The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1835.

Harr OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

t would be matter of amusement, were not the sub-
.
itself of so serious a nature, to see the way in
:ch, with all the gravity and pomposity in the
rld, the organs of the faction, which have brought
clergy of Ireland into a state which may soon be-
.ne one of utter destitution, are seeking to throw off
3 responsibility which naturally devolves upon their
ployers, and evade the just consequences of their
,stinate and factious proceedings. When the affair
the Irish Church was before Parliament last year, it
as proposed by Lord Grey's Government to put an end
the existing tithe system, and leaving out altogether
e debateable question of " appropriation," to insure
the clergy of Ireland nearly four-fifths of their in-
ime, the principal part being fixed as a permanent
nt-charge on the landlord, and the remainder se-
ared by the Government, in place of the present
aore than precarious income derived from tithe
ellected from the occupying tenant—on the
vhole the clergyman would have been sure of re-
!eiving gni per cent. of his then nominal revenue.
the Tories, however, unwilling to let the clergy slip
Dut of their hands, and aware how excellent a theme
the spectacle of a deserving and suffering clergy is to
hold out to a nation's sympathy, refused this offered
settlement. The slightest diminution of the tithe re-
venue was held up as " spoliation ;" it mattered not
that in many places no tithe had been for years col-
: lected ; it mattered not that the prudent clergyman
himself was ready to jump at a settlement that gua-
tanteerA, upon the security of Government, four-fifths
of tilie income which all the force and terrors of the
lain had proved unable to secure to him in its form of
tithe ; the higher Clergy—the Bishops and their co-
adjutors—were inexorable, and the Irish Tithe Act,
which was passed by the Commons, was unceremo-
niously rejected by the Lords. Next came the ques-
tion of a loan, now virtually converted into a gift.
The country was unwilling to see the Clergy of Ire-
land starving on account of the factious obstinacy of
the Tory party. A million was advanced for their sup-
port (the Tories all along protesting that the whole
body would indignantly reject the offer)—a million
sterling of moneys, wrung from the industrious classes
of this country, was voted to support the destitute
Clergy of Ireland through the long period which must
• necessarily elapse before the tithe question could be
satisfactorily adjusted. So far was the country taxed
to prevent the Irish parsons from suffering absolute
starvation from the acts of their Tory friends. The
time passed away--a Tory Government was formed—
a crafty and experienced politician was placed at its
head, and what was the first thing which this avowed
Church party proposed ? Why, the very people who
denounced the offer of 771 per cent. as spoliation and
sacrilege, came before Parliament with a proposal to
commute the claims of the clergy for 75 per cent.;
and absolutely made a boast, when it was an object to
curry popular favour in many parts of the country,
that they woul l settle the question upon terms
more favourable to the bulk of the community
than their Whig predecessors. The House of
Commons, bow-ever, frustrated this imagined triumph
of duplicity and Tory policy over honest and
straight-forward intention. The House of Commons
decided that, in settling the tithe-question, the whole
state of the Irish Church should be taken into con-
sideration—,they voted that sinecures should be abo-
lished—that a race of emigrant tithe-receivers should
no longer disgrace the name of Protestant Ministers—
that where there were positively no duties to perform,
the property raised for the purposes of religious instruc-
tion should be no longer appropriated to maintain an
unemployed and non-resident clergy, but that, in such
cases, it. should be applied to the concordant uses of
general and moral education of the people. Here,
there fore, was another chance of effectually providing
for the Irish Clergy, and maintaining the Protestant
Church Establishment upon a scale commensurate with
its utility—the whole Liberal party agreed to it—the
Government was pledged to it—the House of Com-
mons acceded to it—but again the Tory " Church "
party in the Lords interfered to thwart and reject it.
All hopes of a satisfactory adjustment are destroyed by

the declaration of the Tory Peers, unless the voice Of
the country shall bring these infatuated and factious
politicians once more to their senses. But having thus
resisted every attempt at fair accommodation—having
by their own perverse determination doomed the Irish
Clergy to starvation, it was surely flieir impera-
tive duty and that of their party to step forward and
relieve the sufferings which they refused to remove by
well-timed legislation, and by a general subscription
from a party which is always boasting of As wealth
and possessions, to evince that real attachment to
" the Church," about which we hear so much-,—but
no such thing. It is the British nation which is to
be called upon to open its purse-strings to mitigate the
effects of Tory obstinacy. It is found out to be 1171'
dignified and degrading to the Clergy of Ireland to
be supported by a subscription of their friends, and so
the hard-working people of England are, we suppose,
to be again called upon to make a further sacrifice
for this object. But we tell these canting politicians
that it will not do—the country is awake to their
schemes—it will no longer submit to be thus trifled
with. Upon them rests the whole responsibility of
the results of their factious proceedings, and it is to
them that the country has a right to look to
maintain the unfortunate individuals who have
been thus offered up as a sacrifice on the
shrine of interested and Tory ambition. Let Tory
Aristocrats disgorge a portion of that wealth which
in many instances, is itself derived from the
public revenue. Let the Dignitaries of a bloated and
worldly Establishment come down with a portion of
that inordinate wealth which is calculated to pamper
their vanity, and mar their utility as Christian Minis-
ters., Let all these people show that they are what
they pretend to be, " friends to the Irish Church," by
laying down their money for its support; but let them
not imagine that Englishmen are such fools as to sub-
mit to be robbed of the proceeds of their industry in
order to maintain a state of things opposed to the
plainest principles of reason and common sense—hos-
tile to the peace and security of Ireland—inimical,
therefore, to the best interests of the country at large,
and useful only to Tory politicians as a bone of con-
tention, a theme which may be perverted by their craft
and ingenuity, to excite the support and sympathy of
the nation for their own corrupt and sinking cause.
The people of England will know what to think of
their present paltry affectation of consulting the dig-
nity of the Irish Church, by a refusal to subscribe for
its unfortunate and destitute professors.— Morning
Chronicle.

At the Glasgow Protestant Meeting, the Rev.
Mortimer O'Sullivan having referred to the successful
stand which the Scotch made for their religion, pro-
ceeded to marvel what the Irish Catholics were now
contending for, as he very coolly asserted that they en-
joyed all the rights for which the Scotch had strug-
gled. This is, doubtless, the Orange method of read-
ing history and comparing facts. Mr. O'Sullivan,
curiously enough, fails to observe that the Irish enjoy
one thing which the Scotch would by no means be in-
duced to receive among their blessings—namely, the
establishment of another faith. The Irish Catholics
enjoy the payment of tithe to the ministers of another
religion, which is a usage, however excellent, that the
Scotch most resolutely and potently resisted. The
consequence is, that no O'Sullivans and Beres-
fords are to be seen on the face of Scotland, and
Rathcormacs are not less scarce. There is then
some little difference between the religious status of
the Irish Catholic and the Scotch. It is true, indeed,
as Mr. O'Sullivan in his benignant way observes, that
" there is no parish in Ireland in which a Roman
Catholic chapel may not be erected, and in which the
priest may not denounce the Established Church as a
nuisance, and its pastors as greedy wolves ;" but this
does not make out the parallel to the religious rights
of Scotland, for there is certainly no parish in Scot-
land in which the people are obliged to support a
church of another religion. Yet Mr. O'Sullivan can-
not understand why the Catholics should be dissatis-
fied. He seems to think that so long as they are per-
mitted to pray as they like, they have no right to mur-
mur at being compelled to maintain the church in
which they do not pray. Deliverance from this
necessity is, however, among those rights of Scot-
land which the Reverend Gentleman affirms to

be equally enjoyed by the Catholics of Ireland.
Mr. O'Sullivan has no difficulty in discover-
ing the crew of Ireland's discontents—" only when a
grinding despotism bound down the energies of the
people (says this man of mercy) was she tranquil ; and
as soon as that coercion ceased, then started out the
beast in his proper shape, and the reign of turbulence
and disorder commenced." Of course the remedy, in
the view of this Reverend person, must be to return to
the " grinding despotism" and its tranquillity. How
literally would men of this kind fulfil the description
of the destroyers—solitudinem faciunt, pacem appel-
lant. Our Reverend Orator tells the Scotch that
their ancestors, unlike the Irish, were tranquil when
permitted to enjoy their rights ; and if the Irish had se-
cured their rights as effectually as did the Scotch, no
Reverend Mortimer O'Sullivan would now have an in-
terest in a system so hostile to the peace of his country.
It is from the untenable positions of the Sinecure
Church that the " grinding despotism," with its grim
tranquillity, is looked back to with regret as the golden
age of the Establishment.—Morning Chronicle.
When we see the Ministerial papers, in pursuance
of positive orders, daily dedicating their columns to the
praise of O'Connell, to whom Lord Melbourne, Lord
Lansdowne, Lord Holland, and Lord John Russell,
have successively, in terms more or less distinct, ad-
mitted that they owe their existence as a Ministry ;
when we see, too, that. some manly understandings
among our countrymen, who, being themselves inca-
pable of falsehood, can scarcely imagine its constant
employment as a weapon of faction, are somewhat
staggered by the cool and audacious repetitions of lies
ten times refuted, we feel that we are bound to continue
the irksome and loathsome task of exhibiting the
" monster-deceiver," at the risk of being covered with
some of the filth which must defile all who touch pitch,
even for the purpose of abolishing the noisome sub-
stance. In furtherance of this disagreeable but useful
object, we now present another specimen of the moun-
tebank's mendacity. We first introduce him in his
own person, and in his own language : behold him :
Mr. O'Connell—(Mirror of Parliament, Wednes-
day, March 18.)—" I beg to call the attention of the
House to a matter, in which I am personally inte-
rested. The ballot for the city of Dublin election
is fixed for to take place to-morrow. There have
been four petitions against the return of myself and
my Hon. Colleague. The first was presented on the
25th of February, the second on the 4th of March,
the third on the 7th of March, and the fourth on the
9th or 10th of March. The petition presented on the
25th of February was abandoned, and a ballot was ap-
pointed for to-morrow, to try the merits of the second
petition. The agentfor the petitioners informed me,
in the presence ofmy Hon. Colleague, that the second
petition, that of the 4th of March, would be abandoned
also; and, accordingly, reference was made to the
examiners to inquire into the solvency of the sureties
offered in support of the third petition. That ques-
tion came for discussion before the examiners on
Monday last, and it was decided that the sureties had
not justified ; but under the circumstances of the
case"—(Mr. O'Connell had taken the petitioners
by surprise, having objected to the sufficiency of
Mr. William Long, a wealthy individual in Dublin)—
" the examiners determined that the sureties should have
till the 25th to put in their justification. An application
to that effect, founded on the report of the examiners, was
to have been made to the House, and there could be no
reasonable objection to comply With it. On Monday,
therefore, I wrote to Dublin to stop my agent and
witnesses from coming up to attend the ballot to-mor-
row. This day, however, the opposite party have
taken up the second petition, that of the 4th of March,
which they had declared they had abandoned, and
passed the sureties for it ; the consequence of which is,
that if the House should not interfere in my behalf,
the ballot will take place to-morrow, when I shall be
deprived of Me assistance of my Dublin agent, on
whom I most rely, when I shall be without instruc-
tions for cross-examination, and without witnesses."
Mr. O'Connell further said—" It will be positively
sworn that on Monday even, the opposing agent de-
clared that the petition of the 4th of March was
abandoned. In consequence I have, as I before
stated, countermanded the attendance of my princi-
pal agent and witnesses, and I have abstained from
preparing the statements and lists which must be
exchanged on the day the ballot takes place." The
facts vouched for by Mr. O'Connell, in this debate,
are—first, that there was an unconditional, unequi-
vocal, abandonment" of the second petition ; 2dly,
that if the House proceeded to the ballot on the fol-
lowing day, " he.should be deprived of the assistance
of his Dublin agent," whom Mr. O'Connell also
calls his principal agent." We must, on account of
its length, now refer pur readers to the debate, from
which it appears that the petitioners' agent, Mr.
Baker, a highly respectable person, had promised
conditionally to abandon the petition on the 4th
of March, in the event of his being able t o proceed
with the others ; and that in order to guard against
any casualty with respect to them, a notice was posted
on Saturday the 14th, announcing the petitioners' in-
tention to proceed with the petition of the 4th of
March—a state of facts afterwards confirmed by the
affidavit of Mr. Baker, in support of his petition
presented by Mr. Shaw on the 20th of March. In
the course of the above debate, when it was pro-
posed by Mr. O'Connell to call his agent to the bar of
the House, Sir James Graham, with that manly feel-
ing which so much distinguished him, urged on the
House, as the postponement of a week only was required,
" to depend on the word of the Hon. and Learned
Member for the sake of the dignity of the House."
He said he was " anxious tn maintain the honour of
the House, " which is involved in the assertion of the
principle " that a Member's solemn declaration is
equivalent to an oath." The ballot was accordingly
postponed to the 26th of March, on which day we
believe it took place, in despite of an attempt made
by Sir John Campbell to obtain a further postpone-
ment by the presentation of a petition, of course " nu-
merously and respectably signed," again questioning
the sqfficiency of Mr. William Long and the Lord
Mayor of the City of Dublin, as sureties for five hun-
dred pounds each ! Thus far our authority, the Mirror
of Parliament : now we intreat 'our readers to accom-
pany us to the Dublin City Election Committee-room,
and to ponder well the cross-examination of one Mr.
John Joseph Murphy, a surname well known in the
O'Connell history, and immortalized by the able ex-
ertions of the Recorder of Dublin on a memorable oc-
casion, the death's-head and cross-bones debate.

" John Joseph Murphy, examined the 3d of April, 1835,
cross-examined by Mr. Wrangham.—You said you were
the Dublin agent for Mr. O'Connell ?—I am, and for Mr.
Ruthven.

" Were you conducting agent at the election ?—I was.
" Principal agent ?—I was. . _ _

" I understand you to say you have gained the informa-
tion you have laid before the committee in the capacity of
confidential agent for Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Ruthven, the
sitting members ?—Yes. _ _ _

" You came to town last Monday fortnight, that would
be the 16th ?—I believe so.

" Did you remain in town during that week ?—Yes.
" You were present at the examination of the sureties ?
—Yes.

" Were you present in the House of Commons on the
Wednesday following that Monday ?—When counsel ap-
peared at the bar ?

" No, the Wednesday previous to the day first fixed for
the ballot, when application was made to put it or; were
you in the House of Commons? Did you hear Mr. O'Con-
nell move to put of the ballot ?—I do not know whether
I was in the House of Commons that day. To the best of
my belief I came in while he was speaking ; I cannot be
certain, I have been there so frequently ; I think I was
there.

" Do you recollect Mr. O'Connell making that motion ?
—I recollect the motion having been made.
" Don't you recollect .21Ir. O'Connell making the motion
in the House of Commons for putting of the ballot to another
week ?—I do.

" Well, now do you recollect it ?—Yes.
" Do you recollect the grounds on which he made it ?
" By Mr. Austin, counsel for Mr. O'Connell—Were you
present in the House at the time ?—I think I was. lam
sure I did. I came into the House while he was speaking.
" Do you recollect the grounds on which that motion was
made ?—I do."

Mr. O'Connell, at Edinburgh, asked the people who
came to dine, " What they came there for ?" Had
they known what we have here brought under public
notice, they might have truly answered, " To see the
man possessed, above all others in his Majesty's do-

minions, of the most unblushing 0-ontery." And this
is the man to whoni Lords Melbourne, Holland, Lans-
downe, and John Russell bend the knee, and know.
not how to be sufficiently grateful for " his distinguished
support." Alas ! for the English gentry and nobility
—Times.

The Report of the Commissioners appointed to in-
quire into the state of the poor in Ireland, with a view
to the consideration of the question of poor laws, is con-
clusive in the establishment of one fact—the existence.
of a degree of misery, such as never was proved to exist
in any other country under a settled form of Govern-
ment. Even a cursory view of the extracts which we
have already published will be sufficient to bear out
this assertion. Will the Legislature hesitate any longer
to apply a remedy ? It was the opinion of all those
who were acquainted with the condition of the Irish
poor that the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry,
when first it was proposed, could be neither more nor
less than a manoeuvre to gain time. Inquiry, if it does
not imply doubt, implies lack of information ; and who
doubted, or who could fairly plead, the want of sufficient
intelligence upon the subjec& about to be investigated
by a long and tedious process ? No one who had ever
visited that unhappy country—no one who had read
its history or conversed with its inhabitants. And
yet the House of Commons—not hereditary Legis-
lators, be it observed, but Legislators elected for
their qualifications—pleaded guilty to such doubts
and such ignorance when they decided by a
large majority that the question of extreme poverty in
Ireland was a question requiring proof. One advan-
tage, however, has followed from their decision. • A
body of evidence has been collected which is sufficient
to satisfy the most scrupulous conscience that the time
has at length arrived when something must be done to
mitigate the sufferings of the great mass of the popula-
tion, who are paupers in the literal, though not in the
legal sense of the word, paupers in want and starvation
though not in the claim and title to relief. Amongst
other facts elicited in the course of the investigation,
it is shown that the farmers, who are themselves a very
wretched class, and the labourers where labour is worse
paid than in almost any other country, contribute more,
far more in proportion to the support of the destitute
poor, than the proprietors of the soil, and those who
are comprised under the general description of gentry.
One of the witnesses'examined says, " If the farmers did
not give charity the poor would starve. The quantity
given by any one does not depend on his ability. There
are farmers, paying 101. a year, who do not give as
much as labourers. The gentry do give alms to be sure,
but they do not give as much as they could, and ought to
give—they do not like to let beggars inside their gates."
Many other witnesses bear testimony to the same effect,
and some of them enter into details, which are truly
heart-rending, in corroboration of the fact, that the
burden of maintaining the poor falls chiefly upon those
who are least capable of bearing it. The inference
from this is obvious, it inculcates the necessity of a
compulsory provision. " What I" exclaim the senti-
mentalists, " will you prevent the poor from giving to
the poor by compelling the rich to share with them the
luxury of doing good ?" But in the first place a com-
pulsory provision for the poor, or, in other words, the
adoption of a system of poor laws, would have no such
effect. By compelling one class of society to bear
their fair share of the burden we shall not prevent the
rest from contributing, but, on the contrary, shall im-
press upon them more strongly the duty of doing so.
The example of the rich is now against the prac-
tice of charity. It will not injure, it will not impair
the practice of the virtue to make even a forcible in-
road upon that example. Besides it is an unnatural
state of things to leave the poor to the mercies of
the poor alone. Legislation can scarcely be ill em-
ployed in the endeavour to correct it. There needs
not much calculation to prove that such a state of
things is not calculated to last long, or to do exten-
sive good, and there are other considerations as well as
considerations of mere humanity, which call upon the
governing power to interpose its authority, when the
breach is widening every day between the two extremes
of society, for want of some common bond of sympathy
to hold them together. But the next Session will, we
hope, in spite of the reluctance which the Irish land-
lords have manifested, remove the reproach of neglect-
ing the poor from that country, by the adoption of a
system of laws by which their interests will be pro-
vided for. In the meanwhile we would impress upon
every Member of Parliament, and, indeed, upon every
man, whether in or out of Parliament, who takes an
interest in political questions, the propriety of turning
his mind to this important subject. If he has doubts
of the existence of great distress, we can now refer him
to a body of evidence, and that fact being ascertained,
either by his own previous knowledge, or by the autho-
rity to which he is referred, we presume there can be
no doubt as to the propriety of at least attempting its
alleviaoon by the only mode which has yet been dis-
covered of distributing the burden over_ the great mass
of the people, including the rich, who have hitherto
contrived to evade their just proportion.—Morning
Herald.

The present condition of the United States of Ame-
rica, as described in the most recent advices from that
country, is calculated to abate very considerably the
anticipations of advantage to the general weal which
men of sanguine temperament and heated imaginations
have been too apt to connect with the idea of what
they are generally pleased to denominate liberalinsti-
tutions. We have no wish to depreciate the system of
Government established in the United States. It is,
we believe, a system tolerably well adapted to the situa-
tion, the habits, and the wants of the community
which it is intended to superintend, restrain, and sup-
ply. This is giving as much praise to the American
system as any man of intelligence and reflection will
be disposed to claim for any system of Government
that ever has existed, or that can by possibility, exist,
upon earth. There are persons, indeed, who carry
their admiration of the republican institutions of
America much farther than we profess to do, and
who infer from the fact of this system working well
in America, that it would work well in Great Britain
and every other State. Our inference is precisely the
opposite of this. We believe that the excellence of a
Government consists in its adaptation to the situa-
tion, the habits, and the wants of the people among
whom it is established. We know that the situation,
the habits, and the wants of the people of the European
States are entirely different from those of the people of
America. And we conclude, without diffidence or he-
sitation, from the fact that in the main the Government
of the United States is compatible with and conducive
to the peace, happiness, and welfare of their inhabitants,
that a similar form of Government would not be con-
ducive to or compatible with the peace, happiness, and
welfare of any European community. Upon this sub-
ject it would be idle to enter upon an elaborate argu-
ment, for if there be any man who is incapable of
truths so evident as that the excellence of a Govern-
ment depends upon its adaptation to the purposes it has
to accomplish, and that in different nations those pur-
poses are essentially different, such a man we must
not hope to convince. In spite of all we could
say he would, if an Englishman, wish to abolish
the Court of St. James's and the House of
Lords ; and, if an American, to establish a Court
and a Peerage at the city of Washington—if the
former, he would be anxious to give a disorderly mi-
litia to the parade at the Horse Guards ; if the latter,
to protect the stores of New York by the Coldstream
and the Oxford Blues. We do not think that the in-
formation we have recently received from America, ap-
prizing us of the fact that various districts of the Ame-
rican Union and immense classes of its
.population are
at this moment in fierce collision, and intimating the
probability that in the struggle between them, the
liberty of the Press will be overthrown, was required
to show the folly of regarding American institutions as
the perfection of Government, and as applicable alike
to all times, places, and circumstances. But such facts
and probabilities attract attention to the general sub-
ject of Government, and afford a favourable opportu-
nity for the attempt to correct some of the most dan-
gerous errors which prevail upon thatimportant sub-
ject of investigation. In the actual position of
society in the United States, their institutions
may be better for them than any other which
could be substituted,-although they do not prevent in
all cases the application of Lynch's law, although they
are compatible with the existence of domestic and pre-

dial slavery, and although they admit the discussion of
the question, whether it will not be a discreet and
virtuous act of the Legislature to restrain and control a
Press disposed to argue with too much force and viva-
city the expediency of abolishing negro slavery ? It
does not follow that the slave question should be open
in America because it is open in the European States,
any more than it follows that a Lord Chamberlain's de-
partment and a Board of Green Cloth would be desir-
able appendages to the American Government, because
they are found to be perfectly compatible with the
utmost degree of freedom and prosperity in Great
Britain. The idea of transferring to one nation the in-
stitutions of another, or, which is the same thing, of
arguing from the success of particular institutions
in one country that similar institutions would be
equally successful in another, has its foundation in
a general, but we believe a very irrational, feeling of
discontent on the part of the governed. And this
sentiment of dissatisfaction with what already exists
has its basis in the absurd expectation that in the
character and operation, of Governments there should
be found a degree of perfection which in no country,
and in none of his relations, political, social, or do-
mestic, has man ever yet exhibited. Has there ever
yet existed in a large State or in a small one, in a
nation agricultural, manufacturing, or tommercial, a
Government free from abuses and defects ? Has there
ever been a tribe—wandering or stationary—a tribe of
warriors, of hunters, of shepherds, of fishermen, of
tillers of the soil, the Government of which was free
from abuses and defects ? Has there ever been a
county, a district or a parish, of which the Government
was free from abuses and defects ? Has there ever
been a club united for the purposes of mutual aid,
of social intercourse, of literary research, of scien-
tific investigation, of piety or of sport, of benevo-
lence or of debauchery, of which_ the Government,
with reference to the special object of the association,
was free from abuses or defects ? Has there ever
been a single 'family of which the internal manage-
inent was free from abuses and defects ? Has there
ever been an individual of the human species in whose
character and conduct the entire absence of vice and
defect could truly be affirmed ? If these questions
must be answered in the negative, how absurd to ex-
pect, as many persons at the present day seem to ex-
pect, that, by dint of progressive improvements or in-
terminable change, we are to succeed at length in ma-
nufacturing a perfect Government ? It is a mark of the
overweening vanity and the stupid conceit of the
age, that so preposterous an idea should ever
have been entertained. It is a conclusive proof,
it other proofs were wanting, that the present
age is not destined to make even an approach
towards the best social and political institutions of
which the infirmities of human nature really admit.
It suggests the suspicion that when we most con-
fidently believe we are marching onward towards per-
fection, we are then the most rapidly receding from it.
It shows merely that we are wise in our own conceits,
and are not likely to prove successful in anything we
may undertake. To us, then, the recent proofs we
have received of the errors and defects of the Ameri-
can system of Government afford no ground for boast-
ing. We admit that there are vices and defects in the
Government of England ; but we say that they are
vices and defects of the cure of which the present
temper of the times does not inspire a very sanguine
hope. Vices and defects no doubt there are, but we
must suspect the tendency of any scheme of improve-
ment, which is not visibly calculated to improve the
character of the men who embark in the public ser-
vice ; and it certainly is not yet apparent that any of
the reforms which have recently taken place in the
government of Great Britain have afforded the nation
this indispensable guarantee of their wisdom and suc-
cess.—Morning Post.

Of all the numerous and monstrous evils which cen-
turies of oppression have inflicted upon Ireland, there
are none more abominable in principle--more atro-
cious in character, and desolating in effect, than those
which spring from that most iniquitous institution—
the Irish Church. It seems to blight everything which
conies within reach of its pestiferous influence. It is
not alone that the people are impoverished by the
plunder perpetrated on them in the name of religion--
that the spoil, called tithe, is gathered by the spilling
of human blood—that, on the one hand, fanaticism
and hypocrisy, urged on by the insatiate lust of lucre ;
and, on the other, superstition and suffering, aggra-
vated by a deep and heart-burning sense of wrong,
spread dissension and hatred amongst the people, and
array them against each other in deadly hostility ;
these are evils of a revolting character, but they are
cast into shade by the horror which the mind feels at
witnessing the Ministers of a Christian sect—the or-
dained of God—becoming the high priests of Mam-
mon, preaching up war, and in the plenitude of their
iniquities, reckless of all interests but their own, en-
deavouring to rouse their partisans to resistance against
the progress of amelioration, and to loose like grey-
hounds from the slip—
" Woe, Want, and Murder o'er the land." _

If any doubt the accuracy of the sketch, let him
read the account of the recent proceedings of the In-
tolerants at Glasgow. A more disgusting exhibition
never outraged public decency. The progressive in-
crease of the Catholic religion, manifestly owing to the
abuses of Protestantism, was acknowledged, deplored,
and deprecated ; and after exhausting the whole cata-
logue of crimes in the attempt to cover it with re-
proach, its members arc assured that such language re-
sults " from feelings of cordial regard and deep and
unfeigned sympathy." Such is the fraudulent cant of
Mr. Colquhoun, the chairman of the O'Sullivan meet-
ing in Glasgow. There was scarcely an allegation
made against the Catholics, which facts do not
substantiate against the abettors of Protestant abuses
themselves. To whom, for instance, does the fol-
lowing sentence apply, the Catholic or Protestant
priests ?—" In Ireland, however, it was not enough
that they should be hunted down, but the influence of
the priest marked them with a more tremendous
fate ; not only are these patient sufferers robbed of
their lives, and stripped of their property, and
driven from their country as aliens from their fellow-
men—but they would rob them of our sympathies,
and blacken their innocent name." The innocent name
of the men who instigated the murders of Rathcormac
and Carrickshaugh ! The voluntary principle is as-
serted to be in effect the destruction of the Protestant
religion. What a libel on Protestantism to suppose
that it can maintain its existence only by compulsion,
and not by conviction I We cannot forbear giving the
following specimen of O'Sullivan's eloquence in draw-
ing a contrast, and denying a similitude between the
persecution of the Irish and Scotch Churches by the
Episcopalians. He says, " they" (the Irish Catho-
lics) " enjoy all the rights for which the Scots were
then struggling—they have perfect toleration, the
freest exercise of their own religion ; and there is no
parish in Ireland in which a Roman Catholic chapel may
not be erected, and in which the priest may not denounce
the Established Church as a nuisance, and its pastors
as greedy wolves. Where, then, is the analogy between
the cases ? Your ancestors were tranquil when permitted
to enjoy their rights in peace; but Ireland was only tran-
quil when a grinding despotism bound down the ener-
gies of her people ; and so soon as that coercion ceased,
then started out the beast in his proper shape, and the
reign of turbulence and disorder commenced." How
can it be said that the Catholics of Ireland have per-
fect toleration when they are plundered at the point of
the bayonet, to support a religion in which they have
no faith, and denied even the right to apply the sur-
plus funds to remove that ignorance which is made a
subject of reproach. The tranquillizing of Ireland
by " grinding despotism," and binding down the ener-
gies of her people, is no doubt a mode perfectly con-
genial to the sentiments of the O'Sullivan school ;
but, we trust, for the honour of England and Scot-
land, that the intolerant expression will not find an
echo in the bosom of any Briton.—Morn. Advertiser.

A SOBER PUN.---Why are Temperance Societies
a bar to .friendship ? Because they prevent shaking hands !
Yesterday afternoon an Inquest was held at the
Junction Arms, Praed-street, Paddington, before Mr.
Stirling, Coroner, on view of the body of Mathew Tier-
ney, aged 45, a man who, it was alleged, had died in con-
sequeuce of die injuries inflicted on him by a labourer and ,
his wife, named Howard. The Jury, having viewed the
body, after a long consultation, returned a verdict that the
deceased died from inflammation of the throat.