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

c OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

Th spirited debate which took place on Monday
a. gl,t in the House of Commons, on the estimates
being brought forward, redounds greatly to the
credit of the Members who had patriotism enough
to speak out, and firmness enough to proclaim their
resolution manfully to resist encroachments on the
public purse. Such men as Mr. Gordon and Lord
Althorp deserve well of their constituents and the
country at large. But what must the nation think
of its representatives, when not even 40 Members
were to be found in the House at the close of its
proceedings, when hundreds of thousands were
voted away ? Not unconnected with this subject
ara the following letters from James I. to the Lords,
touching the abatement of his Majesty's household
charge. They were read at the Board of Green
Cloth, on the 12th of November, 1617:
" My Loans,-No worldly thing is so precious as time.
Ye know what task I gave you to work upon during my
absence, and what time was limited unto you for the per-
formance thereof. This same Chancellor of Scotland was
wont to tell me twenty-four years ago that my house could
not be kept upon epigrams : long discourses and fair tales
will never repair my estate. Omnis virtute in ustione
consistit. Remember that I told you the shoe must he
made for the foot; and let that be the square of all your
proceedings ;n the business. Abate superinities in all
things, and multitudes of unnecessary officers, wherever
they way be placed ; but for the household, wardrobe, and
pension., cut and carve as many as may agree with the
possibility of my means. Exceed not your own rule of
fifty thousand pounds fur the household : if you can make
it less, I will account it for good service : and that you
may see I will not spare mine own person, I have sent
with this bearer a note of the superfluous charges con-
cerning my month, having had the happy opportunities
of this messenger in an errand so nearly concerning hip
place. In this I expect no answer in word or writing,
but only the real performance, for a beginning to relieve
the out of my miseries. For now the ball is at your feet,
and the world shall bear me witness that I have put you
fairly to it ; and so, praying God to bless your labours,
bid you heartily farewell.
" Your own,

" JAMES 11."

"Mr LORDS,—I received from you yesternight the
bluntest letter that I think ever King received from his
Coune:l. Ye write that the Green Cloth will do nothing,
and ye offer me no advice. Why are ye Councillors, if ye
offer no council ? An ordinary messenger might have
brought me such an answ, r. It is my pleasure that my
charges be equal with my revenue; and it is just and ne-
cessary so to be; for this is a project must be made, and
one of the main branches thereof is my house. This pro-
ject is but to be offered unto you ; and how it may be
better laid than toagree with my honour and contentment,
ye are to advise upon, and then have my consent. If this
cannot be performed without diminishing the number
of tables, diminished they must be ; and if that cannot
serve, two or three must be thrust in. one. If the Green
Cloth will not mike a project for this, some other must do
it. If ye cannot find them out, I must only remember two
things ; the time most no more be lost, and that there are
twenty ways of aba,ement besides the House, if they be
well looked into. And so farewell. '' JAMES R."
(Times.)

Lord Mountcashel submitted, last night, the mo-
tion respecting the state of the established churches
of England and Ireland, from which so much in the
way of discussion was anticipated. The bench of
Bishops, it would seem, think it dangerous to en-
courage questions of reform, by the courtesy of a
little notice, and the motion was disposed of in
silence. His Lordship will find that the more any
church requires reform, the more will its members
he indisposed to reform. It would be strange,
in-
deed, if a Bishop found fault with a state of things
which enables hire to pocket 30,0001. a year, and to
provide for sons and daughters, because the curates
have a shilling a day less than a bricklayer, and only
a sixpence a day more than an Irish hodman. If '
the church be wise it will always act this prudent
part. They who have the law on their side do not
require other arguments, and the best way to silence
opponents is to leave them unanswered. The Bible
is very well as an emblem on the title-page of John
Bull ; but a rich establishment ought not to encou-
rage a too frequent reference to its contents. Lord
Mountcashel is evangelically disposed, and does not
see that in the union of Church and State the great
object is to make the wealth of the church subser-
vient to the purposes of the State. Bribery end
laprruption are indispensible to the existence of the
State—that State which supports Bishops and
which Bishops support ; and yet his Lordship would,
without ceremony, cut up the sources of corruption,
merely bedulse it is at valiance with the Gospel.—
An event has lately excited some attention on the
Continent. The parish of Gall-neukirchen, in
Austria, went over to the Protestant faith. A
Mission of the Order of Redemptorists, or Ligue-
rians, was sent from Vienna to recover the flock, if
possible; and as the Heretics appealed constantly
to the Bible, one of the Priests, in a sermon, frankly
declared that the Bible is a work of Satan. Our
Bishops ought to take courage from such examples,
eoei tell Lord Mountcashel and his brother Evan-
gelicals, that the Christianity of the Gospel is not
euited for our times.—Murning Chronicle.
The second reading of the Beer Bill was carried
last night by a majority of 245 to 28. Mr. Cal-
craft did ample justice to the services of the pub-
licans and country brewers in preventing tippling,
by rendering beer unpalatable. He seems to think
that the appiehensions of the old publicans are not
without foundation, for the Bill he thinks will im-
prove the qualify of beer, and consequently increase
the temptation to tipple. The principles of the
poor will be sapped by good ale. They were proof
against swipes; but good ale would corrupt even an
anchorite.—Morning Chronicle.
The conversation last night in the House of Com-
mons, on the presentation of a petition from a
number of bankers, merchants, and other inhabi-
tants of Liverpool, by Mr. Huskisson, stating that
in their opinion the civil disabilities under which the
Jews laboured were as contrary to the spirit as they
were injurious to the interests of Christianity, forms
em, instructive comment on the opposition of Go-
verneeent to the emancipation of the Jews. Mr.
Ilueltiseon stated that the petition was signed by
tatif4Ve 2,00 persons, among whom were compre-
hended not only the Mayor of Liverpool, and many
members of the Corporation, but ever] banker, and
almost every merchant of weight in the town. It
I,y4e ,also signed by several Clergymen of the Church
cif Fetiglend. An Hon. Friend of his, he added, had
told him that he had never known any petition front
Liverpool more numerously and respectably signed.
General Gascoigne agreed fully with his Right
Honourable Colleague, that for many years no pe-
tition had been more numerously and respectably
Signed. But General Gascoigne frankly admitted
;bat he was a lover of exclusion. " The principles
(he paid) which induced him to oppose the intro-
duction of the Roman Catholics into an entire par-
ticipation of the civil privileges of their fellow-sub-
jects equally operated on his mind with reference to
she Jews. He allowed that his Right Honourable
Friend acted consistently with the principles which
;10:Inced him to vote for Catholic Emancipation in
eupperting the Emancipation of the Jews." Gene-
ve) Gascoigne, no doubt, considers a Constitution
as good in proportion as it is exclusive. The British
Constitution would have been admirable if its privi-
leges had been confined to members of the Church
of England; less admirable when Dissenters were
Admitted to an equality of rights; still less admi-
rable when the Catholics were admitted; and he,
no doubt, feels that an Establishment would be (It-
weeded if there were no class to trample under foot.
Mr. Huskisson thought that those who had voted
against the Catholics might consistently support the
Bill for the Emancipation of the Jews. If reason
be allowed to have any influence in the matter, them
can be no question that the claims of the Jews
are greatly superior to the claims of the Catholics.
Many persons opposed the Catholics, because they
owe allegiance to a foreign head, who has never
renounced claims utterly irreconcilable, if enforced,
with the obedience of subjects to their respec-
tive Governments. It is true these claims,
though not renounced formally, are not the less ta-
citly abandoned, just as the Presbyterian Church of
,'Scotland has tacitly abandoned the persecuting doc-

trines of the Confession of Faith, though the Clergy
have not the courage to expunge them. The Ce-
tholic church is besides a body which often conies
into collision with the civil power, especially in Pro-
testant Governments, as any man may see who looks
into any of the Ecclesiastical Journals published in
Germany. We by no mutes mean to say that the
peculiarities of the Catholic church furnish any good
ground for subjecting the Catholics to civil dieabi-
Ries. We merely allude to them to show that there
is a show of argument against the claims of the
Catholics, while there is none against the claims of
the Jews. The Jews acknowledge no foreign su-
perior ; the Jews never give any opposition to Go-
vernments; they are the most peaceable of all sub-
jeets. The defects of the Jewish character can all
he traced to the injustice of the various Govern-
ments under which they live. As subjects, a Go-
vernment not Christian would unquestionably pre-
fer them to Christians, because they are without
the proselytising and quarrelsome spirit which, in
practice at least, seems to cleave to all Christian
sects. The Jews seem to have no wish to make pro-
selytes. 'Whether their principles allow them to
adopt persons not of Hebrew blood, we know not ;
but, at all events, they evince no anxiety to adopt
strangers. Accordingly, therefore, to every admit-
ted principle, the Jews have much stronger claims
to the privileges of citizens than Catholics. lye
should, therefore conceive that the opposition to the
Jews would be confined to the bigotted few who
objected to the Catholic on religious grounds. We
should have been more astonished at the opposition
of the Government to the claims of the Jews, if the
present administration had not shown, both in the
case of the Dissenters and the Catholics, that they
were not governed by a principle or a love of justice,
but by fear and expediency. Mr. Peel admitted
that it was no longer safe to refuse to admit the
Catholics within the pale of the Constitution. The
Duke of Wellington said he was not afraid of the
Catholics, but be had a great horror of civil war.
There was no admission on the part of Ministers
that Civil Government is not instituted for the
purpose of favouring any particular religious
op;mons, but for the purpose of protecting the
members of the Social Union against foreign and
domestic violence, and that a Government is
only warranted in interfering with any religious
bodies when their principles are destructive to
the peace and interests of society. If the Quakers
were to be numerous in any country the Govern-
ment would have a right to interfere with them, be-
cause no man is entitled to the benefits of the so-
cial union who refuses to share the common danger;
and in Pennsylvania, where the Quakers were nu-
merous, they actually caused very great embarrass-
ments to the Americans in the war of the Revolu-
tion. But Ministers never admitted the right of
every citizen to choose his religious opinions for
himself, subject to the above limitations, without
depriving himself of his civil rights. They have'
never renounced the principle that persecution is in
itself bad. They merely admit that persecution
may not always be expedient. The Catholics are
too numerous to be persecuted ; the Dissenters are
also too numerous and wealthy, and the sup-
porters of Ministers plainly told them that a vote
against the Dissenters would be resented at the next
election, and that it was cruel to them to ask them
to do what would in many cases throw them out,
and in almost all cases subject them to great addi-
tional expence. But the Jews are so small a body,
that the principle of persecution, need not be aban-
doned on this account. 'The Duke thinks like a
soldier in these matters—considering opinions only
important in proportion to the number who maintain
them. Of course he thinks it not worth his
while to gratify those who delight in perse-
cution, for the sake of a handful of Jews. But ours
is a Christian Legislature! In the same way the
Governments of South Ametica say, ours is a Catho-
lic Legislature. The principle is precisely the same.
No toleration for Schismatics, said the Scotch Pres-
byterians, till toleration was crammed down their
throats by a British Parliament. And after all, who
are Christians? The Church of Englandman de-
nies that the Unitarian is a Christian; he maintains
that whoever does net believe in the Trinity, original
sin, atonement, &c., is not a Christian. So that
the oath of a Christian means nothing. If the oath
of an honest man were to be the watchword, what
thief would claim to be within the rule ? The Jews
are few in number, but the principle of which the
Jews are contending is of vast importance. We re-
joice to see that the question is viewed in this light
throughout the country. Our only security from
the evils of persecution is in the spnit of the
country. They who would persecute the Jews,
because they think them unable to resist, would per-
secute others if they thought they could safely do
so. When it is seen that in Liverpool, London,
Bristol, and all the areat towns of the empire, the
respectable inhabitants are every where coming
forward in behalf of the Jews; the narrow and illibe-
ral spirit, which only waits a fit opportunity to dis-
play itself in all its odiousness, may yield that to
prudence which it would not yield to higher consi-
derations.—Mornin,g Chronicle. •
The attention cf the House of Lords was last
night almost exclusively occupied by Lord Mount-
cashel, who presented the Cork petition, and moved
for the appointment of a Commission to inquire
whether any or what abuses exist in the established
church of England and Ireland. The speech of the
Noble Earl was plausible, moderate in character, and
in its general tenor unexceptionable ; but in these
respects it little coincided with his concluding pro-
position. We believe the aim and intentions of the
Noble Earl to be the best, and that he is actuated
by a sincere regard to the interests of religion, but
the appointment by Parliament of a lay Commission,
with power to investigate the affairs of the church,
reform her discipline, and regulate her revenues,
would, so far from tending to advance those interests,
more probably lead to the total overthrow of the
church and the destruction of all religion. Such a
Commission once instituted, a recurrence of the
times of Charles I. would not be far distant. In-
novation, under the hypocritical plea of needful re-
form, would soon reduce religion to a mere name,
while anarchy and confusion would take the place of
order and legitimate Government. The Noble Earl,
as we yesterday ventured to hope, abstained from
entering into details or citing particular instances of
abuse. Experience having probably taught him cau-
tion, he offered no provocation to any of the Right
Reverend Prelate's reply, and his general arguments
needed no reformation. So strong and unanimous
was the feeling of the House upon his proposition
—so general was the conviction of its inexpediency
and danger, that no one Peer or Prelate deemed it
necessary to advance a word in opposition, and the
motion was negatived without a division. The
course adopted by Lord Mountcashel is matter of
congratulation, since the judgment of the Upper
House has thus been more onequivocally expressed
than would otherwise have been the case. The
result has mere than equalled our most sanguine an-
ticipation, and cannot bat afford general satisfaction
to the well-disposed throughout the country.—
Morning Post.

A correspondent has called our attention, in a
letter which will be f, und in another column, to a
motion made by Mr. Hume in the House of Com-
mons on Monday night, for leave to bring in a Bill
to prevent the necessity of the renewal of commis-
sions and patents, and the payment of fees there-
upon, in the event of a demise of the Crown, and
upon the succession of all future Kings and Queens
of these realms. Some discussion arose upon this
motion, of which little notice has been taken in the
papers; for it appears it was carried on in so low a
tone of voice by the Members who followed Mr.
Hume, that it was rendered inaudible, or nearly so,
to the reporters in the gallery. The motion was an
important one, and well deserving of being enter-
tained by the House of Commons, especially at a
time when it has become fashionable with Legisla-
tors, and even with Ministers of the Crown, to en-
courage innovation rather than venerate antiquity,
and when we hear so much of the spirit of improve-
ment which is to regulate and purify our usages and

institutions. Formerly, upon the demise of the
Crown, all commissions and patents were ipso facto
vacated, and the parties were obliged, of course,
to have them renewed, and pay the fees of
office on their renewal. By a statute of Queen
Anne, commissions and patents were allowed
to be v did six months after the demise of the
Crown, at the expiration of which period the pre-
cese of renewal became necessary. The 'pay-
meat
of the fees on those occasions is a very 11
great grievance to the subject ; but it is a griev-
ance in which some high functionaries have so
beneficial an interest, that it is not likely to be
soon surrendered to the modern zeal for improve-
ment;—such a propitiatory offering to the " spirit
of the age" would cost those who are interested in
its preservation too dear. Accordingly, Mr. Hume's
proposition was any thing but popular with the dig-
nitaries of office and the supporters of the present
liberal Administration. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer did not attempt to meet it on any ground
of reason, or justice, or policy, but he put it to the
delicacy of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen not to
press the motion at the present time; and the
Whig Attorney-General made a similar appeal.
There was, at least, some Parliamentary tact in this
way of evading the question, for it went upon the
supposition that the motion, although a general one,
and applicable to all future demises of the Crown,
had reference only to a particular event, which
every loyal subject wishes to be as remote as
possible. Mr. Hume denied that, in bringing
forward the motion, he was liable to any im-
putation of a want of delicacy. He defended his
measure, as not having a particular, but a general
application, and adverted to the inconvenience and
hardship to which naval end military officers, and
others holding patents and commissions at the plea-
sure of the Crown, were liable on the accession of
every new Sovereign. In answer to this, the Chau-
cellor of the Exchequer alluded to the statute of
Queen Anne, and observed, that all patents and
commissions would continue to be valid for six
months after a demise of the Crown, and during that
period there would, on the happening of such a
contingency, be ample time to submit to the House
a proposition of this nature. But although, as was
remarked by Mr. O'Connell, the Parliament could
sit for six months after the accession of a new
Sovereign, yet he might dissolve it immediately
if he pleased, and so the commission or patent
would expire without any opportunity being af-
forded of bringing forward such a motion; besides,
on the happening of the demise, the parties who
had a legal right to the fees would then have a
" vested interest" in them, and no such question
could be raised. Mr. Hume offered to withdraw
the motion if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or
any other Minister, would give him a pledge that,
in case of a demise, a sufficient opportunity would
be given to pass a Bill, founded on such a motion,
before the end of six months. No such pledge
was given—the motion was put, and had no other
effect than causing the House to be "counted
out," as it is called, there being but 24 Members
present, so attentive are the representatives of
the people to the performance of the great public
duties to which they are so ambitious to be dele-
gated ! In the course of the discussion, which was
conducted almost the whole time in a series of
whispers, the Attorney-General took occasion to
observe, that the party most interested in the fees
was the Clerk of the Crown. We believe the
Right Honourable Gentleman himself and the
Lord Chancellor are as much interested in those
perquisites of office as the Clerk of the Crown,
and possibly more so. Though the fees payable
on naval and military commissions may go to a
public fund, and not to an individual, as stated by
Mr. Croker, yet all others, we believe, are
shared by the Attorney-General and the other per-
sonages whom we have named. W7hy should Ma-
gistrates, the patentees of useful inventions, and
others, be put to the expense of getting their corn-
missions and patents renewed, when the emoluments
go into the pockets of individuals, and the legnilised
exaction is riot excused by being made available to
the purposes of the public revenue ? There is
no reason for this, but because the custom
is an old one; and yet where men in power
derive no interest from objectionable practices,
however interwoven with the frame of our
ancient Constitution, their amiquiry is not held
to render them sacred arid inviolable. In making
this motion, Mr. Hume was not without a prece-
dent, as he himself showed, for his proposition only
differed from a similar one brought in by Mr. Pon-
sonby in 1817, in not being limited, as that was, to
a particular event, but intended to apply to all fu-
ture cases, and abolish this unjust impost for ever.
It is the maxim of the English Constitution that
the King never dies. The Sovereign of England
has a political immortality ; why then should his na-
tural demise have any such effect upon his official
acts, as to cause his commissions and patents to be
annulled ? The answer is, that it gives an oppor-
tunity to certain persons in authority to reap an abun-
dant harvest of fees. It it werea barren and tmprofitable
dogma of political law, no resistance would be made
to its abolition—nor would the Chancellor of the
Exchequer or the Attorney-General appeal to the
delicacy of the mover, in whispers as gentle and in-
distinct as if they feared to touch a chord that would
vibrate harshly in the public ear.—Morning Herald.

The war between the distillers of rum and the
distillers of British spirits is still carrying on with a
vigour on both sides, which shows not only that se-
rious apprehensions are entertained of the eiftcts of
the measure proposed by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, but that the parties are determined to
fight to the last for their respective interests. We
consider these apprehensions as, in a great measure
groundless, and are not, therefore, inclined to take
any stronger part on either side than merely declar-
ing, that the interest of the mother country, if it can
at any time be fairly separated from her interest M
her colonies, ought to preponderate in the settlement
of the question—a question, however, which is
more a matter of taste, on the part of the
public, without a greater increase.of duty on British
spirits, than a matter of revenue. Those who prefer
whiskey, or gin, or British brandy, or any other
original or compound spirit, to rum, will not be de-
terred, by the increase of duty, from indulging their
taste; and, on the other hand, those who prefer
rum would care little for a discriminating shilling
being laid upon it. These observations would not,
of course, apply to the imposition of a hravy
di►-
criminating duty in either case; but in the present
Instance, the advance on British spirits is so small
as to be almost undeserving of consideration. We
give the following extract from a pamphlet on this
subject, which has been written with a view of
stating both sides of the question, by Mr. Alexander
MPonnell:—

IC DISTILLER.

The power of production by the Colonies is unbound-
ed; and if a great incentive be given to that production,
rum will he pouted in upon us in such quantities that the
sale of 13ritish spirit will be completely superseded. There
are now 20,000 puncheons in the West India Docks—a
proof of the wonderful capabilities of its production. For
many years it has been underselling corn-spirit, to the
great reduction of our profits; and, notwithstanding this
inferiority of price, its supply has increased in the only
market to which it concerns us to refer. Our opposition,
therefore, to a further increase is expedient, justifiable,
and well-grounded.

" WEST INDIA PLANTER.
" There is not an article in the wnole range of British
commerce so limited in the power of production as rum.
It is completely dependent
upon the extent of sugar culti-
vation, and that cultivation is annwilly decreasing, and
cannot be extended without a revival of the slave trade.—
molasses is required, and finds
profitablerlrti;no
sale,f our
n the British North American
theA large
tp
Provinces. It would take an advance far beyond any to
be anticipated, from the British market to supersede this
trade. Besides, rum cannot be manufactured without stills,
buildings, and apparatus, the erection of which, in the
colonies, requires great tune and expence. No planter,
who has not already a distillery on his estate, would
venture on such an additional outlay, unless rum advanced
to almost double the present price; and if it did so, your

argument meets a signal defeat, because you would then
have nothing to dread from competition.
" Distillation from sugar can never take place in the
West Indies. In distilling from sugar in this country,
one hundred weight of sugar will yield about nine imperial
gallons of spirit ; but in the West Indies, from inferior
stills, and under a heat of eighty degrees, the produce of
spirit will not be more than eight gallons.

r. d.

The cost of inferior sugar in the colonies, even at
the present low prices, is 12s. per cwt., equal to
per gallon
The freight and charges
The expense of distilling cannot be less than

Making in a 11...... 3 2
or 10d. more than the cost of distilling corn. spirit.
" All your apprehensions, therefore, in respect to in-
creased importations of rum are entirely groundless."
Morning Advertiser.