The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-03 00:00:00

sont fond Cs. Et any, Sir, nous sumus olsl.,;(as de
eonustre lour ley de saint eglise : et semblablement
ils sont obliges de conustre notre ley. Et, Sir, si
poit apperer or a nous I'evesque ad fait come un
ordinary fern en tiel cas, adong nous devons
ceo adjurer bon, on auterment nervy,' &c.—
See S. C. Fitz!). Abr. Qt. imp. 89, Bro. Abr.
Qu. imp. 12. Finch, in his fist book, c. 3,
is the first artersvarda who quotes this case,
and mistakes it thus To such laws of the
Church as have warrant in Hely Scripture, our law
giveth credence:—And cites Prisot ; mistranslatiog
4 Ancient Scripture' into Holy Scripture.' Whereas
Prisot palpably says, ' To such laws as those of holy
church, have, in Antient Writing, it is proper for us
to give credence ;' to wit, to their ancient written
laws. This was in 1613, a century and a half after
the dictum of Prisot. Wingate, in 1658, erects this
false translation into a maxim of the Common Law.
copying the words of Finch, but citing Prisot.
Wing., Max. 3. And Sheppard, title Religion,' in
1675, copies the same mistranslation, quoting the
Y. B. Finch and Wingate. Hales expresses it in
these words Christianity is parcel of the laws of
England,' 1 Ventr. 293,3 Keb. 607. But he quotes
no authority. By these echoings and re-echoings
from one to another, it had become Fo esta-
blished in 1728, that in the case of the King
v. Woolston, 2 Still. 834., the Court would not
stiffer it to be debated whether to write against
Christianity was punishable in the temporal Court
of commonlaw."—So much for this dictum of Hale.
Surely after the tests intended to exclude the Dis.
senters and Catholics have been dome away with, it
will be deemed Ilene:lth the dignity of the country to
retain this paltry remnant of persecution. The
Jews born in England are English subjects, and
ought to have all the privileges of English subjects.
Why should the Christians, because they are the
majority, impose an osth, which compels the Jew
either to perjure himself or to punish himself by his
honesty ? This remnant of intolerance is unworthy
of a great nation—is unworthy of the age.—illorn-
ing Chronicle. •
It affords us much pleasure to have it in our
power to state, for the information of the Licensed
Victuallers, that the most obnoxious and most in-
jurious part of the Sale of Beer Bill—we mean that
part of it which, if passed into a law, would have
authorized beer to be consumed on the premises of
the intended new beer-shops—is to be abandoned
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that the
proposed throwing open of the trade in beer is to be
limited to the simple power of sale by retail. This
was announced in the Courier of Saturday,
and has since been confirmed to us by authority on
which we can rely. The second reading of the
Bill stands for this evening ; and it is probable that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer will embrace that
opportunity of stating his relinquishment of a mea-
sure which had injustice for its basis—impolicy for
its directing principle—and ruin to a most merito-
rious, and, in many other respects, severely op-
pressed, class of the community, as its inevitable
result. Looking at all its consequences, in fact, we
cannot help expressing our surprise, not that the
clause is about to be abandoned, but that any Mi-
nister of the Crown should have ever dreamed of
passing it into a law. In every point of view it was
most objectionable, and the community, as well as
the Licensed Victuallers, whose property it affected,
have good reason to be thankful that they have
escaped the infliction of such an intolerable nuisance.
While on this subject we shall take the opportunity
of stating, that there is another part of the Bill,
and which also formed part of Mr. Estcourt's Act,
which ought not to pass into a law—we mean that
part of it which quarters the military upon the
licensed victuallers, whether they are inclined to
receive them or not, and which is a perpetual source
of loss and annoyance on the one hand, and of ty-
ranny and insult on the other. We have no wish
that the military should not be properly accommo-
dated; but, on the other hand, there can be no good
reason for converting a respectable inn into a stable-
yard, or driving from it every respectable inmate, in
consequence of the riots, the noise, and the inso-
lence to which the quartering of soldius on victual-
ling-houses almost invariably gives rise. It is the
cause of great loss and annoyance to the
landlord, and is otherwise calculated to destroy
those habits of discipline and insubordination to the
civil power, which it ought to be the object of
those who are placed at the head of the army to
improve, instead of loosening.—llforn. Advertiser.