The Sun. — London, England, 1835-09-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1835. Harr OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. t would be matter of amusement, were not the sub . itself of so serious a nature, to see the way in :ch, with all the gravity and pomposity in the rld, the organs of the faction, which have brought clergy of Ireland into a state which may soon be .ne one of utter destitution, are seeking to throw off 3 responsibility which naturally devolves upon their ployers, and evade the just consequences of their , stinate and factious proceedings. When the affair the Irish Church was before Parliament last year, it as proposed by Lord Grey's Government to put an end the existing tithe system, and leaving out altogether e debateable question of " appropriation," to insure the clergy of Ireland nearly four-fifths of their in ime, the principal part being fixed as a permanent nt-char ge on the landlord, and the remainder se ared by the Government, in place of the present aore than precarious income derived from tithe ellected from the occupying tenant—on the vhole the clergyman would have been sure of re !eiving gni per cent. of his then nominal revenue. the Tories, however, unwilling to let the clergy slip Dut of their hands, and aware how excellent a theme the spectacle of a deserving and suffering clergy is to hold out to a nation's sympathy, refused this offered settlement. The slightest diminution of the tithe re venue was held up as " spoliation ;" it mattered not that in many places no tithe had been for years col : lected ; it mattered not that the prudent clergyman himself was ready to jump at a settlement that gua tanteerA, upon the security of Government, four-fifths of til ie income which all the force and terrors of the lain had proved unable to secure to him in its form of tithe ; the higher Clergy—the Bishops and their co adjutors—were inexorable, and the Irish Tithe Act, which was passed by the Commons, was unceremo niously rejected by the Lords. Next came the ques tion of a loan, now virtually converted into a gift. The country was unwilling to see the Clergy of Ire land starving on account of the factious obstinacy of the Tory party. A million was advanced for their sup port (the Tories all along protesting that the whole body would indignantly reject the offer)—a million sterling of moneys, wrung from the industrious classes of this country, was voted to support the destitute Clergy of Ireland through the long period which must • necessarily elapse before the tithe question could be satisfactorily adjusted. So far was the country taxed to prevent the Irish parsons from suffering absolute starvation from the acts of their Tory friends. The time passed away--a Tory Government was formed— a crafty and experienced politician was placed at its head, and what was the first thing which this avowed Church party proposed ? Why, the very people who denounced the offer of 771 per cent. as spoliation and sacrilege, came before Parliament with a proposal to commute the claims of the clergy for 75 per cent.; and absolutely made a boast, when it was an object to curry popular favour in many parts of the country, that they woul l settle the question upon terms more favourable to the bulk of the community than their Whig predecessors. The House of Commons, bow-ever, frustrated this imagined triumph of duplicity and Tory policy over honest and straight-forward intention. The House of Commons decided that, in settling the tithe-question, the whole state of the Irish Church should be taken into con sideration—,they voted that sinecures should be abo lished—that a race of emigrant tithe-receivers should no longer disgrace the name of Protestant Ministers— that where there were positively no duties to perform, the property raised for the purposes of religious instruc tion should be no longer appropriated to maintain an unemployed and non-resident clergy, but that, in such cases, it. should be applied to the concordant uses of general and moral education of the people. Here, there fore, was another chance of effectually providing for the Irish Clergy, and maintaining the Protestant Church Establishment upon a scale commensurate with its utility—the whole Liberal party agreed to it—the Government was pledged to it—the House of Com mons acceded to it—but again the Tory " Church " party in the Lords interfered to thwart and reject it. All hopes of a satisfactory adjustment are destroyed by the declaration of the Tory Peers, unless the voice Of the country shall bring these infatuated and factious politicians once more to their senses. But having thus resisted every attempt at fair accommodation—having by their own perverse determination doomed the Irish Clergy to starvation, it was surely flieir impera tive duty and that of their party to step forward and relieve the sufferings which they refused to remove by well-timed legislation, and by a general subscription from a party which is always boasting of As wealth and possessions, to evince that real attachment to " the Church," about which we hear so much-,—but no such thing. It is the British nation which is to be called upon to open its purse-strings to mitigate the effects of Tory obstinacy. It is found out to be 1171' dignified and degrading to the Clergy of Ireland to be supported by a subscription of their friends, and so the hard-working people of England are, we suppose, to be again called upon to make a further sacrifice for this object. But we tell these canting politicians that it will not do—the country is awake to their schemes—it will no longer submit to be thus trifled with. Upon them rests the whole responsibility of the results of their factious proceedings, and it is to them that the country has a right to look to maintain the unfortunate individuals who have been thus offered up as a sacrifice on the shrine of interested and Tory ambition. Let Tory Aristocrats disgorge a portion of that wealth which in many instances, is itself derived from the public revenue. Let the Di g nitaries of a bloated an d worldly Establishment come down with a portion of that inordinate wealth which is calculated to pamper their vanity, and mar their utility as Christian Minis ters., Let all these people show that they are what they pretend to be, " friends to the Irish Church," by laying down their money for its support; but let them not imagine that Englishmen are such fools as to sub mit to be robbed of the proceeds of their industry in order to maintain a state of things opposed to the plainest principles of reason and common sense—hos tile to the peace and security of Ireland—inimical, therefore, to the best interests of the country at large, and useful only to Tory politicians as a bone of con tention, a theme which may be perverted by their craft and ingenuity, to excite the support and sympathy of the nation for their own corrupt and sinking cause. The people of England will know what to think of their present paltry affectation of consulting the dig nity of the Irish Church, by a refusal to subscribe for its unfortunate and destitute professors.— Morning Chronicle. At the Glasgow Protestant Meeting, the Rev. Mortimer O'Sullivan having referred to the successful stand which the Scotch made for their religion, pro ceeded to marvel what the Irish Catholics were now contending for, as he very coolly asserted that they en joyed all the rights for which the Scotch had strug gled. This is, doubtless, the Orange method of read ing history and com p ar i ng f acts. M r. O' Sull i van, curiously enough, fails to observe that the Irish enjoy one thing which the Scotch would by no means be in duced to receive among their blessings—namely, the establishment of another faith. The Irish Catholics enjoy the payment of tithe to the ministers of another religion, which is a usage, however excellent, that the Scotch most resolutely and potently resisted. The consequence is, that no O'Sullivans and Beres fords are to be seen on the face of Scotland, and Rathcormacs are not less scarce. There is then some little difference between the religious status of the Irish Catholic and the Scotch. It is true, indeed, as Mr. O'Sullivan in his benignant way observes, that " there is no parish in Ireland in which a Roman Catholic chapel may not be erected, and in which the priest may not denounce the Established Church as a nuisance, and its pastors as greedy wolves ;" but this does not make out the parallel to the religious rights of Scotland, for there is certainly no parish in Scot land in which the people are obliged to support a church of another religion. Yet Mr. O'Sullivan can not understand why the Catholics should be dissatis fied. He seems to think that so long as they are per mitted to pray as they like, they have no right to mur mur at being compelled to maintain the church in which they do not pray. Deliverance from this necessity is, however, among those rights of Scot land which the Reverend Gentleman affirms to be equally enjoyed by the Catholics of Ireland. Mr. O'Sullivan has no difficulty in discover ing the crew of Ireland's discontents—" only when a grinding despotism bound down the energies of the people (says this man of mercy) was she tranquil ; and as soon as that coercion ceased, then started out the beast in his proper shape, and the reign of turbulence and disorder commenced." Of course the remedy, in the view of this Reverend person, must be to return to the " grinding despotism" and its tranquillity. How literally would men of this kind fulfil the description of the destroyers—solitudinem faciunt, pacem appel lant. Our Reverend Orator tells the Scotch that their ancestors, unlike the Irish, were tranquil when permitted to enjoy their rights ; and if the Irish had se cured their rights as effectually as did the Scotch, no Reverend Mortimer O'Sullivan would now have an in terest in a system so hostile to the peace of his country. It is from the untenable positions of the Sinecure Church that the " grinding despotism," with its grim tranquillity, is looked back to with regret as the golden age of the Establishment.—Morning Chronicle. When we see the Ministerial papers, in pursuance of positive orders, daily dedicating their columns to the praise of O'Connell, to whom Lord Melbourne, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Holland, and Lord John Russell, have successively, in terms more or less distinct, ad mitted that they owe their existence as a Ministry ; when we see, too, that . some manly understandings among our countrymen, who, being themselves inca pable of falsehood, can scarcely imagine its constant employment as a weapon of faction, are somewhat staggered by the cool and audacious repetitions of lies ten times refuted, we feel that we are bound to continue the irksome and loathsome task of exhibiting the " monster-deceiver," at the risk of being covered with some of the filth which must defile all who touch pitch, even for the purpose of abolishing the noisome sub stance. In furtherance of this disagreeable but useful object, we now present another specimen of the moun tebank's mendacity. We first introduce him in his own person, and in his own language : behold him : Mr. O'Connell—(Mirror of Parliament, Wednes day, March 18.)—" I beg to call the attention of the House to a matter, in which I am personally inte rested. The ballot for the city of Dublin election is fixed for to take place to-morrow. There have been four petitions against the return of myself and my Hon. Colleague. The first was presented on the 25th of February, the second on the 4th of March, the third on the 7th of March, and the fourth on the 9th or 10th of March. The petition presented on the 25th of February was abandoned, and a ballot was ap pointed for to-morrow, to try the merits of the second petition. The agentfor the petitioners informed me, in the presence ofmy Hon. Colleague, that the second petition, that of the 4th of March, would be abandoned also; and, accordingly, reference was made to the examiners to inquire into the solvency of the sureties offered in support of the third petition. That ques tion came for discussion before the examiners on Monday last, and it was decided that the sureties had not justified ; but under the circumstances of the case"—(Mr. O'Connell had taken the petitioners by surprise, having objected to the sufficiency of Mr. William Long, a wealthy individual in Dublin)— " the examiners determined that the sureties should have till the 25th to put in their justification. An application to that effect, founded on the report of the examiners, was to have been made to the House, and there could be no reasonable objection to comply With it. On Monday, therefore, I wrote to Dublin to stop my agent and witnesses from coming up to attend the ballot to-mor row. This day, however, the opposite party have taken up the second petition, that of the 4th of March, which they had declared they had abandoned, and passed the sureties for it ; the consequence of which is, that if the House should not interfere in my behalf, the ballot will take place to-morrow, when I shall be deprived of Me assistance of my Dublin agent, on whom I most rely, when I shall be without instruc tions for cross-examination, and without witnesses." Mr. O'Connell further said—" It will be positively sworn that on Monday even, the opposing agent de clared that the petition of the 4th of March was abandoned. In consequence I have, as I before stated, countermanded the attendance of my princi pal agent and witnesses, and I have abstained from preparing the statements and li s t s w hi c h must b e exchanged on the day the ballot takes place." The facts vouched for by Mr. O'Connell, in this debate, are—first, that there was an unconditional, unequi vocal, abandonment" of the second petition ; 2dly, that if the House proceeded to the ballot on the fol lowing day, " he.should be deprived of the assistance of his Dublin agent," whom Mr. O'Connell also calls his principal agent." We must, on account of its length, now refer pur readers to the debate, from which it appears that the petitioners' agent, Mr. Baker, a highly respectable person, had promised conditionally to abandon the petiti o n on th e 4th of March, in the event of his being able t o proceed with the others ; and that in order to guard against any casualty with respect to them, a notice was posted on Saturday the 14th, announcing the petitioners' in tention to proceed with the petition of the 4th of March—a state of facts afterwards confirmed by the affidavit of Mr. Baker, in support of his petition presented by Mr. Shaw on the 20th of March. In the course of the above debate, when it was pro posed by Mr. O'Connell to call his agent to the bar of the House, Sir James Graham, with that manly feel ing which so much distinguished him, urged on the House, as the postponement of a week only was required, " to depend on the word of the Hon. and Learned Member for the sake of the dignity of the House." He said he was " anxious tn maintain the honour of the House, " which is involved in the assertion of the principle " that a Member's solemn declaration is equivalent to an oath." The ballot was accordingly postponed to the 26th of March, on which day we believe it took place, in despite of an attempt made by Sir John Campbell to obtain a further postpone ment by the presentation of a petition, of course " nu merously and respectably signed," again questioning the sqfficiency of Mr. William Long and the Lord Mayor of the City of Dublin, as sureties for five hun dred pounds each ! Thus far our authority, the Mirror of Parliament : now we intreat 'our readers to accom pany us to the Dublin City Election Committee-room, and to ponder well the cross-examination of one Mr. John Joseph Murphy, a surname well known in the O'Connell history, and immortalized by the able ex ertions of the Recorder of Dublin on a memorable oc casion, the death's-head and cross-bones debate. " John Joseph Murphy, examined the 3d of April, 1835, cross-examined by Mr. Wrangham.—You said you were the Dublin agent for Mr. O'Connell ?—I am, and for Mr. Ruthven. " Were you conducting agent at the election ?—I was. " Principal agent ?—I was. . _ _ " I understand you to say you have gained the informa tion you have laid before the committee in the capacity of confidential agent for Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Ruthven, the sitting members ?—Yes. _ _ _ " You came to town last Monday fortnight, that would be the 16th ?—I believe so. " Did you remain in town during that week ?—Yes. " You were present at the examination of the sureties ? —Yes. " Were you present in the House of Commons on the Wednesday following that Monday ?—When counsel ap peared at the bar ? " No, the Wednesday previous to the day first fixed for the ballot, when application was made to put it or; were you in the House of Commons? Did you hear Mr. O'Con nell move to put of the ballot ?—I do not know whether I was in the House of Commons that day. To the best of my belief I came in while he was speaking ; I cannot be certain, I have been there so frequently ; I think I was there. " Do you recollect Mr. O'Connell making that motion ? —I recollect the motion having been made. " Don't you recollect .21Ir. O'Connell making the motion in the House of Commons for putting of the ballot to another week ?—I do. " Well, now do you recollect it ?—Yes. " Do you recollect the grounds on which he made it ? " By Mr. Austin, counsel for Mr. O'Connell—We re you present in the House at the time ?—I think I was. lam sure I did. I came into the House while he was speaking. " Do you recollect the grounds on which that motion was made ?—I do." Mr. O'Connell, at Edinburgh, asked the people who came to dine, " What they came there for ?" Had they known what we have here brought under public notice, they might have truly answered, " To see the man possessed, above all others in his Majesty's do minions, of the most unblushing 0-ontery." And this is the man to whoni Lords Melbourne, Holland, Lans downe, and John Russell bend the knee, and know . not how to be sufficiently grateful for " his distinguished support." Alas ! for the English gentry and nobility —Times. The Report of the Commissioners appointed to in quire into the state of the poor in Ireland, with a view to the consideration of the question of poor laws, is con clusive in the establishment of one fact—the existence. of a degree of misery, such as never was proved to exist in any other country under a settled form of Govern ment. Even a cursory view of the extracts which we have already published will be sufficient to bear out this assertion. Will the Legislature hesitate any longer to apply a remedy ? It was the opinion of all those who were acquainted with the condition of the Irish poor that the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry, when first it was proposed, could be neither more nor less than a manoeuvre to gain time. Inquiry, if it does not imply doubt, implies lack of information ; and who doubted, or who could fairly plead, the want of sufficient intelligence upon the subjec& about to be investigated by a long and tedious process ? No one who had ever visited that unhappy country—no one who had read its history or conversed with its inhabitants. And yet the House of Commons—not hereditary Legis lators, be it observed, but Legislators elected for their qualifications—pleaded guilty to such doubts and such ignorance when they decided by a large majority that the question of extreme poverty in Ireland was a question requiring proof. One advan tage, however, has followed from their decision. • A body of evidence has been collected which is sufficient to satisfy the most scrupulous conscience that the time has at length arrived when something must be done to mitigate the sufferings of the great mass of the popula tion, who are paupers in the literal, though not in the legal sense of the word, paupers in want and starvation though not in the claim and title to relief. Amongst other facts elicited in the course of the investigation, it is shown that the farmers, who are themselves a very wretched class, and the labourers where labour is worse paid than in almost any other country, contribute more, far more in proportion to the support of the destitute poor, than the proprietors of the soil, and those who are comprised under the general description of gentry. One of the witnesses'examined says, " If the farmers did not give charity the poor would starve. The quantity given by any one does not depend on his ability. There are farmers, paying 101. a year, who do not give as much as labourers. The gentry do give alms to be sure, but they do not give as much as they could, and ought to give—they do not like to let beggars inside their gates." Many other witnesses bear testimony to the same effect, and some of them enter into details, which are truly heart-rending, in corroboration of the fact, that the burden of maintaining the poor falls chiefly upon those who are least capable of bearing it. The inference from this is obvious, it inculcates the necessity of a compulsory provision. " What I" exclaim the senti mentalists, " will you prevent the poor from giving to the poor by compelling the rich to share with them the luxury of doing good ?" But in the first place a com pulsory provision for the poor, or, in other words, the adoption of a system of poor laws, would have no such effect. By compelling one class of society to bear their fair share of the burden we shall not prevent the rest from contributing, but, on the contrary, shall im press upon them more strongly the duty of doing so. The example of the rich is now against the prac tice of charity. It will not injure, it will not impair the practice of the virtue to make even a forcible in road upon that example. Besides it is an unnatural state of things to leave the poor to the mercies of the poor alone. Legislation can scarcely be ill em ployed in the endeavour to correct it. There needs not much calculation to prove that such a state of things is not calculated to last long, or to do exten sive good, and there are other considerations as well as considerations of mere humanity, which call upon the governing power to interpose its authority, when the breach is widening every day between the two extremes of society, for want of some common bond of sympathy to hold them together. But the next Session will, we hope, in spite of the reluctance which the Irish land lords have manifested, remove the reproach of neglect ing the poor from that country, by the adoption of a system of laws by which their interests will be pro vided for. In the meanwhile we would impress upon every Member of Parliament, and, indeed, upon every man, whether in or out of Parliament, who takes an interest in political questions, the propriety of turning his mind to this important subject. If he has doubts of the existence of great distress, we can now refer him to a body of evidence, and that fact being ascertained, either by his own previous knowledge, or by the autho rity to which he is referred, we presume there can be no doubt as to the propriety of at least attempting its alleviaoon by the only mode which has yet been dis covered of distributing the burden over_ the great mass of the people, including the rich, who have hitherto contrived to evade their just proportion.—Morning Herald. The present condition of the United States of Ame rica, as described in the most recent advices from that country, is calculated to abate very considerably the anticipations of advantage to the general weal which men of sanguine temperament and heated imaginations have been too apt to connect with the idea of what they are genera lly pl ease d to d enom i nate liberalinsti tutions. We have no wish to depreciate the system of Government established in the United States. It is, we believe, a system tolerably well adapted to the situa tion, the habits, and the wants of the community which it is intended to superintend, restrain, and sup ply. This is giving as much praise to the American system as any man of intelligence and reflection will be disposed to claim for any system of Government that ever has existed, or that can by possibility, exist, upon earth. There are persons, indeed, who carry their admiration of the republican institutions of America much farther than we profess to do, and who infer from the fact of this system working well in America, that it would work well in Great Britain and every other State. Our inference is precisely the opposite of this. We believe that the excellence of a Government consists in its adaptation to the situa tion, the habits, and the wants of the people among whom it is established. We know that the situation, the habits, and the wants of the people of the European States are entirely different from those of the people of America. And we conclude, without diffidence or he sitation, from the fact that in the main the Government of the United States is compatible with and conducive to the peace, happiness, and welfare of their inhabitants, that a similar form of Government would not be con ducive to or compatible with the peace, happiness, and welfare of any European community. Upon this sub ject it would be idle to enter upon an elaborate argu ment, for if there be any man who is incapable of truths so evident as that the excellence of a Govern ment depends upon its adaptation to the purposes it has to accomplish, and that in different nations those pur poses are essentially different, such a man we must not hope to convince. In spite of all we could say he would, if an Englishman, wish to abolish the Court of St. James's and the House of Lords ; and, if an American, to establish a Court and a Peerage at the city of Washington—if the former, he would be anxious to give a disorderly mi litia to the parade at the Horse Guards ; if the latter, to protect the stores of New York by the Coldstream and the Oxford Blues. We do not think that the in formation we have recently received from Am er ic a , ap prizing us of the fact that various districts of the Ame rican Union and immense classes of its . population are at this moment in fierce collision, and intimating the probability that in the struggle between them, the liberty of the Press will be overthrown, was required to show the folly of regarding American institutions as the perfection of Government, and as applicable alike to all times, places, and circumstances. But such facts and probabilities attract attention to the general sub ject of Government, and afford a favourable opportu nity for the attempt to correct some of the most dan gerous errors w hi c h p reva il upon thatimport an t sub ject of investigation. In the actual position of society in the United States, their institutions may be better for them than any other which could be substituted,-although they do not prevent in all cases the application of Lynch's law, although they are compatible with the existence of domestic and pre dial slavery, and although they admit the discussion of the question, whether it will not be a discreet and virtuous act of the Legislature to restrain and control a Press disposed to argue with too much force and viva city the expediency of abolishing negro slavery ? It does not follow that the slave question should be open in America because it is open in the European States, any more than it follows that a Lord Chamberlain's de partment and a Board of Green Cloth would be desir able appendages to the American Government, because they are found to be perfectly compatible with the utmost degree of freedom and prosperity in Great Britain. The idea of transferring to one nation the in stitutions of another, or, which is the same thing, of arguing from the success of particular institutions in one country that similar institutions would be equally successful in another, has its foundation in a general, but we believe a very irrational, feeling of discontent on the part of the governed. And this sentiment of dissatisfaction with what already exists has its basis in the absurd expectation that in the character and operation, of Governments there should be found a degree of perfection which in no country, and in none of his relations, political, social, or do mestic, has man ever yet exhibited. Has there ever yet existed in a large State or in a small one, in a nation agricultural, manufacturing, or tommercial, a Government free from abuses and defects ? Has there ever been a tribe—wandering or stationary—a tribe of warriors, of hunters, of shepherds, of fishermen, of tillers of the soil, the Government of which was free from abuses and defects ? Has there ever been a county, a district or a parish, of which the Government was free from abuses and defects ? Has there ever been a club united for the purposes of mutual aid, of social intercourse, of literary research, of scien tific investigation, of piety or of sport, of benevo lence or of debauchery, of which_ the Government, with reference to the special object of the association, was free from abuses or defects ? Has there ever been a single 'family of which the internal manage inent was free from abuses and defects ? Has there ever been an individual of the human species in whose character and conduct the entire absence of vice and defect could truly be affirmed ? If these questions must be answered in the negative, how absurd to ex pect, as many persons at the present day seem to ex pect, that, by dint of progressive improvements or in terminable change, we are to succeed at length in ma nufacturing a perfect Government ? It is a mark of the overweening vanity and the stupid conceit of the age, that so preposterous an idea should ever have been entertained. It is a conclusive proof, it other proofs were wanting, that the present age is not destined to make even an approach towards the best social and political institutions of which the infirmities of human nature really admit. It suggests the suspicion that when we most con fidently believe we are marching onward towards per fection, we are then the most rapidly receding from it. It shows merely that we are wise in our own conceits, and are not likely to prove successful in anything we may undertake. To us, then, the recent proofs we have received of the errors and defects of the Ameri can system of Government afford no ground for boast ing. We admit that there are vices and defects in the Government of England ; but we say that they are vices and defects of the cure of which the present temper of the times does not inspire a very sanguine hope. Vices and defects no doubt there are, but we must suspect the tendency of any scheme of improve ment, which is not visibly calculated to improve the character of the men who embark in the public ser vice ; and it certainly is not yet apparent that any of the reforms which have recently taken place in the government of Great Britain have afforded the nation this indispensable guarantee of their wisdom and suc cess.—Morning Post. Of all the numerous and monstrous evils which cen turies of oppression have inflicted upon Ireland, there are none more abominable in principle--more atro cious in character, and desolating in effect, than those which spring from that most iniquitous institution— the Irish Church. It seems to blight everything which conies within reach of its pestiferous influence. It is not alone that the people are impoverished by the plunder perpetrated on them in the name of religion-- that the spoil, called tithe, is gathered by the spilling of human blood—that, on the one hand, fanaticism and hypocrisy, urged on by the insatiate lust of lucre ; and, on the other, superstition and suffering, aggra vated by a deep and heart-burning sense of wrong, spread dissension and hatred amongst the people, and array them against each other in deadly hostility ; these are evils of a revolting character, but they are cast into shade by the horror which the mind feels at witnessing the Ministers of a Christian sect—the or dained of God—becoming the high priests of Mam mon, preaching up war, and in the plenitude of their iniquities, reckless of all interests but their own, en deavouring to rouse their partisans to resistance against the progress of amelioration, and to loose like grey hounds from the slip— " Woe, Want, and Murder o'er the land." _ If any doubt the accuracy of the sketch, let him read the account of the recent proceedings of the In tolerants at Glasgow. A more disgusting exhibition never outraged public decency. The progressive in crease of the Catholic religion, manifestly owing to the abuses of Protestantism, was acknowledged, deplored, and deprecated ; and after exhausting the whole cata logue of crimes in the attempt to cover it with re proach, its members arc assured that such language re sults " from feelings of cordial regard and deep and unfeigned sympathy." Such is the fraudulent cant of Mr. Colquhoun, the chairman of the O'Sullivan meet ing in Glasgow. There was scarcely an allegation made against the Catholics, which facts do not substantiate against the abettors of Protestant abuses themselves. To whom, for instance, does the fol lowing sentence apply, the Catholic or Protestant priests ?—" In Ireland, however, it was not enough that they should be hunted down, but the influence of the priest marked them with a more tremendous fate ; not only are these patient sufferers robbed of their lives, and stripped of their property, and driven from their country as aliens from their fellow men—but they would rob them of our sympathies, and blacken their innocent name." The innocent name of the men who instigated the murders of Rathcormac and Carrickshaugh ! The voluntary principle is as serted to be in effect the destruction of the Protestant religion. What a libel on Protestantism to suppose that it can maintain its existence only by compulsion, and not by conviction I We cannot forbear giving the following specimen of O'Sullivan's eloquence in draw ing a contrast, and denying a similitude between the persecution of the Irish and Scotch Churches by the Episcopalians. He says, " they" (the Irish Catho lics) " enjoy all the rights for which the Scots were then struggling—they have perfect toleration, the freest exercise of their own religion ; and there is no parish in Ireland in which a Roman Catholic chapel may not be erected, and in which the priest may not denounce the Established Church as a nuisance, and its pastors as greedy wolves. Where, then, is the analogy between the cases ? Your ancestors were tranquil when permitted to enjoy their rights in peace; but Ireland was only tran quil when a grinding despotism bound down the ener gies of her people ; and so soon as that coercion ceased, then started out the beast in his proper shape, and the reign of turbulence and disorder commenced." How can it be said that the Catholics of Ireland have per fect toleration when they are plundered at the point of the bayonet, to support a religion in which they have no faith, and denied even the right to apply the sur plus funds to remove that ignorance which is made a subject of reproach. The tranquillizing of Ireland by " grinding despotism," and binding down the ener gies of her people, is no doubt a mode perfectly con genial to the sentiments of the O'Sullivan school ; but, we trust, for the honour of England and Scot land, that the intolerant expression will not find an echo in the bosom of any Briton.—Morn. Advertiser. A SOBER PUN.---Why are Temperance Societies a bar to .friendship ? Because they prevent shaking hands ! Yesterday afternoon an Inquest was held at the Junction Arms, Praed-street, Paddington, before Mr. Stirling, Coroner, on view of the body of Mathew Tier ney, aged 45, a man who, it was all ege d , h ad d i ed i n con sequeuce of die injuries inflicted on him by a labourer and , his wife, named Howard. The Jury, h av i ng v i ewe d t h e body, after a long consultation, returned a ver di ct t h at t h e deceased died from inflammation of the throat. SHERIFF'S COURT.-TUESDAY. GOUGE V. BARCLAY AND WIFE. Mr. WORDSWORRH stated the plaintiff's case. It was an action brought by the brother of Miss Gouge, who had subsequently married Mr. Barclay, a tea-dealer at Shrews bury. The amount sought to be recovered was 151. Du ring the early part of the spring in the last year they went on a party of pleasure to Leamington Spa, when the mo ney in question was lent. The defendant had pleaded a set-off. The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT. IN THE MATTER OF SAMUEL FLETCHER. This was a somewhat novel case, and the friends of the in solvent mustered in strong numbers. The insolvent claimed considerable property in the manor of Islington as heir-at-law to Ann Fletcher, to.whom a life interest had been devised by one Esther Jordan, provided a cousin, named Esther Joberns, died without issue. An action of ejectment had been brought by Esther Joberns, in whom the legal posses sion had vested by operation of law, against the insolvent, who had Claimed and possessed himself of the property in question, believing that he was the heir, and he doubted the existence of Esther Joberns. It now, however, appeared that Mrs. Joberns was in existence. Proceedings had been taken in the court of Chancery, and an order had been granted for the purpose of having the Lady produced be fore certain persons. The order was never complied with, but, on an affidavit of Mrs. Joberns, was discharged. The case was tried, and a verdict recovered' by Mrs. Joberns, and the insolvent was now in custody for the costs. In his schedule he had thought proper to make certain statements, which were considered libellous on Mrs. Joberns, and the object of the opposition was to expunge such statements. The Court strongly condemned the libellous matter, and said, if the insolvent did not expunge it, his petition would be dismissed. The case was adjourned for the insolvent to re-advertise, and to expunge the matter, or tile other alternative would be adopted. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. Samuel Halliday, aged 48, and described in the calendar as an accountant, was indicted for stealing a quantity+ of household furniture, the property of Anne Edgeombe. The prosecutrix, who had a young infant in her arms, is living in Wellington-street, Goswell-street. On the 19th of October, 1834, she happened to get intoxicated, and was carried before Mr. Laing, at Hatton-garden, who, in con sequence of her having an infant in her arms, sent her to prison for bail. On the second day she sent for the prisoner, for the purpose of obtaining bail, when he said he had no money. She then gave him her key, and told him where to find some money. The prisoner never returned, and on her being liberated she discovered that every article of wearing apparel she possessed, as well as her furniture, was stolen. For two nights she had to lie on the boards, and she became involved in'the greatest distress, her husband having pre viously left her. She did not see the prisoner for some months after. The prisoner, who made a long defence, had formerly. been overseer of Clerkenwell parish, and became acquainted with the prosecutrix shortly after her husband had left her. That she employed him to sell the fixtures, which he did, and the prosecutrix gave him some duplicates for his trouble ; that her statement about the robbery was quite false ; and that the prosecutrix, being a notorious drunkard, was not to be believed. Two witnesses gave the prisoner a good character for honesty. The jury found the prisoner Guilty. The Court sentenced the prisoner to be transported for seven years. Janes Berry, aged 32, was indicted for stealing a trunk, containing a quantity of valuable articles, the property of a person of the name of Jones, residing in Ratcliffe Highway. The Jury found the prisoner Guilty. The RECORDER sentenced the prisoner to six months' imprisonment in Newgate. William Wingrove, aged 22, was indicted for stealing a mare, a cabriolet, and a set of harness, of the value of 42/., the property of William Chard. The Jury acquitted the prisoner. The Court adjourned at six o'clock. REMOVAL OF CONVICTS. In order to afford room for the prisoners already com mitted and about to be committed to Newgate during the present session, the following convicts have been removed from thence to the ships which are to convey them to the colony to which they are banished. The female convicts are only removed in September and March. TRANSPORTED FOR. LIFE.—Wm. Hoyle, H. Sargent, J. Smith, J. Sudling, J. Corston, Geo. Rome, J. Pound, E. King, Geo. Kippin, J. Wilson, Danl. Smith, J. San Martin, J. Orchard, J. Smith, Geo. Smith, Wm. Capen, J. Mills, J. Smith (aged 27), Martha Handcox, and Sarah Davis. FOR FOURTEEN YEARS.—Thos. Henley, W. Jones, W. Smith, J. Smith, Mary Smith, and Mary Weatherstone. Fon SEVEN YEARS.—Lewis Jones, Stephen Farmer, John Eggbeer, Parish Deighton, Timothy Taylor, John Dolphin, Thomas Rex, David Goodman, Henry Richard- , son, Edward Atkinson, John Smith, Reuben Barnard Bullock, Richard Mitchell, James Fitzgerald, Thomas Chambers, Mary Mills, Elizabeth Jones, Sarah Martin, Timothy M'Carthy, William Corby, William Hanson, John Adamson, Robert Jude, Henry Healey, Francis Gerdean, William Griffin, George Wilson, Henry Wallis Waller, W. Baker, George Whiteman, W. Parsons, Owen Sullivan, John• Smith, George Taylor, John Waton, Lampit Sanders, John Wade, James Eustace Jones, William Bridges, William Brown, John Wilson, Henry Walkden, Patrick Clark, William Mills, Mary Dundas, Mary Kenny, Ann Coleman, Mary Birdsell, Kate Reddington, Caroline Pa terson, Alice Richardson, Eliza Martin, Ann Roberts, Jane Beckington, Mary Baker, William Patan, Mary Ann White, Mary Sullivan, James Branch, Thomas West, James Steel, Mary Ross, John Ray Bailey, Ann Leach, T. Thomas, Samuel Hood, Mary Newton, Mary Leader. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. William Batchelor and George Batchelor were indicted for violently assaulting Nelson Smith, a patrol, at Potter's Bar, Middlesex. _ Smith seeing them with a truck late at night, near the church, questioned them as to what they were about, when they not only assaulted him, but a Mr. Young, who came to his assistance, by violently kicking him. The Jury found them Guilty, and the Court sentenced. William Batchelor, whose conduct had been the most out rageous, to nine months, and George Batchelor to seven months' imprisonment. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. HATTON-GARDEN. Yesterday two countrymen, in dirty smock frocks, who gave their names Williams and Saunders, were brought to this office in the custody of Davies, of the E division, charged on suspicion of being concerned in the late robbe ries in the county of Surrey. Mr. LAING questioned the prisoners, who gave a very lame account of themselves, and they were remanded until further inquiries could be made. Yesterday a respectable-looking man entered this office, with two fine-looking intelligent boys, about eleven years of age, who seemed dreadfully agitated and in tears, and re quested that they might be protected from the violence of their schoolmaster. The applicant stated that as he was passing along Saf fron-bill that morning the boys rushed out of N 0.26, calling out " murder," and seemed to be exceedingly terrified, when he inquired the cause, and he was informed that their schoolmaster came home in a state of intoxication, and pur sued them with a shovel to beat them with it, and they were afraid of his violence. The applicant being the father of a family, and conceiving such conduct highly improper on the part of a person who had the tuition of children, he took them under his protection and brought them to this office. Mr. BENNETT concurred with him, and inquired whether he saw any assault committed ? Applicant—l did not ; but I saw the schoolmaster follow them with the shovel while he was drunk. Mr. BENNETT questioned the boys as to the nature of an oath, which they answered intelligently, and they were sworn to the above facts, when Edwards, the officer, was directed to go to the school, and request the schoolmaster to attend and explain his conduct. On Edwards's arrival at the place he found the " school master all abroad," although "at home," sitting in a back room intoxicated, when he explained what had taken place, and suggested his attendance at the office, and he accom panied Edwards. • He was dressed in a suit of black, and had the appear ance of a priest. He staggered into the presence of the Magistrates, and could scarcely keep himself up. Mr. BENNETT asked how he could explain such con duct towards his scholars ? Schoolmaster (in a Kerry dia lect, and hiccupping)—l have jurisdiction over these boys. Mr. BENNETT—But you must exercise your jurisdiction in a proper way. Schoolmaster—l do, and I demand jurisdiction from you. Mr. BENNETT—Why, he is drunk now. I cannot re ceive an explanation from a person drunk. He must be detained until he is sober. Waddington (the gaoler)—He is often so, I am sorry to say. I have had him here before for drunkenness. Mr. BENNETT—I shall certainly not allow the boys to go back. They are not safe with a drunken man. He asked them where their father was ? _ __ Queen's- They stated that he was a widower, residing in court, Oxford-street, and paid 10s. per week for their and education. Mr. Bennett ordered that they should be taken home t° their father by an officer, and their schoolmaster was even tually locked up by the gaoler, who was strongly solicited by the " Learned Gentleman" to go to a neighbouring public-house to have some " beer," which, however, was r e i fused, and he was left to his meditations under " lock an key." Thomas Labron, a middle-aged man, of distressed ar pearance, was brought before the Magistrates charged biti Josiah Dean, an inspector of stamps, with hawking an selling Cleave's Weekly Gazette, Hetherington's Twolion n, Dispatch, and other unstamped newspapers. Dean, being sworn, stated that he saw the prisoner in St. John-street, Clerkenwell, hawking, and selling the papers, when he gave them into custody. Mr. LAING (to the prisoner)—Pray what are Yo Prisoner—l am a clerk, your worship, but lam out of a situation, and greatly distressed. Mr. LAING—Then you have not the common e xcuse ° f t ignorance. You were aware that you were acting ago.° the law ? Prisoner (bowing)—Certainly ; but I w as co : " pelled by necessity to do so, and I candidlyadmit that lat I I have procured a temporary living by disposing of sue' publications. Mr. LAING (to Dean)—lt is very strange tl/At I°,g bring forward such persons for selling unstamped paPer; Why not prosecute the parties from whom they are 1), chased ? Dean—That is impossible, your Worship, tile.; are not printed in London now. We have done every th,"l. in our power by taking down their presses, and seizinct u t types, but they have devised means of defeating our ob j ec ; Mr. LAING—How is that? Dean—Why, your W O ship, they are now printed and published in Mancher.: Leeds, and Birmingham, and forwarded in great num""•s every week to the metropolis, where they get numbers. persons who are glad to sell them. The prisoner was committed to the House ,of Corre ct° for ten days. / ~ /~)/~ / ~ Y THAMES OLICE. Yesterday John Brown, a very tall man, the mate of w a Ann of Newcastle, was brought before Mr. C103113g 8,13, Mr. BRODERIP, charged with committing a vari'ety of saults on a little sailor boy, named Michael Conof2Y. The boy was an apprentice to the owners of he 11 and, as she was leaving London, a strop was missing' , wu l, the mate ordered him to find ; but he was unable tx , do and the mate struck him several heavy blows on the h id and kicked him behind in a very severe manne r, „ „ knocked him down. On the arrival of the ship at Sto.eft' il upon-Tees he was sent up the river for some beef, an .° P 6O to pull back to the vessel several miles against tide. coming alongside the mate jumped into the boat, ant 1 saair, there was not enough of beef for the voyage. Afte r s ' We,, , ing at him, and threatening to heave him overboart i, 4j again struck him and kicked him. The boy then def ne several other cases of ill-usage by the mate, who was i ll 4 t his constant habit of kicking him. So frequently wa s f o r done that the Master threatened to unship the mate bad usage. The mate, in his defence, had not badly used thel who got the salt meat at Stockton ; and when he was CO plained of became very impudent, and did not SP e properly. a? Mr. COMBE—What :were the bad words be us Mate—He said he could not help it, and that was not 1 3 ;_, per language for the chief officer of a collier—CA laugbr and so I kicked him. rea p Mr. ComßE—That insulted your dignity, of eell Mate—Why, yes, it did—(A laugh)—and I kieked b i . t r a o . ? Mr. BRODERICK—HOW many kicks did you give hiv at Mate—l am sure, I don't know, Sir. I did not eetiot them. He is a very slow boy, and told me he did /3 know where the strop was. Ugh Mr. BRODERIP—And because he is not quick e e „. ° I you accelerate him with kicks a posteriori? M aw should be sorry o lift a hand to him. bLi ce Mr. BRODERI t P—Don ' t talk that way, Sir ; yo 4 lifted your foot often enough to that poor boy. d t be Captain Storey, the master of the Ann, reeolle ote affair of the strop, which the boy could not find, b ut ate dared that the apprentices had a spite against t h e r t ot because he made them do their duty. He admittou a id the boy had often complained of being kicked, and IDe to him, " 0 John, John man, don't kick a woman's el) The boy was a slow one, but honest and civil. boY Mr. ComßE—But we cannot suffer all the slow uritl board ship to be kicked. That wont't remedy a°, 0 I,o l ' fault. This mate of yours has a very dignified idea e l , self. Because the boy said, " I can't help it," he 100 that " setting up impudence." The Captain—But the boy is rather dull. Mr. BRODERIP And he is enlightened with a tea r The mate, it was evident, was a man of such violen t b oo per, that he was quite unfit to command. It would ha d served him right, if some one had kicked him as b e eg ad kicked the boy. He was sorry the captain had silretbe the mate, who was not the most clear-headed mail world, and he did not wonder at the boy not compte'„,"xis ling his orders. If the mate feels his dignity offended 7,0 I would advise him next time to kick a good stou t and then see what would be the result. The mate h : - jet business to lay a finger on the boy. If he does wre n Lor him complain to the captain, who may chastise bill l perately, as a father would his own child. e ill The Captain promised the boy should not evil' - used. sti ll Mr. COMBE then said the mate's dignity must b e t he further hurt, and his memory refreshed in future, bYi t es infliction of a fine of 40s. to the King for the assn . .d. the boy, and the costs.—The money was instantly F'6" ; or A singular accident occurred on board the stlr l idle Black Hawk on the Mississippi on the 12 th July. Get' running close along shore, to avoid the current, a large l iv ton tree, ninety feet in height, and four feet through, 'OO denly swayed to and fro as we approached, and jus t es •ths bow of the boat came opposite to it, fell heavily, and 1 : 1 ' t be tremendous crash, across the deck, breaking througn,eer boiler deck to the lower, on which a dozen men were ore ing, all of whom had not time to leap out of danger ueriog the huge trunk sunk deep into the deck , nearl y se'tber, one poor fellow in two, and crushing the head of an° 05 and slightly wounding one or two others. The alaOtree very great on board. After an hour's hard labour, the ca t which held the boat fast to the bank like a vice, I l e a is away—a grave dug, and the mangled corpse Pla e _:„,. , it coffinless, and we were once more under weigh ag s "" New York General Advertiser. (ADVERTISEMENT.) —BIGHT-DA- Y CLOT Car i ° strike the hors and alf hours ; Five Guinea,s each. Tla ofq: elegant cases, u about 71 inches high, suitable e.;ther to s, i , bracket or mantel-piece, and are Warranta d, SAVORY'S, Working Goldsmith, &c. &c., 47, t.: l °Tn"lii,t of" N.B. A pamphlet given gratis, containing a detailed prices of Silver Plate, Plated Goods, Watches, &c. &C" BIRTHS. 0 f On the 13th inst., at Poyntzfield House, N. 8., the lady George Gun Munro, of a daughter. ejger , °' On the 21st inst., the lady of Andrew Robertson , Esq., oars-street, of a son. f s°t* On the 21st inst., at Muswell-hill, Mrs. Henry, Powell, O r pcv On the 21st inst., at Hastings, the wife of J. G. Shorte of a son. al ( 1 9 ° On the 21st inst., at Handsworth-hall, Staffordshire, the Theophilus Richards, Esq., of a daughter. MARRIED. 01 .4 4 11,re; On the Davis inst., at St. G eor the Martyr, Que mug Richard Davis, Esq., of St. Helen ge s-place, to Margaret , of Henry Blanshard, Esq., of Great Ormond-street. Char les ' On the 10th inst., at Bishop's Tawton, Barnstaple, uchror', ins eldest son of the late Samuel Low, Esq., of Whitchurch , 'f o e shire, to Susannah, eldest daughter of Captain Lark, Croom's-hill, Blackheath. „, ES"' On the 22d inst., at St. Pancras Church, Henry Che a r - itos , '"' of Stratford-green, eldest son of John Cheape, scl- , °f t l a tho ll ' Fifesbire, to Wilhelmina, youngest daughter of George Esq., of Brunswick-square. Oool ie ; On the 7th inst., at Haverfordwest, Thomas George is abt e Esq., of Stile-park, Pembrokeshire, to Mary, youngest ct of the On the late 21st Robert ult., at B. PrustSt. Pancras, Es. 10.0, y e a. third son of George Ann Martin, Willi am Shubrick Esq., of Worthing, 0,... third daughter of William Henry Holt, of Enfield. E s q rar l ' DIED obt• She On the 19th inst., at Oundle, Northamptonshire , . aot ,, of Esq., aged 58. On the 21st inst., at Fulham, in her 88th year, Mal' f g f• the late Reginald Whitley, Esq. ; f e of On the 18th inst., at iiingford, Essex, Margaret, iv ' British Colo l et Imms, agel9th d 58. On the of July last, William Wall, Esq., of f le Puerto Cabello. On the 22d inst., in his 54th year, Mr. Philip Phill i p s '.„„jiA gent-street, leaving a widow and twelve children. west !.tlcsl Lately, in his 37th year, Mr. McDonnell, late of the p o t , di n Dock House. He was the author of several works lost I° Economy, and one of the staunchest advocates of th e valster• interest. He was indisputably the first chess-plaer in, "" t amig o ! On the 3d ult., at Nauplia, Zacyntha Juliana, then n l , an )300 of Lieutenant-Colonel Baker, his Britannic Majty s Commissioner in Greece, aged nine months. iv i rs• On the Bth inst., in Berkeley-square, Cheltenharnt we i c h P ito land Hunt. This lady was the mother of the late .T. . w ife c o. Esq., of Wadenhoe, Northamptonshire, who, with 11 1 ,1 o vird ec whom he had been united only ten months), was we —O, by brigands in Italy. 1 Zit ales, On the Bth inst., at Arundale, of Troqueer, Sarno _ f AMP Esq., of Forrest, formerly of Shirley Castle, Island u aged 84. At Plymouth, Mrs. Harris, aged 85, wido w of the late ;0 dee ti f Wa On lr Harris, nf the same place. te the 13th inst., aged 89, the Rev. John Bo wen, sell' re r eter:f lieutenant and magistrate for the county of Somerset,iinoister Bawdrip, near Bridgwater, and 33 years officiating ea a ge. Margaret's chapel, Bath, when he retired from adranc of Sionw On the 11th inst., aged 83, James Woolley, Esq•' field House, near Birmingham. , of At Wolverhampton, aged 93, T. J. Perry , - 1 -' s `o • e • Castle, Herefordshire, and of Penycoed, M on mouths" . /40. yOU I4 °' eo r ° l London : Printed and Published by MURDO , the 112, Strand, at The Sun Once, No. 112, St raw-, of Middlesex. SP: appl of s Ma) A Oct TH] ht R: Ain B 01 CLI Y 1 The H. ne St Year!, 'T« qrri 'loth `VI7 dia ] rent and , geoi ......... W 0 A Ai It th,, 1na,,,, cor,i tild kid Xial 1 (Nt lea kil t " , 'I .r.l(