The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-07 00:00:00

PHUT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

In both Bouses, lest night, the resources and
prospects of the country formed a main topic of dis-
eussion. In the Upper House, Lord Goderich,
quite gained the Duke of Wellington's heart, by
the picture he drew of our situation, and our power
to hold all possible enemies at bay. His Lordship
in taking a view of our financial state, observed that
it was absurd to estimate the amount of the reduc-
tioe of our debt by the diminution of our capital.
" An ordinary debt was composed of capital lent
to the debtor ; it was confided to the borrower to
repay what he borrowed at his °en convenience,
and it was confided to the lender to demand back
his principal. Of these two conditions only one
was applicable to the National Debt. By the Con-
tract the State had entered into with its debtors, it
had a right to pay them off whenever it was con-
venient or advisable for the State to do so; but by
the terms of the contract, the public creditor could
never claim from the State a single shilling of what
he had advanced. The utmost which he was en-
titled to claim—and to that alone had the State
pledged itself—was the payment of an annuity.—
(Hear, hear, from the Duke of Wellington)."---The
denomination of the Stocks is, no doubt only' so far
important as they afford the facility of diminishing
the charge by repayment, In any other sense it is of
little consequence to compare the capitals of the
debt at different periods. His Lordship compared
the charge for the debt in 1816 and at present. In
ISI6 the total of the charge for the retitled and un-
funded debt, was 32,938,7511. In 1829 the charge
for the funded debt was 28,277,1171., and the in-
terest on Exchequer Bills 878,4941., so that the
total diminution on that of 1829 compared with
1816, was 3,783,1401. When the operation re-
specting the Four per Cents. should be completed,
the reduction on the charge for the National Debt
for next year, as compared with 1816, would be
four millions and a half. This diminution In the
charge was equivalent to a reduction of 150 millions
of capital at three pet' cent. So much for the
charge. His Lordship compared together the dif-
ferent branches of our Revenue for 1826, 7, and 8,
and for last year; and observed, that the whole of
the average for the above three years amounted to
50,087,0001., while the receipts for last year were
50,230,000/4 and with respect to the allegation
that the Revenue was now falling off, he thought it
was the height of timidity to be prophecying the
most disastrous consequences because one quarter
was:failing hi its due amount. Lord Goderich looks
to relief only from the distribution of taxation ; and
it is, he contends, the imperative duty of Parlia-
ment and Government to look with increased vigi-
lance to the whole system of taxation, to see
how far the revenue is diminished in consequence
of improper distribution, and to inquire to what
extent productive industry is unnecessarily fettered.
He had doubts, however, whether Government
had not carried reduction of expenditure too far.
His Lordship's opinion on that point will, we
suspect, become very popular with the two Houses,
as soon as it is ascertained that the Revenue is im-
proving. The Government is not so wedded to
plans of retrenchment ire to adhere to them when
the Revenue is improeing. The Noble Duke, in
such a case, will, we fear, be apt to subscribe to
the justice of Lord Goderich's accusation, who de-
clared, that " so far from brioging the charge of
profusion against the present Government, it ap-
peared to him that the Noble Duke had gone to
work with considerable vigour; arid the only doubt
he had on his mind on the subject was, whether
the reductions were not too extensive to leave the
establishments sufficiently effective." Would that
such doctrines as those of his Lordship were not so
acceptable to our great men ! There can be no
question as to the power and resources of Great
Britain, and as his Lordship is anxious to impress
foreigners with a high idea of these resources, to
deter them from aggression, had we greatly reduced
our establishments at the close of the war, and di-
minished the charge of the debt, and repealed taxes
pressing on industry,
.foreigners would have been as
much afraid of us now, though we might not have
have had such formidable establishments. " If de-
sponding language (said his Lordship) were to be
held by this country, nothing but danger would sur-
round her; and the alarm once given, he would not
give many years' purchase for the peace of Europe.
The consequence of this would be, that England
would be driven from the high station she had hi-
therto held—an object at which all other nations
thought that it was their interest to aim. The
influence of England on the Continent was, of
course, to a great extent founded on the con-
fidence that foreign nations had in the honour,
integrity, and good faith of this country; but
all this dependence was essentially built on a
conviction of our strength; and it was because he
felt that that strength was not yet assailed, that
he thought those would find themselves in a mis-
take who should try to drive her from her position."
We suspect that the foreign Governments sufficiently
powerful to measure their strength with us are
much better acquainted with our resources than
Lord Goderich supposes. If they were weak
enough to be persuaded that England could be
driven with ease from her high station (to use his
Lordship's words), they would not renounce that
opinion, merely because his Lordship tells them we
are powerful. But weak must that Government
be, and wretchedly must it be informed respeeriou
its neighbours, which does not know that England,
either for offensive or defensive war, even is at this
day • by far the most powerful of the European
States. It is well known to the world that we have
always been a nation of grumblers, who labour un-
der constant apprehensions of the decay of trade,
and shipping, and manufactures, while at the same
time we have an overweening opinion of ourselves;
and foreign nations are neither so much led away by
our factious clamour as to believe that we are not
powerful, nor so infatuated with us as to give us
credit for all the perfections which we see in our-
selves. The Duke of Wellington " considered all
the Government and the people were under the
greatest obligation to his Noble Friend for the sub-
ject he had introduced, and the manner in which
he had treated it, and he congratulated the
House in having laid before them so admirable
a statement of the true nature of the National
Debt, and of the interest paid by the nation
on that debt." The Duke was quite compli-
mentary, and he is net in general lavish is his
compliments. We by ne means wish to insi-
nuate that Lord Goderich had the least view to
official situation in his speeches. If, however, office
were his object, we should say, comparing his exer-
tions with those of Mr. Huskisson, that the chances
were in favourvof his Lordship. The two States-
men reminds us of the fable of the Sun and the
Wired; and the Traveller. The effects of the winds
only made the traveller draw his cloak the tighter
about him ; the Sun's rays made him at once
loosen it. The coaxing system answers better in
such cases than the blustering. In the House of
Commons, the presentation of a petition by Alder-
man Waithman, from the shipowners of London,
furnished an opportunity to the worthy Alderman
to deliver himself of some of his sage nostrums re-
specting the official and declared values of our ex-
ports; to Mr. Sadler, to paint the ruined condition
of our shipowners; and to Mr. Herries, to show by
a series of statements that our shipping bad not de-
cayed, but, on the contrary, greatly increased under
the relaxation of our Navigation Laws. The highest
average of British shipping entered inwards for the
three years ending in 1814, was 1,200,000 tons;
for the three years ending 1817, wasi .1,787,680
tons ; for the years 1821, 1822," And 1823, was
1,668,100 tons. " The next period (he said) was
that during which the change in the commercial po-
licy was beginning to take place. The average
annual amount of British shipping entered inwards
during the years 1824, 1825, and 1826, was
1,964,182 tons, being a considerable increase
°Ter the last period. But what was the average
amoant during the last three years, when the
now system of commercial policy was in full opera-

tion ? No less than 2,121,930 tons.--(Hear, hear.)
As a proof that it was still increasing, the amount
in the last year, 1829, was much the largest of the
three years." With respect to the foreign shipping,
the average entered inwards during the highest years
of the war was 793,000 tons; for the last three
years 698,000 tons, being a diminution of 100,000
tons, while British shipping had increased 550,000
tons. For the years 1821, 1822, and 1823, the
foreign shipping entered inwards was 482,801 tons;
for 1824, 5, and 6, it was 803,809 tons; and for
the three last years, 698,000 tons. With respect
to our coasting trade in 1824, it was 7,895,000
tons; in 1825, it was 8,101,000 tons; in 1826, it
was 8,300,000 tons; in 1827, it was 8,363,000 tons;
in 1828, it was 8,411,000 tons; and in 1829 it was
8,536,000 tons. Mr. Herries next showed that,
übstracting the northern shipping from the rest of
the foreign shipping entered inwards, there was a
falling off during the last three years of the northern,
as compared with the British. " And this on the
very field of battle in which it was prognosticated,
that in consequence of the change in our commercial
policy, British shipping would be annihilated."—
The profits of the shipowners are no doubt lower
than they were at one period, and the fall in the
price of vessels must operate iejuriously to those
who purchased or built their vessels some years
ago. But it is impossible to conceive how a bratich
of trade can be regularly on the increase, if the
profits fell below the average rate.—More. Citron.
We have been reproached, by some respectable
correspondents, with some errors, both of arithmetic
and reasoning, in our notice of the diplomatic docu-
ment, extracts from which, and animadversions on
it, were published in yesterday's 7'imes. Of course,
with our feelings towards the present Government,
and with, we hope, an habitual love of justice, it
could not be our desire to put even a harsh, much
less an unfair, construction on the conduct of any'
department of the public service. We certainly
were ignorant, while objecting to the vague and
confused form in which some items or classes of the
diplomatic expenditure had been presented, that
they had been so framed in conformity with a mo-
tion of the lion. Member for Montrose himself;
and in that case, undoubtedly, there is no blame im-
putable to the department from which the calcula-
tions issued. But it ought to be seen and acknow-
ledged by our correspondents who remonstrate with
us on the assumed hostility of our remarks to this
or that individual, that our complaints were directed
against the system of extravagance in the diplomatic
arrangements of Great Britain, as they have existed
for a long series of years, and under a succession of
Foreign Secretaries. That some reductions have
lately been effected, is manifest on the face of the
papers, which, as we observed in passing yester-
day, exhibit a diminution, as compared with 1826,
of between 90,000/. and 100,000/. The diminu-
tion, we ought to add, as compared with 1827, is
about 46,000/. ; with 1828, 41,0001. But there
must be something in the nature and character of
the highest diplomatic appointments in this country,
too stubborn for even a conscientious Minister—and
such we really beheve Lord Aberdeen to be—to cope
with, when we find that of the six great embassies,
namely, France, Russia, Austria, Spain, the Nether-
lands, and the Ottoman Porte, four continue within
a few hundred pounds of what they coq the country
in 1821 ; the mission to Brussels stands precisely
the same as at that period—viz. 13,1001.; and that
to the Ottoman Porte ( owing, we confess, to pecu-
liar and important circumstances) has rather in-
creased than otherwise; that to Spain, however,
which in 1821 seas 13,100/. (the return which we
quoted yesterday), has been reduced in this last
year to something short of 4,000/.,—an economy
which it would be unjest to overlook: a wish to
embarrass or criminate our Foreign Office as at pre-
sent administered, is very far from our inclination.
We are satisfied, on the contrary, that it is impos-
sible to afford the King's Government more effec-
tual or grateful assistance than by bringing the
weight of public feeling to bear upon abuses which
form nests of patronage for the rapacious, and there-
fore furnish subjects of perpetual importunity to Mi-
nisters, who, until disproportionate salaries are cut
down, and superfluous places abolished, will never
cease to be burdened by worthless allies, or plagued
by disappointed, vindictive, and irreconcileable ene-
mies. We have often affirmed, and now repeat our
belief in the disposition of the existing Cabinet to
go as far in economical reform, as amidst such ele-
ments of profusion and rapacity can be expected
from any reasonable Government; and we are quite
sure, that if such upright men as the Duke of Wel-
lington and Lord Aberdeen cannot achieve a reform
o' the present. system, nothing but a general break-
ing up of the whole plan of official and Parliamentary
management can lead to the necessary result. We
shall probably return to this subject.—Times.
We have received a pamphlet published by Mr.
Potter Macqueen, the Member for Bedford, entitled
Thoughts and Suggestions on the Present Distresses
of the Country. The Hon. Gentleman pretends to no
discovery in this publication,—he aims at the esta-
blishment of no new. theory on the causes of our
distress, and affects no graces of style in their de-
scription or development,—his object being rather
utility than reputation. The chief merit of his
pamphlet consists in its detail of the facts which
have come under his own notice as a country magi-
strate, and of the practical conclusions which his
experience has enabled him to form from them.
Though, therefore, we hear, at the outset, of dif-
ferent theories of population, and of various assumed
causes of popular distress, we are soon relived from
such uncertain speculation, and arrive at more inter-
esting statements and descriptions. On the former
topic he might have even been more brief than he
has been : he might have saved himself the trouble
of referring to the doctrines of Mr. Malthus and Mr.
Sadler on the subject of population, as the writings
of the former are evidently misunderstood by our
author, and the lucubrations of the latter are not
worth understanding. The fact is, Mr. Sadler never
can have any distinct notion on that or any other
doctrine of political economy; and to argue with
him respecting it would be as ridiculous as to contest
the principles of astronomy with a drawer of horo-
scopes,—Newton's Principia with Sidrophed or
Thwackstm. Mr. Macqueen goes over a great ex-1
tent of ground in his short publication. He describes
the state of the agricultural labourers,—enumerates
some of the obvious causes of their demoraliza-
tion,—details the extraordinary fluctuation in their
rate of wages of late years as one of the causes of
their distress,—makes some just remarks on the
amount of crime, arid the character of our criminal
laws, at different periods,—and, among the remedies
proposed for the depressiou of their condition, gives
his views on the most eligible system of emigration-
lt would be impossible for us to give the result of
such a multifarious treeise, or to methodize such
desultory remarks, in the short space which we can
spare for a notice of this pamphlet; but we cannot
refrain from inserting the following curious and inter-
esting statement, the result of our authm's personal
experience as a Magistrate :
" fhe consequence of such low rate of remuneration,
and the dependence on a provision unwillingly wrung from
the proprietor by the parish officers, is also manifested in
the increase of crime; for self-respect, a due sense of
shame, and regard for character, being destroyed, the great
moral barrier to vice is broken down. The first principle
of nature, self-preservation, is but too frequently called '
into action; and an unfortunate wretch,' with his children'
crying for bread, is prepared for the violation of the law,'
reeardless of the extent of crime to which he may be.
Urged. This consideration leads me to a subject which it
is impossible to separate from the misery of the people,—
namely, the state of our criminal laws, and the effects of
our present mode.of punishment. I have made it a prac-
tice of late years to attend our prisons at certain periods,'
and have generally examined the prisoners a short time'
previous to the assizes ; and I will add some facts which'
forcibly struck me in the course of this experience. In:
January, 1829, there were 96 prisoners for trial in Bedford
gaol, of whom 76 were able-bodied men, in the prime of
life, and chiefly of general good character, who werd
driven to crime by sheer want, and who would have beeri
valuable subjects, had they been placed in s situathrfri
where, by the exercise of their health and strength, they
"114 have mil*" a subsistence. There were in this

rnmber IS poachers swan; trial for the capital offence
Of using arms in self-defence when attacked by game-
keepers ; of these 18 men, one only was not a parish
pauper, and he was the agent of the London poulterers,
who, passing under the apparent vocation of a rat-catcher,
paid these poor creatures more in one night than they
could obtain from the overseer for a week's labour. I
conversed with each of these men singly, and made
minutes of their mode of life. The two first I will teen
ti.,n are the two brothers, the Lilleys, in custody under a
charge of firing on, and wounding, a keeper, who endea-
voured to apprehend them while poaching. They were
two remarkably fine young men, and very respectably con-
ureted. The elder, 28 years of age, married, with two
small children. When I inquired how be could lend him-
self to such a wretched course of life, the poor fellow re-
plied, ' Sir, I had a pregnant wife, with one infant at her
knee, and another at her breast; I was anxious to obtain
work. 1 offered myself in all directions, but without suc-
cess ; if I went to a distance, I was told to go back to my
parish, and when I did so, I was allowed,—What? Why,
for myself, my babes, and a wife in a condition requiring
more than common support, and unable to labour, I was
all oared 7s. a week for all ; for which I was expec'ed to
work o❑ the roads from light to dark, and to pay three
guineas a year for the hovel which sheltered us.' The
other brother, aged twenty-two, unmarried, received Gd.
a day. These two men were hanged at the Spring As-
sizes. Of the others, ten were single men, their ages
varying from 17 to 27. Many had never been in gaol
before, and were considered of good character. Six of
these were on the roads at O. per day. Two could not
obtain even this pittance. One had been refused relief on
the ground that he had shot tly previous obtained a pro-
fitable piece of job work, and one had existed on iB.
during the fortnight before he joined the gang in question.
Of five married men, two with wife and t►so children,
received 75.; two with wife and one child, 6s. ; and one
with wife and lour small children, 11s.

" At this period, in the Howe of Correction were 32
poachers under summary conviction. Of these, 17 were
destitute of all employment, and, as being single men,
were refined relief by their tivets,ers on the ground of
want of means of employment; eight were parish paupers,
of whom three were receiving 6d. per day; one lad of
sixteen years of age, aid. per day; another, of seventeen,
ltd. ; and three of eightee❑ years old, sd. each per day.
Of the seven in regular work, three married men, with
families, got 91. per week ; two other married men, with
smaller familit s, Bs. ; one single man, aged twenty, 4s. ;
and one only, of the whole body of thirty-two, was receiv-
ing wages at all approaching to fair remuneration, he (a
married man, without family) obtaining 9s. per. week.
Here, then, we find men, whom we are bound to suppose
honest in principle, and against whom no impeachment
can stand but want of fair employment, exiting on a pit-
tance perfectly incomp•tent to provide lodging, food,
clothing, fuel, and washing ; the average rate being 71.
10s. per head per annum. In Hanslope prri,h, the ave-
rage price for five years for fifty-one able-bodied men, sup-
ported by rates, was 81. ss, 6d. per head."

Mr. Niacqueen, in looking out for the remedies of
our present distress, which he traces partly to a re-
dundant population, introduces and discusses the
subject of emigration. The remarks which he
makes on this subject are not undeserving of notice.
To the questions whither should the stream of emi-
gration be directed, and what regulations should he
adopted in our colonies to render emigrationprofitable,
both to them and the mother country, he replies, by
giving his opinion in favour of Australia, and sug-
gests several changes in its management which may
deserve the attention of the Colonial Office.—Times.

We confess we have all along thought favourably
of the talents, the industry, and the information
which Lord Mountcashel has evinced on the ques-
tion of ecclesiastical appointments, the distribution
of church patronage, and the inadequate stipends of
by far the greatest number of curates of the church
of England. His zeal is exceeded only by his dis-
interestedness ; and his fear of the church's thun-
der, however much it might overawe ordinary
minds, has no terrors for him, whose sole desire is
to promote the cause of religion and benefit his
country. Having thus thought favourably of his
Lordship from the very outset, in despite of consi-
derable opposition, it is with unfeigned pleasure
that we at length see justice done to his exertions
by our contemporary of the Standard. Last night
it observed—

" There was not a reform last night proposed by his
Lordship, whether in the 1.-tter of the canon or the prac-
tice of the church, which ought not to be made; must of
the abuses of practice might, indeed, be corrected without
legislative interference, and the temperate and conclusive
speech of Lord Mountcashel will by itself operate as a
powerful corrective."
It was not the temperate tone of his address with
which we were most struck, but the deplorable state
of the laborious and most useful order of the clergy
that excited our sympathy, and even our indignation,
when we considered the cold, the indifferent, the cal-
louS, the heartless silence with which the Noble
Lord's representations were received by the Right
Reverend Bench. We have no wish to give offence, but
we cannot help saying that it is disgustirig to human na-
ture, and an insult to the charity of the Christian reli-
gion, to see twenty or thirty spiritual Lords, pampered
with all the luxuries of life, rolling in wealth, dipping
their hands into almost inexhaustible treasures,
proud in heart, grasping in disposition, versatile in
principle, abstemious in the exercise of meekness
or godliness, showering patronage on their relation
and aggrandizing carnal riches for their children—it
is lamentable as well as revolting, we say, to see
these high priests treating with ineffable scorn the
poverty and the indignity of their poorer churchmen.
Lord Mountcashel drew a picture enough to make
one for ever forswear a Bishop; and yet these
Lords crossed their lawn sleeves, turned their eyes
towards Heaven, and, like the dog in the play, said
not a word. They had not even an apology to offer
—not a regret to express. They evinced no sorrow,
they offered no remedy. They were told that in
1810, when wheat was 100 s. a quarter, meat Is. 2d.
a pound, and soap, candles, fire, house-rent and small
beer, clothes and shoes, all equally high, there were
45.5 curates in England, whose stipends did not
much exceed 501., and no less than :3,239 who did
not even receive this sum ! 66 They were paid,"
said Lord Mountcashel, " at the rate of 2s. 84d.
per diem, being about Is. per diem less than at that
time was paid to bricklayer's labourers. It is true
that since 1810 the salaries of all curates have been
incseased by Act of Parliament; but to how much ?
Why, to the handsome stipend of seventy-five pounds
a-year. At this moment the most efficient
labourers in the splendidly endowed church of
England are paid at the rate of a very inferior
journeyman tailor—at a rate less than any minister
of the poorest parish in Scotland ! This, we say
again, is a reproach to the Protestant church. It
should not be tolerated for even a single hour. If
the church of England were poorly endowed—if its
revenues were inadequate—if it were a pauper
church living upon charity, and its ministers begging
alms at the altar—then we might have less to urge
in favour of the labouring curates. But, on the
contrary, the cup of the church runs over. Its
wealth is enormous. Its high dignitaries when
called to orders elsewhere—we say not where—leave
princely fortunes behind them. Its Deans and Pre-
bends, Archdeacons and many of its Rectors, feed in
goodly pastures, the fields all green, and the groves
all gold ; while the working curate, he ‘vhotn the
Almighty can alone recognise as his minister, and
the flock as their shepherd, feeds in a narrow lane,
upon heath and garbage, picking up a stray leaf
here, and a chance acorn there, a drifting carrot
when the floods are in, or a bunch of turnips which
some neighbouring pet wedders have left by mis-
take upon the common. This is the actual state of
the church of England, not merely as it is described
by Lord Mountcashel, but as it is found to be by
every man who is at the trouble to make any inquiry
concerning it. But, God help us ! the Bishops
care for none of these things. They enjoy
their forty, their thirty, and their twenty thou-
sands a-year, and like a certain person—they
will know whom we allude to—bless Heaven
that they are not as other men are. It is, there-
fore, impossible to look at this deplorable
state of the. church without exclaiming—there most
be a reform ! It is no wonder that Dissenters in-
crease when the veriest spouter that ascends a tub
in the conventtniecleoifs
cbalectul,ternonand foresight, remuneratedres
gt
hh
ta, or at
n any
curate of the establishment. . Dissenting clergymen
are generally n
least their fathers or guardians are. They see the

elianeet of comfort without COntroul 6n the one
side, and probable dependence, servility, and a life
of • poverty on the other. They accordingly make
their election—they gather a flock, they make
friends, they are respected among their own per-
suasion, and they consequently bring the church
into disgrace. But Lord Mountcashel's zeal and
exertions will do good. Not that we expect any
amelioration from the Bishop!. The pruning-knife
must be applied by the people from without. The
incomes of the Bishops must be reduced. The
windfalls must be inquired into. The pluralities
must be cut up, and the spoils more fairly divided.
We must have no Reverend Mr. Wellesleys resid-
ing in Pimlico, rendering a place that is a nuisance
of itself a greater nuisance on his account—draw-
ing his tithes from three counties at the same
instant—amassing money at the expence of religion
and the general weal—preaching charity, and pay-
ing higher wages to his footmen and his grooms
than he pays to those who serve before the altar.—
There must be an end to all this soon. Poverty is
an excellent moralist and an irresistible reformer;
and at present he is in capital condition to do his
work reell.—Morning Journal.
The Journalists in the service of Government,
who only last year declaimed incessantly in favour
of " civil and religious liberty," who told the pub-
lic that freedom of conscience was too sacred a pos-
session, too holy a privilege, to be restrained by hu-
man laws, and fettered by civil disabilities—those
very Journalists have just now sounded the tocsin
of intolerance, and endeavoured to rally the preju-
dices of the people around the standard of religious
lattred and political persecution. But this is not
all : they are not content with the shameless abju-
ration of their own principle—they add to the out-
rage against consistency an insult to the understand-
ing—they attempt, by miserable sophistry, to re-
concile the free policy which they once professed
with the exclusiveness which they now advocate, and
would fain make the world believe that it is " part
and parcel" of the same code of liberality to give
political power to the Roman Catholics, and to per-
petuate the degradation of the Jews. Whatever
pretexts these consistent instructors of the public
urge for adopting a course which involves so glar-
ing a contradiction of principle, the real motive
which actuates them is the one which they do not
choose to avow; and it is, that the Ministers of the
Crown Were favourable to the one measure, and are
adverse to the other. This is the cause why they,
who were in the habit of calling the conscientious
opponents of the Roman Catholic claims bigots
and fools, and who contended that no body of men
had a right to make religious diferences of opinion
a ground of political exclusion, now maintain that
such exclusion may not only he necessary, but just—
thereby proving that their liberality hinges upon the
convenient principle of a compliance with the wishes
of the " powers that be." One of these Journa-
li,ts, who was most vehement in his zeal for giving
to the subjects of the Papal hierarchy a power of le-
gislating for our Protestant Church, is, indeed
ashamed of the objection, on religious grounds,
which had been taken by his companions of the
" Red Cross" in this new crusade of the nineteenth
century against the children of Palestine. He af-
fects to discover an insurmountable obstacle to their
emancipation, of a civil and political nature, which
we will allow him to explain in his own words. He
says—" It is true that, from the very nature of all
civil government, the Jews who reside in any coun-
try are entitled to the protection et' those laws which
they are bound to obey : if, instead of mere resi-
dents, they become natural born subjects, they
would, according to the fair and liberal construction
of the best rules of political administration, be en-
titled to all the privileges of native citizens. What,
then, excepts the Jews from the advantage of this
general principle ? Themselves alone : their own
institutions alone. The Jews, if there be any truth
in their traditions, any validity in their Scriptures,
must be strangers and aliens in every land but one
which they inhabit. We do rot mean aliens in the ordi-
nary sense of the term, but we mean aliens according to
the best, and indeed only, construction which their own
scheme of civil and religious polity can bear. The
Jews are not, cannot be, component parts of any na-
tion : their civil, their religious institutions forbid
any such amalgamation. They are, however, scat-
tered, however distant from each other, not only, in
the language of their own sacred volume, a peculiar
people,' but a separate nation. They cannot have,
they must not have, any identity of political interest
with any people but their oWm" The whole of the
above passage, as far as it contains any show of argu-
ment, resolves itself into this, that a Jew, wherever
he may first draw the breath of life—wherever he
may make his livelihood, or heap together his siches
—has no country but Judea, and is a sojourner
merely in every other; therefore he is, by the
peculiarity of his situation and feelings, unfit
to enjoy the rights of citizenship, and, of necese
sity, devoted to perpetual exclusion. We grant
that the Jews are a " peculiar people ;" but whence
did they derive their " peculiarity ?" From the
special appointment of that Supreme Being,
whom we all, Jews and Christians, adore, and who
selected them from among the nations of the earth
to-preserve his holy worship from the defilement of
idolatrous people, and to be the depositary of those
sublime truths which form the everlasting ground-
work of our Divine religion. This is a peculiarity
which at least, has a glorious origin ; and, however
the "chosen of God" may have subsequently
incurred his awful displeasure, it is not for us to
persecute any class of men, under the pretext of
avenging the cause of Omnipotence. But we must
do the writer in question the justice to say that it
is not on a ground so utterly untenable that he
dooms the Jews to perpetual exclusion from the
privileges of the English Constitution. He as-
serts that the Hebrew race are not only a peculiar
people, but a " separate nation," arid that they can-
not have any identity of political interest with
any people but their own. This is a posi-
tion which history disproves, and reason re-
pels. The Patriarch Joseph was an Israelite, and a
sojourner in the land of Egypt ; and yet, when in-
trusted with the administration of the affairs of that
kingdom, he showed no want of identity of political
interest with the people of Pharaoh, if we can judge
of that by the wise and faithful discharge of his great
trust in the management of that ancient empire; and
it was not until persecution arose that the allegiance
of the Hebrews was dissolved. This and other an-
cient examples—such as Mordecai preserving against
traitors the life of a King who was an enemy to his
faith and nation—may be considered instances of
Jewish fidelity to Foreign Powers of too remote a
date to avail the present question. Well, then, we
say, look to the conduct of the Jews in those coun-
tries of modern Europe, in which they have been to-
lerated. Have they ever been discovered plotting
against the security of such States, and engaging.
in schemes of disaffection and rebellion ? On
the contrary, have they not been always:
found ready to take up arms to defend the•
land of their adoption, and to risk their
lives in its cause as bravely as other people ?
Have they not in. Poland, the Netherlands, and
other States, given proofs of their attachment arid'
patriotic fidelity to the country that affords them its
privileges and protection ? It is ridiculous to.sup-
pose that, because they look to a future restoration
to the land of their forefathers, they cannot, until
such an event occurs, attach themselves to the.
country of their birth or their adoption in preference
to all others. Does the idea of their eventual re-
turn to the Holy Land prevent them from building
houses—from purchasing land—and accumulating
property in the countries whose institutions are
liberal enough to allow them not only to collect'
riches, but to lay them out in what way they
please ? In such possessions have they not the
most powerful stimulus of human stature to attach
them to the soil, and to blend them in a come
munity of political interest with the people
Towards renovated Palestine, indeed, and the " newi
Jerusalem," they may have a speculative patriotisrdp
but their
heirpresent and real attachment and Riles
glance will be given where their wealth, their wives,

and their children—their political privileges, and all
that is valuable in existence and dear to the heart of
man—are to be found. It is true, as the Journalist
in question sagaciously observes, the names of
Somers and Locke, of Hampden and Sidney, may
not call up any very exciting recollections in the
mind of a Jew; yet, as long as the security of pro-
perty and the prosperity of States depend upon the
wisdom of civil Government, so long will the Jew
feel an interest in the political institutions of the
land in which he resides; for even Holy Wit tells
us that " where the treasure is, there will the heart
be also." B; ;t why should the advocate of the
Roman Catholic claims mention the names of So-
mers and Locke—of Hampden and Sidney ? 'I hey
were champions of the Protestant faith in intellect
and arms. The Roman Catholics have no cause to
love their names; yet that was not held to disqualify
them for a participation in the freedom which such
men achieved.—Morning 11eiwid.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOW-STREET.

Yesterday Mr. John White, one of the King's
Messengers, came before Sir R. BIRNIE, to complain
of an obstruction which he had met with while c,m-
veying the bulletin announcing the state of his
Majesty's health from Windsor to London.
Mr. White stated, that he was posting with all
speed to London yesterday, with the bulletin, when
the man at the toll-gate of Smallberry-green turn-
pike, which is near Brentford, refused to let the
chaise through the gate without payment, although
he (Mr. White) told him his business, and showed
him the silver greyhound, the insignia of his office.
A delay of at least three minutes was thus cern-
sioned, when the man consented that the chaise
s►►ould pass, he (Mr. White) having given him his
name and address. The delay, however, of a single
minute in such a case was of importance, and he
deemed it necessary to make an application upon the
subject to Sir Richard, in order that he might not
be again impeded.
Sir R. BIRNIE expressed surprise that the toll-
keeper should have been so hardy as to stop a
King's messenger engaged upon a mission of so much
importance. His Majesty's messengers were ex-
empted from paying any toll, and he was at a loss to
know the ground upon which the man had objected.
Mr. White explained, that the toll-taker had no
objection to let him pass had he been alone, but he
objected because another person was in the chaise,
which eh cumstance, he said, made itliable to the toll.
Mr. MINSIIULL asked if the chaise belonged to
his Majesty, or if it were hired for the purpose ?
Mr. White replied, that he bad hired the chaise at
Windsor, and paid for it at the rate of Is. G. a
mile, besides a present of 55., which he was in the
habit of giving to the postboy for using extra speed,
as it was necessary that the bulletin should reach
St. James's within two hours from the time of start-
ing from Windsor Castle.
Sir R. BIRNIE observed, that Mr. White had paid
for his journey most liberally, and he wondered at
the temerity of the toll-taker in stopping the chaise
under such circumstances, as to all intents and pur-
poses it spas his own vehicle for the time being,
he had a right to take whom he pleased in it.
Mr. MINSIIULL agreed in that opinion. Suppose,
however, that, instead of hiring a chaise for his own
purpose, Mr. White had, while on a similar duty,
accepted a seat in a gentleman's carriage, would the
carriage be allowed to pass free although et!lers
might be in it ?
Sir R. BIRNIE said he thought not. Ile remem-
bered a circumstance which occurred while he was
a Magistrate at Union-hall, which bore some simi-
larity to the supposed case. There happened to he
a review at Wandsworth-common, and General
Bailey was the officer in command. The General
sent on a servant with his horses, and left town fo:
the review in a postchaise. The turnpike-man,
however,?refused to let him pass without payment of
the toll, upon which the General was very angry,
and showing his person decked in full regimentals,
he claimed to be exempted from the demand on the
ground that he was a general officer on his Mu-
jesty's duty. The toll-taker, however, insisted upon
being paid, observing," Your horses, General, have
passed the gate free, • and had you ridden one of
them, you should have passed free also, but riding
as you do, I demand toll." The General, sooner
then be detained paid the demand, and summoned
the man to Union-Hall-office, "and the case came
before me," observed Sir Richard, " but I decided
against the General, and in favour of the sturdy toll-
taker."
Mr. White said, that all be wanted was, that he
should not experience another interruption. At
this particular crisis messengers Uere hurrying to
and from Windsor, with orders to use more than
ordinary speed, and it was therefore of importance
that no impediment should arise upon the road.
Sir R. BIRNIE - was of opinion that the man
would not act so again. If he did, however, Mr.
White ought by all means to pay him his demand,
and then summon him to this office, when he would
have an opportunity of trying his right.
Mr. White should certainly adopt the course re-
commended by the Magistrate, and withdrew.
John Barnes, who stands charged with stealing
105 silver plates and a quantity of glass, the pro-
perty of the Marquis of Bath, was yesterday fully
committed for trial.

Three young men were charged before Sir R.
BIRNIE with having been found gambling in the
parlour of the Duke of Wellington public-house in
\Vych-street.

Sir R. BIRNIE observed that publicans committed
a very grievous offence in permitting )dung working
men to gamble in their houses. An information was
then directed to be laid against the landlord, and the
young men were ordered to attend to give evidence
when the case came on for a hearing.

Two women of the town, named-Wilson and Da-
venport, were charged with having robbed a yoong-
man named Kedlar, who resides in North-street,
Rod Lion-square, of a watch, chain, and seals, value
IGI. The prisoners were remanded until Monday
next.