The Sun. — London, England, 1833-02-18 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. It is acknowledged everywhere that the single ground of justification for the new Irish measure is that of an overpowering state necessity. Such was the one great argument adduced by Earl Grey and by the Lnrd Chancellor—such is the sole apology that can be (or, indeed, that, according to the prac tiee of the British Government, ever has been) of -fered to the Legislature of the day for a proposal to depart from the ways of the Constitution, and to de prive the subject of even the smallest safeguard of his rights and privileges which the standing laws of England have provided. The only question, there fore, upon that point is; whether his Majesty's Go vernment has made out a case of such extreme ne cessity ? Had all the statements and remarks by which Earl Grey introduced his motion on Friday last been before us, while we were our elves in the act of noticing the subject for the next day's publi cation, we confess that our acquiescence in the betessity of some very strong measure would have been more decided than we at that time felt disposed to make it. The case established by the Prime Minister appears to us, on a careful perusal of his whole speech, to be unanswerable. The only effective power now existing in Ireland is that of committing murder with impunity. What used to be law is actually and contemptibly feeble. It has ceased to be a restraint upon wrong-doers; it has ceased to be a protection to the innocent and helpless; so much the reverse, that any disposition shown by an otherwise inoffensive individual to en force the maintenance of peace and property, to place confidence in the administration of justice, or to cling to the recognised authorities of the state for succour, is an almost certain passport •to de etruction from the ministers and executioners of a different code of laws, which have practically super seded the most formal enactments of King, Lords, end Commons. The admitted inefficacy of the actual law of the land" towards the attainment of any one of its most important purposes is bur anarchy under a milder name. Then, what will a Parliament accomplish by refusing temporary though extraordinary powers, if not those now asked by his Majesty's Ministers, at least others of a character more energetic than those of the existing law ? It will leave murder paramount, and the obedient arid loyal citizen at the mercy of the assas'sin's knife. It will leave crime the only thing protected. If no additional means of a repressive nature he put in force by Parliament nn this occasion, let us ask the opponents of the Bill, are they satisfied that the law for the 'punishment of. outrage against life and property in Ireland should continue to be a dead lett , 7 - r ? Not one of them will have the hardihood 'to answer " Yes." Then, if not, how would they proceed to legislate for the putting down these atrocities ? We may be answered, by " conciliat ing" the " discontented body of the nation." But who are they ? Some who complain of the Church. Well, but the Church is at this moment under pro- Icess of extensive, though we admit not suffi cient, reform. Others who complain of the " ves try cess." But the vestry cess is on the point of being for ever abolished. " The Grand Jury laws:" the Ministers have announced in the King's speech that the power of jobbing under the grand jury system is to be extinguished. Again, em are told that the poor complain (and well they tray) of being ground down by exaction and desti tution. Then why not give them poor laws, which would compel the affluent to assist them ? But poor laws, the most solid, real, and direct relief for the miseries of the Irish poor, have been, even within these few days, denounced by him who has levied enormous contributions on the very poorest of his countrymen,as a remedy which would only aggravate the evil. What remains to he considered ? The loudest and most audacious disturber of the peace of Ireland—the most indefatigable and successful stimulator of the poor man's passionsovows every where but in the House of Commons itself, that he agitates, and .will agitate, until he has effect ed a repeal of the Union. The true, the funda mental, grievance in his eyes is, that the Union has not yet been repealed. This is the extent to which " conciliation" must be carried. As Parliament must not legislate for the forci ble suppression of crime, robbery, incendiarism, murder, attended with savage and horrible bar barity,— vengeance against jurors, who convict upon their oaths,—vengeance against witnesses and the children of witnesses who tremble at the guilt of perjury, all sorts of desperate villainy are to be perpetuated until it shall please Parliament to de stroy the empire, as the sole bribe that will prevail 'Upon the instigators of this intolerable anarchy to make peace with the State, and to suffer some laws besides their own to exist amongst us. Now, we do not refer to the precise measure recommended by Earl Grey as being, on the face of it, the best, and wisest, and most effectual, and least exception able that, after long consideration, might perhaps be suggested by statesmen. We repeat what we have already stated, that the present Bill, of which the outline was published on Saturday, is more severe in some respects, and in others less adapted to its most essential objects, than it may be rendered on mature deliberation; all that we are bound in common honesty to contend for is, that a crisis does exist, not manageable apparently by any existing authority, and that some stronger power than ordinary ought, with a view:to the public safety, to be promptly put in motion. The primary cause of all the mischief is, we allow, untouched ; but time is necessary for the 'cure of that shocking and afflicting condition to which bad government and worse landlords have re duced the Irish poor. Meanwhile, violence and murder must not stalk abroad unpunished, nor must the proximate causes of such atrocities be permitted to work uncontrolled.—Time:. The Bill introduced by Earl Grey into the House of Lords, to invest the King's Government in Ire land with extraordinary powers, for the coercion and punishment of the disturbers of the public peace, requires to be considered in a two.fold point of View—first, as to the circumstances under which a Bill to suspend the ordinary powers of the Consti tution has been introduced to Parliament—secondly, in reference to the provisions of the Bill, supposing the necessity of the legislatve adoption of some measure of the sort cleatly established. When the Bill of unqualified emancipation of the Roman Ca tholics wa, passed, under the auQpices of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, it was held forth to the English nation, in both Houses of Rolla menr, as a panacea—that was the term—for the ills of Ireland. A Noble Lord, now high in his Ma jesty's Councils, declared that if the political plivi leges then demanded by the Roman Catholics were granted, he would answer with his head for the tranquillity of Ireland. It was stated in Parliament, and in the Ministerial press of the day, that the pe cuniary' interests of England would not be less sub stantially benefited by the passing of the measure than the peace of the sister island, for it would al low of the immediate reduction of the army em ployed to overawe the popular mind of that country, which would save the Exchequer the greater por tion of its annual military expenditure. In short, the passin g of the Act of unqualified emancipation was to be, i n I re l an d , t h e commencement o f a poli tical millennium. Public confidence and private secu rity were to b e fi xe d on t h e firmest fr.sundations; capital was to flow into the country through all the rivulets of industry; the golden sources of its pros perity were to be opened; the swords of adverse factions were to be converted into reaping -hooks, the pikes into ploughshares, and the people, so long ad dicted to internal feuds and conflicts, were to learn the art of civil commotion no more. Three years have not elapsed since the carrying of that measure, which was to give the sunshine of such halcyon days to Ireland, when the Minister of the Crown appears in the House of Lords and calls for the suspensi on of the ordinary p owers of the Constitution, and for a legislative enactment at variance with the prin ciples of civil liberty, as the only means of restoring the reign of: the laws —pr otecting life and property from popular violence, ants society from the anarchy that thre, etens to reduce its whole fabri6'into ruins. The prophetic picture of social L'liPpiness and prospe rity was painted in glowing colours. Let us see how the sad reality which disappoints that vision of antici pated glory is described by Earl Grey. " Lawless and violent associations," he says, " by night and by day, threaten and intimidate all loyal and peaceable men; they are directed not to public purposes only, but are also made the engines of private vengeance. They have not arisen solely out of the tithe ques tion--though no doubt the feeling in Ireland is strong enough against tithes, and unfortunate conse quences have been produced by them, which conse quences. had they been foreseen, might have led sooner to salutary regulations—hut the disturbances are directed to other objects. The disturbers pre scribe the terms on which land should be let, and any who disobey their orders are subject to have their property destroyed, and even thee. lives sacrificed. They dictate what persons should be employed, and by whom; forbidding labourers to work for obnox ious masters, and preventing masers from employ ing such as are obedient to their milers. They enforce their commands by acts of cruelty and outrage--by spoliation—by murder—by attacks on houses, in the dead of night—by dragging the in mates out of their beds—by beating them sometimes to such an extent as to cause death—by inflicting evils scarcely inferior to death itself. This is the extent to which the systein of outrage and violence prevails in the disturbed districts. The distur bances are conducted on a principle of organization, which is manifested by the manner in which the people assemble, and from the combined objects which they pursue. They assemble by sig. nals— make concerted movements—watch the route of the military, and, by intelligence received, avoid them, so that they cannot he put down by the army." Such is the picture drawn of the social and political condition of Ireland, in the third year of emancipation, by the Minister of the Crown I It is worth observing that Lord Grey, in speaking of the tithes, says, " Had the unfortunate consequences which they have produced beet. fore seen, they might have led sooner to salutary regula tions." This is an admission that one principle cause of the calamities of the country is the want of foresight in the Givernment—yet Government was long forewarned of the consequences of not redressing the grievances of Ireland in time. Those who affect the wisdom, and aspire to the fame of statesmen, ought to have known that the act of emancipation, which opened the path of political power and privileges to the Catholic nobility, gen try, bar, &c., in no respect improved the moral or social condition of the great mass of the distressed and destitute Catholic population. Ministers, who had foresight, and who justly estimated the value of political measures,would not have been guilty of the egregious credulity of believing that the Emancipa eon Act was a panacea to cure all the evils of the people. Ministers, instead of doing any thing to relieve the starving and dicontented population, gave their sympathy and assistance to the landlords, who rack-rented their tenantry, and drained away as absentees, to expend in this country or in foreign lands the money which ought to circulate at home as the life's-blood of the State. As the former Administration passed the Subletting Act to elease the Irish landlords, so the present Ministers re fused to listen to the proposition for establishing a statutable provision for the poor in Ireland, whose numbers were greatly augmented by the former Act, which had the effect of turning out thousands of families from their little tenements and bits of land to destitution and beggary. If an approved system of poor lazes had been established for Ireland at the time in which Mr. Sadler proposed such a measure, and if a legislative restraint had been laid upon absenteeism, by imposing something like a double rate on the land of absentees, there tvould not have been such thousands of destitute and des perate poor as there now are in Ireland, ready to become the instruments in the hands of the apostles of mischief, and to undertake any work of outrage and disturbance. There might have been also means devised of giving employment to a large portion of the idle population in a country nearly one-third of which has never yet been brought into a state of cultivation. But when a Government is without foresight, it must, at intervals, make up by energy of coercion for its neglect of the means of preven tion. Often indeed does it require a great deal of force to put down evils which a little wisdom might have averted. The evils of Ireland have now indeed got to a head which, while it re quires a prompt and efficacious remedy, proves also the incapacity of the Irish Government by which its affairs have been conducted to this die estrous issue. A Viceroy, more distinguished for the qualities of a bold dragoon than those of a Statesman—a Chief Secretary, who has more of the ready talent of a smart debater than the judicious and comprehensive intellect of, a wise politician, are not the persons to whom the government of Ireland ought to be any longer intrus ed. Under their auspices it is that the present storm has been raised. To say the least of it, their government has been hitherto most unfortunate, and it seems to be time that Ministers should try some other charioteer of Ireland's destinies than that daring but ill-starred youth, who, by driving with more vehemence than judgment, has set the political elements on fire. Brit leaving the causes of the existing state of things in Ireland out of the question, it is clear t hat a necessity exists for energetic measures to down outrage, to protect life and property, and re store the reign of the law. It was objected to Lard Grey in the House that he had not prefaced the introduction of his Bill by the production of do cumentary evidence. The objection we consider a strong one, in a constitutional point of view; for, however convinced people may be by the ac counts in the daily journals and private letters that a great part of Ireland is in the state ,described by Lord Grey, yet such evidence should be produced of it as, by appearing hereafter on the records of Parliament, would ,prevent the obtaining of the powers now de ' mended from passing into a precedent except in cases of like emergency. That a thing is morally believed, or is notorious to the public mind through the ordinary channels of public .nformation, will not make it evidence in a Court of Justice, where the life or property of a single individual is at stake, and such public reports should not be accepted in place of official evidence in the High Court of Parliament, as a ground for instituting measures which are in• tended to affect the liberties and lives, the political rights and civil freedom; of a whole nation. It study ought to have been as easy for Lord Grey to produce the documentary evidence required, as to make the oral statement which he did. Nor need names have been published, because the documents `might have been referred to a Select Committee, with an understanding that the names of individuals giving the information were to be suppressed. As to the provisions of the Bill our observations shall be brief. It was justly observed by the Duke of Wellington that one of the great obstacles op ped to the administration of justice in Ireland is the want of evidence,arising fro's* he systematic in tirnidation of witnesses, and that the institution of courtsmartial cannot supply this defect. Courts martial, as well as civil courts, can come to no de cision without evidence. But if the intimidation of witnesses can be prevented, so can the intimidation of Jurors; and if witnesses and jurors are enabled to perform their duties, without apprehension of be ing persecuted by the disturbers of the peace, the great difficulties in the way of the administration of -justice by the ordinary courts will be surmounted— and what necessity will there be then for military tribunals ? If the principle of military tribunals is objectionable, so also, ►n the present instance, is their constitution. The officers composing a court martial are not to exceed nine in number, nor be less than five, and the decision of the majority will be equally valid with the unanimous verdict of a jury in civil cases. This provision, we trust, will never pass into a law. In endeavouring to punish guilt we should take care not to break down the safeguards of innocence ; and slight indeed will be the protec non of innocence if the opinion of three military officers against that of two shall be equally effective with a verdict of guilty pronounced by twelve unanimous jurymen. It is said by a Morning Paper that the highest and most dangerous crimes which prevail in Ireland at present are not to be tried under the Bill by those courts martial. That appears to us to be a mistake, for the Bill contains the foltowing provision :—" Provided that if the offence is capital, the courtmartial shall nor try it without the special direction of the Lord- Lieutenant ; but the Court being so directed, may try such offence, and sentence to transportation for life, or for a term not less than even years." Farm this it is evident that the courtmartial may try capital crimes, if specially directed by the Lord Lieutenant. Nor is there any exception as to murder and arson. But though they may try capital offences, if so di rected, they are not empowered to inflict any higher sentence than that of transportation for life —a pro vision of which we highly approve, if there are to be courtsmarrial at all. According to the 27th and 28.11 sections, any person charged with an of fence under this Bill, and taken to pri-on, may be kept there (no offence under the Bill being bailable) for the term of three months without trial, for that is the limit to the time within which a detention under the Bill will be a sufficient return to a writ of Habeas Corpus. Now this appears to its a provision under which innocent persons might be subjected to gross irrjustice ; one of the offences under the Bill is " to bs found from home in the proclaimed districts, at any time, from one hour after sunset to sunrise" — the mere fact of the person being so found out of his house authorizes his detention arid committal to prison to take his trial. He may be able, when tried, completely to exculpate himself by a lawful excuse; but as three months may intervene before he is brought to trial, during which he cannot be bailed, he must be kept all that time, if it please his gaolers, shut up in a dungeon, perhaps to the destruction of his health, or the ruin of his affairs ! This would be mon s'rous oppression. The 21st section enacts, that any person who disposes of a seditious paper in a proclaimed district shall be deemed gull-y of a mis demeanor, and liable to imprisonment—for not more than twelve months, unless he discover the person by whom he was so employed. Now it is very likely that a courtmartial might consider that to be a seditious paper which no civil court would consi der so, and under this clause, we presume, any per son who disposes of a public journal or newspaper having an obnoxious article, which a court, com posed of military gentlemen, may choose to consider seditious, will be liable to twelve months' impri sonment. Even a person who merely lends a news paper to another, comtainitsg an obnoxious para graph, may be brought within the operation of this penal provision. As to the means laid down for preventing public meetings, which might be turned to purposes of agitation, they are, no doubt, a great infringement on the constitutional rights of the people; but it is to be hoped Parliament will take care the restrictions upon the exercise of such rights do not continue longer than the absolute necessity l i of the case requires.—Morning Herald. We have inserted entire the B 11 brought in by Lord Grey on Friday night. The liberty of meet ing is nearly annihilated by this Act. The Lord Lieutenant may prohibit all meetings of "any As sociation, Assembly, or body of persons in Ireland," which he shall deem "dangerous to the public peace or safety, or inconsistent with the due administra tion of the law," by his order alone. The attend ing any prohibited meeting is a misdemeanor. No meetings can, therefore, be held in future which are Not palatable to the Lord L•eutertatit. The means prescribed for giving effect to this part of the Bill are such that we cannot contemplate the possibility of exasion. The proclaiming districts is unfortu nately not a novelty in Ireland. We take it for granted that the conditions under which meetings can be held in proclaimed districts are such that none can be held. But that is a secondary matter. The great point is, the withdrawal of the inhabi tants of the proclaimed districts from the ordinary tribunals. The Act empowers the Lord Lieutenant to appoint Commissioned officers above the age of 21, and who have been two years in she army, to try in the proclaimed districts all persons charged with a variety of offences prohibited by various Acts of Parliament, and all persons who shall be found out of their places of abode at any time ' from one hour after sun-set till sun-rise without being able to prove satisfactorily that they were out upon their lawful occasions, and upon conviction, to pass sentence upon them. The courtmartial to be composed of from 5 to 9 officers, with a Sergeant a -Law Counsel as Judge-Advocate; and the opi nions of the majority to be the decision of the Court. There is, however, one important limitation. The offences cognizable by the courtemartial are misde meanors, except the Lord Lieutenant shall direct persons chargeable with offences punishable by death to be tried before them; in which case the sentence shall not exceed transportation for life, or fur a period not less than seven years. The trial must take place within three months after the commit ment, and no Habeas Corpus to be allowed duringl i that time. With regard to the securities against abuse of the powers given under the Act, they may be described in a few words. Actions must be brought within three months after the commission of the act complained of; the person sued may plead the general issue, and if the prosecutor fail he will be liable in treble costs. Where acts of a question able character take place, if it still appears to the Judges that there was a probable cause for doing the act complained of, the plaintiff shall not be en titled to more than 6d. damages, and to no costs. But no act, matter, or thing, done in any proclaimed dis trict, in pursuance or execution of any power conferred by the Act, shall be questioned in any Court of the United Kingdom. Officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers, acting under the powers con ferred by this Act, shall be responsible only to courramartial. It is unnecessary to enter furtt er at present into the consideration of the details of the Bill. It has been observed by some of our con temporaries that it will not meet the peculiar cir cumstances urged by Earl Grey as the ground for claiming these extraordinary powers. It is stated that prosecutor. , , jurors, and witnesses are at present intimidated. The officers constituting the courts inertial will not, of course, be intimidated; but witnesses, it is contended, will still be intimidated. We apprehend courtsmarttal will not be fastidious with regard to evidence, as Juries acting under the dread of their respective neighbourhoods. We dos not mean to say that a majority of from five to nine officers, aided by a Sergeant -at-Law, or other counsel, will decide without evidence; but there is a material difference between the evidence that might be necessary to satisfy a jury, and the evidence which would satisfy officers, who, being chargeable with the peace of their respective districts, must be in possessions of a good deal of information regarding the characters of the individuals brought before them. We know that during the Rebellion of 1798, very slight evidence served to decide the fate of men brought before courtsmartial. Sufficient allowance also is not made for the influence of an opposite de scription of terror on witnesses. At present wit nesses dread the combinivions, but know that if they refuse to give evidence, they may count on impunity. But will they view the followiug procedure with equal indifference " And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for any such courtmartial, or any member thereof, to summon any person whatsoever to appear before such Court to give evidence touch ing any offence, matter, or thing cognizable by such Court, or touching any person charged or accused before the same ; and if the person so summoned shall refuse to attend in obedience to such summons, it shall be lawful for such Court, or any member thereof, to issue a warrant to apprehend and bring before such Court the party so refusing ; and in case of the re. fusel of any party to be examined or to give evidence touching any matter to which he or she shall be interrogated by such Court, then it shall be lawful for such Court to commit the person so refusing to custody for any period not exceeding three months, or until such person shall submit to be examined and answer touching the matters before the said Court." The witness may not unreasonably dread, if he prove refractory, that he may, ere long, come before the Court in a different character. At all events, during a long confinement, much information may, in one way or other, be extracted from him, which may be turned to account against the prisoner. Courtsmartial will look more to substance than forms, and they will obtain much of their evidence from the prisoners themselves. We take it for granted that the proclaiming a district will effect a sullen obedience for the time. The outrages, we suppose, will cease till the proclamation is revoked. But diseases like these in the social system of Ire land cannot be cured by courtsmartial. The mo ment the external pressure is removed, the outrages will recommence with more fury than ever. Woe to those unfortunate wretches who, tinder the delu sion of a deceitful calm, may have incurred the displeasure of the peasantry, by taking farms over the heads of their neighbours, or by aiding in any manner, by giving evidence or otherwise, in the execution of the law. If the courtsmartial be not over fastidious with respect to evidence, an infuriated peasantry will be still less fastidious. We are much mistaken if, in all cases, the deceitful calm produced by the operation of the Act, be not followed by out rages in which the arrears will be fully paid up. We observed on Saturday that one good feature of the Bill was, that the enormous powers given under it would be executed by parties free from locil partialities. To have confided the terrible powers of the Bill to ordi nary Magistrates, would have necessarily led to greet abuse of them. Offieers of the British army, especially of English and Scotch regiments, must be, in a great measure, free from the prejudices of local connection. The mea-ure will, if we may judge from what we have heard from Irish gentle men in London, produce a strong feeling of irritation in Ireland. It strikes down, for the time, all con stitutional freedom in that country. We trust, however, that tho-e who have influence over the public mind in Ireland will use that influence in endeavouring to preserve tranquillity, and in cau tioning the peasantry against all attempts to resist the force at the command of the powerful Govern ment of this country. Let us hope that measures of severity will not be the only measures adopted ley Ministers this session, with regard to the unfor tunate class against which the present Bill is chi, fly directed--the peasantry of Ireland. A poor-rate ought to be imposed without delay, in order to check the competition for land, which places the occupiers entirely at the mercy of the landlord. There is no other country in Europe, in which the occupiers are so completely at the mercy of the landlords as Ireland. If the imposition of a poor rate should be considered as severe at present towards landlords in Ireland, some temporary aid should be given by the nation; but at all events a poor-rate is imperiously called for. — Morn Chron. The extraordinary speech of Earl Grey on Friday last is eminently worthy of the patient attention of the country at large, on account not only of the facts disclosed, but the principles illustrated in its every sentence. That speech sets the seal of the deliberate approbation of the Noble Earl upon all that has been said and written by the Conservative patty during the last two perilous years. The sub stance of the testimony which the fatal course of events has at length, and most reluctantly, wrung from the Whigs, on the subject of Ireland, is this that the miserable condition of the country is not caused by grievances zinredressed; that it is caused by the criminal agitation of bad men for the worst of puzposes ; and that such agitation ought to be in stantly put down by the sword of retributive justice, even at the cost of suspending the civil privileges of the entire community. All this is undoubtedly true, but it is only what has been constantly insisted upon with the deepest earnestness and sincerity, month after month, by the calumniated Conserva tives, who also foretold that the agitation would be rapidly progressive if strong measures were not taken to put it down. We submit, therefore, that the Noble Earl's speech makes out our case, but leaves a fearful stigma upon his own Adminis tration. We are now told of the dangers of agita tion ; but who tampered with that agitation till it attained its present portentous strength ? Who said," Agitate agitate, agitate," till the simple Irish, like the Bristol rioter. , , might have thought they were doing the King good service by agitation ? Who bought the votes of the Irish Members for the Reform Bill, by giving O'Connell two clear years for the con coction of the treason of repeal ? These things will not soon be forgotten by the people of England, arid they may yet have to pass through a solemn judi cial review. We have no wish, however, to occupy a juncture so critical as the present with these pain ful retrospections, and are quite prepared to say that the King's Government must have the powers ne cessary to support the ascendancy of the law. But we have a right to ask whether the men who call for these powers to put down agitation are not themselves even now encouraging that agitation by other parts of their policy. In putting this question, we advert distinctly to certain portions of their scheme of Irish Church Reform, which, if not exten sively modified, m y alienate more Protestants than it will ever conciliate Catholics ! Martial law, po tent as it is, will fail to restore pesce, unless the sound part of the-population cot diaily support the Government. It is well to sound the war-note of de fiance, but the battle has yet to be fought in every town and village in Ireland. The desired object may be accomplished, and that without shedding a single drop of blood, if, concurrently with the enacting of coercive laws, Ministers appeal in a proper manner to the patriotic and English sympathies of the Pro testant interest in Ireland ; but if that interest, which is the very core of the British ascendancy, be alienated by measures tinged with the spirit of further Catholic concession, the task of tranquil lizing the country will be hopeless. There yet exist elements in the sister kingdom (thanks to the councils of ages gone by) which, if skillfully brought together, and firmly grasped by a deter mined Government, would be more than sufficient to secure the supremacy of England, and extinguish the hopes of the agitators. By judicious manage ment the whole of the Protestant, and all the re spectability of the Catholic interest, might be united in one mass against the infamy of repeal. But of such a combination the old Protestant party must be the principal ingredient, and it may be had on liberal terms. The Protestant interest of England anti Ireland (they must ever be one) will tolerate an enlightened revision of the system of the Church ; it will not tolerate the encouragement of Popery by the payment of its priests. Ministers have one more opportunity of saving Ireland by reverting to true Conservative principles; if they neglect it, or avail themselves of it in a partial and vacillating man ner, their responsibility will be as great as the conse quent public calamity will be overwhelming. To conciliate the agitators is impossible; they must be extinguished. To conciliate the Catholics, as Ca tholics, to a system which roust ever remain substan tially Protestant, is also impracticable; and that idea m ust be wholly abandoned. Bit to induce the great body of the Catholics, as nnembcrs of civil so ciety, to render cheerful obedience to the laws for t h e sake of the benefits of protection arid social order, is not only possible, but would be found per fectly easy to a Government which should be at once liberal in its administration and inexorable in the vindication of its own indefeasible rights. We have some reason to believe that there are men con nected with the present Cabinet who take a just view of the course which ought to be pursued in this somewhat difficult question, but we fear that their influence, as heretofore, is destined to be over borne by that of men with whom they should dis dain to act. We hope, however, that a sense of party interest, apart from any higher motive, will yet induce Ministers to pause before they connect them-elves with any section of the Irish movement; arid we are quite sure that if they manifested any tendency to lake a right course they would have the sincere and efficient support of tile Conservatives, both in Parliament and throughout the country. — Morning Post. That the Bill introduced by Lord Grey into the House of Lords on Friday last, and of the contents of which we give an abstract elsewhere, should have given rise to a variety of opinions, some in favour of, and some against it—some thinking that it goes too far, and others that it does net go tar enough—and more especially that it should be decried by the Irish representatives of the repeal movement as creating a dictatorship in Ireland, and subjecting the liberty of every subject of his Majesty to the will or caprice of an individual---is quite natural. The measure is one of extreme importance, of apparently great severity, and to which, in the practice of the Constitution of these realms, it has been but rarely necessary to have recourse. The real question at issue, however, between the Government and the opponents of the measure is not whether the measure be severe—whether it be despotic. or whether it be unknown to the Censtitntion; but whether there be a necessity for its adoption—whether the cir cumstances of Ireland do not imperatively demand it—aed whether there be any other measure by means of which an end might be put to disturb ances by which Ireland is disgraced, and the peace ful subject guaranteed against the violence of the midnight marauder and the noon-day murderer. To describe the state of Ireland, as furnishing a justi fication for the adoption of other measures than those to which recourse has hitherto been had—would be to tell a thrice-told tale—to describe' a state of society which has not, and never had, its parallel in any part of the world—to record plunder mere exteasive, intimidation more awful, murders of a more wholesale an,l atrocious character, than are to be heard of in any other country :—the whole of this subject is well known to our readers—the facts are authenticated even by the Irish press itself—the confession is universal, that the law is suspended in Ireland—that it cannot be executed, and that no one can bear witness, however conscientiously, age:list his neighbour without the most manifest danger to his life. Now we ask, is it, or is it not, the duty of the Government to put an end to such a state of things? or ought it to speak kindly to the assa-sin, to entreat him to desist from his enormities, and at the same time to leave him to perpetrate them with impunity ? The first duty of Government is to protect those who own its sway—the second, to punish those who break the laws to which the ma jority of the people have given their allegiance. Ott this fact—on this principle—we rest the defence of the measure ; and severe us it may be accounted, we see nothing unconstitutional in it. Its provi sions have nor hitherto been called for, and in con sequence the Constitution has not been tasked be yond its usual bearing; but does the Constitution author'se rapine, and plunder, and murder ? Is it not its duty to preserve the peace throughout the realm; and if that peace cannot be preserved by the power which has hitherto been committed to Gc vernment, is it not warranted in calling upon Par liament for an enlargement of its authority? We pause for an answer.—Morning Advertiser. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 16. CHILLCOTT V. KENNETT AM) AVON CANAL COMPANY. This was an action to recover 901., the price of two bronze tablets, made by :he plaintiff for the Kennett and Avon Canal Company, for the purpose of being placed on two of :he canal bridges, to com memorate the services of Mr. Charles Dundas and Mr. Thomes. The plaintiff was nonsuited. 11ILLES V. TRAVERS. This was an action by a portrait paiker, to re cover the price of two portraits painted for the defendant, who was secretary to the Surrey Canal Company. The defence was, that the portraits had been painted gratuitously, to be exhibited by the defendant, with a view to extending the plaintiff's connexion. The Jury found for the plaintiff for 251. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEB. 13. COMBES V. POCKIANGTON. This was an action of false imprisonment, in which the plaintiff, a master builder, sought to re cover a compensation in damages from the defendant, a butcher, in the Old Jewry, for having delivered him in charge to an officer, by whom he was taken to the Worsh'p-s.reet police office, upon a charge of having stolen two ponies from the defendant. The plaintiff had purcha4ed•the horses of a farrier of the name of Smith, in whose custody they were, for 201., and went off with the money, with out accounting for it to the defendant, who was the owner of the horses. The chatge against the plaintiff was immediately dismissed by the Magis trate,,, who observed that Smith was the person who ought to have been brought before them. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 301. TIPTON V. MARTIN. This was an action of assault and false imprison ment. Mr. Elms; said that the plaintiff was a man now in indigence, but formerly in affluent circumstances, and that he tied taken lodgings in the house of the de fendant,in Bouverie-street,for which he was to pay his rent nionthly,a payment corresponding with the receipt of an annuity bestowed upon him by his friends. He had not, however, occupied his lodgings above a fort night, when, on his return home, he was surprised to find the door locked against him, and his clothes detained. Conceiving he had a legal redress for this injury, he inquired of the watchman what was the Christian name of the defendant, in order that he might sue him. The watchman asked for what purpose he trade the inquiry, and having learned who he was, told him he had directions from the defendant to take him into custody upon a charge of taking lodgings under fdse pretences. He was accordingly taken to the watch-house, where the defendant shortly appeared, insisted upon his being detained, and was with difficulty persuaded to allow the plaintiff to give the direction of his then resi dence, but insisted that he should be accompanied to that place by the watchman. They accordingly proceeded to Little Britain, where they saw the plaintiff's landlord, and then the defendant, although he knew where to find the plaintiff, had him taken to the Compter, where he was finally discharged, there being no legal ground for his detention. The Learned Counsel insisted that this was a case for serious damages. The case was proved by James Yates, the con stable of the night, by the watchman, and by Mr. Thomas Copland; but it appeared on Yates's cross examivation that the plaintiff on being asked his re sidence said fir,t he did not know, and afterward's said in St. Paul's-churchyard, and not until he was very much pressed gave up his real address, in Little Britain. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages one farthing. His Lordship, however, refused to certify. FEB. 16. THOMPSON V. MOSELEY. This was an action on a bill of exchange, drawn by James Thorn, accepted by the defendant, in dorsed to Fearn, and by Fearn indorsed to the plaintiff. The bill was dated 911 of May, 1832, and appeared to be drawn for 7.51., at three months after date. The defendant had given notice to dis pute the bill on the ground of forgery of his accept ance, also on the ground of an alieged alteration in the amount of the bill. The Jury, after hearing evidence, found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 761. 7s. 4d. PREROGATIVE COURT, FEB. 16. SPRATT V. HARRIS. The testator in this was Mr. Alexander Hennah Spratt, who died on the 30th of Aped last, at Soissons, in France, leaving a widow and six legiti mate children. In 1821,he formed a criminal con nect ion with a person named Sarah Harris, by whom he had three children. He was accustomed to travel in different parts of Europe. At Soissons he cohabited with Sarah Harris, and when in England he resided with his wife a nd famil y . In 182.5 be ail, 1832 (ten days executed a will, attested b y three w i tnesses , by which he left -2,0001. to Sarah Harris and the bbchildren,er f u o m re e nhti he a d a e ta ie d • h b b ), y he by hh e e xecuted e r equ Ineali%'pr a testamentary in hied to Sarah Harris all his effects in Fiance, but he appointed no exe cutor. The question was, whether this was to be considered a foreign will, or whether the widow was not entitled to take probate of this as well as of the other instrument. Sir J. NICHOLL said that, though there might be some degree of hardship on the woman with whom tht NIA It" fn .ar. 0 , madehy m i ti L earn e d N ot ; b lotto' ieed Y' ofle Pro, r _ 'Nes t sra st ,,, , eith er % lio noftb a nd e 8 Co bieftn Were nu end law iit tr i bnt lirk i __ , e of ',Z s people a es t i m.n of her'. to re _ 't Ktr i m en d l tl te ee ll igen ta t h ui r " fri sk :Ll( Itl er , a , Peale d a ; tott iboll " mti sse IL t h 5 ,,,7 a lai s wn g 4 104 4 4 1 ` 1 a bee ,. NC I ° Biagi ° ,41 Ilp, s - ur i ti t ; of i r i,, . 4, 5 1 °1 li Cl eiti l t ol4ti c t at 4 ga to(4 a nd it* et liop ap t° flb o' 14e bt le • 8 4,... into e l 4l k I • k kt lto 1 TIN !ttol,e to i Pea' J'e tr , Cad (41 4 cetts, 'toper feia bn f ilat ha l ; 'Pb kt it t, 1 Th t the,, leli s : seath, have hy t i l t l eire, Ile ttl . e 4 i s Nth 6th ei th e a ais , 61, 41 4 4 Q ii fea t e with eli te: ' to , mtile hekie N O 4 4 le ft , P James Lamb, a respects king matt, wa h . fe e n . tr d h4 h th i r se e r i. t : ) d ,Nal ic er t ds e ss d rso.f f ß o r r aiwb s as t ro e id a n l , it s i f g rtoe stocks, and eig; 4 :' b ) it ; mvsei --.....--- xntslb:elack of his e eroe is p„ . ot ti, us C e o., ava reh l oi ls , jj h e e r : o Ord le itt. tb - Wood-street, Cheapside. ant) Co., prisoner ha d — the t h - 7):(e ;in invoice cle; kin the above establishment f n a r .. - e st te t I t h iele last six months, and it was discovered the t d si ' 1 . 14 b ," ro t depredations . were committed in the wate"n"er,. let we , e a during that time, and suspicion fell on the Pr i6° , ll eV , 14 4 11P1 1 I Three witnesses spoke favourably to his elle ffi-l ar lt' O The July found ae prisoner Guilt but ree° o , Pr s 4 ty a mended him to mercy. He was then y : tried 0 1 / . 0 1 t titp, of a p i r i e o s t e h t e n r ed in i t e r f; er a it, k a u t g d e I b i a e g re av:losextthrrao%rd.nitioapryeoe;o6:ol 44 td;; 7 141 40 I. 110 e quantity ery kin daonfd hosiery vari and d p h f asb i e lk rd sri fe rt: e t ti o i l , 44 l n gt? a co n tto a r m is: z a u t: g d ev e ry enough to furnish a shop, found in the prie °P ; r of t e , tit o ( 7i lt „ ladginga, was exhibited to the Court. Se ll :ed. L e ttt tlt 'al these, and other articles which he had P l ' i v re ' 1'h e ,, 14 ta ; were identified by one of the partners as the, fence ' 1) 1' 1' 1 4 - "° 1 perty of the firm. The prisoner made nod e .' e- 'ea e4 ve et ' ea h h . 4 4 , The Jury found him Guilty, and Th e RECORDER sentenced him to fourteen l e 11 . ' 4 47 I tratispirrtation. .4 4 ,0 t to p% th e h Ann Clark, Elizabeth Devalion, John .7, ; , t ai wow - 41 ,k e - 1 , William Stanfield, and Richard Bull, were jou;1 1 is tV4II - stealing some crockeryware, the proPe rta ' tie . 61a 4 tiot i Elizabeth Owen. , _.: 0 0 4 11 titi de ll ot t o It appeared by the evidence that , the Pri g h , ire b . -I N r f t °C were part of a gang of juvenile plunderers b 1 " 0 , - e re ''llto r ' i r ee i fest the eastern part of the metropolis. Thel,i v e. 8 4 let t t - n tsl4 all under the ui,e of 15, and extremely dirnio n li the ie'P Lodi The case was clearly made ou , against P heif r ( ii 4 it ,te ti 4 4 prisoner=, who were called upon seriatim M e l , 4 k qe, p s defence, but before this was done the Ce lli '', eft 4 0 4.1 1 informed of the following very extraordinarY - , 1 4 01 Itt, 4tols 1 viz., that the prisoners John Mead, aged o'o-gei the k4irpee Elizabeth Devalion, aged 13, actually lived 'ii: h. ` f tl t : 4, o ll , l they in point fur .1 said e t g thh u ea l a tc r l at nlho,edi their i t toi which gpsar apartments et m illit a es n tata.renerde saidwt i k f e e t i i rb l if i tt i 1 joi f L,;' ,B4o , l : ll ll; : t ide l i r tt oa d f i . s ,„ i g .e o c a e re p r t r i l o o n r o a f nd so g e o h ve p r r i o le; e a r , ty an a d s the ho "Je so n o c i e e ' : y f ,, r Of I l e ti r e L , t ett ii p to , - , e : 01 : be able to purloin. l i t tle. Niw i ta I When Mead (designated by the Judge " ft le n d, i f N e tra Pa h l husband") was called upon, he said—" My P",, - 04 ', 4 o,, t ithit * ; was not me what did it, for I was at home si n ,:dl b -4 Iti ll' Pre s , my pipe at the time they say this here happen " (i gi' ,r t tal s ,.. e kte r ,,' This remark, which was delivered with all in e o ld - ktti l i i - nable gravity, produced roars of laughter, Whi ch c° 41444 Pi Y A "itl i tu lt u ° not be suppressed for some time. bar 4 9 ' I•rk r- t The little wife (Devalion) said she was e t - 4 r . --e ° 1 11$ If . oni at the time , d t , e t , tL e The captain of a metchatit-roan infortr e i hitt' t o fe,,Flo bi Court that the boy Bull had come over "' it ,i' l ee ba s til ii• l Na from St. Petersburgh, and that he behave' Of i th e l k le ia when on board, and lie should not obect f ° , 1 1 0, 111 44'. him back, as he was going to sail in a few' d 81" I t; thi t . The Jury found the five prisoners Guilty. s. „ F ri' %a L ifie b , - ,;_l I Mr. Sergeant ARABIN sentenced Bull to "" o ita, e qa t l I s ;' ( vately whipped, and delivered over to the f s p f r i alf i r i, Ztl_ei l s , i 4 di and hinted to the other prisoners that f"",,' o o o ', Vas h o b, 11 would be sent on a voyage, and that the ,:oiti l . ila ri .,7' 4 % I couple must expect to be separated for 0 e" -i ' by't A A oi Yeki%t viable period ar least. . ,'lei _`•th„ The sang froid which the prisoners 0 ' 81) i n titik.;ek, ' was perfectly astonishing. b it K t ‘hl e ° - if‘ i t :t it% Ad k I'eli e _ t, 1 t thN, 0% 111 4 1 oh oki 4 a IL i lti .. )4 7 et t NI NI % k b , 4, 4 t , "4, 1 % . \(0 1 °' r .,,, P 4 ,0 -11, 0 I iiiii oLtou, h He O g it l h t e y l t ::: .. i e n , s ,f t. D a e t , o,: p e M e o t r A i t ..s ßß ua l l E •e D C . hurch, I.hf_T as of 41: 1 dre 4 N 41 4 Budd, Esq., to Elizabeth Fran q ces, second datigm' (Arm Benjamin Bedwell, Esq. pit% is iiic ' ole s ' ti l l On the 16th inst. at St. George's, Hanover-squa re , 44 %- Mould, of N otP °f a et 4 ewgate-street, to Harriet, daughter of vi ..., v i tha tOk Ch - e 11 4 N441 I ph ,_ _ i II h 11, • o Spil the deceased had cohabited, and still wore ggi ri ?pi illegitimate children, by the widow administe-to, the property in both countries, the Court cotildl do otherwise than grant to the widow admi nionitlu of both papers. ADMIRALTY COURT, FEB. 14. THE KING V. BENSON. n t OE The KING'S ADVOCATE applied for a wa rrg ")ti seizure against The master of the Lord Ct . It e i fi io steam-vessel, %%Ilia, it appeared liorn-the aft of Leutenant Beck well and C.ptain Belcher be' o ",7 o . ing to his Majesty's shios on the station, wa 4 5e 3 60 going up the river D ouro , haying on board , s,ldiers for the service of Donna Maria, with d e English flag flying. Th e s t eam - ves sel was boar by Lieut. Beckwell, wh o h au l e d d ow n the colours. Sir C. ROBINSON ordered the warrant to i*lstle. BANKRUPTCY COURT, FEB. 16. EX PARTE GOSS IN RE WESSON. rir The petitioner is a bill broker, residing ..ear n r tot ; in May, June, and July last, the bankroPt % plied to him, requesting he would procure diseeent for several biils of exchange, his drafts on d iffer li la individuals. On this occasion the petition er r i gs the bankrupt that his charge over and a bove - 0 f iegal interest was !Os. per cent. for bis troub le e expense in procuring bills to be discounted; to bills were five fn number, amounting in al l t° tat SUM of .5781. IGs. After deducting legal inters ° e , fi i v ii e oli p t e r r c p e e n i, t i ., e a r t e rd r t t ( l , te thaefobreasAidrucpotmrheissiont be P e ' a bove — et y M less than such di scount an d comm i ss i on . °lr- he - r for the bankrupt, an d as an i n d ucemen t to et "he persons to discount these bills of exchang e % petitioner indorsed th e m, reta i n i ng one per cen"r, 4 the live per cent., as hi s d e l cre d ere corrni ss Le Tate bills were discount e d by tt :e Gl ou cester s , Banking Company, by Messrs. Nicholson, of bridge, and b ) Messrs. Saunderson and Co., ' ns e• din. They w e r e a ll di s h onoure d, a nd in e°- 0 6 quence of the li a bility i ncurre d b y hi s indorse rne jo the petitioner was obliged to take them uP' A s ati July the bankrupt c a ll e on the petitioner, a n " he was going to London, and desired to be arC modated with an advance, e p r r v o e p d os w i blls from him, which he obs as well as cash. So accordingly the petitioa er v i fif rioted and delivered to the bankrupt two tba for 50/. each, payable after date, upon which bankrupt paid the petitioner 401. in cash, arid an 1.0 U for 601., and it was agreed that the ititet`; should be settled on the return of the bankvor! London. No particular terms of agreement be et, then spoken of, and in fact no terms had since v" agreed on; .the interest allowed on the tw o blll llO tor .50/. each amounted to I/. 2s. 91, leaving latter claim 58/. 17s. 3d. The petitioner applied at a Gazelle meeting ibt der the fiat, to prove these two several amyl b ut dO Commissioners present and acting refused to a tem to prove the same. h c ir The CHIEF JUDGE decided that under all e d ctinistanCeS it was his opinion that the Prion P e was entitled to prove his debt. proposi ng would o art*l.ei! OLD BAILEY, FEB. 16. , • BIRTHS. P° Willi' 3 . - POn the 14th at Tunbridge W e ll s , th e l a dy of • Monson, Esq., of a daughter. of '' J On the Bth inst in Upp er "P or tl an d -p l ace , the la" - i d , George Tucker, Esq., of a son. a s o( 1 On the 13th inst. at C u l ver th orpe, the Hon. Mrs. " h oe a daughter. of On the 14th inst. at Bl ac kh ea th P ar k, the 13d Y o , Tomlin, Esq., of a son. Rai / ' es On the 14th inst. in Hyde Park-terrace, Mrs. of a daughter. ' 3s,,,,o:zoiti O: iitit ; ge . ,t t e:h l ss( l eto3 e ci l i, l ,tiai 6 ottu t .ti l ig, i Inst. at St. .to h n's, Hackney, Jo , ek- , to oµ , p , ~i' !NO' ' P cough, Esq., Commander in the Royal Na c) .'.44.1 09 ',C , Idu, ` l op 'd daughter of the late Richard Williams, Gent., ano u ' i ity ° I ,pl fo r - i f t .(4 0 . 1.1t . e . Charles Haylock, of %%est NVratting, in the co ; los tl i 1, 11 3 li.. daughter of Smith,oa i. N S N t ,} . ,:ns ll .q f c :n ao s ,f, t . a t i i, i ,o ': ,,,,i i i: t r i 1 ; t its: l; ll e . a, . I ,,, , :;: i‘ f :Z e l, %I°% i l l 0 0 1 1 l e , 1 ] is t, i l iet bv : ti ,liitt i i' ti fti:i Kennington-common. „,„. 'Of tr tA t . tk 1,, On the 16th inst. at the Lea, Gloue -tershire!. , ';',o , .4 l a 'to ,-tti ti Hale, of the Vine Hotel, West Cowes,cBtO Mrs. ,vr a,' 0 , - 1 3(11 •)lo !tic 0 , th. 0 11 pd t former place. KIK; , C.) 7,( i st, ii,,,i t tg,o l i i ti f o i s,, l ,,,,,o 6 .riga f i l loil l y;e i s. i do l s a, t i,. . iogt. a h l itie, S rn t j. of ilScrilitanirib‘e(7l)l,rtackttlis,y,N,NNElSls'l(eilas. ,tiii,,i,ifistiii s , ici t i e th r l : etv 6, c 8 4 1 / 1 1 : , i li l,i: ciiii t li o t 4t L rhelto t ti li t i ; . . NVl'' of t 'etll ' q On the pith inst. at Christchurch, Spitalliehls, ♦, tit cr t „ tcl Apt r, Esq., of Great Winchester street to Miss Ralf' daub i _ e fit. late J. Rails, Esq ,of IEII House, South mpton. 1 ' ti, i t h I N t tile "er e . • . .til i f DIED. , r tei ,, .. 1 tto 19 4 On the lith inst. at 11), 1..1' t I• . IlenrY s: ii- t • -do ever a on-p act., `i to r4l . Pant son of Howard Elphinstone, Esq. .10r1P` i" 1 ink 11 4 On the 13th lust at Sidmouth, David Howard 3 jot r 1, 41 o f p t Mary Cray, Kent, Esq., aged 30. . the I/, • 1 . t'tt o „ da O ug n h t t e l r ie of ls p t . h H i e n , s k t e . t h i nr.lleleatoovoedr,_ s E q s u q a . r . co, trances , 00: t., ..„, , : ‘ : ,.. d y itt li, l i I i Id , t aus tf.:,, cashir, MP. mosi le • I Pto N q 011 the 15th inst. Martha, the wife of George , . .' 141, ti t , of t of Acton, aged 55 years. till, PRINTED AND PIDILIsHRD RI DI U R 13 0 Y 011 D' T SUN OFFICR, 112, STRAND, UNDO*