The Sun.
London, England, 1829-12-04 00:00:00

APTRIT OP. THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The accounts from St. Petersburgh, stating
the illness of the Emperor Nicholas, notwith-
standing the bulletins which insinuate rather than
affirm its amended symptoms, will probably oc-
casion some serious uneasiness. We have not
received any intelligence of a nature to deter-
mine our own belief upon the question, whether
his Imperial Majesty's indisposition be a proper
subject for alarm to his friends, or to those of
Russia ; but undoubtedly there is no country in
Europe where a chance, however remote, of any
change in the person of the Sovereign, opens to
the political world so wide a field, whether of
curious or interested speculation, touching the
possible consequences of such an event, as Rus-
sia has done during the last 70 or 80 years. It
is surely no small praise of liberty, and expe-
rience justifies us in pronouncing, that a free
Constitutional Government is the best, or indeed
the only certain safeguard, against the tendency
of Court intrigues to produce convulsions and
violent revolutions, which hold nothing sacred,
and least of all the Sovereign. Russia, as the
title assumed by the Emperor imports, is the
most arbitrary Monarchy in Christendom ;
and to Russia, beyond all other states, we
may look for illustrations of the working
of that awful system, to which Princes ex-
hibit so insane and fatal an attachment—the
system of power unrestrained by law, and un-
protected by it. if dominion boasts of being
lawless, it sets an example which resistance feels
justified ii following. Had the will of the Mo-
narch been less absolute in Russia, the life of
Peter 111, might have been spared with safety to
her who destroyed it. Had the form of Govern-
ment which consecrates despotism, not of neces-
sity left the case of a maniac tyrant unprovided
for, Paul I. might have been legally deposed,
his person treated with careful , tenderness, and
his son might have ascended a throne unstained
by murder. It is this dreadful principle, reject-
ing every limit and qualification of arbitrary
power, which leaves the subject no alternative
between ruin and rebellion,—the Monarch none
between inflicting death and undergoing it. The
accession of Alexander was prepared by his
father's treacherous and cruel murder ; that of
Nicholas was accomplished through the usurpa-
tion of a brother's birth-right, and followed by
the military massacre of thousands of Russian
subjects. Is it, then, a wild apprehension which
teaches us to shudder at the threatening and
yet impenetrable adjuncts of a new succession to
the crown of Russia ? The heir-apparent
of Nicholas, or rather his son, is an infant of
tender age. What is Michael ? Will he be
satisfied to act the conscientious Regent, or to
leave the Regency of the Empress-Mother un-
disturbed ? Where is Constantine ? Was his
a real abdication, or a forced expulsion ? Has
his late retirement from Poland been, as pro-
fessed, a relief to him, or, as suspected, a dis-
grace ? And has he no party still breathing dis-
content among the Muscovites ? The above
questions may all admit of tranquillizing answers,
we are ready to acknowledge ; but in a country
where the monarchical principal flourishes to
such perfection, that one man's will is the only
substitute for rights, laws, and institutions, as
elsewhere recognized, it becomes of transcend-
ent importance to ascertain who may be the per-
son whose will is about to play a part so formid-
able, and towards what points of the political
horizon its force seems likely to be projected.
Monarchs are but the helpless tools and play-
things of their proper creed. It would be im-
possible for the rest of mankind to exact a more
unsparing vengeance than that so often inflicted
by despotism on its own minions and disciple,.
—Times.

- -
Our readers will recollect the observations
which we made the other day upon the conduct
of the Committee of City Lands, in serving a
notice to quit upon Mr. Clark, who had done
essential service to the public by ticketing his
meat at reasonable prices, and thus breaking
in upon the butchers' monopoly, by which that
necessary of life had been kept exorbitantly
dear. Our readers will also recollect that Mr.
Legg, the Chairman of the Committee, ad-
dressed to us two letters on different days, in
one of which lie denied that the notice had been
served on Mr. Clark for the cause generally
stated and believed—namely, that he " ticketed
his meat cheap ;" but though he took the
trouble to state what the cause was not, he did
not condescend to go a little farther, and inform
the public what the cause was. In the second
letter he stated that Mr. Samuel Clark was not
a tenant of the Corporation in the New Market,
upon which we put to him the query—lf Mr.
Clark were not a tenant of the dorporation, by
what right did they serve on him a notice to
quit ? We were not then aware that
there were two Mr. Clarks, and that the
notice had been served on Mr. Robert
and not Mr. Samuel Clark. Here was
a miserable equivoque of Mr. Legg, more
worthy of a City Pleader than a City Patriot—
and thus did he attempt to screen the Com-
mittee from the consequences of their rash and
ill-advised proceeding—not by a refutation of
facts, but a confusion of names ; but this was
a matter not to be got rid of by a jesuitical
equivocation about personal identity. The ques-
tion was this—" Had not a notice to quit been
served on a butcher named Clark, in the new
Fleet Market, for ticketing and selling his meat
at 5-id. instead of 9d the pound ?"—or, " was
not Clark expelled the market because his
prices interfered with those which the combina-
tion of butchers had resolved to exact from the
public ?" That a notice to quit was served is
not denied ; and, whatever the cause was, it will
be seen—from the report of the proceedings of
the Common Council, which we insert to-day—
that the obnoxious order has been rescinded.
It appears, upon the statement of Mr. Lea,
himself, that the Select Committee had issued
the order which the General Committee has
since declared them incompetent to make ; but
this incompetency was not declared until we ealkul
the parties who so misused their power to account
for their conduct at the bar of public opinion.
It is worthy of observation, that Mr. Legg now
attributes the making the order to a determimk
tion on the part of the Committee to prevent the
subletting of shops in the new market. He
says that Mr. Samuel and Mr. Robert Clark
applied for the shop in question. Robert was
admitted, and the application of Samuel rejected.
It was soon, however, made known to the Com-
mittee that Samuel was in the shop, and carried
on the business either as the partner or servant
of his brother. There were also complaints made
that he set the officer of the market at defiance,
and acted in such a manner as would consider-
ably deteriorate the value and respectability of
the market. The Select Committee felt that,
unless they took some immediate measures upon
the fact of Mr. Samuel Clark having obtained
surreptitious possession, the necessary regulations
ainst subletting and trafficking in shops would

be violated. They had, therefore, issued the no-
tice to Mr. Robert Clark, the only person they
could recognize as tenant in possession. Mr. Legg
then goes on to say—" It has been alleged that
one ground for the order was, that Mr. Clark
had ticketed his goods—the Select Committee
had made the order only on the ground of sur-
reptitious possession, for he never would ques-
tion the right of a trader to proclaim the price of
his wares as he thought proper." Now what is
stated in this explanation might be a very legiti-
mate cause for the Select Committee resorting
to the harsh measure of giving notice to quit—
for, according to this showing, a deception was
practised upon the Corporation ; but if so,
why does this very Mr. Legg also say that " the
Select Committee had acknowledged their error
in making the order, and retracted it?" Where
is the consistency here ? He justifies the Com-
mittee ; he shows that they acted not only legally
but morally right in depriving an individual of a
tenement surreptitiously obtained ; and then ex-
presses the contrition of the Committee for the
error of which they had been guilty. Can
chartered wisdom, can civic logic go beyond
this ? We are informed by a correspondent,
whose letter we publish to-day, that the great
body of the Committee are to be exonerated
from the folly of this proceeding ; and that it was
only a junta of seven, whose names he gives,
that directed the Deputy Comptroller to issue the
notice to quit. We are glad to find the number
so few of men capable of acting in the manner
the " Select Committee" have done, although

the number equals that of the " Wise Men o.
Greece," who, like them, were seven, but never
did so wise a thing as this in all their lives.—
Who but civic patriots could put in a plea of
justification and a plea of guilty at the same
time ? Who else could declare, "we have a
good defence upon the merits, and we acknow-
ledge we were in error, and throw ourselves upon
the mercy of the Court." Such is the case made
out by Mr. Legg ; but then a Mr. Roberts comes
forward, and he accounts for the treatment which
Mr. Clark received in another way. His story
is, " that there was a general understanding
amongst the butchers of the market—an under-
standing which was sufficient to bind all ho-
nourable men—that one and all they should
abstain from ticketing. Mr. Clark was the
first to break through this regulation, and he
(Mr. Roberts) had ventured to remonstrate
with him on his conduct, and tell him that
the Committee should be informed of the
subject." Here we have the " head and front
of Mr. Clark's offending" to be the ticket-
ing his meat, not the surreptitious possession of
the premises. We leave the civic patrons of
" free-trade" to reconcile, if they can, these two
contradictory causes. We cannot, however,
omit noticing some observations which fell from
Mr. Alderman Waithman, who refused to call
a wardmote on the subject in compliance of the
requisition presented to him, on the ground, as
he stated in the Common Council, that such a
meeting would " erect itself into a tribunal to
try the matter." And why not ? Is civic go-
vernment so like Oriental despotism that its acts
are to be exempt from the examination of public
opinion ? But the worthy Alderman seems to
have forgotten that, in his letter to Mr. Hunt,
he had given four reasons for not calling the
wardmote, not one of which was the one that
he mentioned in the Common Council. He,
however, had the satisfaction of taking a fling at
the Press, like many others whose public exist-
ence has been chiefly created by that Press,
which, when it suits their purpose, they can sub-
missively court, and, when it suits their purpose
they can affect to undervalue. We believe Mr.
Alderman Waithman owes more to the Press
than the Press is ever likely to owe to him. He
talks of its " licentiousness ;" and, probably,
nothing could be more licentious in the eyes of
an established corporator than to reprove
the folly and expose the tyranny of corporate
power, especially when that exposure was attend-
ed by a reluctant admission of error on the part
of the chartered authorities who rashly provoked
the contest which they as hastily abandoned.—
Morning Herald.
A good deal has been said on one side and
the other respecting the conduct of Mr. Const,
the Chairman of the Westminster Sessions, in
altering the punishment of a young culprit from
transportation for seven years to transportation
for life, on account of an expression offensive to
the Bench. We agree with those who consider
such increase of punishment contrary to sound
principle, and of dangerous precedent. We
leave the youth of the culprit, who was only 14
years of age, out of the question. Our objec-
tion is the same whatever his age might be, and
whatever his offence. All the circumstances of
the offender's crime had been taken into consi-
deration by the Chairman and his Magisterial
brethren previously to passing the mitigated sen-
tence. If that sentence were just, and propor-
tioned to the offence, the Chairman had no right
to alter it—once being pronounced and recorded,
for, on the supposition that the first sentence
was a just one—and we are bound to presume
that the Chairman passed a just sentence—the
latter must have been cruel and oppressive. Was
transportation for seven years sufficient so satisfy
the ends of justice ? Then to change that to
transportation for life was the exercise of an
energy beyond the law. But the culprit, by his
coarse and offensive expression to the Chairman,
showed that the sentence, passed but the moment
before, had produced no salutary impression on
his mind. True ;—we will go farther, a'td
admit that it showed a disposition callous to
shame, or rather vain of its depravity, and eager
for ignominious distinetion. What then ? was a
severer sentence, which had all the appearance of
being dictated by personal resentment, likely to
work a correction of feeling, a reformation of
mind ? Justice was already satisfied, the inte-
rests of society were already consulted for, by
the quantum of punishment awarded. It is
true the Chairman might in the first instance,
with the consent of the majority of the Magis-
trates, have pronounced serate.nce of transporta-
tion for life, The Court had deliberately ex-
ercised the discretion which the law allows, and
having come to the conclusion that seven years'
e-y,-,patriation was as much as the law would have
inflicted under all the circumstances, if it had
left no discretion to the Magistrates, solemnly
declared that the crime which had been described
in the indictment, and on which the Jury had
convicted the prisoner, deserved that measure of
punizlimeiit. Why has the law left a discretion
as to the amount of punishment in certain
crimes to those who exercise the judicial func-
tions? Because the generic names of crime are
but kw, while the circumstances under which
they may be committed are infinite—and accord-
ing to the circumstances, which the law can
never foresee, a greater or less shade of guilt will
attach to the offence. As soon, however, as
the Court, after weighing all the crime, -have
measured out the punishment, their discretion is

At an enct They hare • defined,, as the organ of
what the law had of necessity left uncertain
—nothing remains but to fulfil justice by
the execution of the sentence, or to remit it by
the prerogative mercy of the Crown. But an
attempt has been made to defend Mr. Const on
the ground that punishment by the law of Eng-
land is inflicted, not for atonement, but example,
and therefore there need not be any proportion
between the crime and the punishment, the law
having only taken into consideration, not how
it can reform the ?tender, but how it can pre-
vent the ?fence. This doctrine has been put
forth by an Evening Paper that either is, or
affects to be, the organ of the Government;
but, however familiar it may be with the secret
intentions of the Ministry, it is certainly but
little acquainted with the principles of English
law. The doctrine, indeed, is not a novel one ;

but it is not the less absurd on that account.
The same doctrine was once propounded by
Judge. Buller, on the trial of a horse-stealer, we
believe, at the Maidstone Assizes. " What a
shame that a man should lose his life for a

horse," exclaimed the prisoner, on the Court
having given him judgment to die according to
law. " You are to be hanged," retorted the
Judge, " not because you have stolen a horse,
but that horses may not be stolen." Whether
the metaphysical distinction thus taken be-
tween atonement and a preventive example
was clear and satisfactory to the mind of
the doomed culprit, and gave him a better percep-
tion of the justice and humanity of the Eng-
lish law than he had before, the books do not

tell us. He died, according to Judge Buller's
philosophy of punishment, that horses might no/
be stolen ;—so have hundreds since his time,
and horses still continue to be stolen as nu-
merously as ever—perhaps through the defect of
metaphysical apprehension in horse-stealers, who
still think they are hanged because they have
stolen horses, and nothing else. Our evening
contemporary, taking up the nice distinction of
Judge Buller, has undertaken to set offenders
right on this interesting subject ; and, when he
is able to make such people understand the nice
difference between being hanged by way of
atonement and hanged by way of example, we
hope the punishment will operate more as a pre-
vention than it has hitherto done. It is unfortu-
nate, however, for the doctrine of the Learned
Judge and his commentator, that the law of
England has admitted the principle of propor-
tionate punishment, though it has made strange
deviations from it in practice. If prevention
were all that is looked to in punishment, death
being considered the most effective example,
would be allotted to all crimes—to the smallest
as well as those of enormous magnitude.
This would be the excellence of the system
of prevention, as our cotemporary looks at it ;
but to this excellence the English law, with all

its predilection for sanguinary punishments, has
not yet altogether attained. If it had, then might
Mr. Const, instead of punishing a contempt of
Court with transportation for life, send the im-
penitent jester, if he were so minded, from the
dock to the gibbet, which would most certainly
operate as an example to prevent the repetition
of such stale jokes for the future ; though, in
that case, people might be apt to think that the
Legislators, rather than the culprits, deserved to
be hanged. But, though forgery and sheep-
stealing are punishable with death by the Eng-
lish law, as well as highway robbery and murder,
yet manslaughter and petty larceny, and embez-
zlement, and various other offences, are not sub-
jected to capital punishment ; though, if preven-
tion were the only object of punishment, there
would be no reason why the penalty awarded to
them should not be equally terrible, that it might
be equally effective. The English law would
then he perfectly Draconic, and the Judges and
Magistrates would be saved a great deal of
trouble, in a multiplicity of cases, in apportion-
ing the punishment to the offence. We believe
there is no person who would more readily repu-
diate such a doctrine as this than Mr. Const
himself, who, though he allowed his cool judg-
ment to be carried away by his feelings in the
instance in question, is, we understand, a gen-
tleman of kindly disposition, and, notwith-
standing an occasional crabbedness of man-
ner, very solicitous to administer the laws with
strict justice, and to measure out punishment I
with a sound and judicious discretion. It may
be that some of his less reflecting brother Ma-
gistrates over-ruled his better judgment in this
case ; but, however that may be, we should
think, unless we have much mistaken his charac-
ter, that he now heartily regrets having acted as
he did, whether on his own impulse or the sug-
gestion of others, and would rather that he had
not inflicted a punishment which had more the
appearance of being the ebullition of an angry
feeling on the part of the Court than the consi-
derate decision of justice. We would recom-
mend him, the next time such a thing occurs,
to imitate the enlightened magnanimity of Mr.
Baron Garrow, who, not long since, upon the
Norfolk Circuit, called back to the bar a hard-
ened offender, who had addressed him, after a
lenient sentence, in a slang tirade,' more offen-
sive than that applied to Mr. Const—rebuked
him quietly for using so stupid and stale a joke
--advised him, if he would be witty, to endea-
vour to be original—and then calmly dismissed
him, more abashed and humbled in his own con-
ceit by his contemptuous pity than if he had
emptied on his head the seven phials of penal
law.—Morning Herald.