The Sun.
London, England, 1828-11-01 00:00:00

LORD TEYNHAM.

the daughter
"'That
Lord Teynbarn had been a Roman Catholic. His name
is Roper, and,
of IsbirelTievheo,mi lmies iAsiodrees.cenduede
wfr
aoisma Bs
siar si
le dR ‘ovpi et
lr:
reproaches for his apostasy, by the Protestants ; and though
he made a very good speech, it leas neutralized in its effect
by his desertion of his former creed. Se universal, how-
ever unjust, perhaps, is the antipathy to a renegade, that
among the Brunswiekets•themselves, his having ceased to
fellow's a-going to shift his religion again !"--.‘, Oh, my
be r. Catholic rendered him an object of scorn.
Lord, there's a man here as says that what your Lordship's
saying is all a ............ Popish lie !" and other ejaculations of
the same character warned my Lord Teynliam that his
change of creeds had not rendered him more a• •
(„aptable to
his audience. . _
- -

Lord Teynhatn having sat down amidst the Brunswick.
groans, Mr. Sheil rose aolongst them. Ile was yebe—
mend). applauded on the right, and as furiously howled at;
from the left. "Down with him, the traitor !"—" Down.
with the rebel !"---" Apologise for what you said of the
Duke of York!"—,‘ Send him awl O'Connell to the
'rower !"—" He got his freehold last night in Maiastcrie
Down with him !"—" Ott', Shell, off!"_" We're not
the Clare freeholders !"—" See how the riper spits
How the little haulm:o foams at the mouth ; take care of
him, he'll bite you!"—" Off, Shell off I"—were the greet—
ings with which this gentleman was hailed by the Bruns— thn iasaeotnT liitbusiness, a
yilodte
r thed.ty. Comptroller
with
he
wickers, while his- own party cried out " Fair Play !" CELLOR of the EICHEqUEK at the Treasury.
. , Viscount,,‘,transacted
OA

Sir L. C-'s Hounds, cn Alonda3-, at Easton Town, at
half-Na=t ten.
'1",o tiotnerset Subccriinion Hounds, on Tuesday, at
Buncouilu Bottom ; and Friday, at Fairfield-house.

SPIRIT "OF THE LONDON JOURNALS.

In alluding on Thursday last to the official papers
-relative to the American tariffs, with which are pre.
rented a number of documents originally published
in the United States, we characterised the whole
collection as one of extraordinary value and
übi.
import-
ance.i The most interesting feature of this p
cation is, that it contains a full statement of the
American case, considered jn opposition to that of
England, on the subject of protecting and prohibit-
ing duties. Nothing can in itself' be more unrea-
sonable,—nothing, we really think, in the mouth of
more immodest,—than the habitual
an Englishman,
use of angry and vindictive language towards other
countries, on occasion of their choosing to adopt a
precedent which this country has been the first to
establish (and so long as it suited her purpose, to
persist in), for securing her own manufacturing in-
terests at the expense of those of all other nations.
cis. Huskisson has been spoken of as the author of
what is termed "a liberal system of commercial po-
licy," in contrast with the old system of etcher lite.
ral or virtual prohibitions. Now it is necessary to
distinguish between those acts of Mr. Huskisson
• which relax the navigation laws, or affect the colo-
nies, and those which profess only to facilitate the
introduction of foreign produce or manufactures to the
home market of Great Britain. The papers before
us concern themselves almost exclusively, as we shall
do, with the latter branch of English liberality, nod
they can leave no shadow of doubt upon the minds
of those who were not already aware of a fact
quite obvious and unquestionable, that Mr. Huskis-
son, whether by removing a prohibition, or reducing
an impost, gave no indulgence to the foreign manufac-
turer, of which that manufacturer could in any instance
take any practical advantage. Where a free com-
petition has been offered by Mr. llttskisson to foreign
dealers in the staple objects of British industry, it
wacin cases where the British manufacture had ar-
rived at a pitch of excellence which set all real ri-
valry at defiance ; and wherever such rivalry was
still probable, why then there was no relaxation.
We do not say this as any sort of reproach to Mr.
Huskisson, further than having applied to his own
acts a term which better fitted his professions. He
professed to be " liberal," while he was merely ob-
servant and shrewd. We believe that where Mr.
Huskisson failed to offer a fair and substantial reci-
proeity to ether nations, it was then he had no power
to act as he desired. We ell recollect what a
hornet's nest was brought about the tars of the
Right lion. Gentleman from that moment when he
first announced his intended substitution of a duty for
a prohibition in the silk trade, to that in which, un-
der a storm of abuse anti imprecation, he completed
that most salutary measure. That was an act to
which the name of " liberality" had, by a monstrous
error of language, been appropriated ; the liberality-
consisting in this,—that the Right Hon. Gentleman
adjusted dttty for the critical purpose (which pur-
pose he has ;not skilfully accomplished) of opening
foreign markets to British silks, in tenfold the de-
gree to, which lie admitted French silks into the
English market. But if Mr. Huskisson be not re-
prokchable for this practical protection of the home
industry, under a professed system of general relax-
ation; neither can, sh the least pretence to justice,
a foreign people be condemned for following Mr.
Ilitskisson s example. The Right Hon. Gentlemen
did nothing towards all Owing either foreign manu-
facturers or foreign producers any access to thismnr
ket, by which native goods or native produce could
ever EO minutely suffer; and the United States, by
the tariffs of 1821-and 1828, have only gone the length
of such protection to their manufactures, as it was
not requisite for the matured manufactures of Eng-
land to protect by nr'y new legislation. We accuse
France of illiberality towards England; and why ?
because she effects by law those purposes which
England likewise secured by law, so long as the imper-
fect state of her native skill and capital required such
a guardian. We find, in an 'exceedingly curious and
instructive, though in some instances a biassed and
partial document, the " proceedings of a conven-
tion of manufacturers at Harrisburgh, United States"
—the following description of the modem British
policy with a quotation from M. .Saint Cricq, Di-
rector of the French Customs, which is naive
and just. " The British Free Trade System
forbids the importation of every article which
the British soil or labour call produce, except
in some such article as, from superior capital
or other causes, she'makes cheaper than other na-
tions. To an application from the British Minister,
for a reduction of duties part paws with that of
Great Britain, the French Director of the Customs,
M. St. Cricq, sagaciously replied—' The system
adopted by England is admirable, because it endan-
gers
none of her manufactures ; and we, when we
arc as forward as England, will be as liberal. But
until then, we must stand by our prohibitory de-
ties.' " The meeting at Harrisburgh was an assembly
of delegates from all the States of the Union. These
representatives of the manufacturing interest of Ame-
rica sat for several days, and framed memorials and
propositions for the Congress, which served in many
instances as the basis of the tariff law, which passed
the great sessioe. The great and almost exclusive
ground on which the establishment of protecting dit-
ties in the United States was. defended, both by ma-
nufacturers and agriculturists, was the virtual prohi-
bition of the corn avid flour of America from the mar-
kets of Great Britain, and the impossibility saf other-
wise indemnifying the American grower for this
rejection of his grain, than by the encouragement of
domestic manufactures, far a more speedy increase
and condensation of hands which might consume his
corn. This is the tree cause of the new protect-
iiug duties imposed in America on bdialf of na-
' rive industry,—this its unanswerable justification,—
and this, finally, a luminous hint to the landed log-
gerheads of the United Kingdom, who will not sew
that the best security for their rents ill the prosperity
of the British manufactures. Nothing, we repeat,
can excuse the bitter nonsense talked in and eat of
Par'iament against Foreign Governments;
w-. 0 pre-
fer their own dear and indifferent goods to better
and cheaper articles manufactured elsewhere. Their
0(171 people, the native consumers, indeed, may—arid
if they understand their own interests, will con.
demn them : but what right have we, hardened sin-
ners as we are, to bring
that as a charge against
American malignity, which is but an imitation of old
' English pig-headedness and folly.—Times•
The story we are going to relate is a melancholy
_
one, but it is true—it is no romance. The chief
actor in it still lives to disgrace the sacred profes-
sion to which he belongs, and raves with a fury per-
fectly devilish. Our columns have borne evidence
of the malignity of his nature against Catholic eman-
cipation, the Catholic religion, and even the persona
of Catholics. About 17 or 18 years ago this clergy-
man, then married and residing, we believe, in Lon-
don, became acquainted with a lady of respectability
and beauty, the wife of a gentleman of large.landed es-
tate. Neither the subject of this memoir, nor the couple
into whose house he was unhappily introduced, had
children. The lady belonged to that sect which
is termed evangelical, and her spiritual fervours were
therefore perhaps the more easily convertible into
those of the dealt; or, at all events, her reason being
bewildered, her virtue was the more
evangelicalmoreexposcdtoaltsohe,
a: tacks of a seducer, who,
drew his weapons from the armoury of truth, but
dipped them in the poison 01 his Own corrupt heart
before he discharged them against- her. NeVer did
he visit the house of her husband, now become his
friend, without the Bible under hio afro; and she
was at last made to believe !hat the fulfilment of the
first great blessing was paramount to all obligations
of duty—to all the injunctions of religion. She
had no child by her husband, but she became the
mother of a Male infant by this sable-habited per-
vertcr of scripture. The husband died, and the se-
ducer became a Widower also. The execution of
the conditional promise which had been given in the
season of guilty pleasure, was consequently expected
ilfid claimed by the lady, was eluded and refused by
her satiated lover. Remorse now occupied the
place of criminal passion in the bosom of the de-
serted mistress: she confessed her guilt, and

proclaimed her own injuries, but mere loudly
still the wrong which was 'suffered by the
legal heir of the family—a distant relation of
her late injured husband. The matter was
taken up by two gentlemen of great prudence and
experience, belonging, indeed, to the same religious
party, but of untainted character. It will probably
be known whom we mean, when we say the initials
of the names are T. and P., and that one (if not
both) is a commercial man of- great credit. The
evil was found irremediable, for the confession of
the afflicted penitent could not bastardize a child .
born in the life-time and during the cohabitation of
her husband. So far as her power could go, in-
deed, she has abated an injury which cartiot be
Wholly redressed; for through the hands of those
gentlemen to whom we have alluded, she has con.
V eyed to the disinherited relative no less a stun than
ten thousand pounds. If any one would know who
the monster may be to whom this tale applies, let
them turn to the Time.s Journal of the last month.
His vulgar buffoonery, his malignant and savage
ribaldry, his impious scoffings at a form of Chris-
tianity- which Pascal, and Fender), and Sarpi pro-
fessed, will soon betray him. To the professors of
any contemptible form of religion, or of no religion,
we could say, in sincerity, Cum " tall: sit, utinum
pester end."' But he is an Evangelical and a Cum-
berland-brunswicker : he does not belong to us.—
Ibid. .

The Kent Herald says that a counter address is
now in circulation, the signatures to which will
show that the sentiments of the men of Kent are
hostile to the Brunswickers. In this way the glar-
ing partiality of the High Sheriff, which we arc
willing to attribute to sheer stupidity rather than a
corrupt motive, may in part be obviated. We do
not wonder that the well-disposed inhabitants of
Kent should feel uneasy under the honours which
the Brunswickers have attempted to procure for
them, of occupying the van in'the army of fools and
14-mg.—Morning Chronicle.
We insert a letter from Mr. Cobbett on the sub-
ject of the Catholic Question, which' commences

with this statement :—" You, Sir, are, I perceive,
making use of your utmost endeavours to persuade
the public to believe, what is called Catholic
Emancipation' is not only just in itself, but that it
is absolutely necessary to restore Ireland to a state
of tranquillity, and to prevent additional heavy bur-
thew falling upon England in order to maintain
military force for the purpose of keeping the Irish
in subjection. Nay, you go further, and tell us, that
Catholic Emancipation is necessary to prevent the
Irish people from rising in rebellion, and thereby
greatly embarrassing the Government, at least at a
time when it may possibly be called upon to bend
all its strength against a foreign enemy. In short,
the sum of your remarks upon this subject is this,
that Catholic Emancipation would of itself make the
people of Ireland happy and contented." This letter
is dated 30th October, but we received it yesterday
afternoon. It happens singularly enough, that in the
Chronicle of yesterday, in a leading article (written
of course on the preceding day, the 30th) on the
affairs of Ireland, we had stated, " Our readers
may recollect that we have uniformly maintained,
that if emancipation were grantsd, the great struggle
would still remain ; that the great evil in the social
condition. of Ireland is its aristocracy, and that the
Government is inoperative to protect people." We
need sot remind our readers that this is the doctrine
we have continually- held with regard to Ireland,
and that we have always maintained that Catholic
Emancipation alone would go a very short arty to
better the condition of the Irish, though it was in-
dispensibly necessary as a preliminary to prepare
Ireland for the operation of the remedies for the
diseases in its social condition. The positions, there-
fore, which Mr. Cobbett controverts are not our
position, and the remedies which he recommends
are remedies which we have often recommended.
In yesterday's Chronicle we advocated Poor Laws
for Ireland for the fiftieth time at least, and for the
reasons urged by Mr. Cobbett. But because Ca-
tholic Emancipation will not supply the he pie with
bread, not diminish the exactions of the Hie-
rarchy, will not supply the place of Poor Lawr, will
not furnish the landholders with a cogent motive for
bettering the condition of their peasantry, it does
not follow that Emancipation ought to be withheld.
It is possible that if Poor Laws had been enacted in
Ireland a hundred years ago, the mass of the people
might now be in a state of apathy with regard to
Emancipation; but it does not thence follow that we
should be entitled to withhold Emancipation. All
civil disabilities on account of religion are unjust, if
the safety of the State do not urgently demand
them. The reasons urged by Mr. Cobbett for re-
fusing Emancipation are any thing therefore but con-
vincing, even if we were to allow that the persons
most anxious to obtain the removal of the disabilities
are enemies to Reform in Parliament. It is unjust to
make parliamentary representation a mockery, and it
is unjust to exclude the Catholics from office on ac-
count of their religion; but the existence of one injus-
tice does not warrant us in opposing the removal of
another, even if it could be shown that some of those
sufferings under the one injustice are actually the
advocates for the other. Mr. Cobbett has not crated
fairly the evils caused to the Catholics by the pre-
sent laws of exclusion, for it happens that some of
the offices from which Catholics are excluded are of
the utmost importance to the clue administration of
justice, and the monopoly of them by Protestants
leads to the spectacle of packed Protestant Juries.
But be thst as it may, no man who knows any thing
of the turmoils Which religion has occasioned in
modern times can suppose that a population so sen-
sitive with regard to religious matters as the Irish
confessedly are, will not, so long as the disabilities
continue, be easily wrought on by those who feel
these disabilities an impediment to their advance-
ment in life? The removal of the disabilities will
not tranquillize Ireland, but the measures under-
taken to tranquillize Ireland cannot have a fair trial
so long as this source of strife and rancour remains
open. But, urges Mr. Cobbett, the people, when
they find that Emancipation has freed them from
none of the evils under which they suffer, will
be more discontented than ever ; and Ereanci-
pation, therefore, so far from *curing the public
tranquillity, will but the more endanger it. No doubt,
if other measures be not adopted, suffering
may produce disturbance. But this only proves
that Emancipation must be followed up with search-
ing meaSuarseissifro.retloiebbimetptrgoavyesm, et
in,
at t oaf Ir el
Reforman d. I
int
pmaar3.:
be true,
liament can alone procure for Ireland the measures
necessary for the welfare of the population. It may
be that
j the Aristocracy will never, till forced, con-
sent
at
to justice being done to the Irish. Rut let us,
allvearnetsp, groundreelseeanrttehde,byther of he
obstructions
;1r:1:c:11 is
3-j If they persist in opposing all efficient
far Ireland, on their heads be the crime. But
let not the friends of liberty, on the mere hypothesis
that the Aristocracy are incorrigible, refuse. to do
Let us suppose the Mere.
Word more
what in them lies to give effect to the principles- of
j:totsstiricyeoanndt
this
sittlyb
j..e
et. We
have only one
(-racy of the United Kingdom successful in their en.
deavours to oppose all adequate remedies for the.
evils under which the labouring people of Ireland '
now Suffer—will the cause of reform have fewer ad.
vocates among the people of Englisaitiadfiri:hreenligtiloieuys
find that Parliament, after the M
zeal and fanaticism of a portion of the Protestants
cam no longer be taken advantage of,
determines on
from
retaining the Irish in misery and wretchedness,
a blind cupidity and selfishness to which every
nobler consideration must yield. Zbid.

Another petition against any further surrender of
political power to the Roman Catholics of Ireland,
ht,, at length, been got up at Bewdley, and ordered
to he presented to Parliament, by Earl Beauchamp
and Mr. Roberts. The language of the petition is,
on the whole, moderate, and exhibits more argumen-
tation than such things generally do. There is, how-
ever, after all, no no►elty in it, and not a few of the
positions of the petitioners would admit of a flat con-
tradiction from the page of history. It is true, as

the petitioners urge, that. the spirit of , the Roman
Catholic religion was once decidedly intolerant, and
that many Were the victims of its persecution; but
that was at a time when the See of Rome was su-
preme over almost every country in Europe, or be-
fore it had learned to forget that it had been once so.
Since that period men and things have changed sadly
for it. The temporal as well as the ecclesiastical
power of the Pope has almost vanished, 1),€.1 those
whom his Holiness recognises as most:e:.ristiiiii
Kings, scruple not to follow their own policy, even
in matters pertaining exclusively to the church, with-
out any reference to his wishes. A striking example
of this conduct. has been given within the last few
months in France,
where the suppression of the Jesu-
itical seminaries has been determined on and carried
almost entirely into effect without any hint from the
Pope,but rather the reverse, to resist the ordonnance.
On the second argument of the petitioners, the
charge of yielding supreme allegiance to a foreign
potentate, is wholly disproved by what we have
now stated, and is utterly denied by the Catholics;
while that of striving to gain their object by weary-
ing " the Legislature," is really too trifling to de-
serve notice. When men consider themselves un-
justly deprived of their rights,' the " wearying of
the Legislat tire" becomes a virtue in those who arc
guilty of it, however disagreeable its exercise may
be to those in power. The Dissenters have been
admitted within the pale of the Constitution mainly
through their " wearying of the Legislature," joined
to their exemplary and loyal conduct; and it is not
yet quite two centuries since a people, with whose
history we ought all to be acquainted, established
through the same means, many of our most valuable
rights. The next charge, that of " intimidating the
Government," is of a very different character; and, ,
on all occasions, we have maintained not only that
the violent measures pursued by the Catholic Also-
! elation were extremely prejudicial to their cause, but
' that the system of intimidation which it had lately
adopted, was inconsistent both with the respect due
to the Government, and the peace of the country,
and, as finch, ought to be pat down. "We fear,
however, that until a change in the measure of jus-
tice awarded to Ireland has taken place, the peace of
the country will be but indifferently preserved,
whether intimidatiOn be persevered in or not. It
never, in fact, can be expected that the the majority of
the population of any country will ever be contented
and loyal while exclusive and valuable privileges are
accorded to the minority. It is not in human nature
to resist such mk:ifest partiality. " The end of
such things," as has been but too amply testified, is
insurrection and general discontent. To the last
charge in the Petition, we mean that the admission
of the Roman Catholics to the ',rights and privileges
of the British Constitution, would be utterly sub-
versive of it," we cannot subscribe. Whatever
may be the spirit of the Roman Catholic religion,
or whatever the ambitious designs of its professors,
it is an insult both to the intelligence and phy-
sical power of the country, to imagine for a mo-
ment that a few Catholic Lords and Commoners
could succeed in °returning the British Con-
stitution. We snatched it from their grasp
more than a century ago, and have since main-
tained it inviolate in our possession, without its
having been once in danger. We rule the popula-
tion of Ireland note, and while the Protestants of
this country are numerically superior to the Catholics
of Ireland, will continue to rule it. The game of
rebellion has been tried, but in vain, although with
the aid of a foreign force; and unless, therefore, the
population of this country were to become Catholic
as well as that of Ireland—a consequence as unlikely
to happen as it would be utterly impossible to pre-
vent it by any legislative enactment—and in virtue
of that conversion to become enamoured of slavery
instead of freedom, we CBll see no possible danger
to the British Constitution frost the admission of a
few Catholics to seats in the Legislature. In the
senate or in the field it can scarcely be supposedr
that they would be found superior so the talent and
courage which have always characterised the people
of England.—Morning die/red/4er.