The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-31 00:00:00

them how visionary and fallacious is any such expec-
tation. Ministers have proclaimed their resolution to
modify the Tithe Bill now before the House of Com-
mons in such a way that it may include the precise
amount of Church robbery which the Roman Catholic
leaders demanded immediately before the announce-
ment of the last Ministerial concessions. Mr. Barron
said that " he remembered," we quote the Times report,
"that at a meeting of the liberal Irish Members,
which he attended, it had been determined to press the
Government to concede three points—first, the omis-
sion of the appropriation clause ; secondly, that
there should be a new valuation in all cases in which
there had been any complaint ; and, thirdly, that the
reduction on tithe should be increased from 15 or 20
per cent. to 40 per cent. Now all these points had
been conceded, and he accordingly considered it rather
strange that Hon. Gentlemen should now offer such
strenuous opposition to the Bill." We entirely differ
from Mr. Barron. The result which seems so strange
to him is perfectly familiar to us. When has conces-
sion to the Roman Catholic faction produced any other
effect than to enhance their demands, and to aggravate
their discontent ? When will concession to them be
productive of any other effect so long as any thing re-
mains to be conceded ? The folly of Ministers must
now surely be cured. It is impossible that they can
any longer expect to propitiate the Roman Catholic
faction by any measures which, either in substance or
in form, stop short of the destruction of the Protestant
Church, and the abandonment of Ireland to triumphant
and unmitigated Popery. We have always insisted that
firmness and vigour are the qualities by the display of
which the British Government in its treatment of Ireland
can alone discharge its duty to the empire at large,
or perform towards the Irish people those indispensa-
ble offices from the necessity of which Government, in
the abstract,. derives its whole value and its whole jus-
fication. And in proportion to the strength of this
conviction is our regret when we perceive that, in the
debate upon the Irish Tithe Bill, a power paramount
to that of the law is perpetually recognised by speakers
on all sides of the question, and by none with greater
apparent alacrity than by the members of his Majesty's
Government, the Advocates of the Bill. One of their
leading arguments in favour of the Bill has been, in-
deed, that, if it be not passed, tithe will necessarily
fall into abeyance, and that this description of pro-
perty will be finally lost. What is this but a coward's
argument ? What is it but an admission that the law
is impotent, and the violators of the law, supreme ? Is
not tithe a legal claim now, as much as the fraction
of tithe which the Bill proposes to respect will be
a legal 'claim after the Bill has passed ? And what
obedience is due or likely to be paid to a law,
the chief argument in support of which is that
the existing law has been overpowered by illegal
violence ? The new Bill proposes to give up to the
landlords of Ireland 40 per cent. of the actual value of
the tithe, upon condition that they will make themselves
responsible to the Church for the remaining 60 per
cent. The bonus is a large one, and in any state of
society in which the laws were permitted to operate, it
would present an irresistible temptation. But the force
of the inducement is incalculably impaired when the
offer of it is accompanied by an acknowledgment that
the law is powerless, and when the landowners of Ire-
land are told, in express terms, by men on all sides of
the House of Commons, that if they make themselves
responsible for 60 per cent. of the tithe, or for any other
proportion, they will certainly be left to obtain their re-
imbursement how they can, without any effectual aid
from the Government or the law. It is not upon
terms like these that men are easily induced to under-
take onerous responsibilities. We had written thus
far when we learned thatMr.o ' Connell defeated Ministers
last night in the House of Commons, and gave to the
Irish Tithe Bill a character so entirely new that hence-
forth it must be considered not the measure of his Ma-
jesty's Ministers, but that of the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin. Mr. O'Connell's amendment,which
the House of Commons has adopted, abolishes tithe,
and substitutes for it a payment to be made by the
landowners to the Clergy to the amount of three-fifths
of the actual amount of tithe, this new claim upon the
landlord being altogether independent of any consent
or compact on his own part. The humbled and crest
fallen leader of the House of Commons means to adopt
the sudden and arbitrary amendment ; but we think it
probable that the whole of his colleagues will not con-
cur in his condescension, or imitate his docility. Whe-
ther this amendment, and the unexpected success
which has attended it, be the result of a new intrigue
between Lord Althorp and Mr. O'Connell, to rid the
former of some obnoxious colleague, and the latter of
some inconvenient opponent, or whether it be merely a
device of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin
to retard any adjustment of the tithe question, we can-
not at present venture to pronounce. That they must
be followed by important consequences in respect to the
personnel of the Administration, to the progress of
business in Parliament during the remainder of the ses-
sion, and to the state and prospects of Ireland, it is,
however, impossible to doubt. At present we incline
strongly to the opinion that, for some purpose or other,
the thing has been managed between Lord Althorp and
Mr. O'Connell.—Morning Post.
The Lord Chancellor last night took the trouble to
repeat a correction which had been made on the pre-
ceding night by many, and yesterday morning by
nearly all, the papers. It referred to the division on
the first bastardy clause, which was carried by a ma-
jority of 38 to 14, not by 14 to 13, as stated in the
newspapers of Tuesday. The Chancellor, however,
was pleased to add, that the clause was " carried hol-
low,—most triumphantly ; as decisively and as con-
clusively as the aruments by which it was supported
were triumphant.' We are glad that the Lord Chan-
cellor has thus reminded us that it is our duty to point
out what the " arguments" which carried the clause so
" triumphantly' were, so far as regards his speech.
The following extracts from the observations that fell
from him on Monday evening seem to include the
whole. His Lordship said, "It had been objected
to the introduction of a principle which went to
punish the female who gave birth to an
illegiti-
mate child, and not the father. Now, he would
undertake to say that such was the uniform course
of legislation--such was the law of the land already__
and such was the principle on which all moralists
had proceeded, and on which also Parliament pro-
ceeded every day in the year ; and last of all, it was
the principle upon which the laws of society at present
stood. It was ho novelty, neither was it proposed now
for the first time to the Legislature." Again, he said,
Ever since the time of James I. bastardy had been
regarded and punished as a crime in the woman, who
was liable to lie sent to prison or the House of Cer-
rection, while the man was suffered to escape." Thus,
then, stands his Lordship's argument. He says that
it has been the uniform course of the Legislature to
punish the mother, and let the father escape. From
this position lie deduces the inference that the bastardy
clauses should run in the same line, and not disturb
the uniformity of the ancient course. Now, we concur
entirely with his Lordship in his inference, and he
cannot fail to concur with us when we state, tha

,e converse of his inference is also true—that if
the uniform course of legislation has been to punish
both father and mother, and never to let the father
escape, then this Poor Law Bill should 'follow in
the same line, and not disturb the uniformity of
the ancient course. The only point of difference be-
tween us, then, is this,--namely, whether from the
first statute, in this case made and provided, until the
last, the course of legislation has been to punish both
father and mother, or whether it has been to punish
the mother only, and let the father escape. We con-
fess that we feel heartily ashamed to have to debate
the right and wrong of so notorious a fact,-_a fact
which even a careful perusal of the police reports in
the newspapers ought to have made every one accu-
rately acquainted with, and saved all men from mis-
understanding or misrepresenting. However, as the
first judge in the land has, through haste and forget-
fulness, stated that to be the uniform course of the
Legislature, which is directly at variance with the
uniform course of legislation from the earliest time
to the present, and has declared that to have been the
faw which never was the law, and that to be the law
which is contrary to the law, we owe neither to the
Lord Chancellor nor to bur readers any, apology for
setting the one right, and saving the other from beir-
misled. On the contrary, as we have already 01-

respectability who has said That the frail woman shall
be punished, and the seducer be allowed to escape.
We never yet heard of such a moralist,--and we re-
collect quite well that Dr. Paley, whose Moral Phi-
losophy contains the least possible portion of the theory
of morals which will satisfy an examiner at either of
our Universities, lays down a very different doctrine.
We cite, in conclusion, two passages from that writer's
chapter on " Seduction" :
Let a father or a brother say for what they would suffer
this injury in a daughter or a sister; and whether any, or
even a total loss, of fortune could create equal affliction and
distress. And when they reflect upon this, let them distin-
guish, if they can, between a robbery committed upon their
property by fraud or forgery, and the ruin of , their happiness
by the treachery of a seducer."
" Upon the whole, if we pursue the effects of seduction
through the complicated misery which it occasions, and if it
be right to estimate crimes by the mischief they knowingly
produce, it will appear something more than mere invective
to assert, that not one-half of the crimes for which men suffer
death by the laws of England are so flagitious as this
And yet this is the crime which the Poor Laws'
Bill passes over without punishment, and thereby
offers a premium upon the practice of it.—Times.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.-DURIIAM, JULY 28.

(Before Mr. Baron GURNEY.)

John Palmer was charged with stealing, at the parish of
St. Nicholas, in the dwelling-house of Mrs. Mitchell, five
sovereigns and some silver, the property of James Hogg.
Mr. WILKINSON conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
GRANGET defended the prisoner.
The prosecutor, Mr. Hogg, is a mercantile traveller, and
on the 19th of July was at the City Tavern, kept by Mrs.
Mitchell, in this place. The prisoner was boots at the inn.
On the morning of the 19th, Mr. Hogg was preparing to
start, and the boots brought down the driving-box of his
gig from the sleeping apartment of Mr. Hogg to the tra-
vellers'-room. All was then safe. Mr. Hogg then went
to the door, and saw a fellow-traveller off, and returned to
his room. All was still safe. He then left for a quarter
of an hour, and on his return, finding he had not enough to
pay his bill, proceeded to his driving-box, which contained
40 sovereigns in a bag, and about as much more in silver.
He then discovered that it had been opened. On calling.
the landlady and the servants, it was ascertained that no-
body but the boots had been in the room. The box ap-
peared to have been burst open with a carving-fork which
was produced. The prisoner denied his guilt, but in con-
sequence of something that he said, search was made in a
stable called the dark stable, where the money was found.
The Learned CHIEF BARON briefly recapitulated the
evidence to the Jury, who immediately found the prisoner
Guilty.—Sentence deferred.
Gilbert Dodds and Edward Holland were indicted for
and convicted of, violently assaulting and robbing, on the
highway between Sunderland and Bast Boden, Mr. James
Temperly.

Mr. Temperly, a respectable young man, was proceeding
along the railway when the prisoners asked of him money
to drink. On receiving an evasive answer, one of them
threw him down and struck him violently and robbed him.
—Sentence deferred.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—STAFFORD, Jury 28.
THE KING V. HALL AND FOUR On/EA&
Mr. Justice W iLuAms delivered a long address to these
men, who had pleaded Guilty to an indictment for admi-
nistering an oath, that certain parties would not make pins
under a fixed price, and that they would not divulge the
secrets of the association. The Learned Judge informed
them that he could not by law pass any other judgment
than transportation for seven years, and that in consequence
of the recommendation of the prosecutors, and on the infor-
mation that the association was about to be dissolved, he
should not pass any judgment. The prisoners then entered
info their own recognizances to come up for judgment, in
ease they were ever required to do so.
THE KING V. CARTWRIGHT, TART, AND ALBUTT.
Mr. CORBETT and Mr. BUSBY prosecuted.
The prisoners were charged with the murder of Charles
Williams. The trial continued from 10 o'clock in the morn-
ing until half-past 5 o'clock in the evening. The Judge con-
sumed two hours and three parts of an hour in summing
up the evidence. The deceased had been struck on the
head with a hammer, which caused his death. It would
be useless to set out the evidence at length, and the only
fact worthy of remark was, that three witnesses gave such
an account of the transaction, that on their cross-examina-
tion by Mr. Godson, the stories they told were so different,
that, as the learned Judge observed, a person would sup-
pose that they were speaking of three different transactions.
Mr. GODSON appeared for Cartwright and TART, and
Mr. LEE for Albutt.
The Jury found the prisoners Not Guilty, and Mr. Jus-
tice WILLIAMS observed, that he would not pluck a feather
from a bird on such evidence.
The assizes ended on Monday evening, and the learned
Judges proceeded on Tuesday to Shrewsbury, where the
calendar is very light.

HOME CIRCUIT.—LEtvEs, Jam, 30.
(Before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL)
Thomas Snell, cordwainer, aged 29, and Thomas Bailey,
labourer, aged 21, were indicted for having, along with
three other persons, on the night of the 30th of December
last, at Hartfield, unlawfully entered a certain enclosed
piece of woodland, the property of the Right Hon. George
John Earl De Lawarr, armed with guns, for the purpose of
destroying game. The prisoner Bailey was slso charged
with unlawfully wounding Thomas Lampard and James
Luxford, his Lordship's gamekeepers.
Thomas Lampard, examined by Mr. DARBY—On the
J3aomtheosfLlausxtfDoredc,eam,ber, I was one of Lord De Lawarr's game-
keepers. On the morning of the 31st I was out with
called the L,-
some d,• 'ogsh..tawu.ndemrr-ghailmsteklewepaesrt.her
tNsi- .S.i'e of gsrutrihe
dogs..l Theafterwards
men came up to
sawthemehasin,,,r a
me
a littleharel..ot
after 12 o'clock. I was following the third dog when I
I oseYve4, came up to the men. I passed them. Two other men

it is our duty to do both. Well, then, to show that
the fact is not as the Lord Chancellor represented it to
be, but of a nature quite contrary to the description he
gave of it, we have recourse to the best text book on
the poor-laws for, a passage that explains the enact-
ments, and the reasons of them, which bear upon this
question. This is a shorter mode than quoting the
statutes would be, while at the same time it is equally
satisfactory. Mr. Nolan in the second volume of his
treatise, and in the section entitled "Of the punish-
ment of the mother and reputed father (of the bas-
tard)," which is at page 388, writes thus in describ-
ing the 18th of Elizabeth :—" Getting an illegitimate
child was not punishable as a crime at common law.
But the 18th of Elizabeth expressly considers the pro-
ducing of bastards as an offence ; not only the getting
or bearing the child, but the leaving it to be a burden
on the parish, and defrauding the relief of the true
poor of it. Therefore, the justices may order a proper
punishment of the parents, and also take order for
maintaining the child in relief of the parish. They
may do either or both, 'but the statute seems only
to go to the punishment of the parents, for the
purpose of securing an indemnity to the parish."
This cause of the punishment—the indemnifying of
the parish—was doubtless the reason of the enactment.
The Legislature never looked to the morality of either
of the parties, but to the chargeableness of their acts
upon the parish funds, and therefore it very properly
sought indemnity from, or punished, both, as Lord
Mansfield has clearly shown, Rex v. Westinean.*
The parishes have ever taken the same view of the
case, and this law and its interpretation and practice
have existed in the statute book, and been recognized
in courts of law and in the practice of parishes, from
the earliest to the latest times—to the hour in which
,we write. The charging the parish with the main-
tenance of the child has been the whole and sole
offence in the eye of the law ; and that law was in the
beginning, is now, and, till the Poor Law Bill passes,
will be, that the father shall be punished, not
that he shall escape. The father's punishment,
as we have seen, can be inflicted only in de-
fault of the maintenance of the child :—the same is
true of the woman. The statute of the 18th of Eliza-
beth, so far from being repealed, has been strengthened
and extended against the
.father by various statutes,
which, together with the original exist to this day, and
are every day acted upon. The Chancellor, then, was
much mistaken when he said that the uniform course
of the Legislature was to punish the mother only, and
let the father escape. Yet this was his argument,—
one of the arguments which carried one of the bastardy
clauses so
_" triumphantly." Do we ask too much of
him, or do we request only that which is just and fair
and reasonable, when we call on him to state the facts
correctly, and then to draw his inference properly ?
The inference will, of course, be, that as the uniform
course of the Legislature has been to punish both
parties, the Poor Laws Bill ought not to let one of them
—the father—escape, and visit all the punishment on
the mother. Having thus disposed of the law of the
case, we have merely to challenge all supporters of the
bastardy clauses to mention any one moralist of credit and