The Sun.
London, England, 1838-01-13 00:00:00

LONDON :
SATURDAY EVENING, JANUARY 13, 183,3.

We direct attention to the Report in another part
or our Paper of the Cotton Spinners' Trial at Edin-
burgh. The interest excited by the investigation is
described as being intense beyond all parallel in the
a.mals of the Scottish Criminal Courts. The trial
lasted eight days, and the LORD JUSTICE CLERK
had not concluded his charge to the Jury at the hour
of post, four o'clock on Thursday.

A number of madmen have for some time been en-
deavouring to get up petitions for the exclusion of
Catholics from Parliament, and one for that purpose
now lies for signature in a place dedicated to meetings
for religious or humane purposes. There could not be
a greater desecration of a place founded, if we are to
lielieve its inscription, for encouraging peace and pro-
moting brotherly love. We will not ask these men,
fur they are beyond redemption, but those men who
opposed Catholic Emancipation from political motives,
to contrast the present state of the country with that
in which it must have been, had that great healing mea-
sure not been conceded ? In the winter of 1828-29,
Ireland was on the brink of a rebellion—many of the
Irish regiments were discontented, and more disposed
to unite with their Catholic brethren, than preserve
their fidelity to their SOVEREIGN ; and the Duke
of WELLINGTON, to his immortal honour, ra-
ther than risk a civil war, gave up his
conscientious scruples, and submitted to the reproaches
of many of his oldest friends. He has never since de-
nied the expediency of the Catholic Relief Bill, and
the peaceable and loyal conduct of the Irish nation
at the present crisis is the best vindication of his con-
?act. Ireland never wa so united to Ebglaml as at
this moment. Nay, that country is even more
English, If we may use the expression, than England.
We hear of no meetings there to foment discord—to

encourage freebooters to take dead:y aim at our fellow-

subjects—and to involvorone of our most nourishing
colonies in all the horrors of a protracted civil war.
We believe Mr. ROEBUCK at present could not find

one spot in Ireland on which to raise his standard.
Could any language describe so eloquently the bless-
ings of a wise, a just, and a humane policy ?
It is needless to draw a picture of the reverse, had
the old, blind, ol)stinate, and b;gotttd policy been
persevered in. Even these drivelling political fana-

tics (fur they have no religion jri their souls), would
they lay aside their prejudices for a moment, could
draw a picture which would horrify every friend of hu-
►nanity. The time is now arrived for uniting Ireland by
indissoluble bor,ds to this country ; and if WELLING-
TON has any love for his native land, and the magna-
nimity to cast to the wind all party prejudices,
he will seize the opportunity, and add another laurel
to those that now adorn his brow.

We are glad to see that RIDGWAY has just pub-
lished, in the form of a pamphlet, the speech which
Lord BROUGHAM recently delivered in the House of
Lords on the subject of the Civil List, and the income
and expenses of the Crown. This speech, in point of
solid, useful matter, is one of the most efficient that the
Noble and Learned Lord ever delivered ; in fact it
completely exhausts its theme. Were we not already
fully aware that as a politician he is the foremost man
of his time, the sagacity and foresight displayed in
every page of this little pamphlet would at once lead
us to this conviction of his Lordship's statesmanlike
qualities. He puts the case in the clearest possible
view, so that he who runs may read ; and proves that
the bargain just concluded in a hurry with the Crown,
as regards the Civil List, cannot fail to be a losing one
for the people, inasmuch. as it will not prevent the
Crown at some future period, from taking advantage
of an alteration in prices, or some such God-send, and
corning down to Parliament, and begging for an aug-
mentation of income which, as a matter of course, it
will get. It was thus that GEORGE the THIRD sued
literally in forma pauperis to the House of Com-
mons, which sympathized with the destitution of
Royalty, and dutifully relieved its necessities. In fact,
bargains of this sort are never binding but on one
party--the people : the Crown never hesitates to set
them aside, whenever it may be deemed expedient.
We have warrant for this assertion in the history of the
iast fifty years, which proves how little attention
Royalty is in the habit of paying to those Civil List
arrangements which the people hold to be binding
upon it. Alluding to the present settlement, Lord
BROUGHAM observes, " If the arrangement now made
shall turn out to be unfavourable to the Crown ; if
prices rise, if from an altered state of society, or from
any other cause, an increased splendour is deemed ne-
cessary to the Royal dignity ; little will it avail the
people to plead the final character of the settlement of
1837. That character will go for as little as it has done
in former cases of the same kind—it will go for
Absolutely nothing. But if it shall be found that
:noney goes further than it does in the present day—if
in the' progress of manufacturing industry the great
.staples of luxurious expenditure become cheaper—or
if the necessaries of life themselves are more abundant
from improvements in agriculture—if it shall be found
that, do what you will, you can no longer hold by the
Corn-laws—if it should happen that the people of this
country will no longer submit to buy wheat or eat bread
at the rate of 625. the quarter on this side of the
Channel, when as good or better may be had for be-
tween 30s. and 40s. on the other side—if your assent
to the repeal of these Corn-laws should be extorted, by
the hourly accumulating power of the resistance which
all sound principle offers to their continuance—if, from
the combined effect of all these very possible changes,
to say nothing of accumulated capital, all prices should
fall a third or more, and the sum now bestowed as ab-
solutely necessary for the Royal expenditure should
thus be really worth much more than it now is—l ask
any man capable of reflection what chance would there
be of the Crown, or the :Ministers of the Crown, or
Pari;atoent itself, coming forward with a proposal to
reduce by a third, aye, or by a thirtieth, the income
now fixed, so as to give the country any benefit from
the alteration produced upon its value by the course of
events ?. In short, this is a bargain which, if the
Crown finds it advantageous, must be adhered to
Orouelt all times and all changes with equal tenacity ;
Tart if any benefit should accrue to.
the country from
keeping it, and the Crown should find its interest in
breaking it, then it may be broken over and over again,
just as often as is convenient for one of the parties ;
nd for the protection of the other its value is that of
Avaste paper. We trust this speech of Lord

BROUGHAM'S will be generally disseminated, for it is
calculated to throw much light on a nice point not so
generally understood as it should be.

It must, we think, be matter of surprise, if not of
astonishment, to all who are gifted with the power of
reflecting upon the events that are passing around
them, that at this time of day there should be found
any considerable number of persons having the hardi-
hood to call upon the State for endowments out of the
public money, to support a particular sect of religion-
ists. It might fairly have been supposed that the
ample developement which the principles of religious
liberty have received of late years, the enthusiasm
displayed by the people in favour of those principles,
and the homage which the Government and the Legis-
lature have been compelled to pay to them, would have
pointed out to the most bigoted advocates of religious
establishments the impolicy, if not the danger, of
bringing forward claims so repugnant to the public
feeling. It might have been imagined that, at a mo-
ment when religious establishments are every where
the subjects of popular discontent, and the objects of
popular attack—every where regarded as intolerable
grievances—the professed friends of such establish-
ments would have been thankful to be allowed to re-
tain the endowments of which they are already in pos-
session, without attempting to bring greater odium
upon their favourite system of compulsory religion by
demands of additional support from the oppressed and
insulted tax-payers of Great Britain. Instead of this
defensive and prudent policy, however, they have had
the infatuation to assume an aggressive attitude, and
unless we are greatly mistaken, they will have bitter
cause to rue the course they are pursuing.
The argument put forth by the Church-extension
people of Scotland is, that there is religious destitu-
tion to a frightful extent in that part of the United
Kingdom, and that ihersfore it is proper that the
means of supplying this deficiency should be fur-
nished by the public. This is the modest demand
made by the Presbyterian Church. Now taking it
for granted (for the present) that the premises are
correct—that there is a want of religious instruction
in Scotland—let us look a little at the principle involved
in the conclusion, and the consequences which are
likely to follow from its admission.

The great principle that no man shall be compelled
to support a system of religion of which he does not
approve is now all but universally recognized. Of
course we do not mean to say that the Tory majority
in the House of Lords, and the minority in the Com-
mons, do not cling to the opposite doctrine ; but to the
extent to which we have stated, the rights of con-
science are maintained by the great bulk of the nation ;
and, what is of some importance in this discussion,
also by the Ministers of the Crown. In corroboration
of this latter assertion—the former wants none—we
have only to refer to the Bill brought into Parliament
last Session by the Government for the Abolition of
Church-rates, which was founded, and defended by
them, entirely on the principle that the Dissenters ought
not to be forced to contribute their money to the sup-
port of a religious system of which they conscientiously
disapproved. Now, the grievance of which the Scotch
Dissenters complain is far greater in one respect than
that under which their English brethren labour.
Church-rates, however unjust in principle, are sanc-
tioned by long—almost immemorial usage ; whereas
the endowment of the EStablished Church of Scotland
is an additional yoke of bondSge about to be imposed
upon the necks of the Scottish Dissenters, and that too
ill an age of light and liberty!

But, in truth, the English Dissenters are as much
interested in this endowment scheme as those of Scot-
land. The latter may, perhaps, feel more immediately
the effects of a superiority given to a rival sect—they
may have more reason to complain that the patronage
of a Government, which owes them so deep a debt
of gratitude, has been bestowed on their and its own
enemies—they may he more annoyed by these new
Churches having been erected in such situations as to
confront and look down upon tile humble building de-
dicated to the voluntary worship of the Deity—erected
there too, perhaps, as much with the view of thinning
the ranks of Dissent as of extending religious instruction
to the poor ; but the English Dissenters—aye, and the
Irish Catholics also—must bear in mind that out of their
pockets comes the money that goes to the endowment
of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. We • ask
these advocates of the rights of conscience, whether it
is not. their duty to make common cause with the Dis-
senters of Scotland, and by public meetings, by peti-
tions to the Legislature—in short, by every means in
their power—to throw their overpowering weight into
the scale of civil and religious freedom? If they re-
main neutral in this contest—if the English Dissenters
tamely acquiesce in the application of the pub-
lic money to the endowment of the Established
Church in Scotland—with what face can they call
upon the Legislature to exempt them from a pecu-
niary contribution to the Church of England, which
is sanctioned by long-established usage, as well as by
the law of the land ? Suppose it should be proposed,
as it has been already, that the Church-rates should
be charged upon the consolidated fund, what objection
could the Dissenters make- to the proposal ? Would
they not instantly be met with the taunting question—
" Where were your conscientious scruples when the
Scottish Church received its endowment out of the
same fund ? If you did not object to that charge
upon the public revenue, you cannot with consistency
object to this—the principle is the same in both, the
compulsory support of a national Church." What
reply can be made to this question by any man who
does not now raise his voice against the projected
grant ? None. Every man so acting has voluntarily
and advisedly surrendered his right to complain, and
must submit to the humiliating consequences of his
own act. It is therefore, we repeat, the bounden
duty of all, to whatever sect they belong, who
claim exemption from the payment of Church-
rates on the plea of conscience—and this plea
is as strong against a levy on the Exchequer as
against a levy on goods and chattels—to vindicate
their consistency and Christian sincerity by an uncom-
promising opposition to the intended plan of applying
the public money to the endowment of additional
churches in Scotland.

The Paris Journals of Thursday have all been re-
ceived. Towards the conclusion of Wednesday's sit-
ting an animated debate took place in the Chamber of
Deputies, on the subject of Spanish intervention.
Previous to its commencement the following amend-
ment recognising the nationality of Poland was adop-
ted by an overwhelming majority :
" Sire, we set an example of the faithful execution of
treaties, and in our turn we have a right incessantly to remind
Europe of the guarantees which she has solemnly given to
the ancient nationality of Poland—a nationality which will
aver have justice and our warmest sympathies in its favour."
After some discuss on upon the fourth paragraph,
which refers to the Quadruple Treaty, M. THIERS,
Minister for Foreign AfFairs when that treaty was
signed, made a powerful appeal to the Chamber in
support of a direct intervention. He said
For his part he would say that when France, in the face of
the world, had signed a treaty binding her to the exclusion of
the two Pretenders from the Peninsula, to limit her *lion to
wishes and indirect assistance was to betray utter ignorance of
the spirit of the Quadruple Treaty. What, has the Govern-
ment been simple enough, after concluding, in the face of the
world, a treaty for the expulsion of the Pretender, to perceive,
three years afterwards, that it had perhaps involved France ?
If this were the case, the Government must not adopt the
past, but avow itself guilty of an, incommensurable blunder, for
it has contracted a solemn engagement towards Europe ; it
must come forward and declare that it has compromised the
future repose of France, and that inateknowledging the Queen
it has sacrificed the real interests of the country.
The President of the Council was equally explicit