The Sun.
London, England, 1830-01-02 00:00:00

being intimidated, only seems stimulated to fresh
audacity ? To prevent is easy ;to repress diffi-
cult, if not impossible. It is easy to talk of re-
straining ; but where there is liberty there will
be license; and no Attorney-General can draw
a line between them which will not be trans-
gressed.—Morning Chronicle.
Among the voluntary alterations (reform we
cannot call it) which are talked of in the Church
Establishment, is the abolition of the White-
hall Preachers. These, we believe, consist of
twelve Gentlemen from each University, two of
whom divide the duties of the Pulpit in White-
hall Chapel for each month between them.
Their remuneration, which is by no means con-
siderable, comes, we believe, out of the Civil

List, which we should be truly happy to see
encumbered with no more objectionable burthen
than this. The appointment was originally, and
has continued to be, one of very obvious utility
and propriety—viz., that of drawing Fellows of
Colleges from their kind of monkish seclusion
into the world, and producing, or at least being
intended to produce, a commendable rivalry be-
tween the two great schools of divinity, on the
score of pulpit eloquence. The Chapel itself,
which was formerly the resort of the higher
ranks of people connected with the Court, is
now looked to, we believe, rather as the chapel
of the Horse Guards, where the military on
duty attend Divine Service. Even if the con-
gregation be not so select as it used to be, that
does not furnish, to our minds at least,
any satisfactory reason why the class of Uni-
versity preachers should be dispensed with.
The Home Secretary himself, heretofore the
great stay and prop of the Church, as well as the
champion of the Universities, resides, in com-
mon with other distinguished personages, within
the precinct of this Chapel ; and these persons
can hardly wish, we should think,' to see this
school, as it may be called, of divinity eloquence
abolished. But, admitting that the Chaplain-
General of the Army, who is well paid for doing
little, ought to take the duty here, there is no
reason why the labours of the Whitehall preachers
might not be transferred to Westminster Abbey;
and why that great national structure, instead of
being converted into a mere show-house, might
not have its choir enlarged, and a considerable
portion of its useless area converted into a church
capable of holding much of the crowds who now,
from want of room, are shut out from the public
worship of the established religion, and driven
into places of dissent. At any rate, the idea of
restricting and circumscribing the number of
preachers, and their utility, is absurd upon the
face of it ; and we therefore trust that there can
be no truth in a report, one consequence of which,
of course, would be, that the present possessors
of the office would, at least, be paid during their
lives for doing no part of those duties which they
are both able and willing to perform. The very
outrage upon conscience which this would imply
ought not to be dreamed of or permitted.—
lllOrning Her ald.
The expiration of another fleeting month will
once again bring the Goverment into contact
with the representatives of the people, and sin-
cerely do we trust that whatever line of conduct
the Cabinet may choose to adopt the House of
Commons will discharge their duty towards their
constituents. In making this avowal, and ex-
pressing such a desire, we do not, of course,
consider the individual representatives of indivi-
dual electors as any thing but funguses, which
it would be better to see destroyed. But there
are men honest, independent, and uncompro-
mising—men whose redeeming qualities make us
still cerish the hope that all is not for ever
lost—men whose integrity almost convinces us
that the year 1830 will go far to redeem
the infamy and degradation with which its pre-
decessor has been so justly and so universally
branded. To realise such expectations, however—
to redeem the character of Great Britain in the
eyes of other European nations—to re-establish
her prosperity and restore her starving and op-
pressed peasantry to their former happiness and
rank in the scale of humanity—much remains to
be done. Not only must the Tories act with
vigour and unanimity—not only must the Pro-
testants rally round the dilapidated fortifications
of the Established Church—but the hollow pro-
mises, the deceitful wiles, the dangerous machi-
nations of the Whigs and apostates, must con-
tinue to be watched with the most lynx-eyed
penetration. If ever in the history of nations a
crisis occurred when it became the duty of every
good citizen to repose in armour, jealous of the
liberty of his country, that crisis is at hand.
The Press is is in jeopardy, and with its destruc-
tion the liberty of the subject, Magna Charta,
the Bill of Rights, and all those bulwarks of

freedom which have for so many centuries con-
stituted the chief boast of Englishmen, will be
levelled with the dust, and the glory of the
nation departed ! ! Against hope, however, we
will indulge in hope. The scourge cannot en-
dure for ever. And when we know, and for

the consolation of England have the happiness
of proclaiming, that not only in the Houses of
Lords and Commons, but within the very pre-
cincts of the Court, a decided and determined
hostility exists against the proceedings which
have characterized the Wellington Administra-
tion, we hail the omen, and look forward to the
re-assembling of Parliament with a strong con.
viction that the sense of the nation will not only
condemn the measures, but demand the dismissal,
of the men to whose obstinacy and incapacity
the thousand evils under which the nation
groans are solely and entirely to be attributed.
Morning Journal.
As the Session of Parliament approaches,
pamphlets on the various questions which ought,
or are likely, to engage its attention, continue to
pour in upon us ; and above all, upon the West
India question, which, instead of being treated
as a matter interesting to the country generally,
has through the violence of individuals become
at length a party question. This result of the
discussions upon it is greatly to be regretted ;
first, because the question is one of some diffi-
culty—and secondly, because party feeling may
prevent the public from arriving at those sound
conclusions respecting it, which it is both the
interest of the country, and of the colonies, to
come to. It has never been our opinion that
the interests of the colonists were undeserving of
consideration, or that the mother country was
not more deeply interested in their welfare than
the abolitionists would have us to believe ; but
on the other hand, we are inclined to maintain
that great benefit would accrue to the colonies
from the adoption of free, instead of slave,
labour. The reasonings of the anti-abolitionists
on this subject have always appeared to us to be
not only far wide of the fact, but to be founded
on untenable grounds. The author of the
pamphlet on this subject, entitled 4c 4 z Address
to the Members of both Houses of Parliament,"
which has just bee❑ published by Ridgway, has,
for example, concluded from the results of free
labour in St. Domingo and Sierra Leone, that,