-
serve that, in his reply, even Lord Grey said
that, although he should be sorry a less number
of boroughs than were in schedule- A should
be disfranchised, or that the 101. qualification
should be raised, still they formed no part of the.
principle of the Bill, and both might be altered

in perfect consistency. As to the 101. qua-
lification, we admit that it is rather matter
of detail than of principle ; but as it will
operate to disfranchise a considerable num-
ber of electors in several places, we think it
is quite high enough, particularly as the old con-
stitutional qualification was scot-and-lot, which,
if adopted in the present Bill, would have saved
a great deal of complicated and clumsy con-
trivance, which will be productive of a great deal
of inconvenience and litigation in the working
of the measure. But as to the disfranchisement

of the boroughs in schedule A, we consider it
to be so essential a principle of the Bill that tl►e
Bill would be of little or no value without it.
What is the great principle of the Bill To
substitute real for a mock representation. What
is the great machinery of a mock representation?
The nomination boroughs. To extinguish
those nomination boroughs is, then, the chief
object and leading principle of the Bill. And
inasmuch as the boroughs in schedule A are
placed there because they are nomination
boroughs, how can Lord Grey consistently say
that a less number of boroughs might be dis-
franchised without touching that principle ?
We say, on the contrary, that not a single no-
mination borough should be allowed to remain
without interfering with the principle of the
Bill, and so far marring its chief object. If,
indeed, any borough has been placed there,
which, on a fair statement of facts, ought
not to have been placed there, that is
another question. Let such an act of in-
justice be rectified ; and if any nomination
borough has, through party favouritism,
been kept out of the schedule, let such an act
of gross partiality be rectified. The Duke of
Wellington has charged Ministers with having
saved or sacrificed certain boroughs, not upon
principle or fair calculation, but because they
belonged to Whig or Tory proprietors. The
Duke will, no doubt, attempt to establish his
positions in Committee ; and if he makes out
any such cases he will succeed in throwing just
censure on the Ministers, and will deserve to be
supported in rectifying the schedules by all those
who vote for Reform, not because it is a .11i-
nisterial plan, but because the country requires
a real representation. It matters not to the
country whether nomination boroughs remain in
the hands of \Vhigs or 'f uri es, they are monstrous
innovations upon the representative principle in
whatever hands they be ; and what the country
wants is not that the mischievous power of a
mock-representation should be transferred from
one party to another, but that all mock-represen-
tation should be abolished. As to whether
Peers ought to be made hereafter if the prin-
ciple of the Bill cannot otherwise be eventually
carried, it is useless to discuss that unless the
necessity should arise.—Morning Herald.
In another column we give the protest of the
Duke of Wellington against the second reading
of the Reform Bill. It is a curious document,
but the ground has been too often travelled over

in the course of the late debates to call fur much
observation, the reasoning, as may be well sup-
posed, affording no new topic for comment. The
first argument put forth by the Noble Duke
against the extinction of the rotten boroughs is,
that the Government of this country is a mixed
Monarchy, and that the change proposed strikes
at the root of that Monarchy by depriving it of
the respectable support of Gatton and Old Sa-
rum. So then, according to his Grace, the Bri-

tish Constitution and the monarchical principle
involved in it, have no support in the affections
of the British people, who are thus obliquely
charged with wanting only an opportunity to get
rid of both. This is pretty well for a beginning.
But what if this false assumption should run
through the whole document, from beginning to
end, and form, as it were, the burden of the
song ? Can even the name of the Noble Duke
rescue such misrepresentation from the contempt
that belongs to falsehood ? The second argu-
ment, after a reluctant admission that "it may
be expedient to correct abuses," reminds us that
the House of Commons with all its faults, is
still an institu'ion " the best calculated of any
in the world for the general protection of the
subject." Admitting this proposition in its
fullest extent, we may still contend that the insti-
tution will not be injured by being purified. But
here, as we stated before, the burden comes in
again, that the people of England are anxious

not only to destroy the Monarchy, but to
destroy the House of Commons—a work
which they are supposed to begin by giv-
ing it increased strength. The third argu-
ment is a repetition of the nonsense about vested
rights. The vested right of the boroughmon.
gers to traffic in Members of Parliament. The
vested right of a few wretched Corporations—
for the great ones, to their honour, have repu-
diated such a claim—to shut out the mass of
property and intelligence from a voice in the
Legislature. After bemoaning the ancient char-
ters by name, and the rotten boroughs by impli-
cation, the Noble Duke anticipates " more fatal
violations of the principle in future," which is a
return to the old burden which charges the
people of England with a determination to get
rid of the Constitution as fast as they can. The
fourth argument put forward is only another
modification of the same charge. The fifth
argument (we state the number from the docu-
ment itself, without professing to see the distinc-
tions very clearly by which the paragraphs are
separated into distinct heads)—the fifth argu-
ment denounces the provisions by which those
principles are carried into effect, and repeats the
jargon so often refuted of giving the preponde-
rance to towns, of excluding the moneyed and
colonial interests, of overwhelming the landed
interests, and, above all, of giving the metropolis
' that share in the elective franchise which its
wealth, its intelligence, and its numerical im-
portance seem to require, though, in the opinion
of the Noble Duke, they render it unnecessary.
Yes, strange, unreasonable, absurd as it
must appear to every unprejudiced mind, it
is because the metropolitan districts are
so important that they ought, according to
ducal logic, to be denied their fair share in
the representation. The metropolis,. he would
persuade us, requires to be kept down. But so
he thought of every other place until the outcry
of the people compelled him to change his tone,
and give himself the nick-name of a Reformer.
The sixth and last argument on which his Grace
relies for the vindication of his opinions with
posterity is another version of the burden which
runs through this lament, the increase of the
democratic element, and the certainty that the
people will avail themselves of it to destroy the
Constitution. His Grace laments the absence
of all necessary charges ; he does not name the
rotten boroughs, but it is evident that lie regrets
their loss as the soft emollients of popular fury.
But for whom is this protest intended ? Is it
for the people, whom it insults in every line, or
for the House of Peers, whose extinction it fore-
bodes in every sentence? Whatever his object.
may be, he has put opinions upon record from

which the future historian will glean materials for
observation the very reverse of those which his
brilliant victories would suggest, and which
those who are most interested for his fame will
have the greatest reason to wish that they could
expunge from his history.—Morning Herald.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BO W- STREET.

Yesterday a well-known thief, named Samuel
IVynmont, was brought in custody to this office, and
placed at the bar before Mr. HALLS, charged by
Tipper, a constable of the F division of police.
Tipper was on duty in plain clothes near Temple-
bar on the preceding evening, when he saw the
prisoner, whom he knew, and a young man, whom
he also believed to be a thief, come out of Shire-
lane. The prisoner was carrying something in a
bag, which appeared to be a box or writing-desk,
and he (Tipper) determined to watch his move-
ments, tie accordingly followed the prisoner and
his companion as far as Pickett-street, Strand, when
the latter, perceiving that they were watched, ran
away. The prisoner then faced about, and walked
at a quick pace through Temple-bar, and along
Fleet-street, witness still following to watch his
movements. The prisoner turned down Bridge-
street, Blackfriars, and was walking at a quick pace
across Blackfriars-bridge, when, turning suddenly
round, and perceiving him (witness) at his heels, he
deliberately rested his load on the parapet of the
bridge, and shoved it into the river, sack and all.
The constable immediately took the prisoner into
custody, on suspicion of his having stolen the con-
tents of the sack.
Mr. HALLS asked the prisoner how he accounted
for the transaction ?—" Please your Worship," said
the prisoner, " this here is the truth. I bought a
dog the other day, and a dead bargain he was, sure
enough, for the hanimal died the day arter I bought
him. Fearing that I should be had up, your Wor-
ship, by some of the parish gentlemen if I threw
him into the street in these cholera morbus times, I
shoved him into a sack, and thought the safer way to
get rid of him was to take him to the bridge and
heave him into the river."
Tipper was quite sure the contents of the sack

were the produce of some recent robbery.
Mr. HALLS was of the same opinion, notwith-
standing the ingenious manner in which the prisoner
endeavoured to account for it.

The prisoner was then remanded till Wednesday
next, to give time for the river to be dragged, with
a view to the recovery of the sack and its contents.

MARLBORO UGH-STREET.

Yesterday Bernard Conroy, a young man of gen-
tlemanly appearance and address, and who stated
himself to be a native of Ireland, and by profession
a medical student, was brought before Mr. DYER, the
sitting magistrate, sad charged with having com-
mitted a robbery on the preceding day at Mr. Phil-
lips's chapel, in Regent-street, Oxford-street.
Mr. Richard Stratton on Sunday held at one of
the doors of the above chapel a plate for the recep-
tion of contributions in aid of the parish charity
school. While thus occupied the prisoner went up
to him, and placed a penny on the plate; immedi-
ately afterwards witness missed one of two sove-
reigns which had just before been in the plate, and,
suspecting the prisoner, he followed him, calling
out " Stop thief," and he was taken into custody.
Mr. Underwood stated that he ar►d a policeman
stopped the prisoner. He had one of his hands in
his coat pocket, and appeared to be endeavouring to
secrete something. Witness immediately searched
his pocket, and found in it a sovereign and a small
box, containing Venice turpentine; both the pri-
soner's hands and the sovereign were smeared with
this adhesive composition, and it was evident that
the turpentine had been applied to the hand for the
purpose of enabling the prisoner to remove a piece
of coin with the under part of his extended fingers.
Mr. Underwood added, that when the prisoner was
taken into custody, a strong spirit of opposition was
displayed between the policeman and a beadle named
Webb, which gave rise to a great deal of unplea-
santness. lie (Mr. Underwood) gave to the po-
liceman the sovereign which he had found upon the
prisoner, but immediately afterwards requested that
it might be returned to him, in order that he might
put upon it some mark by which he might be ena-
bled to recogn-ze it on a future occasion. The po-
licetnan gave back the sovereign, and while he was
marking it, the beadle came up and seized hold of
the prisoner, and begged that he, Mr. Underwood,
would give him the sovereign to take care of. his
witness refused to do, and handed it back to the po-
liceman. The beadle snatched the sovereign out of
the policeman's hand, and a scene of great confusion
ensued.

A police constable, No. 165, of the C division,
stated that he and the last witness took hold of the
prisoner at the same moment. When the man was
in custody, Webb, the beadle of St. Stephen's
Chapel, made his appearance, and told witness to go
about his business, and not to meddle in things that
did not concern him. Witness insisted upon de-
taining the prisoner, and Webb then took out his
staff, and said, " let you know that I am consta•
ble here," and pushed witness about in a very rough
manner, for the purpose of forcing him to retire,
\Viten Mr. Underwood put the sovereign into wit-
ness's hand, Webb violently snatched it from him,
and persisted in keeping it.
Mr. DYER—This is really very extraordinary con-
duct. What have you to say to it, Webb?
Webb—What I have to say, Sir, is this—l had
the man in custody, and the policeman endeavoured
to take him away from me.
Mr. DYER—I shall say no more upon yours and
policeman's conduct, than to express my surprise
that there should have been any contl,ct between
you in the performance of an act of duty. lam
extremely sorry to hear of such conduct. Whatever
petty jealousies may have existed at the commence-
ment of the new police force, I had hoped they had
long since died away.
:::The prisoner, when called upon for his defence said,
that the charge against him was wholly without
founda!ion.

Mr. DYER.—HOW do you account for your pos-
session of the sovereign and the Venice turpentine ?
Prisoner.—The sovereign I obtained on Saturday
night by pawning my coat, and the turpentine I
purchased for the purpose of applying it to my, back,
having some days since met with a serious accident.
I am member of a very respectable family, your wor-
ship, and would not be guilty of such an act as that
which has been imputed to me.
Mr. DYER.—Who are your friends ?
Prisoner.—My brother is a clergyman residing
in Parson's Town, Queen's County, Ireland.
Mr. DYER.—It is a melancholy thing to see a
young man of your description placed in such a situ-
tion. There cannot be a doubt of your being guilty
of the crime with which you are charged, and it is
my duty to commit you to prison to take your trial.
The prisoner was much affected, and begged that
his friends might be informed of what had happened
to him.

Mr. Repton, the clergyman of St. Philip's Chapel
would wide to the prisoner's brother. He was
removed from the bar.
HATT ON-GARDEN.
Yesterday Louisa Biddle and Sarah Mitchell
were placed at the bar before Mr. LAING, charged
by James Edward Nixon, Esq. of No. 19, South-
ampton-street, Bloomsbury-square, with having
robbbed his dwelling-house of a French clock, plate,
and other property, of the value of 200/. and up-
wards.

The prisoners were remanded, and directions
given to the inspector to apprehend other parties
strongly susrected of having been concerned in the
transaction.

'Vim. Henry Sansom, a man of sanctified ap-
pearance, wt►o described himself as messenger in
the Hon. East India Company's service, was charged
under the following circumstances :
Police-constable west, 100 G, deposed that on
Sunday morning, at half-past ten o'clock, the de-
fendant was "holding forth" on Clerkenwell-green,
surrounded by a hundred persons, and, conceiving

that such an assembly was likely to create a die.
turbance, he requested the defendant to desist from
his " calling," and go about his business.
The defendant, in answer to Mr. LANG, con-
ceived he was not offending against any law.
Mr. LAING assured him he was committing an
offence by causing a mob to assemble. If, however,
he would promise not to offend again, he was at
liberty to depart, otherwise he should hold him to bail.
The defendant conceived it his bounden duty,
from the present unparalleled immoral state of the
country ; arid he could not compromise the dictates
of his conscience, and the danger of his soul, by any
such promise.

He was consequently held to bail, and in defau
of the required sureties locked up.

CHESTER ASSIZES, APRIL 14.

Edward Brown, aged 37, was indicted for a bur-
glary in the dwelling-house of James Heath, of
Audlem, and stealing therein several pieces of linen,
and other articles.

It appeared from the evidence, that in Novem-
ber last, the prisoner at midnight entered the house
of the prosecutor, by breaking through the wall
with a crow-bar; and after making a hole suffi-
ciently large for himself to go through, he went
into the house, and took a quantity of property,
which he carried away.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty, and on his
being called upon in the usual manner as to what
he had to say why judgment of death should
not be recorded against him, he broke out into a
furious tirade against the prosecutor, in the course
of ‘vhich he said, " I'm a man that can forgive little
injuries; but the prosecutor, who has been the
cause of transporting for life a man like me, that
has fought for his country, I'll never forgive him ;
and I hope that all the curses in the 49th Psalm
may light upon him."