The Sun.
London, England, 1821-06-22 00:00:00

-
T -74 k-A 4:k

Royalist Merino seems to be wore than a counter-
balance for the Empecinado. S,ICh are the mi-
serable results of a Revolution which was hailed
with rapturous. applause by some would-be Le-
gislators,,of C reat Britain
.1.

PROVINCIAL JOURNALS.'

[From " The Leecl Intelligeneer," of 'June. 18.]

Whilst the foreign news afford little room for comment, our
domestic intelligence is no less barren of incidents. Indeed, if
it were not for the Constitutional Association, we scarcely know
What topic of complaint the Opposition Scribblers would find,
on which to animadvert, much to their awn regret, and the
great loss of their readers. This society. now forms the. grand
object of attack ; it is the Mark at which 'all the .daily and
weekly vendors of sedition, from the Times to the Black Dwarf,
"'direct the whole-of their artillery ; but; hieierto, there-efforts to
injure and defame the object of their hatred, have ably recoiled
upon themselyese and - have-contributed:to thaacehare of that_
society, whose destruction. is, their object.
.As we hive more
than once recommended this society to the attention otthe loyal
and well -disposed,,ourreaders will pardon us for again alluding
to the subject; but, if the objections, of its. opponents were vedl
founded ; if its tendency was to break the law instead of en-
forcing it; if it was likely to impoSe shackles upon the real
freedom of the press,
..instead of 'promoting that Preedom,
by curbing its licentiousness, we should be amongst 'the last to
advocate it. It is therefore our duty to point out the fallacy of
the shallow sophistry by which die opposition writers endeavour
to mislead their followers. This association is denounced as
canting. within the pro Visions of the Act of the 3flth of George
111, c. 7.9;intituled. " An Act. for the more effectual suppres-
sion of Societies'establislied for seditious and treasonable pur-
poses ; and for better preventing treasonable and seditious prac-
tices." As. the purpose of this association is neither treason;
nor sedition, but the suppression of both, it would appear, to us,
that its proceedings rather tend to proMpte, then to'contravene
the object of that act; and the furiotis philiples which are
launched against.it, from the promoters of sedition, are alone
proofs, that these proceedings have not beer without efrect.—
,We'further conceive the Society for the Suppre,ssion of Vice to
come precisely as much within -the meaning of the said act, as
the Constitutional Association; but that 'society has outlived
all opposition, -and no one has ever pretended to assert, that,.
under the provisions of that act, its members ought to be sent
to-Botany
.Bay ! As to the objections to- the legality of the As-
sociation, independent of the particular enactments of the 39th
of the late King, 'they are too absurd to merit notice. If they
were indeed well,founded, they would not only be decisiVe
illegality of this Association, but also of all thtise numerous ones '
which exist in the kingdom, fertile prosecution of offences of vari-
ous denorninationaeot some of which, the most inveterate enemies
`Of the Constitutional Association are -active members-!—The
opponents of the Association, exclaim against -the cruelty. of its
proceedings. The mode which is adopted by it, to bring of-
fenders to punishment, appears to us, however, to be more fa-
vourable than ex-officio-informations by the Attorney-General.
For this latter mode, the NVings seem all at once to have im-
bibed a remarkable penchant, though we recollect, when Hone
was prosecutes -Jey. the Attorney. General, the persecution of
that individual was the theme of complaint ; and they subs
scribed amongst them, about Four Thousand Pounds,- as so
reward . for .hime and an eneonragernent to others.—Their
conduct on both occasions only proves, that no mode whatever,
which is calculated to bring to punishment the calumniators of
their King, and the seditious opposers of his Government, will
be pleasing to these liberal - gentlemen ; who think it right,
however, to visit. any individual who may chance to animad-
vert rather too harshly upon the' confect of any member of
their party, with till the vengeance -.of the laws—Admirable
consistency !

L.kW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 21.
WAKLY V. BARRON AND OTHERS.

This was an action of Assu NPSIT against the defendants,
Directors of the Hope Fire Assurance Company, to recover a
loss by fire in the plaintiff's. house, No. 5,_ Argyll-street. Ox-
ford-street, on the 27th August, 1820, under a policy of As-
surance, executed for 12801. on household goods, &e. on the
9th of May, 1820.
This case excited very general interest from the singularity
of the circumstances under which the tire occurred. The trial
Lasted from half-past nine in the Morning until seven o'clock in
• the evening. The plaintiff's case was conducted by Mt. REN-
leaae; Mr. Crnwoop, and Mr. Anoartiuss; and the defend-
ants!by Mr. Manna-ATI., Mr. GUTUNEY, and Mr. Poi.aocx.
' The particulars of the case have already been before the
public. The plaintiff; a young man, of twenty-six years of
age, had been a surgeon, in Argyll-street, where he had taken
a House, No. 5, in December, 1819; and then insured his fur-
niture, plate, linen, See. in the defendant's office. fcr X6OO. In
the month .of February MO, 'he married 'a Miss Goodchild,
the daughter of a respectable gentleman of that name, residing
at Hammersmith,. and in consequence of additional property
then purchased, he doubled his insurance. to- the amount of
Xl2OB. On the night the fire took place, his wife was from home
at her father's house. Ile was then afflicted with inflammation
in his eyes, and had sent. his two servants, man and wife,
to' bed, intending to relieve the pain in his eyes by applying
leaches.to,his temples,' which he did. accordingly;; and when
be was retiring to bed, about'half past twelve at night, he was
called to- the door by a person who desired his immediate at-
tendance upon.. a Mr. Nall, an innkeeper in the City, an old
patient of the plaintiff: He excused himself by saying that it
was impossible foe him to leave his house that night, feoM indis-
position, but that he would wait on Mr. Nall in the morning.
['he person at the door then-said he had run very fast, was warm,
and asked for some small beer to drink. The plaintiff gave him
his choice of beer or cyder; the man chose the,latter. He was
let in ; the plaintiff wrapped a towel round his head, and, went
down stairs to draw some cvdereleaving the stranger in the hall,
and ou his return up the kitchen stairs he received a violent blow
on the 'head which deprived him of his senses. On recovering
about tweahours afterwards, as. he supposed, he found the house
in flaines,'and was almost suffocated with heat and smoke. He
attempted to escape by the front of the house, but could not ad-
vance from the density of the smoke ; he then crawled into the
back •kitchen,.and in the terror of the moment he raised himself
by means of a meat screen to a sky light, broke the' ghiss, and
escaped into the adjoining house. The house was discovered to
be on fire befween one and.two in the morning; the neighbour-
hood was alarmed, and the rlaintitrs servants escaped in a state
of nudity. The plaintiff himself was missing for .about three
quarters of an hour, andwas at length found in the passage of
the adjoining house., covered with blood, his clothes wet, with
two or three wounds, as from a dagger, on has breast, and in a
state of mental derangement. . He was taken to a neighbour's
house, and medical assistance procured ; he afterwards sent in
his claim for the loss, the house and furniture being completely
destroyed. His loss was estimated at 11800, and he delivered in
vouchers for goods destroyed to the amount of about £1000..
The dcfendant.s.resisted the claim on account of the extraordin-
ary and apparently incredible manner in which the fire was
supposed to have occurred. The defendants now resisted the
claim on two grounds. first, that the plaintiff had attempted to
support his claim by fraud and perjury, contrary to the provi-
sions of the policy; and second, that he was himself the in-
cendiary.
Several witnesses were examined on both sides ; on the one
hand, teprove the noatA Firms of the plaintiff's case; and on
the other, the MALA-FIDES.

The ca 'se went to the Jury under the Learned Judge's direc
tions, and, after retiring for about half an hour, the Jury found
their verdict for the plaintiff—Dapages Xl2OO.

Yesterday John Gold, and Sarah, his wife,
were indicted at the Surrey Sessions, for assault-
ing their child at Camberwell, in May last. The
little girl was in Court, and appeared about Six
or seven•years of age. The details are too hor-
rible and disgusting to relate.—The Jury found
the prisoners Guiky, and the Chairman sentenced
them to he imprisoned for 36 calendar months,
and afterwards to find sureties for their, good
behaviour for seven years;

PRXCE SEVENPENCS

PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS, JuNL 21.

Thp Earl of SHAFTESBURY reported, as Cliair.
man of the Committee of Privileges, that the
Marquess of Ormond and Viscount Moleswortit
had made good their claims to rote at the Elec-
tion of Irish Representative Peers. The Thames-
Lastage and Ballast Bill was rend the second
time.

The. following Bills were brought up from tr,4e
Commons, ails' read each the first.time
Vagrant Laws Amendment the Ordnance. Las t 3
Bill, the el Ire!and Bill, the Naval Stores Bill, the Ex.
the:quer Bills But; the Irish Public Coal Yards Bill, the Sir x.
Eur.ci Loan Bill, the. Baat India Trad6 Regulation Bill,
the bash Treasury 131118 Billy the Coal Minis-Diawbv,il:-
azia Privat;,. Pills.
following f3iils were read eaeli the -third

time :

Th Irsh Priaouc Regulatis,rz Dill, the Poor Enaplcquierit-
Bilt, .the kriSh.*=pl)lltiesll, the Justice of Pewee 1101,
as:d the lush Ir.sorvent Debtors' Bill. . .
•
- CRIMINAL LAWS.

The Order of the Day for the send reading of the Privately
Stealing in Dwellingrhouse Bill having been read,
The Marquess of LANSDOWN stated., that it
was also.his intention to move the second read-
ing of the Bill for mitigating the Punishment an-
nexed to the Commission of:: Robbery, upoa
Rivers, which was founded on the same principle,
fie thought it would be most convenient to the
House that he should state the purport of both
Bills together. The object of the tvi'o_Bills was
to take sway the penalty of death from the of-
fences to which they referred, and to Substitute
. transportation for life, or imprisonment and. hard
labour. The provisions of the Bill relating to
robbery on navigable rivers was extended in the
Committee to robberies committed on Canals, and
he thought that7no difference of opinion could
arise as to the propriety of extending .the same
protection to property in both cases. In propos-
ing an alteration of this nature, it was to be ob-
-served that the change would extend no further
than the particular subjects specified in the en-
actments. It did not, therefore, affect the gene-
ral system of our laws. The fact was, that Or
Criminal -Code had grown up unlike the Codes
of other countries, which were founded upon one"
general system; it consisted of particular laws,
which were urged by temporary and local cir-
cunristances, and the consequence was, that the
penalty of death had accumulated. in a degree
unparalleled in any other nation. The Govern-
ment, he contended, must find, it: inconvenient
and inexpedient 'to maintain those severe penalties
in cases where..they were opposed. not only .to
public opinion,-but,to the opinion of those whose
property they were intended to protect, as well
as to those of the Judges and Juries by whom.
they. were ultimately to be administered.—Their
Lordships would find, that in the general opinion
of this country, the laws which the present Bill;
were intended, to mitigate were too severe,' and it
could be proved, that instead of deterring from
crime, the effect .of this operation was to increase
it, by the impunity which the reluctance of_ir:di-i•
victuals to prosecute held out to offenders. It
might appear, on the first view, that. the removal
of these severe penalties would have._the effect
of encouraging crime, but their Lordships would.
find, with regard to certain crimes .made caps=
tal under the .Excise Laws, that in the opinion
of the Solicitor of the Excise. himself, the attempt
to increase the penalties had the effect opposite.to
that which was intended, aud that the attempt to
protect the Revenue by increased punishment:in,
general protected the fraudulent trader, not the
Revenue. it was well known, that in many
cases where robbery in dwelling houses came to
to be tried, Juries had rated property at 3Ds. iu
order to evade the law, which, in reality, amount-
ed to 10 or 20 times the value. Whether
that was a system deserving to be continued,.
be could hardly ask their Lordships. These
Bills did not proceed upon mere speculation,
there were facts to support the principle upon
which they were founded. In 1811, the Pro-
prietors of Bleaching :-rounds had petitioned'
against the severity of the laws enacted to protect:
their property, on the ground that it prevented
convictions. The consequence of the, mitigation
was, on a comparison of the five years precediog
with the five years succeeding the change, 'that
in the first five years the prosecutions amounted to
28, and in
.the last five years to nine ; .that in the.-
first five years the acquittals were one-third, and in
the last none. In Ireland .the_ case was still more
striking ; during the first five years, out of .61 •
prosecutions, there were but three convictions ;
but during the last, the convictions were five fold.
When he found, in addition to these facts, that-
the opinion of the Common Council of London
was in favour of the mitigation of punishments,
he felt himself authorised in stating that the trad-
ing community would not be injured, but berm-
fitted by those Bills. .Both Bills stood .upon the
principle of making the law more conformable•to
public opinion, and by that means more likely to
secure the conviction of offenders.

The Loan CHANCELLOR admitted, that if the
tendency of these Bills was to prevent crime,
they. ought to be adopted ; but the House would
do well to hesitate before they adopted that ocl-
nion. He regretted, that Bills of so-much irn-
portance were not introduced at an earlier period
of the Session, so as to afford an opportunity of
investigating the facts upon which they profes-
sed to legislate. He would admit, that when
first he held a situation connected with the ad-
ministration of criminal -law, he entertained an
opinion that the coole ought to be rendered more
lenient, but after the experience of many years he
took a different view, and entertained a different
opinion. He would admit that if a man • entered a
house w ithout breaking in or breaking out, antrstole

to tbe amount of 40s. the penalty of death would,
in that case, be too severe for the offence. But
add. one or two circumstances, and see how the
case would stand: Suppose that he had so en-
tered an unprotected cottage, and stolen the
-whole savings of an industrious life,. was that
an offence in which severity could be complained
of ? No man had said that benefit of clergy ought
to be extended to those who committed burglary,
but the circumstances of breaking in or breaking
out, and of perpetrating. the act in the night time,
constituted the only difference, and there *ere
tlartY int-tanCes in WhiCh the mischief to the in,
dividual and the public was greater in the for-
mer case than in cases of .burglary. The best
-way, therefore, as it appeared to him, was to
leave. the selection as it was left at present, to the
disCretion of the Judges-. Their Lordships vvjere
- aware of a case in which one servant hatl handed
the property 'of his master over to another serv-
ant, so that they could be at no loss to imagine
aggravated cases of the description which these
Bills attempted to visit with a lighter punishment.
Ills Lordship denied that prosecutors and jurors
were unwilling to act, though he admitted, that
to the honour of the country there existed a
great anxiety on all hands that- the laws should
be administered with the greatest lenity. For
those reasons he. could not give his consent to
;liter the existing laws.
• . the' Earl of CARNARVOii said, he had not
heard one word in answer to the argument drawn
from the increase of prosecutions for robberies in.
bleaching grounds since the punishment was miti-
gated ; and maintained that while the laws were
continued in their present severity, the-y could
not answer the ends of public justice. He had
'ltiinself abstained from prosecuting in one instance
for-that reason.

Lord SJDMouTII observed, that the very
fact. of the increase of crime in late years, was
drawn from the increase of prosecutions; and
uniOs the advodates of these Bills could show
that while crime was increasing prosecutions
were stationary, the principle on which their ad-

vocacy was founded must fall to. the ground. The
gr-ott incentive to crime consisted not in theun-

certainty of prosecution, :but in the chance of
es-capingcapitaFpnniShment,and the insufficiency

of secondary punishments.-11e could state cases

in which the increase of punishment had dimi-
nished the offen.ce, and particularly with respect
to the commission of'rohberies upon rivers, which
since the capital punishment was annexed, had

almost ceased, through the exertions of the
Tbaines'Police. :Feeling the importance of pro-
tecting .the property of. h;s fellow-subjects, he
dare not' agree to the motion, which would ope-
rate as an encouragement to crime.
Lord CAI.,THORPE in•-support of the Bills,
as they went toreinove incOnsisteneies,in.the
and did not reflect 'upon those concerned iu the
administration of it.

Lord Krvcr thottght, that the disproportion in

the convictions stated by the Noble Viscount
was an argument in favourof the Bill, and not
against it. The.late increase of crime was ad-
mitted upon all hands ; but he lamented that
there" was a disposition to prevent any improv-
meat in the law upon the part of those who were
at the head of the. Police and the administration
of Criminal Justice.
The Marquess of LANSDOWN replied briefly.

After a few words in explanation from the
Lo o GIIA,NCELLOR-and:Viscount.SIDMOVTI3, the
House. divided
Contents r- - - r -
Non-Contents - - - -
Majoiity against the Bills - -
' Adjourned, - •
110 USE OF COMMONS.

27
_lO

A Messenger from the Bank of -England presented an Ac-
wont of the Number of Forged Bank Notes which had been
.presented for payment during the last year:—Laid on the table,
and ordered to be printed.
The Sheerness Lands', Bill and the Navy Property Bill
ware read A second time, and ordered to be .committed to,
morrow.

'The Report of the White Herring Fishery Bill Was received;
and the Bill ordered to be read a third time-to-morrow. .
-The House went into a Committee on.the Scotch Malt Du-

ties Bill ; the Report was ordered to be received to-morrow.
The Scotch Distillery Drawliack Bill went through a Com-
mittee, and th,e Report vas ordered to be received to-morrow. .
The Fur Trade Regulation 13i11 was read a thiid tine, and
passed.