The Sun. — London, England, 1829-11-12 00:00:00

SHIPPING INTELLTGENCE.-(THIS DAY.) FROM LLOYD'S. DEAL, Nov. 11.—Wind N.N.W.—The James Grant, Al‘Kenzie, for the Brazil, has put back, and remains. PLYMOUTH, Nov. 10.—Wind S. blowing hard.—Ar rived the Maria, Cummings, from Malaga. FALMOUTH, Nov. 10.--Wind S.W..—Arrived the Emulous packet, from Tampico, sailed the 31st August, from Vera Cruz the 6th of September, and Havannah the 29th ; spoke the Lady Wellington packet going into Vera Cruz, on the 6th of September; also arrived the Rinaldo packet, from Buenos Ayres, sailed the 13th of September, and Monte Video the 17E1). The Emulous packet brings accounts of General Barradas still retaining possession of Tampico, which, at the time of her d e partur e , wa s a b o ut belPg bombarded by the Patriots, who had assembled in great force under Santa Anna; and if the former did not *Peedily surrender it was expected he and all his followers would he cut to pieces. The merchants and others had 4 ". 4 ailied, and removed their property up the River, for w hich purpose Santa Anna had given them six days free .egress. LIVERPOOL, Nov. 19.—Arrived the Eleanor, Dicken -1()n, from Buenos Ayres ; was bonded the 19th ult. in olong. 34, b y a p i rat i ca l sc h ooner, and plundered a box of dollars anti several articles ; she had plundered :mother British brig the same day of provisions. MARGATE, Nov. 11.--Off Port, the Renovation, Cuthbert, from Quebec. CREEK, Nov. 11.—Arrived the Phillis, Penrin, from (Quebec. lIILFAST, Nov. 10 —Arrived the Minerva, Craize, 41. ° 1 % Quebec ; and Erin, Cook, from Leghorn. DUNDALK, Nov. 10.—Arrived the Alexander, —; ago( Astrea, —, from Quebec. CORE, Nov. 10 . --Arrived the Oporto, Cummings, ((mean Liverpool to Newfoundland, with four feet water in ker hell, having experienced bad weather the 3d inst. in long. 24. LAW IN TELLIGENCE. -(THIS DAY.) COURT OF CHANCERY. LUNACY. A gentl eman b ehind the bar, • applied on behalf of the Co mmitte es of a lunatic-, for leave to transfer 10,0001. thr ee Per cent. Bank Annuities, into the name of the Ac countant-General, to the credit of the lunatic, and also a t In of 1,5001. as th e y s h ou ld rece i ve it. The object of hiS Was to have the amount of their securities reduced ; andthe petitioreis consequently fu r th er p ra y e d, th at t h ey ght be at liberty to bring in, pro tanto, reduced se curities, and have the old ones cancelled. The LORD CHANCELLOR granted the prayer, so far as went to the paying in of the monies, but considered it 'would be necessary for the Committees to make a separate "Ovation with regard to the nature of the securities, after the monies had been paid. IN TILE MATTER OF HALSTEAD, A BANKRUPT. Mr. WIIITMARSII applied upon a petition for an order to 3fetinersetle a Commission of bankrupt that had issued, hut a 1 not b een opene d , on the ground that all the creditors agr ee d to take a composition in discharge of their 'raims, and were about entering into a deed to this effect. 7_ l Lonn C HANCELLOR i nquired if all the creditors, thout exception, had agreed to the proposed composi lino, and were desirous of having the Commission super led. Mr. WHITMARSH observed that the affirmative was dis tinctly sworn to _Supersedeas ordered to issue. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT. The C ourt took mot i ons to- d ay, b ut no case of any p importance, exc e p t to the parties, came before bis Honour moms to our leaving the Court. COURT OF KING'S BENCII. DAVIES t'. CAPPER. Lord TENTERD EN gave judgment in this caso this morn ing- The action was brought by a party for a malicious Prosecut' f e l ony w ' e n• The pl a i n tiff h av i ng b een c h arge d w i th re -e xa -as committed by the def en d an t, a M ag i strate, f or mi nation for 14 days. The declaration stated that the plaintiff had been imprisoned for an unreasonable length of time, the defendant having the improper motive of ob.- J tin ing a confession of the felony by those means. The u ry' on the t r i a l f oun d t h at t h e length of time was unrea nable, and gave 101 . d amages for that count, but found that the act of re-commitment by the defendant was bona -fide, and that he was not influenced by the undue motive `'f o btaining a confession. A motion was then made to this %nil for a rule Nisi, to set aside the verdict, on the ' F r °tlnd that tile form of trial w as i m p roper , an d t h at hogtead of b r i ng i ng an act i on for a malicious prosecution, e ought to have brought it before the Court as a special .fi c a d 7 , , as the Magistrate had been found to have acted bona the The Court, h o wever, w ere now o f op i n i on t h at, as extent of tim e was found to be unreasonable, the tr es - Pass had b een co n ti nue d from day to day b e y on d t h e t i me fo Wh ich mt have b een cons idered reasonable : th e y there e dec ide us d that the plaintiff had used a proper form of ac fdu:tdat the verdict ought not to be disturbed.— COURT OF EXCHEQUER. 4r ' flaron VAUGHAN sat for a short time this morni n g .icar motions of course. His Lordship rose bef ore " " 4 o'clo c k • Butrle r• Baron Garr u ow is not sufficiently recovered to re- his offici a l dties. EXCHEQUER CHAMBER. Th e YOUNG V. MERCHANT. u c h CHIEF BARON gave judgment in this case, Point relate s to a r i ght of tithes, and did not possess any tb e et . public interest. His Lordship decreed in favour -- The COURT afterwards beard motions. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Ai F OSTER AND AN O THE R V . CHARLES: c ause' r ' Sccjeant WILDE applied for a new trial in this It was an act i on at G u ildh a ll , b efore the Lord thief jugtice, and was brought to recover a l arge sum o f 4 n cYi whi ch the agent of the plaintiffs, who had been lil:Tg3. m r ecomend e d by the defendant, was d w eficient in " The Court granted a rule to sho cause. T HE MARKETS. -(THIS DAY). C I IC ,,! : „ 11 ,` 11, AVERAGE PRICE OF BRITISH CORN, Cf t t - h . l re, ek ended Nov. 7, 429 made up from the Returns Cho i, i ).' e rCtOTlS thO Impe difl u er i t e r n te t:Cittes and 'Fowns in England si ) s er Q • Id.l Beans— 365. lid. 31s: Od.. Rye 30s. Sd.l Pease— 395. 2d h eat AI. AGGREGATY AVF.RAGES OF THE KIX WEEKS PRECRI3II 4( 'G I . (I.i Oats 22a. 4d. Brans--. 39, 325. 9d.1 Rye 325. 3d.1 Pease— 3Ss. q eat DITTIES ON FOREIGN CORN. •••••..... 13s. HAI Bl3s. Pd.l Bean s--. 1 Is. Pd.(ll Rye Oats 21s. :id !Pease I2s. 64. • _ __. ..... HAY M AIt.KETS.—(A t per Load of 36 Trusses.) t.„,. ST. J A MES'S. k le he av ti. !'iv m ea ,, Y Loveland Meadow Hay £2 '2 to £2 10 1 , " t ill ()Ir y Hal 212 310 (!1," 111 , )1 a„ t d )I r t q t° s kil . O m. Z 4" Meadow and Itye-grass . y.. .. 3 10 5 5 8t4;,,i .. .Xll6to X 1 181 Wheat . Straw 2 0 _ 2 2 `- Y good, and trade dull; prices as last quoted. N r6 SMITHFIELD. i . J.,.."' k b a e :,.°Y Lowland Meadow Hay £2 2 to £2 15 E." - `"il ()I I ,". HaY 2 0 3 0 'he (, ultto 3 3 3 10 ( 0 :10,- er 'land Meadow and ftye-grass Hay 3lO 4 4 4 1 Str o ,Y (extra tine)....£s s... Generally ''' good,,',' .... l2 to .£1 16 I Wheat Straw 116 2 "'WY, p and a very dull trade ; prices as last quoted. In 0, SO UTHALL MARKET.—Nov. 11. hot v r market of to-day, which was well supplied, and 44 3'er er)? numerously attended by London or conutry tai t h ", Particularly the former, each kind of meat met n 1 81 1) 4 ‘.erY sluggish sale, at the following prices per stone hfm . .....i° 'in k the offals:— p utt nn -- --- 2 8.4 d. to 33. SLI i Vea1..„.......,........... 2s. 10d. to 4s. (kl. t iC et* (I'' 21 0 40 1 Pork ...—..... 3 6 410 ~,an " i, Mutton and Veal from 2d. to 4d. per stone lon ck e l ' l) 3 , sh,,,,4(tay se'nnight ; prices of Pork stationary. Ago 1) and BeitAtS left the market unsold. tt'et LEWES MARKET.—Nor. 10. .. - not t ' oi `s-....„„ s 3s. Od. to 33.8 d. I Veal ..........—_. 3s. 2d. to 4s. 4d. -- 3 2 4 4 Pork .......---.. ..4 0 4 4 '......."--.......................8..1m_)1y gond, and trade dull. k een RUM FORD MA RKET.—Nov. 11. X -''. s. d. to s. d. a. d. s. (1. r‘it.o. .............. 2!I 3 8 Veal Nt,c4. ti ........ froth:. : . 8 3 6 4 8 3 10 Pork ngUalv e;. l-18. to 30s. ; Quarter old Picsl2s to 15 s . each. Su pply good, an d trade very dull. The kiv„ , (luildhall dinner, with the other dinners it ,-' ''aid ''Y , the several Companies on the Lord M a yo r ' s d a y, ' do not cost less than 25,0001. 14p, n : " h°l,o-st the delicacies which were displayed t '4 Mondaye ` 4l)l e of the Loan MAYOR, at the civic ban , qu . e . last, we observed a dish of green peas, which 14 11„ P ,, I l e ed near his Lordship, and attracted the attention t1,4:-"Atinguished guests. On inquiry, we ood underst ' llae k 't ile l : 4 t i ' the ingenuity and skill of Mr. Bucx, of 'ti t , ', that the Chief Magistrate was indebted for g enah lli e} led to place upon his hospitable board a dish h ilt 'is not On] ! . entitled to the appellation of a dainty, Isar, a° else hey described, at this advanced season of the ' 48 a e ßriosit - Y. TO THE EARL OF MOUNTCASHEL. DUBLIN, NOVEMBER 6, 1829. MY LORD,—A letter purporting to have been written by your Lordship, and addressed to me, having appeared in the newspapers, I feel it a duty which I owe to the cause I have undertaken to de• fend, to give it an immediate answer.--I must begin by expressing my surprise that your Lordship has not made some attempt at explaining your having published the first letter, which I had the honour to address to you, without that ►which contained my consent to its being published, and which attached to that consent the condition of publishing also the letter in which it was given. lam obliged al•o to obseive that I do not find any notice taken of my observations upon your Lordship's having, in two most important instances, given ( l would not use the epithet if I knew any word to substitute for it) garbled extracts from my first letter, by omitting passages in which were contained, as by anticipa tion, the answers to the very harsh remarks your Lordship made upon those parts which you chose to select. Let me also call your Lordship's atten tion to the two positions which my letters were de signed to maintain. They are that abuses are not creeping in to our Church Establishment, but that, for a long series of years, the most active exertions have been made to increase the effectiveness of that Establishment by every means which the Bishops have been enabled to use. And, secondly, that if the Bishops had been as negligent as the proofs I have given show them to have been active, yet the means resorted to by your Lordship not only were not the best within your power, but such as expe rience had proved to be the most dangerous both to the Church and to the State. The facts which I have adduced in support of these positions I do not find that your Lordship bas controverted, except so far as by denying that the proceedings with respect to the Church in the beginning of the 17th century, similar to those at Cork, were chiefly instrumental in promoting the success of the great Rebellion. But, in truth, all that your Lord ship has said amounts merely to this, that they were not the sole cause of the popular discontents. I never said that they were—l never represented them as the causes of the Rebellion, but as the means of its success—as the first of that series of attacks upon the Church, which ended in the exclusion of the Bishops from the House of Lords, then threw off all disguise and overwhelmed that House, and with it the Constitution of England. Your Lordship, indeed, in the close of your first paragraph, admits what I am contending for; you say—" That the cause of the Revolution (I protest against the word, it belongs to an event far different from the Rebel lion of 1641) is to be traced to another source, and that religion will be found only to have been one of the weapons used in the contest." I perfectly agree with your Lordship, and have only to add, that the first mode in which that weapon was employed was exactly similar to the proceedings at Cork. But your Lordship states, that the laity formerly took an active part in the affairs of the Church. That, by 27th Henry VIII. c. 15., " Sixteen of the Laity, as well as sixteen of the Clergy, were appointed to examine and report even to (upon, it should be) the Car►ons of the Church. And that again, in the reign of King Edward VI., you find a similar num ber and proportion of the Laity appointed for a like purpose.—(See 3d and 4th Edw. VI. c. 11.)" And your Lordship names "John Lucas and Rich. Goodrich, Esqrs., as having been two of the Lay men appointed in the time of Edward the Sixth." Truly, my Lord, this is a curious argument. Because Acts of Parliament have appointed Commissioners to examine the Canons, and among them were some Laymen, therefore any Laymen may at any time voluntarily appoint themselves as a Committee of Church Grievances, and call upon all others to act in a similar mariner ! But let us see what these ap pointments of Laymen really were. In 1534 the Convocation petitioned Parliament, that since many Canons were found prejudicial to the King's prero gative, contrary to the laws of the land, and heavy to the subject, a Committee should be formed, of 16 of the Clergy and 16 Members of Parliament, with power to abrogate or confirm Canons, as they found expedient. An Act was then passed con formable to this petition. The proceedings in Ed ward's reign were only a continuance of this plan to form a body of Canons, arid the Laymen then ap pointed were eight civilians and eight common law yers, of which latter eight Lucas and Goodrich were two. These Commissioners, and the pur poses for which they were appointed, are so entirely different from the meeting at Cork, that I really have not ingenuity enough to discover wherein consists the resemblance. As little can I discover how the gentlemen of Cork are concerned with my asserting " that the statements made at the Cork meeting were not grounded in facts." By referring to my first letter it will appear that I directed my atten tion solely to your Lordship's speech, and I have not since travelled out of it. I have employed my self in stating facts directly opposite to the charges against the Clergy and the Establishment which were made by your Lordship, and I cannot find that those facts have been controverted. Your Lordship goes on to say, that " not satisfied with your• declaration that there was little in your speech intended exclusively for Ireland, I endeavour to prove that you must have almost entirely excepted England." I beg leave to reply, that I did not endeavour to prove any such thing, and had your Lordship taken the trouble of reading what I had written a second time, you must have seen that I did not. My words were, " that I did not enter into any discussion as to the intentions of your Lordship's speech ; I only stated that, what ever they were, the whole of the speech would be considered as limited to Ireland." And I also stated that it would be impossible to make it be be lieved in England that the Cork meeting did seri ously think of extending their views to that country, let their language be what it might. But the truth spoken at Cork is as much truth as if spoken in London. Certainly. But surely your Lordship is not serious in putting forth that truism as an argu ment. As to the appointment of Bishops, I have already stated the period within which such bar gains with boroughowners, as your Lordship de scribed, have not taken place—and yet your Lord ship now makes that assertion in a stronger form than at first; you say that you are satisfied in your own mind that "in modern times" Bishops, with few exceptions, are appointed through political in trigue. This is in effect asserting that the evil is one of modern times—i. e. existing now, and the impression produced will be, that it has increased instead of diminishing. It is certain that if the ap pointment rests with the Crown, it will be exercised by the Minister, and therefore that political influ ence must always remain possible. Does your Lordship propose that it should be taken from the Crown ? Would you have the Bishops elected by the Clergy, or by committees of Laymen ? And can your Lordship he blind to the dreadful extent of corruption and simony that would arise from such elections ? Your Lordship thinks " that the state of England was more revolutionary in 1628, when it was preparing to shed a Monarch's blood, than now; and Ireland then looking forward to the awful rebellion which broke out but thirteen years after." Your Lordship will find, on looking into the history of the time, that neither was Ireland looking forward to the rebellion of 1641, nor Eng land to the murder of the King, at the period to which I have so often referred. In England there does not appear to have been any apprehension of a civil war• till after the meeting of the Long Parliament; arid the Irish historians inscribe the country at the time immediately preceding the rebellion of 1641 as particularly prosperous and tranquil. Would such a description suit Ireland now ? Your Lord ship's attack upon u part of the Clergy of Cork as not being " really pious," 1 doubt riot will be ani madverted upon by some abler pen than mine. I shall only observe that such attacks upon.the Clergy who do not belong to a particular class are amongst the very strongest proofs that a spirit now exists exactly similar to that which prevailed in the un-. happy times preceding the grep. ril , ellion in !',g land. That too many v.r contributed to pasoing what is called the Relief Hill would be true had but one contributed. 'What lof to was the language used by your Lordship, which implied that it had been earlier! by the votes of the Bishops as well as by those of the lay Lords, It•hen it wat notorious that a ;:reat majority of them had voted against it, and when in Ireland 16 out of 22 had given it all the opposition in their power. The quo• ration yutr Lordship makes from the words used in the Act of Parliament does really astonish me. Surely, my Lord, you know that they would have been used if not a single Bishop had voted for the Bill. To a person unacquainted with our laws it would appear, from your Lordship's expressions, that these words signify that a majority of the Bishops and also a majority of the lay Lords had voted for the Bill. It is unguarded or your Lordship to . put such words into a newspaper which will be read by thou sands who are so ignorant that they will certainly be deceived by them. Your Lordship knows that the Bill was carried against the advice of two-thirds of the Bishops. It is with great regret that I come now to remark in the manner in which I must re mark upon what your Lordship says as to the parish of Moviddy. In answer to troy assertion that the Bishops have no longer the power of uniting pa rishes, you say, " that you know of one in the county of Cork, the parish of Moviddy, united so late as the year 1818, and that you leave me to find out who got it." My Lord, I did not say that Bishops had not the power of forming unions in the year 1818—I said they had it not now. The Act, which made the consent of the Privy Council ne cessary to confirm an episcopal union, passed in 1827. It is the 7th and Bth Geo. IV. c. 48, which I should have supposed your Lordship would have been acquainted with, as you were in Parliament when it passed. But this is comparatively unim portant. The union of Moviddy was given to the Rev. Thomas St. Laurence in 1818. Your Lord ship's words signify that the Bishop of Cork made the union that year for his son. Now the fact is, that he never made it at all. It appears from the re turns to Parliament in 1696, that the union of Moviddy, Aglish, and Kilbonane had existed from time immemorial, and, therefore, it was not dissolved by the death of the incumbent in 1818. That in cumbent had alto held with Moviddy, Aglish, and Kilbonane, the parish of Inniskenny, by an episcopal union made in 1768, and the Bishop of Cork dis continued that union, and gave the living of Innis kenny, in 1818, to the Rev. William Meade. Thus, instead of making an union for his son, the Bishop broke one that had been made long before, and gave a part of it to a stranger. I really regret that your Lordship should have pledged yourself by asserting that the union of Moviddy had been made in 1818, and by insinuating that it had been made for Mr, St. Laurence. Upon another Bishop of our Church, now no more, your Lordship has made a still severer attack. You say, " that it is well known how un true some of his Lordship's statements were." The Prelate thus held up to infamy by your Lordship was, to use the words of Dr. Parr, that most amiable man and most accomplished scholar, Doctor Bennett. The name of Bishop Bennett is so inter woven with the literary history of the last century, that I should think it an insult to his memory were I to attempt a vindication of him from the charge of falsehood. As to the "livings attached to Deane ries, Canonries, Prebends, &c.," they are either the Rectorial tithes, with vicarages endowed, and no more connected with the cure of souls than the impropriate tithes which your Lordship holds ; or they are, as is the case almost universally in Ire land, parishes with cure of souls, upon which the incumbents, spite of their Deaneries, Canon ries, or Prebends, are bound to reside, and do, in fact, reside, just as if they held HO chapter situa tion, such situations being attended in general with no other emolument than the living attached to them, and connected with no duty except preaching in the cathedral, a duty performed almost always by a deputy, paid by the individuals for whom he offi ciates. Our Chapter situations, in general, are a burden instead of a benefit, and even the Treasurer would often he glad that he had no other denomi nation than that of Rector of his parish. As to the list of unions which your Lordship has in your pos session, of parishes which had previously supported separate Clergymen and separate churches, it would, I think, not be fair to withhold it till the time to which you allude, as, by so doing, the inquiry into the facts will come too late to remedy the evil which the statement will produce. Take but the example of Moviddy. Suppose it not to have been brought forward till that future day, and what a sensation would the statement of facts, happening in your own county, made within your own knowledge, produce ? Believe me, my Lord, you will find many cases like Moviddy in your list- To what purpose, my Lord, do you enumerate the number of unions in the diocese of Clonfert, or of Cloyne, or of Cork ? Did I ever deny that unions of parishes existed in Ireland ? My argument has been very different—l asserted that many of the unions were necessary, and that to remove those which are found in expedient the best measures have been al ready taken by the proper authorities. But " the stress which I lay upon these shadows of parishes mentioned by the Bishop of Lime rick is laughable." My Lord, to enumerate those shadons among the parishes which form any union, and to found upon that enumeration a complaint o unions as grievances, is calculated to excite a sen sation far different from laughter. You must be aware that the Bishop of Limerick stated that he could add many similar cases. I shall now add two more from my own diocese. To the living of Wex ford, already consisting of four parishes, I united two more, the parishes of St. Iberius and St. Sels kar. This your Lordship, in your zeal against unions, must consider a monstrous abuse of the episcopal powers I then possessed. Now, what is the result ? The parish of St. Iberius gives to its incumbent nothing, and the parish of St. Selskar, one pound, three shillings, and one penny per annum; and in each of them there is a large church, so that the Rector is obliged to keep two additional Cu rates for their service. By heaping livings upon the Rector of Wexford I therefore diminished his income 1481. per annum. Another pluralist to a Clerp yman holding two parishes which extended over a considerable tract of country, I gave a third. The former two were impropriate, and the incumbent received twenty-four pounds per annum from the lay Rectors. I really did not con ceive this an excessive provision, and added a Vica rage, with about forty pounds per annum, in which there was no church. This man will therefore swell the list of Irish abuses , and while it w ill b e . . _ _ __ ..... ~.. noised abroad that three livings are held by the same person, the circumstance will be industriously concealed that the income is but sixty-four pounds per annum. If your Lordship call upon me lam ready to go on with the list. In the mean time, yon must acknowledge that there are parishes still worse than the " two laughable shadows in Cork." It is unnecessary to inform your Lordship that the Act relating to Curates salaries does not extend to those of impropriators. The Rector of an adjoining parish may attend to one, the whole tithes of which are impropriate, without receiving any remunera tion; and even a Prebendary has done such duty for three pounds a year. Your Lordship is aware of this. Your Lordship's next subject of laughter is my adverting to tithes in lay hands. Certainly your Lordship must feel more pleasantly upon that sub• ject than any Churchman can, under the sanction of an old proverb. But on the paragraph which commences with this observation of your Lord ship's, I have some remarks to make ; and first as to Protestant lands, so called in the Down survey. Your Lordship assumes that they were lands inhabited by Protestants. If you take the trouble of making inquiry about them, you will find that they were lands, which being th e property o f Protestants, were not forfeited in the rebellion. Does your Lordship suppose that all the tenamts of a Protestant landlord were also Protestants ? These are minor matters. Your Lordship next lends your-• self to the propagation of a slander, which, though yo say yon • tir: 1 artily credit it, receives a formi dable support rime i.s Being thought deserving of t p h o e r t ed, '' Board you First, Fruits, t; Inch lint c licter been accou n t e d f or ." say, ben g " I s i;:ts j t ts. l l:: l r s i ri b e s e r t i l t with ft surely is rest possible that your Lordship can be so ignorant of the trimmer hi st Inch the public ac counts art. cenducted, tis not to know that the ac intuits of that Board are :atonally audited by the Commissioners of Accounts. Did your Lordship ever mention tO any member of that Board, that such an accusation had been made against it ? If not, where will your Lordship find an excuse for setting afloat such a rumour, at a time when you knew that your authority will be quoted by every Radical in this country and in England ? My Lord, the report is false, utterly false. The mention of the First Fruits leads your Lordship to propose that they should be le'vied w the full salue of every ecclesiastical preferment, as originally intended.—littended by whom ! It appears that your Lordship is utterly unacquainted with the origin of that imposition called the First Fruits. You are not aware that it was a tax levijd by the Pope, of his own authority. Thus founded in robbery and ustirpatioti, it became the pity of Henry VIII. when he dethroned the Pope from his dominion in England and Ireland, and it continued in the Crown till Queen Anne bestowed it upon the Church. 1 hat a man should pay the first year's in come of an ecclesiastical preferment as the price of his obtaining it, seems any thing but reasonable, and would produce consequences extremely inju rious, were not the sums so levied small. With re spect to the Curates' Act, I know not what more could be done that would not be injurious to the Church and to the Curates themselves. Were the salaries of Curates where Rectors reside, to be raised, many Rectors who now keep Curates would do their own duty. Would that be advantageous, and if not, how could it be remedied ? Your Lordship concludes that paragraph with very remarkable words, they are these—" To your Lordship's theory I assert that present practice is opposed, and will your Lordship in your next dare me to the test." I do. Your Lordship begins the next paragraph in a very extraordinary manner—" Your Lordship hav ing set aside all higher motives for adopting the profession of the Church, as being unconnected with the secular interests now under consideration, it was natural I should follow the example, and con fine myself to the three degrees of comparison you declare to possess such powerful attractions." My Lord, what I complained of was, your having repre sented me as looking to secular advantages as the only motives for taking Holy Orders, and your hav ing done so by omitting a paragraph which expressly showed that I did not. The same thing has been done in your last letter by a very adroit separation of the words you formerly omitted, so contrived as to impress the same idea that your omission of them before excited,—namely, that I thought only of secular inducements. With respect to those in ducements being powerful, as compared to the higher motives, I said nothing whatever. Had I done so, I must have deviated from the line of argu ment pursued in your Lordship's speech. That line of argument obliged me to compare the effects of secular inducements of one sort with those of another—equal incomes with unequal. Your Lord ship seems to think poverty useful to the Church ; nay, if I understand your manner of expressing your self, even persecution. That the Church would triumph over both I know;—but her progress in any particular country might be greatly impeded by either. It seems, also, that your Lordship does not look very favourably upon education as aiding a Clergyman in his Ministry. Yet he to whom the care of all the Churches was entrusted was a man who had received the best education which this age and country could afford, and the scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is to bring forth out of his treasure things new and old. That education is necessary for a Clergyman is really so manifest to me, that I think it lost time to enter into an argument upon the subject. As to Bishops' leases, your Lordship asks, " How shall we account for Bishops running their lives at them if profit is not to be obtained ?" My Lord, my statement, that profit is not to be obtained, rested upon a known law, and upon plain numerical calcu lations. Any one who pleases may try them. A Bishop's lease may run out without his being either " griping or covetous." I doubt not but that your Lordship, collecting grievances, may have two in stances representing me as having run my life against leases; I plead guilty, and can only regret that dis putes among my tenants, which should not be set tled, have made me feel sensibly the truth of the calculations to which I have referred your Lordship. I come next to the charge against me, of regarding only the temporal interests of the Clergy, and of disregarding the spiritual wants of their congrega tion. And here I must again complain of a garbled quotation. You give my words, " there is no part of my letter which has any connection with the subject, except that which relates to the incomes of the Clergy," and, stopping there in your quotation, you proceed to say that " I have in these words,sup plied an answer to my own question." Is this, my Lord,' fair dealing ? Is not the sen tence you have selected followed by these words—" And in referring to my letter, you will find that I view their incomes only as they may be the mean of inducing a class of persons to enter into orders who are educated men, and as such calculated to be useful members of the Church. I argue against an equal distribution of those incomes only on the ground of its tendency to diminish the number of well-qualified ministers! What is there in this that can support the accusation made against me of considering only the Clergy and disregarding their congregations. What but the spiritual wants of the people am I considering when providing that the Clergy shall be duly qualified ?" This omission of an important sentence requires no comment. It admits not of any in which I should be able to re frain from expressions Ido not wish to use. On the number of the Clergy, and the circumstances to be considered in increasing it, I have fully expressed myself, and your Lordship has not said any thing in reply that requires an observation from me. But your Lordship has given as a reason for Clergymen attending to their Roman Catholic parishioners, that " they contribute towards his income." Our Clergy ought to attend to their Roman Catholic parishioners, when they show any disposition to attend to their instructions, because it is their duty. But I am much surprised, indeed, at your Lord ship saying that "the Roman Catholics contri bute to the support of our Clergy." Undoubt edly they do not. Their tithes are but a part of the rent of their land : were it set to them tithe free the rent would be increased, as is quite notorious, and that by a sum much greater than the charge for tithe. Surely your Lordship cannot but remember the words of Edmund Burke— " The revenues of the Church are taken from no man ; they are incorporated and identified with the mass of private property, of which the State is not the proprietor for use or dominion."— With respect to the education of the lower order of Protestants, your Lordship tells me " I may say what I please about their being well taught, but that the contrary is so notorious that you will not condescend to prove it." My Lord, I stated strong facts, proving the care taken by the Established Clergy of the educa tion of their parishioners. I stated the progress made in that important work. These strong facts cannot be put down by the summary process to which your Lordship resorts. My Lord, you avoid grappling with such facts, because you are quite aware that you would be defeated in the contest. I re-assert, supported by those facts, that the educa tion of the lower order of Protestants is not in any respect neglected. I re-assert that the foul stain of ignorance and immorality, which your Lordship would atlix to the Protestants of Ireland, is not upon them. With respect to the vice and immo rality your Lordship alleges to prevail among the Clergy, I cannot he silent. Your Lord ship had said that it was so excessive that " you knew of various petitions against immoral Clergymen representing facts revolting to humanity, and disgraceful to the parties accused." It appears decidedly that your Lordship did not know even of one such petition to either House of Parliament against any Clergyman l►t Irehtod, and but of one lin England. I rely upon this as sufficient to deprive your Lordship's general charge of all the weight to which it might have been supposed entitled. Re peating that individuals unquestionably will be found attiong a body which I toted formerly at 12,000, but am now Jed to believe mount to 18,000; such taint not the general, the almost uni versal gocd character of the body. I have been con tent to b prolix in this letter, rather than to incur the charge of haVing omitted to answer anything. important. Mid your Lotdship confined yourself to the two questions really at isti.fti l tt►ttch that is not of real importance to the controversy might have been spared. That I have not expressed my gel!' more strongly than a defence against some of your Ldi•dship s attacks upon me demanded, I con fidently trust.—l have the hdnuur to be, my Lord, your Lordship's most obedient humble sertant f THOMAS, FERSS4 FASHIONABLE INTELLIGENCE. A iiiiiVAtA J. Hazlefoot, Esq. and Mil Hailef&k: tit IV:trshaj Thoinp son's Hotel, Cavendish-square; J. Thothtl. , Thrii; Thompson, the Misses Thompson, Ross Thompson, Egq. and J. Thompson, jun. Esq. at ditto; Rev. Mr. De Chair and Mrs. .De Chair, at ditto ; Rev. Cuthbert Henley, at ditto ; J. Buckle, Esq. at ditto ; - William Coote, Esq. at ditto; the Duke of Man chester, at his house in Park , danc, from his seat, Kimbolton Castle; Sir Thomas and Lady Fartpitiar, In St, James's.street, from a visit to Lord Dacre, at his seat, the ILO, near Welwyn, Hefts; the Earl of Aboyne, in l'iccadilly, from his seat in Scot= land; Lord Charles Fittroy, at his house in Berkeley-square, from Staffordshire; Major Buller, in St. James's-street, from Holland; the Right Hon. Stratford Canning, Mrs. Canning, and family, at Thomas's Hotel, Berkeley-square, from Darren-hill, Tunbridge; Lady Kintore and the Hon. Miss Keith, at Mivitrt's Hotel, Lower Brook and Davies-streets, from Berkshire ; CoL and Mrs. Johnston, at ditto, from Yorkshire; Captain Adair, at ditto, from Bristol; Colonel Cameron, at ditto, from Glamor ganshire. DEPA RTURES. The Earl of Essex, for Cashioberry Park; Hon. Robert smith, from Belgrave , street, for Gayhurst, Bucks; Mr: and Mrs. Greenhill and family, from the British Hotel, Jermyn.street, for Paris; W. Coulson, Esq. from ditto. for ditto; Misses Peneston, from Gould's Hotel, Jermyn-street, for Cambridgeshire; Mr. and Mrs. D'Arcor and family, from Thomas's Hotel, Berkeley square, for Paris; Earl of Orford, from ditto, for Dover ; F. H. Fawkes, Esq. from Fenton's Hotel, St. James's-street, for War- Ivickshire ; Mr. and Mrs. Waddington, from ditto, for Suffolk ; Sir James and Lady Frazer and family, from ditto, for Brigh ton ; 'l'. L. Parker, Esq. from Mivart's Hotel, Lower Brook and Davies-streets, for Grantham ; Le Baron Gablendz, from ditto, for Brighton; Rev. William Pitman, from ditto, for Oxford; Captain and Mrs. Fergusson, from Regent-street, for the Conti nent; le Compte Gustave de Batthyany, from Marshal Thomp son's Hotel, Cavendish-square, for Brighton ; Rev. Arthur Champagne, from ditto; Rev. Thomas Henry Torrens, from ditto ; Henry TufThell, Esq. from ditto ; Colonel and Miss Cholmeley and family, from the Bath Hotel, Arlington-street, for the North; Rev. Mr Watten, from ditto, for Devon. WINDSOR, Nov. 11. Yesterday the Duke of WELLINGTON arrived at the Royal Lodge, and had a long audience with his MAJESTY. The Council which was to have been held at the Castle yesterday was postponed, it was said, in consequence of the indisposition of the Recorder, he not being able to at tend. This circumstance has given rise to various rumours, none of which can he relied on except the above. Yesterday forenoon Sir EDMUND NAGLE arrived at the Castle, and immediately sent an order to the Horse Bar racks that an orderly dragoon might be instantly forwarded to Busby Park, in order to apprise his Royal Highness the Duke of CLARENCE that the Council was put off, as his Royal Highness was expected to attend on the occasion. On Monday last Lord GRAVES arrived at the Royal Lodge, on a visit to his MAJESTY. On Monday last his MAJESTY, in the course of his drives, visited the Castle, and inspected the preparations nuking for his reception. It is expected that his MA JESTY will remove from the Royal Lodge to his suite of apartments in the Castle the latter end of the present or early in the ensuing month. Yesterday Lord CLINTON arrived at the Royal Lodge, on a visit to his MAJESTY. Sir EDMUND NAGLE is also On a visit to his MAJESTY. The Duke of WELLINGTON has left town, on his return to his seat at Stratfieldsaye, Hants. Prince EETERHAZY, the Austrian Ambassador, and Sir CULLEN forming part of a shooting party staying at Strat fieldsaye, on a visit to his Grace, have returned to town. The Earl of ABERDEEN left town yesterday, on a visit to the Marquis of SALISBURY, at his seat at Hatfield, Herts. The Noble Marquis entertained a select party yesterday to dinner. At the meeting of the Medico-Botanical So ciety on Tuesday, at their rooms in Sackville-street, Mr. FROST, the Director, delivertd his annual oration. On the table were displayed a collection of plants presented to the Society by his MAJESTY ; the greater part of the col lection was raised in the Royal Gardens, at Kew. A number of the Foreign Ministers were present, and the at tendance of members was very numerous. MEDHURST SCHOOL.—In consequence of the resignation of Dr. BAYLY, Head Master of Medhurst School, the Trustees met on Monday last, the 7th inst., to elect his successor, when, after having duly examined the excellent testimonials sent in by six highly respectable Candidates, their choice fell on the Reverend W. G. BAYLY, Fellow of New College, Oxford, son of Dr. BAYLY. The Rev. STRICKLAND EDw. NEVILLE, A.M. has been instituted to the Vicarage of Houghton, near Harpley, in Norfolk, on the presentatioti of the Marquis of CHOLMONDELEY. The Rev. EDWARD JOHN SENKLER, A.M. has been licensed to the Perpetual Curacy of Barmer, Nor folk, on the nomination of THOMAS KERSLAKE, Esq. 61 Lyne Grove, in Surrey. The Rev. HOUGHTON SPENCER has been licensed to the Perpetual Curacy of Crimplesham, Norfolk, on the nomination of the Bishop of ELY. The Rev. EDWARD FRERE, A.B. has been instituted to the Rectory of Finningham, Suffolk, on the presentation of the Right Hon. Joitx HOOKIIAH FRERE, of Roydon, in Norfolk. The Rev. Mr. YORKE, M.A. has been pre• sented by the Countess nz GREY to the Rectory of Shen field, Essex, vacant by the death of the Rev. Mr. SALTER, The Rev. SAMUEL SHEEN, Rector of Stan. stead, Suffolk, has transmitted to the farmers in his parish a circular letter, informing them that, in consequence of the extreme pressure of the times, and other unfavourable circumstances, he intends, at his Tithe Audit, to reduce their present compositions 10 per cent., and that, if it should be found inconvenient to them to pay even that sum, he will receive half of it, and the remaining half when convenient to pay it. This liberal conduct, in the present depressed state of agriculture, is highly meritorious to the Rev. Gentleman, and will, we hope, be generally adopted. The Rev. GEORGE STRACEY, Rector of the parish of Rackheath, very liberally deducted 12 per cent at his late Tithe Audit, in consideration of the depressed state of agriculture. The " Memoirs of BOLIVAR," announced for immediate publication, are reported to contain much new information relative to the private history of that ex traordinary man, besides giving a more copious and son nected detail of his military and political operations than we have hitherto possessed. The work is, in fact, said to comprise a complete history of the Colombian Revolution and Government, and moreover, to exhibit during its course, many singular personal anecdotes of the daring and romantic chieftains who have with such vigour, prose cuted the war of independence in the vast plains and forests of South America. The Marquis de CHABANNES, so celebrated for his long captivity in the prisons of Belgium, as well as for his numerous pamphlets in prose and verse, has been sued before the Tribunal of Commerce, for a debt of 777 francs, arising out of his connexion with an establish ment of post-coaches during the republic, which failed. The Tribunal referred the matter to arbitration. The day of the 4th (the King of FRANCE'S . birth-day) was, like his MAJESTY'S life, very chequered_... being rainy and lowering in the morning, and bright in the evening. Yesterday a Court of Directors was held at the East India House, when Captain THOMAS BLAIR was sworn into the command of the ship William Fairlie, consigned to Bengal and China. A GOOD SHOT.—A veteran sportsman in the neighbourhood of Retford, last week, shot four cock pheasants and a brace of bares at four shots.—Newark Times. SPIRIT OF TIT PUBLIC JOURNALS. There has been atreat deal said in the news papers, and elsewhere;, upon the case,of, a Mrs. Phillip s , who died iuddenly,: . and, it appears, under circumstances, which, if not sus'Picious in themselves, have been employed as a pretence for making particular individuals the I v cs of suspicion. It is really quite shameful that an affair of this nature should be left in its present state of darkness and uncertainty, or at least that no serious and formal measures have been adopted, for ascertaining whether or not it may be susceptible of further light. Either the de ceased was unfairly dealt by, or some of the sur vivors have been so ; and is there no Magistrate to insist upon the necessary investigation ? One Magistrate has undoubtedly had the subject brought before him in an official manner. We conceive that the worshipful gentleman ought not to have left a case of imputed murder (for such it is) precisely where he found it, until he had summoned all the parties who could by any means be considered either capable of making 'discoveries or liable to be affected by them ; and when all this pother is made about parish officers refusing to prosecute, and relatives or others throwing d ffict e tt the way we must ask at y do aiel l ,l ag istrate—the paid minister of justice—do his ditty, and force for ward the case to a diligent and satiefactory exa mination ? The loss of life is not a family, or private, or even a parish question : it is a matter which concerns the Crown, and interests the realm. To talk of it in the fast-and-loose ray that we have heard in some quarters during the last three weeks, is a miserable trifling with public justice.— Time's. We insert with unfeigned pleasure, and with no small share of admiration, the address of Dr. Doyle, Roman Catholic Bishop of Leighlin and Ferns, to the peasantry of the Queen's County, in Ireland, The Rev. Gentleman has in this Performance essayed, and with infinite power of language, to dissuade the poorer classes of his countrymen from entering Into or encouraging those combinations which have for so many ages involved their wretched members - in an un ceasing conflict with the laws, and which have oh e their not been more branded by guilt in e 4 than by disgrace and ruin in their progress and results. We have read no where an appeal to the hearts and understandings of the loner Irish more fitted to impress them with a real know ledge of their own condition, and of the dose connexion between an orderly and moral tonduca on their part, with the gradual, but inevitage, improvement of their country, on which must dc- , pend, as its only certain basis, the ultimate re lief of the peasantry from the dreadful poverty and suffering which have preyed upon their lives, and often provoked to a disregard of the rights of others, as criminal and revolting as it has ever to themselves proved fatal. It is true that Di. Doyle does not spareethe upper classes, nor in any degree palliate their frequent oppression of the poor ; and for this we think the Ilev. Bishop is entitled to the praise both of truth and sound policy, inasmuch as no honest man could say that the Irish gentry and landlords had set a general example to the peasantry, of respect for the obligations of humanity and justice ; and no wise man, while he sought to gain an influx ence over the multitude, would let them sup pose him insensible to their wrongs, any more than to their transgressions. We are sure that this effort of the Bishop in the good cause of peace, subordination, and integrity, will be crowned with extensive, if not entire success and we shall bail the hour which brings with it, a cordial understanding between the Government and the Catholic priesthood, which might be rendered an instrument of reformation for the people, far more welcome and effectual than the most coercive laws.—lbid. We call the attention of our readers to an article taken from the Boston Commercial Gazette, on the subject of the evils produced by the American Tariff to the inhabitants of the United States. The statement will go far, we should think, to lead those who allowed them. selves to be persuaded that the prosperity of nation is best promoted by interfering with the freedom of industry, to doubt the soundness of that opinion. The Americans, forgetting that labour must always be high in a country abound ing with fertile land yet unoccupied, wished to be independent of other nations for manufac- tures, as the phrase is ; and the consequence of the mad attempt to bolster up manufactures, by protecting duties, is one universal ruin. " The present year (says a Newspaper published in the capital of the chief manufacturing State of the Union, Massachusets) will be remembered as perhaps more fatal to property than any pe riod since our existence as a nation." The in vestments of capital in manufacturing establish ments, so far from yielding dividends, have been followed by call after call of further investments, to prevent total ruin. " Unhappily," says this account, " he (the manufacturer) is soon sur prised by an assessment of 25 per cent. on the stock aforesaid, which, with some difficulty, he contrives to pay by procuring a tempo rary loan. This is the best warning ; yet he is consoled with the belief that all is well,' and that be will receive a fat dividend. He is soon destined, however, to be ' surprised' a second time ; another assessment is laid, and probably double the amount of the former. Hs is compelled to pledge his stock for what money can be raised upon it ; and, to make up the sum required, he is obliged to force a sale of his other property at less than half the cost ; his air built castle vanishes, and in the end he is ruined. Meanwhile manufactures hare become so worth less, that it is difficult to find a person who will accept the stock, with its liabilities, even if a 6 ( -rift • the degraded in ma t es o f t h ese esta bli s h ments _ _ are turned — friendless and ignorant upon the world, and the only possible good that results from this mass of evil is the severe lesson of ex perience it always conveys to mankind." The article concludes with the expression of an opi nion that the next Session of Congress " will not disappoint the just and reasonable expecta tions of the community; and that a certain Act, passed in 1828, will, ere long, only be reinem l(i s r g e r d a e a e s t a ostainits tson projectors." t lie have let nation paying hardly any taxes (which our op ponents of free trade tell us prevent our fo f r r e o,l i i g , n it r e A,st)wi Americans ra l i o at il:s'eeyd attempt the to o pulation into a channel which it would not turn h t gcoreina tpec a ''ttin p g o d r i t l i t. o irte i l i si s' o f the industry of the 1)0 _ dhooafxmi'teseespltfuicirlealh:raeossdeeculleccefto:rdoerign manufactures with their could only ob tained in exchange for the domestic pro l d 'a u d ce. o -- 1) The purchases were of course limited by the ability to pay. The effect of forcing manufac tures by protecting duties, had the contrivers succeded in their object, would merely have been to make the agriculturist give to the domes