The Sun.
London, England, 1840-10-14 00:00:00

FOREIGN FUNDS.
Portuguese, 5 per cent.

Ditto, New Ditto
73 Prassian, 5 pe: cent....
Russian. 5 per cent....
Ditto,
Spoils!). I; per cent.

Ditto, Deferred..........
Frencl2,s per cent...lo4f.
Exchange ......
• French, 3 per cent...
Datch, 24 per cent......
Ditto,: per cent....
- SHARES.
ilirmingharn and Gloucester Railway 73
1:4:.;tol and ENei-er .........
London and 131.;.zliton
London and Soup h Western aailvray
iVarelester and Leeds Railway
North •)I:diard Railway
Ditto Ncw SintreF ..
Soath li:astc7n and Dose
York and North

--f.

t ;reek,. 162-5, 5 per,:eal
Dow. per Ct•Tl:.
l'ettzvian I :_•!-)5; ti per

711. -c

28
514
874
80
39

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

count

FROM TUE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
(From tha Globe.)
We yesterday delayed noticing the postscript to M.
Thief's' despatch—first, because it referred to a sub-
joined note, which is not yet published ; and secondly,
because, while it threw out something, which looked like
menace, it added nothing to the solid argument by
wh'ich M. Thiers supports his case. That
case appeers to us completely defective in any
j3st tnot'.vc to hostilities—and M. 'niers hlmself
must he sensible of this, as he winds up his pleading
with the strongest protestations of the des:re. of France
to pr' ierve peace. We are .willing to believe the sin-
cerity of that desire ; and M. Tillers gives no sufficient
ground, in his posteript, to alter it. It was anticipated
by all the English Journals, and was indeed inevitable,
that Mehe..-net Ali's "-conciliatory advances" could not
pnlsiniy he received, inconsistent as they were with the
terms and conditions definitively proposed to him. If
France had intcrvencd,or should in future intervene, in his
favour, the ease would be different; but Mehemet was, in a
Joanne-, past grace, in his own person ; so far its regarded
T hose conditions tor accepting which his day had Bone by,
fa; more these which had not even been offered to him in
the first instance. It is impossible that this can be made
a 'substantive grouud cf complaint ; it adds nothing to
what was already known as the consequence of the
treaty—unless the c'rcurnstance of Mehemet Ali's for-
mal depos tion by the Porte. That is not irrevocable,
es must also be perfectly well known ; it is rather a
Turkish expedient in terrorein than anything else ; and
. as we have already announced, be followed
up, in to,e:ufsubmistion. We cannot, therefore, regard
N. 'liner ' posteript as more warlike than his letter ;
and hides d we should be reduced to pity the responsible.
Minister of a great country, if be could find no better
cams belli than the deposition of the Paella by the
Porte. Malty things we find iu M. Thiele,' de-
s" itch, well or ill-foudded—personai statemirnts, added
to what was known before of official policy—facts,
iurcrences, and insinuafons, which, at present, we
pause not to analyse. It is a skilful state-paper ; but
one thing we cannot find ;—and that is the casus belli.
it is wholly incouczivabla to us that the Minister, cr
the Chambers., could resort to, or justify, warlike mea-
stireseon any ground here put for Ward.
(From the Courier.)
The Times objects against the despatch of M. Thiers
t h.,t it does not " convey any one distinct and practical
proeosal to form matter whcrecn the Allied Cabinets
may deliberate, or by the acceptance or rejection whereof
Ile: slightest approach may be made, to a solution of the
fsroblem of peace or war." The inference from this
tends, of course, to disparage the motives or to reflect
0., the siccerity of the French Government. With all
the rieference kith width we are habil udly disposed to
consider whatever may emanate from that able journal,
we cannot comprehend the force or the opportuneness of
such an objection on the present occasion. The despatch
is no less substantially than avowed:), a vindication
of the past, with , which it would have been mani-
tesdly out of place and irregular to mix up a decla-
ration of the future course of that Government. It is
in the nature` of a manifesto, addressed to the people of
Engieml, counter to that in which Lord Palmerston
appealed to F:un..!e ; a catalogue raisolinc of all said,
!lone,. and written to-the date, and therefore not an ad-
ye, rising sheet or works In hand or at press. It pre-
tend, no more, mid performs no less ; for, as the
Times previously and justly remarks, " It further
has the character of retrospection merely, prof,.F.sing
to be a defence of the past condtiet of France." In a
document evidently•prepared for prompt publicity, after
the csantple of our own Foreign-,office, it was no
part of duty, wlelst it would have been a departure from
'policy no less unwise • than inconvenient, in the French
Minister, io have volunteered a fOrmula- of terms, not
for:the cahu con,ideration of the British Secretary in
his Cabinet, but. for the less deliberate discussion of the,
eation iaTepular,assernislies. But in the review
atal esti:tit:den _of bygones, it does not follow that
it-id:cations may not be gleaned, or incidentally afforded,
wit;ch the grounds of former alienation more clearly
d.evelopeciend explained may pave the way for closer
eperoxitiostion to a better understarding prospectively,
ul tats providing that the eagerness of justification does
CitiL degeeer ate into the excesses of recrimination, and
therefore the public question hecomts absorbed and lost
se;ht of in feelings of personal irritation and mere con-
tentious for perLonJ triums. We warn Lord Pal-
merston, now advertised by his Press as preparing for
ali.f :rice and rejoinder,- that the surest prelude to war
and the battle-field is the vain war of words. . Even the
far-lamed Protocols on the Belgiats question, inter-
minable us they seemed, produced, and could only be
finally brought to an intelligilale solution by the bout-
berdment or Antwerp.
(From the Standard.)
The :Miming chronicle boasts somewhat ungratee
folly of the general unanimity of the country in .the
present crsiis of foreign politics, as proof of the
blessing. that the Government is in the hands of the
Whig-Radical part). We admit the fact that it is
to the official asceedance of the Whig-Radicals
we owe the general unanimity, but we deny that
the Widg-Risdicals are entitl d to much praise on
that account. - ,Ware a Conservative. administration
directing the affairs of the country in its present diffi-
cult circumstances, would the country present the.
setae unanimity—would the Whig-Radicals, in opph-
ect the noble part that the Conservatives are
now as ti .g ? No ; the history of the party tells how
iiiey woeful act—they would be, as they have ever
been, the allies, the adulators of the enemits of the
itoirour and interest of England, their patriotism
lire their loyalty, is ever ggicia/, dependent upon the '
rossession 0/ place, Were they dismissed from office to-
morrow, they would be found the staunchest supporters
of the measures of P.I. Thiers, the most earnest apolo-
gists for his hostile demonstrations against this coun-
try. Such they were in the cases of Robespkrre, Mae
Bison, and Napoleon. Far different is the temper
and spirit of the Conservative democracy, composed,
as they arc, of whatever is honest and patriotic
and truly English in the nation. They care little,
when their country is threatened, to whom they give
support in its defence.Like the Republican Blake,
abey will fight for England, whoever may rule ; like the
Cavalier Windham, they will stand by the Crown upon
any bush. A government that does its duty by Evg-
land can always count upon the hearty and unreserved
co-operation of the Conservative democracy ; nay, this
fait:dill discharge of public duty Possesses a power upon
the minds of Conservatives, to cover all the past sins of
those in whom it is found—even the transgressions that
have led to the present danger.

woulti not

REGISTaATION —MIDDLESEX.
(THIS DAY.)

The Learned Revising Barristers resumed their sit-
tings this woroing at the London CciTee-house,

(Before Mr. COVENTRY.
PERPETUAL AND STIPENDIARY dU
Mr. COVENTRY, on entering the Court this ;rim
de:ivered judgment, in the eases of the It'neis nA'°lre.ns-s-r-::
Fell, Hambleton, Hazelgrave,M'Kenzie, Venn,
Burgess, Mqiiven, and Howard, reserved nir Wils"'
Islington and Chelsea lists. The Learned Gennntl the
said, I have taken an opportunity of locking intoern
Church Buiitlior, Acts, from . the 58th Geo. 111., e the
45, to the 3d and 4th Victorie, cap. 60, of the le.t. es:
sion (eleven in number) ; but before I go in:o them, it
tnay be nececsary to t•ay a word or two respecting the
state of things prior to the passing of those Acts. As
to is rector, we know that he is entalcd to the parson-
"ge I,ollse, g'cbc, and great tithes, and that he has the
tyre tool of the Church ; for each anti all of these he
j_s, entitled to 11,2 placed on the county r. gister.
% here the .gre,.: tithes are impropriatc,. that is,
'"11c :,:ands o; I.y. owners, there is usually a vicarage
e
!'l. 'wed, the itteuniben• of which has the globe and small
tithes ;tc r these he is entitled to a county- vote. At
Point •
eiloNh are it
may be observed, that the pews in the
and yield
no to the houses of the inhabitants
a,
apmrefii t to the
coosidered Rector or Vicar, who are
curare, paid by the glebe and tithes.. With
respect to a
ear at. a stipulated
salary,
is employed by the rector or
,iarary, and is removable at plea-
::•.ore ; he has neither
from
in his appointment, nor
any direct profit arisint,
county hand ; he, therefore,
n.A.be admitted as a co can-
psrisiles the grineatwthiitchhe
case
y freeholder. But in some
mpropriate, and there is
s are i
no vicarage,
bound to appoint a curate,antilgelay impropriator is
• Bishop assigns him

- . - •..
a stipend out of the tithes. This curate is not remov-
able at the pleasure of the impropriator, and is therefore
called " perpetual," in contradistinction to an ordinary
curate, whose appointment is merely temporary.- A
perpetual curate, then, having a benefice for lie, with
salary out of the tithes, 1 hold to be entitled to a
vote. We now coma to the Church-building

Acts:which introduce an incumbent in many respecta
different from those before described, and he is called
a stipendiary curate. Such are the present claimants,
and they are declared by the above Acts to be severally
sole corporations, and to have all the characters, privi-
leges, and authorities of rectors and vicars ; but instead
of having any glebe or tithes, they are paid a fixed
salary out of the pew-rents of their respective
churches ; and the only question is, whether these
pew-rents are to be considered profits arising
from land ? To answer this question satisfactorily,
it may be necessary to take a short review of the Church
Building Acts. By the two first of them, the Com-
missioners are empowered to divide large and populous
parishes into districts, and after having built, or assisted
in building, one or more churches in each district (the
nomination to which is in the incumbent of the origi-
nal parish), to appropriate the glebe tithes. and other
tcclesistical benefices, in such way as they shall think
proper, and . the incumbent in each district is
then to become the rector or vicar thereof, in
the same way as the original incumbent was
of the original church. This appears to be the
case of the Rev. H. Burgess, whose claim to a vote is,
I think, clearly admissible. The Commissioners are
further empowered to assist subscribers in any parish to
erect churches and chapels, the site whereof is to be
conveyed to them, and the nomination of the incumbent
is to be in the rector of the mother church. Sub-
. scribers of 1001. each arc to have pews for life or for a
term of years, discharged of pew rent e but the remain-
der of the pews are to be let by the chapel-
wardens (appointed as in the Acts mentioned)
according to certain fixed tables ; these officers are em-
powered to recover the rents by action at law, but no
renter of a pew is to continue the same beyond twelve
months after tie shall have left the parish. From the
gross amount of rents thus received, the chapelwardens
are to pay the stipend of the minister, fixed by the Bi-
shop ; also the salary of the clerk (who is appointed
annually by the ineumhent), and all other expenses.
The surplus, if any, is to be accumulated in the hands
of the trustees for the purpose of purchasing a bu Wing
or residence for the minister ; but it is expressly pro-
vided that the parish shell not be liable to make good
any deficiency in the pew-rents, so that if they fall
short of the stipend fixed they belong wholly to the
clergyman. By another Act the Commissioners are
empowered to assist individuals in the erection of chapels
in populous places, provided such individuals will sub•
scribe a certain
.portion of the expense, and deposit
1,0001. in the Bank of England by way of endowment for
the officiating minister, whose appointment is to rest with
this individual subscriber, or with such trustees as he
shall name in the sentence of cc,nsecration. This minister
is also to be paid a stipulated salary out of the pew
rents the same as the others. By the last Act, 3 and
4 Victoria, cap. 60, large powers are given to charit-
able persons to endow these stipendary curicies with
monies, lands, or tenements, not exceeding the annual
value of 3001., without any license in mortmain:
Hence we find a new beneficed clergyman intro-
duced, called a stipendiary curate, whose appoint-
ment is for life, and 'eh° is created a sole corpoe
ration by Act of Parliament. His emolument is derived
from a source unknown to the common law, namely, the
letting of pews in his church annually, and the only
question is whether tnis is a mere personal salary or a
profit derivable from land. The distinction between
real and personal estate is broad and wel!-defined. From
the earliest periods the owner of personal estate has
been denied a voice in Parliamentary elections, and no
grievance can be made of this, as areal qualification can be
so easily purchased. The income derivable from
an endowment in the funds must therefore be dismissed,
but an income from real estate is not to lose its cha-
racter from being blended with that which is purely
personal. Fees payable for the performance of the mar-
riage ceremony, or that of baptism, or burial, are purely
personal, and a sum paid for opening a tomb is riot an
annual income. Ail, then, rests on the pew-rents.
Now it has been • held that a pew is an easement,
affording no right to vote ; how, then, it is asked, can
the rent of such an easement confer a greater right than
the thing itself ? To this it may be answered that the
owner of land may grant an easement of land for a
term at a stipulated rent, and though the easement
itself may confer no right, the rent would give
the owner of the land a vote ; moreover,
that this doctrine of an easement is applicable
to the common law only, and not to a state of Writes
newly introeuced by statute. The owner of an acre of
lend adjoining a lair may parcel it out into numerous
sheep pens, and four times a year receive a considerable
payment from. cattle salesmen. Twenty owners of a
piece of ground may erect a building upon it, and by
letting out the interior in small parcels derive enough
annual profit to qualify the whole number. The nuht
inconceivable portion of land is sufficient to give a county
vote, if the annual value of it be equal to the fran-
chise. I pay ten guineas a year for my pew
in Saint- Pancras Church, which is supported
by a single pillar, yet that is sufficient to confer
on the freeholder of the groUnd upon which that pillar
i stands, a county qualification. I think a pew rent, like
any other rent, must be considered a profit derivable
from land ; for the pew stands upon, or is supported by
a given space of earth, which is used for no other pur-
pose, and yields no other profit than the pew rent. The
only thing that remains to be done is to connect the
pew rent with a freehold estate in the land from which
it issues. This, in. the present case, can only be effected
in a circuitous manner. The freehold of the
church or chapel is in the Commissioners, and
the right to receive and recover the pew rent
in the church or chaptlwaidens. The rent
itself is undoubtedly enhanced by the popularity of the
minister, but it must be considered the profit of the
land, and net as fees for preaching the sermon. . In
this, Court, upon the best construction we can give the
Reform Act, we adunt trustees in actual possession and
reject the cestuipc trust who is out of possession ; but
if the cestuique trust is entitled to the rents in-another
character, as in virtue of some office or benefice, then I
hold him admissible as such, upon its beimg proved that
he is in for life, and that he derives, either legally or
equitably, forty shillings a year from a freehold estate.
'filet is the present case, and without pursuing the sub-1
ject further 1 think the whole of these claims ought to
ue admitted.—Names retained accordingly.
Mr. Coppock would not then attempt to question the
decision just given by the Learned Barrister, but with
great respect he would ask upon what principle were
dissenting clergymen excluded ?
Mr. COVENTRY—I hold they have no office within
the meaning of the Reform Act.
Air. Coppock—But, Sir, dissenting clergymen re-
ceive pew rents.
Mr. COVENTRY—You can only admit them as ces-
luique trusts.
Mr. Coppock—You only admit these clergymen, Sir,
as cestuique trusts, because you say the legal estate is in
the Commissioners, and the receipt of the rent in the
churchwardens.
Mr. COVENTRY—No, I say they are officers within
the meaning of the Act. Mr. Burgess receives no less
than 600/. a year.
Mr. Coppock observed that the case of Mr. Burgess
was very different from the others, as that gentleman's
might be considered a separate district church, het
he ought to apologise for making any observations after
judgment had been pronounced.
Mr. COVENTRY said no apology whatever was neces-
sary, for he was always happy to hear any observations
Mr. Coppock had to make.
Mr. Coppock would next year object to them on
stronger ground.
Mr. COVENTRY then revised the lists for the parishes
of St. George in the East, Christchurch, Mile•end New
Town, and St. John, Wapping.

. _
(Before Mr. SHADWELL.)
The Overseers of Norton Folgate appeared, and shid
they had neither claim nor objection to hand in. The
list was therefore passed.