The Sun.
London, England, 1832-01-23 00:00:00

Nil-. BLAKE:NE Y explained.
Mr. CALLAHAN was certain the ti
when it was imperative that the House ibuiti4 :atertain
and adopt sonic humane mode of reliev,ng the poor of
Irelind. In the town whence he came there had been such
an accumulation of ruin as to have placed thousands and
thousands of his countrymen in a state of total destruction.
Such a state of things it was impossible could long exist, and
he implored Ministers to direct their immediate earner
attention to it. Whilst such a state of things did
exist, it was not to be expected that any thing could
be but at the mercy of mobs—mobs of the poor, who,
when urged on by distress, it was impossible to foretell
the excesses they might be guilty oh He was cer-
tainly glad to find that the people of the town of
Leeds, as well as many other persons in this country, had
come forward to call attention to the starving and dying
state of the Irish poor. And he earnestly hoped that the
postponement of some provision for the poor would not
take place till the tithe question was settled.
Mr. SADLER said the Hon. Member who had just
sat down had so accurately expressed his opinions on the
subject as to have rendered it almost unnecessary fur him
to add any thing. He might, however, say a few
words respecting the meeting at Leeds, whence the peti
tion just presented to the House had emanated, and
which had been called au immense meeting by the
Honourable Member for Middlesex. It was certainly
not an immense meeting. He (Mr. Sadler) happened
to be in Leeds at the time the meeting was called,
and though not consulted on the subject, only a few minutes
before it took place, lie was invited to attend it. From
conversations lie had heard respecting it, he knew that in his
proposition which he intended to submit to the meeting,
he would be in a minority. The meeting was held in the
Court-house of Leed, which is a very inconvenient place.
The House was packed by a Political Union long before
the time appointed for ti.e meeting. He (Mr. S.) pro-
posed an adjournment to the open air, where he knew
that many would be ready to express their opinions, but
who could not get admittance into the Court-house. This
proposition w‘s negatived, and the meeting went on. The
petition prayed that no pour laws might he introduced
into Ireland until all the Church property which had
belonged to the poor, was produced for their support. Had
the petition prayed for the introduction of poor laws,
or some measure for the immediate relief of the poor
without regard to the application of Church pro-
perty, or the settlement of any tithe question,
he had no doubt it would have been signed by four
times the number; and he for one, certainly could
not approve of protracting the period of making a provi-
sion for the poor until the question respecting Church
Property had been disposed of.
Sir J. BRIDGES expressed his hope soon to see a
proper system of poor laws established in Ireland, that is,
that the poor lows of England corrected, would be intro-
duced there. As to Members being sent to this House to
obey the dictates of public meetings, he was sorry the Hon.
Member for Middlesex had made such an assertiou. He
denied that they should postpone the question of poor
laws until the robbery of the Church had been accomplished.
Mr. HUNT said this meeting at Leeds was a packed
meeting, and packed by the notorious Mr. Baines. The
Noble Lord (Morpeth) was aware of the manner in which
the meeting had been got up. He congratulated the
Noble Lord on his new allies.

Lord MORPETH said it was not his intention to follow
Mr. Hunt into the urcana of Leed's politics. He bad
said nothing eitheir in support of or in opposition to the
petition ; he merely said that he hoped to see a provision
mate by law for the Irish poor. As to the packing of
the fleeting at Leeds by Mr. Baines, the House might
judge of that assertion by he fact that that gentleman was
backed isy 6.000 persons.
Sir IL PEEL had heard one Hon. Gentleman say that
the question of Irish sithes was settled. Whether it was
so or not he could not determine, but he declared that the
Clergy of Ireland had as much right to his tithes as any
gentleman had to his estate.—(Hear, hear.) It was
a melancholy situation of things, but if the people re-
fused to pay the clergyman his tithe, were they more
likely to pay Government the tithes ? He deprecated the
combinations that were in existence to deprive the Clergy-
men of his legal right, but he hoped that the Legislature
would never permit the Church property to be appro-
priated to the State.

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

LAMBE T S TREE T.
On Saturday John King, a policeman, belonging
to II division, No. 166, applied to Mr. NORTON
for an assault-warrant, under the following somewhat
extraordinary circumstances.
The applicant for some time past had paid hi•
addresses to a young woman, the daughter of a re-
spectable innkeeper, at Woolwich, and her parents
being averse to their union, they had determined
to get privately married. With this view he had,
with the young's woman's consent, obtained a li-
cence, and on Friday morning went to Whitechapel
church to have the ceremony performed. While at
the altar, the father and uncle of his intended bride
entered the church, stopped the ceremony, and
caused him (the applicant) to be lodged in the sta-
tion-house, from which, however, he was released,
and permitted to accompany the young woman and
her friends to the residence of her father at Wool-
wich. On their arrival there the father would not
permit him to enter the house, and he now applied
for a warrant against him for striking him (the ap-
pl i can t), on leaving the church on Friday morning.
The applicant thanked the Magistrate for his kind
suggestion, and left the office without further obser-
vation.

TV OR SHIP- S TREE T.
.11r. James Montagu, of Stamford-hill, and one
of the Surveyors of Districts in the city of London,
a hale-looking elderly gentleman, was brought,
on
warrant, before Mr. BROUGHTON and Mr. STUT-
FIELD, the sitting Magistrates, charged with being
the father of a child which had become chargeable
to the parish of Hackney.

The case had been adjourned for a week, on the
application of the defendant, who resisted it as an
extortionate attempt to foist upon him the fruit of
a promiscuous intercourse.
Mary Ann Dyer, an extremely good-looking young
woman, of ninetern, deposed that the defendant was
the father of an infant to which she had given birth,
and now produced. She had lived in his service two
uleisutniotangsupustnt'oaihde I r by the Magistrates,
In reply to q Mrs.
years,
3admonished her of the solemn obligation she
was under of speaking the truth, she declared that
she had never had criminal connection with any man
but the defendant.

The young woman was then subjected to a long
and most searching examination by Mr. Adolphus,
touching her proceedings for several years past, and
she repl:ed to his questions in a manner which left
a strong impression of her having answered with
sincerity. She stated that the criminal intercourse
between her and her master first took place in his
dressing-room, in February, and continued as op-
portunities offered while she remained in his ser-
vice. She told him when she found herself in the
family way, but she did not mention it to any other
person that he was the father. She continued in
th, service until her increasing size made it neces-
sary for her to quit and go to another place to lie
in. She knew Masters, the footman, as a fellow-
servant, and left him there when she quitted, but
she declared that she had never been improperly
connected with him or any other man but her
master. Since her lying in she had received five
sovereigns from Mr. Montagu, and that was ail she
had ever received from him.

Mr. BROUGHTON asked her if Mr. Montagu had
ever attempted to take liberties with her before the
occurrence in his dressing-room, when she sur-
rendered to him ? She said that he had been so-
liciting her for six months before she complied with
his wishes. After that she made no resistance to
him, but submitted to him whenever opportunity
offered.

M. STUTFIELD—When did you first tell him
that you were in the family way? The deponent
in March told him she had reason to think so, but
he said she was mistaken. A week afterwaids,
however, she told him she was sure of it, and he
told her not to lay such a thing to him.
Mr. BROUGHTON—He did not tell you to lay it
upon the footman or coachman, or any other person ?
Deponent—No.

Mr. BROITGuToN—Did not your mistress or any
person in the house suspect ? Who did you first
mention it to, besides the defendant himself ?—She
'aid ehe mentioned it to the cook that she was in