The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-07-10 00:00:00

"TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

" Stn,—Will any member of the House of Commons, or
any person sitting near to the members' gallery at the late
coronation, favour the public with answers to the following
questions :
" Ist. Did Mr. O'Connell, during the late august solem-
nity in the Abbey, by continued sneering remarks, and by
certain noises and gestures, attempt to throw ridicule upon
the religious ceremonial then before him, and which we Pro-
testants had been accustomed to view with deep respect ?
" 2d. Did Mr. O'Connell, while the Bishop of Rochester
was reading the epistle appointed for the day, say, in a sutF.-
ciently loud voice to be heard. by those beyond the members'
gallery, 'Spice out, you mumbler'?
" Your obedient servant,

" A DEVOTED SCOJECT OF 01;li CONFIDING QUEEN:,

We have not a doubt that an affirmative answer,
without qualification of any kind, is the cnly correct
one that can be rendered to these questions. The man
who could so far debase himself and insult his Maker,
as to perjure himself in the first instance, and then
cavil at the terms of his oath—as O'Connell has done,
time after time—is not exactly the sort of person to
observe the rules of common decency, or to respect
the religious principles of his Sovereign and his
country.
We trust that some one have the manliness and
honesty to step forward, and confirm the justice and
propriety of the insinuation contained in the above
letter. It would form an appropriate adjunct to
O'Connell's foul slander against the women of Eng-
land.

CRIMINAL LUNATICS.
( From the Morning Herald.)
There are few duties more obviously incumbent
upon government than the safe custody. of criminal
lunatics ; for which purpose the law has armed the
crown with every necessary power, and for the faith-
ful and strict exercise of which those who have the
charge ought to be held strictly responsible. It is not
long since that a welched man who had committed
murder somewhere in the Edgeware-road was acquit-
ted on the ground of insanity, and transferred to the
care of the crown. Not long afterwards, however, he
was, on the intercession of his family, handed over to
them, and soon after committed suicide. The case of
the maniac Courtenay is in its consequences infinitely
more frightful, and carries with it great blame on those
who could set him at large at all, and that, as it would
seem, without the least reference to any medical opi-
nion. Courtenay was sentenced to transportation,
but the infliction of that sentence was withheld on the
score of insanity. Under no circumstances, then,
during the period for which he was sentenced to
transportation, should he have been allowed to be at
large. If his insanity was temporary, and he became
sane, then he should have been transported. If he
continued insane, of course he should have been re-
tained in confinement. Nor need we point out what
a scene of dire calamity would have been avoided, had
the proper authorities followed in this case the plain
and obvious straightforward path of duty. It is ru-
moured that the celebrated Miss Newman, whose
feigned madness has been so convenient to her, has
had another fit. Nothing is more easy than to sham
mad, or we should never have had so many admirable
representatives of Hamlet on the stage.