The Sun. — 1861-01-05 (London, England)

PLUNKET. It must have been very annoying to find his schools, previously full, dwindle down to one scholar, " the Tourmakeady piggery boy." For an Anglo-Irish Bishop to be beaten by an unauthorised Dissenting parish priest, of whom no one ever heard before, was mortifying enough to Episcopal flesh and blood ; but it was a religious battle ; the Bishop had no moral right to " impress his desire" on his tenants, and to permit his family and agent to follow up non-compliance with that desire by the severest of temporal penalties to an Irishman short of death. It is like a soldier using his bayonet or swordbelt in a struggle with a civilian. We recently had occasion to reprobate similar conduct on the part of a Welsh lady, at the instigation of her clergyman, towards English Protestant Dissenters; it is equally unchristian and equally unrighteous towards Roman Catholic Dissenters, According to his own statements, we can perceive not a shadow of justification for Lord PLUNKET'S conduct; nor do we see how the evidence can easily be explained away. Accepting the uncontradicted facts, we can only say that the conduct of Lord PLUNKET, in the Partry evictions, would justify any persecution whatever for conscience sake ; for if landlords have a moral right to turn out of house and off the land, those whom they cannot convert to their own views of religious duty, Roman Catholic proprietors on the continent would be justified in doing the same—the great landlord, the Government, might plausibly follow  them; and Roman Catholic countries might adopt towards Protestants the language of Ancient Rome towards early Christians—" Non licet vobis ease"—you are not permitted to exist. We await explanations, but we must confess with little hope. - '  A morning contemporary, in an article on the Canada extradition case, in which the impossibility of the surrender is strongly asserted, yet leans to  the view that legally the fugitive ought to be surrendered, The writer does not appear to us to meet the strong legal objections to surrender from the fact that the homicide was not culpable homicide, according to the law of the place in which the refugee was found. Our law knows of no such crime as that of killing, in self-defence, the man who endeavours to kidnap you—while social law or sentiment exalts the homicide into a duty. But the strong point, our contemporary thinks, is that DIGGES was acting according to the law of his State, Missouri. By the State law "it is the duty of every man to arrest a slave found distant more than 20 miles from his master's plantation." DIGGES, therefore, was constituted, by Missouri law, a policeman, and was lawfully engaged in the capture of ANDERSON when he was killed. The inference is, we are legally bound to deliver up a man who killed another, the latter being in the discharge of a duty imposed on him by law. The fallacy seems to us plain. The argument assumes that we are to take the slaveholder's code as our test of crime, The crime was a black one, according to that black code; but according to English law and judgments, that code is itself a crime. We denounce making a man a slave, selling him as a slave, keeping him as a slave, preventing his escape from slavery, as a series of crimes—as nothing better than landpiracy. Slaveholders, in their slaveholding relations, are outlaws, according to British law. It seems therefore plain that on the facts before the Court—namely, that DIGGES was killed in obstructing a slave while escaping from his kidnappers—we are. bound to protect the refugee. Those who made the treaty on both sides well knew that Great Britain would no more concede that homicide necessary to an escape from bondage is a crime, than that the Americans would concede the Right of Search ; and no accidental phraseology could possibly admit of such a construction. It isja solemn thought, that when the ALMIGHTY once undertook the emancipation of an enslaved people, and could not otherwise coerce the stubborn will of the great Egyptian slaveholder, he deemed the homicide of all the first-born not too high a price  for the delivery of the Israelites; and when the Monarch afterwards attempted to stop the refugees, he drowned him and his host in the Red Sea.  61.  The Prince di Carriccialo, with the Count and Countess Castellac, and Chevalier Miniati, have left the Brunswick Hotel, Jetmyn-street, for Paris, on their way  o Rome,  The Hon. Frederick and Lady Elizabeth Villiers have left Thomas's Hotel, Berkeley-square, for Sulby Hall.  Miss Nightingale has returned to her residence at the Burlington Hotel.