The Sun.
London, England, 1835-12-11 00:00:00

ambitious and formidable—power. 'The subject is
beset with subtle considerations ; and whether Lord
Gosford, or either of his colleagues, who are, we be-
lieve, acute and able men=mdeed, whether that
amiable Morpheus of a Minister, Lord Glenelg him-
self—has yet opened his eyes to the difficulties of this
negotiation between the King of England and a por-
tion of his subjects, upon matters involving the dig-
nity of the empire, no less than its integrity and
safety—is a point on which Parliament will be bound
to pronounce a grave, if not a caustic opinion, before
three months shall have elapsed.—Times.
The Leinster Independent, a journal of the O'Con-
nell-Melbourne faction, makes a terrible outcry, which
is of course re-echoed by the tools of the same faction
on this side of the Channel, on account of the ejec-
tion of a number of the tenantry from the estates of
some of the Protestant landlords of Ireland. For-
tunately, the names of the landlords who are said to
have most extensively pursued this course are given.
They are those of Lord Beresford, Colonels Bruen
and Latouche, and Mr. Newton ; names some of
which afford a presumption against the statement that
wanton and unnecessary hardship has been inflicted
under their anihority much too strong to be over-
come by the evidence, we will not say of the
Leinster Independent merely, but of all the
journals in Great Britain and Ireland, and of
all the Privy Councillors, and Members of Par-
liament to boot, who have degraded themselves by
an alliance with the Melbourne-O'Connell Ministry.
The fact stated, viz., that nine hundred persons,
including widows and orphans, have been ejected, does
not of necessity imply any harsh, improper, or unfair
exercise of the right of property. Perhaps these
persons were so much better Papists than tenants
that they made it a point of conscientious duty to
withhold from the Protestant Clergymen of their
several parishes the tithe, in consideration of which
the rent to be paid to their Protestant landlord had
been determined, and had been taught by their Priests
and Mr. O'Connell, under the sanction of the Lords
Melbourne, Russell, and Duncannon, to believe that
reducing the heretic Parsons, with their wives and
families, to misery and want, is one of the most praise-
worthy exercises that can be imagined of religious de-
votion and political liberality. In this case we do not
hesitate to say, and we submit the doctrine with perfect
confidence to the examination of the most subtle casuists
of Maynooth, the Corn Exchange, or even Whitehall,
that no conscientious Protestant landlord could permit
such tenants to remain in the occupation of his
land a single hour after he had the legal power of
removing them. We have mentioned one motive to
the ejection of a tenantry which would not only fully
justify the act, but impart to it the character of an im-
perative moral and social obligation. To uphold the
authority of the laws, and to discountenance those
who obstinately and systematically violate them in let-
ter or in spirit, is one of the first obligations of every
citizen. It is a duty the vigorous discharge of which
is essential to the existence, and implied in the very na-
ture of civil society. But if this be an imperative duty
upon all men in the social state, it indeed is more espe-
cially the duty of men of property who, protected day
after day by the laws of society in each successive act
of ownership and enjoyment, renew daily their implied
compact with society that they will promote with zeal
and diligence, and by every means in their power, the
spirit of obedience to those laws. The dark stain
upon the character of the present Government of
Great Britain, the heavy load of ignominy which now
oppresses and must finally sink it, is, that its parti-
sans and abettors (we fear bee might add its members
also), with scarcely an exception, are ever prompt to
stigmatise and denounce men for exercising the rights
which the law has given, and spontaneously and in-
variably afford their ready sympathy and patronage to
all who strive, whether by violence or fraud, to defeat
any legal light. The Melbourne O'Connell Ministry
has keen said to be without principle. To judge from
the daily language of its congenial and well-prompted
Press, it has two principles, at least, which are never
dormant or inactive ; the first, enmity to property and
law ;, the second, warm and unbounded •friendship
towards every powerful confederacy which assails either.
—Morning Post.

KING'S BENCH.-THURSDAY.

(Sittings at _Nisi Prius, at Guildhall.)
HARDINGE V. HILL AND MACGUIRE.

Mr. PLATT (with whom was Mr. Jervis) stated the case.
It was an action brought by Daniel Hardingc, a broker
and appraiser, residing in Orchard-street, St. Luke's, to re-
cover compensStion for an assault, and for the illegal deten-
tion of a van containing goods. The plaintiff had been em-
ployed by a Mrs. Powell, to mate a distress upon premises
in New Union-street, occupied by a tenant of her's named
Brown, who owed 12/. arrears of rent. The plaintiff ac-
cordingly made the distress on the 7th April, and put a man
in possession of the goods ; but having-received information
that the goods were being conveyed away, he procured a van
oil the following night, for the purpose or conveying wh7t
remained to a place of safety, till the day of sale. The
van was accordingly loaded, and was about to move away,
when the two defendants Hill and M'Guire came up, re-
presenting themselves as keepers of
,the peace, and acting
by authority, and refused to allow the van to leave the door.
The defendant Hill was O. near neighbour of Brown, which
might account for his interference. Ile was shown the
warrant, which he said he did not care a straw for, and held
his fist up to the plaintiff's face, swearing that the- van
should not leave the door that night. And there it accord-
ingly remained till the middle of the next day. The two
questions for the Jury would be—first, whether the assault
and obstruction were commstted by the defendants ; and,
secondly, if so, what amount of compensation the plaintiff
was entitled t 2.

Mr. Scrjeant BoMPAs appeared for the defendant
M'Guire, and Hill conducted his own defence.

Mrs. Powell deposed to having authorized plaintiff to
destrain upon Brown's premises for the arrears due to her.

Charles Taylor, the keeper, sent a messenger to Mr.
Hardinge, to inform him that the lodgers 'Avere removing
the goods, and he then came with a van. Saw two men
whom he does not know, obstructing the removal of the
goods.

James Sawyer assisted in loading the van, and deposed to
the violent conduct of Hill, who
was read to him, held his fist to plaintiff's face, pulled off
his coat, wanting him to fight, and said the van should not
leave the door that night.
There were three other witnesses examined to the same
effect. It appeared that the two defendants were con-
stables.

Mr. Serjeant BOMPAS addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant M'Guire ; and Hill then spoke at some length in
his own defence.

Evidence was given that the plaintiff had taken two
children, who were ill in the measles, out of bed, placed
them on the floor, and then removed the bed. One of
the lodgers stated that her bed room was broken open
at eleven o'clock at night, and she put her head out of
the window and called the police. Saw no violence of-
fered by either of the defendants. A constable heard
the plaintiff abusing Hill very much, plaintiff shelved a
piece of paper which Hill said was no authority, and
that he could not allow them to be removed till sunrise
next morning. Another constable who was attracted by
the noise swore that the plaintiff did all he could to
provoke the defendant Hill to commit a breach of the peace.
Hill's conduct was very peaceable, he did not clench his fist
or pull off his coat. Three or four other constables were
examined to the same effect.

Mr. PLATT replied.
LORD DENMAN said the justification of the defendants
was that they were constables of the City of London, and
under the Act 3d William IV., cap. 19, they were autho-
rised and required to detain any goods which they had rea-
sonable ground to believe were stolen or unlawfully obtained.
It was with the greatest pain he heard such conflicting and
contradictory evidence as was brought before him in the
present case, as the conclusion inevitably must be, that one
party is prejudiced if the other speaks truth ; and it was
the painful duty of the Jury to draw the line from all the
circumstances, and say which party they would place reli-
ance upon. After recapitulating the evidence at great length,
The Jury after consulting together for about twenty
minutes asked leave to retire, the foreman having stated
that eleven were agreed upon a verdict and the other not.
The Jury then retired, and after a deliberation of four hours
returned a verdict for the defendant as to Macguire, and as
to Hill a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 40s.

CONSISTORY CO URT-THURSDAY.

LASS V. LASS.
This ' was a suit for divorce by reason of adultery,
brought by the husband against the wife.
The KING'S ADVOCATE was proceeding to state the
grounds upon which he should move the Court to pro-
nounce for the divorce, when
Dr. LUSIIINGTON said that it was unnecessary to go into
the particulars of the case ; he should decree as prayed.