The Sun.
London, England, 1830-03-22 00:00:00

twopence halfpenny there is levied the monstrous
and oppressive duty of threepence farthing per
pound. By repealing the duty the increased con-
sumption might probably increase the prime cost
from twopence halfpenny to threepence halfpenny
a pound; but this increase would not be felt nor
regretted, seeing that it would benefit the planter,
who at this moment is in a state of unparalleled dis-
trm.-211orning Journal.

The House of Commons is a body, with all its
sins, of a somewhat uneasy conscience ; and com-
punctious twinges will occasionally disturb the ame-
nity of the most self-satisfied memberson its benches.
We can easily account, therefore, for their holding
in so much favour those smooth-faced, plausible
men, from whose oily tongues the common-places of
commendation flow glibly and freely, like that class
of Divines who excel in allaying the torments of re-
morse, and teach the guilty sinner to find in himself
virtues and graces with the possession of which lie
was wholly unacquainted. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer, who had long carried on a commerce of
this sort with Members, took occasion, in delivering
his Budget the other night, to soothe the House by
protesting his deep conviction that no assembly was
to be found in the whole world, nor had any ever
existed, in which the sufferings of the poor met with
afore ready or lively sympathy. Certainly Parlia-
ment dues not, at this crisis, exhibit any indifference
to the general distress; but if Mr. Goulburn's me-
mory serves him aright, lie may recal a period, one
of great suffering to the manufacturing classes, when
the country gentlemen, now so querulous and com-
passionate, were unanimous and firm in recommend-
ing patient acquiescence under the inevitable calami-
ties of commercial change. The bowels of a land-
holder do not, in truth, yearn towards a starving
weaver, as they do towards an insolvent tenant; it
is a deficient audit which awakens the tender mer-
cies of the Aristocracy, and ins ructs tratesmen such
as the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

" How various and innumerable
Are those who live upon the rabble !
'Tis they maintain the church and state,
Employ the priest and magistrate;
Bear all the charge of Government,
And pay the public fines and rent;
Defray all taxes and excises,
And impositions of all prices;
Bear all th' expence of peace and war,
And pay the pulpit and the bar;
Maintain all churches and religions,
And give their pastors exhibitions! ! !"
—Morning Chronicle.

The Abstract of the Returns of the Poors' Rates
levied in England and Wales for the year ending
March, 1829, which has just been distributed,
proves that the s:aternents of Members of the
Legislature of a rapidly increasing Poor-rate can,
at most, have been founded on extreme causes. The
total of the sums expended for the relief of the poor
in the year alluded to amounts to 6,332,110/. The
increase in some counties seems balanced by the de-
crease in others. In Lancaster, for instance, the
decrease is 10 per cent.; Yorkshire (West Riding).
3 per cent.; Stafford, 7 per cent.; Westmoreland,
9 per cent.; Warwick, 3 per cent. ; Gloucester, 2
per cent.; Somerset, 3 per cent.; Nottingham, 3
per cent.; Leicester, 3 per cent.; Norfolk, 2 per
cent. ;—in short, in all the manufacturing districts
there is u decrease more or less. In the agricultural
districts again, there is generally an increase. In
Suffolk it is 12 per cent.; Berks, 10 per cent.;
Cambridge, 3 per cent.; Essex, 6 per cent.; Buck-
ingham, 3 per cent. ; Huntingdon, 6 per cent. ;
Wilts, 10 per cent,; Sussex, 3 per cent. Of the
money disbursed for other purposes than the relief of
the poor, amounting in all to the enormous sum of
1,280,3281., we grieve to see so large a portion
wantonly expended every year from the failure of
Government to discharge its most essential func-
tion—namely, the bringing justice home to the
door of every man. The whole sum raised in
Lancashire, for instance, is 398,742/. Of this sum
no less than 109,637/. is expended for other pur-
poses than the relief of the poor. The people of
Lancashire are taxed at least 50,0001. out of this
sum unnecessarily—that is, for the conveyance of
prisoners and witnesses to the distant town where the
Assizes are held. The County Rates are higher in
Lancashire than in Middlesex, though in the latter
county the number of commitments and trials be
so much greater. In Middlesex the whole sum
raised is 740,7771.; the payments for other pur-
poses than the relief of the poor 96,7231.; that is,
14,000/Jess than in Lancashire. The West Riding
of Yorkshire too, from the same cause, pays a dise
proportionately large county rate, no less than
84,1811. out of 345,3701. These sums may enable
us to form something like a guess as to the extent of
the suffering inflicted on suitors in civil cases, in con-
veying witnesses to the assize towns, and maintain-
ing them there. The distress in Kent and Sussex
has often been referred to as particularly great; but
the increase of expenditure in these counties does
not seem great. Thus, for instance, in the year
ending 25th March, 1823, there was levied in Kent
373,7861., and in Sussex 259,2561.; in the year end.
ing 25th March, 1829, there was levied in Kent
384,4421.; and in Sussex 267,4591., a very trifling
increase, which is more than accounted for by the
increase in the county rates.—Morning Chronicle.
The speech of Sir James Scarlett, in moving on
Tuesday for leave to bring in a Bill for the better
Administration of Justice in Wales, was quite charac-
teristic. "He knew (he said) that the popular
opinion was in favour of destroying all the ancient
institutions of the country ; but he was the furthest
from wishing to minister to that appetite; he wished
as far as possible to adhere to existing arrangements ;
his endeavour was to preserve ancient forms as
nearly as possible; there was nothing he more ear,
neatly wished to avoid than giving way to the vi-
sions of wild theorists. The longer the experience,
the more minute the acquaintance with the jurispru-
dence of England, the more apparent were its po-
sitive excellencies, and the more striking its supe-
riority over the systems of every ether nation. It
was true that we had only fifteen Judges; but those
fifteen Judges tried more causes, and decided con-
cerning a greater amount of property, than all the
Judges of France." After enumerating the differ-
ent Courts, and the number of Judges, &c., he ob-
served that " the whole of the expense, when turned
into English money, at 25 francs to the pound ster-
ling, amounted to 582,556/. If the House com-
pared the quantity of business done, he was satisfied
that it would be found that there was no reason to
complain of what was decided in the English Court."
In all this there is a great deal of assumption on the
part of Sir James, and a great deal which, if true, is
beside the question. We do not see how, even sup-
posing the English system of Jurisprudence to be
superior to that of France, that it is therefore neces-
sarily superior to the systems of every other nation,
because it is not proved that that of France is better
than the systems of all other nations; and still less
does it follow that because the system of all other na-
tions are bad, that the system of England is necessarily
good. As far as we can learn, the French system is
worse than that of almost every nation in Europe.
Again, a faulty system may render it necessary to
have an immense number of Judges in France; but
that does not justify the denial of justice in Eng-
land to alt but those who are able to sue in th.e
King's Courts. The reason why fifteen Judges do
all the business of England is because law is a lux-
ury in England, only within the reach of the rich.—
The amount of property decided on is nothing to the
purpose, because England is a much richer country
than France, and the denial of justice to the mass of
the people may still leave a greater amount of pro-
perty to be decided than is under litigation in the
Courts of France. The idea of comparing the
amount of property occurs only to a man steeped in
the prejudices of English Aristocracy. The ques-
tion ought not to be the amount of property decided
on, but the number of individuals to whom Justice
has been administered; for the happiness of a poor
man ought to be as dear to the Legislature as the
hmtatianpiness of a rich man, and the happiness of a poor
may be as much dependent on a question of 10/.
value as the happiness of a tick man on a
question of