The Sun. — London, England, 1836-04-25 00:00:00

SPIRAT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. It may be useful again to give the names of the members of the Select Committee on the Carlow Elec tion, - who after a most patient and laborious investiga tion, not only acquitted Mr. O'Connell of perseslal corruption, hut also unanimously report— " That This money had been expended under the immediate direction. of Mr. Vigors, and others connected with the county of Carlow, in what may be called legal expenses, or sr, unavoidable that your committee sec no reason to tiou their legality, &e." The following are the names of the Committee : Mr. N. W. Ridley Colborne Mr. Ord (Newcastle) Lord Francis Egerton Sir Charles Broke Vcre Mr. Bannermann Mr. Warburton Mr. Barncby Sir Eardley Wilmot Sir Ronald Ferguson Mr. Henry George Ward Sir John Y. Buller Sir Frederick Pollock and Mr. Sergeant Wilde. The unanimous decision of such a Committee ought to have satisfied every reasonable and impartial man ; and Lord John Russell will have the approbation of far more than " three-fourths of the people of Eng land," and of Ireland and Scotland too, for his manly resolve to maintain their verdict. The admirable speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be lost upon the British public. He exposed to utter scorn the cant of Sir James Graham and his hypocriti cal associates, who, shocked as they were "at such a great mass of iniquity, and such an attack on the pri vileges of the House of Commons, would yet " have re commended that the House should adopt a mode by which Parliament could give the go-by to the ques lion." This, most worthy Sir James, is your manner of maintaining the honour of Parliament ; this your wise plan for guiding public opinion, and doing jus tice to an accused individual, who has passed untainted the severest ordeal which could be devised by perso nal malice and political hostility. The English pub lic are not so ignorant as not to see plainly what it really is to which you would give the "go-by," nor will they be so dishonest as to overlook such persecuting malig nity with the " go-by" so plausibly recommended by you. In the manly tone of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they will also ask, " whether the motion would ever have been heard of, if the question had not affected the character of an individual of great political importance at the present juncture ?" Our readers will remember that " vehement Opposition cheering" indicated the reply within the walls of the House of Commons, that it would not. The people of the em pire, impelled by a hatred of persecution, will echo back those cheers with a firmness and resolution fatal to the last hopes of a malignant, anti-reform faction. We tell Lord Stanley that he cannot inspire the people of England with sentiments of hostility to Mr. O'Con nell similar to his own, and least of all by such a dis play as he made in the House of Commons on Thurs day and Friday. We never witness the miserable failures of Lord Stanley without pain, and often look back to the beginning of his career, when we beheld the proud and vigorous efforts of this high-born candidate for senatorial honours with delight and hope. It was then our plea sure to agree in opinion with those who thought they saw in Mr. Stanley great talentS and industry, as sociated with elevated rank, which in a consistent course would obtain for him a distinguished name among the patriots of England: What now is our mortification to witness his devotion to the cause of a defeated and despairing Tory faction, striving to wound where they cannot conquer ! We will not waste words on the miserable mover of this last attack on Mr. O'Connell ; if the poor man is in the habit of consult ing " his conscience," as by his words he would seem to say he is, we doubt not that the gentlemanly rebuke of Mr. Ridley Colborne, " that the motion savoured of persecution," will embitter his retirement with feelings of compunction. If he can escape from unpleasant re flections by the aid of the flimsy party excuses made by his friends, who uttered them only to break his fall ; or if he can derive any satisfaction from the eulogies of the apostate Times, he may well then be consigned to the public contempt, of which he will be sure to be the object. With respect to the Times journal itself, we have over and over again remarked, what must be suffi ciently obvious to a great majority of its readers—it can not go on. without a victim. At one time, for months, its daily task consisted in unmeasured and ferocions attacks upon Lord Brougham ; all the claims which the friends of that great man constantly and justly urged in extenuation of his faults and mistakes, weighed as nothing with the writers in the Times. He bad, forsooth offended them, and for this offence, never yet made known to an indignant public—for this unknown offence against the Times, the former meri torious labours of Lord Brougham's life were over looked, he was branded as worse than useless, and the vilest of the vile. Mr. O'Connell is now the constant object of their daily, unrelenting, malignant hostility. All his exertions for the Repeal of the Test and Cor poration Acts, Catholic Emancipation, and Reform of the House of Commons—measures formerly supported by the Times with a furious zeal—all the aid given to these great measures now go for nothing with the Times journal. Mr. O'Connell has dared its influence, defied its malice, and we see, with an indignation we cannot describe, that scarcely a day passes in which the columns of the Times are not charged to loathing with the most disgusting epithets directed against the Mem ber for Dublin. In the case of Mr. O'Connell we hope and believe that the intemperate and virulent hostility of the Times will defeat its own intentions, as it did formerly in the case of Lord Brougham. Its malice, joined to the congenial efforts of the Tory faction, will tend to rouse the generous sentiments of Englishmen, the nationality of the Irish, and the ar dour of the Scotch, to an effective consideration of the means best adapted to resist and counteract the persecution of Mr. O'Connell, and at the same time to mark their opinion of his persecutors and their un worthy cause. The protracted efforts to unseat the Member for Dublin obviously form part of the gene ral system, and clearly must be very expensive. This cannot fail to be viewed as one of the most crafty of the devices planned by Tory hatred. Why is the Member for Dublin so much the object of Tory ha tred ? Why is his electioneering influence so dread ful to their party ? Obviously because by his powerful aid the Reform cause has triumphed, and that of the Tories been doomed to decay and dissolution. For these reasons he will never be forgiven by the Tory faction, nor ought he to be ever forgotten or neglected by good reformers. It has come to our knowledge that parties wealthy and highly respectable have long de sired to have some opportunity of publicly ma nifesting their approbation of Mr. O'Connell's public services by some token of respect and acknowledgment. We have before us the letter of " A Hater of Perse cution," who asks if the time is not come for the Re formers of England, Ireland, and Scotland to record their verdict on the disgusting Raphael persecution by some public expression of respect towards Mr. O'Connell ? And if so, why some parties accustomed to take a lead in public matters do not immediately call a meeting to forward the object ? We recommend our Correspondent himself to begin. Such an affair, to be most effective and best adapted for good, should originate with parties quite independent of Govern ment. All good Reformers will readily identify the cause as their own, and none need entertain apprehen sions for the result. A public subscription to defray Mr. O'Connell's legal expenses in the present contest before a Committee of the House of Commons, and to present him with a public testimony of respect, in conseenence of the Raphael conspiracy, will not want supporters if it is properly begun.—Morn. chronicle. It will not have escaped the public observation, that a most important notice was given by His Majesty's Ministers on Friday evening, with reference to the Irish Tithe Bill. Sit Robert Peel, in remarking that the Bill was to be introduced on the following (this) Monday, by the Noble Secretary for Ireland, seemed to think it but just that the House should know before hand whether the measure then to be brought forward " would involve any principle of appropriation, or any principle likely to be contested." Lord Morpeth re plied, that the terms of his resolution would be " To commute the composition of Tithes for a rent-charge upon owners of property, and to make further provi sions for the better regulation of ecclesiastical clues and revenues.' Sir R. Peel apprehended that there was then nothing in the resolutio n which involved a con and Lord J. R usse ll d eclared that care tested principle) had been taken so to frame the resolution as not to use any terms that could be objected to. It will proba bly be allowed on all hands that the convermtibll we have now quoted deserves " iMportant." The Around IASt year's Irish Tithe Bill, a liberal and Welk-a- digested measure, brought in by Sid Henty nardinge, was 'scornfully flung aid by M. Daniel O'Connell and Lord %TAU kussell, was its not containing a so-calle'd' Ippropriation” clause, or (con'= sidering wfic* the objectors were) a clause for the , Ana indefinite spoliation of the tteigy=zza pioVi; son without which it WIS pitnotiniaddi by a '§dletriti vote of that manyLcolotited ene majority Uf the House of EFlti4tllbils , that' the Irish tithe question ne . Vei Willa be rightly or satisfactorily settled. tiht, we say, was the last year's vote. The apptopriation clause was made the vital pfirttlple of Whig policy for the adjustitetit of the Irish tithe question. The pledge was regarded by the Conserva tive party as so irrevocable on the part of the Mel bourne Whigs, and the principle of it so noxious and subversive of the temporal church of Ireland, that Sir It. Peel and his colleagues, with a proud repugnance to hold office whilst a tyrannical majority had the power of forcing upon them a measure they so conscientiously condemned, preferred the loss of place to that of cha racter, and gave in their resignations. The vote of the House which produced this honourable resolution of the Conservatives passed on the 2d of April. Towards the end of June Lord Morpeth, the nominee of O'Connell, as Sir H. Hardinge's successor, redeemed the anti-Protestant engagement of the coalesced fac tions, and brought forward the Tithe Bill, not differ. , ing materially from the Conservative measure, save in somewhat weakening and disarranging in its most salu- tary provisions, and in having - ingrafted, or rather patched upon it, that irrelevant and uncongenial fungus, the assertion of the spoliation principle. Sir Robert Peel, with signal temper and good sense, proposed to divide the Bill—to divide those enactments of it upon the nature of which all parties were agreed, from those which formed the topic of irreconcilable contention, and to give the people of Ireland the benefit of such improvements,being in themselves practical, immediate, and unquestionable, as could be carried by common consent through Parliament, leaving to the chances of separate discussion those which were not only disput able, hut manifestly contingent and remote. Thus the Conservatives offered to Ireland a commutation of tithe for the principle of the measure, and a reduction of almost 30 per cent. for the extent of it. But no ; the spirit of faction had assumed " spoliation" for its watchword. The end in view was not national tranquillity, nor the relief of the poor tithe-payer ; still less was it justice to the destitute clergy. It was party triumph. It was exultation over the Conser vatives. It was vengeance upon the King. It was a low-minded fraud, aggravated by an unmanly outrage. The Whig-Radical measure, in its state of original and unnatural complication, was sent up to the House of Lords, which assembly realized Sir Robert Peel's proposal, separated the metal from the dross, passed the whole of the enactments for commuting 0 tithe, for relieving the occupier of the soil, for prevent ing collisions between the Protestant Clergy and the Roman Catholic peasantry, and for reducing the total amount of burden which fell upon the landlord. In effect, so far as a solid and real reform of the tithe system was concerned, Ireland obtained from the House of Lords all that she had ever dreamed of asking, until Lord Melbourne and his brethren conceived the hope of making it subservient to a spiteful scheme for brow beating and mortifying his Majesty. But the House of Commons deprived Ireland of the blessing which the Lords had bestowed upon her. They refused to pass the Act for commuting tithe, unless it should be saddled with one for exposing the remnant of Church property to perpetual disturbance, and subjecting it to a system of arbitrary waste, under the dictatibn of those who, in the face of the world, have declared that the Protestant Church itself is a grievous nuisance, and that its revenues ought to be alienated and transferred for objects in which the Church has no direct con cern. Such was the conduct of the Melbourne Govern ment during the session of 1835 with regard to the tithe question in Ireland. With great reason, there fore, did Sir Robert Peel put his interrogatory to the Irish Minister, whether or not the same perverse and unprincipled course was now about to be readopted. If there be any meaning in words, or any safety in relying on Whig professions, we may conclude from the answers of Lord Morpeth and Lord J. Russell that the appropriation clause will not constitute an in tegral feature of their approaching Bill. It may be that some hypocritical subterfuge lies under these ap parently simple expressions : but we will wave that dis graceful hypothesis, and give them credit for honesty and truth. It is needless to say how truly, then, we rejoice at this essential reform in Lord Melbourne's policy, or how cordially we congratulate every friend to the secure settlement of property, to the interests of civil liberty, and to the peace and final pros perity of Ireland, on this act of justice, however tardy and reluctant, to the Reformed Church, and of composure to the minds of the people. The transfer of the obligation to meet the demands of the tithe owner, from the ignorant, bigotted, and half starved peasant, to the landlord, who has hitherto been equally regardless of the moral and social rights of the occupier, and hostile to the legal ones of the established clergy, will put things at once on their clear and natural footing. The clergy will cease to be rob bed, and the poor to be harassed, and the country to be racked by incessant agitation, for which the most mischievous of all pretences has been furnished by a resort to the excitement of religious animosity. What the Melbourne Ministers may allege in vindication of their consistency to their own allies and supporters, is a question with which we have nothing to do, and which we trust the nation generally will not make a subject of reproach or ridicule against these gentle men, at least before the passing of the Tithe Bill. It ' is true that they turned up their noses at any measure which should not contain the very stipulation they now are satisfied to abandon. We do not affirm that the resolution announced by Lord Morpeth is neces sarily the key to the character and provisions of the Bill of which it is the official harbinger, and of which it ought to intimate the outline ; but if it is, and there are well-informed persons who think so, then appropriation goes to the dogs, and the great political principle of last Session has melted with the snows of winter. But of that ? Let the Whig rump be the (sinecure) guardian of its own honour. Let it break its compact with the O'Con nell tail, and forfeit (what it never fully pos sessed) the respect and confidence of the thorough going Radical-Republican Revolutionists of England —it is no affair of anybody but the Whigs and their dependents. They will sooner or later be thrown back for support upon the Conservatives, against whom they have meanly combined, and whom as a party, rooted in the British soil, they have exhausted their own weakness in vain attempts to eradicate ; nor will a long period elapse before we shall see most minor and secondary demarcations of party politics resolve them selves into the one grand division, determined by the nature of things and by their progress, between Con servatism tenacious of tried and existing good, and Movement, or the appetite for chimeras. On one side will be found property, which has much to lose from violence—with education, which knows the ines timable value of tranquillity—and foresight, which dreads convulsion : on the other, bold ignorance and desperate fortune, which have all to hope through change, and are conscious of nothing in guilt or danger to deter them from producing it. To combi nations thus formed and thus directed we confidently look, as among the obvious tendencies of the crisis which now besets this realm, no less than of the tran sitions which she has undergone already. How such a contest between such parties must inevitably end it is not difficult for a reader of history to conjecture. England is not a kingdom in which Jacquerie can ever thrive.— Times. The much vexed question of the Irish Church Es tablishment is again about to occupy the attention of the British public. We are desirous of placing upon its just grounds this important matter of national dis pute, and we shall do so by statements of indisputable facts. It is our opinion that, since his Majesty's Ministers have given themselves up to the furtherance of Mr. O'Connell's views respecting Ireland, the Irish Church question has become in the hands of the Go vernment Protestant Church persecution. It is our opinion also, that Ministers have adopted this most fla. gittous and deplorable policy from no convictions of my ETXI I fIiVIALINT rt A V i THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, APRIL 25, 1836. their own, but as the price which must be paid to Mr. O'Connell and the Irish priests for their political support: We consider that the Protestant Church of Oclarid Was abandoned to its Popish persecutors (call ing themselves " Itefbritiers,' ; ) heeritiSe by itd less a sacrifice could the present servants of the Crown obtain that Parliamentary strength which Was necessary to the rectiyeti Of office by meth iil the eaily part tit last~ SeSsion. These opinions are Mt Only deduced from a great variety of circum stances, bearing upon the subject, but from the direct and distinct avowal of Mr. Slid, in his speech at Thurles, iespecting the Compatt iiia.de by Mt, (nun-. nell and his folloWers with the Melbourne and Russell party, for the purpose of overturning Sir Robert Peel's G.3verninent. Our present object, however, is not to argue in support of our own opinions, but to lay such filets, in their proper order, before our readers, as may serve to guide to a safe and sound judgment upon the question now again to be brought before Parliament, and to a decision whether it be an honest effort to get rid of a real grievance, or a bigoted conspiracy, with hatred of Protestantism for its motive, and destruction of the Protestant Establishment for its end. If that Establishment be really a grievance, and the payment of its revenues an intolerable burden upon the people of Ireland now, the same thing must have been true at any time for the last hundred years. Most unques tionably the exactions of the Protestant Clergy—by which we mean merely the demands for what is by law their own—have not been greater of late years than they used to be ; nor have the Clergy been of late less attentive either to the duties peculiarly belonging to their sacred calling, or to the kindly cha rities, of which persons of all religious persuasions have had the benefit. Now we know that, until the latter part of the year 1830, there was no " resistance" to tithes ; and the complaint of the Catholics, both clergy and laity, previously to 1829, was not against the payment of tithus, but against shutting out from the enjoyment of political power, as Roman Catholics, those who paid tithes to the Protestant Church. In his evidence before the Commons' Committee, in 1825, the Roman Catholic Bishop Doyle deposed that " the Protestant Clergy certainly have a legal, just, and good right to the property they hold." Before the Lords' Committee, in the same year, he deposed that though there was an " objection' to tithes under the then existing circumstances of Ireland, it would be greatly removed by admitting the Roman Catholic laity to political power ; and in a letter to Lord Liver pool, in 1826, he said that so little was he disposed, in the event of that question being settled, to inter fere with the Church Establishment, that he took the liberty of suggesting how the collection of tithes might be rendered less onerons and odious. Also Doctor Murray, the present Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, stated in evidence, in 1825, that though the burden of tithes was oppressive, it was not because it was paid to the Protestant Clergy, but simply because it was difficult to pay. He said that he did not think the Roman Catholics would exert themselves more strongly to get rid of the burden of tithes than of any other tax ; and he maintained that there was no wish on the part of the Roman Catholic Clergy to " disturb the Protestant Establishment." Can anything be more diametrically opposed to the opinions now put forward by the Roman Catholics than these statements, which undoubtedly had much to do with forming that state of public opinion which carried Catholic emancipation ? It is impossible to show any thing in tithes now, which has changed their character, and aggravated their oppression. That political power, the attainment of which, it was said, would tend to reconcile the people to tithes, has been obtained, but the result has been the opposite of re conciliation. We, the Protestants have performed our part—they, the Catholics, repay us with hate and per secution. The statement of Dr. Murray is particu larly important, for it shows that the objection to tithe, on account of the purpose to which it is devoted, is a pretence of very modern date. In 1825, it was merely felt as a burden like any other payment out of the pro duce of the land ; but now we are told that another sort of appropriation of it would reconcile the people to the burden. The fact is, that political power was not then obtained, and until it 'was obtained, it was not politic to begin persecution of the Protestant Church. In the year 1832, Bishop Doyle was again examined before a Committee of the House of Lords and he then avowed his opinion about the payment of tithes in such very different terms from those he used in 1825, that he was reminded of what he had formerly said, and asked to explain so remarkable a discrepancy. His answer was, that the Catholics had been greatly disap pointed by not obtaining emancipation in 1825—that since then a " new reformation' had been attempted, and Brunswick Clubs established, and that, altogether, feelings had been excited in the Roman Catholics which they never would have felt, had the hopes which they were led to entertain in 1825 been real ized. From this answer, it plainly appears that, even upon the admission of Doctor Doyle, the resistance to tithe was, and is, a measure of vengeance. It was not on account of the grievance which pressed upon their finances, but the hate which burned within their souls. It was not any new exaction on the part of the Pro testant Clergy, but the " new reformation" which lighted up the flame of resistance to the Establishment, and which caused to go forth the war cry, delenda est Ecclesia Anglicana. But not even the " new refor mation," nor the " Brunswick Clubs," could rouse the Roman Catholic Clergy to an open expression of their hate, while political power was yet to be obtained, by making the British public believe there was no danger to the Protestant Church in granting it. It was not until August,lB3o, that, after a remarkable suspension of agitation, " suddenly, and as if emanating from some invisible authority," a general objection to tithes arose, and resistance began. We recommend all who can to read the striking acccount of this commencement of the tithe rebellion from the evidence of Mr. O'Reilly, quoted in "the Rev. M. O'Sulliva'n's address to the Pro testants of Great Britain," a pamphlet to which we are indebted for most of the references in the preced ing remarks. The conclusion is perfectly irresistible, that this resistance arose, not from any sense of griev ance in the demand of tithe, but from a religious and political conspiracy against the Protestant Establish ment. This same conspiracy it is which is now sought to be worked out in the British Honse of Com mons, the King's Ministers, and the men whose votes they command, being the degraded instruments, in the hands of Mr. O'Connell, for bringing the conspiracy to a successful issue. It is no excusable delusion—it is mere madness, or blind, stupid, servility, which in the face of facts such as we have stated (and much more might be brought forward), can support Mr. O'Connell's policy, as tending to do justice and to re move oppression. The injustice and the oppression are modern fictions. In 1825 Mr. O'Connell deposed, before a Committee of the House of Commons, that " the Catholic tithe-payer was not in general very harshly dealt with, where the Clergyman had the tithes himself ; but when they were in the hands of laymen, and frequently persons of the same persuasion with him self; the tithe-payer was very badly dealt with." In 1830 a pastoral address, signed by 27 Roman Catholic Bi shops, was circulated in Ireland, in which the gratitude of the Roman Catholic people is claimed for a Legis lature which had given them, without reserve, all the privileges they desired. And yet now, we are to be told by the organ of these same Roman Catholics, that they are denied justice, until the revenues of the Pro testant Church are " appropriated" to secular pur poses I We cannot conceive how any British Member this, unles s h e b e a mad ofmiianParliament a slave.can a vv ss i e t n h t rteogatlrid to the quest i on to be is brought forward this evening, we learn from the re plies of Lord Morpeth and John Russell to Sir R. Peel, on Friday night, that it will not be framed so as to include the"appropriation Principle ; but the to hope n that the Committeehis principle existingeireums:aneeofthe coConnell alli ance f o rbid (s Ministers' which the framing of the Irish Tithe Bill will devolve. The explanations which it is but reasonable to expect t will not b e urge d by of the wh o l e H ouse, upon i the Government will afford this evening, as to their future intentions upon this subject, are looked forward to with great interest. —Morning Herald. In the Parliamentary Paper containing the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion for the present week in the House of Commons, we find, among the Orders of the Day for Monday (this day), the follow ing announcement Tithes (Ireland), King's Speech to be considered:" tip:A fhe 61thiedtdf this Order of the Day a short conversation took plaCe Nd Friday night, the report of which we shall presently transcribe. We think it right, however, to premise that, according to the practice and the law of Parlia ment; w hen any alteration of the law affecting the Es tablished Church is about to be proposed, it is neces- Saip before a Bill to effect such a purpose can be in troduced, to obtain thd sanction of the House, in the form of resolutions agreed to in a Committee of the whole House, affirming the leading principles of the measure in contemplation. Bearing the practice, and the law of Parliament—as we have now stated them—in our recollection, we could have no doubt whatever that the language of Lord John Rus sell and Lord Morpeth, in the dialogue we are about to repeat, amounted to a full and complete abandonment and renunciation of the principle of the appropriation of Church property to other than eccle siastical purposes, a principle, by the maintenance of which, in confederacy with Mr. O'Connell and his tail of Papists and Radicals, it will be recollected, Lord John Russell, Lord Morpeth, and their col leagues, forced their way into place, in opposition alike to the wishes of the Sovereig❑ and of the nation. We copy the following from our own report of the proceedings of the House of Commons on Friday, which coincides in substance with the reports given by every one of our morning Contemporaries : ‘‘ TITHES (IRELAND. ) " Sir R. PEEL—As the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell had intimated that the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland would bring forward resolutions on the subject of Irish tithes on Monday night, it would be a matter of general convenience to know whether the resolutions which he was to move would involve the principle of appropriation, or any question which was likely to be contested. If they were merely matter of form, then nothing more need be said, but if the resolutions involved any contested principle they should have some pre- vious intimation of what the resolutions were.—( Hear, hear.) It was now Friday, and they might be called upon to con firm some important principle on Monday. " Lord MORPETII would perhaps be able to satisfy the Right Hon. Baronet, by reading his resolutions. They were to com mute tithes to a rent-charge, payable by the owners of land, and to make further provision for the better regulation of eccle siastical duties and revenues. " Lord J. RussELL—The object was not the affirmance of any particular principle ; but if' there was anything objec tionable in the words used others could be framed to the same effect. " Sir R. PEEL did not think there was anything objection able in these resolutions. They contained no debateable prin ciple, but even in assenting to them it should not be supposed that he adopted them." We were well pleased to find, on reading this con versation, that his Majesty's Ministers had renounced another of their errors, and began to cherish the hope even that they were in a fair way of becoming good subjects of the Crown, faithful sons of the Church, discreet and honest statesmen, to whom, without much either of danger or disgrace, the destinies of the coun try might be entrusted. We had already heard with great satisfaction a considerable part of the Adminis tration recant the factious and foolish stuff they used to talk on the subject of military punishment. We had also heard, within a day or two, the Ministerial Leader in the House of Commons do jus tice upon Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey, whitewashed all though the Hon. Member for Southwark had been by a Whig and Radical Committee, appointed for that special purpose by a Whig-Radical Administration. We had witnessed this infliction of justice without per ceiving any other inducement or provocation to a chas tisement so well merited, but yet so unexpected, other than the fact that Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey had presumed to talk about the Pension List, just as Lord John Russell and his colleagues were in the constant habit of talking so long as they had the misfortune to remain out of office. We saw on the very night of the above conversation a change greater even than any we have yet mentioned. We witnessed the Mi nistry and its adherents, in their eagerness to come round to the opinions and to imitate the conduct of their political opponents, embrace sentiments and pursue a course which the latter had never held, but which party rancour had imputed to them, with a falsehood so persevering that the slanderers had taught themselves to believe their own calumny by mere dint of repetition. We behold the Whig Mi nisters advocating the practice of seat-selling ; maintaining that the sale and purchase of a seat in the House of Commons is sanctified if the price is to be employed in bribing tenants to vote against their landlords, by paying their arrears of rent, and insisting that there is nothing dishonourable or im proper in the attempt to patch up a quarrel between disappointed traffickers in the representation of the peo ple by promise, whether it be merely a fraudulent pro mise, or merely a corrupt promise, or in whatever pro portion the qualities of fraud and corruption may be combined in the promise, of one of the highest honours which the Crown has to bestow. Having observed these ohanges various, sudden, and violent of charac ter, policy, and principle, in his Majesty's Ministers, we could not refuse to believe when they stated as explicitly as we have seen that their resolutions on the subject of the Irish Church did not in volve the appropriation principle, by means of which they had contrived to get into office, or at fail to infer that what was omitted in the resolu tions was equally to be omitted in the measure to be founded upon them. The Ministerial papers of Satur day and yesterday, however, inform us that the descrip tion given by Lord John Russell and Lord Morpeth on Friday, of the resolutions they mean to propose, to night to the House of Commons, has nothing to do with the measure subsequently to be introduced in virtue of those resolutions ; that the appropriation principle, although omitted in the resolutions, is to be included in the Bill ; that the preliminary discussion of the subject in Committee is to be regarded as a mere unmeaning form ; and that, in fine, the Church is to stripped, by some manoeuvre or other which yet re mains unexplained, of that special protection which the law and practice of Parliament have hitherto thrown around her. What will be done or left undone, affirmed or denied, attempted or renounced, by such Ministers as the present, upon any subject, it is difficult to con jecture a day before the event. But this remark is pe culiarly applicable to the appropriation question, upon which they have practised their sleight of hand with the greatest success and advantage. It is the best pea in their bag. On Friday night it was expected to be under the thimble ; but, presto, it was gone. On Monday it is not looked for ; but some of the confede rates of the jugglers wager it will be there ; and there probably it will be. The game has been going on thus for three years or thereabouts, which is somewhat of the longest ; but so, it is plain enough, it will still go on, until the impatient and disgusted spectators upset the table and drive the impudent thimble-riggers from the fair.—Morning Post. Our Breconshire Correspondent says, that the de struction of sheep and lambs, on all the hilly farms is unabated ; he mentions several farmers who have lost from 200 to 300 each. And he adds, that of the lambs not one in seven will escape. There had been snow and sleet for five days succes sively, and it was still lying deep on the high grounds. Not a grain of oats had been sown, and only part of a field here and there ploughed. He states, that in the spring of 1786 (fifty years ago), there was a similar season, when the first oats in his neighbourhood were sown on the 12th of April. We are sorry to confirm the above report, from account received from all the adjoining districts. Many thousand sheep have perished in the upper parishes of the three counties which meet at Ramny, and more than three-fourths of the mountain lambs. Our correspondent says that he saw fourteen sheep dead in one small field ; and the Coedcae, the Banwaun, and the Waun, are strewed with them. The same season which is destructive to sheep, kills the hares; and many of these are also found dead.—Welshman. A carpenter, named George Redford, had engaged to go out in the Harmony, to Davis' Straits. D ur i ng t h e late few days in which that vessel was repairing the damage she had received in a storm, Redford went upon a " spree" and spent, as we are informed, the remainder of a sum of 5/., which he had received in advance, as outfit money, and when the vessel was about to sail, on Tuesday last, he was not forth coming, but had, it appeared, left word that he would join the s hip in the Humber, off Paull. Whether he ever went to Paull for that purpose, does not appear certain ; there appears to have been no design of deserting the ship, as his clothes and tools were all on board. The following morning he was found quite dead, suspended to a tree at Aldborough, in Hol nerness, near the sea shore. He was about thirty-four years of age, married, and has left a widow and five children. — Hull Advertiser. GERMAN PHILOSOPHERS.--_A recent traveller speaking of the metaphysics of Kant, Wolf, Leibnitz, Fichte, and Schelling, says, " they have filled Europe with their works, and the madhouses with inmates." LACE TRADE.—No improvement has taken place in the lace trade since our last report. We hope this state of the trade will not continue much longer, but that with warmer and more settled weather it will revive.—Nottingham Herald. DUBLIN ELECTION COMMITTEE. the Committee re-assembled on Satteday at twelve o'clock. ConsiderdOli. , : ii!nre was consumed in arranging thai manner in which Counsel should pioceed to argue the question of the va lidity of Wide Street tax in el!c" barony of Coolock, and stran, gers being ordered to withdraw, the *! 7 'ommittee deliberated, and announced their resolution as follows ; (' -z"' The Counsel for the sitting Members having declared that he ;;:kr , o evi dence to offer in proof of the non-assessment of the Michael , mas rate by the Treasurer, the Committee desire to be in formed what legal points are proposed to be raised for the pur pose 64 invalidating that rate in the barony of Coolock, which has been already confirmed with respect to St. Sepulchre and Donore." . . _ Mr. AusTEN—I now say, Sir, that the doctrine of presump tion upon which the Committee acted in the former case stands here without corroboration, and not only is there an absence of corroborative proof, but the presumption of facts is the ivaiter way. Mr. TIIESSIGER said it would be exceedingly inconvenient to his clients if he were called upon to proceed with the argu ment before his Learned Friend on the other side. The Committee were about clearing the room, when Mr. AUSTEN said, rather than have further delay he would himself proceed. Mr. TIIESSIGER-Then it is but fair to tell you of my in tention to refer to the warrants of St. Sepulcre and Donore. Mr. AUSTEN-And I shall give in the City warrants. Mr. TIIESSIGER-Well, then, I will not notice them. Mr. AUSTEN having quoted the opinions of Mr. Justice Buller, upon the receipt of evidence; also from Messrs. Philipps and Starkie's books, on the same subject, proceeded to argue upon the insufficiency of the testimony given in the case of the assessment of the Michmlmas rate for 1834, and the want of any corroborative proof in support of the pre sumption that the requisites of law had been complied with. Mr. TIIESSIGER replied, and the Committee, after a short deliberation, resolved— " That the legal presumption of the Michmlmas-rate having been assessed for the barony of Coolock, is sufficiently sup ported by corroborative evidence, and the premises, No. 3, Eccles-lane, having been proved to have been in arrear for Easter and Michmlmas term, 1834, at the time of the election, the vote of William Lynch, the occupier, cannot be allowed." George Hanlon—Same objection. Vote struck off. At the rising of the Committee, Mr. O'Connell was still in a majority. CHANCERY COURT.-SATURDAY. DESVEYNES V. NOBLE. This was an appeal argued before the Lords Commis sioners, the question being whether certain exceptions were not to be overruled on the ground of impertinence. His Lordship, after going into an examination of the whole of the proceedings in various suits arising out of the same mat ters for a number of years, said it was the opinion of Mr. Justice Bosanquet and himself that the exceptions must be overruled. RICHMOND V. IRVING. This was also an appeal from the Vice-Chancellor argued before the Lords Commissioners. The Bill was filed by the Rev. Mr. Gobbet to establish his right to take the vicarial tithes due by the defendant in kind. The defendant, Mr. Irving, had a farm at Staines, for the vicarial tithes of which he had compounded for the sum of 251. 10s. 6d. Some disputes having arisen between the vicar and a person named Dickens, the agent of the defendant, it was alleged that Dickens, with the authority of his employer, put an end to the existing contract, and declared that the tithe must for the future be taken in kind. Mr. Irving, the defendant, denied, however, that he gave his agent any such authority, and the agent himself denied that be intended to put an end to the contract. His Lordship said it was the opinion of Mr. Justice Bosanquet and himself that these points were not so well proved as to warrant the Court in coming to a decision with the evidence before it. There must, therefore, be an issue to try three questions—whe ther there was a composition for vicarial tithes between the parties in September, 1829, whether Dickens had authority to determine that contract for his employer, Mr. Irving, and whether he did, by contract in writing or otherwise, determine that contract, with liberty to state spe cial circumstances. CHAMBERS V. TAYLOR. Mr. PURVIS applied for permission to have this case placed in the paper to be heard, and that his Lordship would request the attendance of two of the common law judges at the hearing. The question depended on the nature of a title under which an ejectment had been brought. Lord Brougham expressed an opinion that he could not satisfac torily decide the question between the parties without call ing in the assistance of two of the common law judges ; the Vice-Chancellor and Mr. Justice Bosanquet, sitting as Lords Commissioners, had expressed the same opinion. The LORD CHANCELLOR said if the question was as to the effect of the deeds, he should decide the point himself. If, however, the legality of the deeds themselves were to be determined, then he might require the assistance of the judges, but not unless all parties were agreed to allow that decision to be final on the point at issue. Mr. Punvis had no doubt the parties would consent, but he was not instructed to say so. The Loan CHANCELLOR thought that the Learned Counsel would do well to communicate with his clients and the other side. EXCHEQUER COURT-SATURDAY MOLYNEUX AND ANOTHER V. HYDER. This was an action brought by Messrs. Molyneux and Southey, the trustees of the defendants to recover from the latter the sum of 521. 10s., being so much money by him had and received for their use and benefit. There was another count in the declaration, on an account stated and settled. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and the cause came on to be tried before Lord Abinger, when the plaintiffs obtained a verdict for 401. Not having suc ceeded, however, in satisfactorily making out a case, or proving a certain contract which was stated to have existed between them, and the defendant, and their declaration containing no count for goods sold and delivered, the Learned Judge who presided was inclined to nonsuit them, but as the point was not pressed by defendant's counsel, the case was allowed to go to the jury, leave being given to move to enter a nonsuit for the plaintiff, or to set aside their verdict, and proceed to a new trial. Mr. Sergeant ISOMPAS accordingly, on a former day, ob tained a rule nisi, against which Mr. Crowder this day showed cause.—Rule absolute granted. Their Lordships rose at one o'clock, having to meet the other judges in the Exchequer-Chamber, upon a point raised on the trial of an indictment at the last Norfolk as• sizes, before Mr. Justice Gaselce, and by him reserved for the opinion of all the judges. CITY COURT OF REQUESTS. THE PHILOSOPHY OF A BARREL OF BEER.—On Satur day Messrs. Ufford and Oldershaw, proprietors of the Queen's Head Brewery, Islington, summoned Mr. Hum phries, publican, London Wall, for 215., the amount of part of a barrel of beer. COMMISSIONER—Then I suppose he must have paid for the other part ? Plaintiff—No, Sir, he never paid anything ; but he sent home a part, and spilt the rest. Mr. Humphries had ordered from the plaintiffs a barrel of beer, of SG gallons, at one shilling a gallon. The barrel arrived last October, but it by no means supported the re putation of an October brewing, for instead of being brown and strong, it had the colour, smell, and taste of cheap vinegar. Not wishing to have it in company with the good casks in his cellar, he ordered it to be taken home, but the order was not complied with. He was therefore obliged to keep it, but it would not stay with him, and being seized with a fit of insubordination, twenty-one gallons of the beer rushed out at the bung-bole, and the other barrels being taken off their equilibrium by the inundation, commenced knocking their heads together, until there was more uproar and confusion in the cellar than _ever had been excited by the customers in the shop. At length be succeeded in se curing the rest of the disaffected liquor, which mustered fifteen gallons strong, and to preserve the tranquillity of his cellar from another outbreak, he sent it home as soon as possible. Plaintiff—l think that your statement shows that my liquor was not deficient in spirit.--(A laugh.) I feel, however, that it would not have acted in this mannar if you had properly treated it. What did you do with the cask ? Defendant—Why, I put it up against the wall, to be sure. —(A laugh.) Plaintiff—Was it standing up, or lying down ? De fendant—l placed it on the stand. COMMISSIONER—But did you place it in a horizontal or perpendicular position ? Defendant—Perpendicular. Mr. UFFORD—That accounts for the indignation of the beer—(A laugh)—l should have said fermentation. Had you placed it across the stand in the proper way, it would have lain quietly enough, and instead of running about your cellar, it might have been long since served out to your customers. COMMISSIONER--I think you are both in fault. There fore, the loss should be divided between you. The other Commissioners having concurred in this view of the case, the parties, after a little mutual grumbling, re tired. In a village not a hundred miles from Cork, a me dical man was one night disturbed by repeated tapping at his door, and on getting up found a labouring man soliciting his immediate attendance for his wife. " Have you been here long? asked the doctor. " Indeed and I have," answered Pat. " But why didn't you ring the night-bell ?" " Och ! because I was afraid of disturbing your honour." Amongst the reli g ious communities which h ave b een suppressed in Madrid is that of San Salvador, which pos sessed 13 valuable houses in the capital, and two millions in Government Securities. This Society consisted of—one soli tary member. SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE ..-- IF °I S-- VESSELS ENTERED INWARDS AT •ft ' TOM-HOUSE, APRIL The Britannia, Downie, from Hamburgh Planter, Sy. Vincent's ; Neptune, Languehart, Cherbourg ; h P Vineent , no; Retilly, Santa Cruz and Tenerific ; St. Bridge, Jamaica ; Apollo, Munden, Terranovo aod P aie uoi .. P e ndarves, C o ff e e, jun., Messina ; Matilda, Peckins, •-• ad ilaux i Samuel and An, Buckingham, Grand C.l",larY j a i _ / Jere • le, cli ,, riffe ; Neptune, Saiel Belize and Honduras ; ' hada • Jane , M'Cartil.y, Madras; Monkey, Cargel, St. Michael's , Gray, St. Lurie, ' e, 23 , ENTERED OUTWARDS FOR LOADING, Ara .„_,,, Chieftain, 5,1,744 The Ferdinand, Hoff, for Rosteek ; Vrow Elizabellar,o'cr, I oil' • ‘aturt, B v - ayonite; Pilot, Overton, jun , Dunkirk; Eendragb, _ uar . irc, Ostend, Bruges, and Ghent; Sarah Ann, F , Rotterdam and Amsterdam Q of the Isles, Lewis, badoes ; Ellen, Brown, Jamaica ; ; ueen - - m a c toe , p ete rs, • Madras Elizabeth, Calais; Thomas Grenwell, Thornhill, Schutt', Antwer- Mary, C cl. r e tinae ; ; or, ier, I Jamaica , Falck, 13cfgela ; f.ady Catherine Barham, Freeman, .0, Maria, Bourii, Gothenburgh , St. Leonard,Whitnal, J ' • Dunkirk. APRIL 23. Wrilliatil Joliffe, i CLEARED OUTWARDS WITH CARGO , syria, The Celerity, Carlile, for Havre ; Lightning', Matchless, Ormond, Cape 'Coast Castle; Moffat, P" Ratter' Constantinople and Odessa • Buccaneer, WatsoVnc,zeili,a_iiiffin;, Sydney and New South \Vales ; London, Pear s "' "i PT , darn ; Maas, Blake, Rotterdam ; Prinse of Waterlodo, rF'ara.. Ostend ; William Joliffe, Middleton, Calais; lant, Calais ; Batavicr, Dunlop. Rotterdam ; l‘ " t • Allen, Boston ; Orynthia, Cox, Jamaica. a Rib ' 23 ' CLEARED OUTWARDS IN BALLAST, ",/emel; The Helena, Keeston, for Memel; Eleanor, flicko, Lao. Ruby, Greig, Riga ; Oak, Kitchell, Riga; ICe P t"e Xltoa a; guehart, Cl:erboure - ; Catherine Margaretha, Steter , , fo re, Dorothea Mara, Ankersen, Baltic ; Louisa Munro, I" Newcastle and Constantinople. ____------- ARRIVED A'i LIVERPOOL, APRI L 23 ' Nye, The Ewen, Luccock, from Savannah ; Independence, Mal . Ner i ei Wismar ; New York (in fourteen days) ,E . lc • ; inrri eit, --, . land, Barrett, Mobile ; Vireiniii, Tuner,Mol'lle- ENTERED FOR LOADIN, APiat. 23. Africa; The john Syria, Taylor, for Africa; Martha, Tay I ° r ,' Lawrence, . O'Gaunt, Robertson, Bataviaand Lintin; P e H o pe; Ca e or Goc o 1 sof Gill, Calcutta ; Thomas, Harmer, Elizabeth, Brown, Demeara Prncessi9Victoria, Pa il ' Nevi °Denier, York and St. Andrew's; S ; t. Andrew, ThomPs"'",./Iter, CarP' York ; Iceni, Steel, Newfoundla nd ; Sarah, Trieste; Flora, Armstrong, Venice and Ancona. CLEARED OUTWARDS, Meg' 2Naeoleoll, The Robert Finnic, Wood, for Arica, &e• - - • bia; p c i fiadelP ai a ; Smith, New York ; Benjamin Morg Snow, C St. Mark, Holmes, New York ; Saunperb, Cook , , J , a e r eo t e ta I aledonia, Brown, Ramsay ; Tigris, Titherington, L' maro on, Kelsick Wood, Collins, Quebec ; Jane Shirefs, ,1-,cloaa, Jamaica ; Maria, Carr, Newfoundland i Traveller, kil",•tipur• St. Thomas's, &c. ; Packet, B • Ham nierfest; II" Briggs, Steel, G Gaspee. ••••••••••••••••••••• . 0° ------ Ile IS ~. LORD BROUGHAM'S ELOQUENCC.--"'-- o f 1.- a der whic h eloquent speaker ; but his eloquence has a char own. I knew of nothing in ancient modern oraP r Y f f eat can be said to resemble it. His sentences are tisu all Y h e s g s e length. It is nothing uncommon to see in his speeches o's delivery- e teri, tences which take more than a minute in the style is consequently involved , independent)Y °f 61 lg ed ' • but we. dency of sentences of such extreme length to becoTe coke. i ar you will often see • in one of them parenthesis with.bat oi sis. These sentences are, however , so constructed, 010 never fails to perceive his meaning. You are struc k ' vi foal athmeazi?gcommand of language—the more so, perb/ess't ease original iah character of his diction and the 0 1 a °1 , fine or with which he imparts that character' • cash, ne " Aka° to it. s oe.- „... smooth ; it is rough and rugged, and yet, ge;h;jobils% it is perfectly correct of its k' tiles "-- ee ls " kind. It resew ra re ~. , 'llan more than unlike it. the former. There is no ' appearance of elA°'-„auld il"• .. not pompous or affected in him, though n 0 el,,seb-o-t indiffe-r tate is it without a great effort, and -sflw der 0 ' , even then, .efiara wag rent success. It partakes much of the esseil tl •ke aO s to his mind. Like himself, it is impetuous. It is ' I ~„0 ev e n ~ torrent, attempt to resist its power. Nothinggiving b-truct " • vie'e can o b ~ i n to b' s Ar rs Lord Brougham a never attempts to seduce ye , . ~ ue --,%.,' of . question , nor to win you over to his prie d oPini °ll ,"' ci e ,, y or ou over by force. You are not pleased with hi s an Ye conthe m in easures he advocates ; you adopt the one , r do yO l the other, because you cannot help it ; 11°00 no concur. Yon bo ot to thing the slightest affection for the speaker. of the lo v e for your new views, or of the attatearecteriss him who has proselytised you, which usually 0 0 rig ht on young converts. You feel as if he had, Without seY vot i s , lP r i his p d art, attacked your opinions, or the reeaSeres ' c ol ° p n o o rte , and forced you into a position in which Yl.tords comfort.—Random Recollections of the ffouse u.I ure i plea s DOUBLE D.—lt is amusing to notice t he ice, will an take in the extreme notes of the human vo ice, O il ' al titularly in the female, if unusually low. The V ere the eit mostinofafllibly elicit an applause ; the executio°, Thel .. pression a passage, pass comparativelyfor notllig•sto oil° ~ 1, ii rejoice to hear that they have " not lost their G. ',foug ht i remember, at the theatre, seeine- a had ''' friend elf' evidently for the sole purpose m nf ail who biro he ar sai , low with a voice like a buffalo sing doubleettDing Ere Brio as patient and still as bitterns in a marsh,till ' bout thei Ps,t""'t of the said buffalo's advent. And when he anine . irl : t - v ile an d e f and prepared to sing his song, they were all aetist'a 01 0 1 3 J; pectation. nedh As the song proceeded, each growl O s -ect ,r So. ar N an admonition from the friend, that that Waste°, oo,* No that wasn't double D ; it was only ° be° te• 14° 1 No low n e e ard do b,e then , nor that neither, though that was a good _ en, there—there—that was double D i' r irbel h co d tile D, and were delirious withadmiration.- 'fbeY elle I af ter . , e diate y song for the sake of hearing double D, a nd ne"" left the theatre.—Musical World. 00 11 • 00 1 c - On Wednesday morning et carn e yon' 5011 last, the Li left this town at the usual hour, being, driven at f or citation by a person connected with the CooW anY tc' tr D e belongs; Mr. Charles Wardell, who has 011(10000'4: are informed, being upon the box with the gentleavoLod, -,a' was making a first attempt a four-is -P-OV'; scending Welton Hill, uponwhichthere is a V l ' turn, Mr. W. articular ) _ py cautioned his cou'E„he le. „ e a however, made such a turn as brought the heads 0' " v.efter; o ff abreast of the coach, which would inevitably ha ve ° leaP eu t. e lf had not Mr. Wardell, with greatpresence of mnd , -- g aie' - ' and instantly set the horses right. lt was, howolr'Adet• found that in doing so he had broken a leg.----B°' a lio 9 , I re land bat The importation ofcabbage plants 'NM so , t commenced in good earnest th. •ason—so In ueb t )P lant s, is St, k without scarcely an Irish steam 'er arrives in Green „ l a ., large crates, well packed with cabbage and green-:`.00 pros` The practice of importing these plants here has " cuted for several years.—Ayr Observer• de ill Messrs. An extensive seizure has this week been O a „t this Cowen:oil Cockey and Woods, of his Majesty's port. Upon examination of forty casks (entered bYBortioa ° (1 oun , as containing orange berries), a large P re P io (Ole, Cocul -s I cr i n icus was discovered. Had this atterePt.,...artic._, the reveroe succeeded, the additional duty on the lam'thereeY amounting ,`,;) upwards of 2,000/., would have be e° evaded.—Rule' Advertiser. ant ------ ,dj —..............--__.......................01 ith! TshR•RERTIsEgENT.)—T. COX SAVORY', G o lds Al i &c. , 4 7, Cornhill, London, informs the Public , trr L I power to continue going provements, i. e. the detached esca e,ment, jewelle(l.l, fo ur WATCHES,Ct oTI o : sr k,t(l ti eh or: es m the :,st celebrate d ac c u i. at e cbc i e h p L(mp.Nival:dEl): ) for SIX GUINEAS EACH, with all t .n ,our harp tainin , d .lO N.B. If in Hunting Cases, lOs 6(1. 0tta.....i...................,./ Watches purchased Zillie.arvdfinlairimgeliPed' el:e'coat geori A s t in t c h k e , ll E l s a q ll . , , Kensington, on loonfßatThsoCinll.s9.th inst. , the 'I , 0 a r d GY eldest 0 1 e ' r i, r . : 5 , e n ~ i tbe la d Y - , t A h m e O ß n . e t v h . e ß 2o . t i h . in H s a t. r , ri a s t on th , eo'fßaescotno.ry, Beaumont, Es' exr of jet, On the 13th inst, at Paris, the lady of Lieut.-Colonel 144 a son. Job ° On the 23d inst in Montagueplace,Russell-square' 311.' ••• Deverell, of a sem" On the 21st inst., at Shellbrooke Park, t Lady I______i'ahe La of a son. o f COY' MA R R IE D. On the 21st inst., at Harpenden, Richard Raven, Pg.' .dad, don, to Miss Louisa Keil, of llarpenden, Herts. . 0, I'6l do On the sth ult. at Tr' ' Ch rch Port of Slr..'„.hter ° , r e , , inity u , 00132vkallriE•chh el rataetscth ic-fall.a. lateT ho rlnvt.onll. War Johnston, andq. , t o n J e a i n ec e C o flor.t op . n ,o.e c rot:tag pq, , et te, of the Judges thereof. h f kritf lP .isl y On the 21st inst., at St. Pancras New Chloe , _ N er° eldest (laughter, of E. Clarkson, Esq., of pl an e, co o, town, O to R. W. Billings, Esq., of the same Plar.ter, Ge°rge.litalv s . n the 20th inst., at St. Margaret's, Westactl mith, Esq., of the Middle Temple, to Anna tri, ter of W. F. Pocock, Esq., of Knightsbridge, uu u -4 1 Surrey.tleur, Church, e vica , ,ierte'' On the 16th inst., at St. Andrew's settENE ssoor Tyne,.. tnß:h ouuetßft the ne o Gsbe b 2eito e . terlr r ,last t athtEn. C :sb h (. :aiee a ,to.a r olst l . g . e ett Charles, n i Ns e J, Diana,l l rei d anea e r eigs:,:ahl:rsel.::tssyne,at, same iliaNesuS:(.t.hult i l e, d rt e yo r . f t 0 t o i ; 0 Esq. , ilti 11 ' a Ro bert _ o pt JoofliLa. soberote On the 16th inst., F. C. Lc . Admiral the Hon. F. F. Gardner. f th e ..., t° gel 91, i° On the 19th inst , at Southwell, Nottingharnst r of . R e el 0 ,. ( 1, it. William Bari:ow LL. D. and F.A.S., Iteqollege, t9il_of the county of Lincoln, 1 formerl of Queen's Geoer.' Select Pre h and Y . 1 99, a ro. 0 1 ' ac er and Bampton Lccturer in f Nottingh ,r 1 , the P altar eof Southwell and Archdeacon 0 _ ea t of On the 20th inst., ' ' D fries shire, the b at Irvine, urn . , oro tee ° ' teney Malcolm, . Miss Malcolm, aged 73. . o f W. 1. On the 20th inst d '''') 'relict ~ age I ..., Elizabeth, va iier , E 1 Otto (~ Esq., of Hans-place, Sloane-street. • Same Dsq., eldest ,bv, On the 26th of December, at Philadelphia, ej 60, Esq., of Antigua. terburY9 agpoelef On the 19th inst., in St. George's-plauet Caaiward Cho Mrs. Dealtry, great aunt to the presented is r- , ' 0" Dering, Bart.g9 Jane, re lict ° On the 19th inst., at Pa of ag ‘, ~ Da`` 1‘ r• Rog er r Rev. J. S. Breeden, D.D., of Berc C o urt, 13 , er a l '' On the 20th inst., at Kennington-coma c , 54 ,, o aged 77. Parks Pitts'', P On the 26th ult., at Ryde, Isle of Wight, John-street, Adelphi. a f Pili YOUSG' 0101 —_------ 112, Strand, at The Sun Office, il e• London : Printed and Published byiNlyily:Ostra-ncbiv the c of Middlesex. °dunnegre,snetsstrearui.ngshteter; I