The Sun.
London, England, 1824-03-01 00:00:00

[THB TIMES.]

The Paris Papers of Friday; which arrived last
night, are more than usually curious to those
ho take an interest in the internal politics of
France. They contain the result of the first
day's eie,ction in the capital—a result for which
those only could be prepared who hare for the
fast two months been watching the manceuvres of
the Government agents, or calculating the influ-
ence of Ministerial corruption, in a kingdom
where representative government is little under-
stood, and where no independent •bodies exist
to. oppose Ministerial usurpations. It may be
necessary to remind some of our readers, who
are happily relieved from the necessity of at-
tending habitually to French politics, that
in France there are two kinds of elective
bodies—that of districts, and that of depart-
ments; that. the former consists of all who pay
direct taxes to the. amount of 300 francs
a year or upwards, and the latter of a certain
proportion of the former who pay the highest
census ; and the electoral colleges of districts
were convoked for the 25th of February, and
those of departments for a subsequent day. The
district of arrondissement colleges of Paris, or
the department of the Seine, are eight in number,
and 4he candidates proposed by the Liberals
for them, were General Foy, the late deputy ;
Lafitte, the banker ;' M. Cassimir Perrier, the
banker; M. Benjamin Constant, the political
writer; M. Benjamin Delessert, the banker; M.
Delaborde, the author of the work on Spain ; M.
Salleron, and M. Ternaux, the great manufac-
turer. The number of voters in each College
was as follows : in the first, 1,502; in the se-
cond, 1,360 ; in the third, 1,305 ; in the fourth,
1,318; in the fifth, 1,080 ; in the sixth, 861 ; in
the seventh, 'l,llB ; and in the eighth, 456. In
the first College, General 'Foy, opposed to M.
Le Brun, obtained 749 votes against 743, but
neither having gained the absolute majority of
752, the election was declared incomplete, and
a new scrutiny was fixed for the following day.
A similar obstacle occurred to a perfect return
from the second College, where M. Lafitte had
673 votes opposed to 678, the absolute majo-
rity being 681. In the third, M. Casimir Per-
rier was returned by a majority of 64 over his
antagonist ; and in the fourth, M. B. Constant
was declared deputy by a majority of 135. But
here the success of the Liberals was arrested.—
M.M. Delessert, Delaborde, Salleron, and Ter-
naux, having lost their elections in favour of
their respective antagonists, M. llaricart de
Thury, M. de Lapanouze, M. Cochin, and M.
Leroy. Who these latter persons are, with the
exception of M. de Lapanouze, the government
banker, we believe it would puzzle a skilful
Parisian elector to state, but it is sufficient that
they were proposed by the Treasury, and support-
ed by the influence of Ministerial corruption. Me-
naces,promises, direct interference,and even posi-
tive dishonesty in making-out the list and returns,
we are assured, have riot been spared. The
Quolidienne tells us that the successful Minis-
terial candidates were proclaimed deputies amid
cries of Vive le Roi. If the claims of their an-
tagonists were thus to be considered as opposed
to the existence of the throne, a republican, or
art enemy of the Bourbons, could desire nothing
better than a free election. It is stated in these
papers that M. Bertin de Vaux has been re-
turned for Versailles, and that General Lafayette
has lost at Meaux.

Ess.]
The French papers of Friday and Saturday
reached our office last night. The last accounts
from Rome state that the Sovereign Pontiff, who
had been so ill, was recovering his health ; but
three of the Cardinals, Severoli, Rusconi, and
Fahrizzio Ruffo, were in extreme danger. The
sacred college has, latterly, been thinning fast;
a new promotion was expected to be made
about the middle of Lent. Paez de la Cadena,
the new Ambassador from Spain to this country,
had arrived at Paris, and may therefore be soon
'xpected here. The Eluile says it has received ;

the Smyrna Paper of the Turks, the Speciateur
Oriental, of the 15th of January, and that it con-
tradicts the landing of the Greeks at Scio and
Mitylene, and denies also the capture of Caristo,
which the celebrated Odysseus was stated to
have taken by storm on the 12th of December :
the Smyrna journal, no doubt, will deny, if pos-
sible, every successful achievement of the Greeks.
Falsehood and defamation have marked this
journal for the last three years, whenever the
Greek cause has been alluded to. The French
Papers detail the movements of the Greek chiefs.
No misrepresentation can disguise the progress
they are making. The plague is raging among
their infatuated enemies, and doing the dreadful
work of annihilation more widely than the
sword. Odysseus is said to be before Caristo,
where this terrible enemy was put in full havoc,
and eight Ipsariot vessels blockaded Negropont.
Patras, the Smyrna paper asserts, was fully pro-
visioned, and, with Cora and Modin, safe from
capture. But the Greeks have now got a park
of artillery, and the Turkish holds will soon
fall before their fire, and the banner of
the Prophet disappear from their walls.—
Minziacky, the Russian diplomatist, after a
slow progress, so as to watch the course of events,
had arrived at the Turkish capital on the 17th.
He will find it difficult to conciliate the jealousies
of the Divan, while the Russian hordes hover
on Bessarabia, menacing the frontiers. The
Turkish Reit Effendi was, it appears, dan-
gerously ill, and the Sublime Sultan had deputed
his chief physician, with the menace of the bow-
string in case of failure, to restore his Minister
to health. This is a summary method of cure;
but the " brother of the sun and moon " deals
in no half-measures ; threats, however, do not
arrest the career of the Christians ; their expe-
ditions are all successful, and their cause is daily
strengthening, and advancing fast to the glorious
consummation, at which, through their unparal-
leled efforts, it must now finally arrive.

[MORNING UHRONICLEd
It was generally reported yesterday, that Lord
Redesdale, Lord Gifford, Sir William Grant, and
Mr. Bell, are to be the Commissioners to investi-
gate the abuses in the Court of Chancery. The
appointment of the two latter individuals would
give universal satisfaction, provided they would
undertake industriously to sift all matters com-
plained of—to state their opinions upon the causes
of the mischiefs,and to suggest proper remedies.—
But one of them, than whom an abler or more up-
right Judge never presided upon any Bench, has
retired from it for some years, in consequence of
advanced age, and the other an admirable lawyer,
by his own admission tired of labour, for the
sake of his ease, has relinquished a most lucrative
practice in the Courts ! Can it reasonably be hoped
that either of these very eminent men will sacri-
fice their own personal comfort (after the great
sacrifices they have made to secure it) for the pur-
pose of cleansing those kugean stables, the Courts
of Chancery, and the Masters' Offices. With re-
spect to the nomination of the two Noble Lords :
to mention them on this occasion is an insult to
the public. One of them is Ex-Chancellor, en-
riched and ennobled by the very system which
he is called upon to reform—and enjoying in
his own family all the patronage that Lord
Eldon can exercise. The other is an Expect-
ant Chancellor' Both have abundant reason
to be satisfied with things as they are—for
without the usual discipline of academical pre-
paration, they have arrived at the highest
honours of the Law ! It would argue an ignor-
anceof human nature to suppose that persons,
so circumstanced, could proceed upon this in-
quiry without entertaining a reverential awe for
the feelings and interests of those who had contri•
buted to their own most extraordinary advance-
ment, and without looking to the share they already
had, or might in future have, in the benefits which
the present system produces. The public mind
is awakened to this important subject, and Mini-
sters may rest assured, that no packed Commis-
sion will prevent the nation from demanding, and
at length obtaining, a thorough reform of this
enormous nuisance, which, under the name of a
Court of Equity, inflicts calamities over the coun-
try as wide in their extent as they are severe in
their nature.

[MORNING POST.]

The result of the discussion on Mr. Sergeant
Onslow'a Bill on Friday last is extremely gratifying to us,
inasmuch as we consider it prognostic of the certain defeat
of that measure. It will have been observed that the advo-
cates of a repeal of the Usury Laws had not a single new argu-
ment in its favour to advance during the late debate, and that
among its opposers are many individuals, such as Mr. T. Wil-
sonland Alderman Heygate, whose practical knowledge of the
details of trade enable them to form the best judgment on the
effect of the proposed alteration in our fundamental laws. That
the Bill before Parliament is supported by names of distin-
guished authority, we by no means intend to dispute ; but the
fact we think may be thus accounted for--that the subject under
consideration is of a twofold character, and that the Authorities
we allude to discuss but one of its divisions, viz. the direct
transactions between Money Lenders and Money Borrowers, on
a large scale. For their side of the question this is by far the
most favourable aspect under which a repeal of the Usury Laws
can be viewed, and from the comparative simplicity of the
dealings between such parties, general speculations may be
applied to them with much ease and apparent success. But
even here we can see the most ruinous consequences to the
best interests of the country included in Mr. Onslow's
The Statutes against usury are in our opinion part and parcel
of the ancient Constitution of the realm, and have efficaciously
concurred with the laws regulating the deicent of property
to preserve to the nation, notwithstanding our commercial
greatness, its distinguishing character of an hereditary mo-
narchy with an hereditary aristocracy, and elective representa-
tion of the people. Now we ask if the Constitution had not
imposed restraints upon the natural revolutions of property,
would it have been possible in a country like this, where
wealth is so rapidly accumulated by industry, to have retained,
to any thing approaching the extent which we have retained,
a fixed proprietorship of the soil in the ancient families of the
kingdom ? Will it be said, then, that this is not a salutary fea-
ture in the Monarchy of England ? Were the Chief Magistrate
elective, or the Constitution Republican, we might perhaps per-
ceive a consistency in having the other branches of the State of j
the same transitory nature--of acknowledging no Nobility but
that of existing wealth, or existing talent. There is, however,
the authority of a living writer of great celebrity, himself a
zealous Republican, and a citizen of the United states of Ame-
rica—we mean Mr. Washington Irving—in favour of the Here-
' ditary Aristocratical Institution of England. The permanent
interest with which they inspire our great families for the welfare
and honour of the people, and the country, is forcible depicted
by that Gentleman in one of his beautiful essays, and philoso-
phically preferred to the more modern institutions of his own
country. It is indeed one of the peculiar and glorious character-
istics of the system under which we live, that while the highest
honours are accessable to individuals of the meanest birth, and
the fleeting acquisitions of niece genius and industry thus ren-
dered subservient to the lasting greatness of the State, provi-
sion is made for upholding the ancient hereditary dignity of the

kingdom. We therefore caution those who would maintain the
British Monarchy as it is, and bequeath the blessings it now
bestows to their posterity, against an innovation of so radical
and fearful an influence as the repeal of the Usury Laws. The
facility which such a measure would afford for the transference
of landed estates into the hands of mere capitalists, appears to
us to imply the necessary destruction at no distant period of the
ancient hereditary Aristocracy of the country. Is an event of
this sort to be risked, and for no other reason than to encourage
the raising of loans on mortgage in preference to loans on an-
nuities ? The latter mode may, for aught we know, be more im-
mediately expensive to borrowers, but assuredly it does not en-
tail such ultimate confiscation of property, as will be incurred
by mortgages liable to be foreclosed at every fluctuation of the
money market. So far as to the direct transactions between
great lenders and borrowers which have been principally relied
on. The indirect effects of the Usury Laws in mitigating the
ferocity of avarice against the needy we before adverted to, and
shall at present only repeat, that if the rich creditor is assisted
by the law in mulcting his debtors to the full extent of his rapa-
city, the most horrible cruelty will result to one half of the
community.

[MORNING HERALD.]
It gives us great pleasure that Mr. Onslow is
persisting in his Bill to do away the Usury Laws. People
ought to be allowed to trade as freely in their money as in land
or goods. At present, in a comparative respect, rich land-holders
only can borrow. If these laws are rescinded, all will be
able to borrow. As one of the Members justly said in the
course of the debate on Friday night, the laws of arrest for mo-
ney lent ought to be done away simultaneously with the Usury
Laws. One of the Members observed, that though money was
at so low a rate of interest in London, it was not easy to
borrow money in the country. The doing away these laws
would immediately have the effect of spreading the stag-
nated load of medium at present in London over the
country, and would consequently. give a great stimulus to
trade, for then every young beginner would be enabled
to borrow. At present many such are not able to begin,
because they cannot borrow. We do not see a single
argument of the least weight brought forward against the mea-
sure. The only thing said is, that our ancestors did so and so,
and because we have implicit faith in the wisdom of our an-
cestors, we will not alter what they did. The Church is brought
to bear on the question. The Church has set its face against
lending money on usance. The Church had the authority of
Scripture for so doing, both in the Old and the New Testa-
ment. Moses, to the best of our recollection, says to the effect
" Thou shalt not charge thy neighbour any increase when
he borroweth from thee." Our Saviour goes farther when
he said, " Give unto him that ask." It is rather awkward,
in arguments on these subjects, to bring forward the au-
thority of the Church, which inevitably leads us to look
into the authorities from which the Church proceeded to
lay down its dictum. Suppose the tithes were the question,
and the Church was brought forward as an authority, of course
the Old and New Testament would be referred to. Certainly
the Old Testament allows of Tithes, but the New says nothing
on the subject; for our Saviour told his Apostles to take no-
thing with them, when he sent them forth into the world to
preach the Gospel. We are surprised that Members should
bring forward the authority of the Church. Sir John Se-
bright said the repeal of these laws would more especially be
beneficial to the landed interest. lie is right : were they re-
pealed, every landed proprietor would be able, when he wanted
money, to go to a banker, with his deeds in his hand, *and say
to that banker, I will lodge these deeds with you as a collateral
security, if you, on the strength of such security, will discount,
at any usance to be agreed on between us, my bill at three,
six,. nine, twelve months, or any other date. This would sim-
plify the thing, and enable a man to relieve himself in any case
of sudden emergency, in preference to going to an attorney, and
incurring the dreadful expence of conveying his estates, on the
principle of annuity, to the lender ; and as money lenders
always like the security of land, in preference to personal
security, so the landholder would always have the pre-
ference in the money market. It is decidedly to the in-
terest of the landholder that Mr. Onslow should succeed.
—The only people that can dislike the change are solici-
tors, because it will cut up a great deal of their trade of
procuring for their clients beneficial annuities in landed se-
curity, with the deposit of deeds, and on the other side of the
question, money for their clients borrowed on annuity. As to
trade, the measure would be highly ,beneficial ; it would
enable the old rich drones to retire and leave their con-
cerns and money at usance to young enterprising men.—
If the young adventurer in trade is ruined by contracting
to give too high a rate of interest, must do as is now
done in trade—begin over again. We state this in case lie
does not suffer—for if one tradesman be ruined another sup-
plies his place immediately. As to the ruin which might befal
others, that argument stands for nothing. If the rich will
spend more than their income, and will borrow money to
meet the difference, they must take the consequences. But all
the difference to the country. is, that a prudent man gets hold of
land, to the exclusion of the improvident. Except this subject
he simplified, it cannot be understood. Adam Smith, Sir
Joshua Child, Lord Bacon, and other authorities, only mysti-
fied the thing—not explained it ; and no doubt they were
mystified by the authorities who preceded them.