The Sun.
London, England, 1838-05-17 00:00:00

MR. GRIFFIN.

" There is cme praise vv:;711 the least interesting of Mr. Griffin's
works may safely claim—and it is the highest of all praise—that not
one of them contains a ' line which dying lag may wish to blot ;' they
breathe the purest morality, inculcate the higl;cst principles, and ex-
press the deepest religious feeling. Their author is erldently a practical,
as well as a professing, Catholic ; and boldly stands forth on all occa-
sions to avow himself as such."
MR. CARLETON.
" We know nothing of the private history of Mr. Carleton, but from
his writings we should gather that he is one who had left the religion
in which he was brought up, from motives in which pique strongly pre-
dominated, and this we infer from the extreme bitterness with which,
in his first works especially, he assails the Catholic faith and its minis-
ters. We are bound to add, in justice to him, that his later works do
not display this uncharitible feeling, but that while he still speaks as sr
Protestant, he uses no language which can be offensive to a fellow -
Christian. Such being the case, we shall not dwell upon those writings
of Mr. Carleton in which he has calumniated the religion and religious
feelings of at least three-fourths of his countrymen, but gladly turn to
those other works in which he displays brilliant talent, and strong natu-
ral feeling. Yes, wonderful as it is to Ascribe such feeling to an IrisA
Conservative, Mr. Carleton is in heart and soul an Irishman—thoroughly
understands, and heartily sympathises with, the faults, the virtues, the
joys and sorrows, of his countrymen. So much is this the case, and so
fearlessly does he reprobate the heartlessness of Irish landlords, that
our only wonder is, that the party to which he belongs, who are noted
for nothing more than their contempt and dislike of the country of their
birth, and the people from whom they derive their subsistence, should
so long have endured him amongst them ; and we are quite sure that
they would not have done so, but for the paucity of talent which their
ranks present, on which account they cannot afford to lose the services
of a man of undoubted genius."

MR. LOVER.
" This gent'eman has been long favourably known to the public as st
distinguished artist, and a poet and a musician of no trifling merit : but,
although he had previously published some admirable comic sketches of
the Irish peasantry, this is his first appearance as a novelist. ' Rory
O'More,' although not possessing a story of very deep interest, has
many passages of great power; is written in the very best spirit ; and
is full of amusing incident, well-drawn characters, and dialogue of great
point and humour. It gives a very faithful picture of the state of
land just before, and immediately after, the insurrection of 1798—mid
it is impossible to read it without blessing Heaven that we arc fallen
upon happier days; The hero of the novel, Rory O'More, is an excel-
lent impersonation of the best qualities of the Irish peasantry—so racy
is his wit—so impenetrable his good humour—so fertile his invention--
and so unimpeachable his honour and fidelity—that whilst be amuses,
be, at the same time, fills us with affection and respect. Solomon, the
tinker, is a being of a very different order, but equally well drawn
incident of his death, frightfully revolting though it be, is, we fear, the
too faithful transcript 0: a frequent occurrence in the guilty year
ninety-eight. l'helim O'Flanagan, the school-master, is a capital chr-
racter. ; his pedantry, though quaint, is not overcharged ; and his pc-
culiariiies, never obtruded upon our notice, are, when occasion serves,
brought forward with very comic abet. None of the other characters
require much notice."

ESSAYS ON NATURAL HISTORY.
Longman, London, 1838.

We have read this little volume with considerable plea-
sure. It is the production of Mr. Waterton, of Walton
Hall, whose " Wanderings in South America" attracted
some years since the attention of the reading public in no
ordinary degree. It was indeed the most attractive book
of the season, containing, as it did, not a few incidents of a
nature almost unprecedented—such, for instance, as the
author's embracing a huge snake with both arms i❑ the re-
cesses of a jungle ; and riding across a river on the back
of an alligator, with the animal's fore-paws brought over
his neck so as to serve the purpose of a bridle. The volume
before us contains no marvels of this sort ; nevertheless it.
is full of interesting information relating to natural history.
It is introduced by a brief auto-biographical sketch, in
every page of which Mr. Waterton shows himself to be a
man of infinite bonhommic and good humour, and of sanguine
and enterprising character. In his sketches of birds,
beasts, and reptiles, he convicts Audubon of a very
sorry knowledge of ornithology, instancing his accounts
of the eag'e and the vulture as proofs of spe-
cial ignorance. These desultory sketches the author sea-
sons with a variety of piquant anecdotes ; and mentions in
particular, an adventure he once had with a snake in the
forests of Guiana, who happening to bo in an irritable
mood, when Mr. Waterton was passing near his hiding-
place, snatched a hasty mouthful from his rearward Adam
at the same time holding on by his trowscrs " with the tena-
city of a bulldog." As the author does not condescend
to inform us by what means he rid himself of this exceed-
ing annoyance, the tenacious reptile, for aught we know to
the contrary, may be holding on by his inexpressibles to
this hour. The ancc Totes of lions in this light, gossiping
little volume, are not less entertaining than those of the
tropical snakes ; and arc worthy to vie with those told by
Mr. Thompson in his popular sketches of Southern Africa.
Altogether, the work will be considered a great boon by the
lovers of Natural IliAory.

HINTS FOR THE TABLE.
Simpkin, London, 1838.

The art of eafng a good dinner is undoubtedly a sub-
ject worthy of the gravest discussion, but the art of getting
one is, in our opinion, a theme of far more importance. Now,
unluckily, the scientific author of the treatise before ne, con-
fines his remarks exclusively to the former subject, which
is about as preposterous as if in building a house, he should
commence wit'l the superstructure instead of the foutla-
lion. However, the hook is readabit, despite this glaring
blemish, and discourses of soups and s,;youry pies in a
style of such exceeding unction, that it quite begets an
appetite.

NOUVELLES. CONVERZATIONS PAM..
SIENIVES.
De Porquet, London, 1838.

A useful elementary work, containing a variety of fami-
liar dialogues i 0 French and English. The compiler is M.
Porquet, whose works on education are well known to most
schoolmasters.

THE RHINE, No. I.
London, TVestley, 1838.

This little work, which it is proposed Lc issue monthly in
shilling numbers, is wholly to consist of the legends, tradi.
Lions, and historical reminiscences connected with the
Rhine. The author is Mr. Snowe, who, so far as we may.
judge from the present specimen, bids fair to execute his
task in a worthy spirit, for the Number before us contains
one or two Rhenish legends told with much skill, in an en-
tertaining manner. It contains also an engraving of Coeln.
which is so highly fin'shed, that we have great difEcu'ty in
believing it to be a lithograph. The design as well as the
execution of this clever plate are by an artist, named But.
ler, who has convinced us that the lithographic form of
engraving has far greater capabilities than we ever gave it
credit for possessing. By our English touri:ts, with whom
the Rhine is just now a place of fashionable resort during
the summer and autumn mouths, tte work will, nu doubt,
be held in great request.

" Ills FRIENDS."-S Llell is
viet,:til::lnifAl(atCrAßi
orkE‘ which i AND
s on the point of making its avearante.
Whchver the author may he, his subject bath inspiration in it that might
pt.t heart and soul into apathy itself. The extent of the work (three
townies) speaks it a work of fiction ; but we understand the fact.to- be
that Truth and Fiction are blended into one, and that it is a sort of de.
mastic novel, the person e being " Shakspeare, and his Friends "
The
id. a is a most happy one ; and if as happily executed as it is canc.i vei,
the work must command extraordinary popularity,

PllttT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

We are at a lost to imagine what step the Tories will take
-neat to regain the lost paradise of office. Dinners at Mer-
chant Tailors' Hall will not - answer. Suppose they try a
breakfast ! Hoek nod champagne have failed ; hurrah for
bvson and seuelicnig ! Protestantism and pekee, with a cup
of gunpowder for the health of the heroes of Inniscarra and
Gurtroe. it is well for the Tories that their means exceed their
reputatidn, or even a breakfast would be to costly a meal for
them. At least they would he reduced to drink the Con-
stitution in l'ohea, or kindle their patriotic fires with a cup
of cocoa, or their old friend Mr. Hunt's " powder." There is
but one comfort in ;he present situation of the Tories : they can
sink no lower than the debate upon Sir Thomas Ac-
land's factious motion has plunged them. He must be a great
a master of the art of sinking in politics who could devise the
means of degrading them further. There isnothing disgrace-
ful in mere discomfiture, however signal. Even after all the
parade and boasting of 14st Saturday's banquet, the mere cir-
cumstance of theis defeat was simply calculated to cover the
Tories with ridicule. To be beaten, however, in the most
profligate and paltry manoeuvre ever attempted by a political
party in the British Parliament is no vulgar overthrow; nor
do we see how its disgrace is lessened by the circumstance
that the minority consisted of nearly 300 Members. We can-
not understand how 300 individuals, assembled to play one
of the shabbiest tricks that was ever practised in the
game of party, make their case any better by vaunting
their numbers. It is as if a pack of rogues and swindlers was
to say, "We are no gang, we are an army. There are 300
of us; no den is large enough to hold so great a company of
thieves ; we can only find space for our musters in Merchant
Tailors' Flail." Sir Robert Peel's glory is, that he is the
acknowledged captain of 300 men who are prepared, r.t a mo-
reent's notice, to cat any given amount of dirt, to go any re-
quired length of meanness and perfidy, to suffer neither honour
nor decency to stand in their way for an instant, if by tramp-
ling them under their feet they think they can approach oiie
inch nearer to office. Sir Robert heads a greater array of
apostates, hypocrites, rash and violent bigots, and needy
and desperate adventurers, than ever before filled the
Opposition Benches of the House of Commons. He may
well be proud of a band which truth compels us to say is emi-
nently worthy of such a chieftain. There is no disputing
about tastes ; but we feel that were we to gain ever so splendid
a victory by such scandalous means as the Tories took upon
Monday night, only to bring upon themselves the most deci-
sive overthrow, we should take little pride in reviewing our
conquering hands. The Tories mustered almost as strong as
the Spartans at Thermopylm, without displaying a sinr..7,ln
Spartan quality, if we except their disposition to stea/a march
into Downing-street. The Tories indeed have received a truly
Spartan education in point of thieving ; 2.,at they use the ac-
complishment in a way that the opartans would have dis-
dained, for it is recorded, we 'oink, of one of the Generals of
• that nation (a different. leader from Sir Robert Peel), that,
being solicited to -attack the enemy in the night, he rejected
the pd
teroposal with indignant contempt, declaring that he
a "steal a victory." Sir Robert is a General who
bes no such scruples ; he is quite ready to steal a victory, if
he can rain one in no other way. Great as he is in Tartuffe,
be condescends now and then to play Autolycus, and it must
be owned he makes no bad attempt at a petty larceny, although
this last experiment on the doors of the Treasury has been a
sad failure. —Morning Chronicle.
The details of the two days' discussion upon the motion of
Sir Thomas Acland are now before the people of England ;
and to any one upright or rational being who deserves the
/name of Englishman we put it, whether the charge which
was brought against Ministers and their partisans in the Times
of last Monday has been refuted, or in the remotest degree
affected, by anything twat fell from Minister or minion in the
course of these voluminous debates—viz., that a maintenance
on the journnis of the resolutions foralienating the subsistence
of the Irish Clergy to Romish purposes was neither more nor,
less than a stubborn obstruction to any satisfactory or prac-,1
tieiable settlement of the Tithe question for Ireland ! Equi.l
vocation, trickiness, and bitterness of spirit, have marked the!
demeanor of Ministers throvegliout this whole proceeding. .k.
Amongst other instances of the abuse of confidence, and of the
!deliberate perversion to dishonest ends of intimations made
• by political adversaries for the most liberal and come!
riliatory object, we need only notice the manner inl
which the Duke of Wellington's pacific intimation tee{
Lord Melbourne towards the close of the Session (June),:
1837, was misconstrued on Monday by Lord J. Russell. The
illustrious Duke at that time declared his anxiety that the
Irish Church question, amongst others, should be settled, and
that he would be happy to co-operate with the Queen's Minis-
ters in any " reasonable measures which they might introduce
for its final and satisfactory adjustment." Lord John Rus-
sell further admitted the " great importance of that declara-
tion," made by the Noble Duke; but in the sequel of his
speech had the extraordinary boldness to infer from it, that the
Duke thereby intended to convey to Ministers a pledge that.
the Conservative party would withdraw its original hostility
to measures which should " embody the principle" of the ap-
propriation clause, or which should leave the Protestant
Church still open to prospective invasion from that destructive
principle by keeping the assertion of it, sub s lentio, on the
journals. The Ministerial leader crowned this worthy treatment
of such a statesman as the Duke of Wellington by reproach- •
ing his Greco with Sir Thomas Acland's motion, as if it had
been a fraud upon the ingenuous frankness of the Govern-
ment, and announced, in a tone of menace approaching nearer
to insolence than became either the occasion or the speaker,
that he would henceforth consider all professions coming from
the Conservatives as " snares ! Now, the people, who take a
deep interest in these subjects, and who know how to appre-
ciate the characters of public men, will not fail to contrast the
lofty indignation expressed by Lord John Russell at even a
suspicion on the part of the Conservatives that he and his col-
leagues could commit an act so " inconsistent with their ho-
nour," as would be the absudonment of the appropriation clause
• in words, although t.l;ey durst not practically reassert it in
• their measures, with the ccol and easy assumption of the
Noble Lord, that the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert
Peel would consent either formally or tacitly to relinquish
their condemnation of that revolutionary robbery. Every
thing, however extraordinary and absurd, was claimed for
the " honour" cf the - Church's enemies, but no allowance
was to be made for the honour or consistency of her
friends. It is clear to ell men that the Duke of Wel-
lington never could have dreamed of describing as a "reason-
able- measure one which should include the " appropriation"
principle, or which should leave it so much as doubtful whe-
ther a subsequent recurrence to that principle was not contem-
plated by the framers of the new measure. The motion,
therefore, to rescind the offensive resolution from the journals
sass in bona fide confirmation and furtherance of the Duke of
Wellington's declared anxiety for a final adjustment of the
Irish Church question. It was merely saying, " I find it
morally impossible to get any measure of adjustment passed
through Parliament while this bone of contention remains be-
tween us; remove it therefore (rescind the resolution), and we
Conservatives are ready this moment to treat upon liberal
terms." Non, let the country remember what is the appro-
priation-clause resolution. It is nothing—it professes to be
nothing—but an abstract fetter upon the free will of Parlia-
ment. it says, that without a diversion of the church revenues
no church settlement law can be satisfactory- to the . Pa-
pists ; yet, in spite of such a warning, the Ministers do bring
in—they have brought in—a bill (or resolutions, which arc
equivalent to it) which does not, say the Ministers themselves,
embody the " appropriation principle." Lord John Russell
admits this treason against the Church-robbery resolutions to
be inherent in the present Bill ; Lord Morpeth goes further,
and declares that the Ministers had " entirely to;thdrawn the
- grievane3 ;" while, in language less florid, but more detailed
and minute, and, moreover, somewhat querulous, Mr. Spring
Rice reproached the Opposition with their unreasoning blind-
ness, in not perceiving " what must be obvious to all the
world"—viz., that the present resolutions did " not" embody
the appropriation principle of 1835. "He would defy any
one who went through the resolutions 'to mistake," that such
was their import, and complained of the prudery of that twad-
dling personage, Mr. Benett (one of your flourishers about in-
dependence when it is good for nothing, but who always votes
" black is white" when Whiggery is at a pinch), for aff'ecting to
say that the meaning of the resolutions was doubtful. We have
it, therefore, from three Cabinet Ministers, that their present
Bill is not to embody the appropriation principle of 1335, which
• stands recorded, at their suggestion, oat the journals of the last
Parliament, as being essential to the efficacy of any Church
measure for tranquillizing the people of Ireland. Well, then,
gentlemen, c.i Bono your present measure? On your own
showing it is devoid of all. tranquillizing attribute or power.
Once more, then, w' dare you to justify yourselves for the
, knavery of its iaatroduction. The fraud practised by Ministers
is a double one. The attempt to gull the friends of the Church
' by dro7,ping all reference to the appropriation clause out of
thon• immediate resolutions!, and to gull the Papists by refusing
to expunge the appropriation clause from the journals, imply-
ing a readiness to enforce it at scme more propitious moment !
Verily they are the basest of their kind. For Mr. Daniel
O'Connell's eninibition in this instance, we have set scorn to
throw away upon his mixture of cowardice with ferocity, and
feebleness with rancour. If justice to the Irish Papists re-
quire that we should put in their hands an unmeasured
power of inflicting upon our own brethren what in-
jury and oppression they please, then we tell Mr.
Daniel O'Connell that he ar,d his priests will not
succeed in wresting from tie imperial Parliament that parti-
cular sort of justice, :The secret of it is, that Popery never
-,, rests satkies with equal lights, or without unbridled power,
d tl,at It is not Protestants who have raised the question
I evitich party is that whose existence demands that one of
ein must be kept down ?" We have seen above what is not
be found in the principle of the Minister's resolutions. Let
I"
.. as glance C.-or an instant at their detailed provisions. The ex-
isting clergy are to have each his 1001. of tithe now payable
Out of the land commuted into 701., payable out of the con-
tolidated fund. This, cne would think, is a pretty liberal de-
duction. But what happens to the successors of the living
, Clergy ? They, if we rightly understand the second resolu-
;tie% are to have nothing mere than the interest acmuino from
~a sum of money equal .to 16 years' purchase of the said' rent-
tharge, or, if laid out in land, the rent arising out of so
many acres ' as tire said 16 years purchase-money- will
' buy, For instance, a clergyman now entitled to one
. .hundred pounds per annum of tithe, is reduced
by the proposed law to an income, payable at the Treasury, of
Vote per annum. But on his death a rent-charge equivalent to
• his 70/. per annum is to be bought by the State at sixteen
Years' purchase—that is, for the sum of 1,320/., which if laid
out in the funds, would, in the present state of thinga, produce
. no more than '),I- per cent., or about 46.
In
from
a-year, lieu of
100/. tithe, or 70/. commutation; being first a reduction
• the tithe of 301. per cent., and from the rent-charge of above
3-1/. per cent. more, or a total diminution of the clergyman's
income of 54/. per cent. from its present level. However, we
confess that the mystifying manner in which the second and
third resolutions are drawn up may have deceived us, and that

the intent of Ministers :nay be to grant the Church 16 years'
purcileee bf the existing tithe, or 1,600/. for each led per an-
num. In that case we shJuld have to calculate the interest of
1,600/. at el per cent. (the probable product of the foods)
or 561. per annum, a; the peopeecd indemnification cf the
clergy for their less or each 1001. per annum—a 'eche:tit nof
4 per cent. from their present very moderate revenue.
This (should the above favourable hypothesis prove true? the
Ministers pretend to be elleir meditated peevisiOn for the Pro-
testant Clergy, while M. Dtthlti O'Connd!, the framer of
their Bill, hat deelared it to be nothing more than an instal-
ment or that debt of 100 per cent. which is due from them to
his Popish priesthood. Now, it is tolerably certain that no-
thing more would be necessary for ;editing Mr. O'Connell's
construction of the Bill, and utterly annihilating that affixed
to it by Ministers, than that they should be squeezed a little
harder, and laid, by the pressure of the Conservatives, a little
more prostrate under the Agitator's hoof. Such is the
depraved policy of the Ministers, who have thus renewed
their mercenary attacks upon the Church, amidst loud pro-
fessions of regard for its stability and for the well-being of
its Ministers. They can propose nothing wherein deceit and
falsehood, the resources of conscious incapacity, arc not
the most conspicuous features. They cannot move either hand
or foot without exposing the convict's fetters with which their
Irish Peach'em ha; loaded them. They have an excess of
votes over the Conservatives, which some•casualties swelled to
the triumphal level of 19, in a House consisting (tellers ie-
eluded) of 619 Members, besides nine pairs. Suppose it is
the policy of the Conservatives (we know not whether it be)
to push and worry them by frequent debates on some of those
innumerable questions, where their folly and worthlessness
have laid them so much at the mercy of an active and united
power, like that now the disposal of Sir Robert:Peel—WC ask
not what becomes of a reputation irretrievably lost—that little
which ever existed—but of how many days' value is the tenure
of that office, for which all that ought to be dear to man has
been so meanly sacrificed ? Times.
Greet as was the preparation for the onslaught of the
Knight of Devon, greater still was the discomfiture which his
followers experienced on the division of Tuesday night. The
abetters of the attack on the appropriation resolution loudly
vaunted that they were about to inflict " a heavy blow and
groat discouragement" against her Majesty's Administration.
On the previous Saturday, in preparation for the onset, they
fed to repletion, and in potations pottle-deep toasted " Suc-
cess to Monday." On the morning of the engagement their
numb: re were ostentatiously paraded, and in the confidence of
victory all manner of invective and insult was cast upon the
Government in anticipation of its defeat ; every possible stra-
tagem had been put in action ; the manner of assault was kept
profoundly secret until the last moment; an entertainment to
Sir Robert Peel was made the pretence of mustering the forces,
it being a well-known fact that wherever there be a good enter-
tainment a swarm of Tory feeders never excites surprise. Vic-
tory was looked upon as certain, and the hungry expec-
tants already grasped in anticipation the prizes of office ;
but, alas, the uncertainty of human calculations ! The hour of
battle comes, and though upwards of 31.3 Tories were said to
have been at Sir Robert Peel's dinner, and several others,
more than sufficient with these to make a majority of the
whole House of Commons, were announced as available in the
hour of need, the Ministry, taken thus almost by surprise, had
a majority of 19. If the Tory statements be correct, the re-
sult only shows that there arc many of the Tories who have a
greater propensity to feeding than to fighting, and who would
rather indulge at the festive board in a little inflated declama-
tion, than expose themselves to the contempt and execration
of the country, by supporting principles of injustice and into-
lerance in the House of Commons. Had the appropriation
principle been left undisturbed by its opponents, it might for
some time have been allowed to remain quiescent ; but the To-
ries having now goaded it into activity, the people of Ireland
and of Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing short of its
practical application. Ministers were becoming apparently
forgetful of the elements of their own strength; and the
motion of Sir Thomas Acland has opportunely reminded them
of the quarter whereon they may best depend for support and
stability. Even had Ministers been defeated on Tuesday
night, they would be stronger in the affections and confidence
of the country, than with any majority the House of Com-
mons could afford them, if gained by a dereliction of prin-
ciple, or a mean and destardly conciliation of Toryism. The
Tories have now done their worst against Ministers. By fair
means and foul they have assailed the Government in every
possible way, and only to expose their own impotence and
malevolence. The greater and more violent the Tory oppo-
sition, the greater the strength of the Ministry. This is a
fact which cannot be tco urgently impressed on the minds of
the Cabinet, which is never in so much danger as when if ap-
pears to have conciliated the support of men inveterately and
notoriously opposed to the interests of Reform, and to all ame-
liorations calculated to promote the extension of popular
rights, or just and honest principles of governmen t—Morniny
Advertiser.

In the debate of Tuesday night, Mr. Ward, the Member
for Sheffield, took occasion to retail the standing argument of
his party, in reference to the possessions of the Established
Church ! These possessions, according to Mr. Ward and a
section of economists, do not exhibit the characteristics of
property. These possessions cannot be sold, or alienated, or
transmitted to their descendants, by Churchmen. Church
property, in short, according to these authorities, is merely
State property ; and Churchmen are merely salaried servants
of the public, as soldiers and sailors are. With the State, it
rests, to give what direction may be deemed expedient, to the
funds from which these salaries are paid. Such is the economi-
cal argument on this question? Now, if in every other respect this
argument were perfectly sound, its tendency would be to esta-
blish—not that Church property belongs to the State—but that
Church property is not private property ;—a proposition never
maintained in the affirmative by any one The property of
the Church has been, in the greater part, devised for clerical
uses, by its original possessors ; and when the enemies of the
Churich advert to the superior sacredness of private property,
they may be reminded that Church property was private pro-
perty, immediately before it vested in the Church ; and that,
whatever degree of sacredness private property can, by pos-
sibility possess, must, therefore, appertain to the property of
the Church ! Property, let it be borne in mind, does not lose
its sacredness by being unwisely employed ; and, therefore if,
for the sake of argument, it were conceded that clerical uses
are unwise uses, still, it would follow, that the same principle
of sacredness which entitles the owner of property to embark
it in the most desperate speculations, would entitle him to
devote it to the uses of the Cburch ! When attempts were
mode to confound clergymen, with soldiers and sailors, as
" salaried servants" of the public—the answer, obviously is,
that the existing public pays soldiers, from year to year; but
that the Church is maintained, in a great measure, by wealth
which was not created by any portion of the contemporary
generation. As to the power of State over Church property
—that power is, merely, the power of a trustee. The State
is bound to watch over the honest administration of the funds,
which have been, for specific purposes, committed to its care ;
but the right of the State to enjoy that property, is no
stronger than the right of the Lord Chancellor to enjoy the
property, of which, in virtue of his offico, he is guardian !
Yet Mr. Ward and his party allege that Church property
belongs to the State ! —Morning Herald.
-

The Ministerial majority of Tuesday night in the House of
Commons amounted to exactly one-half the number of place-
men who have seats in that House. We do not say that on
this account the majority is not a good majority, as times. go
with her Majesty's Ministers ; but we really do think it is
rather a pitiful theme for such enormous exultation as . i
terialists are not ashamed to manifest on the occasion. 'I he
insolence of this exults its ex-
, treme absurdity. To exhibit the real state of the case, which
Ministerialists,in the joy of their escape from utter defeat, are
fain to call a <<victory," we have but to examine the history of
the matter which was on Tuesday night decided upon by the
House. Three years ago, when the present Ministerial
party was in Opposition, they carried a certain resolution
of great hostility to the Established Church in Ireland, by
a majority of 33 ; the ales being 322, and the noes 289.
Ism -diately afterwards they got into Administration, and
they tried to carry a measure through Parliament, em-
bodying the principle of this resolution ; but they
were beaten in the Upper House. Since that time, although
they have had all the influence of Government to help them—
although they have had a new election of the House of Com-
mons, with the power of the Crown entirely at their disposal,
end most unscrupulously used--they have not dared openly to
bring forward this principle, upon the back of which they rode
into office in 1835. In 1838 they bring forward certain reso-
lutions so dishonestly ambiguous that it was a matter of great
doubt whether they were intended to embody the principle
which they insisted upon in 1835 or were cot. This dishonest
ambiguity was manifestly resorted to fur the purpose of catch-
ing votes, and we regret to say that the stratagem was in some
degree successful, for as we showed yesterday, Mr. Bennett
voted with Ministers, because he considered them to have
g -ren up the principle of 1833, and Mr. Ward voted
with them because he considered that they had not so
done. To blow up this contrivance, and to bring the
question of the appropriation principle fairly before
the House, the Conservatives moved that the rcsolu-
lution of 1835 should be rescinded. It is true they did not
succeed, but it is also true that Ministers could not main-
tain their resolution by so large a majority as that by which
they carried it when in Opposition. They have been three
years exercising their power and their skill in Govern-
ment, and the result is, that they are not able to muster as
many votes as the did when in Opposition. Tho Con-
servatives have been three years out of office, with
no Commissionerships to distribute, no regiments to give
away, no Peerages to promise, and yet they are able to mus-
ter more votes against the appropriation clause than they
could when in office three years ago. Where,
here, then, is the
victory? Is it on the side of those who, with everything in
their favour except the public esteem, have fallen short of
their former numbers, or on the side of those who, with every-
thing adverse to them except the public esteem, have added
to their former numbers? Every one who is not, like an idiot,
bereft of all discernment, or, like a madman, the slave of some
pre-possession, and not the creature of reason, must perceive that
whatever "victory" there is in this case it is with the Conser-
vatives. Another thing, which it is of great importance to .
consider, the nature of the respective parties which came
into conflict in the division of Tuesday night. On this occa-
sion the administration had the benefit cf all the doubtful men,
while the Conservatives relied upon their own undoubted
strength. There were some gentlemen who voted against the
resolution of 1833, and yet voted against rescinding it in 1838,
alleging nevertheless that they had not changed their minds.
By what curious process of ratiocination any man was able
to persuade himself that though a resolution was a bad one
—containing a bad principle on a very important matter—it was
yet right and expedient to retain it among the resolutions of
the House of Commons—by what subtle course of mental per-
suasion this conviction was wrought in any man's mind we own
we are unable to understand. But so it was, and we do
not envy the mind capable of being so persuaded. We envy •

it not, but rather marvel. But, br sides this, consider the mate-
rials of this heterogenous majority, and estimate the weight that
iii reason ought to bAang to it. Thde were men who pro-
kss fill Manner of good will to the EstaLlished Church, such
Mr. Bcnett and Mr. Pusey ; and also such men as Mr.
Waiburtoa and Mr. Hume; Who certainly do no such thing.
There were men who. hate sworn to do nothing tending to
disttirti or weaken the Protestant Establishment, such as Mr,
O'Connell and Mr. Shell , and there were men who never
eisguise their wish both to disturb and to weaken it, such as
Mr Gillon and Mr. Rippon. There were utilitarian Repub.
lic.ins and paid servants of the Crown—thcre were Dissenters
and Churchmen, fanatics and free-thinkers—speculators and
anarchists of every shade and hue, all swept together into one
mass of Ministerial rubbish, and this constituted the majority 1
On the other hand the powerful minority, coming within 19 of
t cis agglomeration of discordant particles, was composed of a
united body, acting under one leadcr,-animated by one senti-
ment, and that sentiment the preservation of the Established
Constitution in Church and State. Let Lord John Russell
make any declaration of general principles of G‘ivernment
embracing all the constitution.;) questions that have been de-
cided in the House of Commons within the last three years,
and see whether he can find three hundred Ministerial Mem_
hers of the House of Commons to support that declaration.
He knows that he could do no such thing. He knows that he
must trust to-day to those who will oppore him to-morrow_
that he must perform a disgraceful see-saw, or as a Minister
be beaten—that he must wriggle his way through the Par-
liamentary Session, now inclining to this side, and now to
that, or else fall helpless between two parties, neither of
which can trust him, except upon certain occasions when
lie trims his sails so as to catch the favouring gale
from one side or the other. Lord John Russell knows that
that is his ignominious position, though the ignomy of that or
of anything else he is incapable of feeling. He feels only
t hat by his wriggling accommodation of himself to eireums'an-
cc; he is Minister, and can nominate to places and receive a
salary. But how different is the case of the leader of the
Opposition. He courts no support on one day from those
whom he knows to be against him on another. He does not
rely upon the sweepings of the House of Commons—here a
knot of Papists, and there of Socinians—in this place a group
of Republicans, and in that a band of those who cat of the
Queen's salt, and call themselves her dutiful servants. No;
the Opposition is a united, intelligible, honourable Opposi-
tion ; the Ministerial party is a heap of incongruous disrepu-
table materials—a crowd of people who work together upon
no common principle, aril with -no common end, and who do
not trust one another, even when they vote together.—Morn-
ing Post.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ROLLS' COURT, MAY 16.
BARNETT AND ARMPIELD b. LEDSAM AND OTHERS.

Mr. PEMBERTON with whom was Mr. J. H. PALMER, applied exparte
on behalf of the plaintiff; Mr. Richard Armfleld, who is a large wholesale
button manufacturer, carrying on business in King-street, Cheapside,
for a special injunction to restrain the defendants, who are button
manufacturers at Birmingham, from infringing on a patent granted
to the plaintiffs for the manufacture of buttons, which protected
the thread from friction by means of the formation of the shank.
From the affidavit of Mr. Francis George, it appeared that the
plaintiff's, together with Mr. Barnett, obtained the patent in
question in April last, and that upon an understanding between Mr.
Barnett and the plaintiff, the patent was taken out in the name of the
firmer alone. Early in the present month the plaintiff discovered that
the defendants were offering for sale buttons of a similar description to
the plaintiff's patent article, with the exception of placing at the back of
the buttons the words Ne plus ultra, instead of Arrntleld and Barnett's
Patent.

The MASTER of the ROLLS, after looking at the patent article and the
spurious one, said there could be no doubt that the one was intended as
an imitation of the other. He should therefore grant the injunction.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, MAY 16.

BROWN AND OTHERS V. BLAKISTON.

This was an action for a bill of exchange and two promissory notes.
The defence was that these bills and notes had been accepted by the de-
fendant for one Dean, and that the plaintiffs had received payment for
the same. The plaintiffs had acted as bankers for Dean, and after the
bills and notes in question had become due, they had made an entry in
their books, stating that they had given credit to Dean upon security,
by way of mortgage, for the sum of 1,5001, This sum was more than
sufficient to cover the amount due in respect of these bills. Dean was
examined as as a witness, and stated that he had never specifically made
payment of these bills and notes, nor asked to have them delivered up.
It was contended on the part of the plaintiffs that they were not bound
to appropriate any balance in their hands, however created, to the pay.
ment of overdue bills, unless expressly required to do so; but might
still proceed to recover the amount of such bills against the parties
whose names appeared upon them.

The Jury found that the credit given after the acceptances became
due was in fact a payment of them, though not specifically made on ac_
Gaunt of them. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to a mo-
tion upon the effect of a payment thus made.

EXCHEQUER COURT, Mir 16.

CHANTER r. HOPKINS.

Mr. ERLE said that this was an action brought by Mr. Chanter, the
proprietor of Chanter's patent smoke.consuming furnace, to recover
from the defendant, a brewer at St. Ive's, the sum of '2.2.1. and a fraction,
for an article supplied to him. Mr. Hopkins, being desirous of possess-
ing one of the smoke-consuming furnaces, had written to the plaintiff,
desiring him to send one of them to him at St. Ive's, 151. 151. to be paid
for the patent right, not more than 51. ss. for the iron work, and some
specified sum for each day occupied in putting up and superintending
it. One of these machines had been accordingly sent, and the de..
fendant would of course be bound to pay for it. He would, however,
probably say that it was of no value to him ; but whether that defence
could be set up his Lordship would direct. The articles supplied was
not an entire furnace, but an apparatus to be affixed to the original
furnace, by which the smoke was forced to pass through the fire, and
so was consumed.

The Jury f.und for the plaintiff for 211. 9s. Cd., and that the invention
was perfectly useless to the defendant.

CRIMINAL COURT.

NEW COURT.

Ann Smith, aged 21, and Ann Harrison, her mother, aged 60, were
indicted, the fusilier for stealing a sheet and a great quantity of other
linen articles, the property of William Murray, Esq., her master, and
the latter for feloniously receiving a part of the said property, well
knowing it to have been stolen.
The Jury found them both Guilty.
The Learned Prosecutor informed the Court that he had lost property
to the amount of 1001. His cellar had been opened by false keys, and
he had lost five dozen bottles of brandy and a quantity of wine.
Sarah Kevin, aged 26, was indicted for stealing a quantity of Irish
linen and a variety of other articles, value 14/. and upwards, the pro.
perty of James Williams, her master; and Bohol Armstrong, aged 24,
was charged with receiving the same, knowing it to have been stolen.
The prosecutor is a draper, living at No. 10, Newington-causeway,
and the female bad been his servant two years and a half. Some time
back a burglary was committed on his premises, since which he had
employed and paid the male prisoner to shut up his shop and sleep on the
premises to guard them. He was the sweetheart of the female, and was
highly recommended to him. Had seen some property produced by an '
officer, which he knew to be his from the private marks.
. P. Froad, No. 6 division, stated that when conveying the female to
Union Hall, she told him that she took the articles, and gave them to
Armstrong to take care of, who, she said, was as innocent as a child un.
born. She said she told him she had purchased the articles.
The Jury returned a verdict of guilty against both prisoners.
The RECORDEZ said the case was a very serious one, and the female,
like many of her sex who had formed an attachment, had probably pre.
f•rred sacrificing herself by a confession, in order to screen the object of
her affections.

EADEZZLEMENT.—CharIes Confield was indicted for that, he being ser-
vant to John Brown Bell and another, received the sum of 3/. ISs. on
their account, and that he did afterwards secret, embezzle, and steal the
same.—Acquitted.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

A young man named John Kidd, apparently about nineteen years of
age, was brought up for final examination, charged with having forged
a check upon his employers, Messrs. Bolitho, of Fenchurch-streot, tin
and lead plate merchants, for the sum of 386/. 7s. 6d., and with having
stolen 151. out of the desk of ono of the other clerks of the establishment.

The unfortunate boy acknowledged that_
he had committed both
offences, and stated upon being apprehended that he bad made a present
of a fashionable gold watch and chain to a celebrated actress, and that
he had made the purchase out of the proceeds of the money which lie
had obtained by the forgery.
Mr. Ilobler, jun., for the prosecution, stated that his clerk had called
upon the lady whose name was mentioned by the prisoner and informed
her of the circumstances, and that she immediately and without hesita-
tion gave up the watch and chain, stating that she was not at all
acquainted with the giver, but had received from him letters couched
in such language as females so publicly situated frequently were troubled
with. She added that she kept the articles at the theatre and directed
her attendants to scud them to the doer as soon as he should again pre.
sent himself, but that he had not been seen at the theatre since.
The Loaf) MaYoa—l must commit you fur trial for the forgery and
robbery. You have destroyed yourself for ever.
The prisoner shed tears, lie was then committed for trial.