The Sun.
London, England, 1827-12-15 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF TIM PUBLIC JOURNALS.

We know not whether it be worth the while to
mention the various rumours of a general change in
the Ministry ; they prove, however,—and they are,
perhaps, the first outward signs that have proved,—
a failure in the hopes of those who have recourse to
so contemptible an experiment, or trick, to promote
their views. If they were making progress, they
need not prematurely circulate fictions. The Ultras,
before organizing themselves under Lord Grey,
should have looked to what lie has said of them,
after MK Canning became Prime Minister, particu-
larly in his speech on the 10th of May last, wherein
his Lordship said—" For 20 years, except for one'
short period, he had sat on that (the Opposition)
side of the House, and he felt himself compelled still
to retain that place ; at the same time he wished not
to be classed with those noble Lords before him, who
professed to be united in opposition to His Majesty's
Government. * * * * * *
If he were adverse to any one thing more than ano-
ther,it would be to giving his support to any measure
which would tend to restoring the Noble Lords who
sat before him to power." If this does not settle the
question of a coalition between Lord Grey and the
old Tory faction in the negative, or condemn him to
shame as long as his life lasts, we know not what
political act can produce that effect upon a
political character. But we, in truth, augur
better of Lord Grey, and firmly trust that he will
not disgrace the fast approaching close of his po-
litical career, by a dereliction of the principles of his
whole life, and by associations which his soul
abhors. We press this matter now, on account of
the great peculiarity of a whisper, -which has been
conveyed to our ears from a most respectable quar-
ter : a whisper to this effect—that Lord Goderich,
professing.to be wearied by the opposition which he
met with in the Cabinet, and the difficulties result-
ing from the financial situation of the country, had
tendered his resignation to his Majesty. We have
reason to believe that the greater part of the Mini-
stry—indeed,we will say,some in the most important
stations—were ignorant of the fact, if fact it were,
at a late hour last night. The public will therefore
suspend their belief; but still we think they may
suspect with us that some intrigue is weaving. The
financial situation of the country is no doubt diffi-
cult, but that is not a reason why the Chief Finance
Minister should desert his post. We give the above
statement much weaker than we have received it.
We cannot call it a rumour, because it is not yet
circulated : we cannot be answerable for its exact-
nees, because it wants the authority of many names;
but it has in its support the assurance of one whom
we know to be incapable of an intentional misrepre-
sentation, and who never yet has misled us.—Times.
The history of diplomacy—and we believe there
are many thousand volumes upon the subject—does
not present a more singular incident than that which
we have to notice to-day. The incident, indeed, is
so singular as it now stands before Europe, that we
shall hardly trust ourselves to say any thing respect-
ing it beyond merely explaining and rendering it
',intelligible, hoping that facts will be hereafter made
known, which may alter itsschaeacter, or divest it of
that suspicious appearance in which it is at present
clothed. We yesterday published, from the Gazette
de France, an official document addressed by the
Austrian Minister, Prince Metternich, to the Inter-
nuncio from his Court at Constantinople, chiding him
in the severest terms with ignorance, or wilful vio-
lation of his instructions, letting him know that the
Emperor and King " blamed him and disavowed
him," imputing to him motives that could not be
comprehended, for refusing to co-operate with the
other great Powers " in making the Porte desist
• from its obstinacy, and obliging it to accept the salu-
tary measures lately proposed to it by Russia, France,
and England." For this his ignorance or disobedi-
ence to orders—orders of which he had been in pos-
session since the month of December last year—he is
commanded to go himself and apologise to the gentle-
men of the other missions, and to promise them his
co-operation in future, "the wishes of his Imperial
Majesty being entirely conformable to those of his
august Allies for the preservation of general peace,
and the re-establishment of order end security in
the East 1" Now it is remarkable, that though the
th
date of this despatch be had been22d l thought proper
Setember,
and though therefore,
it
to make it known in Europe, it might have been so
made known two months ago, or long before the
battle of Navarin, yet it only appears in the German
papers under the date of the 30th of last month !
But—and now we come to the principal part of this
strange story—hearing the very same date as that
which is affixed to this disgrace of Baron d'Otten-
fels, (namely, the 30th of November), there appears
in the Vienna Gazette an Imperial instrument, au
order proceeding from the Emperor' himself, ad-
vancing this same degraded Envoy, Baron d'Otten-
fels, to the office and state of Privy Councillor, " ie
consequence of his able and zealous diplomatic ser-
vices in keeping the peace of the Levant ! ! !" There
we put three notes of admiration, as having really
attained the top of our climax !
" By due gradations we attempt to rise."
What can all this mean ? Are these instruments—
thus laid almost simultaneously before the whole
of Europe—are they, one or other, or both of them,
forged ? The first and most obvious reasoning on
them, supposing both to be authentic, would be
this—that the despatch in which M. d'Ottenfels
is disgraced, being falsely dated upwards of two
months back, is put forth to satisfy and please
the Allies after their success at Navarin ; and
that the now honour of Privy Councillor is
conferred on d'Ottenfels to keep him quiet
and silent under such manifest injustice. But
we cannot, and will not, suspect the Court of
AuslCia (a Court so dignified, so decorous, nay,
even so pious) of such duplicity; and surely Prince
Metternich, a statesman so skilful and practised in
the deeper and smoother arts of statesmen, could
not he guilty of so bungling a piece of chicanery,
upon which the world may suspend its judgment for
a while from its extreme improbability, but which
ultimately can deceive no one. But what, then,
are we to suppose ? Can the Emperor and the
Minister entertain different opinions on the merits
of Baron d'Ottenfels ? and has each published an
instrument in his own sense or views, one disgracing
and the other exalting the Baron ? This supposi-
tion is not more probable than the other. Can the
Baron d'Ottenfels, after having so shockingly dis-
graced himself up to the 22d- of September, have so
far recovered his honour by the 30th of November
(out of which intervening period the time spent in
journies to and fro between Vienna and Constanti-
nople must be taken)—can the Baron, we say, have
so far redeemed his honour in this short time, as not
only to have wiped off his disgrace, but to have
merited the highest distinction of his Sovereign ?
Tsis would be to achieve a greater victory in diplo-
plomaey than the heroes of the united fleet gained
in the poet of Navarin. Besides the Imperial man-
date making d'Ottenfels a Privy Councillor, confers
that honour on ,him " for keeping the peace of the
Levant ;" and it unfortunately happens to have been
during this short perked that the peace of the Le-
vant was most effectually broken by the battle of
Navarin. We must, therefore, wait till further
light is cast upon this mysterious affair by fresh in-
formation.—lbid.

According to all the recent accounts from Con-
stantinople and Smyrna, the landing of Lord teoeh-
reale and Colonel Fabyier at Selo took place on the
29th of October, by which operation the Turkish
force was shut up in the Castle by the invaders. It
may be deemed, perhaps, not impossible that the
whole of the naval force of the Allies having been ,
called off in other directions, this landing may have
been effected without collusion or culpable negli-
gence on the part of some of the Naval Officers of
the three
what singular to AIR
quwitons ; but we own it appears some-
that this expedition, the prepa-
:rations for which aft
said to have bees mat ter of no-
toriety in the Levant, could have taken
place without
some effective notiFei
INCOren to the
parties engaged
. ,0 flagrant a violation of the armistice. The de-
; n of the three Admind
claration ex dated from the port

of Navarin, was directed against the expedition to
Scio by name ; but that declaration being sent
to what is called the Greek Government on the
24th of October, must have been too late to prevent
the landing in Scio on the 29th, through the inter-
ference of the Greek Government; and common
reason suggests that if the warnings were intended
to be effectual, they ought by all means to have been
given to Lord Cochrane and Colonel Fabvier by the
Allied Admirals themselves. This not having been
done, the Ottoman Porte is afforded just ground of
additional complaint, which it has not failed ener-
getically to express, in regard to the extreme and
wanton injuries which it has sustained at the hands
of those from whom its long experienced fidelity and
friendship had given it just claims to widely dif-
ferent—generous, fair, and honourable treatment ;
and for which, we are grieved to admit, it has in
vain looked in the present pernicious policy of the
Allied Courts.—.2llorning Post.
The trial of Mr. Eneas Macdonnell, for a libel on
the Hon. and Rev. Archdeacon Trench, occupied
the Court of King's Bench, Dublin, during the
whole of Monday and Tuesday. We gave a brief
account of the proceedings of Monday in yesterday's
Chronicle. Mr. Macdonnell finished speaking on
Tuesday, at about a quarter past three o'clock. The
Jury retired at about a quarter before four o'clock,
and in about four-and-twenty minutes afterwards,
returned with a verdict of Guilty. The subject of the
libel originated in the Bible battles at riallinasloe.
It was contained in the report of a speech in the
Dublin Morning Register of the 21st of October,
1826, said to have been delivered by Mr. Macdon-
nell, at a public meeting of Ballinasloe, on the 16th
of that mouth. The Dublin Morning Register had
sent a reporter to the meeting, who drew up the ac-
count inserted in the Morning Register, but Mr.
Macdonnell generously threw himself in the breach,
to shield the proprietor of the paper. " That speech
(said Mr. Macdonnell) I never saw till it appeared
in print. I was no party to its publication—l had
no communication with those who published it, and,
in point of fact, I do not believe I read it, until the
application on the part of the prosecutor was made.
I avow now that I never saw this speech in the pa-
per until Mr. Galway produced it to me. Perhaps I
may have taken a rash view of the obligations of public
men. The Learned Counsel referred to the liberty of
the Press. I have always felt that in this unfortunate
land, deprived of its domestic legislature, the Press has
been always our only and our great protection.—
Therefore, whether this Report were true or untrue—
if it were any thing like what I said, and that it had
not purposely distorted what I said—as a mart of
honour, I felt myself bound to see that no man else
should suffer. I know not what may be the conse-
quences, but no consequences should influence me
one way or the other. I state facts. You will see
that, if this be an instance of ill-judged concession,
shall at least go from you without the imputation
of dishonour. The liberty of the Press has been the
idol of my devotion. I have spoken of it else-
where—l have written of it elsewhere; I have said
what I think of it—that a liberal Press is the lungs
of the Constitution, performing the double function
of inhaling and diffusing throughout the extremities
the vital aliment of public opinion. So thinking,
I did not shrink from the responsibility of acting
upon those opinions which I felt it my bounden
duty to profess." A meeting called at Bal-
linasloe, by the London Hibernian Society, on
the 10th of October, 1826, was continued to
the 12th, when it was dispersed at the point of
the bayonet, under circumstances of a very irri-
tating nature, the armed force having acted by the
directions of Archdeacon Trench. A meeting',
having been called on the 16th, in order to allow a
manifestation of feeling on the subject, a very large
assemblage took place, and on that day, under the
influence of strong excitement, Mr. Macdonnell de-
livered the speech which contained the subject mat-
ter of the Libel, as given in the Chronicle of yester-
day. Mr. Bennett, in stating the case for the pro-
secution, observed—" If that publication was not a
libel, there never was a libel written. That publi-
cation attacks a respectable gentleman, a Clergyman
and a Magistrate—it imputes to him a premeditated
disposition to enter an assembly and murder 'his
fellow-subjects there—it imputes and charges him
in the most decisive manner with the most corrupt
and wicked conduct 'in his office as a Magistrate—
it imputes to him in the plainest language a suborna-
tion of perjury, and procuring witnesses to state on
their oath that which was false—it imputes to him
the abominable and detestable crime of having pro.
cured livings in the Church, in order that lie might
provide for his illegitimate children." And he
added, " Will lie (Mr. Macdonnell) endeavour to
allege that it is true ? What right would he have to
speak of it, because it might be true ? He alluded to a
period of history—to what occurred thirty years ago,
when Archdeacon Trench was Adjutant, and a per-
son was flogged on a triangle. Will he allege such
a fact, and make it his defence because he misrepre-
sents the truth ? As a lawyer, Mr. Macdonnell
must know, that that would not be a defence. If
it were true, as it is false, he would not be allowed
so to defend himself in a Court of Justice. Was a
man, after obtaining a character for integrity and
truth, to be for ever taunted and aspersed with the
crimes of his earliest youth, by every person who
happened to differ from him on speculative points.
Was he for ever to be gibbetted before the public ?
Will the gentleman who was a lawyer so advocate
his cause as if his charges were true ?" We have in
this cagT an exemplification of some peculiarities in
the judicial Procedure of this country, which are
well worth the cost serious attention. Mr. Ben-
nett states that Mr. Macdonnell, in the alleged libel,
charges the Hon. and Rev. Archdeacon Trench, " a
magistrate, with crimes which, if true, he should be
hurled down to eternal and interminable disgrace."
When Archdeacon Trench applied for the criminal
information, he swore that the crimes with which
he had been charged were falsely charged.—
Without coming forward with an affidavit de-
nying the statements in the libel, the Court will
not grant a rule to show cause. Mr. Macdon-
nell met the affidavitr.,. of Archdeacon Trench
by a number of affidavits in support of the
statements, which, if true, should, according to his
own Advocate, " hurl him down to eternal end in-
terminable disgrace." If, in the eye of law, it mat-
ters not whether the charges be true or false, why
doge that law impose on a prosecutor a necessity of
swearing to the falsehood of the charges imputed to
him, and subject him to the hardship of having his
fair fame blasted Ina affidavits in support of the
charges ? The law mug et rely suppose the truth or
falsehood of the charges materia:,.etherwise it would
not impose on parties such a preliaLtiery cross-
firing of affidavits, before refusing or granting the
criminal information. If we suppose any principle
in the Jaw, we must suppose that there is some ob-
ject in requiring these affidavits pro and con, and
that object can only be the enlightening the mind of
the Court with regard to the truth or falsehood of the
imputations in the libel. TO require the perform-
ance of certain acts without an object is idiotical ;
and if the affidavits on both sides are without any
object with reference to the matter which is to come
before the Jury, the Court might as well order the
prosecutor and defendant to hop round the Court so
many times. But if this proceeding is not altoge-
ther such as an idiot would prescribe, and if we must
presume that it is of importance to ascereale whe-
ther the statements in an alleged libel be true or
false, why, in the mune of God, is this inquiry not
conducted according to the mode which it is allowed
on all hands is the only efficient one for the disco-
very of the truth ? Instead of the prosecutor
- coming forward by affidavit, he should he compelled
to place himself in the witnesses' box, that his evi-
dence may be subjected to the test of a cross-
examination; and the defendant, in like manner,
produce his witnesses, that
should be compelled to
they may undergo the same ordeal. If it be ad-
mitted that the examination of witnesses viva voce,
is the only effectual security against mendacious
evidence, and that evidence by affidavit is the very
worst possible, why for the attainment of an object,
namely, the discovery of the truth, is the worst

method prescribed in preference to the best ? in
Mr. Bentham's recently published work, the " Ra-
tionale of Judicial Evidence," that acute writer has
placed in a striking light the " flagrant incongruities"
of the Anglican system of procedure in case of in-
formati on—incongrui ti es,as he observes,"more num e-
rous,more diversified, more inconsistent, and in respect
of their consistency, upon the whole, more revolting
to the scrutinizing eye" than those of any other
system. "In the third place," he observes, "
party may proceed in the way of in formation ; in which
care are exhibited the two of the three courses of in-

quiry, and masses of inquiry, and masses of testimony
above stated, under that head,viz., Ist, Affidavit work,
on the occasion of the motion made by the Advocate
of Lresus for the rule upon Furius, to show cause
why the information proposed to be exhibited
against him by Lmsus should not be filed; e. en-
tered among the records, to form a ground for the
definitive inquiry called the trial. On this occasion,
LMSI2i exhibits his own testimony, his own ready-
written and uninterrogable testimony, in the shape
of an affidavit, together with the testimony of any
such extraneous witnesses as (the transaction having
happened to furnish them) can be persuaded volun-
tarily to join their affidavits to his; 2d,on the occa-
sion of chewing cause as above, comes on the part
of the defendant, Furius, his own testimony in his
own behalf; which, being in the ready-written form,
and secure against the scrutiny of adverse interroga-
tion, is therefore admitted without scruple. Of
course, unless subject to any special objections, so
are the affidavits of as many extraneous witnesses
as he can prevail upon to take part with him;
for in this stage, the cause affords- not, on either
side, any compulsive process for the obtainment
of evidence ; so that, in this stage, upon which
the remaining ones are built, there cannot be
any other witnesses than partial ones." The pre-
liminary inquiry into the truth or falsehood of the
statements in the alleged libel, having been disposed
of on evidence impotent for the discovery of truth,
then comes a second inquiry—namely the trial—
when the best description of evidence is receivable,
but where all the circumstances which give their
colour to the alleged libel,—namely, their truth or
falsehood—are excluded from their enquiry. The
worst description of evidence is taken when the in-
quiry is difficult and delicate, and when the inquiry
is merely to establish the fact of publication, which
is all that is at issue, then the best description of
evidence is called for. What a barbarous system of

law is the English law; what a disgrace to a civi-
lized nation ! Those who raised their voices in fa-
vour of such palpable absurdities, ought to be treated
as impudent and insolent deriders of their fellow-
creatures, or as ideots. When, however, a prose-
cutor wishes to establish his character, which of
course, if it have been affected by the charges, he
can only do by letting in the truth, he acts as Mr.
Hartshorn lately acted. That Gentleman felt that
suspicion would attach to his character, unless be
went into the box, and allowed those who had in-
jured him to subject him to a cross-examination.—
The Attorney-General boasted that it was a "sub-
ject of the highest gratifiqation to him, that the
Gentleman had passed through the ordeal in a manner
which he hoped, would satisfy the world that he
bad been fully able to justify his innocence, honour
and integrity." The Lord Chief Justice observed,
" that it was due to the prosecutor to say, that he
(the Lord Chief Justice) had never seen a gentle-
man conduct himself with more propriety in the
witness-box than Mr. Hartshorn;" and Mr. Justice
Bayley, in pronouncing judgment, said, "the gentle-
man did right to his own character not to be satisfied
with that explanation, but to pursue the case, so
that he might have the opportunity, publicly in the
witness-box, of exposing himself to cross-exami-
nation." Then, according to Mr. Justice Bayley,
the Honourable and Reverend Archdeacon Trench
did wrong to his own character, when charged by Mr.
AV-Donned with crimes which, according to the ad-
mission of his own Counsel, " if true, he should be
hurled down to eternal and interminable disgrace,"
he (lid npt avail himself " of the opportunity, pub-
licly in the witness-box, (f exposing himself to cress-
examination." The inference which Mr. Justice
Bayley draws is, that every man, when charged
with what wouhl disgrace him if true, will
expose himself to cross-examination, if innocent,
and that his not availing himself of such an
' opportunity, _not
to a confession of guilt;
at least, warrants the conclusion by others that
the charges are true, as they might have been
denied, and were not. Mr. Macdonnell wished for
nothing so much as to afford such an opportuultito
Archdeacon Trench. " The Hon. and Rev. Arch-
deacon Trench," he says, " has the right, and he
ought, if vindication, not vengeance, were his object,
to be in that box to-day. He should have come
there and told the truth—he should have denied
the statements reflecting on him ;
_he had a right to
give you the benefit of his own evidence—he had a
right to swear, himself, that the publication he com-
plains of is a libel, before he asked you to swear that
it was so. The law empowered him to do so.—
Why did he stay away ? Why did he not leave
the facts fully before you ? Mind, the Hon. and
Venerable Archdeacon complains of a variety of
statements, and he does not come forward personally
to swear to any one of them as a libel. It is a very
safe thing to swear upon paper. He swore they
were false where he could not be cross-examined.—

He shows that he can swear respecting them, for
he swears where he cannot be submitted to the or-

deal of a cross-examination. Why does he swear
that on paper which he shrinks from swearing be-
fore a Jury ? Can you believe such a man, that he
has been libelled, and injured, and that falsehoods
have been told of him ? I heard he was in town
this very day; I believe so—l believe he is within
a few minutes' walk of this Court at the present ,
moment. Let him come now,and any advantage which
I might claim on account of the case for the prosecu-
tion being closed I shall abandon—let him come now,
and, so help me God, if he vindicate his character upon
oath, ix your presence, I will abide the result. I do not
appeal to the God of Heaven in vain. If the Arch-
deacon comes hare and swears that I have wronged
him, I have done at once. But if he will not come;
if he leave Learned Counsel to state his case, and
Learned Counsel to follow up that statement, what
will you say to that, Gentlemen of the Jury ? The'
Learned Counsel who stated the case, said, "That
if al) the charges against the prosecutor were true,
he would deserve to be hurled down to eternal, and
interminable disgrace.' I never uttered such a libel ;
I never talked of eternal and interminable disgrace.
j The libel emanates from the prosecutor's Counsel,
who tells you, that if these charges were true, his
client should be hurled to eternal arid interminable
disgrace. If that be true,' says his Counsel; and
I now offer to him an opportunity to swear before
you that they are not true, I do not know whether
there be any chance of his appearance, but I shall
abide by my protestation. More, Gentlemen :—from
the advanced hour of the day, I trust to the indul-
gence of the Court that we shall not he concluded this
afternoon. Now, I make this fresh offer to the Arch-
deacon. Let him appear in that box to-morrow, and I
will abide the consequences. Gentlemen of the Jury, it
may be said that, in point of law, he is not bound to
appear." If the Archdeacon be innocent, how ill he
must have been counselled to keep back all evidence
by which his innocence may have been established.
With this damning charge against him, he flies to
that law, which, according to Judge Bayley, no man
conscious of innocence would resort to, as it leaves
ground for szaspicion, and calls for the penalty in the
bond. Oh what a triumph to the noble family to
which he is related ! Oh what a triumph to the
Church—to the Church of which he is a dignitary !
Jut this is not the worst of this business. The pro-
secutor shrinks from trial in the county where both
parties reside, and where he ought to possess in-
fltnce, and the trial takes place in Dublin. In that
city nineteen twentieths of the population are Ca-
tholics, and the Catholics form a large proportion of
the The Sheriff returns a panel with
5
these there are 531 not Catho-
lics.ames chosen not one is a Catholic.
5 freeholders.
Onames
te
4 amongB
n
In another case connected with it there is a list of
640, and when the panel is stock, not one Catholic.

This in a case where the dispute arose out of Bible
squabbles—where the prosecutor selects his place
for trial—where the defendant is identified with the
Catholics—even the Court depart from their rules
against poor Mr. Macdonnell. We shall return to
this case, to show that justice is not for a Catholic
—that he is put out of the pale of the Law.—
Morning Chronicle.
•

It appears from the letter of Mr. Thomas, the con- '
stable of the parish of St. Paul, Covent-garden—
whose active exertions to suppress disorderly houses
in that parish, and to clear the entrance of Covent-
garden Theatre of the gangs of thieves and vaga-
bonds that nightly beset it, deserve the highest
praise—that he is about to transfer the execution of
the duties of his office into the hands of a substitute.
The reasons that he gives for so doing are the ob-
struction and ill-treatment which he has received
from some police-officers, and the reception which he
met with from the Chief Magistrate of Police at
Bow-street on endeavouring to state his complaint
at that office. For a long time past we have felt it
our duty to call the attention of the Home Depart-
ment to the state of the Police. We have taken
up the subject as we take up other questions of
public abuse—upon public principle. We have en-
deavoured to bring about a reformation of a system
which greatly concerns the well being of society. In
doing so we frequently find it necessary to com-
ment upon the conduct of individuals—not in their
individual capacity, but under circumstances in which
their conduct affects the interests of the public, and
therefore becomes amenable to public opinion. We
have supported Mr. Thomas because he has practi-
Cally shown that the inefficiency of the Police does
not so much arise from the want of adequate laws to
abate the nuisances of which we complain, as from
the supineness or connivance of the officers them-
selves. For this we have supported Mr. Thomas ;
and also because, having given an example of how
much one honest, resolute, and active individual
can accomplish, in vindication of public morals and
public security, we thought it right that such ex-
ample should be as generally known as possible,
that other persons intrusted with the discharge of
similar duties might be induced to imitate it. We
regret that a person who, in the execution of a public
office, however humble, has sacrified his personal
convenience to the interests of society, and made
himself as useful to the public as the limited
sphere of his operations would allow, should be
driven by anything like cabal to adopt the measure
of transferring it to other hands. He should recollect
that by so doing he acts precisely as those, who have
felt his conduct to be a severe reflection on their
own, desire. It is true he gives very strong reasons
for the step which he considers himself forced to
take when he says, " With the various difficulties
that a contact with abandoned characters and notori-
ously bad houses would offer I was prepared to con-
tend. With the far greater difficulties of a reluctant,
prejudiced Police I was not prepared to encounter;
for it would be madness in me to sacrifice my quiet,
my Circumstances, and personal sgfety, in so perilous
a contest." Whatever difficulties and opposition
Mr. Thomas may have to encounter, he should bear
in mind that such conduct as he has hitherto pur-
sued in office must always secure the great support
of the moral and respectable portion of society. No
jealousy on the part of underlings, or petulance on
the part of superiors, should drive a man from his
station who has such a support at his back. But we
trust that Mr. Thomas will, in duty to himself and
the public, lay the whole of the circumstances of
which he complains before the Secretary of State for
the Horne Department, as this affair is so intimately
connected with the character and conduct of the
Police.—Morning Herald.

THE CONVICTS, FRENCH & WILLIAMS.

The unhappy men who are ordered for execu-
tion on Wednesday next, were convicted at the
last October Sessions—the former for horse-
stealing, and the latter for house-breaking. The
case against French was clearly established on
the till], notwithstanding he endeavoured by the
evidence of his son, a boy 17 years of age, to
rebut the testimony adduced on the part of the
prosecution. The horse in question, which be-
longed to Mr. Mott, an attorney, at Much
Hadham, in Hertfordshire, was put into that
gentleman's meadow on the night of the 23d of
July last, and at ten o'clock the next morning it
was missing ; and it was discovered that Mr.
`1"-(A4'..atable had been broken into in the night,
and a bride—and -
'paddle carried sway. Three
days afterwards the horse was found by Attfield
and Garton, officers of Worship-street, in French's
stables, at No. 42, Chenies-mews, Tottenham-
court-road. French absconded, and was out of
the way a considerable time, but was at, length
apprehended in Park-place, Kennington, and he
then admitted that the stables where the horse
was found were his ; adding, that he had been
paid by some person 11. a week to keep out of
the way. It was attempted to be proved by his
son that the horse was brought to the stables
during his father's absence, by a man named
Thomas Shaw, residing in Osnaburgh-street,
New-road, who, he said, left it at livery. Shaw,
however, was not forthcoming to corroborate the
boy's statement, nor was any other witness called
on the prisoner's behalf, except two or three who
spoke to his general character as having been
very good up to the transaction in question. The
Jury, on this account, recommended him to
mercy. The unfortunate man, who is upwards
of 50 years of age, has a wife and a large family
of children.

Williams,
who, though a young man, has,
been long known to the- police, was
we believe,
convicted on a charge of entering .the dwelling-
hono utshee of
nNi
ght oof Marc,
thhea nBt t ofh oFf i eol de
t- loahneer, HI a
sotl,b oarnna,
stealing a cash-box, containing Bank of Eng-
land notes, and gold and silver coin, to the
amount of 401., besides trinkets, and other ar-
ticles. A man of the name of Richards, a
lodger in the house of Mr. Marchant, heard a
noise .on the tiles of the shed adjoining the wall
that divided the yards of Mr. Marchant's house
and the adjoining one. He put his head out of
the back window, and saw Williams on the shed.
On being asked what he wanted there, he said
he was looking for a dog, for which he had
given half a guinea. Richards, seeing him pre-
paring to get over the wall into the yard of Mr.
Marchant's house, immediately went into the
yard, when lie found the prisoner had dropped
into the water-butt. He helped him out, and
another man came to his assistance, when they
found the cash-box, &c. concealed under his
coat. A watchman was called in,
Novae:eh:use,
taken to the watch-house, where, upon
and
he
ebewinags
searched, a complete set of the apparatus for
house-breaking, consisting of phosphorus-box,
matches', picklock keys, chisel, &c., were found
on his person. On his way to tliinet
he made a desperate effort to escape. He is
about 23 years of age. Since his conviction,
he has entertained no hopes that the full penalty
of the law would not be carried

it was first proposed to
iAthL:AruzA.Nwoaysheenxtremely averse to a
inarriTagAeßvirl
her by her father. When the young Princess Lxorommtra,
then about twelve years old, Who was present at the inter-
view, saw her sister so much disinclined to the match, she
said, with extreme naivete, " Dear papa, since my sister
seems so greatly shocked at this union, I will go in her
Place, and be married to NAPOLEON. I have no dislike to
the EMPEROR, and I dare say it will be the same thing to
him." " You are a little fool," replied FaaNcis, tenderly
ning, " and know not what you say."...44necdotes of
Courts.
s Foreign