The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-08 00:00:00

had required any, we should readily find it in some
passages of a discussion which took place on Tuesday
night, upon a motion brought forward by Mr. TlumE,
relative to the conduct of the magistrates and police of
Shrewsbury in reference to a licensed hawker or ped-
lar, named ALFRED MOORE. The facts of this case
are extremely simple. On the Ist of September last,
MooRE was pursuing his calling in the market- place
of Shrewsbury, when a policeman, named THOMAS,
went up to him and, taking his basket from him, de-
sired him to-produce his license. This was done, and
the constable examined and read the document, which
being, in the language of diplomatic treaties, "found
I to be in good and due form," was returned to the
hawker, accompanied with the somewhat impertinent
invitation to " take up his basket, and go about his
business." The hawker, listening only to the sugges-

tion3 of a natural resentment, and not having the fear
of Q 55 before his eyes, warmly exclaimed, " You have
no right to take my box !"—a challenge of his autho-
rity so contumacious and astounding as to induce an
exasperated retort from the keeper of the peace, suc-
ceeded by a rejoinder equally warm from the hawker.
Thereupon the police constable took the hawker into
custody, and locked him up for two hours, at the ex-
piration of which period the man was bailed out.
Next morning he was taken before the magistrates,
who, after hearing witnesses, retired for several hours ;
and then the Town-clerk announced to MooRE, that
the Mayor deemed him guilty, and, in the exercise of
a summary jurisdiction, the bench sentenced the man
to three months' imprisonment—not for hawking
goods without a license, but " for having on his person
letters which seemed intended to levy contributions
on charitable persons under false pretences." Now,
for the fact of the vexatious conduct of the policeman,

the only plea in extenuation set up, was—that Moos];
was drunk at the time ; but since this averment was
sworn to only by the very DOGBERRY who first
detained his basket, and then read his license—and is
stoutly denied by MOORE, not much credit can be given
to it. And if it be allowed its fullest weight in the
matter, it has nothing to do with the grave grounds
of objection taken by Mr. WAX LEY and Mr. AGLIONBY
to the whole proceeding, as we shall presently show.
On the other hand, Mr. Hums, before bringing the
matter under the consideration of the House, took the
precaution of instituting inquiries in the proper
quarters—and had ascertained that " MOORE had been
a regularly licensed hawker for several years ; that
he had been appointed to sell goods, and bore an ex-
cellent character." So that were this feature of the
case an essential one, as it is not, the presumption
arising on the balance of evidence would be clearly
in MOORE'S favour. Then the account given by
MOORE of the suspicious papers found upon him
would have fully satisfied any judges less astute
or fastidious than the Shrewsbury quorum. Sir
JAMES GRAHAM stated that "when the man was
searched at the station-house, a certificate purporting
to be signed by eleven persons, who had given him
money in charity, was found upon him, recommending
him as a fit object of charity. Several frauds had
been committed at the same time in the neighbour-

hood, by a person having a certificate in the French
language; and the magistrates, after an examination,
were satisfied that the certificate signed by the eleven

persons and the French certificate were both written
by the prisoner. (Perhaps this morbid horror of a
fraud perpetrated " in the French language" led to a
little "JACK CADE legislation" and precipitancy—
" He bath a book in his pack with red letters in it."
" Nay, then he is a conjurer !" "He can make
obligations and write (French) court-hand." " Away
with him . . . hang him with his pen and inkhorn
about his neck.") But now what was the explanation
offered by Mr. Hu= in answer to the above charge ?
" The only ground for such a charge appeared to be
that, in the house where MooRE lodged, resided some
persons who had carried on the pra,:tice of sending
circular letters asking charity, coupled with the cir-
cumstance that there was found in his possession a
certain card containing the names of Lord ALFORD,
and several other persons, with sums of money oppo-
site them. That, however, as he (Mr. }luau) was
given to understand was neither more nor less than
the amount of money received in return for goods
sold at the houses of those different persons. Three
or four individuals carried on the same trade or con-
nexion ; and it was a mutual agreement between
them that each should enter upon a card the quantity
of goods sold to, and the prices obtained from, every
person who dealt with him." This accounted for the
card with the names of Lord ALFORD and others
upon it, found in MooßE's possession. But we owe
an apology to our readers for dwelling on these facts,
incidental and subsidiary as they are—whether the
evidence upon them bear one way or the other—to
the two main points which are admitted by Sir
JAMES GRAHAM himself, and, being admitted, establish
a case of gross oppression, if not scandalous illegality
against the committing magistrates, and of unconsti-
tutional connivance thereat, or toleration thereof, on
the part of the Right Hon. Secretary.
Mr. HUME sensibly observed that there was no
other evidence against the prisoner but that of the
police °filter. What, has been already stated proves
clearly enough that TuomAs had behaved in the first
instance, at once so cruelly and ridiculously to MooRE,
that no man in his senses will attach any value to his
testimony.
Sir j
under a strange hallucination
as to what
passed, and the nature of his own
GR
had AM
Just said,
connexion or responsibility or functions in the affair,
" it was impossible for him, in that House, to try
A
the case over again." (Or in any other house, we
trust, for the sake of humanity, of law, and of the
rights of the poor.) Who had asked Sir JAMES to try
the question ? He was answering only to Mr.
HUME'S appeal to him, whether he (Mr. HumE) had not
brought the subject under the Right Hon. Baronet's
notice immediately he knew of the facts; and what
Sir JAMES had done in consequence in communicating
with the magistrat ? But, and we crave serious
attention to this remarkable conversation—

1. " Mr. WATCLICY inquired of the Right Hon.
Baronet, whether he considered it lawful that the
papers of a man shcadd be taken from him and exa-
mined, on a charge of
drunln‘n'heesns
?h,, he was only

Sir JAMES GRATIAM evaded this question, and
merely restated the facts, that the man was taken to
the station-house, imprisoned, and searched.

Now we affirm that this was an illegal act on the
part of the police constables; and we greatly doubt
whether the magistrates ought to have taker cogni-
zance at all of any papers thus illegally brought
before them.
2. " Mr. AGLIONBY understood that this man was
convicted for obtaining money on false pretences. He
had yet to learn that a magistrate had the power of
summary conviction on such a charge. There must
be an indictment, tried by a jury, before a man could
be convicted and sentenced on such a charge. But
the Right Hon. Gentleman had thought fit to say,
that he considered the magistrates had rightly
punished the man in question on that charge."

This averment and rebuke, on the part of one of
the shrewdest and soundest legal authorities in the
House, might have awakened a man of less profound
egotism, and overweening self-complacency, than Sir
JAMES GRAHAM, to a sense of the monstrous illega-
lity, as well as oppressiveness, of the proceedings
charged in the allegations of Mr. HUMS, then under
consideration. But the Right Hon. Baronet, with
a presumption (we must call it) of which our memory
supplies us with few parallels in the history of modern
Parliamentary debates—" protested against bringing
a question of law in that House against the legal
acuteness of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman." But he
would state his impressions, "as a matter of courtesy,"
to the Learned Gentleman. The Right Honourable
Baronet did not more completely forget what
was due to the character and station of the Home
Secretary, when he undertook to vindicate the em-
ployment of spies in the masquerade of shorthand-
writers in Ireland, than in proposing to discharge his
duty of affording the explanation required by another
Hon. Member of the House, as a " matter of cour-
tesy" forsooth ! But Mr. AGLIONDY " wanted none of
the Right Hon. Gentleman's courtesy," and, still
pressing for an explanation, obtained one from Sir
JAMES, on which Mr. WAKLET proceeded to found,
we repeat, the strongest
possible presumption of op-
pressive and illegal conduct in the proceeding and
finding of the Shrewsbury magistrates.

In the course of a discussion which took place last
night in the House of Commons on the subject of the
Scotch Parishes Bill, Sir JAMES GRAHAM had the
hardihood to take the Hon. Member for Perth to task
for what he was pleased to call his inconsistency.