The Sun. — London, England, 1832-01-23 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The very small attendance of Members who have hitherto been favourable to Reform, on its first introduction to the House after the recess, will not fail, e hope, to attract the attention of the country, and especially that of the consti tuents of all absentees. It isthe well-known fashion of the opponents of the measure to talk of " re. action," and they would have us at any rate be lieve that the feelings of the country are very much cooled down, or neutralised. We regret that they are so well able to adduce, in apparent proof of their assertions, the indolent, the luke warm, and in every sense blamable conduct of those in whom it is, above all others, incumbent to show a decidedly opposite feeling and conduct. This House of Commons was expressly elected to pass the Reform Bill. It is the one great measure to which, at every hustings in the king dom where the voice of the people could be heard, that voice was especially and almost ex clusively directed ; and it is the one point to which candidates who presented themselves on the popular interest warmly and exclusively pledged themselves. If there are any Members who came in upon such terms who are tired of their duties, or have changed their minds, let them, as honourable men, avow the fact, and re tire, to make way for others. But their election must not be trifled with—the public feeling and confidence must not be betrayed. It is clear that the Reform question is not, as some may imagine, as yet safely landed, and free from dan ger ; on the contrary, it is quite clear that it has an enemy to contend with which has not cooled one jot in its ardour, and who is capable of any stratagem which may in the remotest degree el tect its object. Such being the case, it is more fhan ever the duty of every sincere and honest Reformer to be unceasingly at his post ; nor is it less the duty of any honest man who may have changed his mind, or slackened in his zeal, to give his constituents the means of b e i ng repre sented as they ought to be.—Morning Herald.j It appears to us an extraordinary thing that Captain Warrington should be put upon trial, after the tragic termination of the Court-martial on the unhappy Col. Brereton, under whose command he was, and by whose orders he must be presumed to have acted. It is not our habit to prejudge any matter which is about to become the subject of a legal inquiry, or to anticipate the evidence which may be given ; but what we object to in the present instance is, that the sub ordinate in command should be tried at all, when he can by no possibility have the benefit of the evidence of his principal. This is the broad ground of our objection, and we think it would have justified Captain Warrington in protesting against being put upon his trial under circum stances which necessarily exclude what would have been the best evidence for the defence, and without which it does not seem possible that the honour and character of the gallant officer can have the protection of a fair and full in vestigation. However disposed the Court may be to do justice, and to act honourably, yet they are hound to decide only upon the evidence which comes before them. If the material part of the evidence for the accused be on any ac count whatever excluded, the whole proceeding must partake of an ex-Tarte character. All the evidence for the prosecution that could be ad duced against Captain Warrington during the life-time of Colonel Brereton can still be ad duced, but the most prevailing voice that could be raised in his exculpation is now mute in the silence of the grave! Is it consistent with common justice to put a soldier on his trial when he cannot call as a witness the officer from whom he received his orders, unless he call him from the tomb ! A person charged with military offences, or dereliction of duty, is very differently circumstanced, sometimes, from a man charged with a civil offence before a civil tribunal. If the latter be guilty as to the fact, he cannot excuse himself in law, by producing evidence to prove that he committed the ()fr a n ca by the authority, advice, or instigation of an other. That defence would, if substantiated, rake the other party criminal, but would not excuse him. Buff& military man have acted eycr so wrong in a military point of view, and has dune so by the orders of his superior officer, he is gnifttess of any offence cognizable before a military tribunal, A soldier cannot deliberate when he is ordered to act —nor can he act when iii orders are to remain inactive. By disobey peg ,orders, however improper and injudicious those orders may be, he becomes guilty of an act • 4- insubordination. His superior officer may immediately put him under arrest ; and if, upon the Court-martial to which he makes himself subject, the offence be proved, his lightest punishment, if an officer, will be dis missal from the service, though by the Articles of War, if his crime be a direct disobedience of orders, he is liable to be shot. There is only one greater military crime than this —namely, ) , ,nel mutiny, which the super i or off i cer may punish by death on the spot, without allowing the delinquent even the form of a Court-martial : 6 . 4 sanguinary is the military code in enforcing ;w4at is considered the prime military virtue 4nrefieeting and passive obedience. As the charges against Captain Warrington have been made public, we have a right to comment Upon shat appears on the face of those charges, and yre think the accused might, to use legal lan guage, have demurred to the indictment.— 'ever have we seen charges more vaguely and loosely drawn, and the introductory parts of which are expressed in more rhetorical terms, and, consequently, with less legal sobriety and precision of language. Let that pass, and let us see what the charges themselves are. The first, as well as we can collect it from a mass of intricate and clumsy verbiage, charges Captain Warrington, who is in command of a troop of Ittp 3d Dragoon Guards, with having refused to prder ,out his troop to protect the Custom-house from tbe rioters on the Sunday night, the 30th of October, he having been informed at his quarters, by a Mr. Ki ngton , a merc h ant i n Bris tol, that the mob were about to set fire to it ; and also charges him with having used no means to convey the information so received to Colonel Brereton, and to receive from him orders appli cable to the occasion. Now, as to the first part of this double charge, it seems to be inconsis tent with the second part, for as the latter ad- mits that Captain Warrington was under the command of Colonel Brereton in Bristol, and that it was necessary to receive his orders, he could not himself order out the 3d Dragoons without the authority of his Commanding M eer. As to the second part of the charge, lee ask, how can any living man take upon hims e lf to say that Captain Warrington did not convey the information which he received to Colonel Brereton, and that he did not receive orders from him, under which orders he and the troop continued where they were ? Who can take upon himself to prove these negatives? The only maim that could prove diem 1,1 - 38 Colonel Brere- ton himself. But, had he lived, his evidence might have proved the affirmative, and we must presume that an officer acted upon the orders of his superior in command, until, upon the most competent evidence, the contrary be shown. We would ask two questions with regard to this charge. In the first place we ask, why it was not one of the brave and active corporate Magistrates of Bristol who brought the information of the approaching destruction of the Custom-house to Captain Warrington, and why that duty was left to a simple merchant ? In the second place we ask, why the information was not conveyed at once by the informant to Colonel Brereton, who was known to be in command of all the troops, instead of carrying it to an officer in a subordinate capacity, who could not act without orders ? The next charge applies to Captain Warrington's not having acted in putting down the rioters on Monday morning, upon the au thority of a letter written by the Mayor, and di rected, not to the Captain himself, but to his Commanding Qificer, Colonel , Brereton. We presume no military man will say that the gallant Captain could have acted upon such letter ; but then he is charged in the alternative with not having communicated the letter or its contents to Colonel Brereton. Here, again, we ask, how can any man living prove this negative? Col. Brereton, as it appears to us, could alone prove or disprove it. Again, we ask, why did the Ma!jor of Bristol send the letter to the subor dinate Officer, instead of sending it to Colonel Brereton himself, who alone could act upon it ? Why did not the Mayor, or some Magistrate, go in person to Colonel Brereton, and insist upon him accompanying the civil power—the corpo rate Magistrates—to the scene of danger, there to execute such orders as the said Magistrates in person were prepared to give to the Com mander of his Majesty's troops, for the security of the city and the protection of the public peace? Another mode of trial than that of a Court martial, with other accused parties than military officers placed at the bar, can only solve this question. The third and last charge contains four parts. The first— that Captain Warrington sent a Cornet in command of a detachment to the city gaol, and remained himself inactive in his quarters. This is the first time we have heard of its being a crime in an officer to order an inferior officer to take charge of a detachment of his troop, upon any emergency, while he re mained at quarters. Who can tell that he did not remain at quarters in obedience to orders re ceived from Colonel Brereton ? But even if he did not receive such orders, had he not a duty to perform by remaining at quarters under the circumstances ? If he had gone with the de tachment himself he must have left the Cornet in command of the remainder of the troop ; and how did he know but his quarters might be at tacked in his absence ? If they had, and the quarters were burnt down, would not Captain Warrington have been censured by the very persons who now accuse him—and would he not have been brought to a Court-martial ? If so, the line of proceeding adopted in this affair places a British officer in very awkward circum stances ;—he is placed between two fires ; and, in a case in which he must be necessarily in trusted with a certain discretion if he receive no orders, he is liable to be arraigned at the bar of a Military Court in whatever way he exercises that discretionary power. The second part of the charge relates to a temporary absence from his quarters, during which a detachment went to protect the Bishop's Palace, under the command of the Comet. The third is, that, having re turned to his quarters during the absence of the detachment, he went %here he might always be Ifound—namely, to bed, at ten o'clock. In ob serving upon these accusations, we will only say that, if Colonel Brereton had lived, it might be clearly and positively ascertained whether Captain Warrington acted in the manner described— supposing the statements true—under the orders fof the Colonel or not. The fourth part of this last charge is similar to the first ; namely, that, on sending out a detachment the following morn ing against the rioters in Queen-square, he gave the command to the aforesaid Cornet. To this we only repeat the remarks which we have made to the first part of the third and last charge. We are quite sure the Court-martial appointed to try Captain Warrington will discharge its duty fairly towards the accused, as far as it has evidence to decide upon ; although from the connections of some of the gallant — members of it, we should think there no way friendly to that Reform me - sure out of the ag - itation of which arose the cala mities that led to the shedding of so much blood by the sword, and which Government ap pears preparing to follow up by spilling more blood ttpon the scaffold. What we maintain is, that Captain Warrington, being under the orders of Colonel Brereton, cannot adduce, as it seems to us, the best evidence fur his defence ; and that, under the circumstances, the trial is, at least, unprecedented.— horning Herald. Great indignation is generally expressed at the remissness of the advocates of Reform in the House of Commons, in attending to their duty. It cannot be too often repeated that the Anti- Reformers instantly avail themselves of all cir cumstances, which can by possibility be con strued into an evidence of a re-action having taken place in the public mind. On the faith Of the proceedings of Friday night, a spur will be given to their exertions both in Parliament and throughout the country. We trust that no time will be lost by the friends of Ref Min in curing them of the delusion that the people of England will yield one jot in their determination to re main satisfied with nothing short of the Reform Bill now before Parliament. Let not the Anti- Reformers provoke the people too far. The people are now tranquil because they are con fident that their hopes will soon be realised. But it, either from the remissness of pretended friends, or the exertions of enemies, they were to be led to entertain feelings of distrust, the Anti-Re , tOrmers might find to their cost, that they had • small cause for triumph. The public will be led to watch with attention the proceedings of the House during the present week.- - Morning Chronicle. When we alluded on Saturday to the Terceira expedition, and to the letter of General Sal danha, in which he announces that, owing to the interference of the diplomatic body, he is de prived of the honour of serving her little faithful Majesty in that enterprise, we were quite aware that we were putting our hand into a hornet's nest. The fact is (as we have repeatedly men tioned), that banishment and misfortune create as many parties as prosperity or power ; and that the exiled Court of Meudon is more beset with • intrigue, pretension, and conflicting claims than that of Lisbon or Rio de Janeiro. The least breath of hope is sufficient to set all the passions of jealousy and ambition in movement : every exile becomes a courtier, and each is eager to start first in the course, lest lie should be dis tanced in the race. We 6ay this with regret, though with a warm sympathy in the fate of esti mable men who have sacrificed so much for liberty, but who seem resolved to sacrifice nothing for patriotic concord and mutual forbearance. this observation is suggested by the receipt of seve ral letters on our very innocent paragraph of Sa turday respecting Saldanha, from the friends and enemies of that General. With the former he is considered the chief prop of the constitutional cause,—with the latter as a political Marplot. An aide-de-camp of Saldanha takes up his de fence, as an aide-de-camp ought to do, and thinks he has made a strong case in his favour by telling us that the General's letter speaks of the " diplomatic body," and not of Prince Met ternich alone, as an obstacle to his military em ployment, and that the Emperor Don Pedro himself permitted him to write the letter in ques tion. We give the General all the benefit of this correction, and still we shall continue to say that the publication of his note betrayed great indiscretion, unless it was intended to promote the objects of his rivals. The following is the letter alluded to:— " His Imperial Majesty Don Pedro, after having invited me to-day to a particular aisdimce, has told me that the corps diplomatic do not consent that I may take part in the expedition which is prepared to re-establish in my country the clutter, and the throne of the Queen Maria IL, and that in consequence his Imperial Majesty could not employ roe in the said expedition. " Having reckoned upon, up to this presznt moment, and with a mind truly anxious, an occasion to serve my coun try, the blow which I have just received is one of the most severe that I possibly could have experienced. I shall be able, however, to support this affliction if my friends are still good enough to believe me sincere in the continuance of my sentiments and of my good wishes.. " Count de SALDANHA." On the ether hand, the party opposed to Saldanha treat his pretensions with ridicule, and his military character with contempt. In saying that there might be other reasons for denying the opportunity of adding to his laurels besides the opposition of the Holy Alliance, we knew that his military skill was regarded in a light more equivocal than his political principles. On this delicate point, however, we shall allow one of his countrymen to speak for us, and shall ourselves be silent, considering it enough that each side is represented by the correspondent best acquainted with the subject : " You mentioned on Saturday, that General Saldanha has been deprived of his command by Don Pedro. This is not exactly correct, b,cause no command was given to him, nor was it ever intended to give him a com mand, as such a proceeding would be most unjust to wards the Conde de Villa Fior. Is he to be preferred to the brave Villa Flor, the conqueror of the Azores, who fought the Abaolutists in the battles of Arronches, of Gauche, and Poute do Prado, 8.-. c.—be who had not the courage to direct the retreat of the Constitutionalists from Oporto,—who wrote to the Captain of the British frigate in sight of the shorts of Terceira, that he would submit to he sunk to the bottom by English cannon, r a th er than fail in his duty of landing his men, and yet abandoned the undertaking at the first shot? The talents of General Saldanha in the field of battle are yet to be learnt. The observation in the Times of Saturday is correct respecting him, but not the consequence deduced from it. How can it be said that it is intended to employ in the expedition only fficers who are not revolutionists (Constitutionalists, I suppose, is meant) when, in fact, amongst all the emi grants, all the army of the Quern, only two persons are excepted—Saldanha and his intriguing ambitious Adju tant, the ex-friar Pizarro? " If all the emigrant officers are not employed in the expedi•ion, it is hec,u•e there are not soldiers enough for them to command. There are already at Terceira officers .ufficiently numerous to command a large army. How ever, the islan:ls of the Azores are open to all, and if there are any few exceptions, they are not against Constitu tionalists, but 11iguelisrs. " It is rather singulAr that General Saldanha should now be set up as the m:irtyr and hero of Portuguese liberty, when, be it rvinembered, that in 1823, in returning from Villa Franca with the Infant Dou Miguel, he tore off and trod under foot the constitutional cockade; and in 1526, at Oporto, he was not amongst the foremost to proclaim the charter."— Times. SECOND EDITION. SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock. IMI- 3 .ERIAL PARLIAMENT OF THIS EVENING. HOUSE OF LORDS. The LORD CHANCELLOR took seat ou the Woolsack about a Quarter before Five o'clock. Mr. Crider, from the Treasury, presented returns of the Hop Duty; and a gentleman presented papers from the Imperial Gas Company. The Bill for consolidating the Woods and Forests, and that for the Payment of Outstanding Lottery Tickets, were passed through a Committee and reported. E al GREY seeing the Noble Earl who had given notice of a motio❑ for Thursday in his place, wished to ask him what the nature of his motion was to be. The Earl of ABERDEEN had not yet prepared his motion, but he had no hesitation in saying that his object would be to take the E mist, of the House upon the diplo matic affairs, relative to Belgium, either in the nature of a resolution or an address to the King. Lord ELLENBOROUGH had some observations to offer un the convention with France respecting the slave trade, but he thought it would be better to bring it forwwd in the shape of a motion on a future occasion as he ❑nderstood there was no objection to the production of the papers connected with our situation with the autho rities of Canton, he moved for a series of papers con nected with that subject. —Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. At Four o'clock the SPEAKER took his seat, and for stone time afterwards the House was occupied in advancing a number of private Bills. Mr. Alderman COPELAND moved that an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that there be laid before the House a variety of returns con nected with the borough of Coleraine, among which were the followin; :—Returns of the number of free men (and their residences) elected and sworn in, and those who claimed to be sworn in, but whose claim was rejected ; of the number, residence, and uc• cupatious, of the vatious Aldermen anti Coniwon Coun cilmen, of the various estates, &c. attached to the cor poration, and specifying the leases and amount of rents ; and of the officers of the corporation, the amount of their salaries, and the duties they had to perform. Mr. O'CONNELL seconded the oration. Sir JOHN BRIDGES was not aware of the object which the lion. Meath •r bad in view iu moving fur these teturos, but he was sure that the Hon. Member had ex ceeded the usual line of his duty; it was, he conceived, very unusual to call upon a corporation to give an ac count of their estates. Ile hoped the lion. Mentbtr would give some reason in moving for such returns. Mr. O'CONNELL contended that there could be nu difficulty in agreeing to the motion, which would afford much information upon the discussion of the Irish Reform Bill• As to the estates, they were only held in trust for the benefit of the public ; they were charities, the abuses of which ought to he well watched by the House. Mr. CRAAIPTON said there could be no objection to the greater pat of the returns, but the House bad no right to require a production of the leases and accounts of the estates. The estates in question were not given for charitable purposes, but were the exclusive property of the corporation. If the House called for th,•t information, every other corporation might be called on to exhibit an account of all their estates. Mr. Alderman COPELAND instanced one large estate of 1,500 or 2,000 acres, which he was informed was let for a very small sum. It was at the request of the inha bitants of Coleraine that he made the present motion. Mr. PAGET contended that the corporation e s t ate „ were public property, and had no private character a t_ tucked to them; consequently there Was no impropri ety i n calling for the required information. After a few further observations from Mr. Crampton, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Alderman Wood, and Sir John Bridges, the gallery was cleared for a division, but no di vision took place, Sir John Bridges declining to press his opposition.--The motion was then agreed to. Sir JOHN NEWPORT presented a petition from the orporation of the city and county of Waterford iu favour of Reform. The petitioner@ considered themselves by 'right, and not. by favour, entitled to free representation in Parliament, and they lamented that the other branch of the Legislature had thought fit to throw out the Reform Bill. The Hon. Member perfectly agreed with the prayer of the petition, and trusted that the time was not far distant when the petitioners would have all that they asked for. Mr. O'CONNELL agreed entirely with the statement made by the Hon. Baronet, and could assure the House that such was the state of feeling in Ireland, that the people there would be satisfied with nothing unless justice way dealt out to all with an even hand. The people of Ireland wished to be dealt with upon the same principles as the people in England were. They wanted the sattie species of franchise given to them as was given to the people of England—they insisted upon having the same basis of representation__ he considered the Irish Reform Bill which had just been introduced as a complete mockery, and ke had no hesita tion in saying that the people of Ireland would take the same view of it. The general feeling of the people there was that the Reform Bill as brought in for Ireland wart an insulting measure to that country.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He did not want any thing for Ireland that might be considered as a sacrifice of the rights of the people of England. All that he wished was, that Ireland should stand upon its own basis, and he claimed it as an act of justice due towards that country, that they should have the same species of franchise as was given to England. Sir JOHN NEWPORT, in rising to move that the petition be printed, observed that so convinced was he of the necessity of Reform in England, that if he thought Reform was as essentially necessary to Ireland, it should have his warmest support, but he thought the Bill of Reform for Ireland ought to stand upon its own basis, and ought to be discussed upon that ground. Mr. SHELL said he was anxious, not to take away from the real representation of England, but to take the right of returning Members from the nomination boroughs of this country, such as retersfield and Midburst, and giving that representation to populous places in Ireland, which at the present moment were totally unrepresented. Mr. O'CONNELL did not wish to transfer the fran chise from any borough in England to any place in Ire land ; he wished the case of Ireland to be tried upon its own merits. The LORD ADVOCATE gave notice of his in tention to-morrow to move for leave to bring in a Bill to prevent obstructions in the business of the Court of Sessions. Lord MORPETH presented a petition unanimously agreed to at a meeting of the inhabitants of Leeds, arid signed in the course of two hours by up wards of six thousand persons, praying the House to enact some permanent provision for the poor of Ireland, and not to saddle that country with any poor laws until the Church property, which originally belonged to the poor, should be applied for their relief. The Noble Lord entirely concurred with the prayer of the petition, arid trusted that it would meet with the consideration of the House. Mr. STRICKLAND had on a former occasion expressed his opinion on the benefit of poor laws to Ire land, but he thought to afford that benefit they ought to be strictly refined and limited. He agreed with the petition, that nothing could be done effectually for Ireland till the question of tithes was settled, and lie thought the time wes not far distant when something roust he done for the settlement of tithes sod poor lews in England. Mr. JAMES GRATFAN considered there would not be much difficulty in making au arrangement with respect to tithes, but in making that arrangement he certainly admitted that Church property must bear its proportion. He trusted that the Committee which were now sitting upon that subject would report that a portion of the tithes or helanil should be made available for the relief of the poor of that country. Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that it was Iris intention of dividing the House before five o'clock to-morrow on the notion of Lord Killeen, if it should be opposed. Mr. HUME wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the petition now be fore the House (the petition presented by Lord Morpeth). The introduction of poor laws into Ireland would add much to the disturbed state of that country. With regard to Conch property, he was quite satisfied that the measure proposed by his Majesty's Ministers would not settle the question. The question had been settled by the people °fire lend, they had refused to pay tithes. He asked his Majesty's Government, as the first step of settling the tithe question in Ireland, to institute an immediate enquiry how far the property of the Church was improperly applied for the uses intended. He thought the Church of Ireland and its property ought to be placed on a proper footing, and if he had the management of it, it should be all brought to the public Exchequer—(Laughter) —and those clergy men only should be paid who laboured for it.--(Loud cheers.) That, in his opinion, was the only means of putting an end to all sinecures in the Church, both on this and on the other side of the water. In conclusion he thought the petition was one well de serving of the consideration of the Legislature, and lie trusted it would meet with that attention from the House which it deserved. Mr. WEYLAND considered that if tithes ought to be abolished—they ought to be abolished by law. He thought it di•grec‘ ful, that when men stood up and opposed the passing of the Bill, that others allotted consent to it contrary to their own feeline ' e.—(Cheers.) Measures su c h as t h ese were not objected to, and that objection to take effect, un account of the clamours of a mob.—(Cheers.) If, however, upon the inquiry which bad been instituted on the subject of tithes, it should appear that they ought to be abolished, — that abolition should receive his support.—( Hear.) Ile should not n , ) , " have Laid, d to the suhjecr, but for what had fallen front the Hon. Member for Middlesex on the subject. He considered it beneath the character of an Englishman and the Legislature to hear such sentiments without toast unequivocally and decidedly giving theta un qualified opposition.—( Hear.) Air. BLAKENEY considered himself bound, from the knowledge he had of Ireland, to state that be took a very different view of tile smatter from what had been taken by the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He was a resident in Ireland, and particularly affected by that unjust system of tithes which at present existed in that country, and he entirely concurred with the Honourable Member for Middlesex in regard to that important subject. He came from that part of the country which was disturbed by that most vital question to the peace of Ireland. He did not speak from any sectarian feeling, but he thought with the Honourable Member fur Middlesex, that there was indeed an end to tithes in Ireland under the present system. He spoke from a knowledge of what was going on in six or seven counties, Kilkenny, Wexford, Tipperary, Carlow, Queen's County, and Kildare. The people had begun to protect themselves against procedure by legal process—were they to pay tithes under the present system, which was both unbecoming, the credit of the Church and the existence of religion? Although the people united themselves v in a body to resist the payment of tithes, they did not consider that they broke the laws—(Cries of " Hear, hear, hear")—and it was his firm belief that until a change was made in the present system of tithes, unti, indeed they were abolished in Ireland—that country would have no peace. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN could not see the consis tency of the Hon. Member'; statement. In the six coun.. ties he had enumerated the people were determined it appear e d not to pay tithes and yet they did not break the law, which, however they somehow evaded. Such persons, he considered, acting in huge numbers, whil,t they effected to be obedient to the law, Were the worst subjects of the King, and the greatest enemies of their country. He did not say the altered state of circumstances might not demand a partial extension of the franchise, but he could not see how it was wise, politic, or safe for Government to pro pose at this time so materially, as under the Reform Bill, to extend the franchise and political power of a people who were thus in array against the law and determined to oppose it in every respect. Mr. O'CONNELL did not believe that the Hon. and Learned Member had paid much attention to the Irish Reform Bill, when he said that it was calculated so materially to extend the franchise in Ireland. At the Union, the franchise amounted to 300,000 voters, that was brought down to 150,000, and the Reform Bill will only add :300 more to the Irish constituency. As to the ques tion of non-payment of tithes, it was said the people violated the laN:when they resisted legal process. There was no law requiring moan to pay tithes, because he could not be in d'acted for non-payment. The law said tithes should be paid, or a distress should he levied. The property dis traind was carried for sale, hut no law existec to oblige any one to purchase thetn,and theditTcrence between England mid Ireland was this, that in England people were found t o purchase the articles, but in Ireland they had them selves to refuse. They could not compel the payment of tithes in Ireland, otherwise than by obliging men to pur chase the di,trained property, and ally attempt to do so would be utterly abortive. Mr. WEYLAND, in explanation, did not mean to ad vocate the continuance of an improper law. If bad, it WAS for the Legislature to alter it, but so long. as it existed, he could not but entertain the opinion that it must be obeyed. Nil - . BLAKE:NE Y explained. Mr. CALLAHAN was certain the ti when it was imperative that the House ibuiti4 :atertain and adopt sonic humane mode of reliev , ng the poor of Irelind. In the town whence he came there had been such an accumulation of ruin as to have placed thousands and thousands of his countrymen in a state of total destruction. Such a state of things it was impossible could long exist, and he implor e d Ministers to direct their immediate earner attention to it. Whilst such a state of things did exist, it was not to be expected that any thing could be but at the mercy of mobs—mobs of the poor, who, when urged on by distress, it was impossible to foretell the excesses they might be guilty oh He was cer tainly glad to find that the people of the town of Leeds, as well as many other persons in this country, had come forward to call attention to the starving and dying state of the Irish poor. And he earnestly hoped that the postponement of some provision for the poor would not take place till the tithe question was settled. Mr. SADLER said the Hon. Member who had just sat down had so accurately expressed his opinions on the subject as to have rendered it almost unnecessary fur him to add any thing. He might, however, say a few words respecting the meeting at Leeds, whence the peti tion just presented to the House had emanated, and which had been called au immense meeting by the Honourable Member for Middlesex. It was certainly not an immense meeting. He (Mr. Sadler) happened to be in Leeds at the time the meeting was called, and though not consulted on the subject, only a few minutes before it took place, lie was invited to attend it. From conversations lie had heard respecting it, he knew that in his proposition which he intended to submit to the meeting, he would be in a minority. The meeting was held in the Court-house of Leed, which is a very inconvenient place. The House was packed by a Political Union long before the time appointed for ti.e meeting. He (Mr. S.) pro posed an adjournment to the open air, where he knew that many would be ready to express their opinions, but who could not get admittance into the Court-house. This proposition w‘s negatived, and the meeting went on. The petition prayed that no pour laws might he introduced into Ireland until all the Church property which had belonged to the poor, was produced for their support. Had the petition prayed for the introduction of poor laws, or some measure for the immediate relief of the poor without regard to the application of Church pro perty, or the settlement of any tithe question, he had no doubt it would have been signed by four times the number; and he for one, certainly could not approve of protracting the period of making a provi sion for the poor until the question respecting Church Property had been disposed of. Sir J. BRIDGES expressed his hope soon to see a proper system of poor laws established in Ireland, that is, that the poor lows of England corrected, would be intro duced there. As to Members being sent to this House to obey the dictates of public meetings, he was sorry the Hon. Member for Middlesex had made such an assertiou. He denied that they should postpone the question of poor laws until the robbery of the Church had been accomplished. Mr. HUNT said this meeting at Leeds was a packed meeting, and packed by the notorious Mr. Baines. The Noble Lord (Morpeth) was aware of the manner in which the meeting had been got up. He congratulated the Noble Lord on his new allies. Lord MORPETH said it was not his intention to follow Mr. Hunt into the urcana of Leed's politics. He bad said nothing eitheir in support of or in opposition to the petition ; he merely said that he hoped to see a provision mate by law for the Irish poor. As to the packing of the fleeting at Leeds by Mr. Baines, the House might judge of that assertion by he fact that that gentleman was backed isy 6.000 persons. Sir IL PEEL had heard one Hon. Gentleman say that the question of Irish sithes was settled. Whether it was so or not he could not determine, but he declared that the Clergy of Ireland had as much right to his tithes as any gentleman had to his estate.—(Hear, hear.) It was a melancholy situation of things, but if the people re fused to pay the clergyman his tithe, were they more likely to pay Government the tithes ? He deprecated the combinations that were in existence to deprive the Clergy men of his legal right, but he hoped that the Legislature would never permit the Church property to be appro priated to the State. (LEFT SPEA KING.) POLICE INTELLIGENCE. LAMBE T S TREE T. On Saturday John King, a policeman, belonging to II division, No. 166, applied to Mr. NORTON for an assault-warrant, under the following somewhat extraordinary circumstances. The applicant for some time past had paid hi• addresses to a young woman, the daughter of a re spectable innkeeper, at Woolwich, and her parents being averse to their union, they had determined to get privately married. With this view he had, with the young's woman's consent, obtained a li cence, and on Friday morning went to Whitechapel church to have the ceremony performed. While at the altar, the father and uncle of his intended bride entered the church, stopped the ceremony, and caused him (the applicant) to be lodged in the sta tion-house, from which, however, he was released, and permitted to accompany the young woman and her friends to the residence of her father at Wool wich. On their arrival there the father would not permit him to enter the house, and he now applied for a warrant against him for striking him (the ap pl i can t), on leaving the church on Friday morning. The applicant thanked the Magistrate for his kind suggestion, and left the office without further obser vation. TV OR SHIP- S TREE T. .11r. James Montagu, of Stamford-hill, and one of the Surveyors of Districts in the city of London, a hale-looking elderly gentleman, was brought, on warrant, before Mr. BROUGHTON and Mr. STUT FIELD, the sitting Magistrates, charged with being the father of a child which had become chargeable to the parish of Hackney. The case had been adjourned for a week, on the application of the defendant, who resisted it as an extortionate attempt to foist upon him the fruit of a promiscuous intercourse. Mary Ann Dyer, an extremely good-looking young woman, of ninetern, deposed that the defendant was the father of an infant to which she had given birth, and now produced. She had lived in his service two u l e i s u t n io ta n g s u pu s t n t ' o ai h d e I r by the Magi s t ra t es , In reply to q Mrs. years, 3 admonished her of the solemn obligation she was under of speaking the truth, she declared that she had never had criminal connection with any man but the defendant. The young woman was then subjected to a long and most searching examination by Mr. Adolphus, touching her proceedings for several years past, and she repl:ed to his questions in a manner which left a strong impression of her having answered with sincerity. She stated that the criminal intercourse between her and her master first took place in his dressing-room, in February, and continued as op portunities offered while she remained in his ser vice. She told him when she found herself in the family way, but she did not mention it to any other person that he was the father. She continued in th, service until her increasing size made it neces sary for her to quit and go to another place to lie in. She knew Masters, the footman, as a fellow servant, and left him there when she quitted, but she declared that she had never been improperly connected with him or any other man but her master. Since her lying in she had received five sovereigns from Mr. Montagu, and that was ail she had ever received from him. Mr. BROUGHTON asked her if Mr. Montagu had ever attempted to take liberties with her before the occurrence in his dressing-room, when she sur rendered to him ? She said that he had been so liciting her for six months before she complied with his wishes. After that she made no resistance to him, but submitted to him whenever opportunity offered. M. STUTFIELD—When did you first tell him that you were in the family way? The deponent in March told him she had reason to think so, but he said she was mistaken. A week afterwaids, however, she told him she was sure of it, and he told her not to lay such a thing to him. Mr. BROUGHTON—He did not tell you to lay it upon the footman or coachman, or any other person ? Deponent—No. Mr. BROITGuToN—Did not your mistress or any person in the house suspect ? Who did you first mention it to, besides the defendant himself ?—She 'aid ehe mentioned it to the cook that she was in In reply to a question by Mr. BROUGHTON, he said that about the time stated he remembered Mary Ann coming down stairs from her mastei's dressing room, with her hair in disorder, as if she had been tumbled about on a bed. It was noticed by him and the cook, as she generally kept her hair in very nice order. Mr. BROUGHTON—AO was anything said about it ? Witness—Yes, I said to cook that I supposed we should have " a young Jemmy."—(Laughter.) After some further examination of this witness, Mr. Adolphus replied to the evidence. The Magistrates expressed their conviction that the young woman bad made out her case in a way that left not the slightest reason for doubting her evidence, and they signed an order upon Mr. Mon tagu fur the payment of 7s. 6d. weekly for the sup port of the child, and of a bill of expenses produced by Mr. Pulley, the vestry clerk. MAR Y LEP ONE. Emma Ilammett, a young creature, scarcely seventeen, was brought up, charged with having twice attempted to destroy herself within the pre ceding twenty-four hours. It appeared that ten days ago the poor creature had been discharged from service, by a female, with whom she had lived for some time, and who, probably from poverty, did not pay her her wages. Her father is a pauper, and she had since lived with her mother, a nurse, who threatened to turn her out to get her living in the streets. On Friday night she cut down a clothes' line at her mother's, who asked her what she did it for ? She replied, she was determined to hang herself. The mother screamed, a person passing came in, a constable was sent for, and she was taken to the station-house, where she was put into a cell. Some time after, on going into it, she was found hanging by her shawl; and being in. stantly cut down, and carried into the air, she re • covered. In reply to the Magistrate, she said her reason for attempting her life was, that she had no clothes to go to a place, and was determined neither to become a prostitute nor a thief. The Magi strate sent her to the overseers with a letter, recorn mehding them to preserve her life. tr 4 COUNTRY CORN MARKETS. DURING LAST WEEK. Wheat. I Baxley. Oats. Bean*. Per Quarter. Carlisle s. to s. s. to s. 56 3 58 38 53 65 59 32 33 58 36 61 40 56 66 UJ 35 s. *I. s. d. s. d. 5.41. 60 69 36 40 96 9 9 6 0 66 70 9 3 3 6 48 90 93 58 60 73 78 40 44 90 10 0 4 6 50 Hexham s. to s. 21 30 20 23 - 23 h-- 21 22 24 s. d. s. d. 18 20 36 40 36 40 33 4 0 36 40 23 28 22 26 s. 36 . NT orpeth Pon rith 32 40 Skettield Winchester Per Bushel. Carmarthen Coventry Newcastle (Staff.) Nortballerton Swansea 40 42 46 s. d. Ld_ 00 00 5 8 e 0 56 4 0 5B 40 76 60 00 00 73 76 Warwick Per 8011. Barnardeastle Durham 17 0 16 0 17 0 15 3j Richmond Stockton 90 100 90 100 98 100 96 100 50 60 53 79 50 68 50 70 00 110 9 0 10 0 90 10U 00 00 WAKEFIELD MARKET.-Jan. Wheat, Red, Norfolk and CORN Suffblk -s. 525. to 505. 20. fine 625. -------._ Lin. and Cam. ..-S. 525. to 595. fine file. --------- Yorkshire -s. 555. to Rig. fine 61, ---- White -s. 58s. to 635. fine this. --. Foreign, Red c. 48s. to 535. fine fils. ------. White -a. -9. to -s. fine fifer. Barley, Norfolk and Suffolk Lincolnshire 32s. to 365. fine 38i. Yorkshire Wold 32s. to 365. fine 38f. Foreign -s. to -s. tine -0. Beans, Small Tick 13s to 365. fine 374 Oats, Potato 23a. to 265. fine Oa. - Poland --a. 9.25. to 255. tine 20d. - Friezland and Small -s. 19s. to 225. fine 245. - Waling lid. to 12%d. per Stotte. Shelling ass. to 365. Od, per Load. Malt 3ss. 425. fine 455. per Load. Rapeseed SCOTCH MARKETS. Wheat. Barley Oats. Beans. Aberdeen Berwick Coldstream Clipar Dundee 45 60 as 44 39 43 42 58 50 64 52 56 50 56 40 44 40 45 to 65 of the ml 27 32 20 22 20 22 29 32 21 24 32 35 32 33 21 23 27 39 28 31 tsure vari '2l 23 15 21 16 IS 25 28 16 17 20 22 20 22 17 18 25 32 20 25 ieethrougl 3'2 3f; 37 40 26 27 30 31 38 MI 35 36 20 24 30 34 29 32 45 48 20 t the 25 hou counticv. Inverness,.—. j Kelso , Kirkaldy.---- Perth rp• The size 48 .... 43 44 EDINBURGH CORN MARKET.—Jan. 18. We had a middling supply of all kinds of Grain to-day, and sales in general brisk. Wheat up as. on the top, and 2s. on the average. Barley :103 quarters ; same top, and down 2d. on the average. Oats 365 quarters, up 13. 4d. on the top, and Is. on the averagr. Pease and Beans 40 quarters; same top, and down hid, on the average. Wheat. Barley. Oats. Pease. Beans. 68s Od 37 s 6d 26s Od 35t Od 35s Second 64s Od 34 3 Oil 24s Od 32 s Od 328 ( ti 'Third s4s Od 30 s O d 183 8d ki 30s o<i 3o, (id PRICES or PROVISIONS, &C. Os. 3d. to Os. 6d. Fresh Butter, lb. s. 10d. to Is Dd. 0 3 0 6 Salt Ditt0,,,,.,,.,,. 010 1 0 0 8 1 0 Ditto, per en t. S 4 94 0 0 4 0 6 Eggs, per dos. 010 0 1 0 2 6 OatStrawotp!.)ll 6 12 6 17 10 40 0 Wheat Ditto-10 0 II 0 0 7 0 8 Barley Ditto -. 9 0 10 0 0 3 0 0 Hay, per 1 2 1 ti Beef, pecr 1b... Mutton Veal.., Lamb, per qr. Tallow, cwt....; Quartern Loaf Potatoes, 171 lb. EDINBURGH MLA] We had a large supply of which met with a g od sale. at 1 Per Sack of 280 lb. Imp. First Oatmeal Second ditto 1 16 0 Barleymeal 1 10 0 Peaseraeal 1 10 0 Pot Barley—No. 1, per cwt. 12 AIARKET.—Jan. 17. • Oatmeal at this day's market ast week's prices. I'er Stone of 141 b. Imp. First Oatmeal .......... X 0 2 0 Second ditto ............ 0 1 10 Barleynieal ............... 0 1 8 Peasemeal ............. 0 1 8 t.-2d, 155.-3 d, 18 s..—Peall 225 --------___ --------___ GLASGOW CORN MARKET --Jan. 18. We have a fair busi n e ss d o i ng in Grain, without in price. The arrival of Oat s f rom Ireland is large. any change Wheat, per 21 on,. a. d. a. d. ' Oats, per 2641 b. s. d. a. d. British, old 25 oto3o 0 Irish .. . ................ 16 otolB 6 new 26 0 29 0 B ritish C anada, free 27 0 t.'9 0 Beans per !..1301b. Barley, 0 English , Irish 0 C P ea'e. Scottish Ir Scottish .7 6 28 0 Oatmeal, per 14411 b. 15 0 17 230 27 0 _Flour, per 2801 b.... 470 48 1 . ____ -- --- On the 21st inst. in New-street BIRTIIS. Cooper, of a son. , Spring -garden s , Mrs. Bram.by (Jo the 20th inst. in Montagu-street, Bussell-square, the lads of C Lane, Esq., of a daughter. On the 14th inst. 4 Weymouth, the lady of J. Du Boullay, Esq. of a son. ALIRRIED. On the 21st inst. at St. Pancras, the Rev. James Bays , Chaplain on the Madras EStabliiihnient, to Sarah, youngest daughter of the late Rev. J. Lightfoot, Rector of Gotham, Nottinghamshire, On the 18th inst. at the Rectory, Eccleeton, Lancashire, G. T. Smith, Egg., (late of the Queen's Bays), to Sarah, second daugh ter of the Rev. W. Yates. On the 17th inst. at St. Mary's, 13ryanston-square, T. H. Rigbye, Esq., yrungest son of the late Rev. J. Baldwin Rigbye, of Harrock.hall, Lancashire, to Em ma C ooper Perreau,younge!i t daughter of the late R. S. Torreau, Esq., of the lion. Last India C.mpany's Civil Service. 011 the 19th DIED. inst. at Tenby, South Wales Sir IL J. A. Ken ney, of Yseysavood, Glamorganshire, and of Ma!pa, Mon mouthshire. ar Robert Kenneys married the eldest sister of Sir Willoughby Gordon, Bart. On the loth inst. aged 35, Jane, the wife of the Rev. H. B. Faulkner, of Lung Melford, Suffolk ; and on the 21st, at Ken sington, aged va, Susannah, relict of the late J. Miles, Eq. of S;)utltampton.raw, Russell-square, and mother of the above late Mrs. Faulkner. PRINTED AND PURLisDED BY M U It DO YOUNG, AT VIE SVN OFFICE, 112, STRAND, LONDQN.: ' the family way, but that it was not by her master She told her that the father's name was Wilkinson. Mr. BROUGHTON —And who is Wilkinson ? She replied that she had never known any person date name, which she mentioned for the sole purpose 01 saving the character of her master, and for the sake of her mistress, who was ill, and died in November. She had no other motive. In answer to further questions, she said that the 51. given to her by the defendant since her lying-in, was all that she had received from him, besides her wages. Neither he nor any other man contributed to the expense of her lying-in, and she applied to and received relief front the parish-officers of Hackney. Mr. BROUGHTON Did Mr. Montagu ever make any promis e o f t a ki ng care o f you, after you sur rendered, and during the six months that you say that he was soliciting you before you yielded ?—She said that when she expressed her fears of the con sequences of their intercourse, he assured her that neither she nor the child, if she had one, should ever want. Mr. BROUGHTON said that the young woman had been subjected to a very rigorous examination, and had answered in as straightforward and satisfactory a manner as he had ever witnessed, without the slightest appearance of insincerity. He saw no reason to disbelieve her, and was ready to decide the case, unless there were any witnesses to contradict her. -- Masters, the young man before mentioned, who at the period in question was the defendant's footman, but has since entered another service, was called, Ltrn,ral.