The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-26 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
GLOBE.—From the time of John Frost's memorable
attack on Newport to the accession of the present Mi-
nistry, scarcely a day, certainly not a week, was allowed
to pass without our being reminded that John Frost was
put into the commission of. the peace by the Whigs,
An explanation was given, by which all blame was re-
moved from the appointment. At the time it was made
there was nothing which impeached the fitness of John
Frost for a borough magistrate ; and he was removed
immediately his unfitness became apparent. Still the
fact was undeniable that a man who had been a municipal
magistrate had become a furious agitator ; and, instead
of preserving the Queen's peace, had headed a furious
mob, and involved himself and others in the guilt and
punishment of high treason. These facts were un-
questionable. Tory orators and Tory journals urged
the- necessity of making the fullest inquiries into the
character and habits of individuals, before they were
placed in the commission of the peace. We have no
wish to revive the question ; which, for any advantage
it can confer on the Tory party, they may have their
own way. The appointment of John Frost might be
worthy of blame; if so, the present Ministry • has been
consistent in its practice of borrowing from its prede-
cessors in office—only making it always a little worse.
The late election at Woodstock has stirred up some
rather unpleasant matters ; but that has been done in
a sort of " unnatural contest ;" and, as it lies entirely
among the Tories, we may leave them to settle it among
themselves. It has, _however, reminded us that the
,Diike of Marlborough is Lord Lieutenant of the county
of Oxford ; and that he received the appointment from
the present Ministry. The Duke of Marlborough was
a man not altogether unknown as the Marquis of
Blandford ; as may be seen, not only in the daily
papers of 1838,. but in Adolphus and Ellis's "Re-
ports," vol. viii., p. 908, where we find that, on making
a rule for a criminal information absolute, the Lord
Chief Justice said, " I have no difficulty in saying that
if it concerned Lord Blandford alone, I would not have
consented to make this rule absolute. His own affidavit
throws the greatest imputation on his conduct towards
the lady mentioned in these publications; and I cannot
pronounce that her statements on the subject are per-
jured." For the rest of the case, those who are curious '
in such matters may refer to the documents we have
alluded to. The length and breadth of the gross du-
plicity, profligacy, heartless seduction, and subsequent
abandonment of the hapless female: whom: his Lord-
ship entrapped by a pretended marriage, were set forth
in the affidavits which were published in the daily
journals at the time, and are alluded to in the judgment
pronounced by the Court, as reported in the volume
from which we have quoted. We ask, if a Lord Lieu-
tenant had caused a commoner, concerning whom such
an opinion, in such a case, had been expressed by the
highest criminal court in the kingdom, what would have
been said of him, and of the Government which allowed
him to retain his Lord Lieutenantcy ? The case in the
Queen's Bench could not have been unknown to the
Government at the time of the Duke's appointment as
Lord Lieutenant. To say nothing of the notoriety of the
facts, and the scandal their publication fastened on
the Marquis of Blandford (now Duke of Marlborough),
Sir W. Follett was engaged in the case, and he was So-
licitor-General at the time the Duke of Marlborough was
appointed. We are not disposed to rake up the errors of
a man's youth, and allege them as reasons for excluding
him from decent society or from office. Still, we have
a right to ask, what evidence had the Government, which
made him Lord Lieutenant of a comity_ in 1842, that
the Duke of Marlborough was then a better man'than
he was; .as Marquis of Blandford, in 1838? And if any,
at what precise time they had reason to conclude that
the respectability of character and decency of conduct
commenced ? The criminal information was granted by
the COurt, as we have seen, for the sake of his family.
Was the Lord Lieutenancy conferred for the sake of his
borough ? One word as to the course the Government is,
we conceive, bound to pursue under present circumstances.
It is the practice of the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, when his attention is called to grave charges
against a magistrate, to require a contradiction, .or ex-
planation ; which, if rot satisfactory, is followed by
striking the delinquent's name out of the commission
of the peace. On Monday last grave charges, affect-
ing the public and private character of the Duke of
Marlborough, were publicly stated by Mr. Humfrey,
the Government candidate, in the Town Hall of Wood-
stock, and in the presence of the Noble Duke's friends
and retainers—charges which, if true, would justify
the interference of the Lord Chancellor to prevent
the party against whom they were made and sub-
stantiated, from continuing to act as a magistrate.
How much more when the Lord Lieutenant, the head
of the county magistracy, is thus accused, if he
do not successfully repel the accusations? The charges
were not contradicted at the time—no contradiction
of them haS yet nppeared. If the Government
do nut interfere, and that very shortly, the subject
is of sufficient importance to justify an allusion
to it in Parliament. Some Member, of sufficient
weight and influence to secure the attention of the
House, should question Sir James Graham on the
subject; and ask how long the control of the county of
Oxford, and the appointment of its magistrates, shall be
allowed to remain in the hands of a person who was de-
clared, by the highest court of the land, to have behaved
too ill to be entitled to have a rule fur a criminal infor-
mation made absolute ; and whose subsequent conduct,
as was shown by the proceedings at Woodstock on Mon
day last, is more than doubtful,
STANDARD.—Elsewhere will be seen the extract
from Mr. Ferrand's speech, which is to be the subject
of consideration with the House of Commons to-night.
We can find in that extract ro allegation which any man
can be required to prove, because we do not see any alit,
gation which, even if true, it would be possible to prove
either by documents or by the mouths of witnesses.
Nither do we see in the extract anything is hich a deeply
prejudiced man might not conscientiously. believe to
be true, though to en unprejudiced man the extreme in
justice of Mr. Ferrand's deductions are manifest. As it
has been said before, Mr. Ferrand puts distinctly for-
ward the grounds of his opinion with the opinion itself,
and pretends to have no evidence in reserve—what more
can he be called upon to prove ? What, then, can
the House of Commons do in the matter? The
House may, no doubt, by resolution condemn Mr.
Ferrand's two
_propositions affecting Sir James
Graham and Mr. Hogg—as every rational and un-
prejudiced man •in the country has already con-
demned them•—but though there are precedents fur such
condemnatory resolutions of speeches, pamphlets, and
sermons, the effect produced ,by them has left little to
tempt to au imitation of such precedents, and we doubt
whether Sir James Graham and Mr. Hogg would not be
the principal sufferers, by leaving to generations, to whom
their worth and integrity may be less perfectly known
than to the present, a record of grave charges pre
ferred against them. The same record will, indeed,
carry the evidence of their honourable acquittal by the
House of Commons; but,- alas! we must not expect that
the judgments of the Parliaments of our day will be
more respected by posterity than we are in the habit of
respecting thejudgments of former Parliament,. The view
of the present effect of any harsh course adopted towards
the Hon. Member for Knaresborough is not more satis-
factory. The case itself warns us of the danger
of imputing motives ; and the loyalty of the Learned
Member for Bath, proved in both hemispheres—the
loyalty of Mr. Hume, demonstrated by his Canadian
correspondent:tie—and the loyalty of the author of the
appropriation clause and the confederate of Mr
O'Connell—the loyalty of the three movers of
this unhappy debate forbids that we should
assign to them any bad motives; but though
we arc forbidden to speak of motives, the
House of Commons (we believe, but are not quite
sure), [permits to intimate consequences, and we think
that with w whatever motive or purpose Messrs. Roe-
buck, Hume, and Ward have kindled this broil, the
Consequences of permitting it to pioceed must be
such as Parliament ought to avoid if possible. Mr.
Ferrand has complained loosely and generally of
attempts made to crush him and to crush another
-gentleman, because they are opposed upon principle
to the New Poor-law, and to long hours of labour
in the factories. Will riot a harsh proceeding
against the Hon. Member, upon the very slight grounds
afforded• by his speech, be eagerly seized upon by pre-
judiced persons as irrefragable confirmation of his
complaint ; will he not, and with apparent reason too
(considering by whom the matter has been stirred 0,
be treated as the victim of the economists, the martyr of
the poor and of the factory children. This will give him
a degree of influence which a Christian Conservative
such as Mr. Ferrand's will not abuse, but it will also
ersate a feeling of resentment against his antagonists
(we will not call them persecutors) which even his vast
influence, will be required to keep within proper
bounds. For our parts, we see but one course to pun
sue, that will be at once just to Sir James Graham
and Mr. Hogg, and to the quiet of the menu-
factuning districts, and that is. to expunge from
the records of Parliament every word that has passed
upon this affair since it was first opened by Mr. Roebuck,
and then pass to other business, as if the subject had
never been alluded to. This might be profitably fol-
lowed by a resolution of the House, declaring its aver-
sion to meddling firebrands—at all events, the continued
prosecution of the- unlucky business prepares the country
ill to consider with due calmness, and a proper freedom
from prejudice, the debates- and the division upon the
Factory Bill.

THE LONDON GAZETTE.

(THIS EVENING.)

WHITEHALL, APRIL 25, 1844.
The Queen has been pleased to direct letters patent to be
passed under the Great Seal, granting the dignity of a Knight
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland unto
Thomas Herbert Maddock, Esq., of the Bengal Service.
' N
been leasedappointAPßlL;les Bennett,
Esq., tube Provost Marshal General for the Island of St. Lucia.
CROWN OFFICE, APRIL 24.
MEMBERS RETURNED TO SERVE IN THIS.PRESZNT
PARLIAMENT.
BOROUGH OF HUNTINGDON—Thomas Baring, of No. 40,
Charles-street, Berkeley-square, in the county of Middlesex,
Esq., in the room of Sir Frederick Pollock, Knt., who has
accepted the office of Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer.
BOROUGH OE WOODSTOCK.—The Bight Honourable John
Winston Spencer Churchill, commonly called Marquess of
Blaniford, in the room of Frederic Thesiger, Esq., who has
accepted the office of her Majesty's Solicitor-General.
CITY ' OF EXETER. —Sir Sir William Webb Follett, Knt., her
Majesty's Attorney-General.
WAR- OFFICE, Arntt, 26.
Ist Dragoon Guards—W. W. H. de Rhodes, Gent., to be Cor- ,
net, by purchase, vice Sutton, appointed to the 12th Light
Dragoons, April 26.
12th Light Dragect!s
Lieutenant T. Bernard to be Captain,
I.:
Cornet J. Williams to
by purchase, vice Philips, who retires ;
be Lieutenant, by purci axe. vice Barnard • Cornet H. G.
Sutton, from Ist Dragoon Guards, to .'h e Cornet, vice Wil-
liams, April 26.
'th Regiment et. Fout—Captain J. Hane-y, from
44th l'oot,
to bt Cavain, lice Ballaid, who exchanges, AFril ;;G.