The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, JULY 27, 1835.

ther or not a defendant in humble circumstances is to
be at liberty to defend an action ; for it comes to that ;
because a man must be known to be in rather com-
fortable circumstances before he can find people who
will be his securities for debt and costs, for such
surety is -very different from that of giving bail to the
Sheriff, or justifying afterwards. If they should in-
tend such an unconstitutional enactment, we hope
that those who have sounder notions of justice will
succeed in causing an alteration of the clause. The
alteration would be simple. The alternative might be
stated in a few words : " Unless the defendant shall
make oath that he has a good defence to the action
on the merits." This would be giving to the plaintiff
all that he has a right to require, and it would, at the
same time, relieve the defendant from a condition,
which as it stands in the clause, would amount to a
denial of justice to all who might be unable to obtain
sureties. An unprincipled plaintiff, and such are by
no means uncommon, might reap a nice harvest from
people he never saw, and who had never seen him, by
the mere exercise of a little ingenuity in selecting his
victims from a class who are sufficiently respectable to
find dozens of friends who would be bail for their ap-
pearance, or in other words, for their integrity, but
perhaps not a solitary individual who would be surety
for their ability to pay not only the debt sued for, but
an indefinite amount of costs.—Morning Herald.

So far as the House of Commons is concerned, that
proposition, which taken under all its present circum-
stances, and with all its incidents, must be regarded as
a sentence of death to the Church of Ireland, has
been established by a majority of votes—though a
small one—in a house of almost 630 members. Cu-
rious, rather than respectable, are the inconsistencies
of public assemblies, and little to be relied on the
good faith of men who can take refuge in numbers from
the risk of individual responsibility. When this self-
same clause for alienating from ecclesiastical purposes
the surplus revenue of the Irish Church was moved by
Mr. Ward in the session of 1834, it was resisted by
Lord Althorp and the actual occupants of the Treasury
Bench, on the ground that a Commission had been ap-
pointed to examine into the finances of that Church,
and that until the Commissioners should have reported,
it would be altogether unbecoming and improper to
forestall the results of their inquiries, and thus, by
affirming an abstract proposition, assume a fact which
might be found to have no existence whatever, thus
putting on record an unmeaning and useless vote. But
what is the case at present ? The Commissioners
have reported certainly, and if the former Whig Minis-
try and the former House of Commons were hound by
common sense and justice to waive the assertion of a
general proposition, because they were doubtful
whether the fact which it pointed at could be entirely
substantiated, how much more forcibly have they
been called upon in the recent instance to exercise
a similar forbearance, now that the knowledge which
they waited for on the previous occasion has been
received, and positive proof afforded that the vote
for appropriating a surplus is a superfluous mock-
ery, the fact being matter of positive demonstration,
that no surplus whatever is likely to exist, if not a
considerable deficit ! We do not believe that an in-
congruity so glaring between the professions of certain
persons and their actions was ever before visible in the
proceedings of party. But the spirit of the negative
put upon Sir R. Peel's motion is plain from the con-
text of the Bill itself. The resolution to create a sur-
plus by a system of Church plunder is not less appa-
rent than the injustice of diverting it when found.
Gentlemen may sneer as they like at the arithmetical
calculations of Sir R. Peel, for it is safest to sneer at
what you cannot answer. Mr. S. Rice was in a piti-
able predicament while attempting to cavil at Sir R.
Peel's exposition of the scheme disclosed by the Irish
Church Bill for breaking down the very elements of a
Church, by separating all unions of two or more pa-
rishes, even where the naked subsistence of a clergy-
man depends on their permanent consolidation, as in
the case of Collon, where there exists but one Church
for three parishes, and where the parish, with se-
veral hundred Protestants, produces no decent live-
lihood
(251. per annum) for a clergyman ; so that,
by separating from it the other parishes, each
not containing more than fifty Protestants, but
contributing between them the main subsistence of the
clergyman, who officiated for all three, two bad conse-
quences necessarily follow-Ist, the congregations of
the two parishes of the union which contain the smaller
number of Protestant parishioners are robbed of all
that spiritual ministration which was formerly supplied
by the incumbent of the whole union. 2d. The cler-
gyman of the parish which contains the several hundred
inhabitants, but no funds, has not a shilling to subsist
upon ; the incomes of the other two segregated pa-
rishes, with less than fifty Protestants each, being
turned over to the uses of Romish education. When
the profuse provision for the Irish clergy is dwelt upon,
let us look a little into facts. There are in Ireland 1,383
parish churches. If each of these, according to the bill,
be supplied with a clergyman, the whole revenue of the '
church of Ireland taken together will not furnish an ave-
rage income of so much as 2201. per annum. If the pa-
rishes in Ireland with more than 50 Protestants be admi-
nistered each by a single clergyman, he will not on the
average have so much as 1901. per annum. Yet these
Whig gentlemen chuckle about a surplus ! A surplus
out of what ? Do theymean that the Church of Ireland
shall command the services of none but ignorant and
uneducated blockheads—of men who have their lessons
to learn before they can teach even the rudiments of
religion to their flocks ? If so, the plan has some
consistency in it. But when the same persons melt
with sympathy at the humiliating condition of the
Popish Clergy, are they aware, that taking minister
for minister, the Romish Priests were considerably
richer than the Protestant Clergy, even when the
latter did receive their tithes ? Are they sensible of
the affecting fact recorded by two Catholic Members
of Parliament—Mr. Finn and Air. Perrin—that the
salaries of Protestant Curates are so low as to have
made many individuals of that unfortunate class of
gentlemen objects of compassion to the Roman Ca-
tholic peasantry, and actual receivers of their bounty ?
When, again, the Scottish Church is held up as a
model of financial propriety and frugality, and an ex-
ample to be followed by that of England in both islands,
probably the projectors of such an economical reform
are not conversant with the subject of Scotch parochial
incomes. They cannot know that there are in the
Scottish Church incumbents who enjoy an income from
their parishes of 1,0001. per annum. They cannot be
apprized that in Edinburgh, for instance, there are 18
Clergymen with revenues of between 5001. and 6001.
each, and in Glasgow and Greenock stipends still more
liberal. But the truth is, that without referring to the
authority of Messrs. O'Connell, Sheil, or Hume, the
inevitable tendency of the new Church Bill is to trans-
fer the whole revenue of the Church of Ireland, pro-
gressively, and by a resistless process, from Protestant
to Popish hands, to thin the Protestant population, to
lower the intellectual and moral standard of the Pro-
testant Clergy, and to leave the Popish priesthood un-
disputed masters of the whole Irish mind.—Times.
Though Poland, in her present desolation, is a foul
blot on the foreign policy of England, yet English-
men will not—cannot cease to watch with surpassing
solicitude the proceedings in regard to that brave, but
unfortunate people, and cherish the hope of a happier
and better future for their posterity. A newly-
issued number of Le Polon= contains some inte-
resting observations on the policy of Europe, the revo-
lution of Italy in 1831, and the question of intervention
with regard to Spain. These are all written with
more than ordinary ability. The first especially
evinces, with some errors, a most eloquent energy
of style, and a searching profundity of thought. After
passing in rapid and striking review the present condi-
tion of the various States of Europe—of France
ever unstable, fixed in nothing, evincing at one time
an unhealthy langour, at another unrestrained rage ;
to-day, the timid prudence of an old man ; to-morrow
the puerile desire of novelty—of Spain, torn by a con-
flict between an uncle and his infant niece—of Por,
tugal, in the hands of a child (for the thrones of Eu-
rope are almost all encumbered by infancy or age),
hoping to find peace in the lassitude of discords, and
liberty in the will of a few men—the setting, not the
rising twilight of liberty, a vain and careless Ministry,
and an ignorant and apathetic people,--of England af-
frighted at Ireland, and herself seeking to repair rather
than to reconstruct institutions, inclosing the germs of

their own destruction—of Switzerland and her fac-
tions, an aristocracy irritated at its own decrepitude,
and a democracy unrestrained in the extravagance of
its desires—of Prussia, seeking a more liberal regime
—Germany, feeling the land trembling under her Diet,
and the peasants of Holstein armed to assault her
cities—Hungary champing the rein, and ready to rush,
not from slavery to liberty, but from despotic mo-
narchy to feudal barbarism—Poland, enslaved by
forty-five thousand bayonets, an object of universal
sympathy—Russia, a compound of exotic elegance
and barbarous indigence—a monster with two heads,
one in Siberia, the other in Paris—Algiers, where
civilization is incapable to excite esteem—Egypt,
with a despot sowing the seeds of liberty—the low
murmuring of war in Persia—lndia disturbed--even
in China whole provinces in insurrection—movements
in America, the cradle of liberty—the negroes of
Jamaica ready to revolt—tumults in the Brazils—
massacres in Peru and Mexico—all Spanish America
forming a chain of volcanoes, vomiting torrents of
flame, or smoking from half-extinguished eruptions,
—the writer next observes, that though at other times
terrible discords have agitatated nations, the commo-
tion was never so electric and profound as at present.
Never were events more strange, accompanied by
more wonderful changes. Six revolutions in eight
months—kings without people, and people without
kings--private individuals the creditors and creators
of kings—servants of old monarchies allied to the
creatures of new to trample them under-foot—fa-
cilities of communication increasing in an incredible
manner—wants multiplying with the means of gratify-
ing them, and impossible to foresee where the move-
ment will cease—can England, even if she wished,
restrain this movement ?--England, whose Constitu-
tion does not prevent her being a mediatrix between
discords and alliances—illusions and intelligence—
liberty and absolutism—whose Constitution has not
taught her to be just towards her Colonies, or humane
towards Ireland, to take from the Clergy their corrupt-
ing riches—from the people their degrading ianorance;
to spare her soldiers from the lash, or her workmen the
still more appalling punishment of labour which does
not afford them time for the cultivation of their minds,
or attention to the first necessities of existence ?
The confiscation and sequestration of the estates of
the Polish refugees still continue with unflinching per-
secution. An ukase of the 21st of April directs that
the unfortunate Polish soldiers and subalterns, whom
a previous edict compelled to enter the Russian army,
shall cease to form part of it after the lapse of fifteen
years I However, all the Polish prisoners made dur-
ing the war of independence, the Polish battalion of
miners of the fourth regiment of the line, and the ar-
tillery of the guard, are excepted from this humane
provision, and on account of their extraordinary ex-
ertions to liberate their country, are doomed to twenty-
five years' service I ! But as life, swords, bravery,
and vengeance are still left to them, it is to be hoped
that their sabres may yet sleep tranquilly from their
toil in the bosom of their tyrants.—Morning Adver-
tiser.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

MIDLAND ClRCUlT—NorrnvoirAm, Juz,r 24.

:GEESON V. MARBOTT.
This action was brought for the recovery of two sums of
501. each, due on two promissory notes.
Mr. HILL stated the case. The action was brought to
recover two sums of 501., due and owing to the plaintiff by
the defendant on his promissory notes. The plaintiff is a
shoemaker, living at Bingham, in this county ; the defen-
dant, a retired publican, residing in the same town. In
ordinary cases it was usual to put in the notes, prove the
handwriting, and there leave the case, bUt, on the present
occasion, he (Mr. Hill) would state under what circum-
stances the two notes, for the recovery of which the pre-
sent action was brought, were given. The plaintiff, who
is a married man, had for some time previous to this trans-
action entertained some suspicions as to his wife's fidelity ;
the justice of these suspicions being confirmed by the fact
of the plaintiff's calling home one evening and finding the
defendant in such a situation with his (the plaintiff's) wife,
so as to put any doubt which he previously might have
entertained as to the truth of such suspicions to silence.
In consequence of this discovery the defendant, as a sort
of reparation or atonement, consented to give to the plain-
tiff two promissory notes, at three months, for 50/. each.
He would prove these facts, and then they would give him
a verdict.
Samuel Thraves examined—ls the father of the wife of
the plaintiff. Saw the notes in question signed by the de-
fendant.

Cross.examined by Mr. BALGUY—Does not know when
his daughter was married. They have continued to live
together since this job, but not very pleasantly. She had
two illegitimate children before her marriage, by different
fathers, neither of them by Geeson. He took her with a
family ready made. Witness was sent for between six and
seven o'clock on the night in question to the house of Gee-
son, who was there, along with Mabbott. Geeson said, " I
have a bad job here ; I have caught Mabbott with my
wife." Mabbott said, " I hope you won't expose me," and
agreed to give 100!. Geeson said he would not. Witness
went for the stamps. Geeson filled up the body of the
notes, which Mabbott signed, and Thraves witnessed, when
they parted, defendant looking very pleasant.
These were the facts proved in the case.
The Learned Judge having summed up, the Jury, after
some consultation, found for the plaintiff for 100/., the
amount claimed on the bills.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.—MORLEY V. BURROWS.

This action was brought to recover compensation in da-
mages for a breach of the defendant's promise in not marry-
ing the plaintiff. The defendant denied the promise ; and
secondly, alleged that, supposing he had promised, the
plaintiff had absolved him from the performance of it. The
damages were laid at 1,0001.
The plaintiff, Miss Morley, and the defendant, are the
children of respectable farmers, and are our own cousins.
The defendant as early as 1822 (Miss Morley then being
25 years of age, the defendant 24) had been received as
the declared suitor of his cousin. It was admitted that the
plaintiff was of irreproachable character, and the attach-
ment of the parties to each other continued in all its fer-
vour up to June in last year, when it was suddenly put an
end to by the defendant's marrying a Miss Oliver, the only
probable cause of his doing so, as conjectured, was that
lady being possessed of the sum of 1,200/. The Jury found
a verdict in favour of the plaintiff. Damages 300/.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—YoRK, JULY 25.
FISHER V. BEAUMONT.

Mr. Sergeant ATCHEREY said this was an action brought
by Mr. Fisher, a solicitor of Doncaster, against the Provi-
dent Insurance Company to recover the sum of 2,0001., se-
cured upon the life of the Rev. Edward Frank of Newark,
who died in 1834. The great question was whether Mr.
Frank was in an unsound state of mind when these policies
were effected, These insurances were effected in 1823.
The Rev. Edward Frank was the son of the celebrated
Bacon Frank, of Campsall, and was in possession of two
livings. The Learned Counsel proceeded to state that
Mr. Fisher laid before Mr. Shepherd, a medical gentleman,
the queries sent by the Prevident Office, to be answered be-
fore the policies were filled, who observed to Mr. Fisher
that there was no question which relates to insanity, on
which Mr. Fisher observed, " That is their concern, not
ours." About the time that the negotiation was going on,
proposals were made to the Pelican Office to effect an insu-
rance there upon Mr. Frank's life, who having some sugges-
tion made as to the state of mind of Mr. Frank, they refused
to effect the insurance unless at an increased premium,
which Mr. Fisher consented to, and paid the advance of
premium accordingly. In 1822 some proceedings were
taken before the Chancellor with a view of taking out a
commission of lunacy against Mr. Frank, with the view of
taking from him the management of his affairs and restrain-
ing his person ; his Lordship at that time declined to issue
a Commission, but in 1825 he: was declared a lunatic, and
was found by the Jury to have been so from 1816. The
Learned Counsel then referred to eccentricities in the moral
conduct of Mr. Frank, and mentioned many instances of
absurd conduct, which could only be the result of mental
aberration. Mr. Frank also obtained a license to reside out
of the limits of both his livings, on the ground of his being
unwell, and incapable of discharging his clerical duties. On
these grounds the Learned Counsel contended that the
condition of the policy had not been complied with, and
that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover upon it.
The Jury, after a deliberation of about five minutes, re-
turned with a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 2,3161.

RAILROAD FROM PARIS TO BELGIUM.--We
are assured that M. Fred. Meeus, Governor of the (Old)
Bank, intends to go very shortly to Paris, to treat with the
French Government on the forming of a joint-stock company
for making a new railroad to commence at Paris, and commu-
nicate by divers branches with the principal cities of Belgium,
particularly Brussels. Hitherto there are only very rough esti-
mates of the sum that would be necessary for this great work,
but there is reason to believe that it would be at least seventy
or eighty millions. It seems that the Governor of the Bank
has already submitted to the Minister of the Interior his preli-
minary notices on the making of this road, and that there is
reason to believe that our Government will be glad if so im-
portant a plan shall be received in France as favourably as it
deserves.—Brussels Paper.

SECOND EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

THE PARLIAMENT.

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at a
Few minutes before five o'clock.

CORPORATION REFORM BILL.
Lord RAVENSWORTH presented a petition from New-
castle against the Corporation Reform Bill.
Lord HATHERTON presented a petition in favour of the
Bill from Walsal, and one from Stoke-upon-Trent to the same
effect.
Lord PRUDHOE presented a petition from the freemen
of Durham and Newcastle•on-Tyne, against the Corporation
Bill. Also one from Morpeth, to the same effect. Also one
from the merchants of Tynemouth, against any change in the
Timber Duties.
The Bishop of ROCHESTER presented a petition from
the Clergy of his diocese, praying for protection to the Church.
CERTIORARI BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM, on the Report on the above Bill
being brought up, said he intended to postpone the third reading
of the Bill until the sth of August, so that Lord Denman
might be in his place, as he was very anxious to introduce
some amendment.
The Earl of FALMOUTH presented a petition from
Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, complaining of the Report
of the Corporation Commissioners, and praying to be heard
by Counsel against the Corporation Reform Bill.
The Earl of T ANKE RVIL LE presented a petition from
the Corporation of Berwick-upon-Tweed, praying to be heard
by Counsel against the Corporation Reform Bill.
The Duke of BEAUFORT presented a petition from
Bristol against the Corporation Reform Bill.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition from the
wrights of Newcastle-upon. Tyne against certain parts of the
Municipal Corporation Reform Bill.
The Earl of HARE WOOD presented a petition from the
Corporation of Doncaster against the Municipal Reform Bill,
and praying to be heard by counsel at the bar. He complained
that according to the Bill as it then stood, the Corporation of
Doncaster would be swamped into that of another place.
Viscount MELBOURNE presented several petitions in
favor of the Bill from Brecon and other places.