The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-22 00:00:00

FROM THE DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.

GLOBE.--In the Times of this morning there is an
instance of the extreme contempt in which the Torie s
affect to hold the wishes of the people ; for not only
is there a perverted account of yesterday's meeting in
Southwark, but the editor comes to the reporter's aid,
and assists his ingenious misrepresentations by what is
evidently intended for " a biting article." The chief
subject of complaint against the petitioners to the
Queen is that they did not all wear clean shirts, and
that they appeared to be poor—or in other words, that
they seemed to be really in want of the relief they
seek at the hands of Parliament. It would be some-
what of an inconsistency, and might give rise to
suspicion, if large numbers of persons whose linen and
dress bespoke the possession of all the comforts as well
as necessaries of life, and whose hands displayed none
of the marks of labour, should have come forward to
ask relief for the distress which they would not appear to
be suffer;ng. It is not likely that there will ever be a
very numerous meeting of individuals in polished leather
boots, yellow kid gloves, and cambric -pocket-handker-
chiefs, to complain of the high price of the quartern loaf ;
nor should we be much disposed to attend to their appli-
cation if it should be on their own account alone that
thy had resolved on petitioning. But when men assem-
ble whose appearance bespeaks the poverty they deplore,
and shows them to be in want of the relief they ask—
when their unanimous adoption of a respectful petition,
and rejection of every Chartist proposal to assume a die-
tatorial or threatening tone, may be taken as a sign of
their desire to keep .strictly within the law—when men
act as these men have done, is it reason, is it justice is it
pctcy, in the avowed organ of the Government to ridicule
their accounts of death having ensued from the starva-
tion of some of their own class, and to throw a slur on
them by contemptuous allusions to the poorness of ap-
parel occasioned by the very distress for which they
peaceably appeal to the Queen to assist in giving
them a remedy ? We tell the Times that this is not
the tone in which the people will permit that their ap-
peals for cheap bread shall be responded to ; and the
Jokes on " aristocratic quartern loaves, which seem
determined to be paid for, and, what is worse, to
maintain. their price,' may suggest reflections that if the
loaves are obdurate, it will be necessary to try whether
the obstinacy of the landlords is equally inflexible. The
people, we are happy to perceive, are taking the proper
legal course; and the discomfiture of the Chartists is a
convincing proof that they are regarded in their true
light by the better and most numerous class of the com-
munity. We trust, therefore, that our Tory contempo-
raries will not, by ill-judged ridicule, endeavour to teach
the well-disposed petitioners for Corn-law amendment
that ;their attitude must be threatening, before it kill
experience anything beyond contempt from the Con-
servative Government. We tell them, liowevee, that
unity and firmness will obtain eventually all ; while the
intemperance into which the Tory organs would gladly
goad them would only furnish a pretext for despising
their opinions, and placing every practicable restraint
upon the means and opportunities of expressing them.
STANDARD.—The part which we have throughout
acted with reference to the Maynooth establishment re-
quires of us that we speak openly when the question is
regularly presented for public consideration ; we shall
not shrink from the duty. If the establishment, then,
is to be conducted as it has been conducted for a long
succession of years, we do not hesitate to say that every
man who respects the interests of religion, every man
who cares fur public peace, every man who recognises
the fundamental principles of our constitutional policy,
must, if he will act conscientiously, refuse to aid that
establishment with the public money. On the other
side, we cannot go the whole length with those
who maintain that it is sinful to continue the
grant, because of the errors which it helps to
disseminate. We are Protestants, and in sayiuge
this, we say that we hold many of `'tie
,
tenets of the Church of Rome to be erre:neous,
and dangerous ; but we will not say—we have ra;ver said
even when most warmly opposed to theyol.; tical Roman
Catholic party—that, as a whsle,' the &omen Catholic
religion does not offer ample means of salvation. The
wheat is mixed with tares, but the wheat is still there ;
and we may almost apply the parable vouchsafed for
another purpose. Better spare even the tares, than, by
plucking up all, leave a blank desert utterly unprofit-
able for the use of man. And how does the Maynooth
question stand with reference to justice? The establish-
ment was founded upon considerations of national policy.
The countries in which the Roman Catholic cle•l' p.a
.
had been previously educated were at th-
at war with us, or under the control'' " , time
" e--n—e ~ -
ini e s ; and it was thought dangerous tr of
sons educated in those countries permit per-
homeP.pman Catholic clergy
the influence which the to exercise at
mu._;t, from the nature of their
State impliedly bound itself
within their sphere. The religion, always exercise
State
of the Roman Catholic
to provide for the ea
gbh •, was renewed with all possible
clergy. The obl
I:ne Act of Union. Now, if this obligation
nit by bY
was sine., the time of the union nes the proper season
to reject it. We may not now seek to escape any of the
terms of that great national compact. Next arises the
question—lf we are thus bound by the obligations of ho-
nour, of justice, and of Christian duty, not to discontinue
the grant, are we equally bound to permit its application
to such purposes as it is now applied to ? We answer,
No. The terms upon which the establishment was
fouuded expressly give to the State a right to examine
the system of education pursued by it—the declared
purpose of the establishment—the ensuring the loyalty
of the Roman Catholic clergy—implies that if that pur-
pose appears not to be answered, and if the parties con-
cerned obstinately refuse that it shall be answered, the
grant is forfeited. If the seminary of Maynooth, which
is at present the single institution in the empire that receives
the public money, and yet withholds, mysteriously, an ex-
planation of its system—if, we say, this seminary
refuse to admit the inquiries of Parliament, and to obey
the suggestions of Parliament, there can be no question
that the grant will be forfeited. But without bringing
the matter to this tangible issue, it is offensive to the
pwrihnacti pme
l,es
would of
justice
advise, t
then, speakhoe n,is
to
of
petitionrefusing
forthe g 1.4
oai
rn3t..,
not for a refusal of the grant.
COURIER.—Mr. ;Otway Cave, evidently labouring
oofoohsitsitouennptor
hlasariadtyrowiittlyh
tuhned
great
a balkin f uol f consciousnessthe
Tipperary
rreaatp
availed himself of the absence of his muster, to play a
few fantastic gambles, which, though they may notmake
angels weep, are certainly calculated to make mortals
laugh ! And has it come to this--that Mr. Otway Cave is
to be the asserter of Ireland's rights—the denouncer of ber
wrongs—in the new Parliament ? What has become of
the Blakes and the
Bodkins—the O'Briens and the
O'Callaghans—or of Messrs. O'Connell and Sheil, that
the pleasing duty of vindic t.
ng Ireland—of coarsely as-
sailing Lords Stanley Lyndhurst, and of predict-
ing woes innumerable andf i
from their sway, should have
devolved upon the hithertoH silent Member for Tipperary ?
Really, if the onourablo Memb • in
Member should p.roceed
and
the path he marked out for himself last night,
favour the House with another Member
iss7h display, the
popularity,
for Meath may tremble for h ' seat" and
das both would in that case the
Member for Bath for his fame ; while Lord J. Russell
should look closely to his leadershithen there were
a formidable rival near his throne. asßut though Mr.
Cave's . first effort in the oratorical line was by no means
deficient in
wordiness and violence, we regret we
cannot compliment him either on the originality of
his arguments or the closeness of his logic. He vas
in so furious a passion at the appointment of
suchail
men to the administration of Irish affairs as '
de Grey and Lord Eliot ; men whose uprightness, mo-
deration, and high principledness, have extorted
ed the ap-
probation of opponents, as not to have pere
-e to
illo-
gical absurdity of deducing anything unfavourable
over Ireland from Lord Lyndhurst's presidency
our widely
Eng-
lish Equity Courts, or Lord Stanley's over
'
extended colonial empire. If Ireland s new avenger can.
find in the recently formed Cabinet no more colourable
pretence for his calumnious
charges
and ill-intentioned
prognostications, than the fact ty of
p
the present Chancellor has again
beenresserr into the
public service, and thatith e
_ bold and vigorous intellect
of the Colonial Secretary has again
to the Siete, we would recommend been_ _ made available
4za to forbear in
future his silly strictures and earning criticism on pub-
lic inen and their measures. But as from evil not unfre-
quently emanates good, so this pointless drivelling of
.
the Member for Tipperary gave Sir Robert Peel a
fresh opportunity of disclosing his intentions with
regard to Ireland, and of thus demolishing at one
blow the fantastic and feeble structure of oppositio
to his Government, in the construction of which thea
Whigs and their partisans have so long and so se-
dulously laboured. There was no one subject
connection with that portion of the
empire ehia so much misrepresentation and wilful exaggerationoilwhi -
pre!.
veiled as on the system of registration proposed
StanleY,, in lieu of that which obtains
there
by Lord
foulest and by which all parties admit, the
abuP,
Present,
been engendered and
protected. Your es have
said his Lordship's detraeters, to tkiset is,
chise—to annihilate the constit limit the under
the Irish Reform Bill • but uency created under
know in what spirit will- the we
*should like to
Peel's announcement last night receive Sir Robert measure for the prevention g that in any future
knowledged abuses, he should take correction of ac-
the constituency which was intended articular care that
the Reform Bill should undergo
no limitation ? We
hoped to find Ireland Sir be sorely disappointed, who
Robert Peel's chief difficulty,
but who, seeing the judi ' ciousness of his appointments,
the conciliatoriness of
objectionable character hisof hannouncements, and the un-
making measures, now despair of
making Irish affairs the b
filets, and the Irish attle-ground of factious con-
people the tools and dupes of party.

Els' c