The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-08-03 00:00:00

18,024 .. 17,179
14,506 .. 17,632
13,868 .. 13,866

19,727

27,542

South-Eastern 17,569 .
York and North-Midland 9,364 .
Manchester, Shell. and Lincoln 7,291 .

20,014
9,053
7,405

Bristol and Exeter

York; Newcastle, and Berwick
Shrewsbury and Chester.....
Eastern Counties and Norfolk
Great Northern
Chester and Holyhead..
North Staffordshire

13,195 .. 16,240
1,918 .. 1,691
16,399 .. 17,067
10,524 .. 15,249
4,168 .. 4,281
4,927 .. 5,054

Leeds Northern
South Devon...
Caledonian .. .

1,311
2,046
9,380

1,081
1,930
9,467

The total receipts on the above lines being £244,354,
against £276,518 in the corresponding week of last year;
the decrease is shown to be £32,134. The number of miles
open on the above, was, in 1852. 4,358, and in 1851,
4,2263, showing an increase of 129;1 miles.

PRIESTLY INTERFERENCE IN THE IRISH
ELECTIONS.

We have no rule of exclusion by which, in England or

Scotland, a clergyman is forbidden to appear upon the
hustings. It is nothing else than a natural sense of pro-
priety which keeps them away. Probably, if we examined
the proceedings of all the elections in England, which sent
500 members into the House of Commons, we might de-
tect as many as one, two, or even three clergymen who
have acted as proposers ; and these, we doubt not, would
be found in uncontested elections, where the appearance
of the rector of the parish was held to be ornamental, and
complimentary to the elected members. Into scenes of
actual strife the clergy never venture. Even the most
prominent,---such as Dr. IWNEILE and Mr. STOWELL,—
content themselves with the publication of a letter, or the
delivery of a speech, not at the election, but at a separate
meeting of Protestants, where strife and wrangling are
not likely to be found. In Scotland the same rule pre-
vails. We do not believe that one clergyman, of any
church, appeared on the hustings, as a speaker, at any one
of the late Scotch elections ; nor is the same rule much
transgressed by Protestants in Ireland. We have not
observed the name of a single clergyman of the Church of
Ireland, nor of more than two Presbyterian ministers, in
all the recent elections in Ireland. Throughout the Pro-
testant Churches, the same feeling seems to prevail,
amidst many differences on other points,—that the bitter
and vehement contentions of a popular election were not
scenes in which a clergyman could mix with propriety or
with safety.

Entirely different, however, has been the conduct of the
Romish priests. Never before did they so generally
plunge into these contests. We took the trouble, yester-
day, having some Irish newspapers in our hands, to note
down the names of the R3mish priests who took part in
the nomination of candidates, or made speeches from the
hustings, et the late elections. Our list, made in a few
minutes, is of course imperfect,—but it may give some
idea of the extensive nature of the clerical movement.
In the borough of Carlow, the Rev. Dr. Walsh, of
Carlow College, nominated Mr. Sadleir.
In the borough of Galway, the Rev. P. Daly, P.P.
nominated Mr. O'Flaherty.

In the borough of Clonmel, the Very Rev. Dr. Burke,
P.P., nominated Mr. Lawless, and the Ven. Archdeacon
Lajran spoke in his favour.
In the county of Cork, Mr. Scully was seconded by the
Rev. Mr. Corkran, P.P.

In King's County, Mr. Bland was seconded by the
Rev. Dr. O'Rafferty, P.P., and Mr. O'Brien, by the
Rev. W. O'Malley, P.P.

In Tipperary, the Very Rev. Dr. Burke, P.P., and
the Rev. J. Morris, P.P., proposed Mr. Scully ; and the
Rev. Mr. Laffan, P.P., seconded Mr. Sadleir.
In Waterford, the Rev. Mr. Flynn, P.P., seconded
Mr. Power.

Jr. Leitrim, the Very Rev. Dean Dawson, P.P.
posed Dr. Brady ; and the Rev. P. Curran, P.P,

, pro-

posed Mr. M`Mahon
In Carlow County, the Rev. Mr. Lawler, P.P
posed Mr. Keogh.
In Meath, four priests, the Rev. Mr. Kelly, P.P., the
Rev. Mr. Power, P.P., the Rev. R. Ennis, P.P., and
the Rev. Thomas Langan, united in recommending
Messrs. Corbally and Lucas.
In Queen's County, the Rev. Mr. Fitzpatrick. P.P.,
proposed Mr. Dunne.

. -
In Mayo, Dr. M`Hale himself proposed Mr. Moore,
and the Very Rev. Dean Burke and the Rev. Mr. Har-
diman recommended Mr. Higeins.
In Limerick, the Rev. Mr. Hickey, P.P., proposed
Mr. Monsell, and Archdeacon Fitzgerald, P.P., spoke
in his favour.

In Westmeath, the Rev. Mr. Cogidan, P.P., proposed
Mr. Urquhart, and the Rev. Mr. Dowling, P.P., spoke.
in Wexford, the Rev. I. Redmond, P.P., proposed
Mr. Morgan, and the Rev. P. Devereux Mr. M'Mahon.
In Galway, we find Dr. 111` Hale again, proposing Mr.
Bellew, and the Rev. .1. Macklin, P.P., recommending
Sir Thomas Burke.

In Clare, we find the Rev. Mr. Lynch, P.P., the Rev.
Mr. Quaid, P.P., tne Rev. J. M‘Mahon, P.P., and the
Rev. Mr. Rourke, uniting in the recommendation of Mr.
O'Brien and Mr. Fitzgerald.

1 In Monaghan, we have the Rev. P. Brennan, P.P.,
• -r)r. Gray.

proposing v
In Kilkenny, we find the Rev. Mr. Aywartl, P.P., re-

commending Serjeant Shee.
And in Limerick City, the Re
proposing Mr. O'Brien.

I. Bralean, P.P.

Now these names, we observe again, are merely those
which fell under our notice in two or three newspapers.
Probably an equal number have escaped our view. Let it
be remembered, too, that in all the civilised and Chris-
tianised parts of Ireland the same feelings prevail which
are uniretaal in gngland and Scotland, In Dublin and