The Sun.
London, England, 1839-10-19 00:00:00

E EN IN MT .10 N. .

Mr. Welch—Dict you go to look at the house
b.4ore taking it
Witness—l did.

Mr. Welch—What led you to take this house
upon the 30th August, in addition to your other
residence in the High-street, Poole?
Witness—l and Mr. Fryer had a conversation
' together, that it would be desirable to have a sum-
mer residence for our families. My family have
been down to see it since the 31st August ; I have
been down and walked round it.
Mr. Welch—Well, what use was the house to
you without furniture ?
Witness—To the best of me recollection I sent
down some furniture.
Mr. Welch—What was it, Mr. Sydenham ?
" Witness—A Chair !
M:. Welch—Will you take upon yourself to
I swear it was before the 31st of August this miser-
able chair was sent down?

Witness—l won't swear ; I won't go further
than my belief.
Mr. Welch—Was there anything else besides
this chair, and what kind of chair was it ?
Witness—There was nothing else there—it was
a Dutch chair, a garden chair.
Mr. Welch—What induced you to send down
this chair on this day, if you did send it ?
Witness, after half hour's cross-examination
and a good deal of hesi:a:ion, which he might have
spared himself had he heard Mr. Parr's, the As-
sessor's, declaration from the bench, that such
things were " meritorious,") said the chair was
taken down there to wake a vote for the North West
'Ward ; I was told it was a pod way to make
votes !

Mr. Welch—Did you clr.im to be rated
Witness—l told sir. Lip r the overseer, that I
expected to be ated.
_ _

Ir. you, Sir, take upon yourself
to swear, upon your solemn oath, that you claimed
to be rated

Witness—No ; I met Mr. Piper accidentally,
aid all I sP.id to him was, I have taken a house.
Mr. Piper stated that he was one of the overseers
of Parlis:one. All that Mr. Svdenham said to me
was, " Are a!I the people in Parkstone honest ?"
If bt had said a word about rating, he should have
prit him on the rate.

The Court (Durant dissenting) considered the
occupation siflficient ! but as there was no rating,
or claim to be rated, Maim disallowed.
A variety of other instances might be adduced to
show the means by which the constituency of this
borough has been a:tempted to be swamped, de-
scending even to the very scavengers who sweep
the gutters of the streets, for which they ate paid
by the parish.

About a (miler past five, an arelication was
made by Mr. Stone for candles, wh'ich the Mayor
refused, stating he could sit no longer than they
could see WITHOUT cANDLE.s. An offer was
made to pay for the candles, but the Mayor declared
he would sit no longer.
Messrs. Welch and Cnnrchill strenuously pro-
tested against such proceedings with many of the
burgesses.
Mr. Durant, one (If the Assessors---." I am pre-
pared to sit until twr_lve at night, to endeavour to
bet through the 111%t5."
The Mayor arid Mr. Parr said they were not.
Thus the (hurt was adjourned at the early hour
of half-past fire, the lists unrevised, and the practi-
cal workiT,g of it is, that a whole parish is now dis-
franchk,ed for two whole years. The scene which
ensued beggars description ; advocates, burgesses,
ana those assembled in the hall, expressing their
iud;gnation so vehemently, that the more notorious
cir the " Tory-Radicals" gladly absented them-
selves through the private entrance.
In the evening a most numerously attended meet-
ing took place at the New Town Hall, where reso-
lutions were passed, deprecat;.n,c; the iniquitous and
frandulent conduct pursur.d that day, and stating
the determination of the iTherals of Poole to go in
and win at the ensu:.ng election, notwithstanding
all the base attempts ,Jf the Tory Radicals to con-
tinue their misrule.
reign or
4

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

--,,11 FROM TAE MOANING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
Well (From the Times.)
- —whatever becomes of the Fleming job, the
Parkr,r Sob, at !cast, is, or is said to ha, abandoned. The
1 thi.4 smacked so strong of reiterated grossness, and
p ahlic opinion had declared itself so formidably against
the prostitution of Greenwich Hospital, that the Scotch
I First Lotd's nervouSt system shrunk from a second out-
li r,ige upon the navy of Great Britain, and Sir Edward
Codrington, as it seems, has replaced the Knight Parker
~ in the lucrative Portsmouth command. Now, with
regard to Sir Edward Codringt.op, albeit we might
I; have liked other Admirals bett,,r, as being men of more
comprehensive talent and move decisive memorable ser-
vice (we will mention-, for 'instance, Sir George Cock-
!l burn, whose conduct of the mixed and complicated
warfare in North A-Alterica gave proofs of rich re-
source and of trrAscendant ability) ; still, " Go
1 it Ned" is a brave and dashing sailor, a chief
that has done, honour to theflag he hoisted,
I and one rgainst whom the profession gene-
t rally wilt -urge no complaint on the score of
obscurity, insignificance, or nepotism. Sir Edward
Codrire‘ton, in his political capacity, is a bit of a ma-
amity rer we acknowledge. On the surface he is a rest-
les,-„ crotchety, troublesome, pushing meddler, singing
1 its the ears of Ministers, and tormenting them like a
Imosquito, to get up a name for independence, but
sticking to them like a leech when it comes to counting noses, that he may suck a stream of patmaage in re-
turn. It seems obvious that Ned Codrington is
i a-hamed of being a Whig, or he would not take such
i pains to affect the Radical. But tb;s is all a landsman's
dissertation. It has little to do with the seagoing qua-
t lities of the gallant AdmiraL There might be worse
bands allotted to the Britannia guardship. We beg,
however, that he won't Tun foul of Colonel Pasley, and
blow himself up instead of the old Royal George. There
is one topic more, in connection with the Admiralty
appointments, a'id with these recent discussions upon
them, respe.cti•ag which we deem it an act of jus-
tice to our3tives, and to the British navy, to state
' our sentiments in the most frank and unambiguous
manner. It must have been remarked by readers of all
descriptions, with what pert and eager exultation the
1,
Minterial newspapers turned upon us when we charged
the 'Minna Admiralty with I,ictious jobbery and corrup-
tie n, taunting us with simil,e male .-actices committed by
a long list of Tory Administrat' Ala before these Reform
Whigs carne into office, as if that were a species of of-
fences in which we had altered, or for abetting which we
had ever, at any period„ been responsible. The Down-
ing-street papers accuse the Tory Ministers of the last
40 or 50 years, of having perverted and abused their
naval patronage, filled the fleet with ignorant and
useless bloiJklaeads, pushed forward into high pro•
fesssional rank so many minions of birth and afflu-
ence, 'Ault it at last became difficult to find Ad-
miral' fit for any arduous or important service,
and, in short, set a shameful example of those ad-
-1 mi'instrative wrongs, which the Whigs have so sue-
f tessf.ully copied. It is alleged that Lord Collingwood's
manly and admirable letters furnish proofs of the most
scandalous riLuse of patronage in the numbers of in-
competent of cers forced upon him by the Admiralty of
that day, such as -were enough to disorganize any ser-
-1 vice, whilst the cruel sacrifice of Lord Collingwood
him‘,el; to the exigencies created by gross and sys-
to:irate misgovernment, constitutes one of the most
bt-riking and most heartbreaking illustrations of the
1
deadly fruits resulting from such misgovernment.
' Now, we shall disappoint our Whig-Radical ad-
sersaries by broadly and readily admitting the sub-
setial truth of all the above recriminations.
:1,114°58 .whet had the honour, and it surely was an
.9911041*, to be acquainted with Captain, afterwards
Lord Collingwood, more that 50 years ago, while he
wa%tot a &Qt time off duty in the north of England,
ruost have known him for a man the most simple and
unassuming, the most mild and courteous, the most calm,
( considerate, rational,
adorned an kind, and interesting, that ever
y society to which it was their fortune to
have access. Ir was impossible to sit beside him, but
fbr a day, without loving the noble service in which
such a gentleman had grown u
or without feelin the p and been developed,
g sternest indignation at the
wrongs which oppressed and disfigured it, no matter
whence they proceeded. It needed not, nevertheless,
I the published correspondence of such a hero to
I convince us, or the world, that great abuse, that
infinite partiality and injustice, prevailed through-
out the naval administration of this country many
years before the present race. of Whigs were of
agean to practise those iniquities. It is true,
that under Tory Governments all adverse navies
were swept from the face of the ocean, and that Eng-
land reigned sole mistress, or, as Bonaparte expressed
it, sole " tyrant" of the seas. It is true that one short
Whig Administration—viz., that of 1806, produced
disgraces
tenfold the miscarriages and sgracestrihaz ten times aswere suffered
.7
by the British arms on land or sea du
many years of Tory Government. But it is true and
unquestionable, that in the most splendid r)erio_tvlshoigf
Tory triumph, as in those of the most mortifying 1
discomfiture, the British navy has been a prey to
ode-
plorable abuse of patronage, to unrighteous breach
,_ r
.I.
trust, to foul and daninaiale corruption. " Tress ry 1
zuve"—Melville or Minto—they are the same to us
we defend neither—we aaouit neither—nor either shall
we spare—Conservative or Reformer, both being alike,
save in the article of hypocrisy, where, as in sheer im-
I

pudgnee, Ant.° has it holmw. -Neither Conservative nor
Ville; shall have us for his advocate against the sacred
rights, the welfare, and prosperity, of the British navy.
e
The Whig journals fancied they cilla justify the
misdeeds of their patrons, of lAA ua to silence, by the
wretched subterfo_e of a" to quoque." The Rata
tered themselves that to prove the Whig Adenireity in-
nocent it was superfluous to do more 'than challenge
i
the Tories as their accomplice*. Our part sat once
more upright and more invidious. We heartily con-
demn them both. We say the very str'setttre of the
naval administration is vicious and &testable, atvari-
ance with every rule, and repulsive of every provision,
by virtue of which it would be possible to protect the
marine of England from the inroads of corrupt and
mercenary faction. Why have we ever praised the
constitution of that authority by which, since the days
of the Duke of York, the British army has been main-
tained in a state or administrative purity and honour,
and under which all the offiters of all clasites have been
secured in a degree of independence, with which no lean
of the least truth or discernment would venture to com-
pare our marine ? hese upheld and applauded that
military administration because it was under the
guidance, not of party politicians, but of mere ecidiers
—because it was directed by men who had strong profes-
sional,and no or feeble, political sympathies, because those
who claimed rights, and demanded justice, had common
friends and brethren for their patrons and their judges.
It was because, save in the cases where Whig Ministers
have the bad taste and selfishness to intermeddle, the
general rule of the military administration is impartiality,
while that of the naval is favour. Why, then, with
what sense of justice or integrity could we, who im-
peach the fitness of a Ministerial, and therefore a
jobbing, Board of Admiralty under the Whigs, maintain
the reverse under a Tory Government? We have
never done so—we will never do so. We dare say that
the last Conservative Board of Admiralty was almost,
if not altogether, as bad as any Whig one we desire
not to witness another such experiment. It is our
earnest and conscientious desire, that whoever is to be
Minister, the navy shall have its interests and honour
secured on principles analogous to those which have
been so successfully applied to the government and pro-
tection of the army. The ruling authority in both cases
must be a professional, not a traffiaking or canvassing,
authority, which sells the beauty and vigour of the ser-
vice, and is paid by votes in the reformed House of Com-
mons. If' our adversaries of the press be honest, let
them unite with us in urging this great administrative
reform now, while their friends and patrons are in office,
and we will suffer them to hold us up to national exe-
cration if, when a Tory Government succeeds, we aban-
don them in the prosecution of the same public benefit.
We war not with Lord Minto. who is but a single
wheel in this odious machinery. We stand erect for the
navy of Great Britain, and for neither Whig nor Tory
will we surrender one particle of its claims to justice.
An independent journal ought to scorn any other course,
(From the _Morning Post.)
We observed the other day, in a police report from
the Marlborough-street office, the following important
and pithy remarks, which we think arc capable of
wider application than to the affairs of cheating old
women and riotous young men. "It is a lamentable
fact," noteth the reporter, " of which every dar at this
office affords further proof, that the lower order of
Irish, almost without exception, are incapable of
speaking the truth, Whenever an Irish person is
called as principal or witness, either direct falsehood.
or suppression of some part of the truth, is sure subse-
quently to be shown to have occurred." This pray be
affirmed of /rid/ Romanism in general, whether the
lower orders and affairs of police are in question, or the
higher orders and affairs of politics. Whatever he
the cause—from whatever period it may date—(and
we consider that it dates from a very ancient
period)—the race of Irish, which may new be
designated as the Romanist Irish, have made
the violation of truth a common habit. In-
stead of contending against this, the Romanist priests
of the present day, who are almost all of them far more
zealous as political agents than as teachers of religion
and morality, take advantage of the horrid habit, and
encourage it. In many counties of Ireland the priests
know as well as they know their own existence, that
two-thirds of the names which are on the register as
electors are there in consequence of falsehood—falsehood
supported in numerous instances by legal perjury—but
they do not interfere to prevent this. On the contrary,
they strenuously encourage it, knowing as they do that
their own power to return Members to the House of
Commons depends upon the falsehoods of the poor
wretches who are coaxed or threatened to the re-
gistering office, and then at election time driven to
:he poll. Let us apply this disgraceful but indispu-
table fact of the habitual lying of the Romanist Irish
—or, as a Ministerial writer called it, in reference
to the assertions of Mr. O'Connell, this "postpone-
ment of truth to the considerations of the moment"—let
us apply it to the argument lately revived upon the sub-
ject of Roman Catholic Emancipation. We Tories,
and the British people in general, have taken the liberty
of remonstrating, somewhat plainly and vehemently,
against the palpable encroachment of the O'Connell or
Popish influence upon the administration of public af-
fairs. The late appointment of Mr. Sheil to the privi-
leges and dignity of a Privy Councillor, and of Mr.
Wyse to a Lordship of the Treasury, have been spe-
cially dwelt upon as signs of this encroaching influ-
ence, disgusting at once, and dangerous. If there be
any truth or reasonableness in all this objection to Po-
pery, and this lively remonstrance against it, say the
.Ministerialists, " then it must be concluded that Ro-
man Catholic Emancipation was from the beginning
a fraud, and that the British nation did not intend
substantially to emancipate the Romanists when
it passed the Act for their emancipation." Not so,
good logicians ; your conclusion does by no means
follow from the premises. It is the Irish Papists, and
not the British nation, who have been guilty of the
treachery and the fraud. Of course we do not defend
the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act. We never
did. We think it was an error, and we must continue
to think so until the public know more than they yet
know of the circumstances which induced the Duke of
Wellington and Sir Robert Peel to take the lead in
causing that Act to be passed. But when it was passed
we certainly would not have objected to any legitimate
consequence of it, bad the Romanists faithfully adhered
to what they over and over again said, swore, and pro-
tested in every possible way, which they were labouring to
beguile the British nation into trusting them with politi-
cal power. There was not one prominent advocate of
emancipation, whether Romanist or Protestant, who did
did not constantly maintain that the loyalty of the Irish
Romanists to the Established Church in Ireland would
be secured by the granting of emancipation. There was
not one of their advocates, Romanist or Protestant, who
did not assert that by granting emancipation, even far
less complete than that granted in the Act of 1829, the
gratitude of Ireland to England would be secured for
ever, and the Irish Romanists be converted into the most
earnest supporters of British institutions in Church and
State. Had these promises been kept—had the oaths
and protestations, upon faith in which the British nation
was led to grant emancipation, not been impudently and
scandalously broken and violated—we should, as politi-
cians, have ceased to point to any distinction between
Romanists and Protestants. But the Irish Romanists
have, as usual, shown that they have no respect for
truth—that their oaths, whether before emancipation or
after emancipation, can in no degree be depended upon
—that they are intus et in cute false and perfidious.
This is now so notorious that the British nation is hear-
tily disgusted with them, and cannot bear, without great
alarm and indignation, to see them advanced to any position
where probity and good faith are requisite. They arc
thoroughly persuaded of the utter dishonesty of these
people, and every day makes the conviction more present
to their minds. This is the short history of British op-
position to the advancement of Romanism in the State.
(From the Morning Herald.
Amongst Whig accomplishments the art of puffing
each other holds a high place in the opinion of members
of the Whig faction. At the dinner given in his honour,
at Portsmouth, the other day, Mr. Baring proved him-
self an adept in this useful art. He enlarged on the
manifold merits of Messrs. O'Ferrall, Sheil, and Wyse,
in a strain which seemed to indicate no indisposition on
the part of the Right Hon. Gentleman, to be lauded in
turn, by these gentlemen and their associates. Mr.
Baring discoursed of Mr. Shell's merits in the following
strain :

" The next gentleman he would allude to was Mr. Shell.
No one who had not the opportunity of listening to Mr. Sheil,
as he had, could do justice to the talent displayed by him
and he would ask, is he, because he is a Catholic,
to be excluded from all the councils of the country
No, no.') Now, go further back, to the good old
Tory times, in the days of George the Third, when Mr.
Gibbon sat as one of the Board of Trade—will any one say
that his principles were different ? But then, they say,
that is a different case ; be was only an infidel. 'We have
no objection to your putting in men of no religion at all, but
we cannot think it right to put in a Catholic; as if the
feet of a Catholic being in the Board would upset sugar,
cotton, hemp, and other et cetera.—( Cheers. )"
The talents of Mr. Shed ! If there be an over-rated
rhetorical quack in the kingdom, Mr. Sheil is the man.
It might he difficult to name a public man of the slight-
est pretensions, so utterly destitute of real talent as Mr.
Sheil happens to be. He is an empty, noisy, self-suffi-
cient babbler—a grinder of verbal antitheses—a dealer
in the paste jewels and mosaic gold of Irish oratory.
Mr. Baring must have been pretty sure of the temper
of his audience, before he ventured on such a flight of
fancy ! But Mr. Shell's appointment to the Board of
Trade is justified by reference to the case of Mr. Gib-
bon Mr. Gibbon's appointment to the Board of Trade
must, we submit, be judged of by its own merits. A
bad appointment made seventy years ago forms no jus-
tification of a bad appointment now. The case of Mr.
Gibbon, besides, differs as ‘i.dely 'as possible the
case ofre
reprehensible,
eSnh,iiebi
eTxheerciospdinlioitntsle how-
everofprNalcrt.icGalibbinofin,uencefbreign power ; MM r.
on his conduct. Mr. Gibbone owed no allegiance to a
the Board of Trade by the aid of not gain admission to
pbearjnur:y
object
Itro.
tGheibebioen. did not form one of a
against the Established Church dobo.f conspirators
vation of Mr. Shiel to the rank of a Privy Councillor is,