The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-03 00:00:00

in other words, actions of tro;rer in their simplest
form," and amongst matters excluded, are to be all
matters affecting title.
But we are no admirers of a new-fangled scheme of
juries. Now, Sir JAMES would have a Hindoo " Pun-
chayet :" a constitution of such a tribunal, which we
should feel great respect for in Hindostan, but utterly
repudiate in Erlland. "If parties required a jury, the
judge might grad it, EUt the jury should• not consist
of a larger number of five." "
How soon the Right Hon. Baronet forgets his im-
portant obligations to a jury, elseMiere; of TWELVE!
We- are glad to observe that Mr. HAWES directed
the attention of the House to the oppressive effect of
enormous fees accumulating upon small debts, and to
the importance of enacting, that in all cases of debt under
a certain amount, the execution should only be against,
the goods of the party.
Sir JAMES had proposed that execution should issue
" against body or. goods ;"—an accurately adjusted
arrangement for reserving the greatest possible
power to inflict the utmost amount of misery and dis-
tress of which the circumstances of any case might
admit, at the pleasure of the creditor. On a former
occasion we ventured to show how strongly this
strange instinct of implacable animosity to the crime
of debt was developed in the legislative morality of
the Home Secretary. On another principle of
the Bill, Mr. F. SHAW forcibly remarked, " that if they
compelled the parties to attend and give evidence,
much inconvenience and injustice also might arise.
He thought it a dangerous principle to adopt, and it
would be a dangerous experiment to allow the parties
to the suit to be examined in their own behalf."
But, perhaps, it did not occur to the really acute
mind of that Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman that
he himself had so recently sanctioned a similar perilous
" experiment" in a Secretary of State for the Home
Department, whose tampering negotiations with a
London reporter had proceeded on a view strictly
analogous, namely, that of the "parties to a suit being
afterwards examined on their own behalf !"
The Bill, we apprehend, must be altered "out of
all knowledge" before the House can be induced to
pass it. .

An interesting article appears in .the last Number
of the Edinburgh Review, just published, on the
subject of the Marquis DE CUSTINE'S "Russia," a work
which has lately attracted a considerable share of
public attention. In this article numerous references
are made to conversations which the author held with
the Emperor NICHOLAS on matters relating to the
present state of his dominions, and also to a certain
memorable event in his life which took place at the
period of his accession to the throne. It is well-.
known that on the death of ALEXANDER, and the
abdication of CONSTANTINE which immediately fol-
lowed, a dangerous revolt, which had been ,nine years
preparing, broke out in the army, and was only sup-;
pressed by the prompt and energetic interference of
NICHOLAS. As the CZAR is said to be exceedingly
susceptible of flattery on this point, the Marquis,
who was aware of his weak side, paid him several
delicate compliments—which none can pay so well as
a Frenchman—to which his Imperial MAJESTY
vouchsafed the following reply :—" You mistake : I
did nothing extraordinary. I said to the soldiers ' re-
turn to your ranks,' and as they defiled before me,
I cried, 'On your knees !'—all obeyed. That which
made me feel strong. was, that the moment before I
had resigned myself to death. lam thankful for the
success I had, but I am not proud of it, for I had
no merit in the matter." With this answer the
Reviewer is delighted, and warmly pronounces it to be
"very honest and becoming." Its modesty—andeven
this is equivocal—is more remarkable than its honesty.
for not the whole truth, but only a fragment of it is
related, and that portion is adroitly selected which,
tells most in favour of the EMPEROR. From his
MAJESTY'S statement it would appear—more espe-
cially from the significant words, "that which made
me feel strong was, that the moment before I had
resigned myself to death"—it would appear, we say,
from these words, that NICHOLAS had himself sup•
pressed in person the revolt, at the imminent hazard of
his life. But this was not the fact. We remember
reading, some time since, a document drawn up on the
spot by a military officer, who was himself at St.
Petersburgh when the insurrection broke out, who
witnessed the commencement of the outbreak, and
heard from trust-worthy authorities the whole cir-
cumstances connected. with it. His statement ex-

actly tallies with that of the EMPEROR, so far as
relates to the fact of the latter having gone among
the insurgent troops and insisted on their returning
to their allegiance ; but this material point is omitted
in the latter's account—namely, that he confined