The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-30 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS

FROM TEE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—The Ipswich Tories have, it seems, ce-
lebrated their triumph—that is they have been sup-
plied with a gorge at the White Horse, the focus of
election purity in that borough, at the expense of
Earl Desart and Mr. Thomas Gladstone, who, for
the present, represent that immaculate constituency.
We pass over the parts of the report which chronicle
the mere routine business of the day. The matter-
of-course toasts, drunk with " due honours ;" the
"health of Sir Robert Peel, and her Majesty's Minis-
ters," drunk " with three times three, and continued
applause ;" and other such like demonstrations of
" enthusiasm," may he well imagined, and need not be
described. The speeches of Earl Desart and his Hon.
Colleague, in returning thanks, exhibit a few points
too interesting to be dismissed in an off-hand way.
The first remark which suggests itself on read-
ing the Earl's oration is the excessive modesty it
displays. How true the adage, that modesty in
the young invests every other excellence with
a charm ! 'The young lord—his faculties imma-
ture, and his fitness for the station to which he
has ventured to aspire yet untried—had the grace to
assume that the eyes of England were fastened on the
Ipswich contest; and that the entire nation—" the
country at large "—poured forth its gratitude to the
Ipswich Tories for sending to the House of Commons
the scarcely fledged Earl Desart ! His Lordship
" thanked the electors again, not for himself, but for
the country at large ! " The little stars of that hemis-
phere will henceforth " hide their dimnished rays "
in the presence of the resplendent luminary whom the
Ipswich Tories have introduced to shame them inte
obscurity ! After pronouncing a high eulogiuirt
upon the tariff, which his Lordship characterised as
" a large and comprehensive measure," of which the
more he saw the higher his admiration rose, his
Lordship " deplored the factious and party opposi-
tion at present manifested in the House of Com-
mons ;" and deplored the dulness of Sir R.
Vyvyan's comprehension, who in his letter to his
constituents had, though a Conservative, denounced
the measures of the Government. If Earl Desart's
sensibilities be moved by such causes, we predict
he will have increasing cause for mourning. " The
Government Poor-law Bill would also have his
support." These topics were dismissed to make way
for others more interesting to " the country at large,"
viz., "the prevailing distress," and the unsullied purity
of the Ipswich Tories : the first of which is too ge-
nerally felt to require proof—the latter will demand
stronger evidence in its favour than even his Lord-
ship's present means of knowledge can supply, or his
partiality for his new relations allow him to furnish.
Those who know—as almost everybody does know—
the notoriously inveterate corruption which has long
pervaded Ipswich, will admire the temerity of assertion
indulged in by the elated Member.
STANDARD.—In the House of Commons Mr.
Walter appeared at the bar, in obedience to the order
of the House. Mr. Walter expressed his great respect
for the authority of Parliament, his perfect readiness
to submit to that authority, and his desire to give,
without reserve, all the information he possessed;
but respectfully remonstrated against the necessity
of appearing before a tribunal, presided over by a
declared enemy, and one who had insulted him in
the grossest manner, within the walls of the House
itself. Mr. Walter, however, concluded by declaring
that he would subthit himself to any order which the
House might make. Sir Robert Inglis opposed this
motion in a speech which we cannot pretend to charac-
terise. He denounced the constitution and the pro-
ceedings of. the Committee as alike repugnant to the

principles of British law and to the interest of justice
and truth. But more hereafter of this noble argu—
ment. Colonel Sibthorp followed in opposition to the
motion. Sir G. Grey, on the other side, intimated
an opinion that the proposition was too mild. Sir
Robert Peel supported the motion on the ground that
the responsibility of the Committee lay upon the
House, and that the House must support its Com-
mittee by apprising Mr. Walter that he ought to
obey, but no more. Lord Howick thought some-
thing more was necessary. A division was called
for, and the numbers were—

For Mr. Roebuck's motion .. 223
Against it ..
Whenever we find ourselves in agreement with sir
Robert Inglis, we have the same encouraging sense
of security which occurs to one who first finds a sure
footing after a long struggle with the waves ; it was
with sincere pleasure, therefore, that we read his speech
of last night. That speech will be read long after all
the interest of temporary politics shall have faded
away ; it will be read as a plea—and how eloquent a
plea—for the rights of the British nation and for the
purity of the administration of justice everywhere—
it will be read too as a warning of the danger of
hastily conferring irresponsible power upon any set
of men, whatever their professions or pretensions. it
is thus Sir Robert speaks of the Roebuck Committee :
—" Practically speaking, every individual called
before that Committee is, I understand, by an ac-
knowledgment made yesterday, called before an in-
quisition. I use the word deliberately ; the individual
is called before an inquisition, where, without know-
ing who may have been heard before him, or who
would he heard after him, he is to answer all ques-
tions that may be put to him by, or in the presence
of a person who has himself proclaimed that he is not
strictly impartial." To do justice to the excellent
speaker, the whole of his speech must be read, and,
after reading it, few, we imagine, will accept the
doctrine that the House of Commons was bound to
support such a Committee. To appoint a Committee
is one thing, to support it " through thick and
thin," another and a very different thing. We
approved of the appointment of Mr. Roebuck's
Committee, and if it were to do again, we should
approve of it, although we might wish to see its con-
stitution very different, and its powers more strictly
defined. But Committees of the House of Commons
are not infallible, We need go no further hack than
to the reasons for Sir Robert Peel's Election Trials
Bill, for proof that Committees of the House Com-
mons may be partial—may be tyrannical—may be
corrupt—may even reach that pitch of depravity to
disregard the obligation of an oath. Is it, then, to
be endured that a Committee of the House of Com-
mons must, because it is such, be supported in all its
acts? Why, the Roebuck Committee has but one
other step to take to consummate all that has been
charged upon the Star Chamber or the Inquisition.
It has Dnly to apply the torture, and according
to the doctrine of the House of Commons
last night, the House must support it, even if
it take this step ; while, according to the doc-
trine laid down in Stockdale's case, the man whose
joints may be racked, will have no legal remedy
against his torturer. As Mr. Walter felt his personal
honour concerned not to seem to withhold evidence,
his submission may be excused, though it cannot be
defended ; but we trust some one will be found to try
the question whether this monstrous tyranny—an in-
quisition sitting with closed doors—shall be permitted
in England ? We trust that some witness summoned
will have so much courage and• so much of the old
English love of liberty as to refuse entering a Court
which must remain an inquisition until the doors are
thrown open to the country. The custom of England,
which is the law of England, will' warrant the refusal.
Let us see, will the House of Commons dare to support
its Committee in defiance of this law.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, June 29.

The Lord-Chancellor, after disposing of several lunatic peti.
tions, proceeded to hear the farther arguments in the part.
heard petition of

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. VISCOUNT CANTERBURY.

This case, our readers will recollect, came on before the
Court, some time since, upon the petition of the Attorney-
General against the claim set up by Viscount Canterbury for
compensation in consequence of the fire at the Houses of Par-
liament during the time his Lordship vas Speaker.
At the conclusion of the arguments the LORD CHANCELLOR
postponed his judgment.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, June 29.
The Vice-Chancellor of England was occupied the whole
morning with cause petitions.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 29.
BREESE V. BRAKE.

This was an action brought to recover the value of a gold
watch and appendages, and also some money, the property of
the plaintiff, which it was alleged was unlawfully detained by
the defendant. The defendant was an inspector of police, and
the plaintiff had been taken into custody in connection
with a charge brought against certain parties for smoking in a
Blackwall Railway-carriage. The plaintiff, on being taken to
the station•house, was searched as usual, and the property
found upon him taken charge of by the Inspector, in accord-
ance with the police regulations. The defend int was
taken before the Lord Mayor the next morning, and the charge
was dismissed. The Inspector then proposed to give him up
the property found on him, namely, the watch and appendages,
and the money, to recover the value of which the present
action had been brought, on his (plaintiff's) signing the charge
sheet, as a receipt for the articles. This it appeared was the
usual practice of the police in all similar cases. The plaintiff
refused to sign the charge sheet as required, stating that
if he were to do so it would be an admission of the charge.
The defendant then, it was alleged, presented the plaintiff
with a blank sheet of paper, and told him if he would
give a receipt on that (which would be no ad-
mission at all), the articles would be restored to him.
The plaintiff, however, refused to do so, contending that the
givirg of any receipt would be an admission of the
charge, and the Inspector refused to give up the pro-
perty without a receipt, and still retained possession
of it. With regard to the nature of the receipt demanded
there was a great deal of conflicting evidence, the plaintiff's
witnesses utterly denying the statements of the police.
Lord DENMAN, in summing up, told the Jury that if they
were satisfied that the acknowledgment demanded by the de-
fendant was only a proper acknowledgment, then they must
find their verdict for the defendant. If, however, they shotild
be of opinion that the defendant had demanded more than a
proper acknowledgment for the articles, then their verdict would
be for the plaintiff.

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 51., for
the unlawful detention of the articles.

Lurd DENAIA N said the verdict had better be taken for 251.,
to be reduced to Si. on the restitution of the articles in ques-
tion.

One of the police authorities gave an assurance that the
articles would be given up the moment they were claimed.

COURT OF EXCIIEQUER, June 29.
SOMES V. LAW/ON.

This was an action for an alleged libellous article in the Times
newspaper. The defendant is the publisher of the Times, and
the plaintiff is the extensive ship-owner in the City.
It appeared that a vessel, the property of the plaintiff,
had been engaged to convey emigrants from Scotland to New
South Wales; but after a few days' sail from the part whence
she had embarked she had been found in so leaky a condition
that it became necessary to put her in at Plymouth, where she
underwent a thorough repairing. The case had attracted much
public attention at the time • and the Times newspaper in
commenting on it, stated not only, as was admitted by allparties,
that the vessel was leaky on leaving Scotland, but that she had
not been put in a seaworthy condition at Plymouth. It was
now admitted by the counsel for the defendant that this latter
statement had been ascertained to be erroneous, and that his
client was ready to withdraw it.
An arrangement was then entered into between both parties,
that the jury should return a verdict for the plaintiff, damages
forty shillings. This verdict was accordingly returned.
The Attorney-General appeared for the plaintiff, and the
Solicitor-General for the defendant.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, June 29.
IN RE C. J. TRAPE.

The insolvent in this case, who was a ship and insurance
broker, carrying on business in Four Nags Head-court, Grace-
church-street, applied to be liberated on bail until the day ap-
pointed fur his anal hearing.
His son having been examined, along with three or four
other witnesses, relative to the disposal of certain furniture at
the insolvent's private residence, Grove-terrace, Pedham, and
some property at his country house, in Gracecburch-street,
the bail was allowed to justify, when the insolvent was dis-
charged.