The Sun.
London, England, 1832-04-25 00:00:00

He then attempted to take hold of het hand, and en-

iatiy or defeat the Nit. The whole force of the
t)bjection, and the whole-scheme of-the pretended
3mprovement are founded in hypocrisy or delusion.
There are not above five cities or towns m the ex-
isting list of places entitled to elective rights,
where the 10/. householders will form a ecnsti-
tuency which can be considered as Inconveniently
large, we mean London,Wesuninster, Liverpool,
Bristol, and Southwark ; and of these) four pos-
sess aiready a body at electors not much short
of that which the Bill will create. Westminster,
Liverpool, London, and Southwark, will obtain
a better, but not a much more numerous con-
stituency, and certainly will be as well protected
from the influence of mobs and mob orators
after Reform as before. Of the great towns
which' are to be enfranchised, three only, Leeds,
Manchester, and Birmingham, can be brought
within the range of the alleged objection ; and
even in the constituency of ttrase places we see
no ground for anticipating the existence of a
rabble, or apprehending the dangerous influence
of democratic or republican opinions. Making
the proper deductions for 101. houses occupied
by females, for those left empty or held by non-
residents, and for those deprived of a vote by
other causes, the whole number of electors in
these three immense manufacturing towns put
tnether will not amount to 20,000, out of a
wealthy and enterprising population of nearly
330,000 ! Has this the character of universal
suffrage ? Are these the mobs to be dreaded by
persens who support the pot-walloppers of Pres-
ton, and evince no alarms for the elective tu-
mults of Westminster ? " But the metropolitan
districts," we think we hear the Anti-Reform
alarmist exclaiming,—" the metropolitan dis-
tricts, what can you say to them ?" We have
already expressed ourselves at length on this
subject, on the day before the second reading of
the Bill in the House of Lords, bat shall, per-
haps, trouble our readers with some additional
observations to-morrow.—Times.

In the 109th number of the Edinburgh Re-
view, with an early copy of which we have been
favoured, there is an able article on Dr. Nares's
Life of Burghley. The reviewer endeavours
to solve that peculiar problem in the History of
England—the facility with which the people so
frequently changed their religion at the command
of the Government. His opinion differs from
that which is generally received ; for instead of
placing it to the account of' the absolute power
of the Government, and the abjectness of the
people, he attributes it to the independence of the
people, and their indifference respecting religion.
" The History of the Reformation in England (says the
Reviewer) is full of strange prohi mns. The most pro-
minent and extraordinary phenomenon which it presents to
us, is the gigantic strength of the Government contrasted
with the feebleness of the religious parties. During the
twt lye or thirteen years' which foll..wed the death of
Henry VIII., the religion of the State was thrice changed.
Protestantism was established by Edward ; the Catholic
Church was restored by Mary ; Protea'antism was again
established by Elizabeth. The faith of the nation seemed
to depend on the personal inclinations of the Sovereign.
Nor was this all. An Established Church was then, as a
matter of course, a persecuting church. Edward per-
secuted Catholics, Mary persecuted Protestants, Elizabeth
persecuted Catholics again. The father of those three
Sovereigns had enjoyed the pleasure of persecuting both
sects at once ; and had sent to death on the same hurdle
the heretic who denied the real presence, and the
traitor who denied the royal supremacy. There was no-
thing in England like that firm and bloody opposition
which in France each of the religious factions, in its turn,
offered to the Government. We had neither a Coligni
nor a Mayenne ; neither a Moncoutour nor an Ivry. No
English city braved sword and famine for the reform doc-
trines with the spirit of Rochelle; nor for the Catholic
doctrines with the spirit of Paris. Neither sect in Eng-
-lind formed a league. Neither sect extorted a recantation
from the Sovereign. Neither sect could obtain from an
adverse sect even a toleration. The English Protestants,
after several years of domination, sank down with
scarcely a struggle under the tyranny of Mary. The Ca-
tholics, after having regained and abused their old acen-
dency, submitted patiently to the severe rule of Eliza-
beth. Neither Protestants nor Catholics engaged in any
great and well-orgidzed scheme of resistance. A few
wild and tumultuous rising=—suppressed as soon as they
appeared--a few dark conspiracies, in which only a small
number of desperate men engaged—such were the utmost
efforts made by these two parties, to assert the most sa-
cred of human rights, attacked by the most odious ty-
ranny."

The Reviewer then notices the solution of the
problem, by describing the English Monarchy
in the sixteenth century as an absolute Monarchy.
" The truth (he obseri es) seems to be, that the Go-
vernment of the Tudors was, with a few riccasioaal de-
viations, a -popular Government, under the forms of des-
potism. At first sight it may seem that the prerogatives
of Elizabeth were nut lens ample than those of Louis XIV.
—that her Parliaments were as obsequious as his Parlia-
ments—that her warrant bad as much authority as his
lettrc-de-cachet. * But the
power of Louis rested on the support of his army. The
power of Elizabeth rested solely on the support of her peo-
ple. Those who say that her power was absolute do not
sufficiently consider i❑ what her power consisted. Her
power consisted in the willing obedience of her subjects ;
in their attachment to her person and to her office—in their
respect for the old line from which she sprang—in their
sense of the general security which they enjoyed under her
Government. These were the means and the only means
which she had at her command for carrying her decrees
into execution, for resisting foreign enemies, and for crush-
ing domestic treason. There was not a Ward in the
City—there was not a Hundred in any Shire in England,
which could not h ive ovirpowered the handful of armed
men who composed her household. • • 4 • •
The English, in the sixteenth cer.tury, were beyond all
doubt a free people. They bad not, indeed, the outward
show of freedom, but they had the reality. They had
not a good Constitution; but they had that, without
which the best Constitutio❑ is as useless as the King's
proclamation against vice and immorality ; that which,
without any Constitution, keeps rulers in awe—force, and
the spirit to use it." The Reviewer, after some further il-
lustrations of his doctrine respecting the independence of
the people, proceeds to observe :—lt is absurd to suppose
that, if the nation had been decidedly attached to the
Protestant faith, Mary could have re-established the Papal
supremacy. I: is equally absurd to suppose, that if the
nation had been zealous for their ancient religion Eliza-
beth could have restored the Protestant Church. The
truth is, that the people were not disposed to engage in a
struggle either for the new or for the old doctrines. Abun-
dance of spirit was shown, when it seemed likely that
Mary would resume her lather's grants of Church pro-
perty ; or that she would sacrifice the interests of E.ng-
;and to the husband whom she regarded with unmerited
tenderness. The Queen found that it would be madness
to at.enapt the restoration of the Abbey lands. She found
that her subjects would never suffer her to make her here-
ditary kingdom a fief of Castile. On these points she en-
countered a steady resistance, and was compel'ed to give
way. If she was able to establish the Catholic worship, and
to persecute those who would not conform to ir, it was
evioent:y because the people cared far less for the Pro-
testant religion than for the rights of property, and fur
the independence of the English. Crown. In plain words,
they did not think the difference between the hostile sects
worth a struggle. There was undoubtedly a zealous Pro-
testant party, and a -callous Catholic party. But both
these p.rties were, we believe, very small. We doubt
whether both together made, at the time of Mary's death,
the twentieth part of the nation. The remaining nine-
teen-twentieth halted between the two opinions ; and
were not disposed to risk a revolution in the Government
for the purpose of giving to either of the extreme factions
so advantage over the over."

•
We suspect that in every part of Eur Ope the
cafe was not materially ditferent. The motive
for the reformation in Germany, Sweden, and
Denmark was the wresting property from the
Church. From the moment that it stipulated
in Germany that the going over of a Prince or
Lord to Protestantism should not necessarily be
attended with a power to dispose of the revenues
held by the Catholic Church, there was Rot
another conversion, and the Catholics and Pro-
testants kept their respective grounds. The

.
i people followed their Princes like flocks of
i' sheep. The number of indifferents has been
constantly diminishing in England, through the
labours of the Dissenters. The Church of
England had the 19-20ths of indifferents, as the
Church of tome would have had if the Church
of Rome had been established. At the time of
the Revolution the Dissenters formed a very
small portion of the population, as may be seen
from a statement of particulars in " Sir John
Dalrymple's Memoirs." What zeal the Church
of England evinced down to our own times has
always been (with the exception of the Revolu-
tion, when they trembled for their property)
against the Dissenters) that is, the religionists
who were not indifferent. Bishop Burnet, in the
conclusion of his history, remarks, that the Clergy
had a leaning to Popery, and were " severe towards
the Dissenters." Bible reading was called Metho-
dism or Puritanism,and aperusal ofJohnWesley's
Journals will show that everywhere the Clergy
excited the mob to use violence towards all who
were in earnest regarding religion. Such was
the dread of Bible reading entertained by the
Church of England, that even in the reign of
George the Third five Students were expelled,
by a decree of the Vice-Chancellor, from Oxford,
for the crime of reading and talking over the
Bible, and, upon being questioned on the Thirty-
nine Articles, putting what is called the evange-
lical interpretation on them. In spite, however,
of the discouragement of the Church of England,
the Dissenters now form somewhat more than
one-half of the whole population. In that very
county (Lancaster) which is so much distin-
guished for its hatred of Dissenters, and in
which Dr. Currie, in 1793, could write, " I
was called to Wigan the other day, and saw two
or three thousand men burning Tom Paine, and
shouting ' Church and King !'—of the whole of
the number, I was well informed, there were not
ten who knew the alphabet," the Dissenters
now form a large majority of the population.
The Dissenters have lately distinguished
themselves by their liberality in support-
in the ministerial plan of education, the
only plan, as is well known, by which it is
possible to have anything like general education
in Ireland. But the Church of England,
however indifferent in matters of religion, is
never indifferent when the object is to check
education. All of a sudden, the same clergy
who not many years ago opposed themselves to
the circulation of the Scriptures without note or
comment, and deemed it better that children
should not be taught to read than suffered to
read the Bible unaccompanied by the Church
Catechism, now affect a wonderful zeal for the.
Bible, and call out " The Bible, the whole
Bible, and nothing but the Bible," because were
Ministers to adopt a plan of education in which
the whole Bible should be placed before children
the Catholics could not benefit from it. The
object is quite clear—to withhold education from
the great mass of the people of Ireland. The
clergy of the Church of Ireland, though sworn
to maintain schools, had neglected that duty,
and applied otherwise the funds destined for the
education of the poor ; and now they wish to
add another injury to the many of which they
have been guilty towards the Irish people. But
our contemporary (the Standard) abuses the
Dissenters for not lending themselves to the in-
terested views of the clergy of the Establish-
ment :

" There are," says our contemporary, " two classes
into which Dissenters are divided ; they who affect to he
religious, for the sake of dissent, and they who dissent
sincerely, for the sake of religion. The first are worthy
of all contempt; the second entitled to our highest re-
spect : but bow are we to distinguish betwe-n them ?
Their feeling towards the Established Church furnishes
a perfect and obvious test.
" Dissenters who separate for the sake of making car-
nal divisions will naturally hate an establishment whose
comprehensive toleration has comprised, for successive
centuries, a greater congregation of Christians than was
ever combined, without coercion, since the foundation of
Christianity. They who dissent from motives of base
lucre, envy, or perverse ambition, will as naturally hate,
and seek to destroy the Establishment, by whose poverty
they can make themselves rich, and by whose ruin they
can hope to exalt themselves—such Dissenters would seek
an alliance with Popery, or Mohammedanism, or fiend
worship, for the purpose of overthrowing the Church of
England—such Dissenters, in fact, we find did form an
alliance with Popery arid tyranny in the person of James
11., in order to carry on the common war against the
Church."

We have more pleasure in adverting to the second
division of Dissenters, the men who dissent for the sake of
seligion. They know well that in doctrine these is scarcely
between their own creed and that of the Church any es-
stntial difference, and, th,)ugh dissenting from it, they
will never put their hands to the destruction of a Christian
community possessing and imparting the means of salva-
tion ; they will not be arra}ed amongst the enemies of an
establishment which has proved the bulwark of Pro-
testantism in Europe ; they will not become the auxili-
aries of intolerance, so far as to teach, by their ingratitude,
the danger of that toleration by which the Church of Eng.
land is so gloriously distinguished ; they will not league
themselves with a sect whose tenets they believe to he
damnable and idolatrous, in order to overthrow a Christian
establishment, from whose creed they do not materially
differ. Lastly, they will not, for such an object, trample
the Scripture itself under foot ; they will at least choose
some other footstool whereby to climb into the breach."

The Dissenters know pretty well the nature of
the toleration which they would receive from the
Church of England were it in its power to be
intolerant. The reign of Charles and James,
the manner in which the Nc,n-conformists were
hunted, the cruel persecution of the Scotch
Presbyterians down to the Revolution, suffici-
ently prove what toleration Dissenters would re-
ceive from the Church of England. Fortu-
nately, since the Revolution, the State has ceased
to abet the Church. The State controlled the
Church ; but the Church, on that account, was
opposed to the State, down to the reign of
George the Third. To put down the High-
Church persecuting spirit, the Government was
obliged to put an end to Convocations. Many
liberal men there have been in the Church of
England; but as a body the Clergy have always
been distinguished for illiberality. The Dissen-
ters know this—they are quite aware of the
kindness they would receive at the hands of the
Church, were their fate in its hands. We ob-
serve from the Scotsman, that the true Presby-
terians of Scotland (the Seceders) have not
joined in the base cry of the High party, though
several of the Presbyteries of the Established
Church have disgraced themselves by the cry.
In Scotland, hoWever, the matter is entirely con-
fined to the Clergy.—Morning Chronicle.

The state of the Government and people of
France at the present moment compels us to
recur to the language, with a variation only of
the tense, which we thought it our duty to employ
immediately after " the three glorious days of
July." We then said that France would gain
nothing by her Revolution ; and we now, not
with any feeling of unworthy triumph, but In the
spirit rather of rmlancholy and regret for the fate
of a noble, spirited, but infatuated nation, ask
those who were the loudest in their applause
and gratulation of that Parisian crime and na-
tional calamity what has France really gained by
it ? In asking this question we invite a com-
parison, not between what France is now and
what she was under the rule of her ancient
and red ored dynasty, but between what she

,
is itnd the. worst that can be imagined aj
the result of those Royal Ordinances by
whiph her last legitimate Nlonarch endea-
voui•ed in vain to protect his menaced and
endkngered throne. Could France, in conse-
quence of the success of those Ordinances, have
been in a worse predicament than that of be-
holding in the worthless wearer of her Crown,
as she now beholds, a person the object of uni-
versal hatred to every party, sect, family, or in-
dividual of the nation, with the exception only
of those in whose minds measureless contempt
has left space and scope for no other feeling ?
Could any state of things have been produced at
once more degrading and unfortunate than the
actual character and condition of the French Ad.
ministration, unpopular with all parties, trusted by
none, tolerated in power for the moment by the
Royalist and Movement Party which divide
France, because it is equally hated by both, de-
pendent for its precarious existence upon the
life or death of a single individual, and sure to
be crushed by any accidental occurrence which
may for a single instant disturb the nice
equilibrium of passions and of interests? Could
the Royal Ordinances have led to more impri-
sonments for political offences, to more vexa-
tious and arbitrary proceedings towards the con-
ductors of the Press, to more flagrant violations
of personal and political independence ? Would
the Chamber of Deputies which might have been
elected in virtue of the Royal Ordinance for that
purpose have consisted of persons more base,
cowardly, treacherous, selfish, and worthless, than
those Members of the Reformed Parliament of
France, who have just deserted their post at a
moment when all their efforts to reassure and
tranquillize the public mind, and all their case
to provide for the public safety, were imperi-
ously required ; who cared not how much they
increased the terror, aggravated the malignity,
augmented the distress and confusion of a
fatal pestilence, so that they could obtain
a slight chance of greater safety to their
own dearly cherished persons; who displayed
the immediate representatives and dele-
gates of the democracy in a light not un-
worthy of their origin, in ignominious contrast
with the comparatively manly, generous, and
patriotic conduct of the French Chamber of
Peers, degraded and polluted as that Chamber
has been by revolutionary infusions and exci-
sions ; who set the Ministers of the Crown an
example of dereliction of duty which encouraged,
if it did not justify, those congenial Ministers in
dismissing the Parliament of France, with so
much of precipitation and panic as to forbid even
the decent and ordinary formality of an Address
from the Crown ? Do we not see the mercenary
troops of France greatly increased since the
Revolution ; the public expenditure grievously
enhanced ; the people exposed to heavier bur-
dends, while their interrupted commerce and sus-
pended industry would have rendered even their
former burdens intolerable ; the populace of'
Paris and the other great towns restrained from
open insurrection by the presence of a formid-
able standing army ; the boasted civic force,
the guardians and support -of' the revolution,
dissolved in some parts of France, overawed
elsewhere by mercenary bands, paralysed in Paris
by the experience they have already tasted of the
bitter fruits of popular change in the institutions
of the State, and still, merely in dread of the
uncertain future, tolerating, although with im-
patience, the Government which they detest and
despise ; the mercenary troops of the Govern-
ment faithful and united only because they are
above the level of the general misery, and because,
where destitution is universal among the whole
of that class of society from which mercenary
troops are drawn, a regular supply of the neces-
saries of life becomes an irresistible bribe ?
Every traveller who returns from France, all our
correspondents in that country, concur in state-
ments of which we have not here attempted the
slightest exaggeration. What, then, we repeat
the question, has France gained by her revolu-
tion ? The punishment which awaits every
people who are eager for political change, and
do not sufficiently calculate its risks.—Morning
Post.

nat.
are
the
real

While Lord Palmerston pleasantly rubs his
hands, and, with a self-approving smile, says,
" Well, I have at last caught two of the slippery
eel-like diplomatists in the net of ratification,"
the refractory King of Holland, who well knows
the game that, by the secret connivance of the
Holy Alliance, he is playing, also smiles in a
spirit of self-sati4action, and says, " Well, I
have caught the Belgic Governor of the Pro-
vince of Luxemburg in a stronger net than that
which entangles the Plenipotentiaries of Austria
and Prussia. The Maison de Surete is not so
easy to break through as a Metternich ratifica-
tion." So it appears that no sooner is the ac-
knowledgment of the independence and inviola-
bility of Belgium by the " Great Powers" placed
beyond all doubt, according to the statements in
the Ministerial papers, than the territory of that
State is most audaciously violated by the armed
agents of the King of Holland ; and a public
functionary of Belgium—the representative in
the Duchy of Luxemburg of that independent
Government—is seized at his country-seat by a
gang of rufliam, gagged, and carried off to pri-
son,—a Dutch General recognising the capture
as perfectly right and justifiable, and the Dutch
King subsequently " ratifying" the General's
opinion on the proper mode of enforcing toward
Belgium the principles of international law.
What a commentary upon time sort of pacification
which the long labours of the London pro-
tocolists have produced ! What dignity encir-
cles the Crown which has been placed upon
the brows of Leopold ! Scarcely had he ascended
the Belgic throne, with the olive branch in his
hand for a sceptre, when he was obliged to take
the field, and fly for his life at the head of his
gallant army." French bayonets alone
averted the catastrophe which would have put
an end to his Kingship almost as soon as it was
created. Ever since the warlike King of Holland
has not ceased to beat the alarm-drum in his ears.
Ever since he has been labouring under the con-
stant apprehensions of a Monarch enthroned
upon gunpowder, to whom a spark might prove
fatal. Meantime the political friends, who in-
duced him to abandon his peaceful retreat of
Claremont for that dangerous elevation, leave
hlm in a position both pitiable and ridiculous,
while they talk of settling the disputes of Hol-
land and Belgium by protocol, treaty, and rati-
fication, but permit the Dutch King to heap
what insults he pleases on the head of the pa-
tient " Majesty of Belgium," who expects that
he will be able to afford protection to his " faith-
ful people " when he obtains it for himself. If.
• this last aggression of the King of Holland, in
violating the territory of Belgium, and seizing
the person of the Governor of the Duchy of
Luxemburg, be not chastised by the Great
Powers as a contempt of that dictatorial autho-
rity which they have assumed, in constituting
themselves into a sort of Supreme Court of po-
i t'cal Judicature to settle the disputes of the tvv,,

onel

pths, then, Ae inuA ady, the Great Pulver:,
only encouraging Hollgicl not to accept
terms, while they punish Belgium for her
y submission to their assumed authority. No
can doubt that, if a similar act of aggres-
had been committed by the Belgic Govern-
t upon the territory of the Dutch King, it
Id have been instantly and indignantly de-
need and chastised by those Powers who
F upon the violent acts of the " enlightened"

William with so much indulgence. All-that has
occurred in this matter, since the consultations
of the Holy Alliance were opened under the
auspices of Lord Palmerston at the Foreign-
office of the British Government, confirms and
strengthens the opinion which all reasonable
people entertained, that our Government showed
a remarkable lack of wisdom and foresight in
departing from their avowed principle of non-
intervention, to mix itself up with the concerns
and embroil itself with the disputes of Belgium
and Holland, which, after the quantity of time
and diplomatic ingenuity and ink expended in
settling them, are, we venture to sav, as far
from being settled as ever. As to Poland—
although driven into resistance to the Sovereign,
who only derived his authority from the Treaty
of Vienna, and who had violated all the terms
on which that authority was conferred upon him,
by acting in defiance of the Charter and Con-
stitution of that unhappy country—there was
no intervention. Belgium and Holland are
two States pretty nearly on an equality, and
ought to have been allowed to adjust their dis-
putes between themselves in the best way they
could. If they had, this embroiling question
would have been set at rest long ago. If
Belgium single-handed could not have esta-
blished her independence against unassisted
Holland, she could not be qualified for free-
dom. But what comparison could be instituted
between the magnitude and the resources of the
two States of Russia and Poland ? Yet our
Government left Poland to perish without even
a manly remonstrance in her favour ; but the
Holy Alliance were against intervention in the
one case and desired it in the other—and so
our counsels were shaped accordingly.—Morn-
ing Herald.
The frequent occurrence of the circumstance
of the Commons having of late made "no
House," and the delay which has been thereby
thrown in the way both of public and private busi-
nes, has become a subject of very general anim-
adversion ; and proves either that our Legisla-
tors are very indifferent about the duties they
were so very lately deputed to perform, or else are
the too ready and accommodating tools of those
whose conduct of public afl'airs it is their duty
to promote on the one hand, and to watch with
a scrutinizing eye on the other. Ministers, we
imagine, cannot be unaware that they are charged
hod: by friends and foes with being the direct
or indirect cause of this ; of either winking at
or encouraging Members in thus absenting them-
selves from their duties, that they themselves may
he exonerated from labours and from contests to
which some of them, at least, feel themselves un-
equal. If this be true, it implies an imputation
both upon their talents and integrity ; if it be
untrue, then it behoves them, as men of spirit,
not to rest quiet under a censure which every
one knows they can, if they please, immediately
remove. At any rate the subject is one of in-
finite importance to the country. Little has, as
yet, been done by the House of Commons
beyond passing the Reform Bill—the month of
May will be considerably advanced before the
House meets again—there are notices already in
the order-book engrossing every day till the Sth
of June ; and we strongly suspect that, when
subjects of infinite importance, such as the
currency, the Irish Poor-Laws, the Bank and
East India Charters, and various others which
have been year after year postponed, are mentioned,
we shall have the old answer rung in our ears, that
it is " too late in the Session" to entertain them.
Even the Anti-Reformers themselves might, in
this respect, for once do some service to the
State ; and, unless they wish to see their own
sentiments falsified, and the last of the unre-
formed Parliaments descend to the tomb of the
Capulets a practical incumbrance to the State,
they will exert themselves to exhibit it in a more
favourable light to the country than such frequent
neglect of its duties can be said to do. On the
other hand, if there are among Ministers or their
underlings some who, either from indolence or
actual inability to perform the task assigned them,
tacitly or openly encourage Members of the Le-
legislature in these breaches of their solemn en-
gagements to the country, such persons, as me❑
of honour, should cease to allow themselves to
be an incumbrance to the State. Few men, it
is true, see or have the candour to admit, their
own insufficiency ; but those who cannot or will
not see should be made to hear. They should
remember that the lookers-on see more of the
game than the players; and, if these were
now to speak out, we suspect they would unhe-
sitatingly declare that there is among the present
race of public men more than one who has had
cards dealt to him which he is totally incapable
of playing.—Morning Herald.

dem;
men
sedu

stud
that
sist 1
hand
in or
aske

Jured to prevail upon her by all sortb of argu-
, both religious and otherwise, to endeavour to
re her. He talked to her as if he had been

ki►►g some novel—said he was not immaculate—
he was but a man, and that no man could re-
loving a pretty woman. She forcibly drew her
I from his, and jumped half-way across the room,
der to reach the door. He followed her, and
her if she would consent to settle the affair,

telling her that she should have great things at her
command; hut she indignantly told him that he was
mistaken if he supposed she would enter into any
arrangement with him at the expense of her virtue.
Mrs. Burns paused here, and appeared somewhat
agitated.
Mr. MlNsuuLL—Did he prevent you from going
out of the room ? Mrs. Burns—He did, for some
time.

Mr. Mimi-luLT.—Then that is your charge. Now,
Sir (turning to Mr. Adamson), you have heard what
the lady has sworn.
Mr. Adamson—l swear by the Almighty, that 1
never so much as touched the hem of her garment,
and never laid a finger on her. Ihe fact is, that I
was at dinner on the day in question, when the ser-
vant told me that a female wished to speak with
me. I went to the parlour, and there saw Mrs.
Burns. I asked her if she wished to speak to me
in private. She replied yes.
Mrs. Burns—'Tis false, I never said so.

Mr. Adamson then went on to say, that he asked
Mrs. Burns into an adjoining room, where she pro-
posed, on behalf of her husband, that he should
take his acceptance at four months instead of two.
He replied that it was impossible he could do so.
He then asked her how it happened that she should
come about such a business and not her husband.
She answered that her husband was so much en-
gaged that he could not find time to come, and she
then begged and prayed of him to take the kill at
four months, and hinted that she had walked all the
way from Kennington, not being able to pay for a
conveyance, on purpose to ask him that favour.
Seeing that she was fatigued, he asked her to take
a glass of wine, to which she readily consented,
and wanted to drink out of a dirty glass that was on
the table, but he said to her, " No, you shall have
a clean glass," and then he rang the bell, and told
the cook to bring a clean glass, which she did.
One of his clerks also came into the room, and he
would call both him and the cook to say whether
they observed any thing improper pass between him
and Mrs. Burns. Mr. Adamson then proceeded to
cross-examine Mrs. Burns, and asked her if she
made any noise while he took those alleged impro-
per liberties with her.
She replied, that she did not make any noise
until she forced her way into the ball, when she
called her brother Charles, who was waiting at the
door for her, to come to her assistance.

Mr. Adamson—After you left the parlour, did
you not stop conversing with me in the passage for
at least five minutes ? Mrs. Burns—l certainly
spoke to you in the hall, but the street-door stood
open at the time. You then told me that probably
you would take the b►ll at three month's date.

Mr. Adamson said, that the charge was a mere
attempt to extort money from him, and evade the
payment of the bill, for the amount of which Mr.
Burns had been sued. It was most singular, he said,
that the charge should have been suffered to stand
over for six weeks, and still more singular that it
should not have been preferred at Hatton-garden
office, where, subsequent to the alleged assault upon
his wife, Mr. Burns had been fined 51. for assaulting
him (Mr. Adamson).
A gentleman, who attended on behalf of Mrs.
Bui ns, said that as soon as Mr. Burns learned how
his wife had been used by Mr. Adamson, he sent
him a challenge, which Mr. Adamson declined to
accept, and, finding that he could not have satisfac•
tion as a gentleman, he knocked Mr. Adamson
down in Hatton-garden, and was fined .5/. for the
assault.

Mr. Burns—And if I had sent a bullet through
his head, he would have been rightly served.
Mr. MiNstium. said he was somewhat puzzled to
understand what had occasioned so much delay in
making the application for the warrant, and why the
present charge had not been mentioned at Hatton-
garden when Mr. Burns was there charged with the
assault upon Mr. Adamson.

Mrs. Burns—We took the earliest means of ob-
taining redress, arid applied to Mr. Harmer, but he
said that there was no law for us.

Mr. MiNsuuLL—But why was not the matter
taken up by the Hatton-garden Magistrate ?—Mr.
Burns said, that when he was charged with the as-
sault, he stated the cause he had received, and said,
that he conceived himself justified in what he had
done, as Mr. Adamson had attempted to seduce his
wife. Mr. Laing, the Magistrate, however, would
not hear any explanation, but fined him 5/. at once,
saying he had nothing to do with provocation.
The gentleman who attended for Mrs. Burns then
said that every thing had been done on behalf of
that lady to obtain redress sooner, and that applica-
tions had been made both at Union-hall arid the
Mansion-house, but without effect, as the offence
had been committed in Middlesex.

Mr. Adamson said, that if the rent due by Mr.
Burns bad not been peremptorily applied for, the
present charge would never have been made. The
fact was, that the husband, and not the wife, was
the complaining party.
Mrs. Burns—lt is my charge, and not my hus-
band's. I have been grossly and shamefully insulted.
Mr. MINSHULL was desirous of knowing whether
Mrs. Burns stated the circumstances of assault to her
husband as soon as she reached home.

Mrs. Burns replied, that when she got home, she
told a lady who was now present, how she had been
treated by Mr. Adamson. She was afraid, how-
ever, to tell her husband the circumstance all at
once, fearing he would at once proceed to take
vengeance " on the fellow who had dared to insult
her." He heard of it, however, soon after, and
walked up and down Ely-place both by day and
night, in order to meet Mr. Adamson and chastise
him on the spot.
Mr. Adamson begged of the magistrate to allow
him to call forward his clerk and cook, in order to
prove that they saw nothing improper between Mrs.
Burns and him.

Mr. MESSllULL—Certainly, call forward whom
you please.
Mr. Key, clerk to Mr. Adamson, was then sworn.
He stated that he was in the house on the Sth of
March, and as soon as dinner was over he went into
the office, and subsequently went into the parlour,
where he saw Mrs. Burns and Mr. Adamson sitting.
The former appeared perfectly composed, and he
(witness) did not perceive the slightest impropriety
on the part of Mr. Adamson, whose habits he
knew were quite at variance with any thing immoral.
He had known Mr. Adamson for a long time, and
believed him to be a strictly virtuous man. . _

Mrs. Burns—The assault was not committed
until after this gentleman had left the room.

The cook was then called forward—She said, that
on the evening in quertion she went into the par-
lour with a clean glass, which her master had or-
dered. She saw Mrs. Burns there, but could not
perceive any thing in her manner to indicate that
any rudeness had been used towards her.
Mrs. Burns—You never came into the room at
all, and I never saw you on that day but when you
opened the door for me; besides, your master could
not have required a clean glass, as there were two
on the table when I entered the room.
Mr. Adamson produced a letter, which was
written by Mr. Burns on the 16th inst., and the
object of which, he said, was to intimidate him
(Mr. Adamson) and compel him to forego the claim
which he had against Mr. Burns.
Mr. Burns denied that the letter was written
with any such design.
After some further altercation,
Mr. MiNstruLL said that no doubt an assault had
sbeentheho u
should
s
ir c proved,uriustilcon and,ea
Mr. y
b llnch it was attended, he
withoutv passing any opinion as to
Adamson to put in bail to

meet atiy charge which Mrs. Eurni-, [night think
()ropier to prefer against hint at the Sessions.
Mr. Adamson accordingly put in the required
sureties, and the parties left the office.