The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-24 00:00:00

are bound in honour to declare our error." If our

correspondent had favoured .us with his name, and
convinced us of our 4' error," by assuring us upon his
honour that our animadversions were unfounded, and

. , .
that the regulation he speaks of had been at all at-
tended to, we should readily have yielded our convic-
tion to a point on which our wishes are probably as
sincere as his. But it happens that we are quite as
well informed upon this subject as our correspondent
can be ; and we know, that if any such'regulatton has
been promulgated, it is a mere Lrutumfdnzen, to which
the students who ought to conform to, it, and ,those
who ought to see it attended to, are alike indaerent.
Indeed, we have seen in an Evening Paper, which pro-
fesses to be a kind of demi-organ of the University
upon this occasion, an article ridiculing • the very idea
of such a regulation as this correspondent alludes
to ; and attempting to establish the supposed age
of manhood at which' the students have for the

most part arrived, as a reason why those who have
the care of their education can or ought to have no
controul over their morals. Such a line of argu:

..... _
ment is too absurd for any public writer to enter the
lists with. We are not contending for Victory, but
for truth. The profligacy and extravagance permitted
at our Universities are as notorious as any truth can
be ; and any silly attempt, like that of our corre-
spondent, to gloss it over, is quite beside the matter,
and unworthy a moment's attention. We are no
enemies to the Universities; we are not unconscious

of their advantages, or at all desirous of decrying any
of the valuable part of that system of education which
they adopt. But if we know any thing of what a
system of education ought to be, we contend that it
ought to compromise strict rules of moral discipline.
How can such principles ever be effectually practised
or enforced, but before youth marches into manhood,
and becomes free from any restraints ? We say (and
we know what we say), that our Universities are mon-
strously and notoriously deficient on this head ; and
that unless those who have the means of reforming
them within, do it, and that too, speedily and effec-
tually, they will find themselves reformed from with-
out, in a way which may, in the end, cut down Fel-
lowships, Masterships, and other means of learned
and unlearned leisure, in a way which their present
possessors may, perhaps, never dream of, or never
apprehend, till the unwelcome truth meets them in a
form too late, and too overwhelming to be combatted.
—Morning Herald.

They who have been exerting themselves to raise a
senseless clamour for the repeal of the Corn Laws,
now express great alarm, lest the subject should be
investigated in a Committee. It is the first mark of
common sense; which we have described in their mode
of treating this topic. They have always shown a total
ignorance even of the principles on which the, side of
the question espoused by themselves can be best ad-
vocated. They start, therefore, at the very idea of
investigation ; they foresee, that they cannot stand the
result 9f calm inquiry ; and that their schemes have
little chance of a favourable reception, except in the
hurry of unthinking precipitation. They are right in
their dislike of investigation ; and this dislike of in-
vestigation will teach even the most credulous how
little regard is due to such monitors. Whatever
course is adopted on the corn laws, it ought to be
preceded. by most minute and patient inquiry. Of
those who call for a change, scarcely any two agree
in their notions of what ought to be done; few even
dare to suggest a specific proposal. Some madmen
cull for a total repeal; but that, is too wild a plan to
be thought of for a moment. If a new system of re-
gulations is to be adopted, neither the principle nor
the details of the changes can be determined upon or
adjusted without a careful reference to our past legis-
lation, to the present situation of the country, and to
the various existing and contingent circumstances by
which the trade in corn may be affected.—New Times.
Our readers must have perceived, that while we
strenuously advocate the right of the Catholics to be
placed cm a footing of equality with the Protestants,
we by no means go along with those who disapprove
of the institutions for illuminating or even proselytising
the Catholics. Every religious Society has a right to
protection ; but the interdiction of others from diffu-
sing their opinions, and communicating what they deem
important truths, is persecution, and not protection.
We would leave the field equally open to Catholics
and Protestants, repressing intolerance in both. The:
rivalry of Sects must, upon the whole, be productive
of much more good than evil. That the Catholic
Clergy of Ireland dislike the Sectaries who interfere
.with their flocks is natural enough. No man likes to
see a diminution of his influence. In this country,
the' Clergy of the Church of England, though
necessarily lukewarm compared with the Catho-
lic Priests, are still grievously annoyed at the
erection of a Methodist Chapel in their respective
Parishes. But the Catholic Clergy are the last per-
sons whose evidence we would take as to the degree of
benefit likely to be derived from the competition of
different Societies and .Sects to instruct and proselytise
the Irish. Dr. Mac Nevin, anthhe other expatriated
Irishmen at New York, were Men likely to judge
coolly ; and they declared that the competition in ques-
tion, to whatever cause ascribable, was sure to promote
the instruction of the people of Ireland. We rejoice,
then, at the disposition which exists in this country to
diffuse instruction among the Irish, and even to prose-
l}-tile them ; but we are far from approving of the in-
tolerance which is displayed at most of the meetings in
this country, having in view the promotion of the ob-
jects in question, We have a pregnant instance in a
Meeting at Streamer, in Scotland, of which there is a
Report in another column. These Scotehmen are
not only intolerant ; they contrive to mix up with their
religious intolerance base and time-serving politics,with
the view, no doubt, of currying favour with the Protestant
Landlords. These people never said a word against
the interference of Protestant Clergymen at Elections ;
but the moment the Catholic Clergymen endeavour to
exert their influence over their flocks, to promote the
return of Members willing to support the cause of the
Catholics, then the Secretaries are as loud in their
condemnation as the Established Clergy. With beau-
tiful inconsistency a Reverend Orator at the Stranraer
Meeting arraigns the
Catholic Clergy for interfering to
deprive the Freeholders of the free exercise of the elee-
tive franchise ; the melancholy consequence of which was
the
loss, to the Landlords of their natural influence
over their Tenants. These men pretend, to be reli-
gious ; and yet, judging from their language, one would
suppose they considered religion a blind, and oaths
a tarce• ihe free exercise of the elective fran-
chise supposes that the elector votes for the man
he conscientiously believes the best qualified to re-
present him. Now how can a sincere Catholic con-
scientiously vote for a Member, who, says that his re-
ligion is a pallid for holding him in a state of politi-
cal servitude ? The Catholic who takes the prescribed
oath, and votes for an opponent to his claims, must
be either ired as a voter, or insincere as a reli-
• •
gIQI/161. i
When, therefore, these pious promoters of