The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-06 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
GLOBE.—The Duke of Richmond, as head of the
Agricultural Protectionists, has taken the field against
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His Grace had
placed on the notice-book of the House of Lords, a
motion against the proposed repeal of the duty on
foreign wool, which forms a part of the financial
scheme of the year, as explained by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer on Monday evening. The motion
of the Noble Duke was to have been brought on
last evening ; but, in consequence of the indis-
position of Lord Ripon, it was first postponed
to Tuesday, and last evening was further post-
poned to Thursday, next. The determined hostility
.manifested by the agricultural monopolists to the pro-
posed repeal of the wool duties, is as impolitic as it is
unjust. The Chancellor of the Exchequer accompanies
his proposed relief to the manufacturer with a posi-
tive boon to the English wool-grower. The former
would be relieved by the abolition of the duty of one
penny per lb. on the importation of foreign wool ;
the latter by the removal of one shilling per cwt.
on British wool exported. The aggregate annual
amount of the proposed reduction, as estimated
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is 100,000/. The
prospect of an early attainment of an object for which
the woollen manufacturers have earnestly pleaded with
successive Governments, and have looked forward with
earnest hope, is again beclouded with fear of disappoint-
ment. The House of Lords is the stronghold of mono-
poly. The House of Commons, as at present consti-
tuted, is also avowedly opposed to any legislative con-
cessions to the manufacturers, in matters which seem to
trench upon the principle of protection to the landed in-
terests. The Duke of Richmond's threatened resistance is
therefore regarded by the interests which the repeal of
the wool duty would largely benefit, as an ill omen.
They fear that the old Adam of corruption in the
two Houses will prove too strong for the newly-formed
purpose of the Government to take a step in commercial
policy in conformity with right principles. The York-
shire manufacturers are on the alert,—alarmed by a
common sense of danger, and encouraged by hope
that a combined and general demonstration will keep
the Government firm to the purpose it has an-
nounced of an " immediate and total repeal" of the
wool duties. Leeds, Huddersfield, Bradford, Halifax,
and other large towns in the western division of York-
shire, have taken the lead ; public meetings have been
held, and earnest representations have been made both
to individual Peers, and also to Ministers, on the subject.
The postponement of the Duke of Richmond's motion
will afford time for more effective and extensive prepara-
tions for strengthening the hands of Ministers, and thus
enable them to resist the threatened attack upon the best
feature in their financial scheme for the coming year.
The Leeds Mercury of to day furnishes, in a tabular
form, a statement of facts, derived from official re-
turns, of the injurious effects of the duty of 6d. per
pound on foreign wool, imposed in 1819, and repealed
in 1824. These injurious effects were not confined to
the manufacturers. The wool-growers of England and
Scotland, for whose special advantage the duty was im-
posed, participated largely in the injurious influences of
the " protection" thus furnished. The reduction of the
impost greatly relieved these interests from the incubus.
The British wool-growers felt the folly of their former
clamour for protection against the foreign grower; for
the price of their produce was reduced by the influence
of protection more than one-half. The Duke of Rich-
mond, it seems, was impervious to instruction, though en-
forced by experience, that most powerful of teachers. He
actually endeavoured in 1828 to obtain a re-imposition of
the duty of 6d. per lb. on wool of foreign growth ! The
Government of that day had sufficient discernment to
see the folly of the effort, and refused to retrace their
steps for his gratification. The Duke of Richmond, and
those who coincide with him in this attempt to scare the
Government from its purpose with reference to the removal
of the wool duties, seem to be blinded by selfishness. They
are provoking a reaction, against which, strong as they
may deem their entrenchments, they will find them.
selves unable to stand. Had the Duke of Richmond,
observes our Contemporary, " wished to relieve the agri-
culturists of a tax, his conduct would have admitted of
defence; but to insist on fastening a tax upon trade be-
cause he ignorantly thinks that it does or may tell in
favour of the agriculturists, is outrageoug." Does the
Noble Duke deem the present a favourable opportunity
for carrying out his threat against Sir Robert
Peel? Is this repeal of Id. per lb. on foreign wool—
accompanied as it is by the removal of Is. per cwt. on
the exportation of British wool—regarded as so serious
an innovation on the principle of protection to British
agriculture, as to call for the immediate fulfilment of his
Grace's memorable warning to Sir Robert Peel from his
place in the House of Lords:—" Let him mind what he is
about: the landed interests placed him where he is; and
they can undo that which they have done !"
OLOBE.—Another of those instances in which party
polities are permitted to interfere with the removal of
acknowledged existing evils was afforded last night in the
House of Lords. Lord Campbell some time since intro-
duced a Bill for their Lordships' consideration, the
object of which was to allow persons convicted of felony
or misdemeanor, who appealed from the decision of
the Court by which they had been tried, on errors
assigned on the record, to the House of Lords as the court
of final appeal, to remain at large on bail until the question
as to the legality of the conviction should be finally decided.
The necessity of such a measure was not denied. The
Lord Chancellor himself, who succeeded in inducing
their Lordships to reject the Bill, admitted the
grievance which the existing state of the law inflicts
on such parties. It ought to be removed; but not just
yet. Is the reason asked? It is at hand. O'Connell,
and his co-defendants in the proceedings now pending in
the Court of Queen's Bench, Dublin, might be preserved
from imprisonment, pending the argument on a writ
of error, if the Bill should be allowed to pass. The law
is to remain in a ridiculous, absurd, and inequitable
state, in order that a political opponent may be subjected
to imprisonment on a conviction which may be declared
illegal. This Lord Lyndhurst was compelled to admit
was the real ground of his opposition to the Bill. Yet this
reason a majority of the House of Lords deemed sufficient ;
and acting, as usual in such matters, under the advice of the
Lords on the Woolsack, they threw out the
la. The Marquis of Clanricarde " repeated that
the Noble and Learned Lord's opposition to the Bill
was founded On the circumstance that, if the Bill passed,
they would not be able wrongfully to imprison certain
parties now under trie! in Ireland. He would leave
their Lordships to judge whether this was a proper spirit with
which to view Acts of Parliament relating to affairs in Ire-
land. The Noble and Learned Lord could not deny that
the effect of the Bill was, as far as it went, to improve the
law, and if injustice was done under the existing law, were
they. to reject this Bill, which amended that law, because
it might lead to some particular result in ar. individual case?"
STANDARD.—Lord Campbell's Bill, in aid of the dilatory
proceedings of the Irish convicted conspirators, was onThureday
rejected in the house of Lords without a division. The mo-
tion for referring the Bill to Committee (the stage in which it
met its fate) gave rise to a highly interesting debate.
Before referring particularly to that debate, let us offer
a remark upon its general tenor. The supporters of the
Bill relied upon the universal feeling of the country as to the
defective state of the law with regard to the power of ap-
pealing in criminal cases. The opponents of the measure,
freely admitting the defective state of the law in the particular
described, objected to the Bill before the House, as
being subject to suspicion, from being brought in
to meet a special case, and mere confidently ob-
jected to it as not supplying the required remedy. This
ground of opposition, if supported in the matter of fact, is
surely sufficient. We may admit an evil, doubtless, without
being bound to accept everything that is offered in the shape
of a remedy, and we are entitled to examine the
nostrum tendered with some jealousy, when we have
reason to suppose, either from the quality of the
remedy itself, or from seine other circumstances, that
it is offered with a view to private advantage, mid not
to the public good. Now, in the case of Lord Campbell's
fill, the evil to be remedied is not disputed. It is acknow-
ledged on all sides that pur criminal jurisprudence is greatly
defective ia not providing an appellate jurisdiction, extend
jog to all classes of convictions, and extending to the
silents as well as to the technicality of the original
trial and conviction. A writ of error is practically
attainable in cases of misdemeanor only ; but in these cases
it is, consideriing its use as a means of delay, perhaps too
easily attainable (for whatever be the law, It is in practice
considered due ex debit° justitice). I
cases of felony it is
seArcely ever asked for, becaof use there is little hope
its being ever granted ; and neither in cases of mis-
demeanor nor felony can the court of appeal, upon
a writ of error, take into consideration the merits of the case,
that is, the justice or injustice of a conviction, or anything
beyond' a mere technicality. A writ of error is also an ex-
pensive process, and always must remain such ; and Lord
Campbell's proposition, if it would not make the process
snore expensive, would by another means (the demand of
heavy bail) limit the benefit of his remedy to the richer
class of appellants. What we have said of the inadequacy
of the remedy by writ of error, may be applied to the remedy
by motion for new trial. It does not extend to felonies, and it
touches the merits only in the case where the judge misdirects
the jury by misstating law or evidence, or where the jury
finds against the judge's chary—things that, to a super-
ficial observer only, will seem to cover every possible
ease of a false verdict. Now, how could this defective state
of the law be improved by a law like that of Lord Campbell,
a law that would merely relieve appellants " in error" from
judgment until the determination of their appeal, they
551 g heavy. bail? imprimis, the remedy excludes all con-
victions of felony, how trifling soever the felony may he;
secondly, it excludes all appellants but the rich, all who
cannot
give heavy bail. Let us pause here—pause to look at
oneeffect of this proposition. No rich man would ever
receive pal meet, in a case of serious misdemeanor,
without trying the chances Of a writ of error. As
a rich man he hase alreadyh given bail to the trial, but
h upon conviction only to give the same bail
to the writ of error, and he will a
!l insure a respite from judg-
ment for a year or two. If offmder, lie may
snake a provisional tour,attendance on the return to
with whotn
power of some partyhe can make a bar-
gain, or in the hope of bargaining witht.o
lthe party in
office. If a bold man, as well as ahrse,
sedition,
offender, he
.a,vhile the ' may remain at home prosecuting
along from
progress of his writ of error drags its slow lengthi
session to session. If guilty of any of those°n
which exclude men from society at home, the rich offences
has in his writ of error a passport to the exile, which
in any case would be his only refuge. Now this is a
privilege which wealth does not confer in an other country,
and which it ought not to confer in this. There is a violent
presumption, at the very least, of guilt, in a case where
the ordinary tribunals of the country declare a man 9u7t
d h
after a solemn trial ; and in France, an in t e
.other coun-
" the. Court of Cessation" is pro-
tries in which an appeal to
vided, the appellant is retained in strict custody of the law
from the time of his original conviction to the determination
of his appeal. Now apply these considerations to Lord C
bell's Bill. The law of the country is defective w
of appellate jurisdiction, trying merits as well as techni-
calities,
STANDARD,—The Times of this morning an-
nounces that it is arranged to send Sir H. Hardinge to
succeed Lord Ellenborough as Governor-General of
India. We have no authority to contradict, and cer-
tainly none to confirm, this announcement. if the
reader wishes for our own opinion upon the mat-
ter, it is this, that the statement of the Tinie3
is what is - familiarly called in schools, " a
shot," a bold guess upon what appears to be good
ground or probability, but wholly without direct know-
ledge of "37kii dr It does not, however, seem likely,
after all that has oecuriel .within the last week or ton
ays, that the negotiations E%-`tvteen the Board of
Directors and the Government can 'us arrived at
sufficient maturity to • tifY the ""'
statement Jae