The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-19 00:00:00

QUEEN-SQUARE.-(THIS DAY.)
Maria Foster, a young woman, was charged with absenting
herself from the Chelsea workhouse, and with deserting her
female child.
Mr. Daniel Sutton, the master of the workhouse, said that
the defendant was an inmate of the workhouse up to Tuesday
last, when she absented herself, leaving a child, six years old,
chargeable to the parish. She was admitted to the workhouse
on the 7th March last, but had been an inmate three years ago,
when she was passed to her parish in the neighbourhood of
Brighten. She had not been to the workhouse since Tues-
day last ; and having come there drunk, and at an unsea-
sonable hour, she was refused admission. He found her last
night, in a public-house in Chelsea, and gave her into custody
on the above charge.
Mr. BOND inquired the amount of expense to which the
parish had been put in supporting the child since Tuesday.
Mr. Sutton—Eighteenpence.
The defendant said she had been to the workhouse since
Tuesday, but not having an order, the porter refused to
admit her.
Mr. Box') committed the defendant to the House of Cor-
rect ion, and to be kept at hard labour for fourteen days.
Mr. Sutton said that when the term of her imprisonment
had expired, he should send the child to the House of Cor-
rection, with an intimation that if the defendant thought
proper to return to the workhouse with her child, she would
be again admitted.
George Harris, a respectably-dressed young man, was
placed at the bar on the following charge
Mrs. Oldham, a young married woman, said the defendant
was formerly in- the habit of paying his addresses to her
sister; the connexion had, however, been broken off. The
defendant met her sister last evening in Bridge-street, when
he abused her, making use of highly improper language,
and followed her to her residence in John-street, forcing his
way into the house, and threatening to take her life. His
conduct was very violent. Her sister, from the defendants
misconduct, was unable to attend. Her father happened to
come in at the time, when the defendant struck him several
times, and threatened to choke him, and was not ejected
from the house without considerable difficulty.
Mr. Benjamin Riches, the father of the last witness, who
holds a situation in the House of Commons, corroborated her
evidence, and said that he bad every reason to believe that
his daughter, as well as himself and family, were in danger
from the violence of the defendant. He had been guilty of
similar misconduct about three months ago, when lie was
brought to that office, but having promised not to repeat it,
the charge was withdrawn.
The defendant, whose conduct during the examination
was very flippant, denied that he forced himself into the
house, but that he merely went there to speak to Miss Riches.
He did not, however, deny assaulting Mr. Riches.
Mr. BOND said the defendant's conduct was most im-
proper ; he must pay the sum of 30s. for the assault, or in
default be committed to the House of Correction for three
weeks. He must also enter into sureties to keep the peace
towards Mr. Riches and his family.

SPIRIT ef the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
GLOBE.—No official notification has yet been given
that Ministers have yielded to the general disapproba-
tion with which their new scheme of Ecclesiastical "
Cdurts Reform has been received, and withdrawn it from
the further consideration of the Legislature. An allu-
sion was made to this measure last night in the House
of Commons. In reply to a question by Loyd John
Russell, respecting the order in which the business be-
fore the House was proposed to be taken, Sir James
Graham said, "He shoul-i propose on Monday. as the
first order of the day, the Factories Bill; and then the
Ecclesiastical Courts Bill." The debate on the second
reading of the latter measure is contingent on the de-
bate on the second reading of the Factories Bill being
a short one. We think there is small chance of that
being the case ; and therefore have no idea that
the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill
will be proceeded with on that evening. With a
view to drawing the attention of such Hon. Mem-
bers as wish to acquaint themselves with the
character and tendency of the measures on which.
they are called upon to vote, we have already analyzed
some of the clauses of this Bill. As it yet lingers in its
course, opportunity is afforded us for continuing the exa-
mination. The more the Bill is investigated, the more
clearly will its destitution of all claim to approval and sup-
port be perceived. The unj us t and uncalled-for interference
with donatives, which is proposed by the Bill, calls for ani-
madversion and resistance. The ancient and unquestion
able rights of the patrons of these donatives have, from
time immemorial, been exercised in a way which de-
serves commendation and protection, instead of depriva-
tion. Take, for examples, the selections made by the
Hon. Societies of Lincoln's Inn or ef the Temple.
Have not these societies bestowed their patronage on
clergymen of acknowledged fitness—of first-rate talent,
unquestionable morality, and of deep and sound learn-
ing ? Two of the present incumbents of these dona-
tives may be mentioned :—Benson, whose reputation
as a scholar and a divine is known ani admitted by all
—Anderson, whose recent appointment is universally
regarded as no less honourable to those who discerned
and rewarded his merits, than it is to himself. What,
then, is the necessity for, and where is the recommenda-
tion on which is founded, the proposed charge with re-
spect to donatives ? The disregard 'Which is shown
throughout the Bill to the recommendations of the Ec-
clesiastical Courts' Commissioners, on whose reports it
is professedly founded, is one proot, among many, of its
questionable character and design. We have
.already
gone into this part of the subject at some length. We
now allude to it for the purpose of impressing upon Hon.
Members the necessity of carefully, and with newly-
awakened jealousy, examining its details, that they be
not ensnared into supporting it by their votes, or
into being absent from the discussion and division.
Before pledging themselves to support Ministers on
this Bill, let them at least examine and compare its
provisions with the report of the Ecclesiastical Courts'
Commissioners. The discrepancies and contradictions
between the report and the Bill will be at once seen.
The superiority of the suggestions made by the Com-
missioners to the substitutes supplied by the authors
of this project, will forcibly strike the mind of every
impartial person who undertakes to make the com-
parison. The duty imposed on those whose votes will
determine the fate of the Bill is obvious. Another
point—and it is one of considerable importance to the
public—presents itself for consideration. 'We re-
fer to the proposed abolition of some of the prin-
cipal offices ; the compensation for their loss to the
present holders ; and the elevation of their deputies to
the rank of principals. Why, in the name of common
honesty, should these changes be proposed, and this ex-
pense be imposed on the public ? Where is the reason ;
and what the authority ? With the exception of two
or three clergymen—who, under the present system,
hold posts in connexion with the Ecclesiastical Courts, or
their Registries, whether in town or country—are any
of the other principals, or heads of the various de-
. partments, incapable of performing, in propria per-
, sow, that portion of the public busin.ss which
they hale hitherto been accustomed to perform by
deputy ? Or are they, being practitioners of the Eccle-
siastical Courts—whether of the Prerogative Court iu
London, or of the Consistorial Courts in the country.
and, consequently brought up, from an early period
of their lives, to the study of the civil and ecclesiastical
laws, received a sound classical education, and thus
trained for all the ordinary duties of their profession
are these gentlemen, we ask, to be considered by the
Legislature, under the direction of the Government, of
such mean talents as to be' incapable of executing the
common matters of form and ordinary routine of the
every-day business of their offices ?If they be com-
petent, why are they to be superseded ? Why are
the deputies in these offices to be made principals ?
, Anti why is the country—already heavily burdened
with' retired allowances and compensations—to be fur-
, tiler taxed with the maintenance iii idleness of a num-
ber of superseded principals, and to have the extra
.1-burden placed upon it of supporting a new set of pnn•
eipels in the lieu of those who have been removed ? If'
the present principals, indeed, were- to refuse, when
cilled upon by the Government, to conduct the business
of their departments in person which demand the
Government would be perfectly justified in making,
as it is purely and entirely by sufferance that they
have been hitherto allowed to treat their posts
us though they were siutcures—if these principals,
whether registrars, or clerks of seats, or seal-keepers,
o clerks of papers, or by whatever other official term
; they may be designated, should in any instances refuse
to act—as they well know they ought to act—in person,
and not by deputy ; then, indeed, the Government
; would be perfectly Justified in superseding them. But
even then there would be no pretence for perpetuating
I another Chancery job, and securing to a set- of idlers a
g .od income for life.
STANDARD.—A good suggestion from Mr. Milner
Gibsoh certainly comes upon the public by surprise, yet
e suggestion thrown out by the Member for Manchester
last night is undoubtedly a good one, it only—but this
cone it on perhaps accounts for Mr. Milner Gibson's
making the proposition—it were not nearly irapossib!e to
act upon it. An exposition of the resources, the labour,
and the produce of the agriculture of the country, would he
indeed profitable to the whole community, but most
eminently profitable, as the flight licnourable Pre-
sident of the Board of Trade demonstrated, to the
aericulturists. Engeged as they are in the most
: capricious and 'uncertain of all the pursui;s of _in-
dustry, they have, of all men the least light as to
tilt it most prudent policy, or to their reasonaLV
pt ospects. The cotton miltowner has but to inquire
how many bats of cotton have bet n bought up by others,
how many bales of g ,ods shipped for exportat'on or con-
s'gned to wholesale houses in the trade, to know pretty
exactly the resources, the condition, and 'the preseects
of his market. The woollen manufacturer, the manufac-
turer of hardware, the merchant, in short, every one but
the farmer, has a tolerable guide to the competition he
en-4y count upon. and the demand he may expect. The .
farmer has no such guide ; lie often sells his produce
10 or 20 per cent. below what the state of supply would
dictate —sometimes holdi it over for a price 10 or 20
per cent. beyond what the state of the-supply warrants.
and could
"Ispectsis not the fat mer's fault ; his trade is in all re-
is emphatically
an honest trade—he has nothing to conceal,
concealii nothing if he. had, fur all his ork
perfect information whic
axtno
him,ihe surface. The mischief to
the community
would Oil'''.
the effect of wanting that
tion, if practicable, Milner Gibson's proposi-
c: re this evil, which is of motrqt. What is to be done to
sight appear, is a question ofenau'eilittle difficulty. The
condition of statistical information,
statis-
tical, in this country isinortrurahther statis-
mischievous, and would be disgraceful weretextremely
tie consequence of our free Constitution, and ourit not'
of freedom, We fancy that no one has a right to habits I
into our private affairs ; and an awkward custom, esepierTl
finance ministers of all times have indulged in, to
lay their hands upon whatever they find definite
ard tangible, causes us to exclude such intru-
sion' . with a sensitive jealousy. All inquiries, such I
as Mr. Milner Gibson proposes, are sure to be
consideaed as preliminary to the imposition of some new
tax, the more riprous collection of some old tax, or
at least the privation of some advantage. The mis-
chief of the ignorance which this prejudice creates
is, however, as we have said, very great—great, far.
Lee and the mere loss in particular trades—for it
really perverts the whole legislation of the king-