The Sun. — 1840-09-18 (London, England)

PUBLIC JOURNALS.  FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. (From the Standard.) We rejoice as sincerely as our respected Contempt). rary of the Morning Herald can possibly do, that the life of the unhappy prisoner Garrett should have been spared, but we are not, therefore, disposed to impugn for one moment either the propriety of the remarks made by the Learned Judge upon his case, or the verdict which succeeded them. " A man fondly loving his children (says our Contemporary) is driven to desperation by absolute want, and in a state of frenzy resolves on destroying their lives and his own. He might, to be sure, have resorted to the alternative of an union workhouse, but he preferred death to the tender mercies of the Bastile system ;" in fact he murdered his children, and attempted to destroy himself, rather than submit to the degradation and discipline of a union workhouse. This, however strung a proof it may supply of the dreadful repugnance of the poor to enter a new Poor-law bastile, offers little that can extenuate his crime, If the desperation which stimulated him to 'murder his child, amounted, as our Contemporary appears to suppose, to insanity, a different verdict might have been expected. But as acts of premeditation were, if we remember aright, proved in evidence on the trial, they deprive the case of any such extenuation. Nay, the fact inferred by our Contemporary, that the prisoner having duly weighed the miseries inevitable from a modern workhouse, with the dreadful alternative he contemplated,and feeling that "separation from his children was tog dear a price to pay for the miserable pittance of a poor-house," determined to destroy them ; would lead us to believe that he acted with a degree of premeditation wholly inconsistent with the frenzy of desperation. Deeply, therefore, as we must commiserate this unfortunate man, and willingly as we admit the propriety of remitting the capital punishment (43 one of those instances in which this privilege of the Crown is most fitly exercised), we cannot but believe that any other course than that pursued both by judge and jury would have been pernicious,  (From the Courier.)  We noticed some days since the letter of Dr. Chalmers to the Rev. Mr. Buchanan, of Glasgow, which, for a very obvious purpose, found its way into the Tune,. We do not think that purpose has been answered. There is nothing in the letter to give assurance that there is no split among the Non-Intrusionists ; and since its appearance the Procurator of the Church has entered the field, and expressed his belief that the Church intends to repeal the Veto -law ; from which we may gather, that any attempt to do this will meet the opposition of the powerful Whig party in the Kirk, of which the Procurator is now the head. In the letter itself there is something like a " retract," when the Reverend Doctor tells his friend that nothing said by him in his last pamphlet is to be regarded as asking the Church to enter blindfold on the rescinding of the Veto, " without a prospective reference to the steps that follow." We expressed a hope, in what we formerly said in regard to Dr. Chalmers's pamphlet, " \‘, hat is the Church to do now that we had not mistaken the Reverend Professor's meaning,. We begin to fear now that we must have done so. We certainly imagined, that in proposing the repeal orf the Vetolaw, he was looking rather to the past. than to the future, as dictating the suggestion. W e undersiood him to have come to the conviction Cult the Veto was  illegal ; and that consequently, like art lioncst man and good subject, he was led to propose its being rescinded, without reference to the steps that are to follow,' Let these be what they may, we imagint :d the doom of the Veto was sealed. But it would t ippear, from the letter to Mr. Buchanan, that if the Cal 1, which requires the assent of a majority, to make goo, 1 a presentation, cannot be obtained, and to which, it • would seem, the Church is to attempt returning before she seeks the repeal of patronage, then the Veto is at ill to remain the I law of tl,e Church 7. Now, with his enthusiasm, and surely with his dear-bought exvirience, Dr. Chalmers must kr,nw well that the