The Sun. — London, England, 1837-05-16 00:00:00

SvIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. Doctor Baldwin, one of the Liberal Members for Cork, has been astonishing the natives of that fair city by pronouncing a high-flown eulogium upon the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel. Those personages, he considers, are " anxiously disposed to serve Ireland," but the baneful influence of Lord Lyndhurst is too powerful for them to resist it, and they are dragged along, forsooth, in his train. He particularly admires the Great Captain, of whom he seys—" I do believe that many people stand up and make speeches of apparently great ardour for Ire lend, that have not half the true devotion for the name that the Duke of Wellington possesses." Really ? Since how long has this idea gained a lodgment in the Learned Doctor's mind ? Has anything occurred (luring the present session of Parliament to con vert him to a belief in the philhibernism of that il lustrious pair? We never could have imagined that a devotion for the name of Ireland was among the weaknesses of the Duke's character. If such had been our opinion of- that great man, or of his great man, %Ye certainly should not have exerted ourselves as we did—and with some effect, too, we are vain enough to suppose—to drive both cue and the other of them from the helm, on the ex press ground that they were hostile to Ireland. To Statesmen sincerely and amicably disposed towards that country, we should have held it only justice to con rede what they so eagerly demanded, " a fair trial ;" but we had the best possible reason to know that their piofessions were mere cobwebs, finely spread to entrap the unwary, and therefore we opposed them. So also, we are happy to say, did Dr. Baldwin, whose votes in Parliament have up to this moment been his country's, though he 'thinks proper to make a compliment of his consistency to its foes. We would remind this learned physician, that such pseudo-liberality is a morbid symp tom. Almost the first token of that perfidious imbeci lity which has just ended in the lamentable and degra ding apostacy of Sir Francis Burdett, was an unneces snr:- eulogium which he pronounced upon the Duke of Wellington in 1832. The Reform Bill had scarcely passed, when he began to lavish the most fulsome praises upon the greatest enemy of liberty and popular rights that the present age has • produced ; and it is remarkable, that from the time he accustomed his lips to such honied accents, this man, v ho at one time stood so high in popular regard, never performed any one act to merit the esteem or call forth the approbation of his country. Is it necessary to o);giffq Doctor Baldwin into a persuasion that he never can hope to be so great or so popular a man as Sir Francis Burdett was when he began the slippery trade of adulation towards his political adversaries ? As to the distinction which this Irish patriot draws iwtwcen Wellington and Peel, per se, and Wellington and Peel in a leash with Lyndhurst, it is far too nice erd subtle for our plain comprehension. They are neither of them such tender colts as to move along, a , .,:einst their will, in the harness of a person for whom it is impossible that they can entertain the slightest epect. Bnt even supposing they were the reluctant cr.-atures of that Lord, such a circutestance should not !lake thear less the objects of popular distrust, whilst it would give them a title, which they do not yet seem to have earned, to a very large measure of public rweempt. In the same spirit which dictates this mawkish generosity towards the Tory chieftain;, the oelcet Doctor bestows a portion of his blarney upon the ultra-Tory Member fur Cork county, and talks ith soft complacency of the day when the electors s,!loold " for , et all si3 y antipathies, cast aside the ielite..s of Tory, Whig-, and Radical, and cheerfully sit ; , pt:rt Mr. Longfield as a candidate for that county.'' We c.omot see anythim in the present situation of laire, and especially of Irish affairs, to call for ob se-vations such as these from an advocate of the p , :‘ople. An oblivion of the kind suggested, amiable as the proposal may sound in certain quarters, would just now indicate a most treacherous memory indeed. Te talks of " names ;" but in this - case names are ; ;nil to for2,et them would betray a criminal in iiiiserencc about some very substantial realities. If it be " silly antipathy" to object to placing our liberties nquin, under any circumstances whatsoever, at the mercy of him who was the champion of the Holy Al liance, and is the advocate of Don Carlos—Will), when a Minister, gave to proclamations the force of laws, to create offence and gag the people—who went purr; passu with Castlereagh in all his nefarious attempts and complots against universal freedom—who poke, intrigued, and protested against Reform, and in he last resort attempted to step between the people and their prize, to play the Polignac and perpetuate abuse at time hazard of a civil war—who, finding that design baffled, offered to carry, as a Minister, tho very measure which he had so lately denounced, and would have resisted sword in baud—who is playing the same game now with respect to Ireland which he then played, and for the self same object, power—we are content to take our full share of the imputed folly. We shall always retain that silly antipathy, and while the Morning Chronicle and the Duke of Wellington exist the people of this country shall not forget it. Dr. I;aldwin has been for some months " damned with faint praise" by the Orange, journals published - in his native town. This speech of his shows that he was not altogether unworthy to be so distinguished ; and time electors would do well to consider whether, by such testimonials, as well as by' his recent exhibition of him sr lf, he has not made out his claim to a bene decessif. We should certainly hold him an unsafe depository of the trust which he now holds in a new Parliament.— Morning Chronicle. Every day's post from all parts of the United King dom brings evidence, whether furnished by friends, or still more providentially by enemies, that the hour at which Sir Francis Burdett delivered his brave and wise declaration of stanch Protestant principle and feeling, was the happiest among th© many surpassing felicities that attended the Westminster election. That the question for Ireland is " Protestant or Papist ?" we have long and earnestly represented. That such is the question—viz., whether Popery shall domineer over the realm, or the reformed Church be suffered to exist in peace ? each reflecting and well-informed poli tician throughout England and Ireland has, even for years, while sitting by his own fireside, been per suaded. But the alarm-bell was never rung before in tones so clear, or with a peal so thrilling. Protestants have hardly ever yet been so distinctly, so emphatically, or in a voice of command so stern and authoritative, summoned to unite for their common protection. It is tlic cry of " No Popery," not for aggressive purposes, nut for offence to any man or injury to any, or for the sake of threatening any, but in answer to the exter minating yell of " No Protestantism," " No Protestant " religion," " No Protestant Irish people." We have talked of evidence, as if any had been wanting, to show with what sort of foes we have to deal; and what sort of spirit actuates that power on which the present offi cial tyrants, who have forced themselves upon the Protestant King of England, are dependent for their s,flaries, comprising every portion of those appendages of Government which they can dare to call their own. Irish patronage they have none—they have bartered every pennyworth of it for their own miserable mess of pottage. Policy they have worse than none—for whatever they dare propose to Parliament has, by the supervisors of their statesmanship, been well cleared of eve, iv sound and wholesome principle, and nothing lett for the Legislature to act upon but noxious dregs, and vile and loathsome offscourings. Had these worthless pedlars, nicknamed Ministers, not made love to their disgraceful offiee, we might have pitied the mischance through which it was inflicted on them. But theirs is not a case for pity. They saw degradation directly in their path, and doubled their peed, though without a rival in the race of infamy ; and such as it is, they have their reward,—they are doomed to crawl on the earth, and their food is " bitter vslies." The first business prescribed to these mean spirited men, professing to be members of the Church of England, was the subversion of that Church. They tried it in one form, and were utterly defeated. They have ;row tried it in another form—a form more malig nant—fitted to purposes more immediately persecuting und grinding in their effect upon the ill-used, because ill-defended, Protestant clergy, from whom the new Tithe Bill exacts 40/. out of each 100/. of their in comes, instead of 30/., which was the practical limit .of the robbery of 1836 ; and how is this fresh and ag- Lravated outrage upon the clergy received by the mas tors of the Radical Ministers ? How, we say, do the Itomish priests behave upon the publication of this new-invented scheme of wrong? We present our readers, English and Irish, with a picture of what has lately passed in the neighbourhood of that exemplary patriarch of sedition—the ir-Reverend Dr. M'Hale. The actors are mostly of that description, of which so many and such valuable specimens have been produced from the rich storehouse of Maynooth. It will be found by the subjoined extract from a Con naught newspaper, that with the priests of the NH-laic diocese, the new Tithe Bill of Lord Morpeth has met small favour, because, in addition to the plunder of 40 per cent. from the Church establishment, they in sist on a, formal revival of the " appropriation clause," as a pledge for the certainty that no particle of sup port shall be left henceforth in the hands of the Pro testant clergy ! Instead of graciously approving the magnitude of the outrage thus offered by their vassals to the Church, they despise and insult them for being too moderate in their iniquity. They scold and brow beat the unfortunate menials in their service for having abandoned " their principles" (alas ! what princi ples ?), and forfeited their claims to the support of the Papist power. This, then, is what Protestantism has to look for from such a source. This is the " stabl ing of the Church establishment," which has been so conscientiously provided for by the framers of King's speeches to Parliament. This is, in sober truth, the demon of destruction, against which Sir Francis Bur dett has summoned all honest Protestants to defend themselves and their posterity RESOLUTIONS. " At a meeting of the inhabitants of the united parishes of Kilcoman and Robin, held at the Roman Catholic church of St. Michael, Roundfort, on the 7th of May, 1837 " Mr. Michael Lyndsey, in the chair. " Resolved—That Mr. Bartholomew St. Ledger be re quested to act as secretary.' " Moved by the Rev. James M'llale, seconded by Mr. John M'Namara— " Resolved—That considering the principles by which the present Administration were brought into power, and their own repeated declarations since they cattle into power, we have no hesitation in declaring that they have abandoned their principles, and have on this occasion for feited their claims to the support of the Liberal repre sentatives of the people, by abandoning the Appropria tion Clause.' " Moved by the Rev. John Cavanagh, seconded by Mr. John Meath— " Resolved—That we most respectfully pray the repre sentativLs of the people who are advocates for the total an nihilation of tithes and a fair and useful system of eduet tion, to eppose this " Moved by the Rev. Patrick Prendergast, seconded by Mr. Thomas Judge— " Resolved—That wo most particularly request our honest and faithful representatives, Sir W. Brabazon, Bart., and Mr. Robert Dillon Brown, to resist, with all their might and abilities, the proposed tithe system, and that our respected parish priest, the Rev. James M'llale, be de puted to convey to them these our wishes.' " Moved by Mr. Jan M`Namara, seconded by Mr. John Resolved—That the system of general education con templated by this measure, so far from affording any real or substantial relief to the people of Ireland, is a complete mockery, an insult to their feelings, and calculated to ex cite their dissatifaction and distrust.' " Moved by the Rev. James M' Hale, seconded by Mr. Thady Lynskey— " Resolved—That these resolutions be published in the Mayo .raph Evening Freeman newspapers.' " :MICHAEL LYNI)SEY, Chairman. " BARTHOLOMEW ST. LEGER, Secretary. " Mr. Michael Lyndsey having vacated tire Chair, and the Rev. James M'lhtle being called thereto— " Resolved—That the thanks of this meeting are due to Mr Michael Lyndsey, for his dignified conduct in the Chair.' " JAMES WHALE, Chairman. " BARTHOLOMEW ST. LEGER, Secretary." Much as we regret the disgrace which has lately befallen Westminster, it is some gratification to per ceive, by the boundless exultation of the Tories, the pitiable plight to which they are reduced ; for the con dition of that party must indeed be desperate which bases its hopes on an apostate, and especially on such an impotent apostate as Sir Francis Burdett, who, incapable of keeping pace with public opinion, en vious at being superseded by men of superior intellect and powers, and urged by the desire of distinction without the qualities to obtain it, had no means of gaining even temporary notoriety but by the suicide of his own reputation. The Tory journals arc certainly bestowing on the honourable Baronet the meed for which lie bartered his character, by constantly referring to his proceedings ; but for this they scarcely deserve praise, as every act, whether of good or evil, which strikes the public with surprise, would meet with similar attention, the greater the turpitude or crimi nality the more valuable for the gratification of a depraved taste ; and thus, as every act of atrocity is made instrumental to public excitement by the ama teurs of the horrible furnishing "further particulars," &c., the Tory press appears as if it could never surfeit its readers with " additional details" of the West minster renegade. The Times even in endeavouring to extol exaggerates his apostacy, and had not Sir Francis already escaped by the vilest machinations the verdict of guilty from the electors of Westminster, we consider his case would be much prejudiced by the commentaries of his Tory advocate—for a more false, truculent, evil-designed, and sanguinary article we never read in any journal than appeared in our contem porary of yesterday, of which the following extract from the confessions of Sir Francis furnished the text : —" Ireland was Protestant Ireland, and the Pro testants of England and Scotland would never submit to a Roman Catholic ascendancy in that country." Upon this audacious and lying statement was erected a pyramid of falsehood, of which the apex was the fol lowing infamous calumny :—" The first instinct and vital element of Popish policy in Ireland is, at the earliest favourable opportunity, to sweep every living Protestant off the face of the island." Through the whole article " lie follows lie, like alp on alp," in such quick succession that to undertake their refutation would be a tiresome task, and as useless as tiresome, for who does not know that Ireland is essentially a Catholic country ? or who but a reckless renegade would not blush to call a country " Protestant" where in but one-sixteenth of the population are members of the Established Church, and of these no inconsiderable portion unite with all the Dissenters and Roman Ca tholics in opposing the undue exactions of the Church ? Who need be told that the Catholics of Ireland, no more than the Dissenters of England, seek not ascen dancy, though both are determined, and they would de serve to be despised if they were not determined, to as sert their rights to equality ; but, above all, would it not be worse than useless, would it not be an insult to public opinion to dwell on the refutation of the enor mous, the infamous, and atrocious calumny, that it is " the Popish policy to sweep every living Pro testant off' the face of the island," when every Ca tholic country in Europe, and the well-known sen timents of every intelligent Catholic in Ireland, give the lie to the slanderous assertion ? The mode of argument by which the slander is endea voured to be sustained is highly characteristic. It is as follows :—The right of holding landed pro perty was asked by and conceded to the Catholics in 1778. Not content with this " boon," they had the assurance to seek access to certain professions, and to the elective franchise ; and in 1793 " these boons were also conceded." But the " Papists," still dissatisfied, kept up agitation till 1829, when they were admitted to both Houses of Parliament, and the highest offices in the State. Whence the writer in the Times, with a perception discovering " gunpowder in every line of it," gravely infers that the whole drift of the Irish Catho lics, in not tamely submitting to the spoliation and tyranny of the ascendant Church, is to extirpate Pro testantism ; and after enumerating the several disabili ties from which they have been relieved, gives the fol lowing most humane and conciliatory peroration : " But what has happened since ? Not a year has since elapsed that did not witness a course of seditious and rebellious machinations on the part of those' eman cipated' PapLts, such as no Government ever yet en dured without putting an end to them by the sword or gallows." To any mind that cannot form its own opi nion of this barbarous suggestion, commentary would be useless ; we therefore leave this recommendatory hint of the policy to be pursued towards Ireland, and which cf course the Tories are most anxious to put in practice, to exhibit its own hideous depravity. We should say, let them try it," and dare them to the conflict, did not THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1837 human feeling shudder from the horrors to be encoun tered in the redress of grievances by violent means. However just the cause, and however successful the issue, the inflictions of violent changes in political sys tems are seldom or never compensated by the result. The same arguments which are here applied to the Catholics of Ireland in respect to their successive ac cessions to their rights as citizens, may, with equal justice, or rather injustice, be applied to the people of England. The people of England have obtained Magna Charta ; not satisfied with this first intro duction to the rank of men, being previously consi dered as beasts of burden, they, after various struggles, obtained the Bill of Rights, and ultimately wrested the Reform Act from their oppressors. Even yet they are not satisfied ; hence, in accordance with the logic of the Times, they are a revolutionary rebellious race, that will not be satisfied so long as they find themselves ex cluded from any of the rights to which as men and citizens they are justly entitled. They also, we presume, are, by the programme of Tory politics, to be subjected to the dis cipline of " the gallows and the sword." Intensely ought the people of England to sympathise with their fellow-subjects in Ireland. Tyranny at home, that is, in England, will be apportioned to the extent to which its application may be tolerated in Ireland. And on this account, as well as for our own sake, we rejoice and exult in the demonstrations at present be ing made in the sister kingdom, to repel the encroach ing attempts of the Tories upon the Administration. According to the accounts received from the " Paro chial Pacificators" by the General Association, at its last meeting, every parish in Ireland is about to pre sent an address to the King, and a petition to the House of Commons, in favour of the present Ministry. These addresses and petitions, at least such as are particularly reported, are supported by signatures va rying from 500 to 5,000. Will the Tories, in the face of these manifestations of Irish feeling, supported as they are by all that is genuine of public feeling in England and Scotland, dare another usurpation against popular sentiment, popular rights, and popular free dom ? If they do, though England and Scotland, un ,eoerced by the same extremity of ill which presses upon the isolated " alienated" portion of tire United Kingdom, should remain passive—lreland will prove the NEMESES of British wrongs, and let the Tories prepare for the consequences.—Morning Advertiser. A most striking,-practical illustration _of the conse quences of our intertneddling policy in the domestic concerns of other nations appeared in the Gazette of Friday night. We allude to the two orders of the King in Council relative to the future regulation of our commercial relations with Portugal, the first imposing a tonnage duty of 9d. per ton upon all Portuguese ship ping entering any of the ports of the United Kingdom. and second imposing an additional surcharge of one-fifth of the duties now levied upon the productions of Portugal when imported in vessels of that nation. These are indeed severe restrictions upon the trade of our " faithful and ancient ally"—imposed by whom ? By the free trade Government—the Ministers who have a Poulett Thomson as their commercial oracle, to instruct them how to " liberalise" commerce in aI; parts of the world, and a Dr. Bowring as their well paid " commercial traveller" to carry a pedlar's pack of free-trade theories abroad, and receive a share of those public taxes that shackle " free trade" at home. Such are the statesmen who have just now placed restrictions on the trade of Portugal, in defiance o' the " sage saws" and peremptory dogmas of poli tical economy with which the learned pundits of that profound science have been enlightening mankind ! An evening Ministerial journal—The Sun—thu s gravely comments upon the " new leaf " which Mi nisters have " turned over" in their book of politica! wisdom. "As these orders in council are purely rata. liatory on the part of 'his Britannic Majesty," quoth The Sun, " the Portuguese Government will only have itself to blame for the immense injury which they must inflict upon die commerce of Portugal. The first order but reciprocates, after several months of dignified en durance on the part of England, the injury atteinpted to be done to our trade by a Royal decree of the Queen of Portugal of the 24th November, 1836, imposing, an ad ditional duty of from five to thirteen pence on British shipping entering any of the ports subject to her most faithful Majesty ; and the second is but a counterpart of a Decree of the Queen, dated January 10, 1837, imposing a higher duty upon British goods imported into Portugal in British than in native bottoms. That Portugal should have wantonly provoked England to impose such a heavy, and, to her merchants, all hut a fatal restriction upon her export trade, must astonish the merest tyro in the knowledge of the artificial and natural productions of the two countries, and of the principles which ought to regulate the commercial rela tions of nations so circumstanced and so situated." That the wanton provocation given by Portugal may astonish such a " tyro," or " juvenile Whig," a s Lord Palmerston, we readily admit, and we pre sume The Sun had the old boy Statesman in its " mind's-eye" when it used that word ; but it cer tainly does not astonish us. We forewarned the British Government and the British public long ago that some such return would be made by Portugal to evince her gratitude for our Quixotic folly in expend ing British treasure and blood in absurd interference in the civil conflicts of that nation. Similar exhibi tions of gratitude we shall have from Spain, as a re-. turn for squandering the money of which our own poor are robbed, in aid of the stock-jobbing speculations of the Madrid Government, and for sacrificing the lives of 9,000 or 10,000 British subjects, whose bones are now whitening on the marshy plains of Vittoria, or marking the melancholy scenes of our national disgraces at Fontarabia and Hernani. It is remarkable that the " liberals" of the Peninsula—both in Portugal and Spain, hate England and English influence and com merce, with a bitterer hatred than those who contend for the established order of things, and against whom our ships of war, artillery, and marines, are sent to make war without any declaration of hostilities. If the-friend ship of one party or the other might, to a certain extent, be counted on before our foolish interference began, it has certainly had the effect of making England cor dially hated by both. In Portugal we enjoyed, under the Miguelite government, certain important commer cial advantages and privileges, which it was one of the first acts of our " friends" the Pedroites to abolish. • Then came the overthrow of the Pedroites and instal lation in power of the ultra-liberals. 'They made a burnt-offering of the charter of Don Pedro, which so much British blood had been shed to establish, and have now gone farther than the Pedroites in showing their hostility to England. It is true that our Mi nisters, while encouraging their " missionary" O'Con nell to " preach down" the House of Lords at home, made Chamber great nahaa a comofub2iel:te ory ie:sepanveeoal Peers ru a sot l oi f aidemonstration"Portugal. andartvu favour a he a f m e c e n el,OOO mt t tTno t ear l s t agl e tu y itoso l l i eb g oi l f nally failed, and now they are driven to their re taliatory measures, which will inflict considerable injury on the merchants of Great Britain as well as of Portugal, as the blessed result of the policy which will give to the name of Palmerston a still more ludi crous immortality than it derives from the imperishable protocols I We observe that the British marines were employed the other day in firing upon the ultra-Libe rals of Barcelona—the real " liberty boys" of Spain. By what right they interfered to perform the duties of a Spanish gens d'armerie we have yet to learn. It peace cannot be preserved between different classes of " liberals" without employing our marines to knock one party or the other on the head, the operations of a slaughtering system of " non-intervention" are likely to be very widely extended. 'The Carlists of the north and the revolutionists of the south, will have equal reason to hate and execrate the name of Great Bri tain, whose present policy in the Peninsula is not a whit more honest, honourable, or dignified, than that which was formerly pursued by the Barb ary S tates . Humanity, f or man y reasons, has cause to rejoice at the approaching dissolution of the present incapable and unprincipled Administration, but more especially that, with their fall from power, must terminate the de moralising example and deplorable calamities of the " non-intervention war."—Morning Herald. 'The Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the publication of printed papers has recently been printed and distributed. This Commit tee, it will be recollected, was appointed on the occa sion of a direction to the Jury by th,i Lord Chief Jus tice of the King's Bench on the trial of the cause " Stockdale v. Hansard " for libel. The following were the expressions of the Learned Judge—" I am not aware of the existence in this country of any body whatever that can authorise a servant of theirs to pub lish libels of any individuals. Whatever arrangements may be made between the House of Commons and any publisher in their employ, I am of opinion that the publisher who publishes that in his public shop, and especially for money, which may be injurious, and possibly ruinous, to any one of the King's subjects, must answer in a court of justice to that subject, if he challenge him for a libel, and I wish to say so empha tically and distinctly, because I think that, if, upon the first opportunity which arose in a Court of justice for questioning that point, it were left unsatisfactorily explained, the Judge who sat there might become an accomplice in the destruction of the liberties of the country, and expose every individual who lives in it to a tyranny that no man ought to submit to." This lan guage, when it first met our eye, seemed to us to he excellent law, or, what is much better than good law, if it be not the same, sound sense, and clear unques tionable justice. The Select Committee of the House of Commons have produced, however, a voluminous mass of legal and Parliamentary authorities and pre cedents, to show that every word of this direction of Lord Denman is wrong, that nothing is legally pu nishable by Courts of Justice which is done under the authority of either House of Parliament, and that to whatever extent any subject of the realm may be da maged in his character, person, or estate by persons armed with the order of either Lords or Commons, there is no power in Courts of Justice to afford the sufferer any redress whatever. The Committee speak very plainly upon this subject :—" Upon the whole matter referred to your Committee they report, as their opinion, that the power of publishing such of its re ports, votes, and proceedings as it shall deem necessary , or conducive to the public interests is an essential inci dent to the constitutional functions of Parliament, more especially of this House, as the representative portion of it. That, by the law and privilege of Parliament, this House has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine upon the existence and extent of its privi leges, and that the institution or prosecution of any action, suit, or other proceeding, for the purpose of bringing them .in to discussion or decision before any Court or tribunal elsewhere than in Parliament, is a high breach cf such privilege, and renders all parties concerned therein amenable to its just displeasure, and to the punishment consequent thereon. That for any Court or tribunal to assume to decide upon mat ters of privilege inconsistent with the detA•mination of either House of Parliament thereon is contrary to the a e• of Parliament, and is a breach and contempt of the privileges of Parliament." We do not venture to re capitulate, much less to impeach, the elaborate argu elents, historical, legal, and political, which have led the Select Committee of the House of Com mons to the conclusion embodied in the above extract from their report. We can only say that we wish the Committee had arrived at a dif - rent conclusion, and that we lake the opinion of Lord Chief Justice Denman much better than that of the Committee. We are now speaking merely of a point of taste, but it is one in which we imagine we are in unison with an overwhelming majority of our fellow-subjects. The Committee, we observe, after asserting thus absolutely the irresponsible privilege of the Frouse of Commons to authorise the publication of libels, or the performance of any other act of injury or oppression as often as it thinks fit, recommends that this privilege should be frugally and cautiously used. From this recommendation we confess we do not de rive much consolation. It is an admonition of course, and, as in the case of all such admonitions, it is of course that they should be disregarded I We insert it not on account of i probable efficacy as an ad- Monition, but because it is a tolerably accurate index to the evils which it will certainly fail to prevent : " To prescribe any positive rule upon such a sub ject is manifestly impossible. The invariable ad herence to such a rule might protect public delin quents from a disclosure of • their misconduct, or prevent the notoriety of facts important to the ends For which enquiry was instituted. It appears, how ..!ver, to your Committee (and they think that the practical experience of Members will suppoi t the conclusion to which they have come), that it would not be difficult, on a mature consideration of each case wherein the exercise of a discretion may be called for, so to apply it in the great majority of instances, as completely to reconcile all proper regard for the cha racter and feelings of individuals with the faithful and effectual discharge of public functions. The more es sential the privilege the more urgent the necessity for an exclusive and unfettered authority in deciding upon the exercise and the limits of it, the more important and the more becoming is it to take as much precau tion as possible against the infliction of individual in jury, or unnecessary pain to private feelings." There are some parts of the argument contained in the Report of the Committee, which, we must confess, perplex us exceedingly. It is contended through out, and authorities, numerous and high, are ad duced in support of the proposition, that each House of Parliament, in matters of privilege, is absolute and infallible—each separately possessing, in such matters, the whole authority of the united Legis lature. But the report informs us (page 7) " that upon some occasions of controversy between the two Houses publications have been made by each severely reflecting upon the other." How is this to be recon ciled or arranged ? The whole authority of the High Court of Parliament residing undivided and unconfined in each of the two Houses of Lords and Commons, in reference to all matters of privilege, it would seem to follow, that upon all " occasions of controversy" al luded to between the two Houses" when publica tions have beeh made by each, severely reflecting , upon the other," the panoply of Parliamentary pri vilege must have been extended equally over the two conflicting batteries of reciprocal libel that' the men who printed and published libels against the Lords by order of the Commons, and those who printed and published libels against the Commons by order of the Lords, would enjoy equal protection and impunity, and that the only result would be to show how little the spirit of Parliamentary law is in unison with that of the common law of England or with the common sense and reason of mankind. This seems to us to be a dilemma which ought at least to teach a lesson of modesty to those who, in opposition to the judgment of the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, undertake to maintain the privilege of Parlia ment that can authorise the publication of libels. We cannot conclude without transferring to our columns two resolutions forming part of a series submitted to the Select Committee by Sir R. H. Inglis, and which, although they were negatived by a majority of ten to one, seem to us to have been worthy of a different fate :—" That this House doth not claim any right, and that no other body of his Majesty's subjects hath any right to publish ally matter or thing which by law would be adjudged to be a libel, if con tained in an unauthorised publication, or to do any thing which by law would be adjudged to be a tres pass or any personal injury."—" That the printing of papers presented to this House, whether the same be accounts, reports, or otherwise, is and ought to be, for the use of Members of this House, and as such, ought to be publication privileged ; but that any sale or dispersal of such papers to any but to Members of this House, is and ought to be publication not privi leged.”—Morning Post. MAD DOG I--This cry is 'now in full mouth at Sheffield and elsewhere. The slaughter of " man's friend " in that one town only is stated to have already reached nearly two thousand. Whether the poor dogs are the victims of cowardice and delusion, and share now the same fate which the wisdom of our ancestors awarded to witches, we need not determine ; but we may venture to hazard the supposition that if all the puppies who stray about our fashionable streets, and are suspected of being mad, were to have such summary dog-justice done to them, their numbers would be considerably thinned. If the public health call for the death of thou sands of dogs, some lovers of justice may think that public morals and the national character equally deMand the extinc tion of a few of the puppies whose acts, Like those of the Irish Marquis and his fellows, aro evidences of a most mischievous madness. Qn tire breaking up of the various workhouses on forming the Plympton Union, a labouring man of the name of Trehan, who had been receiving parochial relief out of and in the workhouse at Meavy for more than twenty years, offered 2001. for the house rather than be turned out of his favourite residence.— West Briton, LAW INTELLIGENCE. OLD COURT. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAT 15. BRINE V. JONES. This was an action of assault and battery. The plain tiff was an assistant in the school of Mr. Mears, of En field. The defendant was a gentleman who had taken up his residence, with his only son, a young boy, in the house of Mr. Mears, and the boy attended the school. The plaintiff sometimes took the boy out to walk ; and on one occasion had boxed the ear of defendant's son, to cor rect him for some misconduct, while the boys were out walking. The defendant on the following morning, meeting the plaintiff in the hall of the house, accused him of cruelty to the boy. The plaintiff positively denied the accusation, and the anger of both parties were excited. Blows were the consequence. The Jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 5/. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, .11141- 15. YEOMANS V. LEIGH. This was an action on the case for negligence. It was brought by the plaintiff, a job-master, residing in Bruns wick-mews, near Brunswick-square, to recover from the de fendant, who carries on the same business in the Minories, compensation in damages for injuries done to the plaintiff's carriage through the alleged negligence of the defendant's servant. The damages and repairs were estimated at 5/. 17s. 6d. The defence was, that the damage was not occasioned by the negligence of the defendant's servant ; but was the result either of pure accident, or of the neg ligence of the plaintiff's servant in backing sharply on the pole of the defendant's carriage, which was a yard and a half behind. The Jury found for the Plaintiff—Damages, 6/. 10s.. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. John Davies was indi:tedforWiiiul and corrupt perjury. Mr. CHAMBERS said this was indictment preferred by the parish authorities of St. Pancras against the defendant for wilful and corrupt perjury. On the 27th of July last he applied for relief for himself and fire children, on which the prisoner and his family were taken into the workhouse. On examining him it was ascertained he belonged to Newington parish. He then swore that the five children were by his wife Lucy, and the oath was made at Hatton-garden. At the expiration of twenty days he was informed that he and his children would be removed the following day, when he effected his escape ; and it was afterwards discovered that the prisoner had left his wife for some years, and the mother of the children was a woman of the name of Prawn, with whom he had cohabited. Evidence was called in support of the prosecuion ; but not being able to prove the assign. ments of perjury, as stated in the indictment, the Recorder ordered the prisoner to be acquitted. THE SENTENCES. The Sessions having, terminated at three o'clock, the Recorder proceeded to pass sentence on those prisoners who had boon convicted : To be Transported for Seven Years—Ellen Bottomley, Elizabeth Bottomley, Elizabeth Clark, Hannah Fruin, Rebecca Baxter, Mary White, Mary Ann Clark, Elizabeth Jackman alias Smith, Mary M'Donald, Maria Wick, Ann Capon, William Crask, William Smith, alias Siddell, Samuel King, Thomas Richards, William Groves, Edgar Roberts, alias John H. Leveridge, Joseph Colman, John Watson, Robert Young, John Scott, Richard Edwards, John Jones, Henry Jacques, John Moss, Thomas Jones, Joseph Kaman, Henry Allen, Richard Roe, Robert Abrahams, James Wright, William Shaw, Edward Ben nett, Joseph Andrews, John Hagan, William Neville, John Stacey, John Jones, Edward Wells, John Nicholas Spencer, William Wood, John Harvey, Charles Hawes, William Thompson, Francis Kavannagh, and James Williams. For Fourteen Years—Ann M'Donald, Mary Pulcourt, Abraham Samuels, Louis Leo, Henry Morley, William Paley, alias Midtner, Charles Clark, and John Brokin. For Life—Maryanne Winter, Margaret Bentley, Ann May, Ann Beresford alias Lee. (The last-narm d pri soner said she had three children, of the ages of five, eight, and nine, and would thank his Lordship to send them pith her, as she had no friend to look after them. The Recorder desired Mr. Cope to make a representation of this fact to the Secretary of State.) Frederick Hewett, John Williams, Joseph Enever, Frederick Laud, William Edwards, Thomas Beresford, alias Lee, James Price, and John Marnott. Death—Thomas Connell, for cutting and maiming ; James Young, for robbery ; John Whettle, for robbery ; James Bannie, John Theodore, and Daniel Brandon, fbr burglary. Each of the prisoners declared their innocence. The Recorder proceeded to pass sentence of death in the usual manner. The rest of the prisoners convicted of petty offences, amounting to 68, were sentenced to various periods of imprisonment, and the Court was adjourned until Monday, the 12th of June. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HO USE. A man, who said that his name was William Wri[ilit, was brought before the LORD MAYOR. Wm. Peat, ser vant to the proprietors of the Rose and Crown public house, in Aldgate, stated that, on the preceding evening, at about half-past seven o'clock, the prisoner walked into the tap-room, and sat down and fell asleep. There were a few customers in the room, and some time after the pri soner entered it was stated that he was probably the murderer of Eliza Davis, the bar-maid of the King's Arms, Frederick -street, Regent's-park, and it was considered necessary to place him in the custody of an officer. A lad named Henry Watkin, in the service of Ben jamin Higginbottom, a butcher, in Aldgate, stated that while he and another young man were in the Rose and Crown on Sunday evening, the prisoner walked in, sat down by the fire, and after mentioning that he had been sleeping in a stable, fell asleep for about half an hour. Nobody took any particular notice of him for some time. Witness began to read about the murder of the young woman in the newspaper, and the prisoner then woke up, and seemed to be much interested, and asked witness to read on. Some transports having passed by at the time, the prisoner said, " If I had my due I'd be transported along with them," and made some other observations that showed he was not fit to stay in the room, and witness went to the bar, and stated the circumstance, and an officer was sent for. Three or four persons in the room mentioned that the person and appearance of the prisoner corresponded exactly with that given in the newspapers of one of the supposed murderers. The Prisoner—l don't know how to read myself, and I asked him to read, and then they took me up for the murder. The officer who apprehended him said that the prisoner mentioned in the watchhouse that he had been in Maid stone and in Lewis gaols, and gave a very unsatisfactory ac count of himself. The LORD MAYOR—Is it the fact that you have been in those gaols ? Prisoner—Yes, my Lord, I was pulled up for two felonies. I was at Maidstone for a blanket, and at Lewes for a sovereign. I had six months at each place, so I have suffered for both. The LORD AIATOR—Where bad you been previously ? Prisoner—My native place is Outhingham, near Dlaid• stone. I slept at Kingston on Friday night, where I paid fourpence for my bed ; and I slept in a stable on Satur day night. The LORD MAYOR—Where did you sleep on Tuesday night ? Prisoner—l slept at Kingston on Tuesday night, and next day I went to Cobham, and afterwards to Brentford. The LORD MAYOR—Have you anything to say as to this suspicion against you ? Prisoner—l never heard of the murder till last night, and I wanted to hear the particu lars. If I was the murderer I'd be a very different per son from what I am. The LORD MAYOR—What do you mean by being a dif ferent person ? Prisoner—l mean that I'd be very different in my feelings. I don't suppose I'd wish to hear the newspaper read about it. The LORD MAYOR—You know the Regent's Park ? Prisoner—Not exactly. I might have been there, but I don't know it. The LORD MAYOR—What trade are you ? Prisoner— A bricklayer's labourer, and I go about with matches when I am out of work. The LORD MAYOR—You give an awkward account of yourself, and I shall send you to Marylebone-office, to be Seen by the Magistrates there. An odd fact was alluded to by the LORD MAYOR after he had sent the prisoner to Marylebone-office. In the Mayoralty of Alderman Flower the servant of Mr. Bonner, of Broad-street-buildings, who, together with his wife, had been murdered, ran into the Justice-room, and asked the Lord Mayor in a great flurry where he could find the best surgeon, as his master and mistress were both murdered. As soon as the man had quitted tho room Sir Charles Flower said at once " That's the murderer ;" and it turned out that such was the fact. About a month ago a lad, who was in the service of a butcher, was charged by his master with having embezzled the sum of 2/. 155., which he had received from a customer. The young man admitted most readily that he had received the money, but stated that he had, for the first time in his life, been prevailed upon by other persons in the same trade to drink until he totally lost command over himself, and while he was in that powerless condition he was robbed of his mas ter's property. The Lord Mayor very narrowly investigated the case, and discharged the lad, having given credit to the defence, and stated that he by no means believed that the prisoner was guilty of theft. The young man procured another situation in the same line, where he was going on very comfortably. His old master, however, who lied taken a less merciful view of the circumstances of the accusation that the Lord Mayor, espied him one day at work, and im mediately informed his employer that there was a thief in the place. The unfortunate boy's new employer, terridei: at the intelligence, very soon took an opportunity of . 1 pensing with his services, and thus he was thrown ogsili, upon the world, and had no alternative but to a pP ll Bt i t place where he was first charged with the o ffence of PM dering his master. On Saturday he informed the Lord Mayor that his 0 , 1 ! mnster seemed determined to ruin him, and he , b , e i s s oi t 3 ,u t : Lordship to interfere, or starvation must be the C O ens:, quence, his father being miserably poor, and obliged support a daughter who is too young to do anything f o b, self. " All I want, my Lord," said the lad, to work where I can get it. I shall labour hard, and sl ge '. I have earned as much as I have lost, I shall go and PI to my master." The LORD MAYOR—Is that your determination? 1 lad—lt is, my Lord. I shall pay him out of the first riO' I get. I have wronged him by getting intoxicated, bill never robbed him. too Mr. HOBLER-1 here is a person in the Jusfice'r who procures ships for lads, and fits them out. Perbil/ ° as he is known to be a respectable man, it would be as to get The MAYOR immediately communicated wit": fitter-out, and it was arranged that the boy should stwil once for Calcutta or New South Wales. His L° so then paid five pounds, the expenses of the equiptnefi".- reminded the overjoyed youth of the obligation u pon 101 pay his master out of his very first earnings. The lad—l should do that, my Lord, under any el..e; I; stances. But- your Lordship's goodness will never my thoughts, and depend upon it, my Lord; that yo bat this gentleman (pointing to Mr. nobler) will ne ver A , cause to repent that you saved a poor friendless boy."' destruction. ~, 1 1 ) The LORD MAYOR—I believe it, my poor feo- , lieve it. MARYLEBONE. Yesterday an extraordinary degree of sensation 0,4, in the parishes of Marylebone and St. Pancras, in d ie quence of its being currently reported that a man 11 %0 taken into custody on suspicion of being the murdeloi Eliza Davis, in consequence of which, long before tbe ea g of commencing business, High-street and every leading to the office was crowded with persons ans;jloe gain a glimpse of the prisoner. At half-past 10 e-eji the prisoner arrived in a hackney coach, accomP el l g er superintendant Carter of the S division and other odrwho On being placed at the bar, he gave his name James Yr. He is a young man, of dark complexion, and 10 hob° 5 tales in a green body coat, small plaid waistcoat, and l i g' trowsers. ,for Edward Codrington stated that he was an insPew"t police at Beckenham, Kent. The prisoner o n thero ous afternoon was brought to him by a man name d , ;a : 0 Fishcrworth servant to Mr. Brown, who charged suspicion of ths murder of Eliza Davis. The prisonier'o hearing the charge, said be was innocent of it, 0 1%1 willing to go with him any where. He then took ti o i Alderman Wilson, who resided at Beckenham, an a ilift him he stated that he had only been in Lando!) 0.1 months, and had latterly worked at a livery s tables N i Oxford-street. Witness searched him, and found 140 nine duplicates, five of which were for property P o ri with Mr. Fowle, pawnbroker, Ernest -street, Regen ts fr , Witness then asked him if he knew the King's Arin e ' o o derick-street—in reply to which he said he did O n o such a place. He subsequently, in answer to other' tions, said he was 24 years of uge ; and on Frid a Y cat slept at the Black Horse, Lewisham ; that he eras a ,a 6 net-maker by trade, and came front Horsham ; w o rl was a native of Shorelam, where his father k e pt a shop. Latterly, being out of work, he was glad to es shilling any how. John Fish , - d that liis groom to Mr. Brownsaii. VI. was an extensive wharfinger in London, but re si e Beckenham ; he had been out with his master in 11 ; 0 4 aHd on coming home saw the prisoner at the gate the bell, but on seeing him he made off without for any one to answer the door. Witness, by dire c , his master, who said he (the prisoner) looked very t b tl and that from the description he had read he thol e i t e resembled the supposed murderer of Eliza Davit 0 him to mount a horse and ride after him. He die t g 'o in a lane leading to Elmes-road he overtook Lice ; pO l sitting on a rail by a dit c h at the r o a d- s ide ;he him, pulled up, when the prisoner rose up and At back. He then passed the prisoner a little welt some person to hold his horse, and going back 01 !10 1 prisoner coming towards Beckenham. He accost ed " saying, " Young man, where have you come from? . 9 0 answered, " from over here," pointing towards Lecib . He said " Haven't you come from London ?" towl' l pstl said " No." Witness then asked him if lie knew Eliz a 4 0 to-which he replied" No," adding, " why,you don'tsefore lam the murderer ?" Witness said h e did, and all to collar him, but he said " Don't collar me. low you." He then took him to the station-h9 l 'i6▪ 1 gave him in charge to the last witnes s . Wit ness pe!e1 0 0 change in his countenance when he passed him on ... , 1 91 back, and thought that he recognised him as the rfid who was driving the gig when he (prisoner) ran all' / 0 1 the gate. On taxing him with suspicion of being tf:jlo, derer he flushed and turned pale. Wit ness then as. to why lie rang the bell, when he said he had done it , tain a glass of water. The prisoner was subseqo • 1 taken before Alderman Wilson, and afterwards bre y '', the S division station-house in Albany -street. c f o, Mathew Hitchcox, potboy at th e Ki ng ' s Arms, f rick -street, said the prisoner did not resemble the suspected of the murder. After hearing further evidence, d ,11 Mr. RAwLtivsoN, having looked at the Hue a° ijr, in which was a descriptio n o f th e suspecte d par ty; f prisoner's appeara nce did no t a t a ll ta ll y w i t h tbo o f the prisoner, who declared his entire innocenc e charge, was consequently discharged. QUEEN- S Q UA RE. Edward Adams, a private in the 2d battalion 0 ' stream Guards, was brought before Mr. WHITE, e p with having committed an extensive robbery on VV . ,neff morning last, at the res id ence o f L a d y E m ily vv' 11, Cleveland-row, St. James's. ( 10 Mr. WHITE ord ere d hi m t o b e reman d e d un til Fr' We understand that M r . C o bd en h as re turn o P his travels in Turkey, Greece, Egypt, &c., much imp: health ; and that he will pay a visit to this town in the of next week. A deputation waited upon him a fev7-,X,1 to invite him to meet a number of the electors of °" t or j This lie peremptorily declined, declaring he would , il dsr either meet his Committee or the public, and not anP te le o l l portion of the constituency ; it was, therefore, ultiO, e cided that he should mee t hi s C omm i ttee , an d arrilf°,4if il l are making for that purpo se . W e h ave a lso aulor stating, that Mr. Newton has d e cli ne d t o s t a nd as for this borough.— Cheshire Reformer. d SILVER WATCHES TWO GUINEAS ! s py An Assortment of Second-h an d W a t c h es , a ll o f then e ziO and of various sizes, may b e se l ec t e d f rom , f or the abo"' d T. COX SAVORY'S, 7 &f ir Working Silversmith, G o ld sm ith, an d W atc h ma ker, 4" 1 London. rie v i N.B. A pamphlet, containing a detailed list of the kilt Plate, Plated Goods, Watches, Clocks, &e., may be ha d will be forwarded in answer to a post-paid application. .7 BIRTIIS. , „f CV On the 13th inst., at Camberwell-grove, the 1 10 1 --. 1 0 Phillips, Esq., of a on. On the 13th inst., s the wife of T. Edmonds, Bank Library') alley, City, of a daughter. 14" On the 13th inst., in Charlotte-street, Portland-P I - see ' i Pringle, of a son. e gel' On the 3d inst., at Hascomb Rectory, the l a dy:_f_! .....„ „ C. Storie, of a daughter. MARRIED. - ,or ji, On the 26th ult., at the private chapel of the Brasillb s pel , 1 1 in Lisbon, and afterwards at the British Protestant estioglo Alvaro Teixeiro de Ma ce d o , S ecre t ary of the Brazilian 1',..p the Court of Londo n , t o A nna , secon d d aug ht e r of Wu' , ,b 1 Esq., of Lisbon. 0. „ a er On the 11th inst., at St. Mary Abbott's, Kensington( of Lord Brookes, of Hit c hi n , Herts, to Miss Harriet Stone, 011, broke-square, Ken s i ng t on . I4 "P On the 9th inst., at St. Giles's, Camberwell,Edward 101 l third son of J. R. Hardy, Esq., of Peckham, to LY (1124 P ' daughter of T. Napier, E sq . of Peckham-rye. On the 10th inst., at St. John's, Upper HollowaY, 3 , / ,, P 6 1 ,61eb Allen, of Beaufort-row, Ch e l sea , t o L uc y, daughter of " 0 0 , Wolfe, Esq., of Ewell, Surrey. sv a ltee / lie, On the 11th inst., at Christchurch, Marylebone , ‘' ithir is, If ton, fourth son of the late Dr. Pemberton, to Anne, .. r____o 2. (laughter of the late Rev. James Lee Warner, of Ilig ll- ° - singham, Norfolk. i' DIED. r b ; 1 34 '0 On the Ist inst., at Je ver , Grand Duchy of Oldenburgoclet, , L. Tiarks ' F.R.S., his B r it ann i c M a j es ty's Astronow e .oeptgo Tr Oneat of Ghent, agd 48. the 10th inst., e at Hastings, aged 28, Mr. Georg e Csl o l , of the Bank of En g l an d. Tlarzie‘ 1. , On the 11th in s t., i n C a d ogan - stree t, Chelsea. .., 1 0, Mr. J. Marquet. f Y E sq.' ° 0 01 1, On the 9th in s t., a t M argate, Willi am Dixon, heath, axed 90. On the 9th inst., in Upper Southwick-street, ‘igistell' Thos. Holt, Esq., of King's Arms-yard. 73 ek a roe On the 10th inst., at Alpha-cottage, Slough , J ueb- i R E l eo i c z tanobrtei of t l l e G .7l lo f r a te r he y n , i ino e ir l t d d. e : stda u g h ter A at lidd Co le v s e e n x t . ry, aged 66, Thos. C°P.' j o 6 Osbaston Hall, Leicestershire. t h e It, to e rI theßrown, of of Paternoster -row. Sarah, third daughter of late s J 0 ift On the llth inst., i n Clarence-terraCe, Re,gent's-iPlittirog )0 Jane, relict of the late E. Thornton, Esq., of Wh l'he f Lancashire. ed 44, j , On the 6th inst., at Saffron Walden, Essex , a g a, Archer Catlin Esq. 2 4 Lif r e (ll o. o , Lieutenant-Colonel Frederick Evelyn, late of the fo 00 10 t Here ste, and son of L. Evelyn, Esq., of Keynsham C0ur .... ,.....„„ j e , d 2 -- ____-1-2---------__----- - --- - , .UriO' v e' London: Printed and Published by MURDO ' a la she 112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. lit!, Stra n ' of Middlesex;—Tuesday, May 16, 1837.