The Sun. — London, England, 1832-01-17 00:00:00

reason. Judge Littledale has been from earlyl life familiar with the principles and the practice of a system of justice which is of so harsh and vindictive a character that even Sir Robert Peel, since his own " amended" code appeared, readily admitted, and that too in the debate on his Forgery Bill. !hat it is still the most sanguinary of any in Europe. Need we then wonder that a man of great natural kindness and humanity, like Mr. Justice Littledale, should, by the esta blished influence of such a system, have his ex cellent understanding and benign feelings so warped and altered that he should calmly talk of destroying human life, not because the crime was enormous, but because the example would be appalling, as it the punishment of crime was altogether a question of political expediency, and wholly disconnected from all moral considerations of the degrees of guilt ? The doctrine proclaimed from the bench on this oc casion was precisely the doctrine which Judge Buller announced when he declared that " men were hanged not because they stole sheep, but that sheep might not be stolen." If this argu mem of hanging men merely for example be good for any thing, we have a right to push it to its full extent—and what will be the conse quence ? It is necessary that trivial as well as great offences should be prevented by the most effective examples ; and, therefore, men should be put to death for the smallest crimes as well as the greatest ; for if punishment be indepen dent of moral considerations, the simple and compendious law of Draco should be re-enacted in this civilized age and Christian country ; and every offence in the calendar should have but the one word annexed to it, and that word—death ! We do not mean to deny that the offences of which the Nottingham rioters stand convicted are not of a very serious character, and deserving of serious punishment ; but there are very severe modes of punishment which do not s?ill blood, and which, we venture to say, are more effective examples to society—for the agony of death upon the scaffold is, though terrible, but momentary; and constant experience shows that the impression, horrifying as it is for the time, is soon effaced ; whereas the living ex• ample of the loss of liberty, with hard labour added, and the degradation of a felon's fate, is a constant warning during the whole of the most extended term for which the punishment continues. It is worthy of observing that the guiltiest of the men whom Mr. Justice Little dale has left for execution was recommended to mercy by the .Tury who convicted him. Will not then the death of that man for whom the Jury themselves felt a sympathy excite :more commiseration than any other feeling ? And when public feeling is with the criminal, and against the law, how can his punishment operate beneficially as an example ? Still stronger are the grounds for an appeal to mercy in the case of his less guilty fellows. Let it not be for (rotten that the crimes for which the five men condemned at Bristol, and those other five at Nottingham, are sentenced to suffer, were crimes arising out of sudden excitement, and connected with the agitation of a question which disturbed the country from one end to another. Let it not be forgotten either that certain Ministerial Journals, or pretending to be Ministerial, in London and in the country, ex cited and fanned the flames of civil tumult and commotion by the most violent, and even fero cious, appeals to the passions of the people. Were they not instigated to break the peace in every possible way ?—were they not told, in plain terms, to " strike at the faces of their ene mies ?" Judge Littledale speaks of the crimi nals as " misguided and deluded men." Most a,suredly the Learned Judge applies the proper epithets to their criminality—thiy were misled by those advisers who, protessing - to support the Government, called the populace into a state of excitement, always dangerous, frequently des tructive ; and, having committed them in acts of violence and outrageous folly, left them to their fate. We who deprecated every appeal to po pular passion on the Reform Bill—we who re commended that the struggle should, on the part of the reformers, he one of temperance and reason, and constitutional power, now come forward to pray for mercy to those " misguided and deluded men," whom we cannot be accused of having first instigated and then deserted.— Morning Herald. In an account of the proceedings of the Irish National Union, on Thursday last, which we have extracted from the Dublin Morning Re gister, will be found a speech of Mr. O'Connel in answer to Dr. Doyle's letter to him on the subject of the poor laws. Much of the argu ment of Mr. O'Connell has not so much re ference to the general question as the particular grounds on which he was attacked by Dr. D oyle. With With respect to the general question, it does not appear to us that Mr. O'Connell has offered any other argument against the establishment of poor laws, than that tribunals must be established to determine whether the persons claiming relief are entitled to it, and that the poor must, in con equence, be the slaves of such tribunals. This is rather a fine-spun argument against the solid grounds in favour of a plan by which alone the miserable peasantry can be secured against the caprice and mismanagement of the landowner, and the peace of the country can be preserved. Mr. O'Connell has no other panacea than the repeal of the Union. What the effect of such a measure .might be we will not,, now con sider, as we wish to confine our speculations to means compatible with the existing Con stitution. Mr. O'Connell himself has said that he wishes the repeal merely as a means to an end, and that the end is the prosperity of Ire land. If the prosperity of Ireland can be secured under the Union, the repeal in that case becomes unnecessary. But nothing is more certain than that, without compulsory poor rates, the mass of the people of Ireland must continue in a state pf destitution, from which they cannot by any possibility extricate themselves, and the law must always remain a dead letter in a country in which the people have not an interest in en forcing it. Mr. O'Connell wishes to secure the liberty of the Irish. No word has been more abused than liberty. In a perfect social system, there can be no liberty ; for liberty supposes the absence of all restraint, and under a good social system, our liberty is necessarily limited by our mutual rights and mutual obligations. Ireland furnishes a flagrant instance of violation of se veral of the principles essential to a good social system—namely, the existence of rights with out corresponding obligations. The soil of a country belongs to the inhabitants of that country ; and if the ownership be given to in dividuals, it ought always to be understood, on the condition that the ownership is exercised in such a way as shall be for the benefit of the na tion. But in Ireland the owner can avail him self of the competition of the wretched inhabi tants for th e p ossess i o n of land as a means of existence, while he is relieved from all responsi bility with regard to them. In the Quarterly Review, just published, there is an able article on Senior's Letter on the Irish poor, in which a poor law is shown to be essentially necessary to the well-being both of Ireland and England. Alluding to the point which we have been now examining, the Reviewer observes— " A country, the bulk of whose population is insuffi ciently supplied with the coarsest kind of food, annually sends away from her shores that enormous quantity of the very produce of her land. for want of which her own population are dying by inches, their lives shortened—as is proved by the mean duration of life in that country, as compared to Engl ,nd—to one.fourth of their natural term ! How are we to explain the fearful paradox? Fur whose advantage is it that this mass of food leaves the country before the pressing wants of its inhabitants are half satisfied? For that of those whom the law invests with the ownership of the land. But the right of the inhabi tants of a country to be permitted to earn a maintenance from it, if they can, by their own exertions, is a sacred right." " Equ illy in vain is it that the economists quote the favourite dogma which they so often put forward, cer t iinly without comprehending its multitudinous limita tions, that it is mischievous to give by law any artificial direction to employment or capital—that people must be left to apply their resources in their own way, and they will be certain to do so in that which is hest for tt e com munity at large. We should be glad to know what it is that at present disables a stout Irishman from providing subsistence for himself and his family, by the labour of his own good right arai, on the nearest plot of earth, but the artificial impediment already placed by laNg i❑ the way of the natural direction of his industry ? Whilst the law thus interferes by wholesale to appropriate all the soil of the country, and all the wealth that is found on or under its surface, shall the Legislature scruple to interfere in the appropriation of a fractional part of that soil or wealth, in order to save thousands from perishing by want ? and this upon the score that all interference, forsooth, is contrary to sound principle? Shall we thus swallow the camel and strain at the gnat ? How are we to characterise a law which ties up men's hands from helping themselves, and renders them no help in compensation ? If I tether a horse in a corner, and prevent it from grazing, and yet bring it no food, am I not guilty of its death as much as if I slaughtered it?" Ireland never will be in a sound state so long as the law regards not the welfare of the people, but considers merely a comparatively small num ber of individuals the owners of the soil. But the connection with England has even deprived the Irish peasantry of a material corrective of the abuse of the power of landowners ; for it has freed the landowners from the apprehensions at all times to be entertained from the rising of a population in a state of destitution. The people of England guarantee to the Irish landlord the collection of his rents, however exorbitant, so that he may proceed undauntedly in his career of picking the peasantry to the backbone, in full reliance on English bayonets. But the people of England do not merely suffer in being obliged to repress the disorders caused by the exemption from responsibility of the Irish land owners, the burthens of the English are in creased by the destitution in which the Irish are suff , red to exist. And here the people of Eng land have a right to insist on a remedy for the evil entailed on them by the difference between the laws of the two countries regarding the poor. " The slowness with which many Irish landlords (ob serves the Reviewer) are induced to see the advantage to their country and to themselves, of a compulsory as,e,s• rent on their property for the relief and employment of its poor, may be intelligible. They look to its immediate et . - ' f'ct—to the rate of one, two, or perhaps three shillings in the pound on their rental—and they shut their eyes twhe ultimate policy of the measure, and their ears to the cries of the afflicted, and their hearts to the influence of pity', and their understandings to that of justice. But how is it that the English do not bestir themselves more actively? It does not surely require much penetration in an English farmer, to perceive that he is competing with his Irish rival in his own markets at a grievous disadvantage, after paying a heavy poor -rate, from which the other is exempt, and high wL.ges to his labourers, whilst the labourer of the Irish farmer, having no other resource from starvation, ' must he content with a miserable pittance. Surely no English landlord can be blind to the fact that, under these circumstances, price• of produce in the market , . of Liver- pool, Manchester, Bristol, and London, which may afford a rent to the Irish landlord, and a profit to the Irish cul tivator, will scarcely pay the English poor-rate on the same quality of soil, and put rent and profit out of all question. He can hardly avoid seeing, that so long as there is perfect freedom of intercourse between the two countries, for men and goods, the Irish poor must either directly or indirectly be maintained out of the English poor-rates, and the high rents of Ireland come in great part out of the English 1 indowner's pocket. It was an oversight, no doubt, in the landed interest of Great Bri tain, not to have insisted, in 1807, on the land of the three kingdoms being put in this respect on an equal footing, before she duties on the importation of Irish produce were taken off. But is it possible that they have not yet opened their eyes to the error, and made up their minds to insist on its rectification? Can any claim be more just or rea sonable ? Goods and persons pass with unlimited freedom between the two commies. But in one, the land is heavily burdened to provide for the necessities of the Labouring class—in the other, there is no such provision. The na tural consequence is, that the poor of the latter resort in crowds to the former island to avoid starvation, unders , ll the natives in the overthronged markets for labour, and drive them upon the pour-rates of their p►rishes. Had Ire land the same poor laws as England, why should there be any difference in the rate of wages of the two countries ? or, why should the Irish migrate to England, rather than the English to Ireland ?" Were there no other reasons in favour of Poor Laws, the interest which they necessarily give to the rich to improve the condition of the poor, both physically and morally, ought to re commend them to all philanthropists. The rich are soon reminded, when they neglect their du- ties to the poor, that they cannot themselves exist in comfort while the poor are not in a state of comfort. What a lesson is taught by the fires of the incendiary ! An Irish landlord might strike terror into a district for the sake of a few offenders, turning hundreds adrift to perish by the way-sides. But in England, the people cannot , be got rid of, and the truth in time forces itself on the better classes, that they will suffer I snore by neglecting the poor than by ameliorating I .their condition. When contagious distempers I exist either in the moral or physical world, the i rich must, for their own sakes, seek to remove the cause of the distempers. Ever since the ap pearance of the cholera, increased attention has I been paid to the c on diti on o f t h e poor , an d pains have been taken to impress on them the I advantages of cleanliness and sobriety. The torch of the incendiary has, in like manner, ; roused the occupiers of the soil, and impressed them with the necessity of guarding against the abuses in the administration of the Poor Laws, which led to the discontent in which the fires originated. Out of evil cometh good. We are assured that in many places a great improvement in the circumstances of the poor has been the consequence. The abuses themselves are not to be defended, and they lead to their own remedy. " CIII any two things," says the Reviewer, " be more distinct than the giving an allowance to a farmer's labourer already fully employed, under pretence of aiding him to support his wife and children, and the setting a man to work when wholly rlestitute of employment? Is it not clear that the first practice tends to throw the maintenance of every labourer's family upon the parsh ; breaks down all distinction between paupers and ordinary labourers, be tween relief and wages ; permits employers to lower the wages they choose to offer down to a bare maintenance for the man alone, without losing his services ; alters the whole complexion and condition of the labouring class, by appor tioning the income of each individual, not to his character, skill, and industry, but to the size of his family ; thus na turally giving rise to the terrific and daily-increasing evils which are found wherever the system of supplementing mag,s prevails ? But, on the contrary, none of these con .equences can he urged against the mode of relief by 4 set ting to work' the unemployed and able-bodied. 'rid, i, nut only a ddercut practice, hut it is, in every way, the very reverie of the other. Jr leaves untouched and unin terfered with all the remainder of the class—all but the few who are actually without any employment; these are set to work on some public improvement—as a road, canal, &e. They ate taken nut of On market for labor, and no longer compete with the other labourers, or influ ence, in any manner, the current rate of wages, which settles itself on its true principles, according to the work wanted and done. Whatever number of labourers are found to remain permanently in this way on the parish, they mark the extent of its surplus labour, and offer an obvious motive to the parish to devise some means of •re moving them, by emigration or otherwise. In the tr.ea❑ time they receive for their parish work hare parish pay, and are thus placed, both as to character and circum stances, in a lower grade than the labourers who work for private employers. There is, therefore, an obvious induce ment for them to endeavour to obtain private employment, if possible, to struggle to keep themselves ~fl the parish.-- A broad and wholesome line of demarcation is drawn be tween the pauper and the common labourer, and the mis chiefs of the allowance system are wholly prevented. If Mr. Senior cannot perceive the difference between these two systems (and he will see them practically exemplified in Sussex and Northumberland), he surely ought not to venture to write on suhject_ he must be incompetent to elucidate. If he can discriminate between them, often as the distinction has been drawn, what are we to say of his candour and fairness ?" . _ On every principle of justice the English and Scotch are entitled to be relieved from the bur den entailed on Britain by the absence of poor laws in Ireland. The immigration of Irish poor into this country tends greatly to deteriorate the condition of the English labourers, and to add to the burden of parishes. But putting Eng land and Scotland out of consideration, Ireland itself can never know tranquillity till the great body of the people have a hold on the owners of the soil. We have always maintained that the plans for giving relief merely to the sick and aged would fail to be beneficial, and that it is of the essence of a good system of poor laws to compel the rich to find work for the poor, or to enable them to find work. The Reviewer forcibly observes, in answer to an objection of Mr. Senior's, that the whole rental of Ireland, if distributed among the labourers, would give to each only five shillings a week : " 'Was there ever so uTipast and inappropriate an argu ment ? Here the whole net produce of the land is supposed to he given up to the poor unconditionally, and no new produce created in its place. If we advocated an Agrarian law like this, well indeed might Mr. Senior and the Irish landlords dissent from us. But they must well know that what we propose is, that the sums raised as poor-rate (and so far a deduction from rent) be strictly, and economically, and judiciously applied in the employment of the now idle ab'e-bodied poor, on works of public and private utility, such as it has been over and over again proved, if under taken in Ireland, will create new wealth infinitely exceed ing the outlay, and ultimately, indeed very shortly, add to the rents of the landlords a great deal more than it takes from them. Is there any similitude between the two pro positions? Between the giving away the whole, or a portion, of an Irish landlord's rental, and the requiring him to expend a portion of it in setting to work the now idle beggars and plunderers infesting his estate, in perma nent improvements of that estate, or of the neighbourhood, which will infallibly, under good management, bring him in before long a high profit on the outlay ? It is quite clear that those persons who oppose the introduction of a law into Ireland, compelling the setting to work of the unemployed able-bodied poor, on the same grounds as Mr. Senior, either wilfully or blindly mistake the proposition. So far from thinking that this is a part of the English poor-law which can or ought to be omitted in its application to Ireland, we consider it to be the very essence of the system repaired by that country. Relief for the sick and aged is quite a secondary consb!eration. If the able-bodied are sure of employment at sufficient wages, they will generally be able to maintain their infirm and old relations. Dispensaries and hospitals are necessary enough, but they reach not the real evil which afflicts that unhappy I and. The curse of Ire land is the general want of employment for its inhabitants, and their consequent idle and unproductive vagrancy, ha hits of plunder, occasional starvation, disease, despair, and turbulence. Any poor law applied to Ireland, that merely provided relief for the sick, without containing, as its foremost provision, that essential feature in a lam of relief, the setting to work every man capable of work who has no means whereby to maintain himself, the rendering labour a condition to be fulfilled before subsistence be ad ministered, will be not only useless, but deep)t, ruinously injurious. Such a poor law would indeed prove in prac tice to be 'confiscation and an Agrarian law.' Every stout peasant would lie idle in bed till he became qualified for parish relief as sick and impotent, and would thencefor ward never be found out of his bed by the overseer. Ire land would be turned into one great infirmary, and the rental of the landowners be consumed by the poor without the possibility of any return."—Morning Chronicle. A most important public meeting was held at Leeds on Thursday last, on the subject of the Poor Laws and Tithes of Ireland, the Mayor in the Chair. A Mr. Wm. Wailes introduced the subject to the meeting, and concluded with moving generally that Parliament should be called on to adopt a system of compulsory relief for the Irish poor. But an amendment was im mediately moved by a :kir. Joshna Bower— " That a petition be presented to both Houses of Par liament, praying that they will not saddle Ireland with Lny Poor Laws until all the Church property that formerly he longed to the poor of that country be, by legislative enact ment, appropriated to the purposes for which it was in tended, namely, to feed the hungry, and clothe the naked ; hut that, in their wisdom, they would appropriate such property to the relief of the poor." Mr. Sadler was placed in a somewhat awk ward predicament by this amendment. He disapproves of Tithes, and he advocates Poor Laws for Ireland ; he is a candidate, too, for Leeds ; but th e n, on the other hand, he is at present the representative of the Duke of New castle, and connected with the conservative party. He manoeuvred with some ability, but it would not do. " Mr. Sadler," observes the Leeds Mercury, i n f comment ing on the proceedings at this meeting, " strongly declared himself favourable to the e abolition o f t en of tithes, and so frequently declared his wish to tax ecclesi astical as well as lay property for the support of the poor, that several persons (ourselves among the rest) thought he was favourable to the appropriation of a part of the Church propel ty to the relief of pauper ism. Mr. Richard son was so strongly impressed with this opinion, that he tendered a resolution to Mr. Sadler, distinctly avowing his reidinesa to give the poor :their rightful share of the Chu: ch revenues. But Mr. Sadler was too wily either to accept the resolution or to undeceive the meeting. lie hail not the honourable manliness to tell them that he had been misunderstood, for that the very extent of his admis sion was that he would commute the tithes, and then would lay an assessment equally on all who could pay a poor -rate (of course including ecclesiastics) for the relief of the poor. We find, on examining Mr. Sadler's speech, that he cautiously abstained from going further than this : he never said that he would consent to any portion of the Church property being restored to the poor, to whom it rightfully belongs; lint he said something that sounded so like this, that the meeting was deceived, and he had not honesty and manliness enough to avow plainly his meaning." " The re-ult of all was, that Mr. Sadler found himself in a minority of about one to fifty. With the support of Messrs. Mann and Foster, his own handful of Tories, and Mr. Mann's handful of Rad s , h e st ill sustained this. utter overthow. So let a• 11 double-dealing, all unpri nc i p l e d coalitions, fail, amidst public contempt and derision !" One of Mr. Sadler's manoeuvres was to mix up appropriate tithes with the property held by the clergy. No clergyman has a right to more than his own life , interest ; and the State may-legis , late with respect to Church property without af fecting individuals. But it is otherwise with regard to private property. The State may abolish or retain any corporation as it pleases ; but the very object of the social union is the protection of life and property, and the State is bound to respect private property. No matter what tithes originally were, the tithe of the im propriator must be continued according to the usage of centuries. Mr. Sadler said— ,' He repeated, he was an enemy both to the system of collecting tithes and of tithes themselves. Years ago, in one of his books, had he called tithes a barbarous system, oppressive in its nature, and in its operations injurious to the industrious classes. The Duke of Devonshire had • seventy parishes, and some Ecclesiastics only. one, yet was the system of both cases barbarous. In the Committee on Tithes in Parliament he would approach the question with the best intentions to promote the good of Ireland.— (Applause.) He would now Answer some remarks of Mr. Lees. He was glad that there was a growing in telligence among the people of England ; that they wished to know the whole and not a part of all subjects. The spoliation of Church property by Henry the Eighth was infamous, but Mr. Lees had said that at that time one-third had been applied to the relief of the poor. The troth was, that one-fourth only was so employed. It was, however, an open source, whence the poor might drink till they were satisfied, but by that unexampled spoliation that property was diverted from its original channel. The venerable Coke said, that notwithstanding this deed, the poor had still not only a more but a legal right to relief from this property. But fair play was a jewel. Who got this immense plunder? He had none, and never had a birthing of it. 'Who then had it ? Let them ask the Duke of Bedford, every farthing of whose property con sisted of such spoliation. Ask the Duke of Devonshire. He could go through the whole list, but God forbid lie should select these merely front polical considerations.— (Hisses and laughter.) A physician, named Petty, west over to Ireland as medical attendant—(the Hon. Gentle man did not state to whom)—and doctored to some pur pose, for he obtained at least 40,000 acres of confiscated land, rent f rom th e poor o f th at l an d, an d now po s s e ssed it under the name of the Marquis of Lansdowne. Those who had got these large slices, not only from ecclesiastical but other property, to the amount of three-fourths of the rent of Ireland, ought not to be exempted front paying their just quota to the sustentation of the destitute; and if they touched the ecclesiastical property, they ought also to touch that which he now alluded to." The object of this appeal to the fears of the great Whig impropriators is obvious enough. But it will fail of its effect. They know that the people are by no means disposed to mix them up with the Church ; and they must be weak indeed, were they to suppose that the right of private property can receive any support from those who contend that the property possessed by any Corporation ought to be held as sacred as that held by individuals, and that the object for which the Corporation was instituted, and for which the property was entrusted to it, ought not to be taken into consideration. Mr. Baines happily retorted on Mr. Sadler with regard to this point. The latter, in his zeal to make the Duke of Bedford refund, had forgotten his friend the Duke of Newcastle : " I do not know that it would be fair towards the Duke of Bedford, the Duke of Devonshire, the Duke of New castle—(Great laughter and cheering)..-or the Duke of Northumberland, to blame them, to whom property has descended from their successors, a distance of two cen turies and a half ago. I am doubtful whether you would think them proper persons to be held up to public scorn. —(No, no.) I confess it gave me pain to the core to see an attempt to point out the landlords in Leland, who are sufficiently obnoxious, by the finger of scorn, as proper subjects for execration, because it did not suit Mr. Sad ler's purpose to introduce the Bishops."—(Applause.) The Church of Ireland is a monstrous sine cure, and as such it appears to the Leeds meet ing. Mr. Baines, in particular, in an able speech (in which he had the manliness to confess that his former opposition to the Poor Laws was founded in error), expressed, with regard to the Irish Church the sentiments of, we believe, ninety-nine in every hundred persons of this country. " In many parishes of Ireland (he observes) there is no church at all, and I think you will be of opinion that where there is no church there is net occasion fur a clergy man.—(Cheers.) Nothing can be more clear than that, and if there is no occasion for a clergyman, and the tithes are to be distributed, you will also be of opinion that they will be most fairly distributed amongst the poor. It is said the poor you have always with you ;' and that is true; but in Ireland they have not always the clergy with them—(Great laughter and applause)—and do you think, notwithstanding what the Hon. Member for Aldborough says about absentees, that there would be any great harm if they would leave the tithes to be divided amongst the poor, or that any vas: mischief would arise from their total absence.—(Lauk,hter, and ' No, no, not much.") The first thing that should be done for the poor of Ireland is to apply to their use that which properly belongs to them, and then, if it should be fonnd necessary, to call upon others for additional support.—(Hear, hear.) Would any of you be of opinion, if you knew that a man who had a rich and opulent relation living close to him, and upon whose estate he had a claim—would you think it proper that the poor man should come to you for sup port? Surely you would say ' Go and take possession of that property which belongs to you.'—(Hear, hear.) I am sure, gentlemen, there is a great disposition on the part of the Legislature to take this matter into their grave consideration, and if that is the opinion of this meeting, and of other meetings, I have no doubt but that we shall se cure the tithes of Ireland to the poor of Ireland. — (Cheers.) If you want to keep the Irish poor from coining here, you must find a provision for them at home, and this is nut to seek, it is absolutely ready, and there fore, I say, that if you make that application of the tithes, you will immediately administer to their relief in the most effectual way. --(Applause.) When this meeting was called, I was one of the requisitors, and I confess it gave me great pleasure to be so, because I said—' here is an opportunity which I have long desired, of re tracting an error into which I once fell , an d so settin g myself right not oniv upon this point, but of making retribution to those aijainst whom I bad erred.' I formerly was doubtful whether it was proper to have parochial support for the poor of Ireland ; but no sooner did I find this treasury of wealth, then I said, let them have parochial relief by all means, and here is the fund for it.'—(Applause.) I have not the least doubt that, if the poor of Ireland had their fair share of the Church property of Ireland, where you • are now in the habit of seeing ten Irishmen come into this country to reduce the price of your labour, you would not see one.—( Hear, bean)" We agree with Mr. Baines in opinion, that this was a most important meeting, and we hope with him that it will attract the attention and also the imitation of the whole country. If it is monstrous that the Clergy should appropriate to themselves the whole of what was originally de stined for themselves, the poor, and the repair of churches, it is still more monstrous that all this should be taken by the Clergy of only one-twelfth or one-sixteenth of the people.—Morn. Chron. Some people display as strong a passion fur discovering mares' nests, as the Chinese are said to have for eating birds' nests. Without an nouncing such a truism, we scarcely know why we should notice a stupid article in a Sunday Paper, in which the writer intends to be at once learned and witty,—malicious and astounding, by showing that he has really read the impeach ment against Lord Oxford, and by commentin g o n the article which relates to the creation o new Peers to carry his measure of an alleged ig nominious peace. Every body but the Sunday babbler was aware of this feature of the impeach ment, from the time that he could distinguish the most interesting epochs of English history, and nobody, except himself or a few of the op ponents of Reform in the House of Peers, ever thought it applicable to present circumstances. Lord Mansfield, we remember, in the debate on the second reading of the Reform Bill, gave the joke of the 12 Peers in Queen Anne's time being represented, like a Jury, by their foreman, and spoke of the necessity of now having a cen turion for the representative of the prospec-, tive batch ; but his Lordship would have been ashamed to have appealed to the historical fact e xcept as the foundation of a mere pleasantry. Since, however, this article of Lord Oxford's impeachment has again been alluded to on the present occasion, we may as well set the matter a t rest for ever, by quoting his Lordship's re ply to the allegation, and by a single remark on the object with which it was introduced. The House of Commons who impeached the Ex. Ministry of Queen Anne of high crimes and n iisdemeanours, did not intend to limit the royal prerogative in the creation of Peers, or to blame its exercise when employed for the promotion of the national interests, They only objected to the new creation because they viewed that addi tion to the Upper House as the means of car rying a pernicious or treasonable measure. It was in fact the end, and not the means, which was the object of their resentment, and which they endeavoured to make the subject of their penal infliction. They condemned the employment of the prerogative in this case, as they would the employment of a squadron of horse, or a ship of war, if used against the public interest, though legally granted by Parliamentary consent. The article alluded to is the 16th, and the last in the first draught of the impeachment. Ile previous fifteen clauses contain the criminal acts, of which the creation of Peers was intended to secure the triumph. Before, therefore, the enemies of re form acquire the right of applying this charge of Lord Oxford's accusation to the chief of our present Cabinet, they must establish the fact that the Reform Bill is wicked and treasonable, and in doing so they must prove that 99-100ths of the nation are conspirators and traitors. The House of Commons of 1831 must begin like the accusing House of Commons in 1717, by say that—" Whereas Lord Grey, having no regard to the honour or safety of his Majesty or his kingdom, but being devoted to the interest of Reform—the common enemy of both—contrary to his oath and his duty, did maliciously and wickedly propose about the spring of 1831, a most treacherous and pernicious contrivance to purify the House of Commons, by destroying rotten boroughs and extending the rights of the people, and did for this purpose introduce a Bill, which could not be carried but by the exer cise of the Royal prerogative, in adding Reform Peers to the upper House ;" and " whereas his Lordship did advise his Majesty to create such Reform Peers," therefore his said Lordship is impeached of high crimes and misdemeanours. Earl Grey would certainly be able to answer the former part of this accusation more triumphantly than the Earl of Oxford his 1.5 articles of im peachment, but he would scarcely require any other language than the following answer of the latter to the 16th charge, which is now the only one brought against him:— " In answer to the sixteenth article, the said Earl doth insist, that, by the laws and constitution of this realm, it is the undoubted right and prerogative of the Sovereign, who is the fountain of honour, to create Peers of this realm as well in time of Parliament, as when there is no Parlia ment sitting or in being ; and that the exercise of this branch of the prerogative is declared, in the form or preamble of all patents of honour, to proceed ' ex mero motu,' as an act of mere grace and favour ; and that sueh acts are not done, as many other acts of a public nature are, by and with the advice of the Privy Council; or as acts of pardon usually run, upon a favourable representa tion of several circumstances; or upon reports from the Attorney-General, or other offices s, that such acts are lawful or expedient, or for the safety or advantage of the Crown ; but flows entirely from the beneficent and gracious disposition of the Sovereign. He farther saith, that neither the warrants for patents of honour, the bills or other engross meats of such patents, are at any time communicated to the Council or the Treasury, as several other patents are ; and therefore the said Earl, either as High Treasurer or Privy Councillor, could nut have any knowledge of the same; nevertheless, if her late sacred Majesty had thought fit to acquaint him with her most gracious intentions of creating any number of Peers of this realm, and had asked his opinion whether the persons whom she then intended to create were persons proper to have been promoted to that dignity, he does not believe be should have highly ap proved her Majesty's choice; and doth not apprehend that in so doing he had been guilty of any breach of his duty, or violation of the trust in him reposed, since they were all persons of honour and distinguished merit ; and the Peerage thereby was not greatly increased, considering some of those created would have been Peers by descent, and that many titles of Peers were then lately extinct : and the said Earl believes many instances may be given where this prerogative bath been exercised by former Princes of this realm in as extensive a manner, and parti cularly in the reigns of King Henry VIII., King James I. and his late Majesty King William. The said Earl begs leave to add that in the whole course of his life he bath always loved the established Constitution ; and in his pri vate capacity, as well as in all public stations when he had the honour to be employed, bath ever done his utmost to preserve it, and he shall always continue so to do."— Times. PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. HOUSE OF COMMONS. NOTICES OF MOTIONS, AND ORDERS OF THE DAY, WHICH NOW STAND IN Tint ORDER BOOK OF THIS HOUSE OF COALHONS. TUESDAY, JAN. 17, 1832.-ORDERS OF THE DAY. Land ftevenue (Buckingham Palace) Bill; Committee.— Charitiea Estate Bill; Committee._Anatomy Bill; Second Reading. WEDNESDAY, JAN. IR.-ORDERS OF THE DAY. Limitations of Actions Bill; Committee.—Fines and Re coveries Bill ; Committee.—Curtesy of England Bill; Committee.—Dowager Bill; Committee.—lnheritance Bill; Committee.—Supply; Committee. NOTICES OF MOTIONS. Mr. WEYLAND-Resolution respectinz the priority in which the Orders of the Day shall be taken into con sideration by the House. Dr. LUSHINGTON-Bill to regulate the Vice-Admiralty Court at the Mauritius. FRIDAY, JAN. 211—ORDERS OF THE DAY. Ecclesiastical Lands Exchange Bill ; Second Reading.— Juries (Ireland) Bill ; Committee.—Sub-letting Act Amendment (Ireland) Bill; Second Reading.—Reforna of Parliament (England) Bill; Committee. NOTICES OF MOTIONS. In Committee on Reform of Parliament (England) Bill : Colonel SIBTHORPE—To move, that all bona fide tenants and occupiers of land, not being Freeholders, Copy holders, or Leaseholders, who shall hold any number of acres situate within the several Counties or Divisions of Counties for which any Elections for Knights of the Shire to Parliament should be at any time hereafter made, the annual rental whereof shall not be under or less than 501. per annum, free from, and clear of, all charges and d,ductions whatsoever, such tenants and occupiers as aforesaid shall be and hereafter are entitled to vote at any such Election for Knights of the Shire for any such County or Divisions of Counties in which such lands are situate; provided they, and each and severally so claiming to vote, have been bona fide in ' actual possession of such lands as aforesaid for a period of not less thin one eivire year preceding any regis tration as may be hereafter directed or required to be made touching the Right of Elections. Marquis of CnZisoos—To move the omission of the Me trapolitan Members intended to be added by the Bill. Mr. GORE LANGTON—To take the sense of the Com mittee on the Clause for the Division of Counties. Mr. PRAED-I'n move that no title to vote for the Election of a Knight of the Shire be conferred by any property situate within the limits of a Borough which shall, by the provisions of this Bill or otherwise, return a Member or Members to Parliament :—That every man seise I of freehold lands or tenements, of the clear ye uly value to him of 40s. above all rents and charges, situate within the limits of a Borough returning a Member or Members to Parliament, shall have the right to vote in the Election of Members for such Borough. _ _ Mr. BARRY BALAWIN—TO move that the Borough of Totneis be erased from Schedule 8., and that the said Borough, with the addition of the Town of Berry Po meroy (otherwise Bridge Town), continue to return two Alembers. Mr. DitAKE—To move that the Borough of Amersham be transferred from Schedule A. to Schedule B. Colonel SIBTHOR111:—To move that all Freeholders whose freeholds, in the County of the City of Lincoln, are situated on the Northern side of the river Witham, shall vote in future for the Representatives in Parlia ment for the Division of Lindsey, in the County of Lincoln ; and all Freeholders whose freeholds are situ ated on the Southern side •f the aforesaid river, in the sa me City, including the four Parishes annexed by Char ter to the said County of the City, shall vote for Re presentatives in Parliament for the Divisions of Keste ven and Holland. MONDAY, JAN. '2:J.-ORDER OF THE DAY. Vestry Act Amendment Bill ; Second Reading. NOTICE OF MOTION. Mr. PROTIIEBOY.-Bill or Bills to alter and amend the Charter, Municip►l Government, and Regulations of the City of Bristol. TUESDAY, J. 21.—NOTICES OF MOTIONS. Colonel Tonitzus—Bill for repealing such Taxes as have the effect of lowering the Profits of Capital and the Wages of Labour; and for substituting in their stead a modified Property Tax. Sir ROBERT Itrtmrs—Papets relative to the Vaudois. Mr. Hertern—Motion on the subject of the Russian • Dutch Loan. Mr. SHELL—Select Committee to inquire into the Re venues and Possessions of the Established Church in Ireland, and the several charges which are made upon the public for its support. ORDERS OF THE DAY. Wallingford Election Petition ; Ballot for Committee at three.—Dorset Election Petition ; Ballot for Coin-' mittee at ten minutes after three.—Forfar County Elec tion Petition ; Ballot for Committee at twenty minutes after three.—Drogbeda Town Election Petition ; Bal lot for Committee at half after three. WEDNESDAY, JAN. 25.—ORDER OF THE DAY. General Register Bill ; Second Reading. NOTICE OF MOTION. Mr. HUGHES HUGHES—BiII for the regulation of Buildings and Party walls, and for preventing , mis chief by fire, and i n j ur i es to t h e li ves an d propertyof his' Majesty's subjects, from the injudicious construction of buildings. THURSDAY, JAN. 26.—NOTICE OF MOTION. Mr. PERCEYAL—Address to his Majesty, that he will ap point an early day for General Fasting and Humiliation. FRIDAY, JAN. 27.—NOTICE OF MOTION. Mr. HENRY BULWER—SeIect Committee, to consider the present state of New South Wales, with a view to Le- , gislative improvement. TUESDAY, JAN. 31.—NOTICES OF MOTIONS. Colonel DAVIES—Select Committee, to inquire into the , present distressed state of the Glove Trade. Sir RICHARD VYVYAN—Affairs of Belgium. THURSDAY, FEB. 9.—NOTICES OF MOTIONS. Sir JOAN NEWPORT—BiII for the regulation of the First Fruits Fund, Ireland. Mr. FYSHE PALMER—To regulate the office of High Sheriff; to reduce the expences attending it; and to facilitate the passing the accounts. FRIDAY, FEE. 17.—NOTICE OF MOTION. Colonel Tortaxxs—Bill for the gradual abolition of all' Duties upon the Importation of Foreign Agricultural Produce. Last Day for receiving Petitions for Private Bills. On Report of Reform of Parliament (England) Bill. Mr. DOMINICK BROWNE—To insert in Schedule B rto many of the smallest Boroughs not already in Scbedulea A or B as will be necessary to give Ireland, in addition tJ 105, as many Members as will constitute the due pro• portion of Ireland with England and Wales, taking into due consideration their population and revenue respec tively. If the above motion he negatived, and 500 be the number retained for England and Wales, on the Report of the Irish Reform Bill, to move that such a number of Members be added for Ireland as shall, in addition to 105, constitute its due proportion to 500 for England and Wales, taking into due consideration their popular tion and revenue respectively. NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR WHICH NO PARTICULAR DAYS HAVE BEEN FILED.—AFTER CHRISTMAS. Mr. GISBORNE—BiII to repeal Acts [7 Geo. IV., c. 6, and 9 Geo. IV., c. 65] (Small Note Acts.) Mr. ROBINSON—SeIect Committee to inquire into the state of Newfoundland. Mr. RontssoN--Motion on the Trade and Commerce of the Country. Mr. BARRY BALDWIN—BiII to authorize the compound ing and commuting of charges for charitable purposes on freehold property. Colonel Ea - Arts—Bill to alter the mode of appointing Re corders of Cities and Borough Towns ; also to prevent Recorders from sitting in the Commons' House of Par liament. Lord Viscount MlLTON—Present State of the Corn Laws. Sir JOHN OWEN—That the censure passed on the High Sheriff of the County of Pembroke, his Under Sheriff, and Assessor, by the Report of the Select Committee appointed to try the merits of the late Pembrokeshire Election Petition, is not warranted by the Evidence taken before the said Committee. Mr. HARVEY—RepeaI of the Duty paid upon the admis sion of persons to the freedom of Cities and Boroughs returning Members to Parliament. Mr. WOLRYCHE WHITMORE--••ReSOIUtiODS relating to the China Trade. Lord Viscount MORPETH—In Committee on General Re gister Bill, to move that the Coun , y of York be ex to move that the counties composi ng th e Northern Mr e . m H p t o e n d fm the operation os r o o N— i n coinmitte o the Bi 11. Mr. on General l. Register Bill, Cir cuit he exempted from the operation of the Bill. Colonel SIBTHORPE—BiII for the regulation of Steam Vc ssels. Mr. WYSE—BiII for the establishment and maintenance of Parochial Schools, and the advancement of the edu• cation of the people of Ireland. Mr. HENRY BuLwEe—Select Committee on the Ribbon Trade. Mr. SLANEY—BiII for the better rating Tenements under a certain annual value. Colonel EvANs—Bill to repeal Act [59 Geo. lII.] (the Foreign Enlistment Act). Mr. CO URTENAY—ReIations with Portugal. Colonel EvAxs—Address to his Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to intercede, by friendly offices and negotiation, with the Court of St. Petersburgh, in bs half of the Polish people, and in mitigation of the con fiscations, or other heavy punishments, said to be likely to befal them, in consequence of the late war in Poland. Mr. FRANCIS BARING—BiII for the doing away of certain offices in the Exchequer ; for the more speedily and effectively passiug of the Sheriffs' accounts, and further regulating of the office of Sheriff. On the 6th inst. as the Balloon coach was crossing Hartside, on its way from Penrith to Alston, a stag joined it near Greenfill Kilns, and gambolled along the road with it for some time. When he seemed inclined to part company, the guard sounded his horn, which caused him to bound up to the coach again, and he conti nued to accompany it, apparently attracted by the horn. When they came near the town of Alston the sight of such a stranger drew the attention of the people so much together that he beg in to be uneasy at the sight of so many intruders ; be jumped over a wall from the road, and rambled down► the banks to Blackburn, where great numbers had collected, and a regular chase was begun. He was pursued to near Alston Brewery, where he crossed the Tyne, and took shelter amongst Mr. Honcsox's fire, but was soon rooted, and lie crossed the river again, seek ing shelter in the plantation in Hall-hill, but, driven by numbers from that hold, he took the water a third time, and in attempting to leap over a wall he fell backwards, and was taken by some youn t men, who secured him by putting ropes round his antlers, after which lie was led round the town in triumph by his captors, and then taken to the Manor-house inn, where lie wi]l be taken care of till he he claimed. It is suppo-ed that he has strayea from the park of H. HAZEL, Esq., of Dalemain.—Newcastk Chronicle. SINGULAR ACCIDENT.--An inquest was held at Middlesex Hospital, on the body of THOMAS WHIT LOCK. It appeared that the deceased was in the employ of Mr. THOMAS HOLLES, pork-butcher, of No. 283, Ox. ford-street, and that on Saturday, the 31st ult., as he was carrying some potk at his master's shop, it slipped front his shoulder, and a small hook, by which it bad been p little lac n( e,a a n ic d e 6th the when where he inflammation lvas took place, and he applied to the hopitl, where he Was ad hanging, pricked the fleshy paert,ifl lni o e f r i d t a i . s yn a al r tai m sotri . , in t m o t i t n e c d r e aase, in - a h t i e e n d t i . ed on Wednesday i stillis c ie o n et s oo e noi nv e uen very yd e thereof. Verdict—Accidental Death. Daft WILLIE LAW was the descendant of an ancient family, nearly related to the famous JOHN LAW, of Laurieston, the celebrated financier of France. WILLIE on that account, was often spoksn to, and taken notice of, by gentlemen of distinction. Posting one day through Kirkaldy with more than ordin ay speed, be was met by the late Mr. OSWALD, of Dunnikier, who asked hitn where he was going in such a hurry. " Going ! ' says WILLIE, with apparent surprise, " I'm gaen to my cousin Lord ELHIN's buri a l." " Y ou fool ; Lord ELGIN'S not dead," replied Mr. OSWALD. " Ah ! diel ma care,' quoth WILLIE, " there's sax doctors out o' Emhro, at 'im, and they'l hae him dead afore I win for'it."—Clambers' Scottish Jests and Anecdotes. BIRTHS. On the 13th inst. at Sunbury, the lady of the Rev. C. Moffatt, of a son. On the 12th inst. at Williamtield House, Ayrshire, N. 8., the lady of J. S. Hay, Esq., of a son. On the 6th of November, at the Cape of Good Hope, the lady of Lieutenant -General Sir George Townshend Walker, G.C.8., of twin daughters. DIED. On the 15th inst. at her house In Warwick-square, Mrs. Brown, relict of Mr. Christopher Brown, formerly of Paterno! , ter-row, in the 84th year of her age. On the 15th inst. at Beckenham, George, youngest son of W. Pott, Esq. o f B r id ge -street, Southwark. On the 11th inst. Clara, the eldest daughter of G. 'Haynes, Es+ of Hampstead.road, aged 2.1 On the 14th inst. at Hall-place, Charles Augustus, eldest soil of Major-Gene ra l Si r C . Ashworth, K.C.8., K.T.S. On the 15th inst. at Islington, Mr. R. Johnston, (late of the firm of Johnsto n , Brookes, an d C o. ) , aged 62. PRINTED ♦ND PUBLISHED BY MURDO YOUNO, AT THE SUN OFFICE, 112, STRAND, LoNpo:v. C