The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-14 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
STANDARD.—The declaration of the Duke of Wel-
lington, as a member of the Governments In the House
of Lords last night, will, we hope, silence the falsehoods
of the League, and of its echo, the Morning Post, as to
the purpose of the administration to abandon the protec-
tion of agriculture. "As to the corn-laws," said the
illustrious Duke, " I have never changed the opinions that
I held upon that question. I recommended to
your Lordships to adopt the present corn-laws, and
I now recommend it to yon to adhere to them." It is
well to put this important declaration, distinctly and
emphatically, upon the record; because some six months
hence we are sure to hear from the Leaguers,
doubtless aided, as before, by the Morning
Post, of a resolution taken by Ministers to aban-
don the protective system ; we heard it in the
autumn of 1642 and in that of 1843, and why
should we not hear it in the autumn of
1844 ? The Bishop of Peterborough, it will be seen,
gave a full explanation of the impossibility of his inter-
fering further than he did interfere in the disgraceful
case of Mr. Herbert Marsh. The Right Rev. Lord's
explanation did not greatly differ from that which we
took the liberty to offer yesterday. In fact, the law
takes from him all cognizance of facts, protected by a
lapse of two years, or of facts occurring beyond the
limits of his own diocese ; and Mr. Marsh's misconduct
was guarded in both respects, for his profligacy was
three years old, and the scenes of it were London
and Paris. This exhibits a state of the law which
unquestionably calls for considerable amendment ;
but it is a complete exculpation of the Bishop, who,
it appears, did all that it was in his power to do,
by commanding Marsh not to profane the public
worship, or to insult and disgust the parishioners
of Barnack by taking part in the Divine service.
This command was the " mediate communication"
which the guilty man slurred over so gently in his evi-
dence. We are happy to know that a bishop possesses
even so much power, of which we were not
previously aware. It is plain that whatever
power is placed in the hands of men like
Dr. Davys will be employed to the best purposes.
But here comes the question, what is to be done
with Marsh ? For our part, we do not know
what can be done with him in the present state of the
law ; but we know very well what ought to be done with
him. He ought to be deprived of his livings and divested
of his orders ; and if no other means of cutting him off
from the Church are available, he ought to be cut off
by a special Act of the Legislature' such as the
Legislature, unfortunately,-.has to pass almost every
year on grounds not very different from those which
constitute his crime. A wretched woman who yields to
vanity or passion or folly, is justly, but with little com-
punction, stripped of her honourable character of wife
and matron, and in short, consigned to ruin for miscon-
duct, not more offensive in the eyes of God, or more
scandalous among men, than that of which this person
is confessedly guilty ; and this is effected by the Act of
the Legislature. Why then should not the Legislature,
which relieves the innocent husband from a tainted wife,
interpose to relieve the Church from a tainted member?
The measure would be a strong one, but the case is an
atrocious case, and such cases demand strong remedies.
STANDARD.—The convict's dinner at Covent-gar-
den Theatre yesterday was attended by just the class of
persons that every one anticipated. Mr. Gisborne ac-
counted for the absence of respectable guests by saying
that few such would attend a dinner presided over by a
Chartist, and given to a Repealer ; but this explanation
is inadequate, for there are some honest and decent
men among both Chartists and Repealers. The
occasion of disgust went far beyond a dislike to Chart-
ism or Repeal. The dinner was presided -over by Mr.
Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, and given in honour of Mr.
Daniel O'Connell; and further, it was given in open and
insolent contempt of the law. Poor Lord Shrewsbury
was present to prove the truth of Mr. O'Connell's de-
scription of him.—" A pious fool is the most mis-
chievous of fools," said the Irish incendiary, speak-
ing of the Noble Lord, and the unlucky Peer urged
by his red-hot Romanist zeal hurries to kiss the feet
of his insulter, and to prove that the insult was
merited. Lord Camoys, too, whose casuistry upon
the subject of oaths has made him a little
notorious— these, with an Irish Lord Dunboyne—
if there really is such a Lord—represented
the nobility of the United Kingdom upon the
occasion. The attendance of such a man as Lord
Shrewsbury (Lord Camoys is a Lord of yesterday)
at such a celebration, is a melancholy, but a not
uninstructive fact. " The pious fool," as the object
of his present admiration called him, is a fair tyre of
too many of even the best class of Roman Catholics.
Ile must hold Mr. O'Connell in deep contempt—in-
deed, he has said as much—but the priest orders his
Lordship to swallow his contempt and his dislike, and,
fur the good of the Church, to prostrate himself, the re-
prestntative of John Talbot, before the feet of a peasant-
born beggar and mountebank, who has spurned him. We
ask would Lord Shrewsbury, who has been forced to this
abject submission by his priest, be a fit juror to try Mr.
Daniel O'Connell upon a prosecution for a Romanist
sedition ? Does Lord Shrewsbury now stand indif-
ferent as he stands unsworn ? And if this, at least a
fair average specimen of his sect, does not " stand in-
different as he stands unsworn," what reason is there to
suppose that other Roman Catholics would—how much
sever they might respect their oaths ? As for Lord
Camoys being unable to agree with his Lordship
upon the proper manner of construing such solemn
obligations, we will say nothing about him. There were,
besides the persons named, perhaps half a dozen other
gentlemen Roman Catholics, or the husbands of Roman
Catholic wives, present to relieve the assemblage from
the character of an unmixed rabble of the very lowest
description. It was just such an assembly as ought to
be expected at a convict's festival.
GLOBE.—The refusal of the War-office to grant the
usual pension to Mrs. Fawcett, the widow of the officer
who died of a wound received a few hours previously in
a duel s ith his near relative, Lieut. Munro, was last
night brought before the House of Commons by Capt.
Bernal. The form of the motion was for the produc-
tion of a copy of any correspondence which had taken
place on the subject between the War-office and Mrs.
Fawcett, or her agent, on the subject of the refusal of
the usual pension. The debate that followed upon the
motion, though at first confined within the limits of the
case on which it was founded, soon took a wider range.
The House speedily found itself debating the general
question. Duelling—in all the comprehensive and mul-
ticarious arguments, pro and con., of which the subject
is peculiarly prolific—became the topic, and furnished
mutter for an animated discussion. What cannot always
be affirmed of the debates of the Hon. House, though
the motion was withdrawn, a considerable advantage
is likely to be effected by the discussion. The atten-
tion of the military authorities has been drawn to the
subject of duelling in the army; and means for its
'suppression have been proposed that seem likely to put
an end to the practice, which, if discontinued
among military men, will very soon be abandoned
by civilians. A few words on Mrs. Fawcett's case, and
also on the tone and tendencies of the debate on the
general question, will place before our readers the two
leading features of the discussion. With reference to
the unfortunate lady—whose situation it is im-
possible to contemplate without deep commiseration
for her fate—we are compelled to say that we
think the refusal of her pension by the military authori-
ties not merely severe, but unjust. Nothing which was
adduced throughout the discussion last evening tended
to diminish the impression originally produced on the
public mind by the refusal. The visitation of heavy
pecuniary loss upon the widow and children of "a
brave and distinguished officer who had served in the
field with honour to himself and advantage to his coun-
try"—we use Sir R. Peel's testimony to his character-
- this refusal of the usual pension being absolutely unpre-
cedented as well as unjustifiable ; the result of a newly-
kindled zeal against duelling, in the breasts of those
who had themselves been parties to rencontres of
the same kind, and in conformity with a custom which,
however indefensible, is admitted to be little less than
absolute in its claims upon the compliance of military
men—a refusal of the usual pension to the widow and chil-
dren of such an officer, who had died under such circum-
stances, is, on the face of it, and on all the evidence fairly
before the public, an act of arbitrary cruelty and an outrage
upon the feelings of the country. There appears no-
thing in the case to mitigate the oppression or dimi-
. nish the injustice of the refusal. The deceased officer,
- whose widow has been thus treated, was not the chal-
lenger, but the challenged. He therefore merely com-
plied with a message which custom had clothed with all
the force of an imperative demand upon his honour,
, with which he dared not refuse compliance without
forfeiting his position in society. The relationship of the
. principals ; the frivolity of the cause which led to the
. quarrel between them ; these, and all the other circum-
• stances alluded to as justificatory of the refusal to grant
the pension to the widow of Lieut. -Colonel Fawcett,
were substantial and, as we think, sufficient reasons for
inducing the seconds to interfere and prevent the meet-
ing. But the parties having met, d a fatal.te
rmiaa-
tion to one—and he, as far as appears in evidence, the
least criminal—of the parties having taken place, we
fail to discover a single semblance of reason to justify,
the withholding of the pension. If the pension were
an act of mere grace and favour, under such circum-
stances the refusal would be capricious and severe ; but
if, ass Lord Palmerston stated—and his knowledge
and practical experience of the subject confer upon his
. statement the weight of authority—if " pensions are
granted not so much on considerations relating to the
widow herself as in consideration of the services of her
husband," then injustice has been done to Lieut.-Col.
Fawcett in the persons of his widow and children, by
the refusal. We most earnestly hope that the decision
of the War-office will be reconsidered. The practice of
duelling in the army being about to be suppressed by
the introduction of certain clauses into the Articles of
War, there is the stronger reason why this severe visi-
tation on Mrs. Fawcett—which is defended on the
ground of its tending to discourage duelling between
military men—need not be persisted in.
GLOBE.—While the Marquis of Normanby presided
over the Home Department, his Lordship applied him-
self with praise-worthy zeal to the improvement of the
sanatory precautions already in operation. In this re-
spect, the public has special reason to recur to the period
of his administration with gratitude, and to the change
which has taken -place with regret. Had the measures
which the Noble Marquis introduced into Parliament been
carried out, or the plans which he left in his office been
taken up by his successors, the results would have been
no less beneficial to the improved health and comfort
of the labouring classes, than they would have attested
- the interest he felt in promoting both. The remarks
which the Noble Marquis made last night in the House
of Lords, on the Bill now before the other House of Par-
liament for the better construction of new buildings
within the metropolitan districts, deserve the atten-
tion both of the Legislature and the public. The
Bill far too important a character to be allowed
to rough its several stages without com-
mon rise will especially be excited that its
authoft should have limited to the metropolitan dis •