The Sun.
London, England, 1830-03-29 00:00:00

is, as those who visit the Museum must hare ob-
served, a sleepiness among some of those connected
with it, which the late hours of this new regulation
will not tend to remove; and we confidently look to
the large body of high and influential persons who
are the Trustees of the Institution to show that
they, at least, are awake to the claims which the
public) who are the owners of the place and its con-
ttnts, have to every possible facility of access to this
great national repository of literature.—Morning
Herald.

When we alluded the other day the extraord

nary inconsistency on the part of Mr. Peel in re-
sisting two years ago what he now advocates with
all the zeal of a convert, our recollection did not
serve us either as to the precise time when he stated
his objections to the trade in beer being thrown
open, or the expressions of which he made use upon
the occasion. In the pamphlet, however, from which
we gave some extracts yesterday, entitled " A Few
Words on Ike Licensing System," we are supplied
with both. By referring to the debate of the 21st
of May, IS2B, it will be found that he indulged in
the following remarks:—
" An Honourable Member has asked, why the sale of
beer and spirits should not be put upon the same footing
as bread and cheese. Nothing is more natural, upon the
first view of the question, than that such should be the
case ; but, upon reflection, we must take into considera •
tion the different effects produced by the use of beer and
spirits, from the effects of bread and cheese. It is unneces-
sary for me to state that the former, if taken to excess,
produces intoxication, and that therefore some regulation
with respect to their sale is necessary. If we were to
throw open the sale in the manner alluded to by Hon.
Members, we should soon find it necessary to retrace
our steps."
Now it is perfectly true that Mr. Peel did not
bring forward the proposition for a Select Committee
to sanction the throwing open of the trade in Beer;
but he is a Member of the Government which has
put its seal to the measure, and notwithstanding his
previous declaration, must have concurred in its pro-
priety. Now we ask the Right Hon. Gentleman
on what grounds he can defend such a change of
opinion ? Can he say that the public good calls
now in the year 1830 for what was inconsistent
with it in 1828 ? It matters little to us what de-
fence the Right Hon. Gentleman may set up; but
it matters much to the country that those who are
entrusted with its government should keep faith
with it—that it should have confidence in them—
and that their conduct should be such as to entitle
them to its confidence. Now how stands the matter
with Mr. Peel and the Licensed Victuallers? In May,
1828, he not only gave a pledge to the whole trade,
that, so far as he was concerned, there should be no
more interference with their property, but expressed
a decided opinion, that were the system to be
altered, and a free trade to be attempted, the Legis-
lature would be obliged to retrace its steps ; yet, in
March, 1830,without any change of circumstances to
justify a change of sentiment, we find him, as a
member of the Government, abetting the very mea-
sure against which he had previously stood pledged !
Now what will be the consequences of such conduct
on the part of the Right Hon. Gentleman ? Let
the author of the pamphlet to which we have
already referred state the result.
" Upon the faith of laws constantly acting upon the
principle of licensing, individuals have embarked a vast
property in the purchase of such houses, and others in
the materials and stock necessary to carry them on.
Even so late as the 15th of July, 1828, the date of the
passing of Mr. Estcourt's sill, was the principle sanctioned
and acted upon. That Bill, passed after the deliberation
of many sessions, during which the Act of 3 reorge IV.
was continued from time to time, until a permanent
measure could be agreed upon, was considered to put the
Licensing System upon a firm and secure footing. Publi-
cans therefore invested their capital in the business, large
sums were paid for the purchase of good wills and stocks;
and the publican bad every reason to anticipate that re-
ward for his labour bestotved, and his capital invested,
which the laws of his country held out to him, and which
every man has a right to expect. Yet in less than two
years from that time he finds his trade ruined, his property
destroyed, and every hope blasted, by the proposed measures
of the Government.
" There are, it appears, 42,531 public-houses in Eng-
land and Wales, or one to every 247 persons, men, worsen,
and children. Each of these public-houses we are told is
worth, on an average, 201. a•year more than if they had
not the licence. Here then is a property of a million
a-year to be destroyed—property in the hands of private
individuals, invested by them upon the faith of existing
laws, not of modern introduction, but which have been the

invariable law of the land fur now nearly three hundred
years. This is to be swept away without remorse; and the
announcement of the intended Act of spoliation is hailed
by the Parliament of an enlightened nation with cheers
and shouts of congratulation!"
Now, as the Scripture saith, " What shall be
done to the man who has done this thing ?" 'What
shall be said of his honesty and good faith ? Verily,
while Sir James Scarlett is Attorney-General we
shall not trust ourselves with the answer, which
every man of sound feelings and sound principles
would give; but we will make bold to add, that if
such is to be the conduct of the Administration, no
man's property is safe. He who is rich to-day may
be poor to-morrow, and the man who relied upon
the faith of the most solemn pledges for his pro-
perty remaining entire, be turned out a beggar on
the streets. Shame on such tergiversation. The man
who is guilty of it can never command the respect
or confidence of any one.—Morning, Advertiser.
The last number of the Foreign Quarterly Re-
view contains an article upon the " Present State of
_ _ _

the Netherlands," which, in a statistical point of
view, possesses considerable interest. It has been
got together with the most praiseworthy diligence
from various original sources, independently of a list
of nine published works in different languages,
which it places in review order at the head of the
article. Upon the subject of his treatise the Re-
viewer remarks, that " formerly the importance of
any Power could with difficulty be measured other-
wise than by the size of its army, the strength of its
fortresses, and the intimacy of its alliance with other
States." Political economy and statistics, he ob-
serves, are the two main pillars upon which hence-
forth every superstructure of history must be raised.
" Statistics," he adds, "are the exposition of the
effective components of any political society, country,
or place; and it is by their aid that we are enabled
to observe and distinguish the working of moral and
physical causes with the necessary degree of accu-
racy." In the selection of a community to illustrate
by this favourite science of the Reviewer, it must
be confessed he has exercised his choice in a manner
which cannot fail to be interesting to this country.
Its propinquity alone would impart a degree of im-
portance to it ; but that consideration is, in the case
of the Netherlands, heightened by the peculiar cha-
racter of a great portion of its inhabitants, and the
circumstance of its being a kingdom of only fifteen
years' establishment. The Netherlands, it is well
known, were formed into one independent State
under the present reigning family by the Congress
of Vienna. We shall avail ourselves of a few of the
interesting results deduced by the writer from vo-
luminous data, for the information of our readers.
" The surface of the Netherlands bears the propor-
tion of a one hundred and fifteenth part of the whole
of Europe. Its superficies is one-ninth that of
France, and two-sevenths that of the island of Great
Britain. In bonniers or hectares of land (two and
a half acres each) it possesses 6,198,137, making in
acres 15,495,342. France can boast of 53,533,426
hectares, and Great Britain of 22,411,760. Of
these there are in a state of cultivation in the Ne-
therlands 4,653,636, France 46,000,000, Great Bri-
tain 12,980,000. The roads and canals of the Ne-
therlands cover one twenty-sixth of its whole sur-
face. They are ten times more numerous than in
France; and, in point of population, its soil is much
more thickly peopled than either Great Britain or
France. As nothing can be more interesting than
comparative statements of this kind, we make no
apology forgiving thetn. By returns for the year 1826,
the entire population, divided by the number of
hectares, gave 9,822 inhabitants to every square
myriametre of 10,000 hectares. In England and
Wales ( Scotland is, comparatively speaking, a
waste and unpeopled land), the number upon the

same space was 8,107, and in Fiance only 5,900.—
The progression of population since the formation
of the kingdom in 1815, for ten years, is evinced
by the numbers for 1815 of 5,424,502, and
6,013,478 for 1825, the increase in the period being
588,976. For five years preceding 1828, the
average annual addition was computed at the rate of
10,982 per million. This rate of increase is greater
than that of Russia, Austria, or France, which,
being more thinly peopled States, ought, according
to received principles, to augment their population
more rapidly. It is, however, less than Prussia,
Great Britain, and the Two Sicilies, whose rates of
increase are 27,027, 16,667, and 11,111 per mil-
lion. Although the births, as compared with the popu-
lation, are greater in the Netherlands than in France
or England, the deaths are also greater. Thus in
the Netherlands there are 100 births to every 2,807
inhabitants; in France 100 in every 3,168; and in
Great Britain in every 3,534. The deaths are as
as follows :---
Netherlands. Franc.:.. Great Britain.
1130 deaths to 3,931 inhabitants 4,000
Upon this state of the tables of births and deaths,
the Reviewer observes that " it is highly satisfac-
tory to think that if Great Britain gives birth to a
smaller number of citizens, she preserves them better
—a conclusion which the healthiness and clean-
liness of our country readily induces us to adopt."
In discussing the comparative healthiness of diffe-
rent spots, the Reviewer shows that the estimate
founded on experience in that in Holland, at the age
of forty, the probable duration of human life is
twenty-six years, at Amsterdam twenty-two, at
Brussels twenty-four, Paris twenty-one, and London
only eighteen. The writer hazards no opinion upon
the causes of the superior value of life at Amster-
dam and Brussels over other large cities; but as the
disproportion is still more remarkable in favour of
the Dutch and Belgians in respect of the lives
of children, lie thinks it possible that that may be
owing to the greater care paid to their infants by
the mothers of those nations; who for the most part
nurse their children themselves. It was a remark
of M. Benoiston de Chateauneuf, that for preserving
the life of children care is every thing, and climate
little or nothing. Having disposed of the question
of population by throwing every light upon it that
past records could avail him for that purpose, and
pointing out several palpable errors in the existing
doctrines, the Reviewer proceeds to the considera-
tion of the resources of the kingdom. These he
divides tinder the three great heads of agriculture,
manufactures, and commerce. Upon these branches
of national industry there are some curious and im-
portant results, as compared with the productions of
this country, which ive shall extract upon a future
occasion.—Morning Post.
The Ministerial Journals of Saturday and yester-
day labour under a serious paroxysm of despondency
and beg most piteously for mercy towards Mr.
Peel and his Majesty's Ministers. It is a cruel
thing, they intimate, to see such excellent persons
badgered night after night about matters of money,
and little items of alms given to the deserving sons
of poor lords who cannot provide for their children
otherwise. What is all this dejection caused by, think
you, good reader? By Ministers being in a minority
of 18—that is, 139 to 121—against a vote of 9001.
a-year to the meritorious sons of Lord Melville and
Lord Bathurst, who for doing literally nothing
have received this sum between them from the
exhausted purse of the public, which these Noble
Lords have always preferred dipping into instead of
their own. These Noblemen have been so long
saddled on the nation that they deem it quite be-
neath their dignity and importance to maintain
their children at their own expense. They are
so much accustomed to draw upon the Trea-
sury that they cannot stoop to draw upon
their own bankers for the support of their
families;—and, consequently, as soon as the Hon.
Mr. Henry or Mr. Charles can write their names to
a receipt they are thrust into some comfortable cor-
ner of the estimates where they feed on the taxes,
keep their cabriolets and sometimes something else,
and are subjected to no toil whatever except the
annoyance of calling quarterly to receive their pen-
sions. So far as Mr. Dundas and Mr. Bathurst are
concerned this abuse of the public money was put
an end to by the vote of Friday night. The pen-
sions of these " young gentlemen," as Sir R.
Heron called a youth of forty and another of twenty-
seven, were struck out of the estimates, and Mini-
sters received a hint that such transactions, as they
now excite disgust out of doors, can no longer be
tolerated even by a corrupt Parliament. It is this
division which has produced the dejected tone to
which we have alluded. But this despondency in-
spires us with hope. A few such votes—a few
such prunings of the pension list—a few such re-
primands, will convince Mr. Peel that the Parlia-
ment can discover sources of retrenchment of which
for good reasons he chooses to be oblivious. The
John Bull, which, at the cost of consistency and
decency, ratted with the apostate Tories, has, in con-
sequence of this vote (for Bull delights in the pen-
sion list), made the following humble appeal to the
old supporters of the Administration :
"They may depend upon it that they have no other
safe or honourable course but a union with the
Government. If they really think that men can be
found to undertake the Government in whom they have
more confidence, or of whom they may fancy they have
less to complain than his Majesty's present Ministers, let
them boldly direct their whole, continuous, and undivided
efforts to place such men in the councils of the King; be-
cause it seems to us essential that the influence of the
Crown and of the aristocracy should be inseparably united
—essential for the prosperity of public affairs, and for the
individual honour of the aristocracy itself. But if, as we
firmly believe, there is no possibility of forming a conser-
vative Government under any other leaders than the Duke
of Wellington and Mr. Peel—then, as friends we implore,
and as constituents we venture to require, that the Tory
gentlemen should forgive (if they cannot forget) by-gone
dissensions and minor differences, and should unite again
in one irresistible body in the maintenance of the princi-
ples on which alone the administration of the affairs of
this country can be safely conducted !!!"
Oh dear ! is it come to this ? Was it only on
Saturday last that Mr. Peel and his friends dis-
covered, for the first time, that they could repose
no confidence in, nor rely upon any efficient support
from,the Whigs, the Liberals, and the Radicals ? Was
it only on Saturday that they became conscious of
their feeble situation, and the hollowness of the
support to which they have hitherto trusted ? Truly
it must be a serious thing to be in a minority, and
see the sons of two Cabinet Ministers stripped of
their pensions 1 But the humble remonstrance and
earnest solicitation of our friend of the Bull are not

likely to be heeded. He may " venture to require"
the Tory gentlemen to "forgive ;"but we trust the
Tory gentlemen will neither forget nor forgive, nor
under any circumstances ever again put themselves
in the power of a man who as he has deceived
them once—deceived them most grossly, most
perfidiously and unpardonably—may deceive them
again. No, no, John, this cannot:be. The Tory
gentlemen have too much honour, too much
spirit, too much independence, to support a
Minister who had the ingratitude to abuse their con-
fidence, to disgrace their principles, to betray their
trust, sully his own character, and disparage theirs,
merely that he might retain office under the Duke
of Wellington and preserve for his family all the
valuable situations they hold at the pleasure of the
Crown. The Tories would damn themselves for
ever by such conduct. They must, for their own
sakes, stand aloof from the apostates, and leave Mr.
Peel to his fate. The Right Hon. Secretary must
be left to the tender mercy of the factions on which
he has hitherto based his majorities. He must seek
support from those who in their hearts hate him
personally—hate his principles—despise his family
envy his situation, and who would, if they had the
power, kick him out of office to-morrow with undis-
sembled scorn. He must trust for his majorities in
favour of the taxes to those patriots who will be
called to account for such votes at the next election.
lie must fortify the extravagance of the Government
by retaining those jolkers among:the Whigs who
are sent to Parliament for the Purpose of cutting
down extravagance. He must resist reform by

the aid of persons who are elected by reformers.
He must trust to his own hacks—to his own bro-
thers and cousins—to such persons as Twiss,
Holmes, and Cr9ker— to such financiers as Goal-
burn and Herries—to such recondite clerks as
Planta, the Masters in Chancery, and all the small,
the needy and place-bonnd dependents of the pub-
lie offices. In a word he must not expect support
from Tory gentlemen, or gentlemen of any party.
But there is something connected with this vote
against the pensions of Mr. Dundas arid Mr.
Bathurst which we do not understand. The affair
of Mr. Frankland Lewis was a much worse and
more serious job, inasmuch as 3,0001. a-year ex-
ceeds 900/. Where were the tax-cutters when
Ministers palmed this useless hack upon the coun-
try ? Where was the brigade of Lord Althorp
when the greater job was carried and the lesser job
defeated ? We beg pardon—perhaps the corps was
not formed—or there may have been:private reasons.
Mr. Lewis affected the odour of whiggery, and it is
not pleasant to be severe upon one's friends. How-
ever, it is not our intention to complain. We re-
ceive the 9001. gladly—it is a perfect God-send to
the country—it will buoy up the sinking spirits of
he people, and materially assist, like the repeal of
the cider tax (25,0001.), in enabling the poor man to
have a capon boiling in his pot and a sovereign sleep-
ing in his pocket. For these reasons most grate-
fully do we return our thanks to his Majesty's oppo-
sition I. Ca ira !—Morning Journal.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, 31.iscu 27.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, AT THE RELATION OF

COLSTON AND BOLAND AND OTHERS, V. LORD

STRADBROKE AND OTIIERS.
This was a motion that the information filed in
the cause might be taken off the file, and that the
solicitors by whom it had been filed might be
ordered to pay the costs of the motion as between
solicitor and client.
Mr. HORNE and Mr. NORTON appeared in sup-
port of the motion, which was opposed by Mr.
SOLICITOR-GENERAL, for the relators, by Mr. SKIR-
ROW for Sir Robert Sidney, one of the attornies,
and by Mr. D. W. HARVEY the other attorney,
against whom costs were prayed personally.
Mr. HORNE, being absent in the Vice-Chancel-
lor's Court when the motion, which had been fixed
for this morning, was called on, it was opened by
Mr. NORTON, who stated, that it arose in the
matter of a charitable institution for the support of
16 aged persons in almshouses, at Boyton, in Suf-
folk, which was known by the name of Warner's
Charity. In the year 1736, a benevolent lady of
the name of Warner, had bequeathed certain estates
to trustees, for the establishment of this charity,
and directed that the annual rents should be applied,
—first, for the erection of the almshouses, and then
for the support of ten poor persons, with a direc-
tion that the surplus should be applied for the pay-
ment of the debts of poor insolvent parishioners of
Boyton, not exceeding 10/. In the year 1786
it was found that by the changes which
had taken place in the value of property,
the rents of the estates had far exceeded the objects
of their destination, and an information was filed in
this Court, upon which a scheme was adopted for
extending the number of alms-people to 16. The
trustees had been changed from time to time, and the
management of the charity was in their hands. In
1828, the Charity Commissioners appointed by
Parliament made a report, and included the charity
in question in that report. It was thus found that
Mr. Crabtree was the acting secretary for the cha-
rity, and a surplus of funds was in his hands to the

amount of between 4,0004 and 5,0001. New truf

tees were appointed, and among them the present
defendants to the information. The Commissioners,
after giving a very full statement of the resources of
the charity, and its objects, expressed their disap-
probation that so large a sum had been allowed to
remain in the hands of the receiver, and recam-

mended that steps should be taken for the further
regulation of the charity, and for adapting it to its
means. In July last a petition was presented to the
Vice-Chancellor, on behalf of two tenants under the
charity, of the names of Bedinton and Millar; and
sit prayed the formation of a new scheme by the Ma-

ter, for the regulation of the charity. Mr. Crabtree,
the secretary and treasurer of the charity, had in-
vested a sum of between 4,0001. and 5,0001. in the

funds, for the benefit of the charity, and that sum
was now yielding interest for the benefit of the
charity. In consequence of the petition so presented
to the Vice-Chancellor, an order had been made re-

ferringir to the Master to inquire whether it would
be fit and proper thata newscheme should be formed
for the charity. Not withstanding this petition, and
the order which had been made upon it, and the in-
quiry which was now in a course of progress, Messrs.
Sidney and Harvey had thought fit to file the informa-
tion now complained of; the only difference between
which and the petition then in Court was, that the
information prayed for an account of the surplus
funds which had in fact been applied. On that in-
formation being presented to the attorney, he heard
Counsel (Mr. Norton and Mr. Skirrow) on the
matter, and ultimately decided that the proceedings
should be suspended, with liberty to the defendants
to make such application to the Court as they might
be advised. The parties who now made this motion
had therefore taken this course as being the one
most likely to reach the justice of the case. The
Learned Counsel detailed the evidence in support of
the motion, by which it appeared that the relators to
the information filed by Messrs. Harvey and Sidney
were very poor persons, without any apparent means
of living. The principal affidavit on the other side
was that of Mr. D. W. Harvey, which detailed the
reason that induced him to institute these proceed-
ings, stating that all his inquiries to procure informa-
tion respecting the charity had been made in vain,
and the present proceeding had been resorted to in
consequence.
Mr. HORNE, in support of the motion,characterized
the information as a proceeding got up by the so-
licitors solely with a view to costs, and wholly un-
necessary, because every honest and useful purpose
that could be desired respecting the charity, might
already be gained by means of the petition which
the Court had entertained, and which was then
pending. _ _

Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL said it was quite im-
possible that the motion could be sustained.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY then addressed the Court.
He would trouble the Court with no observations
upon the law of the question, but would confine
himself to the facts, and especially to the imputation
thrown out that the relators had been set up by him
to attack the character of the trustees, and that they
were to be indemnified from the payment of costs.
It was further insinuated, that the object of this
proceeding was to put money into his (Mr. Harvey's)
pocket. He was surprised at these observations as
coming from Mr. Horne. That Learned Gentleman,
who had once filled a seat in the House of Commons,
(although he confessed he could not recollect any pro-
position which,during his short stay there, he had made
either for improving the administration of that branch
of the law in which he was constantly engaged, or
for correcting any other of the abuses which were
on all hands confessed to exist), ought to have been
quite as ready to believe that men could be found who
were ready to devote themselves to the protection
of the oppressed, without any other reward than the
credit which naturally belonged to such exertions,
and the consciousness of having merited it. That
this was a case which called for the strong animad-
version of the Court he admitted, and that there
were guilty parties before the Court he knew. The
culprits in this case were those who had presented
the petition with the view of deceiving the Attor-
ney-General, and who had supported this petition by
affidavits. The learned ex• Member for helstone
(Mr. Horne) had said he was a wholesale reformer,
and that he beat up for abuses with a view of put-
ting costs into his own pocket. The obvious weak-
ness of this charge spared him the trouble of refuting
it. Before he addressed a circular to any individual,
or took any proceeding whatever, he had sent a let-