The Sun.
London, England, 1832-01-17 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY,)

No causes of any public importance had come before his
Honour the Mama of the Bolus up to the period of our
reporter's leaving.

VICE•CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.

His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR took causes to-
day, but up to two o'clock nothing worth reporting had
come before the Court. The general rumour about the
Court is, that his Honour will get through the whole
business of his Court by the end of the present term. His
Honour at the present moment has not more than 50
causes undisposed of.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.

SINIPSON V. UNWIN.

This was an action to recover three penalties of 51. each
from the defendant for having two partridges and a phea-
sant in his possession on the 9th of February—the game
season ceasing, according to the statute (the late Act), on
the let of that month. The case was tried at the
York Assizes, and a verdict found for the plaintiff subject
to the opinion of the Court, whether the defendant being
a qualified person and having killed the game on or before
the Ist of February, the having them is his possession after
that period was an offence under the statute.

Mr. STARKIE was heard to-day in support of the ver-
dict, and Mr. ALEXANDER against it.
Their LoansHirs delivered their judgment seriatim,
and were of opinion that, although the case was within
the letter of the Act, it certainly was not within its mean-
ing. They therefore ordered a verdict to be entered for
the defendant.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

E. L. BULWER, ESQ. V. HORNE AND CO.

This was an action by the plaintiff, E. L. Bulwer, Esq.,
to recover five guineas of the defendants, who were ex-
tensive coach proprietors, under these circumstance,.
On the Ist of February, 1831, the plaintiff booked
himself at the Gloucester booking-office, to
.go to
Cheltenham by the Gloucester mail, of which the defend-
ants were: proprietors, and between six and seven o'clock
sent his servant with a deposit of a sovereign, to secure his
place. On his going to the office to start by the mail, it
was found that the mail was full, and the plaintiff was
obliged to take a chaise. This action was brought to re-
cover the difference. These facts were proved by the plain-
tiff's servant.

Two witnesses for the defendants swore that the plain-
tiff had no place positively booked to him, and that the
sovereign sent by the servant was only received on condi-
tion that a seat should be vacant when the mail reached
the Gloucester Coffee-house ; that then the plaintiff was
offered his sovereign back, or a seat in the Stroud mail,
which he refused.

His LORDSHIP having summed up, the Jury retired,
Ind had not returned into Court when our reporter left.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.

Barons BAILEY, GARROW, and VAUGHAN, sat here
this morning, and heard motions up till near twelve
o'clock, none of which were of any public interest. Their
Lordships then rose, and Mr. Baron BOLLAND sat at Nisi
Prius. No case had been finished when our reporter left.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER,:-(THIS DAY.

The LORD CHIEF BARON at in this Court in equity,

ATTWOOD V. SMALL.

Mr. LOVETT moved that the publication might be en-
larged in the above case ; he stated that it had been already
enlarged up to the first day of the present term, but the
parties had been so much engaged in the other cause of
" Small v. Attwood," that they had not had time to exa•
mine a single additional witness.
Mr. WIGRAM opposed the application—he considered
the parties had had already sufficient time; and further,
that it would now be unfair, as they had seen all the evi-
dence on the part of Small in the other case.
Mr. KNIGHT followed on the same side. He had never
heard of such an application in any Court of Equity a.
the one now made. He could not but suspect that fraud
was intended by the plaintiffs, for here they had already
had nine months for their examination of witnesses, but
here, in place of bringing on both causes together, they
wait till the case of " Small v. Attwood" is heard, then
they come forward with an application, which, if granted,
would enable them to make use of the whole of the evi-
dence brought forward by Mr. Small, and so frame their
interrogatories accordingly. And why should not both
cases have been brought on together ; they were in fact
only one case, or rather it was a cause, and a cross cause ;
and Mr. Attwood, instead of taking advantage in this way,
ought to have been anxious that they should have been
heard together. He (Mr. Knight) was not sorry that this
application was ►wade, for it showed the feelings of the
plaintiff.
Mr. JARVIS replied—ln answer to the imputations of
his Learned Friend, he would only say that the plaintiff
was in as good a situation, even after the settlement of the
cause of " Small andAttwood ;" for nothing then could have
prevented bin filing his bill, and then he would have the
benefit of all time evidence in that other cause. As to the
charge of fraud, if they had had any intention of that
sort, they might and would have had all their evidence
taken by this time. He, on his own part, conceived it ol
little importance, for his opinion was, that his Lordship's
desision would be in their favour, and so put and end to
both causes.

Lord LYNDHURST did not see any good ground for en-
larging the time of publication. The parties had already
had sufficient time, and it seemed they had done nothing.
The Court expected a little attention on the part of parties
suing.—He refused the application.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

IMPORTANT TO WIOYSELLERS.-.-.DAVISON V. DUNK.

This was an action to recover the amount of plaintiff's
bill for printing a " Celsus," with a Latin translation. It
was tried at Guildhall at the sittings after last term by the
Chief Justice, and the Jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff
damages 52/. 19s. 5d., being the amount of his claim
The defence then set up was, that the work was printed
under a special contract to be paid for, when com-
pleted, out of the proceeds of the sale, and not prompt
payment, as ass, rted by the plaintiff.
It was proved by the defendant that the cover of the
work had not been completed, and the corrections were
charged at the unusual amount of 30/.
111 r. SerjeantWuns: now moved to set aside the verdict.

The COURT said the case was a proper one for a refe-
rence, and gave the Learned Counsel on both sides time to
consult with their clients on the subject.

BANKRUPTCY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

The swearing in of solicitors occupied this Court for
some time this morning, after which the Chief Justice
asked all the gentlemen of the bar present if they had any
thing to move, and being answered in the negative, their
Honour. rose, having no business to proceed with.

MEETING OF COFFEE-HOUSE PRO-
PRIETORS.-(THIS DAY.)

A meeting of coffee-house proprietors took place to-
day at Mr. Marshall's, 403, Strand, for the purpose of
cc4nsidering to whom their petition for an alteration in the
laws affecting their :trade should be intrusted for presenta-
tion to both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. CRUCIFIX was voted to the Chair, when a depu-
tation was named (consisting of Messrs. Crucifix, Busby,
Bax, and Marshall), to wait upon the Lord Chancellor,
and request that be would present their petition to the
House of Lords, and support its prayer—also, upon Mr.
Flume, to request him to do the same for them in the
House of Commons; and Mr. John Wood, Member for
Preston, to request that he would support it in that House.
The business having been disposed of, the Committee
went into a statement of the accounts of the Society,
which was not finished when our reporter left.

THE MARKETS-(THIS DAY.)
HAY MARKETS.—(At per Load of 36 Trusses.)
CUMBERLAND (LATE ST. JAMES'S.)
Coarse heavy Lowland Meadow Hay £2 5 to £2 10
New Meadow Hay 0 0 0 0
Useful Old Ditto 2 15 3 10
Fine Upland Meadow and Rye-grass Hay 4 0 4 5
Clover Hay 4 10 6 0
Oat Straw ...Cl. 10 to £1 12 I Wheat `traw 1 14 116
Best Clover Hay ss. per load higher than last quoted; prices
otherwise stationary. A moderate supply, and a steauy trade.
SMITHFIELD.
Coarse heavy Lowland Meadow Hay £2 10 to £2 I.'
New Meadow Hay 2 15 3 10
Useful Old Ditto 3 0 3 1(
Fine Upland Meadow and Rye-grass Hay 4 0 4 0
Clover Hay (extra fine)....E6 o... Generally
' .at straw ...... .C 1 10 to XI 12 1 Wheat Straw 1 14 1 10
Fine Meadow Hay and Straw experienced in a few instances
an advance, the former 4s ' the latter 2s. per load ; p. ices ether.
wise as last quoted. Supply rather limited, and trade, though.a
little renovated, still dull.

Despatches were received this morning at the
Colonial-office from Bermuda.

A correspondent complains in . strong lan-
guage of the encroachments which have been
made, and arc still, it seems, in progress, upon
the outline of St. James's Park. In our opi-
nion the censures of this gentleman are not un-
founded. When, some years ago, the plan was
first published for demolishing Carlton-house,
and covering the surface of its spacious gardens,
which extended nearly the whole length of Pall-
mall, with a continuous line of lofty habitations,
this journal repeatedly, earnestly, and in terms of
urgent remonstrance, which called forth many
an impertinent effusion of Court-inspired spleen
from certain other prints, deprecated such a
curtailment of open space, and substitution
of brick and mortar for circulating breezes,
as must follow the execution of the proposed
improvement. The plan, however, on the north
side of the Park, was realized. As a set-off
against the diminution of space, the public
were reproached with ingratitude for not fully
appreciating the indulgence of the late King,
in laying out the centre of the Park as a pleasure
garden, and permitting the inhabitants of the
metropolis to walk therein during certain hours
of the day. This indulgence was an act of but
common justiee,„ and humanity, and the meta-
morphosis of the swampy field into a pleasure-
ground ought, for the sake of the public health
and comfort, to have been carried into effect
much sooner. But the moment a gorgeous Pa-
lace was to be built with-an hundred windows
looking towards the Horse Guards, it was found
that naked swamps were disagreeable objects,
And thus, what a luxurious taste prescribed was
set down to the credit of consideration for others.
We maintain that if a proper feeling had been
cherished for the people—that is, for those who
have not the means of riding or driving a few
miles out of town for air—there would not have
been any houses built on the site of Carlton-
palace or gardens, to shut out the current of air,
and shut in the exhalations from a canal of
stagnant water. But, on the other hand,
either, Ist, the horse and carriage drive
would have been run about twenty yards in the
rear of the houses on the south side of
Pall-mall, and the remaining area of Carlton-
gardens, together with the two lines of mall
from St. James's Palace to the Horse Guards,
would have been thrown in to the same enclo-
sure with the existing pleasure-ground, which
would thus have received a magnificent enlarge-
ment ; or, 2d, the drive remaining where it is,
the whole space which constituted Carlton gar-
dens might have been still left covered with
trees and shrubs, and would have formed a
northern pleasure-ground, open to the public in
the same manner as the present garden. The
drive itself, as well as the existing malls, would
in this manner have been rendered far more in-
viting and agreeable. What is done, however,
cannot henceforth be altered,—fine houses, te-
nanted by fine people, to say nothing of jobbers,
are presented to us in lieu of flowers and fo-
liage ; and if there be nothing else to enjoy,
there is plenty of attic window, Corinthian
capital, and stucco. King William, kind and
good King William, has done his best.—
He has at least made the Park itself more ac-
cessible, and for-that his people of London and
Westminster are not devoid of gratitude. But
there is time to stop mischief on the other side
the Park—to wit, the south. There they
threaten us with a line of barracks t. to fill up
space which is now vacant, and might be added
to the garden. Cannot this be checked ? If
barracks be.. wanted, more infantry barracks, why
steal from St. James's Park for them, as former
Governments plundered and spoiled Hyde Park
for the cavalry ? Would it not be better, as our
correspondent recommends, to buy up some por-
tion of that miserable part of Westminster,
called York-street, convert it into barracks, and
leave the remnant of Bird-cage-walk unmolested?
These hints are thrown out in no unfriendly
spirit to the Commissioners of Woods and
Forests, but as mere indications of what we
know to be considered right, and what will be
therefore popular. From that Board, as at pre-
sent composed, every thing just and humane, as
regards the public health and public expecta-
tions may, we are sure, be anticipated.— Times.
Mr. Justice Littledale, in pronouncing the
extreme sentence of the law upon five of the
Nottingham rioters, thought it necessary to jus-
tify the infliction of the dreadful doom prepared
for the delinquents by stating the particulars of
the offences of which they stood convicted, and
then arguing in defence of that principle of our
criminal jurisprudence by which the application
of punishment of death is legalized in such
cases, and in other instances of violations of the
rights of property. In adverting to the circum-
stances under which the offences had heenc om-
initted, the Learned Judge said, " It appears
that, on the 10th of October last, a meeting was
held in Nottingham upon the subject of Parlia-
mentary Reform. After that meeting was over
a number of misguided and deluded men, taking
advantage of the excitement which but too often
follows the assemblage of a large number of
persons, proceeded to acts of outrage and mis-
chief wholly unconnected with the original ob-
jects of the meeting. In the first place, a large
and tumultuous assemblage of these persons,
consisting of above two thousand individuals,
proceeded to attack Sharpe's mill, and then went
to the house of Mr. Musters, at Colwick-ha,11."
Here the Learned Judge described the parti-
culars of the outrages which have been already
given in the reports of the trials, and then went
on to say, " The object of the law is not to
punish criminals for the sake of revenge for the
injuries which they have occasioned, but it is
that, by the examples which are made, other
persons may be deterred from violating the law
by the commission of crimes ; and it has been a
most painful act on our part to discriminate be-
tween the various degrees of guilt in which you
have been implicated. We have made such se-
lection as we thought best, and such as would
afford proper examples to be made for the sake
of the public justice of the country, and also
such as we think his Majesty may, if he should
think proper, extend his Royal mercy to, so far
as to spare their lives." : The Learned Judge
then, having made some further observations to
show the grounds of the distinctions judicially
taken in the cases where life was spared, and
where it was to be sacrificed, concluded by or-
dering the five men to whom we have above al-
luded to und4rgo the exterminating decree of
the law, and besought them not to delude them-
selves by entertaining the least hope of mercy.
,‘,,Nirde knowcon
si d
eNrlart.e Jaunsctii c e
humaneLitt;ed
all e
jtuodgbee
But the habits of a
that sits upon the Bench. as mild
and it is very
o him a second nature, as any
difficult—often impossible--:or
which habit and
iiimself of the prejudices ,, early
issociation have taught him to venerate, as if
system under which assmibalne is educated
tboecdoilm,ee.st
hey were the emotions of pure and exalted

reason. Judge Littledale has been from earlyl
life familiar with the principles and the practice
of a system of justice which is of so harsh and
vindictive a character that even Sir Robert Peel,
since his own " amended" code appeared, readily
admitted, and that too in the debate on his
Forgery Bill. !hat it is still the most sanguinary
of any in Europe. Need we then wonder that
a man of great natural kindness and humanity,
like Mr. Justice Littledale, should, by the esta-
blished influence of such a system, have his ex-
cellent understanding and benign feelings so
warped and altered that he should calmly talk of
destroying human life, not because the crime
was enormous, but because the example
would be appalling, as it the punishment
of crime was altogether a question of political
expediency, and wholly disconnected from all
moral considerations of the degrees of guilt ?
The doctrine proclaimed from the bench on this oc-
casion was precisely the doctrine which Judge
Buller announced when he declared that " men
were hanged not because they stole sheep, but
that sheep might not be stolen." If this argu-
mem of hanging men merely for example be
good for any thing, we have a right to push it
to its full extent—and what will be the conse-
quence ? It is necessary that trivial as well as
great offences should be prevented by the most
effective examples ; and, therefore, men should
be put to death for the smallest crimes as well
as the greatest ; for if punishment be indepen-
dent of moral considerations, the simple and
compendious law of Draco should be re-enacted
in this civilized age and Christian country ; and
every offence in the calendar should have but the
one word annexed to it, and that word—death !
We do not mean to deny that the offences of
which the Nottingham rioters stand convicted are
not of a very serious character, and deserving
of serious punishment ; but there are very
severe modes of punishment which do not s?ill
blood, and which, we venture to say, are more
effective examples to society—for the agony
of death upon the scaffold is, though terrible,
but momentary; and constant experience shows
that the impression, horrifying as it is for the
time, is soon effaced ; whereas the living ex•
ample of the loss of liberty, with hard labour
added, and the degradation of a felon's fate, is
a constant warning during the whole of the
most extended term for which the punishment
continues. It is worthy of observing that the
guiltiest of the men whom Mr. Justice Little-
dale has left for execution was recommended to
mercy by the .Tury who convicted him. Will
not then the death of that man for whom the
Jury themselves felt a sympathy excite :more
commiseration than any other feeling ? And
when public feeling is with the criminal, and
against the law, how can his punishment operate
beneficially as an example ? Still stronger are
the grounds for an appeal to mercy in the case
of his less guilty fellows. Let it not be for-
(rotten that the crimes for which the five men
condemned at Bristol, and those other five at
Nottingham, are sentenced to suffer, were
crimes arising out of sudden excitement, and
connected with the agitation of a question
which disturbed the country from one end to
another. Let it not be forgotten either that
certain Ministerial Journals, or pretending to be
Ministerial, in London and in the country, ex-
cited and fanned the flames of civil tumult and
commotion by the most violent, and even fero-
cious, appeals to the passions of the people.
Were they not instigated to break the peace in
every possible way ?—were they not told, in
plain terms, to " strike at the faces of their ene-
mies ?" Judge Littledale speaks of the crimi-
nals as " misguided and deluded men." Most
a,suredly the Learned Judge applies the proper
epithets to their criminality—thiy were misled
by those advisers who, protessing-to support the
Government, called the populace into a state of
excitement, always dangerous, frequently des-
tructive ; and, having committed them in acts of
violence and outrageous folly, left them to their
fate. We who deprecated every appeal to po-
pular passion on the Reform Bill—we who re-
commended that the struggle should, on the
part of the reformers, he one of temperance and
reason, and constitutional power, now come
forward to pray for mercy to those " misguided
and deluded men," whom we cannot be accused
of having first instigated and then deserted.—
Morning Herald.

In an account of the proceedings of the Irish
National Union, on Thursday last, which we
have extracted from the Dublin Morning Re-
gister, will be found a speech of Mr. O'Connel
in answer to Dr. Doyle's letter to him on the
subject of the poor laws. Much of the argu-
ment of Mr. O'Connell has not so much re-
ference to the general question as the particular
grounds on which he was attacked by Dr. Doyle.
With
With respect to the general question, it does not
appear to us that Mr. O'Connell has offered any
other argument against the establishment of poor
laws, than that tribunals must be established to
determine whether the persons claiming relief
are entitled to it, and that the poor must, in con-
equence, be the slaves of such tribunals. This is
rather a fine-spun argument against the solid
grounds in favour of a plan by which alone the
miserable peasantry can be secured against the
caprice and mismanagement of the landowner,
and the peace of the country can be preserved.
Mr. O'Connell has no other panacea than the
repeal of the Union. What the effect of such
a measure .might be we will not,, now con-
sider, as we wish to confine our speculations
to means compatible with the existing Con-
stitution. Mr. O'Connell himself has said
that he wishes the repeal merely as a means to
an end, and that the end is the prosperity of Ire-
land. If the prosperity of Ireland can be secured
under the Union, the repeal in that case becomes
unnecessary. But nothing is more certain than
that, without compulsory poor rates, the mass
of the people of Ireland must continue in a state
pf destitution, from which they cannot by any
possibility extricate themselves, and the law
must always remain a dead letter in a country
in which the people have not an interest in en-
forcing it. Mr. O'Connell wishes to secure the
liberty of the Irish. No word has been more
abused than liberty. In a perfect social system,
there can be no liberty ; for liberty supposes the
absence of all restraint, and under a good social
system, our liberty is necessarily limited by our
mutual rights and mutual obligations. Ireland
furnishes a flagrant instance of violation of se-
veral of the principles essential to a good social
system—namely, the existence of rights with-
out corresponding obligations. The soil of a
country belongs to the inhabitants of that
country ; and if the ownership be given to in-
dividuals, it ought always to be understood, on
the condition that the ownership is exercised in
such a way as shall be for the benefit of the na-
tion. But in Ireland the owner can avail him-
self of the competition of the wretched inhabi-
tants for the possession of land as a means of
existence, while he is relieved from all responsi-

bility with regard to them. In the Quarterly
Review, just published, there is an able article
on Senior's Letter on the Irish poor, in which
a poor law is shown to be essentially necessary
to the well-being both of Ireland and England.
Alluding to the point which we have been now
examining, the Reviewer observes—
" A country, the bulk of whose population is insuffi-
ciently supplied with the coarsest kind of food, annually
sends away from her shores that enormous quantity of the
very produce of her land. for want of which her own
population are dying by inches, their lives shortened—as
is proved by the mean duration of life in that country, as
compared to Engl ,nd—to one.fourth of their natural
term ! How are we to explain the fearful paradox? Fur
whose advantage is it that this mass of food leaves the
country before the pressing wants of its inhabitants are half
satisfied? For that of those whom the law invests with
the ownership of the land. But the right of the inhabi-
tants of a country to be permitted to earn a maintenance from
it, if they can, by their own exertions, is a sacred right."

" Equ illy in vain is it that the economists quote the
favourite dogma which they so often put forward, cer-
t iinly without comprehending its multitudinous limita-
tions, that it is mischievous to give by law any artificial
direction to employment or capital—that people must be
left to apply their resources in their own way, and they
will be certain to do so in that which is hest for tt e com-
munity at large. We should be glad to know what it is
that at present disables a stout Irishman from providing
subsistence for himself and his family, by the labour of his
own good right arai, on the nearest plot of earth, but the
artificial impediment already placed by laNg i❑ the way of
the natural direction of his industry ? Whilst the law
thus interferes by wholesale to appropriate all the soil of
the country, and all the wealth that is found on or under
its surface, shall the Legislature scruple to interfere in the
appropriation of a fractional part of that soil or wealth, in
order to save thousands from perishing by want ? and this
upon the score that all interference, forsooth, is contrary
to sound principle? Shall we thus swallow the camel
and strain at the gnat ? How are we to characterise a
law which ties up men's hands from helping themselves,
and renders them no help in compensation ? If I tether
a horse in a corner, and prevent it from grazing, and yet
bring it no food, am I not guilty of its death as much as

if I slaughtered it?"
Ireland never will be in a sound state so long
as the law regards not the welfare of the people,
but considers merely a comparatively small num-
ber of individuals the owners of the soil. But
the connection with England has even deprived
the Irish peasantry of a material corrective of the
abuse of the power of landowners ; for it has
freed the landowners from the apprehensions at
all times to be entertained from the rising of a
population in a state of destitution. The people
of England guarantee to the Irish landlord the
collection of his rents, however exorbitant, so
that he may proceed undauntedly in his career
of picking the peasantry to the backbone, in full
reliance on English bayonets. But the people
of England do not merely suffer in being
obliged to repress the disorders caused by the
exemption from responsibility of the Irish land-
owners, the burthens of the English are in-
creased by the destitution in which the Irish are
suff ,red to exist. And here the people of Eng-
land have a right to insist on a remedy for the
evil entailed on them by the difference between
the laws of the two countries regarding the poor.
" The slowness with which many Irish landlords (ob-
serves the Reviewer) are induced to see the advantage to
their country and to themselves, of a compulsory as,e,s•
rent on their property for the relief and employment of its

poor, may be intelligible. They look to its immediate et.-
' f'ct—to the rate of one, two, or perhaps three shillings in
the pound on their rental—and they shut their eyes twhe
ultimate policy of the measure, and their ears to the cries
of the afflicted, and their hearts to the influence of pity',
and their understandings to that of justice. But how is it
that the English do not bestir themselves more actively?
It does not surely require much penetration in an English
farmer, to perceive that he is competing with his Irish
rival in his own markets at a grievous disadvantage, after
paying a heavy poor-rate, from which the other is exempt,
and high wL.ges to his labourers, whilst the labourer of the
Irish farmer, having no other resource from starvation,
' must he content with a miserable pittance. Surely no
English landlord can be blind to the fact that, under these

circumstances, price• of produce in the market,. of Liver-

pool, Manchester, Bristol, and London, which may afford
a rent to the Irish landlord, and a profit to the Irish cul-
tivator, will scarcely pay the English poor-rate on the
same quality of soil, and put rent and profit out of all
question. He can hardly avoid seeing, that so long as
there is perfect freedom of intercourse between the two
countries, for men and goods, the Irish poor must either
directly or indirectly be maintained out of the English
poor-rates, and the high rents of Ireland come in great
part out of the English 1 indowner's pocket. It was an
oversight, no doubt, in the landed interest of Great Bri-
tain, not to have insisted, in 1807, on the land of the three
kingdoms being put in this respect on an equal footing,
before she duties on the importation of Irish produce were
taken off. But is it possible that they have not yet opened
their eyes to the error, and made up their minds to insist
on its rectification? Can any claim be more just or rea-
sonable ? Goods and persons pass with unlimited freedom
between the two commies. But in one, the land is heavily
burdened to provide for the necessities of the Labouring
class—in the other, there is no such provision. The na-
tural consequence is, that the poor of the latter resort in
crowds to the former island to avoid starvation, unders,ll
the natives in the overthronged markets for labour, and
drive them upon the pour-rates of their p►rishes. Had Ire-
land the same poor laws as England, why should there be
any difference in the rate of wages of the two countries ?
or, why should the Irish migrate to England, rather than
the English to Ireland ?"
Were there no other reasons in favour of
Poor Laws, the interest which they necessarily
give to the rich to improve the condition of the
poor, both physically and morally, ought to re-
commend them to all philanthropists. The rich
are soon reminded, when they neglect their du-

ties to the poor, that they cannot themselves
exist in comfort while the poor are not in a state
of comfort. What a lesson is taught by the fires
of the incendiary ! An Irish landlord might
strike terror into a district for the sake of a few
offenders, turning hundreds adrift to perish by
the way-sides. But in England, the people
cannot, be got rid of, and the truth in time forces
itself on the better classes, that they will suffer I
snore by neglecting the poor than by ameliorating I
.their condition. When contagious distempers I
exist either in the moral or physical world, the i
rich must, for their own sakes, seek to remove
the cause of the distempers. Ever since the ap-
pearance of the cholera, increased attention has I
been paid to the condition of the poor, and
pains have been taken to impress on them the I
advantages of cleanliness and sobriety. The
torch of the incendiary has, in like manner,
; roused the occupiers of the soil, and impressed
them with the necessity of guarding against the
abuses in the administration of the Poor Laws,
which led to the discontent in which the fires
originated. Out of evil cometh good. We are
assured that in many places a great improvement
in the circumstances of the poor has been the
consequence. The abuses themselves are not to
be defended, and they lead to their own remedy.
" CIII any two things," says the Reviewer, " be more
distinct than the giving an allowance to a farmer's labourer
already fully employed, under pretence of aiding him to
support his wife and children, and the setting a man to
work when wholly rlestitute of employment? Is it not
clear that the first practice tends to throw the maintenance
of every labourer's family upon the parsh ; breaks down
all distinction between paupers and ordinary labourers, be-
tween relief and wages ; permits employers to lower the
wages they choose to offer down to a bare maintenance for
the man alone, without losing his services ; alters the whole
complexion and condition of the labouring class, by appor-
tioning the income of each individual, not to his character,
skill, and industry, but to the size of his family ; thus na-
turally giving rise to the terrific and daily-increasing evils
which are found wherever the system of supplementing
mag,s prevails ? But, on the contrary, none of these con-
.equences can he urged against the mode of relief by 4 set-
ting to work' the unemployed and able-bodied. 'rid, i,
nut only a ddercut practice, hut it is, in every way, the
very reverie of the other. Jr leaves untouched and unin-

terfered with all the remainder of the class—all but the
few who are actually without any employment; these are
set to work on some public improvement—as a road,
canal, &e. They ate taken nut of On market for labor,
and no longer compete with the other labourers, or influ
ence, in any manner, the current rate of wages, which
settles itself on its true principles, according to the work
wanted and done. Whatever number of labourers are
found to remain permanently in this way on the parish,
they mark the extent of its surplus labour, and offer an
obvious motive to the parish to devise some means of •re-
moving them, by emigration or otherwise. In the tr.ea❑
time they receive for their parish work hare parish pay,
and are thus placed, both as to character and circum-
stances, in a lower grade than the labourers who work for
private employers. There is, therefore, an obvious induce-
ment for them to endeavour to obtain private employment,
if possible, to struggle to keep themselves ~fl the parish.--
A broad and wholesome line of demarcation is drawn be-
tween the pauper and the common labourer, and the mis-
chiefs of the allowance system are wholly prevented. If
Mr. Senior cannot perceive the difference between these
two systems (and he will see them practically exemplified
in Sussex and Northumberland), he surely ought not to
venture to write on suhject_ he must be incompetent to
elucidate. If he can discriminate between them, often as
the distinction has been drawn, what are we to say of his
candour and fairness ?" . _

On every principle of justice the English and
Scotch are entitled to be relieved from the bur-
den entailed on Britain by the absence of poor
laws in Ireland. The immigration of Irish poor
into this country tends greatly to deteriorate the
condition of the English labourers, and to add
to the burden of parishes. But putting Eng-
land and Scotland out of consideration, Ireland
itself can never know tranquillity till the great
body of the people have a hold on the owners
of the soil. We have always maintained that
the plans for giving relief merely to the sick and
aged would fail to be beneficial, and that it is of
the essence of a good system of poor laws to
compel the rich to find work for the poor, or
to enable them to find work. The Reviewer
forcibly observes, in answer to an objection of
Mr. Senior's, that the whole rental of Ireland, if
distributed among the labourers, would give to
each only five shillings a week :

" 'Was there ever so uTipast and inappropriate an argu-
ment ? Here the whole net produce of the land is supposed
to he given up to the poor unconditionally, and no new
produce created in its place. If we advocated an Agrarian
law like this, well indeed might Mr. Senior and the Irish
landlords dissent from us. But they must well know that
what we propose is, that the sums raised as poor-rate (and
so far a deduction from rent) be strictly, and economically,
and judiciously applied in the employment of the now idle
ab'e-bodied poor, on works of public and private utility,
such as it has been over and over again proved, if under-
taken in Ireland, will create new wealth infinitely exceed-
ing the outlay, and ultimately, indeed very shortly, add to
the rents of the landlords a great deal more than it takes
from them. Is there any similitude between the two pro-
positions? Between the giving away the whole, or a
portion, of an Irish landlord's rental, and the requiring
him to expend a portion of it in setting to work the now
idle beggars and plunderers infesting his estate, in perma-
nent improvements of that estate, or of the neighbourhood,
which will infallibly, under good management, bring him
in before long a high profit on the outlay ? It is quite clear
that those persons who oppose the introduction of a law into
Ireland, compelling the setting to work of the unemployed
able-bodied poor, on the same grounds as Mr. Senior, either
wilfully or blindly mistake the proposition. So far from
thinking that this is a part of the English poor-law which
can or ought to be omitted in its application to Ireland,
we consider it to be the very essence of the system repaired
by that country. Relief for the sick and aged is quite a
secondary consb!eration. If the able-bodied are sure of
employment at sufficient wages, they will generally be able
to maintain their infirm and old relations. Dispensaries
and hospitals are necessary enough, but they reach not the
real evil which afflicts that unhappy I and. The curse of Ire-
land is the general want of employment for its inhabitants,
and their consequent idle and unproductive vagrancy, ha-
hits of plunder, occasional starvation, disease, despair,
and turbulence. Any poor law applied to Ireland, that
merely provided relief for the sick, without containing, as
its foremost provision, that essential feature in a lam of
relief, the setting to work every man capable of work who
has no means whereby to maintain himself, the rendering
labour a condition to be fulfilled before subsistence be ad-
ministered, will be not only useless, but deep)t, ruinously
injurious. Such a poor law would indeed prove in prac-
tice to be 'confiscation and an Agrarian law.' Every stout
peasant would lie idle in bed till he became qualified for
parish relief as sick and impotent, and would thencefor-
ward never be found out of his bed by the overseer. Ire-
land would be turned into one great infirmary, and the
rental of the landowners be consumed by the poor without
the possibility of any return."—Morning Chronicle.

A most important public meeting was held
at Leeds on Thursday last, on the subject of
the Poor Laws and Tithes of Ireland, the Mayor
in the Chair. A Mr. Wm. Wailes introduced
the subject to the meeting, and concluded with
moving generally that Parliament should be
called on to adopt a system of compulsory relief
for the Irish poor. But an amendment was im-
mediately moved by a :kir. Joshna Bower—
" That a petition be presented to both Houses of Par-
liament, praying that they will not saddle Ireland with Lny
Poor Laws until all the Church property that formerly he-
longed to the poor of that country be, by legislative enact-
ment, appropriated to the purposes for which it was in-
tended, namely, to feed the hungry, and clothe the naked ;
hut that, in their wisdom, they would appropriate such
property to the relief of the poor."
Mr. Sadler was placed in a somewhat awk-
ward predicament by this amendment. He
disapproves of Tithes, and he advocates Poor
Laws for Ireland ; he is a candidate, too, for
Leeds ; but then, on the other hand, he is at
present the representative of the Duke of New-
castle, and connected with the conservative
party. He manoeuvred with some ability, but it
would not do.

" Mr. Sadler," observes the Leeds Mercury, in
f comment-
ing on the proceedings at this meeting, "
strongly declared himself favourable to the
e abolitionoften
of
tithes, and so frequently declared his wish to tax
ecclesi-
astical as well as lay property for the support of the poor,
that several persons (ourselves among the rest) thought he
was favourable to the appropriation of a part of the
Church propel ty to the relief of pauper ism. Mr. Richard-
son was so strongly impressed with this opinion, that he
tendered a resolution to Mr. Sadler, distinctly avowing
his reidinesa to give the poor :their rightful share of the
Chu: ch revenues. But Mr. Sadler was too wily either to
accept the resolution or to undeceive the meeting. lie
hail not the honourable manliness to tell them that he had
been misunderstood, for that the very extent of his admis-
sion was that he would commute the tithes, and then
would lay an assessment equally on all who could pay a
poor-rate (of course including ecclesiastics) for the relief
of the poor. We find, on examining Mr. Sadler's speech,
that he cautiously abstained from going further than this :
he never said that he would consent to any portion of the
Church property being restored to the poor, to whom it
rightfully belongs; lint he said something that sounded so
like this, that the meeting was deceived, and he had not
honesty and manliness enough to avow plainly his meaning."
" The re-ult of all was, that Mr. Sadler found himself
in a minority of about one to fifty. With the support of
Messrs. Mann and Foster, his own handful of Tories, and
Mr. Mann's handful of Rads, he still sustained this. utter
overthow. So let a• 11 double-dealing, all unprincipled
coalitions, fail, amidst public contempt and derision !"
One of Mr. Sadler's manoeuvres was to mix up
appropriate tithes with the property held by the
clergy. No clergyman has a right to more than
his own life,interest ; and the State may-legis-
, late with respect to Church property without af-
fecting individuals. But it is otherwise with
regard to private property. The State may
abolish or retain any corporation as it pleases ;
but the very object of the social union is the
protection of life and property, and the State is
bound to respect private property. No matter
what tithes originally were, the tithe of the im-
propriator must be continued according to the
usage of centuries. Mr. Sadler said—
,' He repeated, he was an enemy both to the system of
collecting tithes and of tithes themselves. Years ago, in
one of his books, had he called tithes a barbarous system,
oppressive in its nature, and in its operations injurious to
the industrious classes. The Duke of Devonshire had
• seventy parishes, and some Ecclesiastics only. one, yet was

the system of both cases barbarous. In the Committee on
Tithes in Parliament he would approach the question with
the best intentions to promote the good of Ireland.—
(Applause.) He would now Answer some remarks of
Mr. Lees. He was glad that there was a growing in-
telligence among the people of England ; that they
wished to know the whole and not a part of all subjects.
The spoliation of Church property by Henry the Eighth
was infamous, but Mr. Lees had said that at that time
one-third had been applied to the relief of the poor. The
troth was, that one-fourth only was so employed. It was,
however, an open source, whence the poor might drink till
they were satisfied, but by that unexampled spoliation that
property was diverted from its original channel. The
venerable Coke said, that notwithstanding this deed, the
poor had still not only a more but a legal right to relief
from this property. But fair play was a jewel. Who got
this immense plunder? He had none, and never had a
birthing of it. 'Who then had it ? Let them ask the
Duke of Bedford, every farthing of whose property con-
sisted of such spoliation. Ask the Duke of Devonshire.
He could go through the whole list, but God forbid lie
should select these merely front polical considerations.—
(Hisses and laughter.) A physician, named Petty, west
over to Ireland as medical attendant—(the Hon. Gentle-
man did not state to whom)—and doctored to some pur-
pose, for he obtained at least 40,000 acres of confiscated
land, rent from the poor of that land, and now possessed
it under the name of the Marquis of Lansdowne. Those
who had got these large slices, not only from ecclesiastical
but other property, to the amount of three-fourths of the
rent of Ireland, ought not to be exempted front paying
their just quota to the sustentation of the destitute; and
if they touched the ecclesiastical property, they ought also
to touch that which he now alluded to."

The object of this appeal to the fears of the
great Whig impropriators is obvious enough.
But it will fail of its effect. They know that
the people are by no means disposed to mix
them up with the Church ; and they must be
weak indeed, were they to suppose that the right
of private property can receive any support from
those who contend that the property possessed
by any Corporation ought to be held as sacred
as that held by individuals, and that the object
for which the Corporation was instituted, and for
which the property was entrusted to it, ought
not to be taken into consideration. Mr. Baines
happily retorted on Mr. Sadler with regard to
this point. The latter, in his zeal to make the
Duke of Bedford refund, had forgotten his
friend the Duke of Newcastle :

" I do not know that it would be fair towards the Duke
of Bedford, the Duke of Devonshire, the Duke of New-
castle—(Great laughter and cheering)..-or the Duke of
Northumberland, to blame them, to whom property has
descended from their successors, a distance of two cen-
turies and a half ago. I am doubtful whether you would
think them proper persons to be held up to public scorn.
—(No, no.) I confess it gave me pain to the core to see
an attempt to point out the landlords in Leland, who are
sufficiently obnoxious, by the finger of scorn, as proper
subjects for execration, because it did not suit Mr. Sad-
ler's purpose to introduce the Bishops."—(Applause.)
The Church of Ireland is a monstrous sine-
cure, and as such it appears to the Leeds meet-
ing. Mr. Baines, in particular, in an able speech
(in which he had the manliness to confess that
his former opposition to the Poor Laws was
founded in error), expressed, with regard to the
Irish Church the sentiments of, we believe,
ninety-nine in every hundred persons of this
country.
" In many parishes of Ireland (he observes) there is no
church at all, and I think you will be of opinion that
where there is no church there is net occasion fur a clergy-
man.—(Cheers.) Nothing can be more clear than that,
and if there is no occasion for a clergyman, and the tithes
are to be distributed, you will also be of opinion that they
will be most fairly distributed amongst the poor. It is
said the poor you have always with you ;' and that is
true; but in Ireland they have not always the clergy with
them—(Great laughter and applause)—and do you think,
notwithstanding what the Hon. Member for Aldborough
says about absentees, that there would be any great harm
if they would leave the tithes to be divided amongst the
poor, or that any vas: mischief would arise from their total
absence.—(Lauk,hter, and ' No, no, not much.") The
first thing that should be done for the poor of Ireland is to
apply to their use that which properly belongs to them,
and then, if it should be fonnd necessary, to call upon
others for additional support.—(Hear, hear.) Would any
of you be of opinion, if you knew that a man who had a
rich and opulent relation living close to him, and upon
whose estate he had a claim—would you think it
proper that the poor man should come to you for sup-
port? Surely you would say ' Go and take possession of
that property which belongs to you.'—(Hear, hear.) I
am sure, gentlemen, there is a great disposition on the
part of the Legislature to take this matter into their grave
consideration, and if that is the opinion of this meeting, and
of other meetings, I have no doubt but that we shall se-
cure the tithes of Ireland to the poor of Ireland.—
(Cheers.) If you want to keep the Irish poor from
coining here, you must find a provision for them at home,
and this is nut to seek, it is absolutely ready, and there-
fore, I say, that if you make that application of the tithes,
you will immediately administer to their relief in the most
effectual way. --(Applause.) When this meeting was
called, I was one of the requisitors, and I confess it gave
me great pleasure to be so, because I said—' here is an
opportunity which I have long desired, of retracting an
error into which I once fell, and so setting myself right
not oniv upon this point, but of making retribution to
those aijainst whom I bad erred.' I formerly was doubtful
whether it was proper to have parochial support for the
poor of Ireland ; but no sooner did I find this treasury of
wealth, then I said, let them have parochial relief by all
means, and here is the fund for it.'—(Applause.) I have
not the least doubt that, if the poor of Ireland had their
fair share of the Church property of Ireland, where you •
are now in the habit of seeing ten Irishmen come into
this country to reduce the price of your labour, you would
not see one.—( Hear, bean)"
We agree with Mr. Baines in opinion, that
this was a most important meeting, and we hope
with him that it will attract the attention and also
the imitation of the whole country. If it is
monstrous that the Clergy should appropriate to
themselves the whole of what was originally de-
stined for themselves, the poor, and the repair of
churches, it is still more monstrous that all this
should be taken by the Clergy of only one-twelfth
or one-sixteenth of the people.—Morn. Chron.
Some people display as strong a passion fur
discovering mares' nests, as the Chinese are said
to have for eating birds' nests. Without an-
nouncing such a truism, we scarcely know why
we should notice a stupid article in a Sunday
Paper, in which the writer intends to be at once
learned and witty,—malicious and astounding,
by showing that he has really read the impeach-
ment against Lord Oxford, and by commenting
on the article which relates to the creation o
new Peers to carry his measure of an alleged ig-
nominious peace. Every body but the Sunday
babbler was aware of this feature of the impeach-
ment, from the time that he could distinguish
the most interesting epochs of English history,
and nobody, except himself or a few of the op-
ponents of Reform in the House of Peers, ever
thought it applicable to present circumstances.
Lord Mansfield, we remember, in the debate on
the second reading of the Reform Bill, gave the
joke of the 12 Peers in Queen Anne's time
being represented, like a Jury, by their foreman,
and spoke of the necessity of now having a cen-
turion for the representative of the prospec-,
tive batch ; but his Lordship would have been
ashamed to have appealed to the historical fact
except as the foundation of a mere pleasantry.
Since, however, this article of Lord Oxford's
impeachment has again been alluded to on the
present occasion, we may as well set the matter
at rest for ever, by quoting his Lordship's re-
ply to the allegation, and by a single remark on
the object with which it was introduced. The
House of Commons who impeached the Ex.
Ministry of Queen Anne of high crimes and
niisdemeanours, did not intend to limit the royal
prerogative in the creation of Peers, or to blame
its exercise when employed for the promotion of
the national interests, They only objected to

the new creation because they viewed that addi-
tion to the Upper House as the means of car-
rying a pernicious or treasonable measure. It
was in fact the end, and not the means, which
was the object of their resentment, and which
they endeavoured to make the subject of their
penal infliction. They condemned the employment
of the prerogative in this case, as they would the
employment of a squadron of horse, or a ship of
war, if used against the public interest, though
legally granted by Parliamentary consent. The
article alluded to is the 16th, and the last in the
first draught of the impeachment. Ile previous
fifteen clauses contain the criminal acts, of which
the creation of Peers was intended to secure the
triumph. Before, therefore, the enemies of re-
form acquire the right of applying this charge of
Lord Oxford's accusation to the chief of our
present Cabinet, they must establish the fact that
the Reform Bill is wicked and treasonable, and
in doing so they must prove that 99-100ths of
the nation are conspirators and traitors. The
House of Commons of 1831 must begin like the
accusing House of Commons in 1717, by say-
that—" Whereas Lord Grey, having no regard
to the honour or safety of his Majesty or his
kingdom, but being devoted to the interest of
Reform—the common enemy of both—contrary
to his oath and his duty, did maliciously and
wickedly propose about the spring of 1831, a
most treacherous and pernicious contrivance to
purify the House of Commons, by destroying
rotten boroughs and extending the rights of the
people, and did for this purpose introduce a
Bill, which could not be carried but by the exer-
cise of the Royal prerogative, in adding Reform
Peers to the upper House ;" and " whereas his
Lordship did advise his Majesty to create such
Reform Peers," therefore his said Lordship is
impeached of high crimes and misdemeanours.
Earl Grey would certainly be able to answer the
former part of this accusation more triumphantly
than the Earl of Oxford his 1.5 articles of im-
peachment, but he would scarcely require any
other language than the following answer of the
latter to the 16th charge, which is now the only
one brought against him:—
" In answer to the sixteenth article, the said Earl doth
insist, that, by the laws and constitution of this realm, it
is the undoubted right and prerogative of the Sovereign,
who is the fountain of honour, to create Peers of this realm
as well in time of Parliament, as when there is no Parlia-
ment sitting or in being; and that the exercise of this
branch of the prerogative is declared, in the form or
preamble of all patents of honour, to proceed ' ex mero
motu,' as an act of mere grace and favour ; and that sueh
acts are not done, as many other acts of a public nature
are, by and with the advice of the Privy Council; or as
acts of pardon usually run, upon a favourable representa-
tion of several circumstances; or upon reports from the
Attorney-General, or other offices s, that such acts are
lawful or expedient, or for the safety or advantage of the
Crown ; but flows entirely from the beneficent and gracious
disposition of the Sovereign. He farther saith, that neither
the warrants for patents of honour, the bills or other engross-
meats of such patents, are at any time communicated to the
Council or the Treasury, as several other patents are ; and
therefore the said Earl, either as High Treasurer or
Privy Councillor, could nut have any knowledge of the
same; nevertheless, if her late sacred Majesty had thought
fit to acquaint him with her most gracious intentions of
creating any number of Peers of this realm, and had asked
his opinion whether the persons whom she then intended
to create were persons proper to have been promoted to
that dignity, he does not believe be should have highly ap-
proved her Majesty's choice; and doth not apprehend that
in so doing he had been guilty of any breach of his duty,
or violation of the trust in him reposed, since they were
all persons of honour and distinguished merit ; and the
Peerage thereby was not greatly increased, considering
some of those created would have been Peers by descent,
and that many titles of Peers were then lately extinct :
and the said Earl believes many instances may be given
where this prerogative bath been exercised by former
Princes of this realm in as extensive a manner, and parti-
cularly in the reigns of King Henry VIII., King James I.
and his late Majesty King William. The said Earl begs
leave to add that in the whole course of his life he bath
always loved the established Constitution ; and in his pri-
vate capacity, as well as in all public stations when he had
the honour to be employed, bath ever done his utmost to
preserve it, and he shall always continue so to do."—
Times.