The Sun.
London, England, 1869-03-22 00:00:00

31URPllY AGAIN.

Is it not time that Mr. Murphy were suppressed
altogether ? Is no one patriotic enough to watch
him closely, and to warn the magistrates
wherever he is about to stir up strife ?
On Friday night the Protestant, or (as we
rather like to call him) the anti-Catholic lec-
turer, addressed a meeting at South Shields. While
he was proceeding, a large bo:ly of Irishmen, variously
estimated at from 200 to 400, attacked the hall. They
were armed with bludgeons and iron slags, and
seemed to have intended to slaughter Mr. Murphy
and all his hearers. The doors, however, were closed
by the police before the mob came up, and
Mr. Murphy escaped by the back way. His
audience had to provide themselves with weapons
out of • the seats in the hall, and to
make their way out by the same means. All the
windows of the hall were broken. A free fight in
the crowd seems to have taken place, and several
persons were severely injured. Without for a
moment justifying. he deeds of the Irish mob, we
may ask why, when the result of his harangues is
so well known, is Mr. Murphy allowed to do as he
pleases ? Magistrates certainly should have their eyes
open to the fact that order is much more admirable
than license of speech. It will be gratifying to Mr.
Murphy's admirers (we assume that he has admirers)
to know that whoever else gets his head broken open
Murphy always escapes with a whole skull.

FREE CHURCH ASSOCIATION.
A debate has just been held at Sion College on
the objects advocated by the Free and Open Church
Association. These are to maintain as the principle
of the parochial system the equal rights of all
parishioners to the free use of their parish church,
and to revive the weekly offertory as a substitute
for pew rents. The Rev. J. Coward, President of
the College, took the chair, and the debate was
opened by Mr. Clark, of Liverpool, who read a paper
on the importance of making places of worship
free and open to all. Christian humility was being
soon :iced, he said, to ideas of respectability. He
declared that the weekly offertory would be found
sufficient for the support of the Church, and that on
principle no man should have an exclusive right to
a seat in tiod's house. The _Rev. J. Palmer sato
that the cry was too much raised that the Church of
England was the Church of 'the rich, and not of the
poor man. Mr. Rills also said that unless we g 0
rid of the pew system we should not get rid of A.
evils that were connected with it.

CZEANCEBY.
Mr. Dickens's suit of "Jarndice v. Jarndice," which
dragged its weary
length through Chancery so very
slowly that all the property involved was swallowed
up in costs before a decision was given, has somewhat
of a parallel in a suit which, according to the Law
Journal, has just been settled by a compromise.
The suit was born in 1805, and was reared and nur-
tured
through infancy youth, and manhood by 31
counsel and eight firms of solicitors. Of the 31
counsel from time to time engaged in its education, one
was and one is now Lo-rd Chancellor, one was
Master of the Rolls, two were Vice-Chancellors of
England, one was Lord Chancellor of Ireland, one
was Chancellor of the Exchequer, one was Speaker
of the House of .Commons, ono Accountant-General,
one Attorney-General, one Solicitor-General, two
were knights, more than half-a-dozen were King's or
Queen's Counsel, and two were conveyancers of im-
mortal renown. The suit having grown to manhood,
produced four young suits as its offspring,all of which
became extinct with their parent. The occasion of
the birth of the original suit was the failure of a
banking-house which was formed in 1794 and
IttODDed Lll 180 a. Alpouft the Darties to the

parent and younger suits was _one .earl, the hari or
Leicester (Mr. Coke, of Norfolk), one viscount, one
viscountess, one baronet, and one clergyman ; and
the matter was settled out of'court after all ! Who,
after this, will prate.allout English justice F