The Sun.
London, England, 1838-04-30 00:00:00

except from want of food ; and to arm the Yeomanry
against the starving people, is neither more nor less
than a plan co enforce the scoundrel Corn-law, by the
swords of those for whose exclusive advantage it was
passed. The Yeomanry or the Corn-laws ought at
once to be put down ; and, in its better days, the
Times would have daily made the world ring with that
theme.

Dr. CHALMERS, in the course of his last lecture, I
dwelt at considerable length on the difficulties which
the Dissenters find in maintaining their own chapels.
A truly Christian spirit would rejoice that so much
has been done to reclaim the moral wastes for which the
law has made no provision. Dr. CHALMERS will not
assert, we are sure, that either the Secession or the
Relief ministers, who differ on the single point of pa-
tronage from the Established Church of Scotland, and
who are educated like the ministers of that Church,
are invested with one atom less power of saving souls,
or are less instrumental in enforcing morality than
their endowed rivals. Instead, however, of exulting
that these bodies had afforded such powerful aid
to the Established Church, giving religious instruc-
tion to perhaps a third of the people of Scotland, Dr.
CHALMERS sneered at their indebted chapels, at their
poorly-paid ministers, at their subscriptions, at their
soliciting support ; and he drew from that an inference
which was loudly cheered by the rich Tory members
of the endowed Church present, that if a free trade in
religion were allowed, there would be only a wretched
support for the priesthood, and a great deficiency of
religious instruction. This line of argurneut was
equally unjust and ungenerous, and wholly unworthy
of a Christian minister.

Dr. CHALMERS ought to have tecollcctcd that the
Dissenters, many of whom have had their goods
spoiled, in order to pay " Ministers' money" in one
country and Church-rates in another, are compelled to
support the endowed Church as well their own chapel ;
and he ought to have doubly praised their Christian
zeal, which, after being taxed by the regular clergy,
could still find something for their own altars. His
inference from the inability of Dissenters to provide
splendidly for their religious service in the face of an
establishment is unwarranted. To the Establishment
it is rather fashionable to belong. Whether it be to
share its pecuniary advantages or not, the fact is,
that almost all the gentry of both countries are
members of the endowed Church ; and no sooner does a
Dissenter become wealthy than his children follow
the fashion, and join the Establishment. The
supply of Christian instruction given by the Dissenters
which Dr. CHALMERS so unworthily sneered at,
merely for its connection with poverty, is supplied
by poor men, who are taxed into the bargain, to sup-
port the rich man's Church.

But the circumstance which affords a complete re-
futation of Dr. CHALMERS'S inference from the pre-
sumed inadequacy of the free-trade principle, is the
fact that there does exist a Church Establishment. He
asserts there is no sustained demand for religious in-
struction, which will properly reward those who supply
it ; and he refers to the mortgaged and struggling Dis-
senters' chapels, as a proof of his assertion. He might
as well have said there is no demand for security at
night, because the system of voluntary watchmen, still
preserved in some places, is very poor and imperfect.
Before a well-organized and well-discsplined police was
established, each parish had its own body of watchmen,
who did the duty very imperfectly. When the police was
brought into use, the private and parochial watchmen
were put down. The desire for security, like the
desire for religicus instruction, was always strong, and
men were as willing to pay largely for it as for food;
but. they ceased in general to tax themselves to support
private and parochial watchmen when Sir ROBERT
PEEL established the Police force. Now, a State'
Church is similar in this respect to the Metropolitan
Police, and though the desire for religious instruction
may not be less strong than the desire for security,
I both of person and property, individuals decline pat ing
money to bus' that which the State taxes them to
I supply. In like manlier, when the State taxes
men to support an Established Church, it cannot be
expected that they should either have the will or the
means to pay as largely for a voluntary Church as if
no• State Church were in existence. The very fact of
their being an Established Church, richly endowed
amongst us, refutes therefore all the semblance of an
argument which Dr. CHALMERS founded on the
poverty of the Dissenting chapels against free
trade in religion, and demonstrates that his
sneers were as unjust as they were unchristian
and uncharitable. Free trade, in fact, no more
exists amongst us in religion than in corn ; and his
argument against it, drawn from the proof of the
poverty of the Dissenters, is like the railing of the
writer in the Herald, who thunders daily against free
trade, because the handloom . weavers are starving,
while the landowners have got a close monopoly of
the supply of bread.
Having disposed of Dr. CHALMERS'S illustration,
we shall, to-morrow, say a few words on his main
principle. •
___

I It has been stated that in the event of Sir Jolty
CAM HOBHOUSE being raised to the Peerage, Mr.
EwART will stand for Nottingham, with the support
of the Government. Mr. EWART was a most useful
and independent Member for Parliament, and we
should rejoice to see him returned for a place like
Nottingham, where the political opinions of the electors
are so much in unison with those he has always pro-
fessed and acted on ; but we doubt much whether the
countenance of the Government would be any recom-
mendation to him in that quarter.
The desertion of Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE on the
question of the Ballot is still fresh in their memory,
and his elevation to the peerage so soon afterwards
would naturally lead them to connect the two events—
nay, possibly to believe that the Government rewarded
him, because he preferred the interests of his party to
those of his constituents. They would, therefore,
look with jealousy on a candidate brought forward
under such patronage, and those are not the
best friends of Mr. EWART who would place him
in that light. Lord MELBOURNE,
no doubt, is
conscientious in his opposition to the Ballot ; he be-
lieves it would be injurious to the country, but the
electors of Nottingham think otherwise, and knowing
that their interests have been sacrificed once, and that
a mark of favour, from whatever cause, has been con-
ferred on the individual who voted in opposition to
their well-known wishes, they will be on their guard
against a candidate exposed to similar temptation.
Such a vote as that given by Sir J. HOBHOUSE injures
not himself alone—it casts a doubt on others, howe-
ver honest and consistent in their opinions, and leads
the public to believe that placemen consider a vote in
support of the Government an atonement for the vio-
lation of any public principle. When a vacancy does
occur, let Mr. EWART stand on his own merits, and
he will not appeal to the electors of Nottingham
in vain.

We have so long felt convinced of the immense im-
provements adopted in the construction of the " Great
Western" Railway, and of the need there had been for
a closer investigation by persons of the highest scien-
tific ability, with the view to attain greater certainty
and regularity of speed and reduction of the perma-
nent " wear and tear" in railways, that we feel great
pleasure in giving insertion to an interesting letter in
our columns this day.

We agree with our candid correspondent that it