The Sun.
London, England, 1830-04-05 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The important subject of the distresses alleged to
be experienced by the shipping interests of Great
Britain was brought under the notice of the House
%a Commons on Friday last, by Mr. Sykes. The
Hon. Gentleman's speech was in no degree calcu-
lated to indispose the mind of Parliament to what-
ever experiments of remedial policy might seem the
mow promising of relief or advantage to the ship-
owners, because of his forbearing to dogmatise upon
the specific measures which would best become the
Legislature to adopt in their behalf. With regard
to the tendency of some of the existing laws to
ereate•ati undue r essure upon the ship-owner, we
cotentr with Mr. Sykes in his view of their natural
oonseeptestres. The East India monopoly, for
examnte, deprives our merchantmen of a resource,
evhith, if open, might have repaired in some respects
the evil of depreciated markets elsewhere. The ex-
pence of light houees and pilotage might well be borne
by the body of the nation, instead of felling directly
upon the commercial marine. The duty on hemp alone
would constitute an enormous item in the comparative
cost of British ship-building as compared with
foreign ; and the excess of tax on solid timber over
that on deals (or sawed plank) is justly considered
a houhty on the saw-mills of other countrieF—that
is on foreign industry at the expense of British.
int when Mr. Sykes comes to complain of the mis-
sshicre arising to the British ship-owner from the in-
treased price of provisions and wages, as also from
the decline of freights from the year 1826 to 1829,
inclusive, it is impossible to contend that such dis-
advantages are peculiar to the shipping interest
of Great Britain, and that the marine of other
countries is not equally effected by them. If
British freights have fallen, so have those of the
foreign merchantmen likewise; for nothing can
be more preposterous than to fairer, in the
teeth of all the evidence of Europe and America,
that commerce every where has not suffered from
a languor in the markets, and a diminution of profits,
at least equivalent to what has occurred amongst
otsrselves. When, again, Mr. Sykes deplores that
merchants, depressed by the . above reduction of
freights, should have their misfortunes aggrarated
by a rise in wages and eeesstores, is there not some
fallacy or mystery in the Hon. Gentleman's repre-
sentations ? Whitt are we to be told that the
commerce of England is ruined, when, on the show-
ing of its own adv'ocate, seamen's wages have risen
from 2/. 17s. to 31.? And what will cur landed-
interest-petitioners say for themselves, when one of
the alleged grievances of the merchant is, that the
assorted sea stock of beef, pork, and bread, have
risen, in the four years beginning with 1826, above
the four preceding years, from 9/. 3s. 10d. to 10/.
15s. ltd.? Which class of grumblers are we to
believe—or mend we credit neither? Mr. Herries
refuted, in an irresistible manner, the absurd allega-
tions ao. often made, of an actual falling off in the
.mount of British tonnage since the introduction of
the system of marine reciprocity. On the contrary,
it is enough to state, from official documents, that
the commercial navy of Great Britain has, within
the last four years, exceeded the highest amount of
it in !the. same period previous to the trial of Mr.
Huckisson's " reciprocity treaties" by no less than
240,000 tons; while the foreign tonnage has also
increased, but only in the proportion of 5,000 tons
ten2oo,ooo
In our Journal of Friday last we were induced,
from the perusal of the debate on the Crown Re-
venues, to believe that in the purchase of the Mary-
lebone property from the Duke of Portland, the
Crown had made a bad bargain for the public, anti
a very advantageous one for_ the noble vender. We
have since that day been put in possession of docu-
manta which considerably modify this, opinion, and
we subjoin a summary of the facts which have pro-
duced this modification of our previous judgment.
From these it will appear, that as far as regards the
Duke of Portland, the price of the purchase was
reasonable,—perhaps even somewhat below the ac-
tual value. In the same proportion, therefore, the
bargain must be considered a favourable one for the
Crown. But there is another point in the case, in-
dependent of the relation between the Crown Com-
missioners and the Duke of Portland : that point is
the public benefit. And here we have no evidence
;to Show that one shilling accrues for the use of the
public. Great and extensive church-patronage is
transferred from the Portland family to the Crown!
hut: we should like also to see, what we have rio
means at present of knowing, that the income from,
this patronage, which formerly resulted to the Duke
of Portland, is now applied to the public service.
That income was about 1,100/. a-year—no very
large sum, certainly, it; a smatter of national revenue,
belt still too large to be wasted. The following is
she statement referred terit--e- sk •
" The present (not the laft,VOcke of Portland sold
the extra-episcopal rectory of Blitefiebpne to the Crown in
the year 1817. :

" This property comptised, besides the patronage, four
freehold private chapels, and also a leasehold chapel for
5.5 years' term. These chapels produced to the Duke a
uet income of nearly 1,100/. a-year, after pay'ng the offi-
ciating ministers and all other charges.
"" The patronage consisted of the perpetual right to ap-
point the ministers and officers of the mother church, alai
of two parochial chapels—and also to license ministers to
his own and all other chapels of the established church in
the parish.
" In selling all his rights as lay rector; his Grace
stipulated that none of the existing incumbents should
be disturbed. Dr. lieslop, the then incutnbc•nt of the
parish church, was at the time about seventy-seven years
or age, and this valuable presentation on his death fell in to
tlieCrown. • •

" The whole of this property and ecclesiastical patronage
liits sold by the Duke of Purt!and to the Crown at the re-
tineed price of 40,000/.
' " TIC perish has since been divided into five diqinel
rectories, and four additional churches have been built."—
Time:.
_ ' •

We were much amused' with the lamentation of
Sir Charles Forbes on Thursday night, that " of
late years it had become too much the custom to
press upon Scotland—its interests were by no means
so well protected as formerly—the English and Irish
Members in the Cabinet seemed to him quite to
overpower the Scotchmen, and the consequences
're, he thought, deeply injurious to the northern
part.of the island." ,We confess we have no fear
that either English or Irish Members of the Ca-
binet Will go out of • their way to press upon Scot-
kind, especially after the lesson so lately received, by
them in the threatened Bank Rebellion. Our fears

point to a different quarter—namely, to two classes
of Scotchtnen, who may be said to be in a constant
conspiracy to lay hold of eyery favourable opportu-
nty for promoting their interests, and gratifying
their love of power at the expence of the nation.
We allude to the Law Corporations of Edinburgh,
and to the Aristocracy of the country. Several
years ago we ourselves contributed something to
the defending a plan for enabling the gentry of
Scotland to tyrannise over the lower orders in the
disgraceful manner of England, by giving to the
. Justices of Peace the powers of their English
brethren—pourers for which there cannot even be a
pretext in Scotland, where there are excellently con-
stituted Local Courts. The Scotch gentry are
miserable, because the lower orders of Seotchmen
are more independent than the same classes of Eng-
lishmen, and think they have as good a right as
their neighbours to ample discretionary power—
that is, to powers to oppress. A pretty good be-
ginning was made two years ago by Mr. Home
Drummond, who succeeded in imposing en his
countrymen the English system of licensinff, at a
time when the oppressions practised under it had
exhausted the patience of the most patient of, all
people, the people of England. We have just re-
ceived a valuable pamphlet on these subjects, in the
shape of a " Letter to Henry Brougham, Esq.,,, by
John Douglas, Esq., of Glasgow. Mr. Douglas has
not, we suspect, addressed his letter to one who
shares his views ; for though Mr. Brougham is, a
Law Reformer, he is not, as far as we can learn,
a very warm admirer of any plan of Reform which
has for its object the bringing justice home to the
door of every man. '1 he Law Corporations of Eng-