The Sun.
London, England, 1828-12-06 00:00:00

sNRIT OF TM LONDON JOURNALS.

nettiolefoi
i:wexeti
extreme
pledgesp
It has always appeared to us remarkable, anted
often suspicious, that the anti-Catholics should
betray so much eagerness and soreness in their
dehlrds, an behalf of the Duke of Wellington,
rummaged
proofh
tP ehsaeer l
that his G fitCd had any intention of tranquilliz-
ingforward in
te prlerseelanttldjstthulidbplgsypmlol,t,renasitacijotment of the Catholic
-claims. Having no informatiec or factsthtoeybhraii:ge
of 20 or 30 years' standing, whereby td fetter
alarmts\ol, l.e.re
rejoice
ev.t. the subject
ssauybj eacgta i
,0,,f Di denials,aon,:iike
opinions with regard to the interests of Ireland,
whathis Gwreacne:asdeexkiisltoilt:
some months ago—viz., that WC have the very
strongest reasons for attributing to the Duke of
Wellington a fixed determination
i otofoz
u.)
nit
dro
eddue
one
a Bill JO r the relief of the Catholics in the eft--
suing Session. Yc announce this, and we
stand to it as our firm coinje
intelligence from a quarter alike „incapable of
being deceived itself and of deceiving others.
NoVmet
an have,
:l.
c tfii:,e rthneegr,oscivaffit
negotiation sufficient groundnoin fporrob;ricisoeviilg
be-
tween the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Pee!
with a view to arrange whatever difference may
have resulted from their opposite, or, at least,
separate - feelings, towards a question upon
which the sentiments of the highest Personage
in the realm are now in accordance with those or
his firSt Minister. On full deliberating we throw
out this bone to the Clubmen, that they may
gnaw it as they like: we anticipate much amuse-
ment from their wry faces.— Times.

A petition in favour of Huntoti was banded
about in the City yesterday, and in the space of
an hour obtained nearly 300 signatures, includ-
ing many individuals of the first eminence, both
as bankers and merchants, We select a few
names :—N. M. Rothschild, J. Barnett, G. H.
Barnett, R. Barclay, D. Barclay, Sir J. R. Reid, G.
Reid, J. Innis, J. Irving, M. Atwood, R. Per-
cival. Thus it appears that a number-of emi-
nent persons, interested in the maintenance of
credit, and therefore in the effective adjustment
of the laws which are designed for its security to
the crimes by which it is most endangered, have
signed a petition in favqur of the wretched Hun.
ton, who is now under sentence of death for for-
gery, at the prosecution of Messrs. Curtis and
Robarts. This proves sufficiently that in the
opinion of the commercial public, fraud is not
an appropriate subject for capital punishment.
We say nothing on the personal character of
Human. The question is not as to his iudivi,
dual case, but whether his description of Lance
is one which the general safety requires to be
punished by the loss .of -life. The human heart,
we say, in. the 19th century, revolts at such n
retribution for such a transgression ; and the
Magistrate who inflicts it, flies in the face of
those feelings which attest, because they go far
to constitute, the advancement of mankind in
civilization and humanity. The penalty, of death
was enacted for the sake of the monied interest,
—the monied interest, by this petition, loudly
proclaim that they deem the penalty unneces-
sary !—lbid.

There is no country in Europe in--which try'
ing the quality of evidence is so well understood
as in England. The principal cause of the su-
periorit) we have obtained in this respect, is the
publicity of our proceedings, the short time al-
lotted for trial, and the necessity (where a num-
ber of witnesses are suddenly produced, as to
the history and characters of whom little is fre-
quently known) of subjecting the evidence to
the ordeal of a rigorous cross-examination, bs,
men skilled in the means of involving a false
witness in such perplexities as force him to be-
tray himself. For want of a test of the quality
of their evidence, the Civilians have been obliged
to rely on the quantity, and by way of protect-
ing innocence against malice, to demand more
than one witness to each act, in cases where it is
difficult to obtain even one. But though no-
thing can be more beautiful than the English
mode of taking evidence, the same praise can-
not be bestowed on the rules by which evidence
is refused or admitted. Of these rules, it may
safely be said, that as far as they go they tend to
injure innocence and to screen guilt. It often
happens, that on account of some arbitrary rule,
an individual, whose interest in the result may
be as a drop of water in the ocean, cannot 1)3
heard, while another, whosefh indirectiieb e
iiitenveerse:ti
may be equal to a large fortune, is received
scruple.without e
says
nothiug,and c.a re s
fo.trinio)rtohtli
iiiggabtne,t
tlvi
eh
co believes o
ae
h eirp
person,
117,
Ivii
o wishedstat
et to
s
el:ioft deficient in the amount
of his
j)iretsi,r,
profession,
biv
that lie does not believe this or that, is rejected
as a witness not to be believed, while he is be-
lieved when his account of his disbelief is re-
ceived as the ground of time rejection. The
case of Bigamy, which occurred at Bow-street
on Wednesday and Thursday, affords a pregnant
proof of the impediment which the laws of cvi-
ltShOelle same
r nlo trielne thanii
deuce throw in the way of justice, and of the
vo he Magistrates.
perplexity
The at
prisoner,
usually skilful, asked the only witness against
h
(a young man of twenty-five) " if he be-
into s
consternation,ss rsl Halls a
but
liine!%•ed in a future state, and in rewards and pu-
nishments hereafter ?" The witness answered,
"I do not." He was a reluctant witness against
the prisoner, whose friend he had once been,
but he did not refuse to be sworn, or to give
were'ehree thrownlagi sMagistrates
being naturally unwilling that the case should be
abruptly stopped on account of • •
an o mjection of this
sort to the evidence, took a day to reflect on the
subject. On Thursday the witness was again
examined, when he
stated, that " it was not
from any wish to screen the prisoner from jus-
tice that he had ass •
erted on the former examina-
tion that he had
no religion. He was bound to
answer the • • • • and
questions put to him honestly,
he had done so in the most conscientious man-
ner." Mr. Alinshull then said, " I shall certainly
swear you, because I cannot believe it possible
that any man can be an Atheist." Phillippslays it
down
expressly, tl • t " Atheists and such infidels
as profess not any religion that can bind their
consciences to speak the truth, are excluded from
being witnesses." Mr. Minshull cuts the matter
short as to Atheists, by saying, " I cannot be-
lieve it possible than any man can be an
Atheist." This is making short work, indeed,
with the law. But here Mr. Minshull's theo-
logy led him a dance. The man did not pro-
fess hiMself an Atheist; on the contrary, When
asked whether he called himself an Atheist or a
Deist, he answered, " I do riot call myself by
any particular name." •,\lr. i\iinshull confounded
two things, which arc yet very distinct—Atheism,
and the not believing
.n a future state. The
ancient Jews were certainly not Atheists; so far
from it, they considered that God would punish