The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-04 00:00:00

of the subject before the public ; but our
Contemporary flippantly contents himself with
performing the easier task of sneering at Mr.
WARBURTON, and advising him " to carry his
learning to University College, in the parish of
St. Pancras." Mr. tWARBURTON'S erroneous
opinions on the subject will be of no use any-
where, but it is clear that the Post is un,ible
to rectify them.

Mr. WARBURTON'S opinion is the reproduction
of the opinion of HOBBES, BENTHAM, and MILL.
We quote from a writer who has examined the
subject :

With an extraordinary species of quaker-like humility,
these reasoners assume, as the basis of their system, the
principle which all spirited men, and even other philoso-
phers, contemptuously reject—not merely " questioning,"
u Mr. Burke says, marking it with his detestation—
" whether man has any rights by nature," but broadly and
boldly asserting that be has none ; and " that all the pro-
perty he enjoys is the alms of Government, and life itself
derived from its favour and indulgence."• "La loi,"
says M. Dumont, in the true spirit of these doctrines,
"me defend-elle de rous tuert Elle m' impose l'oblgation
de ne pas vous tuer ; elle vow, accorde le aroit de n'etre
pas tue par moi."f Men, therefore, according to the
system which affirms that there are no natural laws
and natural rights, had no right even to life—that blessed
gift of a bounteous Creator hand no one was under an
obligation not to kill another till the legislator created this
right, and imposed this duty. Mothers, according to the
same dogma, might devour their offspring, and children, if
their parents would allow them to grow to maturity, might
cat up their parents—if he should, unhappily, forget to
prohibit so unhallowed a feast I Such deductions would be
shocking, if they were not eminently absurd ; and yet, Sir,
you, who know on what principles Mr. Bentham reasons,
must admit that they arc the legitimate results of a system
denominated, from the seat and centre of civilization, the
Philosophy of Westminster.

Mr. WARBURTON'S doctrines are, then, identical
with those of Mr. BENTIIAM and Mr. MlLL—with
what is called the philosophy of Westminster,
and which is briefly refuted in the passage we
have quoted. No 3it is not time that men have
no natural rights; it is not true that property is
not a natural right; especially it is not true,
though Mr. 'WARBURTON, like the Post, sneers
at WAT TYLER doctrines,--it is not true, except
in a state of slavery, that a man's oWn body and
his limbs, and what he produces by his own ex-
ertions, are not his own, and are another per-
son's. He may make over that produce for a
consideration, but it is utterly impossible to di-
vest him of the right to possess it, without
committing one of those crimes against his per-
son or against his property which we have al-
ways supposed Mr. WARBURTON to regard with
great abhorrence. Among the natural rights of
man, there is a natural right of property, a na-
tural right also to the free use of his limbs and
his intelligence, or to the free exercise of honest
industry ; and it is the wanton or the selfish in-
fringement of these and other rights by the Le-
gislature which causes most of the misery of
the people, and most of the discontent with the
Government.

• Letter on the Affairs of America.
f Traites de Legislation—pr. edit.

We have not, till now, found an opportunity
to express our deep regret that Mr. HETHERING-
TON, for the offence of selling a book in the way
of his trade, of the contents of which he was igno-
rant, should have been sentenced, on Saturday
last, to four months' imprisonment. The Jurors
who pronounced a book to be blasphemy which
criticized another book, and even, We admit,
derided its contents, have now the satisfaction of
knowing that their verdict has consigned an
honest and industrious tradesmen to prison for
four months. They have torn him from his
family, and shut him up in gaol—a most praise-
worthy deed in the Jurors, is it not?
It must be satisfactory, too, we presume, to the
Judges—who have a stern and BRurus-like
pleasure in performing a painful duty—to have
sacrificed their kindly feelings on the altar of
the country, in dooming a fellow-creature to four
months' incarceration for selling a book. They
must see a delightful adaptation of punishment
to crime in this lengthened period of imprison-
ment for such an action, or they would not have
done violence to themselves by pronouncing it,
For selling a book which displeases persons by its
remarks, the just and apiaropritlte punishment is
four_ months' imprisonment—to knock a man
down may be atoned for by paying a fine of a few
shillings, especially if the assailant be wealthy
and money no object.
If the discrepancies we every day witness do
not teach men blasphemy, they will at least make
them discontented subjects, and we are afraid
that such punishment as that inflicted on Mr.
HETHERINGTON, however gratifying to Judges or
Jurors, will not tend to convince the people of the
wisdom of our laws. They will not be made more
religious by this mode of vindicating the Bible,
nor more contented by seeing an honest man
dragged to a gaol for an offence for which a shil-
ling fine would have been an adequate penalty.

The Earl of ABERDEEN, last Session, tried to
settle the Kirk, and failed. In conjunction with
the Duke of RICHMOND, it is said, he will make
a second attempt this Session; while Mr. RO-
BERT STEUART is to try his hand at the same
hopeless task in the Commons. What sort of a

thing the joint-stock concern may be, we have

no means of judging ; but if it is either so incon-
sistent, so unjust to the people, or so partial to
the clergy, as that proposed by a Non-In-
trusionist, the Kirk, as far as these parties are

concerned, will remain as unsettled as ever.
The Hon. Member for Haddington, in order to
clear the way for his machinery, proposes to re-
peal the 10th of Queen ANNE, which he describes
as " a gross violation of the Treaty of Union."
Having removed this obstacle, he will introduces
in place of it, a new Bill, which is equally a gross
violation of the Union, taking the presentation
from the present patron, conferring it on the
Ten-Pound Heritors and the Kirk-Session, and
allowing only those persons to moderate in the
call whom the clergy shall consider fit
and holy men. Independent of the inconsistency
of introducing a new Bill to supersede the Acts
of 1649 and 1690, which Mr. STEUART considers
utterly defective, though sealed by the Union, on
what principle of common sense or justice can he
transfer the right of presentation from patrons to
heritors only of a certain class ? This is robbing
the patron, and conferring a boon on Parliamen-
tary electors, while the non-electors are treated
as the common herd, and only such of them a

are agreeable to the clergy will be allowed to
• hold up their han.irS foi theirr-favourite candidate.
Nay, more, their ".sweet voices" are not to set-
- - tie the election ; for according to clause five,
if only a minority of the whole subscribe the call,
‘i the sufficiency of the call is to be judged of by
the Church Courts," and the General Assembly,
that is the Church, (the great majority of the
Assembly consisting' of clergymen,) is to make
up the roll of persons entitled to sealing ordi-
nances, the test of the electoral franchise. In
the present temper .of the Scotch clergy, such a
power would lead to the most intolerable tyranny,
for the Assembly may, and in all probability
would, enact that the following persons shall be
excluded :—all Chartists and Voluntaries ; all who
neglect family worship, or who walk or travel
by railroad, steam-boat, or stage-coach, on a
Sunday ; all who obey the law of the land in-pre-
ference to the spurious law of the General As-
sembly.; and all other sinners of a similar de-
scription. So that, as •in the case of DAVIOT,
where there are only five persons entitled to
sealing ordinances, the great boon for which Mr.
STEUART and the arrogant Non-Intrusionists are
contending would be confined to a few select
righteous men, mixed up with not a few hypo-
crites and time-servers. There are other great
defects and incongruities in this new plan for set-
tling
the Kirk, one of which only we will specify,
as it shows on what dangerous ground these Non-
Intrusionists will venture to secure their darling
object. For the purpose possibly of conciliating the
Lords, the Bishops, and the other patrons .of
valuable English livings, Mr. STEUART asserts
that the right of patronage in Scotland is no
original inheritance as in England, descending
with the property of the. Church, but at the
same time admits that the
,Crowtt bestowed a I