The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MQNDAY MORNING, JULY 8, 1644.

with troth, it cannot be on that account the more permitted.
The printing of his incendiary suggestions may supply evi-
dence against the disturber of the public peace, but it scarcely
aggravates his offence; for this reason we have always con-
sidered, and often argued, that publications hostile to the
public peace, to morality, and religion, ought to be taken out
of the category of libels, and prosecuted respectively as
sedition, corruption of morals, or blasphemy eo nomine. But
would it be endured, or ought it to be endured, that the in-
cendiary corrupter of morals, or blasphemer, should make a
court of justice the theatre in which to vindicate, by the
mouths of witnesses, and by arguments of counsel, his dan-
gerous or detestable doctrines? Or, is a jury a competent
tribunal to decide upon such an investigation ? These
views, if they are correct, show the impossibility of ever
adopting a law that proposed by Lord Campbell. The
Noble Lord has done much for the press; we heartily thank
him for what he has done, and we intreat him to persevere
in the same line in which he has succeeded, but in which we
assure him there is still much to reform. On Thursday we
communicated the case of a Cheltenham journal put to the
expense of nine hundred pounds costs in a case where the jury
returned one farthing damages. Ought such a thing to be
possible ?

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)

MANSION-HO USE.

A man named Joseph Edwards was brought before
the Lord Mayor, upon the charge of having obstructed
City policeman John Davis, No. 551, in the execution of
his duty, and having been the means of gathering toge-
ther a great crowd.
The policeman said that at about ten o'clock there
was a row in Eastcheap, round a public-house, and that
a girl in a drunken state, was endeavouring to force her
way into a public-house, the landlord of which very
properly refused to admit her; that the defendant said
she had been insulted and abused, and appealed to
witness, who replied that as she had made no com-
plaint whatever, he could do nothing in the business.
The defendant then said that witness was to be bought
with a half-pint of beer, refused to go away, and con-
conducted himself in such a manner that many people
assembled at the door of the house. For the sake of
the public peace, it, therefore, became necessary to take
him into custody, and, finally, to represent the offensive
conduct. of the man to the Lord Mayor.
The LOAD MAvon asked the policeman a few ques-
tions, which decided the matter in a very short time
against the person in authority. His Lordship then asked
the defendant what he had to say on the subject ? The
defendant—My Lord, there is a gentleman here who saw
this policeman treat me so badly that he interfered for
me, even though he raised the policeman's resentment
against himself. I saw a woman of respectable appear-
ance, but who or what she was I Gon't know, kicked by a
brutal fellow into the middle of the street, as she was
going into a public-house. I saw the kick repeated, and
I spoke to the policeman, who was standing near, about
the brutality of such conduct, when he spoke to me in a
ruffianly tone, and threatened to take me into custody if
I did not walk off. As I felt that he was acting in a dis-
graceful manner, I expostulated with him, and he then
struck me and collared me, and hauled me off to the
station-house.

Mr. Thomas J. Carr, of Northumberland-street, New-
road, stated that he was passing at the time, and saw the
female most shamefully treated. He then observed the
policeman catch hold of the defendant and strike him
without having received the slightest provocation what-
ever. The policeman used at the same thee very gross
and abusive language towards the man who was the ob-
ject of his wrath. Witness mildly interfered to prevent
the policeman from acting with such improper violence,
but was called a " puppy," and told that if he did not
walk away, he, too, should go to the station-house.
The policeman said the last witness told a falsehood
%hen he said the defendant was struck, and that the
police could not be expected to do their duty, if people
were to interfere with them so improperly.
The Loan MAYOR—Why did you call this gentleman
a puppy for having expostulated with you ? The police-
man—l certainly did call him a " puppy," because he had
no right to obstruct me. He collected a crowd about the
place, and a policeman has much to contend against,
when he is accused before a mob.

Mr. Carr said the conduct of the policeman was cal-
culated to stir the blood of any man—it was so absolute
and peremptory an exercise of authority. He (witness)
was determined to attend, at great inconvenience to him-
self, to represent the circumstances. He knew nothing
whatever of the person against whom the charge had
been brought, and whom the policeman swore, in a very
disgusting manner, he would kick into the street, but he
knew the magistracy of London would not tolerate so
scandalous an exhibition. . .

The Loud) MAYOR—The policeman has, by his own
statement, shown• that be far exceeded the limits of the
authority he is permitted to exercise. His conduct has
been a palpable violation of the peace, instead of being
conducive to the preservation of it. He has insulted
and struck the person he has charged with having dis-
turbed him, and he has also behaved in a manner calcu-
lated to lead to a breach of the peace towards the gen-
tleman who so properly rebutted his evidence. I dismiss
the complaint against the defendant, and if the case were
mine I certainly should take means of punishing the real
aggressor.