The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-11 00:00:00

acts of incendiarisni, with nunie-

rous cases of assault, -are clearly traced to this

sociation

The proof

o clear that the

nothing less

than a conspiracy against life and properly. After the dis-
closures that have been made, every one who remains in the
cotton spinners' union must be considered a participator in
an organised system of incendiarism and assassination. We
have not the slightest doubt that M`Lean was concerned in
the murder of Smith, but full legal proof was wanting to con-
vict him." Yet these conspirators, or four of them-
adenuntel

less than two years
actually paraded in
tributions as a coin

again let loose upon society, and are
triumph through our streets, levying con-
Rnsation for the in

by the law ! What is this but to offer a'premium—fatne'

money—honour—to murderers, conspirators, incendiaries ?
Can society be held together—is it possible to secure life and
property, in a country where such things are tolerated ? The
prospect thus held out liy our rulers to those who have any
thing to lose, is absolutely terrific.—Manchester paper.

Among the many sound and striking observations made by
the gentlemen who spoke at the annual dinner of the Croy-
don Conservative Association on Wednesday last, it was well
and strongly urged by Mr. Paynter, " that there was this re-
markable circumstance connected with the history of the
men now in power, that the longer they held office, the longer
they enjoyed the means of promoting their own interests—
the more they lost ground. They were falling, session after
session, still lower in public estimation." This is true in
itself, and perfectly conclusive as to the character of the men
who stoop to hold office, whilst they cannot but be conscious
that they are no less the objects of public execration than of
public distrust—detested by the poorer classes, whom they
grind and oppreSs ; and despised and suspected by the re-
mainder of the community, whose feelings, sympathies and
principles they equally outrage.—Another point observable
in " the men now in power," was adverted to by Mr. John
Walter, which is suggestive of matter for serious considera-
tion. After an eloquent retrospect to Sir Robert Peel's last
term of office, who, as he beautifully and truly'remarked,
" brought in his measures with dignity, and would have carried
them forward with efficiency," he turned to the reverse of the
picture, and asked—" Whereas since that time what have we
seen ? A Minister of State? No, not even a Ministry of Depart-
ments, but is Ministry of Commissions and Cominissioner-
ships ! So that if any measure were erroneous, it would be
next to impossible to know with whom the blame rested."
This is the fact, and a fact not to be viewed without alarm.
The government is now conducted so as to be practically irre-
sponsible. Even to the garbling of the papers, ever reluc-
tantly laid before parliament and deferred to the last minute,
a desire to mistify and to conceal proves the consciousness of
guilt, and gives ample cause for public suspicion and fear.
VOLUNTARTISM.—The following remarks are extracted
from the " Home Missionary Magazine," a periodical sup-
ported by the Independent Dissenters. The passage is most
extraordinary, conveying, as it does, the present views and
sentiments of a party which has hitherto been most
clamorous in support of the voluntary principle, and most
determined in its opposition to the payment of a legal rate
for the support of a church establishment :—lt is most clear
that the voluntary system has never yet provided adequate
Christian institutions for any one nation on the face of the
earth ; the voluntary principle provides among ourselves for
a certain proportion of the population of large towns, but it
leaves the mass of the community untouched. It has had
fair opportunities of evincing its capabilities in this country
during at least a century, while the Church of England was
asleep, and while a rapidly increasing population was left
with.scarcely any additional churches or clergy; and yet,
with every advantage,—with liberal contributions from many
of different communions, the advocates of voluntary churches
have not been able to provide for any tolerable proportion of
the neglected population. You very rarely meet with a large
and flourishing dissenting interest in any place where it has
not either been preceded by, or is at this moment contem-
porary with, a pious and zealous ministry in the establish-
ment. The same observation applies to Glasgow, to Paisley,
and to all the great towns in Scotland ; while in Ireland the
voluntary labourers are very few, and produce a very feeble
impression. In America, however, the inefficiency of the
voluntary system is evinced in the most appalling manner.
Immense tracts of country, peopled by tens, nay hundreds
of thousands of inhabitants, are at this moment destitute of
ministers, churches, and religious ordinances; and, as a
natural consequence, are falling victims to intemperance and
infidelity, and are thus preparing for the irruptions of Popery.
They, therefore, speak ignorantly, or weakly, who, in the
facts, talk about the efficiency of the voluntary principle to
supply wants so multitudinous as these."
PREROGATIVE COURT.—In the Prerogative Court on
Wednesday, Sir H. Jenner gave judgment in the case of Sir
Wilmot Horton, Bart., v. Wilmot and others. The late Sir
R. Wilmot, Bart., did on the 23d of July. 1834, aged 82,
leaving a widow, (his second wife,) and six children, namely,
the present Sir R. Wilmot Horton by his first wife, and three
sons and two daughters by his second marriage. He was
possessed of considerable property at his death, the residue
of the unsettled property being alleged on one side to amount
to £lOO,OOO, and on the other to about £50,000. The ques-
tion was as to the validity of a will executed hi May, 1834,
which was a material departure from the disposition contained
in a prior will, to the prejudice of the eldest son, Sir R. Wil-
mot Horton, and in favour of the children of the second
marriage. The parties in the case were Sir R. W. Horton,
and Mr. Nicholas Eardley Wilmot, and his co—executors
under the will of 1834. The point at issue was the capacity
.of the deceased at the time of the execution of the
latter will.
It appeared that, at an early period, the eldest son had been
the nrincinal object. ne

ms testamentary bounty; .ba ;u7;e:
quently he was desirous of providing for his younger children,
and that Sir Wilmot Horton (then Mr. Wilmot) fraying re-
presented to his father that he had an o
his influeny cef f
withorward-
the
then government, (Mr. Wilmot holding the post of Under
Secretary of State,) the deceased made his testamentary ar-
rangements on the ground that his younger children would
be thus provided for. He was further induced to make Mr.
Wilmot a larger participant in his acquired property by the
representation of the latter that he was laying himself out
for, and in expectation of, a peerage. Some disagreement
subsequently took place between the deceased and the present
baronet, and an alteration in the will took place in favour of
the other children. Sir H. Jenner, who was nearly five hours
in giving judgment in the case, said that the circumstances.
under which the will had' been made, intheabsen_ce of Sir
W. Horton, in Ceylon, justified investigation; but. he was of
opinion, that the court was bound. to pronounce in favour of
the validity of the will, and to direct the probate to be de-
livered to the executors.