The Sun.
London, England, 1828-02-22 00:00:00

objection to Lord Althorp's appointment ; next
conceiving a slight had been offered him ; and
lastly, disapproving decidedly of the appointment ?
Mr. llerries contended that, in his letter of the 21st,
he had distinctly stated, that if that which in his
letter he assumed to be fact, was not so, an answer
might be sent to undeceiVe him ; " was he told that
the engagement was not completed—that party
consideranons had nothing to do with the ques-
tion 2" The, explanations left the matter at the
end in the same state it was in at the begin-
ning : all the Members of the late Cabinet not
now in place, contending strenuously that the
quarrel betmeen Messrs. Huskisson and Her-
' ries, was the only cause of breaking up the
Government, and Mr. Herries contending that it
was not. We are almost ashamed of going over
these memorials of imbecility. If Lord Goderich
had wished 'the Government not to be broken up,
why did he not call his Colleagues together and lay
the difference 'before them,?', They would have told
him in a trice to accept of Mr. Herries's resignation.
Lord Goderich may be a very candid and upright
man; but really his conduct was inexplicable. Mr.
Herries's is intelligible. There can be little doubt
that he was hostile to the rest of his Colleagues.
But if he had had the direction of Lord Goderich,
we defy him to have pointed out a course better cal-
culated to promote his object than that which his
Lordship took.—Morning Chronicle.
The North American Congress appears to be get-
ting the start of our Parliament in that enlightened
legislation which is congenial with the spirit of civi-
lized times. The law to abolish imprisonment for
debt on niesne process in the United States, is u re-
markable instance of legislative improvement among
a people, whose national existence, compared with
that of Great Britain, is but of yesterday. We have
yet got no farther -than limiting imprisonment, in
cases of debt, to sums of the value of 20/. and up-
wards; and it was only last. Session that the-Bill to
abolish the taking of Special Bail for debts under
20/. met with strong opposition in Parliament be-
fore it>was allowed to pass into a law, even although
introduced by a Law-officer of the Crown. The
idea of extending the sum to 100/., or even to
50/., was thought too bold an innovation upon exist-
ing prejudices,. for any person to propose, as an
amendment. Now, we observe, the American Con-
gress have taken up the subject of duelling—that
remnant of the same Gothic barbarism which sub-
stituted the ordeal of battle for the decisions of
reason and justice_ It is only within a few years
that we got rid of the ordeal of battle, and not until
after the Courts of Justice had been disgraced by
the spectacle of Abraham Thornton throwing down
his glove to challenge the next akin of the unfor-
tunate Mary Ashford, who had brought an appeal
against him for her murder. No higher origin—no
better sanction—has duelling; and often no more
honourable purpose than that Gothic institution,
which was so long placed upon a level with trial by
Jury. The custom, however, has continued too
long to be put down by any thing except by severe
and degrading laws; and until it is so put down
society will be under the tyranny of the custom ; and
even men who reprobate it in their own minds and
consciences, will be found to risk their lives with the
lowest beings in the scale of morals and principle,
who have done every thing short of being convicted
of felony. The American law, which has just been
introduced for the suppression of this fashionable
vice, makes duelling murder, and consequently sub-
jects the survivor, under any circumstances, to an
ignominious death. It makes sending a challenge a
high misdemeanour, punishable by fourteen years'
imprisonment; and inflicts upon seconds, aids, and
even upon the attending surgeons, a fine of 1,000
dollars each, in addition to be disfranchised, and
imprisoned until theykive sufficient security for their
good behaviour. So much for ".genteel" gladiator-
ship in AMerica.—Morning Herald.
On Wednesday " Sir Francis Burdett presented
a petition from the inhabitants of St. Paul, Co-
vent-garden,' against .the Select Vestry Bill for that
parish, praying to be heard by Counsel against it,
as the Standing Order had not been 'complied_ with,
iio notice having been given to them of the same."
We hope that Sir Francis will be successful in his
opposition to this Bill, which we understand is to
give increased power to the Covent-garden Select
Vestry. At the root of most Bills of this descrip-
tion is an attorney, the clergy, and perhaps sur-
veyors. Our Select Vestry Laws will, in time, be-
come as obnoxious as our Game Laws, except the
people of parishes interfere, as those of Covent-gar-
den and Marylebone have done. In fact, the Select
Vestry system might, in time, become as tyrannical
as the old feudal system of the Barons, tinder which
latter system the people became villains or slaves.
The people of parishes cannot be too vigilant in
looking to these Bills, and the framers of them.
We recommend those who speak at Parish Meetings
to find out, if they possibly can, the names•of the
persons who are concoctors of these Bills, whether
lawyers, clergymen, surveyors, architects, carpenters,
bricklayers, brickmakers, or what not, and to pub-
lish their names and occupations. We would ask
Lord William Russell if he be pledged to the fur-
therance of this Bill ? and if he is, we would ask
him who it is that has prevailed on him to further
it ? But even the carrying through Parliament one
of these Bills is a snug job for any lawyer, in law
charges only.--7./bid.

n the House of Commons yesterday we had
some more last words from Mr. Harries, but we
cannot congratulate the curious on any addition to
their knowledge, in consequence. A good deal of
the debate, which, though brief, was one of the
smartest . that has taken place in the House for
some years, was occupied in investigating the
accuracy of certain reports of Mr. Herries' ex-
planation of Monday last, which, some way
or other, notwithstanding the Orders of the
House, had' got abroad. The Morning Jour-
nals, with the exception of the Chronicle
and the 'Times,' to said Mr. Herries, repre-
sented that gentleman as having asserted that'
he had net heard of Mr. Huskisson's resignation
until that evening. Mr. Duncombe, Mr. Brougham,
and lord Milton, contended that Mr. Herries had
said so ; Mr. Herries denied it, and said that he had
only heard the time that-evening, and that of the
fact he had heeteasseselsousthe-sth of .January...,
Applying to all the reports of Mr. Herries' speed
our utmost powers of interpretation, we are eta
loss to understand whether it be meant that Mr.
Herries was aware, on the sth of January, of the
intention of Mr. Huskisson to resign, or if he was
aware on that day that he had resigned. We should
incline to the former interpretation. It is ciecidedly.
the meaning conveyed by our report, and that of
the 'Chronicle appears to be the same. Mr: Herries,
according to the latter, says, that on the sth Jan.
he first heard that Mr. Huskisson "had spoken of
resigning ;" the Times says he (Mr. H.) then first
heard that Mr. Huskisson "had made a determina-
tion to resign." In fact the whole of Mr. !lefties' ex-
planation is, from accident or design, so obscure as
to justify Lord Normanby's observation, " that the
Right Hon. Gentleman neither could understand
questions put to him, nor answer them so as to make
any body else understand them." The whole debate
so far as this point was concerned, was mere quill-
bling. There can be no doubt that iii the outset of
his speech the Right Hon. Gentleman said repeat-
edly that there were matters which had only come
to 114 knowledge that night, and this, if there were
any Mistake in the reports, undoubtedly led to it.
Whatever was said, it is evident that something was
suppressed which ought to have been said. Mr.
Herries declared that there had been a plot or cabal
entered into to break up the Cabinet, and that his
contingent resignation, on December 21, Was only
the Handle for that purpose. This we stated on
Wednesday, for it was unaccompanied hy an attempt
to p ve it be a matter of inference, but Mr. Her-
ries 'd not so state it. His words were, " I know
i to
it." he House, last, night, was exceedingly anxious,
to obtain the grounds of his knowledge; but Mr.
}ferries was dumb—he was determined to enter into
no other explanation than he had already done ! Mr.