name of Russia is most hateful. But the Russian Government form abroad no general attachments. They give help to the most opposite parties, according as they may be made most subservient to Russian designs. Thus in Sweden they long supported the Nobles against the KING. In Poland they took the part of the KING against the people. In Turkey they stirred up the Greeks against the SULTAN, and now they pretend to aid the SULTAN against his Turkish subjects. Still the Russian Government are loud in their professions of disinterestedness and of respect for engagements. They craftily adhere to forms, and avoid any direct hostility with actual Governments. They are ever legal belligerents (always excepting the last attack on Poland). In the case of their neighbours, their favourite mode has been, after having sufficiently embroiled their intended victim in domestic quarrels, to interpose as protectors and mediators, under the plea of establishing tranquillity. History testifies how they have protected and mediated. In virtue of the solemn faith of treaties, they have overwhelmed Poland-they have grasped the half of Sweden-coerced, almost to subjection, Persia and Turkey, and retain now more than fifteen Georgian and Circassian Princes as hostages at St. Petersburg.

"But how has it happened that in these manifold usurpations the other Powers of Europe have never steadily opposed Russia; nay, have generally acquiesced, and, in more than one instance, have been participators in her schemes? The explanation is to be found in the astute system adopted by the Russian Cabinet. They triumph by intrigue, before they take the field-they bribe, cajole, and overreach. They corrupt by gold more than they conquer by arms. They have availed themselves of the embarrassments of those powers that might have most effectually resisted them, and have created diversions in opposite quarters to mask their real attack. They know how to aggravate existing difficulties. They have even turned to their own selfish ends the generous feelings of Christendom. That they might have leisure to trample on Poland, they employed the Belgic question; and now they would gladly direct the attention of Europe from the Bosphorus to the Pyrenees. They had often endeavoured to obtain the dismemberment of Turkey, as before of Poland. Now they are preparing to seize the whole country for themselves; and, if unopposed by the other Powers of Europe, the CZAR, in the character of a mediator and of an ally, will soon be as legitimate at Constantinople, as he is at Warsaw."

A similar portraiture, in other words, we have given more than once of the subtle barbarians who are preparing for Europe a yoke, not less grievous than that with which the savage tribes from the Scythian deserts pressed to the earth the civilization of the ancient world, and brought a deep and long night of mental darkness over famous nations. In all this our Government affords them most effective " co-operation."

The Attempt to tamper with the Independence of the PUBLIC PRESS defeated.—July 27, 1836.

LEAVING the copyright question for the present, we proceed to notice another point of no inconsiderable importance -we allude to the registration of proprietors of newspapers. By the pre-existing law it was required that where there were several proprietors of a newspaper establishment, the names of two of the said proprietors (exclusive of the printer and publisher)—the amount of whose respective proportional shares in the property, or in the profit and loss of such newspaper, was not to be less than the proportional share of any other proprietor resident in the United Kingdom-should be entered according to certain forms at the Stamp Office. That provision Mr. Spring RICE has retained in his Bill; but, strange to say, he has introduced another provision, which makes it imperative that returns should be made to the Stamp Office, in accordance with a scheduled form accompanying the Bill, of the name, place of abode, and occupation, of every proprietor of a newspaper-whatever the number may beand the amount of the proportional share or interest of every such proprietor in the property, or in the profit and loss of such newspaper; also the name and place of abode, &c., of every person who, during the half-year preceding the delivery of such returns, shall have made any assignment or transfer of any share or interest in such newspaper; and the name, &c., of any person to whom the same assignment or transfer shall have been made, with the date of the same and the proportional amount of the share or interest in the property, or profit and loss of such newspaper which shall have been so assigned, or transferred within a limited time-on pain of forfeiting, for any neglect or omission in this behalf, the sum of £100, besides incurring the penalties of a misdemeanor, if the return should be false or untrue in any material particular.

* We do not think any thing so bad as this inquisitorial regulation of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER'S Bill was contained in the celebrated "six Acts." * Rightly did Mr. WALTER state, in the debate on the third

*

reading of the Bill, that the acts and doctrines of the tory Statesmen, PITT and CASTLEREAGH, in regard to the Press, were liberality itself compared with the propositions which had emanated from many gentlemen professing to represent the liberal interest in that House.

* *

As the Bill has passed the Commons, we must now address ourselves to the Lords, although the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER seemed to deny the right of the Lords to legislate on the subject, by observing that "the doctrine that a 'money Bill for the relief of the subject' was not likely to pass elsewhere, was one of a novel kind in parliamentary history."-So that Mr. Spring RICE holds the opinion that a money Bill may be made the medium of passing the most oppressive and tyrannical enactments; and that the Upper House of the legislature has no right to interfere for the protection of the subject, when injustice asks for the sanction of law under the patronage of the Exchequer. In what page of our constitutional history Mr. Spring RICE has read that doctrine, we know not. Greater Statesmen have never discovered it, and the Lords will probably be as little disposed to take their notions of constitutional law from Mr. Spring RICE, as their political sentiments from Lord MELBOURNE. The provision in question has no necessary connection with the revenue. It is wholly beside the fiscal objects of the Bill. We trust the Lords will show, that they do not accede to the doctrine that they have no power to protect the subject against any tyranny, however grievous, that comes before them, wrapped up in a money Bill.

[The Writer's anticipation was not disappointed. Lord LYNdhurst, when the Bill was in committee, on the 8th August, pointed out the monstrous character of the clause in question, which we shall here describe in his lordship's terms, as reported in Hansard's Debates :

"He (Lord LYNDHURST) should state in a few words what was the effect of these clauses [clauses 11, 12, and schedule B]. By them it was [proposed to be] enacted that the name of every proprietor of a newspaper, however numerous those proprietors might be, together with his occupation in addition, and his place of residence, should be registered at the Stamp Office. Not only should his name be registered at the Stamp Office, but his share and interest in the newspaper must also be stated. And these clauses further provided, that in case of any transfer of a share, or of the transfer of any part of a share, such transfer should be notified at each registration half

yearly. Now, a system more arbitrary, more inquisitorial, more unjust, or more unnecessary, was never resorted to than that which was countenanced by this Bill-a proposition of the truth of which he was sure he should be able to convince their lordships before he sat down." The noble lord added, that the party now in office, were-when they occupied the opposition benches-adverse to the passing of even the existing law, [38 Geo. III]. At that time, said his lordship, did Lord William RUSSELL emphatically object to the passing of the Bill (of 1798), declaring that it was an insidious blow at the liberty of the press.' The result of Lord LYNDHURST's motion was, that the first of these clauses, was expunged by a majority of 61-40-21: and then the other clause, and schedule B, shared the same fate.-See Hansard's Debates, 1836. ED.]

The proposed Transfer to Government of the Registration of Voters.-Aug. 15, 1836.

THE Lords have done the State some service by throwing out that provision of the Registration of Voters' Bill which went to saddle the country with a new and permanent Board of Government Commissioners, with salaries from £1000 to £1500 a year each-ostensibly to revise the lists of voters in a more efficient and satisfactory manner than that work has hitherto been done-but in reality to increase the patronage of Ministers, and throw the whole registration of the kingdom into their hands.

*

In endeavouring to induce the Lords to become accomplices in a measure which would have been a gross violation of constitutional privileges, Lord MELBOURNE spoke much of the defects of the Reform Act, especially as regarded the machinery of registration. The public may recollect that, at the fiercest time of the reform excitement, while we were supporting the principle of the Bill for restoring to the people the free election of their representatives, we described the machinery of the Bill as exceedingly clumsy and ill-contrived. We deny not, therefore, the defects upon which Lord MELBOURNE insists; but we deny that Lord MELBOURNE's nostrum would cure them; on the contrary, we believe, that like all quack nostrums, it would only aggravate the evil which it was proposed to remedy.

* *

The public are aware that the appointment of Revising

Barristers is at present with the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, as to the county of Middlesex, and in other counties is with the senior Judges on the Summer Circuits. Lord MELBOURNE strongly animadverts upon the inexperience and inefficiency of the Revising Barristers appointed by those learned personages, and the great inconvenience of the contradictory decisions at which they have arrived. We are far from saying, that in all cases the Judges have exercised their power in a manner that reflects credit upon their selection, or that it ought to give satisfaction to the country. We have known and heard of many instances of men of standing and experience, who were willing to accept the office, being passed over, to provide for unfledged aspirants only recently called to the Bar, and who were thus appointed to act as Judges before they had any practice as lawyers. This was injurious to such children of favouritism themselves, as well as to the public interests. We know also that all the appointments were not of this class, but that many men were chosen who had the recommendations of experience and lawyer-like ability. Now let us see what is Lord MELBOURNE's plan, by which we are to have all the excellence, without any of the defects of the Reform Act.

By the ministerial plan, which the Lords have very properly erased from the Registration of Voters' Act, ten barristers, besides the Chief Justice of the Court of Review, were to be chosen; of whom three were to constitute a Court of Appeal, and the other seven were to go circuit and revise the lists throughout the country :-the members of the Court of Appeal were to have £1500 per annum each, with the exception of Mr. - who was to have but £1000, in consideration of his other large salary; while his successors were to have £2000 per annum. The salary of each of the Revising Barristers, whose decisions were to furnish work for the Court of Appeal, was to be £1000. The names of the first batch were inserted in the Bill, and, with the exception of four or five, they were the names of barristers not much known in the profession, some of them unheard of in Westminster Hall. This is the way in which ministers proposed to remedy the inconvenience which the public already felt from the appointment of barristers of

Q