The Sun.
London, England, 1832-01-23 00:00:00

ton himself. But, had he lived, his evidence
might have proved the affirmative, and we must
presume that an officer acted upon the orders of
his superior in command, until, upon the most
competent evidence, the contrary be shown. We
would ask two questions with regard to this
charge. In the first place we ask, why it was not
one of the brave and active corporate Magistrates
of Bristol who brought the information of the
approaching destruction of the Custom-house to
Captain Warrington, and why that duty was left
to a simple merchant ? In the second place we
ask, why the information was not conveyed at
once by the informant to Colonel Brereton,
who was known to be in command of all the
troops, instead of carrying it to an officer in a
subordinate capacity, who could not act without
orders ? The next charge applies to Captain
Warrington's not having acted in putting down
the rioters on Monday morning, upon the au-
thority of a letter written by the Mayor, and di-
rected, not to the Captain himself, but to his
Commanding Qificer, Colonel, Brereton. We
presume no military man will say that the gallant
Captain could have acted upon such letter ;
but then he is charged in the alternative with not
having communicated the letter or its contents
to Colonel Brereton. Here, again, we ask, how
can any man living prove this negative? Col.
Brereton, as it appears to us, could alone prove
or disprove it. Again, we ask, why did the
Ma!jor of Bristol send the letter to the subor-
dinate Officer, instead of sending it to Colonel
Brereton himself, who alone could act upon it ?
Why did not the Mayor, or some Magistrate, go
in person to Colonel Brereton, and insist upon
him accompanying the civil power—the corpo-
rate Magistrates—to the scene of danger, there
to execute such orders as the said Magistrates
in person were prepared to give to the Com-
mander of his Majesty's troops, for the security
of the city and the protection of the public peace?
Another mode of trial than that of a Court-
martial, with other accused parties than military
officers placed at the bar, can only solve this
question. The third and last charge contains
four parts. The first— that Captain Warrington
sent a Cornet in command of a detachment to
the city gaol, and remained himself inactive in
his quarters. This is the first time we have
heard of its being a crime in an officer to order
an inferior officer to take charge of a detachment
of his troop, upon any emergency, while he re-
mained at quarters. Who can tell that he did
not remain at quarters in obedience to orders re-
ceived from Colonel Brereton ? But even if he
did not receive such orders, had he not a duty
to perform by remaining at quarters under the
circumstances ? If he had gone with the de-
tachment himself he must have left the Cornet
in command of the remainder of the troop ; and
how did he know but his quarters might be at-
tacked in his absence ? If they had, and the
quarters were burnt down, would not Captain
Warrington have been censured by the very
persons who now accuse him—and would he not
have been brought to a Court-martial ? If so,
the line of proceeding adopted in this affair
places a British officer in very awkward circum-
stances ;—he is placed between two fires ; and,
in a case in which he must be necessarily in-
trusted with a certain discretion if he receive no
orders, he is liable to be arraigned at the bar of
a Military Court in whatever way he exercises
that discretionary power. The second part of
the charge relates to a temporary absence from
his quarters, during which a detachment went to
protect the Bishop's Palace, under the command
of the Comet. The third is, that, having re-
turned to his quarters during the absence of the
detachment, he went %here he might always be
Ifound—namely, to bed, at ten o'clock. In ob-
serving upon these accusations, we will only say
that, if Colonel Brereton had lived, it might be
clearly and positively ascertained whether Captain
Warrington acted in the manner described—
supposing the statements true—under the orders

fof the Colonel or not. The fourth part of this
last charge is similar to the first ; namely, that,
on sending out a detachment the following morn-
ing against the rioters in Queen-square, he gave
the command to the aforesaid Cornet. To this
we only repeat the remarks which we have made
to the first part of the third and last charge. We
are quite sure the Court-martial appointed to try
Captain Warrington will discharge its duty fairly
towards the accused, as far as it has evidence to
decide upon ; although from the connections of

some of the gallant —members of it, we should
think there no way friendly to that Reform me -

sure out of the ag-itation of which arose the cala-
mities that led to the shedding of so much
blood by the sword, and which Government ap-
pears preparing to follow up by spilling more
blood ttpon the scaffold. What we maintain is,
that Captain Warrington, being under the orders
of Colonel Brereton, cannot adduce, as it seems

to us, the best evidence fur his defence ; and
that, under the circumstances, the trial is, at
least, unprecedented.— horning Herald.
Great indignation is generally expressed at the
remissness of the advocates of Reform in the

House of Commons, in attending to their duty.
It cannot be too often repeated that the Anti-
Reformers instantly avail themselves of all cir-
cumstances, which can by possibility be con-
strued into an evidence of a re-action having

taken place in the public mind. On the faith Of
the proceedings of Friday night, a spur will be
given to their exertions both in Parliament and
throughout the country. We trust that no time
will be lost by the friends of Ref Min in curing
them of the delusion that the people of England
will yield one jot in their determination to re-
main satisfied with nothing short of the Reform
Bill now before Parliament. Let not the Anti-
Reformers provoke the people too far. The
people are now tranquil because they are con-
fident that their hopes will soon be realised. But
it, either from the remissness of pretended friends,
or the exertions of enemies, they were to be led
to entertain feelings of distrust, the Anti-Re-
, tOrmers might find to their cost, that they had •

small cause for triumph. The public will be led
to watch with attention the proceedings of the

House during the present week.--Morning
Chronicle.

When we alluded on Saturday to the Terceira
expedition, and to the letter of General Sal-
danha, in which he announces that, owing to
the interference of the diplomatic body, he is de-
prived of the honour of serving her little faithful
Majesty in that enterprise, we were quite aware
that we were putting our hand into a hornet's
nest. The fact is (as we have repeatedly men-
tioned), that banishment and misfortune create
as many parties as prosperity or power ; and that
the exiled Court of Meudon is more beset with
• intrigue, pretension, and conflicting claims than
that of Lisbon or Rio de Janeiro. The least
breath of hope is sufficient to set all the passions
of jealousy and ambition in movement : every
exile becomes a courtier, and each is eager to
start first in the course, lest lie should be dis-
tanced in the race. We 6ay this with regret,