The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-26 00:00:00

HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE.

Mdlle. TAGLIONI respectflilly informs the Nobility, Subscribers
to the Opera, and the Public, that HER BENEFIT and Last Appear-
ance but one, previously to quitting the Stage, will take place
ON THURSDAY, JULY 31,
When will be performed (last time) Rossini's Opera, IL BARBIERE
DE SIVIGLLI. Rosina, Madame Grist; Ber►ha. Mdlle. ;
11 Conte d'Almaviva, Sig. Mario ; Bartolo, 81g. Lablache ; Basin°,
Sig. F. Lablache ; Figaro, Sig. Fornasari.
With other Entertainments, in which Madame Anaide Castellan,
Mdlle. Brambilla, Mdlle. Rossi Caccia, and Sig. Moriani will appear.
Mdile. Cerito, Mdlle. Lucile Grahn, M. St. Leon, and M. Perrot
will lend their valuable aid. In addition to which Mdlle. Taglioni
will have the honour of appearing in Selections from various of the
Principal Ballets which have been honoured with the most success,
and comprising the principal Pas of " La Sylphide," " La Bayadere,"
" La Gitana," "La Chasse de Diane," and " La Tyrolienne.'
Applications for Boxes, Stalls, and Pit Tickets to be made at the
Box-office, 0 era-Colonnade.

Doors open at Seven ; the Opera to commence at Half-past Seven.

THEATRE ROYAL, HAYMARKET.
LESSEE, MR. B. WEBSTER.
THIS EVENING
Will be repeated, compressed into Three Acts, Morton's Comedy of
A SCHOOL FOR GROWN CHILDREN. Old Revel, Mr. W. Far-
rep; Young Revel, Mr. Hudson, Frank Ryeland, Mr. Webster;
Lady Stanmore, Miss Julia Bennett ; Mrs. Revel, Miss Fortescue ;
Dame Rycland, Mrs. Glover.
After which, the Musical Farce of THE LITTLE DEVIL.
Nicol° Angell, Miss P. Horton ; Vincentio d'Estella, Mr. Webster.
To conclude with YOUNG ENGLAND. Major Martinet, Mr.
Tilbury; Mr. John James Pooley, Mr. Buckstone ; Mrs. Pooley,
Miss Carr° ; Mrs. Smiler, Mrs. Stanley
Private Boxes, Two Guineas and one Guinea and a-Half each.
Tickets and daces to be had of Mr. I. T. Archer at the Box-office,
frim Ten till Five o'clock.

THEATRE ROYAL, ADELPHI.
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF MADAME CELEATI.
THIS EVENING

Will be repeated MARIE DUCANGE. Edward Lascelles, Esq.,
Mr. Howe ; John Rawdoa, Esq., Mr. 0. Smi+h ; Charles Claude
Prong, Mr. Wright; Marie Ducange, Madame Celeste.
After which, an Original Terpsichorean Barletta, called POWDER
AND BALL ; or, St. Tibbs's Eve. Mr. Montgomerie Tibbs, Mr.
Lambert ; Captain Kldglove, Mr. Selby • Jacob (jerkin, Mr. Wright ;
Mrs. Montgomerie Tibbs, Mrs. Frank Matthews; Sally Knobbs,
Miss Woolgar.

To be followed by (for this week only) NORMA. Norma, Mr. Paul
Bedford ; Adalgisa, Mr. Wright.
To conclude with the highly successful and Original Farce, called
TIIE IRISH DRAGOON. Mr. Brown Sherry, Mr. Selby; Paddy
Murphy O'Brallaghan, Mr. Hudson.

Pionipter, Mr. Gallot ; Principal Painter, Mr. Pitt ; Leader of the
Band, Mr. Mellon.

THEATRE ROYAL, LYCEUM.
UNDER THE MANAGEMENT OF MRS. KEELEY.
THIS EVENING
Will be performed a New Farce, entitled LUCK'S ALL. Principal
Characters by Messrs. F. Vining, Diddear, Keeley, Meadows, Kin-
loch, and 'turner ; Miss Hicks, and Mrs. A. Wigan.
To be followed by a New Farce, to he called AN OBJECT OF
INTEREST, in which Mrs. Keeley will perform.
After which, an entirely New, Original, and Novel Grand Fairy
BALLET DIVERTISSEMENT, entitled LES FEES. In which Lea
Danseuses Anglaises will appear.
To which will be added an apropos Bagatelle, In One Act, entitled
MRS. CAUDLE'S CURTAIN LECTURES. Mr. Caudle, Mr. 31ea-
dows, Mrs. Caudle, Mr. Keeley.
To conclude with an entirely New Operatic, Dramatic, Chivalric,
Fairy, Romantic Burlesque, entitled CIND ERELLA. The Principsl
Characters by Mr. Keeley, Mr. A. Wigan, Mr. Frank Mathews, Mr.
I. W. Collier, Mrs. Keeley, Miss Vinare, Miss Falrbrother, Mrs.
Woollidge, Miss Grove, Miss Howard, &c

The Box-office is open daily, under the direction of Mr. Grogan
-om Ten till Four.

PRINCESS'S THEATRE, OXFORD-STREET.
LEsSEE, MR. J. M. MADDOX.
THIS EVENING
Win he performed a Comic Opera, in Three Acts, called THE
SIREN. The Duke de Popoli, Mr. Walton; Scipio, Mr. C. Horn,
Jun. ; Balbaya, Mr. T either ; Marco Temposta, Mr. Allen ; Mathca,
Madam Fearon ; Zerlina, Miss Georgiana Smithson.
After which (first time here), THE NERVOUS MAN. liPShane,
Mr. Collins (his first appearance at this Theatre).
To whieji will 133 added A COURT BALL IN 1740. In which will
be introduced the MUICCS as performed at her Majesty's Bal Cos-
tume, with the Original Music.
To be followed by a New Dramatic Sketch, entitled MRS.
CAUDLE ; or, Curtain Lectures. Mr. Caudle, Mr. Compton ; Mrs.
Caudle, Mr. Oxberry.
Stage Manager, Mr. H. I. Wallack 1 Stage Director, Mr. Emden ;
,!,,clnnist , Mr. Edmund Bradwell.

ASTLEY'S ROYAL AMPHITIIFATRE.
PROPRIETOR, MR. W. BATTY.
THIS EVENING
Will be repeated a New Grand Ballet of Action, consisting of Ml-
itary Manoeuvres, Dances, Combats, and highly powerful effects,
including the sagacious performance of the Dog Hector, and sur-
prising Leap of the Horse Beda over the Broken and Flaming Bridge,
called IL DIAVOLO ABRUZZI ; or, The Brigand Chief and the Dog
of the Chateau.
New and Elegant Scenes in the Circle, by the whole of the French
Equestrians.
To conclude with THE BATTLE OF WATERLOO. Introducing
the Double Company of French and English Artistes. The Em-
peror Napoleon by Mr. Gomersal, who is engaged expressly for this
occasion.

THE StN,IONDON, SATURDAY EVENING,

a regular currency debate, in the course of which the
House was addressed by Mr. SPOONER, the CHANCELLOR
of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. WILLIAMS, and Sir R. PEEL,
after which the House divided, and the motion was ne-
gatived by a majority of 30.

Mr. TUFFNEL, on the motion that the Speaker
should leave the Chair, called the attention of the House
to the orders issued compelling the sale of lands by the
officers in the civil service at Ce) lon, and complained of
the hardships thus inflicted on them. A short conversa-
tion ensued, but ultimately the House went into Com-
mittee pro forma, and immediately afterwards resumed.

The other orders of the day were then disposed o
and the House actourned at Two o'clock.

We have often protested against a monstrous and cruel
_anomaly in the practice of our police-courts, under
which poverty and destitution are recognised, on the one
hand, as palliating or extenuating circumstances strong
enough to warrant the commutation of a punishment, or
the mitigation of a penalty is hft to the option of the
magistrate ; but, on the other, are not allowed to exempt
a delinquent party labouring under them, from fees of
court and costs fully equal to those which would have
been visited on a party convicted of a similar offence
under a much more aggravated form, or of some other
offence of a different and much graver class and cha-
racter. The illustration of this anomaly will occur to
every reader who has perused the reports of this la ry
common class of cases. For example: a wretched, house-
less, perishing outcast is detected in the act of
carrying away from a roadside copse a few
fragments of dead twigs, wherewith to kindle a
fire under some hedge-row to protect him from perish-
ing under the inclemency of the weather. A man out
of work, and tramping he scarce knows whither to seek
it, with a wife and a couple of children at his heel,,
equally famished and desolate as himself, is seen to purloin
a turnip from a field. The sticks, in the first instance,
are, even at the value put upon them by the over-zealous
bailiff who brings tile charge, worth less than three
farthings—the turnip, in the other, by the valuation, even
of the angry farmer who has determined to make an
example of the offender, at one penny. Each offender
is adjudged to pay the value so assessed of the article he
is proved to have taken ; but each has to pay in addition
from three to five, six, or seven shillings " costs," and in
default of making such payment pis committed to
prison. If the perfection of the law were
really " common sense," as some legal sages have
taught, common sense would surely suggest that
any party who had three shillings in the world to
call his own would not commit a petty larceny to the
amount of three farthings, the penalty of which must be
fine or imprisonment, with costs to the full amount, at
least, of his three shillings. If common mercy were the
basis of the law which magistrates and courts of session
administer, they would feel that where the law was satis-
fied by the payment of a fine equivalent to the damage
done, or the property taken, the official subalterns of the
tribunal which adjudges it can, on no principle of reason
or equity, be entitled to exact from the offender, in the
amount
of of "fees," from eighteen to thirty times the
of such fine. So, again, where a needy cottager or a
small householder is summoned for poor rate (the
party summoned being only distinguished from the
paupers whose support he is made to contribute for by
the circumstance of " not" receiving parochial relief; and
with honest pride preferring, at whatever privation, to
remain under his own homely roof, instead of that of the
" Uniun)—what is the course taken ? This : to pay,
say, four shillings for a rate which he cannot raise for
his own subsistence. A benevolent bystander the other
day stepped forward and paid that very sum for a poor
woman in this condition. But there were some eight or
nine shillings costs and fees which the benevolent stranger
could not contribute ; and so the petty sessions which
heard the case granted a warrant of execution against
the goods, the last remaining resource of the poor
woman, who, when they had been sold up, would be
turned out a destitute beggar on the world. If you give
an option to magistrates and justices to mitigate the
penalties to_ guilt, according to the character of the
facts under which the act is established before them—
why not give them at least as large an option to mitigate
penalties to misfortune and poverty unaccompanied by
guilt ?

We are well pleased to observe that the question was
incidentally raised, last night, in the House of Commons,
on Mr. Escorr's moving the committal of the Fees
(Criminal Courts) Bill. Its object, the Hon. Gen-
tleman said, was to relieve accused persons from
the necessity of paying exorbitant fees prior to
obtaining their right of pleading and right of
trial. If any such party have not the money,
the practice is in the session courts of several of our
counties to refuse him the right of pleading. Thus, a man
charged with misdemeanour is refused, it seems, the
right of pleading "not guilty," unless he first pays the
fees ; and the consequence is that the prisoner is often
remanded without trial, and brought up in a subsequent
session, or on repeated occasions, till the worthy func-
tionaries who have the control of these matters are satis-
fied that he cannot pay. Although it appeared by re-
turns which the House has called for, that in thirty-two
counties of England and Wales the practice has been
abandoned, it seems to obtain in the other twenty.
In Somersetshire, Devonshire, and Dorsetshire espe-
cially, Mr. EscarT could speak to its being persisted in
at the present day, and if the House would
affirm his Bill, it would have the effect of assi-
milating the prooeedings of these courts throughout
England and Wales, by making it the universiity,practice
to discontinue the practice (which was clearly an illegal
one) of extorting the fees in question. As to the dis-
tinction which it had been attempted to take between
the cases of a party acquitted and a party convicted, he
could not detect it, and he was sure the House would
not recognise it. Now let us remark how aptly this
point was illustrated. He supposed an instance of a man
acquitted and another convicted, on a similar charge
of misdemeanor ; the convicted man being fined one
shilling. If the costs, in each case, be 31., and the
amount of the convicted party's fine be deducted therefrom,
the balance of the difference will be just one shilling. The
innocent man will pay 3:1 costs on being tried for an
offence which he has not committed ; and the guilty
man 21. 19s. costs, for an offence which he has committed,
and ls. penal fine. It is scarcely possible to imagine a
higher reach of legal absurdity than this. The only
escape from such absurdity will be found in the adoption
of the conclusion that Mr. ESCOTT arrived at—namely,
that justice cannot be done unless the law be more dis-
tinctly declared, that no money in the shape of fees shall
be demanded of any person charged with a crime, except
the amount of that penalty which the court shall, under
due authority, have legally imposed upon him for such
offence.

We contend that by strict analogy this principle
should be extended to costs; for the reasonable pre-
sumption is that the sentence embraces the whole scope
of the penalty it has been in the contemplation of the
law to decree for the specific offence. To aggravate
this penalty by costs or by fees is not only a positive
increase of punishment, but may in a thousand cases be
converted into a machinery of the most tyrannous in-
justice, as well as severity beyond the law. And it is
not a little remarkable that the Right Hon. Secretary
who, in an earlier part of this discussion, declared that
he must dissent from the opinion of Mr. ESCOTT en-
tirely vr ith regard to the extension of his principle to
persons found guilty, because he (Sir J. GRAHAM) was
of opinion that persons convicted should pay, at any
rate, a portion of the expenses which the prosecutor Of
the offence so proved against them had entailed, re-
tracted this view of the case, in point of fact, at a sub-
sequent period. He gave notice that if the House would
reject Mr. ESCOTT'S Bill (which it immediately did), he
would be prepared that evening to lay on the table a
Bill to abolish the taking of all fees in criminal cases,
both from parties against whom the finding of the court,
will be recorded, and from those who shall have been

acquitted of the charges brought against them. This is

really a step in the right direction of sound criminal ju•
risprudence, on which we heartily congratulate theßighi
Hon. Baronet and the country.

Some persons think that Captain BOLDER° has been
hardly treated; none will doubt that Mr. WRAY is a
lucky man. Captain BOLDER°, to Whom nothing worse
than indiscretion can be imputed, is forced to resign his
office, while Mr. WRAY gets off with a reprimand. But
then Captain BOLDERO'S indiscretion is of this year,
while Mr. WRAY's malpractice dates as far back as 1836.
This is Sir JAMES GRAHAM'S distinction. If Mr.

I INvirtue. Any how,
RAM's deteetionTiad—b;;;—Postponed for some years
longer, the same logic would transform his sin into a
there is inconsistency in the course
which has been taken by the Government. If Mr.
WRAY. whose offence is greater than Captain BOLDER°,
has been treated with more lenity than the Captain, Mr.
BONHAM, who is worse than Mr. WRAY, should have
been dealt with the most leniently of the three. But
Mr. BONHAM fares as ill as Captain BOLDER°.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM'S letter, conveying the repri-
mand to Mr. WRAY, has been laid on the table of the
House of Commons, on the motion of Mr. IlAwEs, and
we have already printed it in extenso, when Sir JAMES
GRAHAM determined, for reasons best known to himself;
to let Mr. WrtAy off with a reprimand, he should have
determined also to resist all applications for the publi
cation of his letter. Did our readers ever see such a I
specimen of the " rigmarole ?" Mr. WaAv's chief
offence is not alluded to, viz , the payment to Mr. Box- I
HAM. SirJAxEs GRAHAM'S " regret" and " disappro- •