The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVE NING-, JUNE 3, 1844.

even persons in authority there might think otherwise. He
should next allude to the consequence that arise from the free
admission of sugar from Brazil, and Cuba to this country.
The measure proposed to Parliament by Sir R. Peel did not
in any way emanate from the anti-slavery party ; at the
same time he '(Mr. Gurney) would assert that it would
cause the admission of but a 'very small portion of slave
grown sugar, although it might cause some increase of con-
sumption upon the' continent of Europe. He hoped that
Anti-slavery Society would at all times use their influence,
and that influence were great with the Government to adopt
such measures as would put an end to slavery.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ANSTEY regretted to see so small a meeting. After
reflecting upon the matter with much attention he felt bound
to. say that his conscience compelled him to vote for the
amendment. With respect to discouraging slave-grown pro-
duce by abstaining from the use of them, he for one would be
most anxious to adopt any practical mode for carrying it into
effect.
.Mr. BIAIR said he considered it to be the duty of Govern •
meat to discriminate between the dishonest and the honest
man ; between the man who raises his produce by slave
labour and him who does it by free labour.
After a few words from Mr. J. STRANGE, in support of the
original motion,
Captain STUART contended that commercial slavery would
not exist without there were consumers of the slave grown
articles, who acted as employers of the slave traders, He
entreated the meeting to disregard what had fallen from
Mr. Thompson, and recollect the final account they would
have to render of their conduct in encouraging slave trade
He thought that for the protectionof liberty and philantrophy
the Government was called upon to interfere with such fiscal
regulations as would discourage the slave trade.—(Cheers.)
The CHAIRMAN put the amendment; when only seven
hands were held up in its favour. lie next put the original
motion, in favour of which 82 persons voted.
'After the Chairman declared the original motion to be
carried, a vote of thanks were passed to him, and the meet-
ing separated.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS

FROM THE EVENING PIPERS OF THIS RAY.
GLOBE.—The prison doors have closed upon O'Connell
find upon those who took a prominent part with him in the
Repeal agitation. Pending the decision of the House of
Lords on the writ of error which is to come immediately
before it—and which may even pronounce . illegal the very
judgment by which the parties are suffering—it might
be deemed impertinent, if not
~ presun;ptuous, in us to
raise an argument upon the points which await the deci-
sion of such a tribunal. The attention of the legal
profession in both countries will be fastened upon the
proceedings in error ; and the people of those countries,
but especially those of Ireland, will await, with breathless
anxiety, the decision which will reverse, or affirm, the judg-
ment pronounced by the Court of 'Queen's Bench in that
country. The doubt that still rest on the legal validity of
the proceedings in no respect-diminishes the responsibility of
the Government to public opinion, nor exonerates it from the
censure which it has justly incurred by the prosecution. The
former is solemn; the latter Is severe. At no period of the
agitation whence the Government affected to apprehend
danger—which, had it really felt, would have led to an
earlier interference with the " monster meetings"--was the
peace of Ireland so fearfully perilled as when O'Connell was
conducted from the bar of the Court to the prison to which
he, with his coadjutors, was - doomed for taking part in
those meetings. Whether the law was really stretched
beyond its due limits to reach the leaders of the Re-
peal movement, or whether it was merely extended to
its utmost length in order that it might reach them, we
will not now argue. One thing is certain—the ingenuity of
the most skilful sophists has been tried, and has not pre-
vailed, to mystify the long-delayed interference of the Go-
vernment, or to avert the conclusion which flows from it. The
meetings were spread over a period of several months. They
amounted to forty-nine in number. They interference on the
part of the executive gave notice of any apprehension of dan-
ger to the public peace, or of desire on the part of the autho-
rities that they should be discontinued. The legality of the
object for which the meeting were held was admitted. The
constitutional right of meeting was unquestioned, and un-
questionable. If the mere question of numbers diminished or
vitiated the right, the Government was bound to ad-
monish, to warn, and-s-if in its decretion it thought pro-
per to proceed to that extent—to prohibit, the meetings.
Not a single breach of the peace had occurred at or
had arisen out of, any one -of the numerous meetings. No
sooner did the authorities intimate their will and pleasure
that the "monster meetings" should cease to be held, and is-
sued a Proclamation to that effect, than it was obeyed. With
a promptitude that deserves to be mentioned to his honour—
with an earnestness which attested his anxiety, O'Connell
exhorted end commanded the masses over whom he ex-
exercised an absolute control, to return every man to his
own home. The implicit obedience yielded to the Proclama-
tion, by which the Clontarf meeting was prevented, is the
best possible proof that had a similar interference on the
part of the Government been deemed necessary at an
earlier period, a similar submission to the constituted au-
thorities would have been shown. The public tranquillity
was placed in much more peril by the imprudent, if not
preconcerted, lateness of the hour at which the Procla-
mation was issued—allowing of scarcely an opportunity of
preventing the coming multitudes from reaching the ap-
pointed rendezvous—than by any or even all the meetings
that had preceded it. Whatever had been the calamitous
consequences of an accidental collision between the military
and a part of the people, coming—as they had been wont
to come, without expectation of interruption, and with-
out intention of harm—the Government would have
been the direct occasion of the calamity. Not a single overt
act alleged against. O'Connell, in support of the conspiracy
charged, upon him and his coadjlitors, bears so suspicious an
appearance as the issuing of the Proclamation, at the late hour
at which it appeared, does against the Irish Government. But
for the promptitude and energy with which its manifest ten-
dencies were counteracted by the address that O'Connell drew
up, printed, and dispersed among the multitudes when on
their way to the meeting, the plains of Clontarf might have
become an Aceldama, and the history of that day's doings
have been written. in blood,. On the bead of the Government

must rest the bliirieuf tlje long-continued agitation. History
will pronounce upon the cits,acter of the policy by which the
Government has sought to sustain itself in Ireland, if the
immediate consequences of that policy --do not showliow ill-
suited were its measures to establish order among its
inhabitants.

.....
STANDARD.—The debate of Friday night suggests two
considerations. First, whether it is proper to protect public
worship from outrage by offences less than breach of the
peace. Secondly, whether better and cheaper tribunals for
causes testamentary than the ecclesiastical courts can be
found, for it will not be enough to show that those courts
have 'faults, except some means of amending these faults be
proposed, and some better courts substituted. Now, with
reference to the first point, it will not be disputed that public
worship may be scandalised and interrupted by many things
short of breach of the peace, by many things that constitute
no common law offence. Is there to be no protection against
such scandals and offences, or if it is proposed to guard against
them; will it be quite safe to enlarge the present juris-
diction of the lay tribunals, as to the construction of what is
decorous or indecorous in public worship—to refer the matter,
for example, to police magistrates. We very much doubt
whether this would be a step in favorens libertatis. As to the
causes testamentary, we know not what tribunal can be substi-
tuted for the Ecclesiastical Courts in such cases, except the
Courts of Equity. Causes testamentary are precisely of that
kind which the ordinary tribunals of the country cannot
entertain, because they have not the necessary machinery,
and are, in all respects, framed with a view to the litigation
of a different kind of questions. Everything, in fact, to be
strict
multitude legal language, properly the object of a common-law suit. must be reduced
to one or more distinct definite issues, whether of law, or of
fact, or of both ; but testamentary causes cannot be re-
duced to such distinct issue or issues. Even were wills
which they are not,
of contingent and complicated
questions, which can be dealt with only by a process
analogous to that of the Roman law, and of courts: of
equity. Abolish the jurisdiction of - the ecclesiastical courts
in testamentary cases, and you send every will cause to
London to be made the subject of a Chancery suit. That is,
theyalw always written
rititseento in a
at the very time when you are bringing the common law
home to every man's dbor by the establishment of local
courts, you destroy thirty-five local courts of equity in
order to centralise the subject of their jurrisdiction in
London; at an enormous addition of expense to
the unhappy parties compelled to resort tci them.
Does not this look very like folly and contradiction? One
word upon the question of costs. Why are the costs so heavy ?
The Legislature has abandoned its charges upon suitors, by
the remission of stamp duties; the judges, we believe, are
seriously desirous to reduce the amount of costs; the bar
has surrendered a great deal of its profits; still costs have
undergone no sensible diminution, if they have not
rather increased. This is a riddle which we believe
every unprofessional man wishes to see solved, but which, as
we have reason to.know, even eminent lawyers cannot solve.
The late Chief Baron Abinger having, about two or three
years ago, declared from the bench, that it was impossible to
run up the costs of writ, declaration, and interloculory
judgement beyond five pounds, a friend, the protector of
a poor man persecuted by a shark, assured the Noble
Baron, whom he met the next day at dinner, that these costs
had'been, in a very simple ease, run up to ten pounds. Lord
Abinger expressed his • disbelief. On a subsequent day,
however, the bill of costs, regularly- taxed at 101. I ls. 4d.,
was presented to him : he examined the items, shook his
head, and came to the conclusion that until the whole
system of costs is changed, so as to make excessive charges
penal, the Legislature and the Bench must labour in vain.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Their Lordships met at Five o'Clock.
The Earl-tif.CAWDOR presented a petition against
the union of
_thesees- of St..Asaph and-Bangor: - • .
The Duke of BUCCLEIXCH presented a petition
praying for, the legalisation, of Presbyterian marriages.
Messengeis from the ,Commons brought up .several
Bills. . .
The Marcluis of NORMANDY presented several peti-
tions from diffeient parts of Ireland, praying their Lord-
ships to legalise Presbyterian marriages.
WOOL mums.. .
Lord KINNAIRD wished to ask the Noble Duke on
the cross bench.(the_ Puke of Richmond),.whether,_now
that he had got the return relating to the wool duty,
and considering a lite appointment which had• been
made in the Government, he intended to make any
motion on the subject of the duties on wool. He wished
also to move for.a return of the imports of salmon since
the alteration in the duty. He moved for this return to
show that the reduction which had taken place in the
prodUce of the Noble Duke's salmon fisheries in Scot-
land was. not owing to the importation which had taken
place under the tariff.
The Duke of RICHMOND expressed his great sur-
prise At the course. whchicahrgtheetoNmobakle
eLaogradinhsadt
htiamk,eine.t.
him
question,NroesbelteoLpourtdahadaiy
i and in doing so, he indulged in no
insinuations against him (the Duke of Richmond.) If the
make it like a man. It was contrary to the practice. of
that House, and contrary, to the practice of society, in
Which Gentlemen were suppcised.to move, to make such
insinuations as the Noble Lord had indulged in. What
did the Noble Lord mean by alluding to a recent 4139int-
mut, it he did . not allude :to .the appointment
of one of his (the Duke of Richinond's) brothers to the
office of 'a Lord of the Treasury. Did the Noble Lord
suppose that because that appointment had been made
he (the Duke of Richmond) was thereby .``. gagged.".„
(Hear, hear.) He- had known nothing of the appoint-
ment Of his brother until after it had taken place. His
brother certainly Came to him and informed .him that the
appointment had been 'offered to . him, and..ivished to
have his advice upon it. Ilia answer was, `.`. I think
you
.had better . remain in .ihe command of your re-
giment ; • hut you --are the best judge. I would net
take office under the Government because I cannot
agree with all their measures." His brother, however,
accepted the offices (the Duke, of Richmond) would

.~.

remind their Lordships that he had given up his place
as a Cabinet Minister, because he could not agree with
his colleagues. He would say nothing now about the
coal duties, as he intended to speak upon the subject on
the third reading of the Coal Duties Bill.
Lord KINNAIRD disclaimed any intention of insi-
nuating that the Noble Duke would be " gagged" by
the appointment of his brother.
After a few words from the Duke of RICHMOND,
the subject dropped.
FACTORIES' BILL.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved the third.reading of
this Bill.
The Earl of RADNOR did not think that legislation
was required upon the subject of female labour in
factories.
The Duke of SUTHERLAND would not oppose the
Bill. He would, however, have supported a measure
limiting the hours of labour to a smaller number than
twelve hours.

(LEFT SITTING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at a few minutes to Four

NEW MEMBER.
Mr. ENTWISLE was introduced by Mr. Blackburn
and Mr. W. Patten, and took the oaths and his seat for
South Lancashire.
The further consideration of the Reports on the Ash-
ton and Staleybridge Railway Bills was postponed till

to-morrow.
The Slammannan Junction Railway Bill was read a
third time and passed.
The Eastern Counties (Newport Deviations) Bill was
read a third time and passed. -
The "Report upon the Wick Tree Roads Bill was
brought up and received; as was also the Report upon
Edward's Estate Bill. _ .