The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-15 00:00:00

explained in an able speech the advantages that it
would confer on morality.
Mr. HAMILTON seconded the motion in a short and
neat speech.
Sir ROBERT Isnnts opposed it, and inquired on
what part of the Divine Law the Sabbath was divided.
IHe thought also the officers of that Institu-
tion should be considered ; but they might, on a
plan recently suggested in our Journal, go to Church
with the journeymen bakers on the Monday, and one or
two additional guardians, if necessary, would be cheer-
fully paid by the people.
Mr. WARBURToN ably supported the motion.
Mr. Got LBURN and Lord J. RUSSELL opposed it.
Mr. AGLIONBY supported, but, on a division, it was
lost. by 82 to 44.
Lord JOUN RUSSELL announced that he would to-
day move that the Lords' amendments to the Canada
Bill be agreed to.
In reply to Sir EDWARD SUDDEN, the Noble Lord
stated, that if the Bill for the Administration of Justice
came down from the other House, he hoped to pass it
before the prorogation of Parliament.
Mr. Gru.orr withdrew his motions, one of which
was informal.
Mr. MACKINNON moved for a Committee to investi-
gate the justice of removing the Hill Coolies to the
Mauritius.
After a short debate. the House was counted out at
Half-past Seven o'Clock, and the motion of course came
to nothing.

The Duke of WELLINGTON possesses vast in-
fluence both at home and abroad. Every word of his
is worth more than a volume from almost any other
man. What lie says in Parliament, in the heat of
debate, and unpremeditatedly. very often irfluences
the councils of the nation, and is always treasured
up. What he writes deliberately and publishes, is
therefore of still greater weight. On this account
we bey, attention to the Protest which the Noble
Duke has entered a,oainet the third reading of the
Canada Government Bill, which appears in another
part of The Sun.
We consider the publication of such a protest
against a Bill, which he has allowed to pass the
House of Lords, and which he might have stepped,
to be strangely inconsistent. We cannot compre-
hend that understanding, which at the same time
condemns and permits, depreciates and stamps with
the solemn sanction of his legislative authority.
The Duke, says the Examiner, has done more than
make the Canada questien an open question in the oppo-
sition party in the House of Lords ; he has not only dis-
banded his party, he has done more; he has pretty plainly
intimated that he should be best pleased by their throwing
themselves far the occasion into the opposite ranks. This
is a course which we are certain the Duke of Wellington
never would have taken but in the consciousness that he
had committed himself to the adoption of unsound opi-
nions. If be had believed all that he has been prompted
to say ,gainst the Bill he would fearlessly have defeated
it. Ead he thought his battle good he never would have
raised the cry of Each for Himself. Distrusting his
ground Be desires his party not to follow him.
By the whimsical proceedings of the Puke the Tory
Lords are now seen very actively engaged in passing a
measure which their leaders in the same House have cha-
racterised as everything that is unjust and tyrannical, and
doomed to failure by its demerits. That sort of gratuitous
disparagement which is vulgarly, but expressively, described
as crying stinking fish, has been most clamorously performed
by the Tory leaders in the House of Peers. The rejec-
tion of the Bill, whatever might be the prudence of such a
step, would be intelligible ; but to pass the measure, and
to discredit it and prejudice it to the greatest possible
degree while passing it, is a course utterly incompre-
hensible.
if we are not mistaken, the protest of the Duke
will have a more fatal effect—not on the Canadas,
nor on England, for the welfare of both will be
promoted by the separation of the colony from the
mother country—hut on the Tory policy, than any
step his Grace has ever yet taken. That protest
will be weighed and discussed clause by clause in
Canada ; the Republican party, or the patty which
demands local and responsible government, will
examine it as closely as their opponents. arid they
will find in it powerful weapons with which to
wound their antagonists. The Noble Duke puts
foremost, as the most powerful reasons for opposing
the measure, the following statement
lit. Because the union of the two provinces of Upper
and Lower Canada into one province, to be gevernid by
one Administration and Legislature, is inconsistent with
sound policy.
2d. Because the territory contained in the two provinces
is too extensive to be so governed with convenience.
ad. Because the communications from one part of the
country to others are very long and difficult ; the difficul-
ties whereof vary not only in different localities and parts
of the country, but in the same locality at different sea-
sons of the year.
4th. Because the expense which might be incurred to
remedy the inconveniences and to overcome the difficulties
of the communications at one season would not only be use-
less, but might be prejudicial, and render the communica-
tions impracticable at other seasons.
sth. Because, even in the hypothesis that a central
place is ftzed upon as the metropolis and seat of Govern.
ment of the United Province, and for the Assembly of the
Legislature, stilt the communication with the distant parts
of the United Province would require a journey of from
500 to 1,000 miles by land or water, and in most cases by
both.
But every argument here slated is good for local
government, and if it tell against the onion of the
two provinces, it must tell with threefold force
against the union of the two provinces with the
mother country, to be governed by an Executive,
and controlled by a Legislature three times as far
eff as the greatest distance between one part of the
unitea colony and the other. If the territory of
Canada be too large to be governed by one ad-
ministrative and legislative authority, what can be
said in favour of the Imperial Government ? All
the difficulties, all the expense of communication
with distant parts of Canada exist now, and in
addition there is the expense and the difficulty of
communication with England before the Governor-
General can r ct, except in cases of great emer-
gency, and before a measure which receives the as-
sent of the local Parliament, can become a law.
Considering the great authority of the Duke of
WELLINGTON, we have never seen more power-
ful arguments, not only for the separation and inde-
pendence of the Canadas, but for the establish-
ment of a local and independent Legislature and
Executive authority in every colony or dependence
of Britain. In India, in New South Wales, in
Australia, the inhabitants are not likely at ptesent
to act on the principle laid doyen by his Grace,
but they will be immediately invoked in Canada,
and by-and-by will be the motto of all the discon-
tented in every colony. The distance of a thousand
of miles is, according to the Duke, too large for
authority to be beneficially exercised.
There are some other passages in his Grace's
protest on which the Canadians will passionately
and fondly dwell when they demand indepen-
dence ; such as that in which their courage and
their ability to defend themselves, are mentioned,
but we content ourselves with quoting only the
above. Whether they were suggested by his own
good sense, or by that HEAD which has led so
many other heads astray as to Canada, and he
only adopted them, we know not, but certainly
they are worthy of the man who sent away his
troops to court rebellion, and was only saved from
ruin by the extreme imbecility and cowardice of his
opponents.

Mr. HUME brought forward last night a mo-
tion to open the British Museum to the public on
Sundays at the same hours as public houses are
allowed to be opened. The Hon. Member wishes
for a rival amusement to gin-chinking, which shall be
equally attractive and more innocent. He well
observed—
If a rational, innocent, and instructive mode of passing
that part of the Sabbath day not devoted to religious exer-
cise could be adopted, it would be productive of health to
the body, and amusement and instruction te, the mind. At
the corner of every great street public-houses were open,
with flags hoisted on the house-top, as a temptation to the
weary passer- bv to indulge in their pais mous liquors .
lie was then proposing a measure which be thought would
be a means of enticing the English artisan from those
habits into which bad legislation had heretofore led him,
and which would
give him an opportunity, after Divine
Service on Sunday, of making choice of an amusement
which would improve his condition.
The motion we are happy to notice was seconded
by Mr. HAMILTON, who sits on the Tory
benches, and whom we have seen on two or three
occasions, though he be yet a young Member, rise
superior to the trammels of patty- Though the
motion was eminently calculated to improve the
taste and the morals of the people it was strenu-
ously opposed by Sir It. INGLts and Mr. GOUL•
BURN, with whom we deep(): regret to say Lord J.
RUSSELL allied himself, and towhom he gave the
victory. The motion was lost on a division, the
supporters of the Ministers uniting with the bigots
to compel the people to resort to the public-house-
for amusement on the Sabbath.

We are not in the least surpriseeAt the opposition
of the bigots. At present, the only rivals of the
parsons on the Sunday are the gin-shops, and they
want no other. Sir ROBERT INGLIS maintains
the exclusion to force the people to go to Church,
as if the cold and formal ritual of the Prayer-hook
were likely to have a more moral and beneficial
ff_lct on the mind, than the sight of the many
wonders of creation which are crowded into the

Museum. He spoke and voted in the interest 1
clera.v, Pnd h c rnnAl!e is 'lel!'
sisteut ; but why Lord J. RUSSELL took the same t
side, we cannot tell. Lordship's speech unfortu-
nately affords no justification of his vote. He did
not pretend to defend the consistency of our pre-
sent practices, btu he was. afraid that if the people •
were allowed to go to the:. Museum, they might
afterwards require other innocent amusements on

the Sunday.
Why should they not ? His Lordship instanced
the drains. Dramas are performed in all the
Protestant as well as the Catholic States of Ger-
many on Sunday. What harm arises ? The
people are kept from sotting in public-houses. In
the towns of Germany where there are theatres,
there is no more beer-drinking on Sunday than on
other days ; but there is in the country places where
this amusement cannot be had. By closing the
theatres on Sunday Lord JoHN and the Legislature
open the public-houses. in fact, they sanction
drunkenness in the latter by law, and deny
innocent recreation in the former. Suppos-
ing, therefore, that the opening of the Mu-
seum on Sundays were to be followed by
the opening of the theatres, that would be
an advantage to the public, and would promote
morality by substituting the rational amusements of
the theatre for the drunkenness of the public-home.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL is becoming too thick, for
our taste, with the Archbishop of CANTERBURY.
He has agreed to the suggestions of the Arch-
bishop in relation to the Canada Clergy Reserves.
He countenances all the nonsense and all the hum-
bug of the Episcopal clergy a great deal more than
is acceptable to the public. The pretence that
the Church, with its formal observances, its Romish
masses, its antiquated Liturgy—of which the en-
lightened clergy do not approve—its strange and
reiterated doctrines, in the teeth of every-day facts,
that the sins of the world are taken awa-ythe pre
tence that the Church promotes morality, is now
very generally appreciated at its due value. The
clergy are aware of the state of the public mind,
and feel that their power now depends. wholly on
the law. The strict observance of the Sabbath,
though not invented by them, but by the Puritans,
is kept up for their advantage ; and Lord JOHN
RUSSELL, by resisting the relaxation proposed,
makes the public suspect that he is too much
priest-ridden to conduct the affairs of the State to
great advantage. The Anglican Church, we re-
peat, is one of the great political nuisances of the
day. It meets us at every turn, and stops every
improvement. For its behoof the masses are de-
graded from rational beings—worshipping the great
Creator in his works—into mere automatons, follow-
ing a formal mode of adoration one half of the Sab-
bath, and passing the other in public-houses. We arc
sorry, deeply sorry, to see Lord J. RUSSELL coun-
tenancing such an institution, and arresting for its
ads antage the improvement proposed by Mr.
HUME.

We cannot help suspecting that it was not so I
much the coarseness of our language, as our search-
ing exposure of the Non-Intrusion humbug, that
has given such offence to the Morning Adver- '
tiser. Could our Contemporary have answered
our arguments, he would have pardoned our style.
We ripped up—not, we confess, with a tender
hand, for no tenderness is due to such men—the
proceedings of the Non-Intrusion leaders, showed
the hollowness of their pretences, and proved, a.;
far as men's words and actions can prove their in-
tentions, that while they professed to extend the
rights of the people, their real object was to extend
the power of the Church. The whole tenor of their
condi.ct, trom the moment when the Non-Intrusion
deception was first launched upon the stage in 1834,
in the shape of the Veto Act, to the pticilication of
1)r. CIIALM Efts' last letter in the Witness, amply
bears out this charge.
And how does the Advertiser meet it ?
What are the counterproofs which he brings

forward to rebut it ? Does he venture to ex-
plain how it happened that the Assembly's Act
of 1834, while it gave to the so-called " people" the
right of vetoing the patron's presentee, positively
prohibited them from vetoing the presentee of the
Presbytery ? By that Act, when the " people" had
thrice exercised their veto, the patronage devolved
upon the Presbytery ; but then there was to be no
more vetoing. The Presbytery's presentation was to
be absolute and final T. Had not this a touch of
intrusion in it ? Does it not look something like
a hankering after power on the part of the Church ?
It must be admitted on all hands that it has that ap-
pearance, and -must. be understood in that sense
until it is satisfactorily explained.
The delicate subject of the restriction of the veto
qualification, a point of vital importance in estimat-
ing the real designs of the Non-Intrusion men, is
one on which our Contemporary might have be-
stowed a word or two, were it only to remove a
prejudice naturally arising against a system which
enables the minister of a parish to limit the numberof
his " peoplo"to ten or twelve persons out of a popula-
tion of ten or twelve hundred. Our Contemporary will
perhaps scold us for eur want of o.courtesy" if we I
say that it is a gross imposture to give the name of
" the people" to so minute a fraction of a- congre-
gation ; yet either it is so, or one good large kirk
would contain all the people of Scotland.
Another thing that wanted a little clearing up is
the arbitrary and apparently very inconsistent way
in which the Non-Intrusion gentry have c:3l, and
carved their " principle," as they term it. We wish
to know upon what ground " the people," whose
right to reject a minister is declared to he an in-
alienable Christian privilege, are precluded from
what would seem to be the no less inalienable privi-
lege of electing their own minister, and dismissing
him at their pleasure ? Spiritual edification, it is
maintained, is the foundation of the right of rejec-
tion. But if spiritual edification be paramount to
every other, consideration—if it be the right and
the clu' v of Christians to reject unedifying
religious instructors, it must be their tight and duty,
not merely to accept an instructor edifying to a
certain degree, presented to them by others, but to
select for themaelvesthe most edifying instructor they
can find. Still more must it be their right to rid
themselves of the incubus of an unedifying instructor.
There is, therefore, great inconsistency, to say the
least, in the limitation of theNon-Intrusion principle
to the negative right of objecting. By such a limita-
tion it is not merely cramped and crippled —it is
rendered utterly powerless, and incapable of
being defended on rational grounds. Had the
Non-Intrusion jugglers had the rights of the people
at heart, instead of the rights of the cloth, they
would have said, " away at once with patronage in
every form I You shall choose your own ministers
without let or hindrance, and you shall dismi,s
them whenever you please." When they say this
we shall believe them sincere, and single-hearted.
The Morning Advertiser is also discreetly taci-
turn about the dereliction of principle of which Dr.
CHALMERS, the Coryphceus of the Non-Intrusion
party, stands convicted by his own testimony. We
showed up the underhand dealing of this man in
his attempts to make the one political party out-
bid the other in concessions to the Kirk ; his ex-
pressed willingness to sacrifice his favourite Non-
Intrusion principle, from which he once swore he
would never depart—" no, not a hairbreadth"—
provided he received an adequate consideration
in Church power ; and his shameless offer to bribe
Lord ABERDEEN by the promise of the Kirk's
future support to his party, at the time that he was
publicly disavowing all political views—yet not a
whisper on this subject, involving so deeply the
character of the party, that the honest among them
are crying shame upon him, escapes our Contem-
porary. All that he advances to repel the evi-
dence, bearing from so many points, and with so
much weight against the sincerity of the Non-
Intrusion leaders in their professions of attachment
to the rights of the people, and tending to prove
that their sole object has been the extension of their
own power, is the, following morceazt, which, we
think, will possess a peculiar richness for the folks
on the other side of the Tweed :
" Had they been aiming at the possession of the power
of placing ministers of their own choice in the pulpits of
the parish churches of Scotland, they would have hailed
Lord Aberdeen's Bill with rapturous exultation; for the
efftet of that measure would necessarily be to vest in them
the virtual pitronage of all the Churches in Scotland, inas-
much as it provides that the parishioners aye to state their
any particular presentee, and it would then
with them to decide whether or not the objec-
So far from wishing to the slightest personal in-
(ii°l.)loine'-'sicY toiru° egnsghtt to
to be sustained or the presentee be inducted.
acquire i
fhienee in the appointment of ministers, the Non-Intrusion
Clergy, headed by Dr. Chalmers, have from first to last
most strenuously contended for the right Qf the peopleto
reject presentees whom they deem unfitted for the minis-
terial uffice, without assigning any reasons wbatever for
such rejection.'?
If our Contemporary would take the trouble to
make himself acquainted with the subjects he writes

about it would save him from exposing

till", lirtO,t, t1i.10.1 441.11. t. it., Ili ;. . .. ... ~.... -
DEEN'ti 13.11 to give the patronage of all the clan-cites
I iti Scotland to the clergy I Is it really so ? Them
1 wtrat a purblind creature Dr. CrIALNIERS mast be
not to have found out this reading so obvious to

the Morning- Advertiser ! That Reverend person,
who has had as good opportunities as most people
for becoming acquainted with its nature, cicelares
that his objection to the Bill was its the
power of the clergy. We shall quote his own words,
because they not only give the most authoritative
contradiction to our Contemporary's assertion that
even he could devise—that of the head of his pet

patty—hut afford at the same time- a happy speci-
men of the Doctor's " elasticity of sentiment," and
of the ease with which the transmutation of a princi-
ple may be accomplished by a skilful operator.
In a letter to the Witness newspaper published
on the 16th ult., the Rev. Doctor delivers himself
!o the following effect :—" I felt little or no disap-
pointment at the relinquishment either of the Veto
or of the Call, compared with the disappointment I
felt-at the limitation set by Lord Aberdeen's Bill
on the competency ofthe Presbyter') tojudge,f ruin
nil the eh cumstances of the case, on what they
deemed best for the edification of the people.'
Thus, the Bill which, according to our Contempo-
rary, would have thrown all the patronage of the
Kirk into the hands of the clergy, is scouted by
Dr. CHALMERS, not because it takes away the
Veto and the Call, and with these the Non-Intru-
sion-hairbreadth principle, but because it " limits
the competency of the Presbytery." Truly Non-
I Intrusion principles are odd things.
As to Dr. CHALMERS contending for
the right of the people to reject presen-
tees without assigning any reasons
:being any
proof of his not desiring an increase of in-
tinence for himself and his Order, we now see how
much it is worth, and how strenuous it is, when
the people and the Presbytery are put in compari-
son. Such a " people" as we have shown that of
the Non-Intrusionists to be, would present no ob-
stacles, but every facility for priestly domination.
We cannot close this article without a slight notice
of our Contemporary's attempt to Pstimate the rela-
tive numbers of the Non-Intrusionists and their
opponents by the number of the signatures to the
petitions of the respective parties. No one will
give the' least weight to such an argument who
enows the means by which the Non-Intrusion pe-
titions have been got up, and who consid rs also
that the great mass of the people of Scotland are sa-
tisfied with the law as it is, and, therefore, can
have no inducement to petition for any particular
measure. It is a well-known fact that the Non-
Intrusion petitions have been hawked about from
nursery to nursery by ladies, and sinned by all the
children that could write. We call this sort of
petitioning humbug.
We will give our Contemporary a much better
criterion than such petitions. Let him look to the
Newspaper Press if he wishes to understand the
sentiments of the people of Scotland on the point
in queStion. The portion of the Press which sup-
ports Non-Intrusion is so small a fraction of the
whole. that it is absolutely not worth being taken
iii to tne account. Will the Mot ning Adeerliser
favour us with an explanation of this curious fact,
on his supposition that the vast majority of the
people are Non-limusionists ?
That there are in the Church a goodly number
of oflice4reaters who, fir the sake of setilinf, the
dispute speedily, ate willing to accept Lord ABER-
DEEN'S Bill—of which we, for our part, have
never approved, because we believe the lase to be
sofficiently strong to make itself obeyed by the
refractory part of the clergy—there is not a doubt.
The following declaration, signed by one thousand
and fifty ministers and elders, which has just been
published, sufficiently proves that. It proves also,
that the Non-Intrusion mania is fast subsiding,
and gives the he to the stateo.ents of those who are
constantly and confidently asserting that the Church
lof Scetland is opposed to the Bill. These Mt-
-I.nisters and elders state, " That, in their opinion,
the measure, on the whole, is fully accordant with
the principles of our Ecclesiastical Constitution,
and with the scriptural view which belongs to the
office-bearers of the Church in the settlement of
ministers ; and that the reception of the measure
by the Church would, in their judgment, accom-
plish every thing which she can reasonably desire
for securing spiritual independence in the introduc-
tion of suitable pastors into parishes, and for thus
promoting the good of the Chrtstian people."

In an article which appeared in The Sun of
Saturday last we noticed, with expressions of appro •
hation and pleasure, a paragraph which occurred
in a Report presented to the French Chamber of
Peers by the Committee of that assembly on the
Paris and Rotten Railway Bill, in which the fact
of English capitalists having subscribed one-half
of the money required to make that road, is alluded
to by their Lordships .‘ as a happy omen of the con-
tinuation of that alliance which causes these two great
nations, mutually assisting one.. another, to march
att
ti
affordedtt
el
peaceng e
h aheadsuna t 00l
filledof
unalloyed
ensureteciviliseddelightpatriotic
t Europe,
et no Toe
bosompl
The Sun
i sea
tont-
oCnhat
Contemporary the Post with forebodings the. most
, painfully afflicting. He discovers irony in evety
syllable quoted from the Report of the Peer; Com-
! inittee, and the allusion to the
! workmen with English gold reminds him of the pa-
paya-tent of French
rasite in .‘ Gil Bias," who, after eating up the
stewed trout, Lughed in the face of the dupe who had
I been so silly as to order and pay for it. But our Cur.-
,•
Cut:-
temporary s indignation will not suffer him to stop
fnOdoiaiiirducf.a;:\lli
la,
at
here. He goes so far as to set forth what lie would
do, or rather not do himself, and what he would
compel others to do, were he entrusted with the su-
Pmire functions of Legislation. The passage is
sufficiently explicit :
see
other In plain language—for we see no use in beating aboutFrenchroernacsh os
edr
iebvei fno
oucder s
ix-
p, lice the bu,h—we would) ct r
in
. 0 Pliable them to pay French workmen for mi,king
a rairond from Pare to Rotten.
ice
It is (in onr opinion) most disgraceful that a set of
wl give (
men who are striving to throw our agricultural la..
bourers out of work by obtaining an alteration in
the law which obliges consumers to pay a duty upon
corn not grown in the British islands, should he exultina,
on the other hand, in an expenditure of English capital
which will go chiefly in the payment of wa<,es to French
Labourers. It is rnoueh to foster :i feeling of rebel ion in
the minds of the British working classes. If the law were
what it ought to be, capitalists would not allowed to
s!!end what they have accumulated under the protection of
British institutions is the furtherance of the projects of
iJreign Governments and in the payment of foreign
, lab iurere

eu
I‘Cf. ei with
opmaenitl Caolilidt emg
epnotria.imy
erri aywebaer
iantigorsailc,l,
............
waiting--fl„ip.
knots, but no " babe or suckling" can be more
ignorant than he is of the first principles of com-
merce. He .;CCITIS to be unacquainted with the
fact that money is equally an article of trade with
cottons or broad-cloths, and that the capitalists
who subscribe for the making of French railways,
are influenced by the laudable desire to gain
as large
an . interest as they can upon their ca-
pital. They seek not to spend money earned
in England, like the , rent-eating landlords
who spend their autumns at German Spas,
and their winters in Italy, indifferent to
the wants of their tenantry at home, but
rather to increase by profitable investment the
money in their hands. As to the Post's seeing
the " French to the devil" before subscribing a
sixpence for a French railway, that is a matter of
taste, about which we have no inclination to
quarrel. We admit that the faction of which the
Post 13 the organ, has reason to detest the nation
whose example- has conttibuted so essentially to the
tiumph of the principles of civil and religious
liberty throughout Europe. We can therefote make
a large allowance for the expectoration of Tory
bile when the question at issue relates to the
growing frieaship of the Governments and
the people of England and they
But the Post would do mote than prevent British
capitalists from subscribing to the establishment of
French railways. It would compel them to ex
peed their capital at home for the benefit of the
corn-taxing landlords. This is droll enough, see-
ing that, by implication, our Contemporary adolits
that it is the high price of bread that forces British
capitalists to invest their money in the public under-
takings of other nations I British capitalists, like
every other description of traders, invest their
money where it is at once safest and yields the
highest rate of interest. If an investment can he
more profitably made in a French railway than in
an English one, owing w the high price of bread in
England, the blame is attributable not to the capi-
talist, but the bread-taxing lapdlord.
But in truth this view of the matter • 1 nett ler oc-