The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-15 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

from the registry will, however, destroy the influence of
agitation, as far, at least, as elections are con-
cerned ; and it may be expected that when
at liberty to exercise the franchise according to
his own judgment, and free from tyrannical control,
every qualified person in Ireland will, as in Eng-
land, avail himself of the privilege. Is it then
unreasonable to suppose that the removal from
the registry of the illegal and fictitious votes that
now encumber it, and that make the incendiary
priests the principals at every contested election,
would alone greatly enlarge the constituency, as,
unquestionably, it must infinitely improve it ?
And are we sanguine in anticipating that the
effect of Lord Eliot's Bill, taken as a whole,
must be to multiply the Irish constituency three
or four-fold in the course of a very few years ?
With this conviction firmly rooted in our minds,
we must, however, acknowledge that we think
a great deal too much importance is attached to the
consideration of numbers in this matter. All who will
not go the whole length of universal suffrage must
admit that the security for good government, not
self-government, is the object of the representative
system. It is the - sense and patriotism—not the
personal on local interest, or the passion of a na-
tion that is sought to be collected in its Legisla-
ture. And hence it arises that, once returned
to Parliament, a Member is supposed to repre-
sent not this county, or that city, or a borough,
but the whole United Kingdom. This Mr. Burke
has clearly pointed out in his distinction be-
tween a representative and a delegate. But the
sense and patriotism of the country can be
collected only from the votes of the intelli-
gent and independent—which never observes
the ratio of mere numbers. 'Whatever their num-
bers, the very poor • and very ignorant will never
think for themselves, if they ever think at all upon
public affairs. Their votes when they have
them, therefore, become the property of a jug-
gler who cheats, or a master who bribes or
coerces. The attempt to place political power indis-
criminately in the hands of a multitude of poor
and ignorant persons, has always practically resulted in
giving it to a few. But it is not fair, surely to those
who, in other parts of the United Kingdom, readily
make every sacrifice to ensure prudent and patriotic
government by submitting to a high rate of qualification,
to allow that, upon the plea of mere numbers, whom they
hold in bondage, a few Irish priests should nominate
50 or 100 of our legislators., This would be an
anomaly and a nuisance worse than schedule A.
We need care little what the number of electors
may be, but we are deeply concerned that they are
intelligent and independent men. It may be that
Ireland is deficient in such men. So much the worse
for Ireland. But this does not alter the principles of
right and wrong. Be the number of intelligent and
independent men in the country 3,000, 30,000 or
300,000, the number of electors ought not to exceed it.

FROH THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAT.
GLOBE.—An industrious compiler had the simpli-
city to make a collection of what he called the Opinions
of Sir Robert Peel. 'We wish some one would collect
and publish the Plausihilities of Sir Robert Peel.
These are not to be dignified by the name of opinions,
but rather to be regarded as the miss en scene—the
drapery or garnish of opinions. It is not what Sir It.
Feel thinks, but what he thinks Mrs. Grundy
will think, most frequently pre-occupies his mighty
mind on difficult and delicate occasions. The
result of his refined conjectures of the coarse
views of the vulgar is sometimes curious.
What will Mrs. Grundy say 1" is always
taken into consideration ; but as there are
often solid and weighty considerations on the oppo-
site side, Sir Robert Peel see-saws, as it were, be-
tween Grundy rigidly, and the moral laxity of his
party. Thus, the mere suspicion of election compro-
mise's at one time-roused all the Grundy in the Prime
Minister. At another time, the most positive proof
Of delinquency could not move him to animadversion.
Thus the horror of a duel between two officers
nearly connected awakened all his indignant piety
against—the widow of the one who fell. While
not even the known opinion of Mrs. Grundy could
stir him to any notice of the flagrant act of a law-
officer of the Crown interrupting by a challenge the
solemn task of a court of justice. Satisfaction might
well be demanded by Mrs. Grundy for this lapse from
plausibility; and satisfaction was naturally to be
afforded by doing the plausible doubly on the next
legal occasion. The text time any law officer of the
Crown was concerned, Mrs. Grundy expected
Sir Robert Peel would do his duty. And
has he not just done it? May not the immo-
lation of a Fitzroy Kelly atone for Attorney-General
Smith? Considering the determined refusal of po-
litical independence to their tenant constituencies by
the Jolterhead interest which so mainly seated Sir
Robert Peel, it is really rather amusing to find the
admitted prefessional titles to Tory promotion set
aside, because the person beyond comparison possess-
ing them, not being in a position to bully his way
into Parliatnent, was obliged to buy it. Intimidation
is a privilege rightfully belonging to landlords; bribery
is a practice which has been used by mere moneyed
upstarts or professional aspirants, and which cannot,
therefore, be entitled to the same tolerance! Above
all, Mrs. Grundy has her eyes open to the latter trans-
gression ; and as Mrs. Grundy does not wear the
brightest of spectacles, the former may es-
_ stape her gaze for some time longer. Besides, Mrs.
Grundy has a due sense of dignities ; and quite
acquiesces in the dictatorship of Dukes " with a great
stake in the country." Accordingly Mr. Thesiger is
to be Solicitor-General ; and Mr. Fitzroy Kelly to
be—scapegoat for the sins of the people. We subjoin
the following remarks of a correspondent on this ap-
pointment :—" The nomination of Mr. Thesiger to
the Solicitor-Generalship, with the prospect of, at no
distant day, succeeding to a still more more import-
ant station, is one that the Government can hardly
flatter ',itself will !meet; with much favour either in
*Westminster Hall or in' other less learned quarters.
However estimable that gentleman may be in
private life, and however popular from his
many ;amiable qualities (and in these respects
he is surpassed by no member of the liar), yet it
cannot be denied that he has never yet, up to this
time, displayed that amout of legal knowledge, that
various, extensive, and profound learning which has
been generally thought necessary for the proper dis-
charge of the duties of that important office, and
which should not be much, if at all, less than that
which distinguishes the venerable sages of the bench,
with their experientia annorum, to
whose puietis ordinilms a Solicitor-General may
always expect an early ascription, if he -is
not promoted above them. Mr. Thesiger
has gained his reputation far more as a clever, zea-
lous advocate than as a deep lawyer (nor even as
such is he quite at the head of his profession); his
talents are more showy than solid ; he shines more in
a case at Nisi Prins than in arguing a knotty point
before the Judges in Banco; and we cannot but
think, therefore, that if amount of legal attainments
was what should have guided the Government in select-
ing a successor to Sir W. Follett, Mr. Kelly would
have been found better fitted for the situation than
the more fortunate man to whom it has been given.
At any rate, we must again express our opinion,
which we believe will be that of the public in general,
that Mr. Thesiger has been rewarded above his
merits, and that, if he really was (as we must believe
him to be) the most eligible person that the Govern-
ment could find, then we must come to one of two
conclusions—either that the bar has sadly degene-
rated since the days when such men as Scott, and
Shepherd, and Gifford, and Copley, were Solicitors-
General ; or that, the amount of talent in the profes-
sion being still the same, the Government has pot
the good fortune to number amongst its adherents
'any of those eminent persons, respecting whose quali-
fications to fill this or any higher legal situation there
could be no difference of opinion." •
STANDARD.—The Morning Chronicle, in an
article of this morning, upon Lord Eliot's Irish Re-
gistration Bill, charges the Noble Lord with the
purpose of disfranchising two-thirds of the 101. free-
holders. This charge is altogether groundless. Lord
Eliot's Bill w ill disfranchise no one not already
disfranchised by the Reform Bill of 1832. On the
other hand, in the proposed enfranchisement of the
_possessors of freeholds of inheritance of 51. annual
value, and in the 301. occupation tenants, it will make
a large addition to the bona fide constituency. What
our Contemporary means, however, by the exten-
sive disfranchisement of which it speaks, is. the
exclusion of fraudulent votes. In defiance of
the express words of the law, and of the
decision of, we believe, ten out of the twelve
judges of Ireland—including in the majority Mr.
Justice Crampton, by whom° the law under consi •
deration was drawn up--in defiance of this clear de-
monstration of what the law is, a great number of per-
sons have been placed
not to be the registry who ought
placed upon
iintu;dpaunel de though Lord Eliot'e Bill,
with extraordinary but perhaps ques-
tionable propriety, allows
of
eceilntruder to remain to
the end of their term registration, it declares
that the law shall be observed for the future,
and that no man shall be registered as a county elec-
tor without a beneficial interest in the tenementwhich he registers. The effect of this declaration,
we believe, will be to augment the Constituency in
the end, without any consideration of the
addition to be made by the two new classes
of electors to be introduced. It is a well known
fact that the late decline in the Irish registry
has arisen altogether from the progress of agitation ;
nearly all but the poorest and most reckless, and at
the same time the most enslaved class of tenants,
anxiously rejecting a political privilege, in the exer-
cise of which they must expose themselves to
the tyranny of the priest-led rabble, and all the
obloquy and ridicule which that rabble so well
knows how to employ on the one side; or on the
other disoblige their natural protectors and best
friends, by strengthening the enemies of the public
peace. Well-disposed and prudent men placed
In such a painful alternative naturally shrink
from it by the • only path they can—declining
the franchise. In some cases, though qualified,
they refuse to register their votes • but this profes-
sedly neutral course demands,. in the face of tyrants
by whom even neutrality is treated as a crime, a de-
gree of boldness beyond the temper of the majority,
and much the more commono look resource of the well-
disposed and prudent is t fur interests which
do qualification. not carry the We have heard
of hundreds of cases in which the tenant has
asslicited to have his term reduced by one-half or a
quarter of a year within the interest that confers a vote
might be cc:slated by
—we believe that the actual cases
tens cf t:outancli. Vac rewoval of

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER tool{ the chair at Four o'Clock.

Mr. GREE:.\.TE brought up the report on the new
British Iron Company Bill, which was ordered to lie
on the table.
NEW WRITS.

On ,the motion of Sir THOMAS FREMAN-
TLE, a new writ was ordered to be issued for the
election of a burgess ;to serve in the present Parlia-
ment for the borough of Huntingdon, in the room of
Sir Frederick Pollock, Knt., who had been appointed
to the office of Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer.
On the motion of Sir THOMAS FRE 'MAN-
TLE, a new writ was ordered for the election of
a citizen to serve in the present Parliament for the
city of Exeter, in the room of Sir William Follet,
who since his election, had accepted the office of her
Majesty's Attorney- General.
Mr. SCIIOLEFIELD presented a petition from
Walsall praying for a reduction in the duty on tobacco.
Mr. MACAULAY presented a petition from Edin-
burgh against the Charitable Pawns Bill ; also a
petition from the Royal College of Surgeons in Edin-
burgh, praying for a uniformity of medical education
in hospitals.
Mr. R. YORKE presented a petition from the
Yorkshire Law Society against any compensation
being given to certain officers in the Court of Chancery.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY presented petitions, from
North Wales, against the union of the sees of St.
Asaph and Bangor.
Mr. RICE TREVOR presented a petition from
Carmarthen, for the establishment of local courts.

THE SUN, LONDON, -MONDAY EVENING, APRIL 15, 1844.

in that House to involve itself with the other on a
question of privilege ; and his opkion was strength-
ened in this by a knowledge of the fact,
that the House of Lords was quite as economical in
its views, habits, and expenditure, as the house of
Commons.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that all he wanted was
a statement of the items. The House of Commous
furnished every item, and why should not the House
of Lords. The statement was very suspicious. A
large amount, no less thairls,oool., had been received
in fees, and yet they came to that louse for a sum of
money in addition to fees. They ought to give some
account of the items. _ _

Mr. HUME suggested that the best way to get
at the items was to stop the allowance until an ac-
count of the items should be furnished. The House
of Lords received 15,0001. a year in fees. Now
they wanted 15,0001. in addition. So that there was
an expenditure of of 30,0001. for the House of Lords,
and not a single item was given. It was not quite
clear to him that the affairs of the House of Lords
were economically conducted ; if so, why did they
refuse the items ? It was said that estimates were
laid before the Treasury: He would ask, what was the
nature of those estimates ; and what was the amount
for fees received by the House of Lords? This was
the only instance in whiCh the subject was taxed, and
in which the House had no account of it. If the
House of Lords chose to content themselves
with their own fees he should not object to it, but if
they came to that HouSe for a vote of money, he
should like to see an account of the items.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER made
a few observations, which were quite inaudible in the
gallery.
Mr. HUME was at a loss to understand how the
Right Hon. Gentleman could have misunderstood him
(Mr. Hume). The Right Hon. Gentleman had not
answered his questions. He would therefore repeat
them. What was the nature of the estimate laid
before the Treasury ? and what was the amount of
fees received by the Hoak of Lords ?
Sir G. CLERK said, the House of Lords had al-
ways possessed the right of Noting an Address to the
Crown for whatever sums of money they required to
defray the expenses of tho salaries of the officers of
that house over and above the amount of fees.

Dr. BOWRING thought the question of his Hcn.
Friend was a very important one. A sum of 15,000/.
was asked. The Hon. Baronet said that the Treasury
had the accounts, which showed that the items were
reasonable. Now, what objection could there be to
have them produced ? He wished to know whether the
House of Lords had the power of obtaining a grant
of money, without the concurrence of the House cf
Commons.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said that the House of Lords had the right up to
1815 of moving for an address to the Crown to ob-
tain money from the civil list. When that was taken
away it was on the understanding that the expenses
of that House should be defrayed.
After a few words from Mr. W. WILLIAMS,
M. HUME moved that the vote be reduced by
15,0001., thoreby reducing the vote to 44,3001.
Mr. BARING deprecated their calling for any
account from the House of Lords when they were not
prepared to pursue the matter further, lest they should
come into collision on su trifling a matter with the
other House.

After a few words from Mr. HUMS and Mr.
WILLIAMS, the Committee divided on the amend-
ment.

For the amendment l3
Against it 69
Majority against the amendment —56
On onr re-admission to the gallery, we found
Mr. HUME on his legs. He was complaining of
a sum of 22301. being appropriated for the purpose
of engrossing Bills. He thought that the public had
never yet derived the slightest benefit or convenience
from the money thus expended.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought that if any public
benefit were to be derived, he thought it would be
a paltry economy to withhold the grant; but if, on
the other hand, no actual good arose, he should not
object to any. proposal Which the Hon. Gentleman
opposite might make. He was aware that many
lawyers were of opinion that it was necessary to
render those letters more _permanent.
After a few observations from Sir R. Peel, Mr.
Hume, Sir G. Clerk, Mr. Fox Maule. and the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, the vote was agreed to.

(LEFT BITTING.)

THE WILLS FORGERIES.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

(Continued from our Third Edition of Saturday.)
James Morris, a gardener and beadle, residing in Nelson-
square, was then called, and proved that Mr. Barber carried
on business at the house No. 52, in that square. He had not
noticed a plate with Barber's name ou it till within a year
or so ago.
Robert Peckham examined—Was managing clerk to Mr.
Brunnel, of 5, Belgrave-buildings, Gray's Inn. Had been
in the employmbift of Mr. Barber for seven years up to the
Ist of January last, three .'weeks after Mr. .Barber's arrest.
There was a diary kept in.the office of the business trans-
acted. It lay on the table for the daily insertion of entries,
and was open to the inspection of all the clerks in the office.
After the 25th of August, 1840, Mr. Fletcher called fre-
quently at the office, and often daily. Fletcher became a
client of Barber's in the autumn of 1838 or 1839. Witness
was on very intimate terms with Mr. Barber, and never saw
anything like close intimacy between Mr. Barber and Flet-
cher. Mr. Barber always treated Mr. Fletcher with great
coolness. In the year 1839 witness left the employment of
Mr. Barber for another situation, but returned after a short
period to his old employment. There were six cases within
his knowledge in which unclaimed dividends had been re-
covered. One was a case in which unclaimed dividends to
the amount of 1,5001., standing in the name of Mr. George
Robins, were recovered through the instrumentality of Mr.
Barber.
Cross-examined by the ArroustEv-GnxEßAL.—Heard
from general report that Mr. Barber had two children, but
had no knowledge that it Was so:. Mr. Barber was not mar-
ried. Witness's father was Chief warehouseman in the em-
ployment of the Apothecaries' Company, and was in their
employment thirty years:,
J. Macuamara, who had been a clerk in Mr. Barber's office,
was text examined, but nothing of consequence was elicited.
Several witnesses to character were then called for Mr.
Barber. .
Mr. Choones examined—Had been a solicitor for the last 40
years. Mr. Barber had been a clerk in his office for sixteen
years, during the latter part of which time he was an ar-
ticled clerk. His character. for honesty and propriety was
unquestionable, and it was in consequence of his good cha-
racter and services to witness that he became articled to him.
Mr. C. Brady, surgeon,: -knew Mr. Barber between nine
and ten years, Brady,
which time lie bore a high character
for honesty and propriety of conduct.
Mr. M‘S;-amara, pleader in the Inner Temple ; Mr. G. Pil-
chard,
other
al;e le
Mr.n t
m eJohnson, and a considerable number of
bore like testimony to the good
r respectable
character borne by Mr. Barber.
The ArronNEY-GENERAL replied, and said that much
had been urged by Mr. Wilkins which had nothing what-
, ever to do with the case. -.llia observations on the right of
the Crown prosecutor to -reply,' were quite beside any ques-
tion before the jury. On-every occasion he (the Attorney-
General) should be able to 'vindicate that right, after wit-
nesses had been called for the defence, in common with any
pjaamii
Wilkins)
prosecuting counsel. If any one had a right to com-
plain
(Mr.l e
sn of h a reply it was Mr. Graves and Mr.
James,
l'hiiioiss havingh)aliacdalled no witnesses. His Learned Friend
said his client had deserved a separate
trial, and it seemed to him (the Attorney-General) as if he
was challenged to show why all the three prisoners were
tried together. It was because, if they had, been tried
separate, each counsel would have laid the blame on another
prisoner, and would have much confused the jury. Accord-
ing to the speeches of his three Learned Friends, every
prisoner was to be exonerated. Mr. James had said that
Mrs. Dorey was imposed upon by Fletcher. Mr. Graves
stated that Fletcher was deceived and duped by Mrs.
Richards, who was dead; and Mr. Wilkins declared
that his client had been made the scapegoat of
both parties. The best mode, therefore, of inquiring into the
case was by trying. all the prisoners together. It was essen-
tial to the ends of justice that it should be so. A jury would
be a useless machine- if they did not divest themselves of
everythingtnot connected with the case. It was his opinion
that unless these three peisons had been tried together it
would have been impossible to have obtained substantial
justice. Now, with respect to Mrs. Dewey, his Learned
Friend, Mr. James, had claimed exemption, on the ground
that she was a tool in the hands of Fletcher, and because she
did not understand the circumstances of the case. Was
she so very young and inexperienced as not to under-
stand the meaning of forgery? She had admitted, how-
ever, in her confession, that there had been a former bond,
which she had signed, and for which she had received 501. or
60/. Then, with respect to. her visits to Camberwell, it was
not alone the going there and asking for the " Old Lady,"
which he had urged as a proof of guilt. It was the going and
asking for Mrs. Stewart, when her mother's name was Rich-
ards; the calling her Misi Stewart, when she knew she was
a married woman; and al4O her stating that she was her
niece, when she was perfectly aware that she was her
daughter. Was that the conduct of an innecent person?
She had also admitted that'her mother had got 4001. or 5001.
from that transaction. With respect to Fletcher, he did not
go into the evidence against him t ) any extent, as it was
very voluminous, and ample justice would be done to it in
the summing up by his Lordship. As to Barber, his clerk
had volunteered that there were four cases of a suspicious
nature against hint—the oneunder trial, and three about to be
tried. The jurycouldjudgeforthemselveswhethertheevidence
to character was borne out by these admissions. There was one
fact very strong against Mr. Barber. It was alleged thathe went
down to Great Marlow, on the 13th of October, 1840, to ascertain
whether there was a sister to Mr. Stewart living there ; but
how came it that a letter was found at his (Mr. Barber's)
chambers dated the 9th of ,October, fuur days before, signed
Fletcher, stating that he had discovered that there was a
Miss Stewart living. What occasion, then, for Mr. Barber
to go down to Great Marlow on the 13th, to find out a fact
which, according to that letter, had already been ascertained ?
He thought that a very .suspicious circumstance. With
these few observations the Learned Gentleman left the case
in the hands of the jury, feeling assured that, after hearing
the summing up of the Learned Judge, they would return a
verdict according to their just sentiments.
The Court adjourned at a, quarter to seven until ten o'clock
on Monday (this day).

IRISH DISTRANCIIIS ENT BILL.—The change will
be disadvantageous to the. farmer. Previously the farmer
was compelled to cast his conscience into the rent, but
he received some recompunse for the loss. He held his
farm, perhaps, slightly under a rack-rent, that his name
might be placed on the elective roll; while by this Bill
he will be equally enslaved, but his land will be screwed
up to the highest rent. We assert that no money can
justify a man voting for a perspn whose principles he
disapproves. It is a breach of trust—a crime of mag-
nitude and bittl Ovecseuce. It i 5 a breach of t/115V-.