were disappointed of their prey by a verdict of acquittal—that then they denounced the Advocates whose intrepid ability had torn to shreds the meshes of falsehood in which it was sought to entangle the lives of the prisoners; and that the Court, the ready instrument of the oppressors' will, pronounced a sentence of suspension upon the virtuous "delinquents," whose able discharge of their professional duty, and fidelity to their important trust, constituted their splendid crime. Let us suppose, we say, that such things had happened in the Court of King's Bench, and would or ought public opinion to acquit the British Government of the odious responsibility of those proceedings on the part of the law officers of the Crown? Dare they take such a course without the permission of the Government? If it were pretended that they did, and Government did not instantly displace them from offices which they so dishonoured, they must be taken to be agents of the will of Government for that vindictive act, as well as for all the purposes of the prosecution.

In resisting of late some attempts that were made to innovate upon the administration of justice in England by introducing some of the most objectionable parts of the French practice, we observed upon the facilities for oppression which such practice would afford in all malicious prosecutions, and more especially in political trials, where Government has an interest in crushing political opponents. Soon, indeed, are the arguments, which we then adduced against the advocates for the compulsory interrogation of prisoners, illustrated by new experiments. Twenty-seven individuals [in France] are taken into custody, upon a charge of intending to overthrow the Government. If the whole affair was not a mere police plot, it certainly looks very like it. At all events there was no real evidence to justify the depriving those persons of their liberty, and putting them on trial for their lives. In England they must have been discharged at once on being taken before a Magistrate, unless he were a Magistrate who thought the Home Office could confer on him the power of attempting to extract evidence by compulsory interrogation. In France the Magistrate, relying upon that power, deprives those men of

their liberty, and then five months are spent by the interrogators in endeavouring to extract from the lips of the prisoners themselves, by the ingenious process of mental torture, evidence to ensure their own conviction. This fails, and then, as a last resort, the examinations so obtained are falsified, and the Counsel who detect and denounce the atrocious proceeding, and who bear their clients unscathed through the fiery ordeal, are themselves made the objects of political vengeance, and attempted to be deprived of their means of livelihood by a temporary banishment from their profession.

It is consolatory to know that while those honest Advocates gather honourable distinction instead of disgrace from their punishment, they are not likely to suffer in their income, as many of their brethren of the Bar have offered to hold their briefs, and to continue to do so until the term of their suspension shall have expired, should their appeal against the monstrous sentence be unsuccessful.

We placed some time ago the solemn, grave, and decorous administration of justice in the superior Courts of this country in contrast with the criminal procedure of the French Courts, which are, as we then stated, disgraced by scenes only worthy of a theatre or a bear-garden. We believe we may as fairly contrast the purity of the English JUDGES with the complaisant morality of those of France, who, but too often, only allow us to see in their acts the distorted image of Justice as reflected by a political mirror. The march of the French Government has been, for some time past, towards despotic power, and its attempt to put down the independence of the Bar, is perfectly in keeping with its unceasing efforts to crush the liberty of the Press.

The Malt Tax.-March 1, 1834.

THERE are triumphs that are mournful and victories that are ruinous. The success which Ministers obtained on the question of the malt tax, we suspect, will not prove fortunate to themselves in its consequences; for a ministerial victory that deepens the gloom of distress which broods over the once beau

tiful and happy scenes of rural industry throughout England, and turns the hope of suffering millions into despair, may well excite the apprehensions of the victors in their moments of reflection.

We consider the malt tax the most immoral of all taxes. By preventing the poor man from brewing his own beer, he is driven to the "gin-palace," or the beer-shop, where he squanders his wages and his health away from his family, and meets with the worst company, who take advantage of his moments of intoxication, or despair, to initiate him into crime.

We say to our Ministers and our Legislators,-If you would put down those incendiary fires which you cannot quench with blood; if you would bring comfort, peace, and content to the villages and the hamlets where they have been long unknown; if you would lessen the parochial burden by touching the manly spring of independence in the minds of the English peasantry; if you would stay the march of debasing intemperance in beer and gin shops; if you would diminish the grievous and growing expenses for the prosecution of crime in the rural districts; if you would surround the stacks of the farmer with the best protection against the torch of the nocturnal incendiary—the affection of a domesticated, a moral, and a contented peasantry; if you would make the foundations of society as secure as they are now obviously insecure and rotten-shut your ears to the inhuman and degrading doctrines of the mere worshippers of wealth, the philosophers of mammon; give back to the labourer his domestic habits, and with them, the virtues that once made him walk erect among his kind; give back their gardens, their roods of ground to the rural labourers, which were taken from them, when the rage of the rich for "adding field to field" stripped the peasant of that bit of ground, which gave ornament to his homestead and healthful recreation to his leisure hours, with subsistence when deprived of employment; repeal the malt and hop duties, and sacrifice not to State extravagance and fiscal rapacity, the morals of the people:-then will you find it as difficult to make thieves, incendiaries, and paupers of the rustic population of England, as you now find it to make them honest, peaceable, and independent.-Cultivate such arts of

government, instead of relying upon the ineffective barbarism of blood-shedding laws, and the flower of your peasantry will no longer breathe the noisome atmosphere of your gaols, but the happiness of many will be the security of all.

"A Bill of Indemnity for Corruption.”—May 6, 1834.

THE real character of Sir ROBERT HERON's motion [on the 1st instant] is an invasion of one of the great safe-guards of the Constitution, to prevent inconvenience to the Ministers of the Crown. The statute of the 6th Anne, cap. 7, was passed because of the necessity which existed, as experience showed, to provide some check against the corrupting influence which the distribution of the loaves and fishes of patronage, by the hand of the Minister, had upon the representatives of the people. It was, therefore, provided, among other things, that every person who accepted an office under the Crown, except an officer in the army or navy accepting a new commission, should vacate his seat; but that such Member should be capable of being re-elected. The object of the statute was to prevent political adventurers from getting into parliament upon popular principles, and then selling their votes and services to the Minister of the Crown for place and pension, while they retained the seat out of which they had, by false pretences, defrauded their constituents-a most salutary and needful regulation this, it must be admitted by every person who does not wish to see the reformed House of Commons reduced to the subservient condition of a nomination borough.

Such is the law that Sir Robert HERON would repeal-such the truly constitutional principle that he would abolish! And why? A lord of the admiralty was ousted on going again before his constituents, and an attorney-general, on accepting office, lost his seat. Why did things so unpleasant and so mortifying to Ministers occur? Because they have become unpopular; they have forfeited the public esteem. Why? Because they have violated in too many instances their principles-because they have abused their power, and disappointed

the expectations of the people who placed them where they are. The inconvenience which they suffer, therefore, is the result of the wrongs which they have committed. And what a modest thing it is of Sir Robert HERON, to ask the removal of that inconvenience, by taking down one of the great bulwarks of the purity of the representative system!

What was the value of the Reform Bill? It had no value whatever, unless its effect were to place the Ministers of the Crown under a greater degree of control from public opinion, than before. It has either produced that effect, or it has not. If it has not, it is worthless; it might as well be sold for waste paper to-morrow. If it has produced that effect in any degree, what is to be thought of the patriotism of the man who, as soon as that effect begins to be felt, proposes to neutralise it, by a measure of an opposite tendency?

If the statute of Anne were repealed, what would be the consequence? Any of those adventurers who obtain the suffrages of popular constituencies upon false pretences-and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER knows they are not a few-has only to accept the first tempting offer that Government may think proper to make to him in the first session of a new parliament, and receive the wages of corruption, and laugh at his constituents for the remaining six years. The operation of the Act, at present, is to cause occasional inconvenience to a government when it forfeits the public confidence; but, if there were no such statute, the inconvenience and mischief to the public interests would be much greater. If individuals act dishonestly, it is right they should suffer punishment; and why not governments? To agree to Sir Robert HERON's motion would be, in fact, to pass a Bill of indemnity for corruption. While great zeal is pretended to punish corruption in the electors, and Bills are before parliament for that purpose, why is it that a door is attempted to be thrown open for the corruption of the elected? The Reform Bill is acknowledged to be powerless in preventing bribery by money, out of parliament— why is an effort made to give an unrestrained license to bribery by places and pensions, within its walls?

The electors of Westminster gave a salutary example to the