The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-06 00:00:00

, fill.
' . 7 `-•-:.
.-- :. - • :;,.
' ; : !Ail;
111P.'""
'-- . t
.. .i. .4.•-•: ,
~ - ' '''-:
, .."., 0,
+
, *
:s ',
41 -
.

SPIRIT Of i'ne PUBLIC 36VRWALS

Pitolt THU PAPERS o 1 'rats DAY.
mcs2 t i (From the Times.)
Several journals have laboured very perseveringly for some
time past to connect the Times with what they are pleased to
call " Puseyism ;" and the fact of our having on Thursday last
expressed a feeling of regret that we had formerly spoken in
terms of unmerited harshness of the author of the Oxford
Tracts, is declared to be " ominous," by a Contemporary,
whose qualifications for deciding upon questions relating to the
doctr;ne of the Church of England are tolerably notorious.
Whenever we may be led (as must sometimes happen to all
journalists) to place too much confidence in plausible ex parte
statements to the prejudice of any individual or body of men,
we shall always be ready, upon all fitting opportunities; to
express regret for having so done. But it is not to be sup-
posed that we, therefore, assume for the future an attitude of
partisanship on behalf of those individuals, or hold ourselves
in any degree responsible for what they may do or say. Fair
play and no favour is all that any man engaged in controversy
can reasonably desire ; and it is all that we shall ever undertake
to give. It is nit our vocation to intermeddle in theological
controversies ; the delicacy and the difficulty of handling them
well, the reverence due to the subjects of which they treat, the
amount of leisure and research necessary to be bestowed upon
them (not to allude to any higher considerations), are sufficient
to repel us from the attempt.
(From the Morning Herald.)
In addition to the violation of international law which has
been committed by the Americans, in the detention of Colonel
M'Leod as a criminal, for acts the responsibility of which our
Government has formally taken on itself, of which the Ameri-
can authorities have had official notice, the very laws of Ame-
rica itself have been trampled upon by an armed mob, and a
British subject, regularly liberated upon bail, is now a close
prisoner by virtue of a Lynch-law decree. Such is democratic
legality—such is republican justice ! No doubt the respectable
body of Lynch-law gentlemen who assembled by sound of
drum and bugle to exercise their " gentle powers of persua-
sion," in inducing the sureties of Colonel M'Leod to sur-
render their principal on the moment of his liberation, used
nothing but the softest blandishments of their pecu-
liar rhetoric to convince the bail of the propriety of
entering into the requisite formalities to release the accused
from prison only to return him thither instantly again. But
was there no significant gesticulation—no highly intelligible,
though unspeaking action, which conieyed as clearly as any
words could convey to the mind of the bail, that the decrees of
Lynch-law were not "to be trifled with," while " tar and
feathers" were to be bad, or a little cord strong enough to be
used as an instrument of sylvan justice on the bough of a
neighbouring tree? Do we speak of imaginary things? Do
we sketch a fanciful picture of the democratic manner of getting
rid of the " formalities of justice" and the " law's delay" in
the great Transatlantic Republic? Oh no. It only surprises
us thlt, we have not already had to record the " settlement of
the • implications" of the case of M'Leod, by giving an ac-
count of his judicial suspension amid the acclamations of the
sovereign people, upon a branch of hickory. The Lynch au-
thorities in the present instance have only donehalf their work
by dividing the tragedy into two acts. Generally the prologue
to such judicial dramas as theirs is followed so closely by the ca-
tastrophe as to leave but brief space for intervening dialogue
or incident. Take an example. Republican slavery and
slave-breeding for the republican market are things too sacred
to be touched by the impious advocates of humanity in a land
impressed all over with the footsteps of " freedom," and where
" he who runs may read," placarded on every wall—engraven on
every rock of the mountain—cut into the green turf on every val-
ley, and scratched upon the bark of every forest tree—the decla-
ration of the " natural equality and inalienable rights of man."
A few yrs ago, however, some persons who believed with
Sterne's philanthropist that " a negro might have a soul,"
and thought the aforesaid " inalienable rights of man" were
violated in his person, ventured in some of the States of the
Union to decry slavery and slave breeding as odious, un-
christian, and detestable. They exhorted their countrymen
to get rid of the guilt and curse of a system that treats in-
nocent human beings as outcasts from all the rights of hu-
manity, consigning them to a community of degradation with
" the beasts that perish." The mode of suppressing this
" licentious" vindication of the outraged rights of nature, by
the advocates of the inalienable rights of man, was summary
and decisive. One of their own newspaper oracles thus proudly
announced the prompt measures taken to silence the "abolition-
ists" by the sovereign people. It was in July, lt'Bs, that the fol-
lowing paragraph appeared in a journal called the New
Orleans American, and which we noticed in such terms as a
just indignation furnished us with at the time, but in none that
were at all adequate to express the feelings of civilized men of
its revolting atrocity. " A letter was received here on Satur-
day," says the American paper. "from Livingston, Missis-
sippi, stating that two itinerant abolition preachers had been
seized by the inhabitants, who, after receiving proof that the
wretches had endeavoured to create a revolt among the ne-
groes, and, after hearing their defence, caused them to be
hanged in the streets, together with seven negroes, who had
listened to their doctrines." The American Journalist, who
evidently considered the dastardly massacre which he had re-
corded as a highly commendable exploit, tacked the following
passage to his narrative of blood :—" Warning is given to the
abolitionists that they may expect similar treatment all over
the south."

(From the Morning Chronicle.)
Though it might be dangerous to punish an officer merely
because he contrived to be on bad terms with all who came in
contact with him, the language ased by Lord John Russell,
in speaking of the Earl of Cardigan, went a great way beyond
the ocea.ion. His Lordship was pleased to say that if this in-
dividual had not been an Earl, they would have heard of no
clamour against him. Does his Lordship wish us to believe
that in this aristocratical country, in which the worship of
titles is carried to an extent unknown in any other part of the
world, the officers of a regiment would be more prone to
quarrel with their Colonel because he was an Earl, than if he
were a commoner? Where is the proof of this? There are
many noblemen in the command of regiments, and yet
the Earl of Cardigan is the only Nobleman so circumstanced,
as far as we have heard, who is unpopular with his officers.
The Earl of Rosslyn, for instance, is Lieutenant-Colonel of the
9th Light Dragoons. Has he quarrelled with his officers?
Lord Charles Wellesley is Lieutenant-Colonel of the 15th
Foot. Has he quarrelled with his officers ? There is on the
part of the people of this country somewhat of an indisposition
towards men who have risen from a low to a high station ; but
this is the first time we have heard of a disposition to construe
the conduct of Noblemen less favourably than that of men of
inferior station. In fact, it is matter of notoriety that much
more will be borne from a Nobleman than from one of
more humble origin. But Lord John Russell and Lord
Howick, who defended the Earl of Cardigan, were themselves
on trial. It might be unjust towards the Earl of Cardigan to
drive him from his regiment, under the circumstances of the
case. But who placed him in command of a regiment, after
he was removed from the 15th in consequence of the sentence
of a Court-martial stigmatising his conduct as ungentle-
manly? A man does not behave in an ungentlemanly man-
ner by accident. Once a gentleman and always a gentle-
man. There are instances of thieves becoming honest men,
and the Duke of Wellington some years ago mentioned a
case of a sergeant who had run off with the money of his
company, sentenced to be flogged, whose punishment he had
remitted, and who had since risen to high rank in the army.
Still, a shopkeeper who should trust a servant who had been
detected robbing his till, or a banker a clerk who had run off
with his money, would be in danger of a verdict of a Jury de-
priving them of the management of their affairs. A single
ungentlemanly act is indicative of the idiosyncracy of the indi-
vidual. No man who saw another patiently put up with a
kick in the breech would think of inquiring whether the dis-
play of patience was acridental. The public have a right
to complain 'of the Whig Government for restoring the Earl
of Cardigan to a situation for which he was proved unfit by
the sentence of a Court-martial approved of by the Crown.

COURT OF SEWERS FOR WEST
MINSTEI AND PART OF MIDDLESEX.

A general Court of Sewers for the City and Liberties of
Westminster, &c., was yesterday held at the of to of the Com-
missioners for Sewers, Greek-street, Soho, at twelve o'clock.
The usual routine business of the Court having been gone
through,
Mr. HERTSLIT, the Clerk, drew the attention of the Court,
to the motion of Mr. Gaily Knight, in the House of Commons,
for an address for copies of the Decrees made by the Commis-
sioners for the rate in the Ranelagh and Counter's-creek dis-
tricts, but as it was stated that no order had been made in
consequence the matter dropped.
The Clerk then drew the attention of the Court to the
powers proposed to be given to the Commissioners of Woods
and Forests, in relation to Sewers, by the Bill now before Par-
liament, for making a new street continuous with Long Acre.
The CHAIRMAN said the clause had been drawn up accord-
ing to his suggestion when before the Committee last year,
and the Court exiigessed themselves satisfied with its enactmeu4.
Mr. A'BRCICETT moved—That the Marquis of Normanby
be requested to introduce into the Bill, entitled "An Act for
the better drainage and improvement of buildings in large
towns and villages," ' a clause to exempt from Sewers-rate all
Churches, Chapels, and other places of religious worship, and
all other places and buildings now exempt from Poor and
Church-rates, by Act 3 and 4 Wm. IV., cap. 30. He asked
for no more than the Legislature had already done with regard
to Poor and Church-rates. Whatever might be the case with
regard to Churches, Dissenting Chapels, were certainly
liable to Sewers-rate, which was undoubtedly a hardship ; he
thought he had defined his meaning sufficiently, by referring to
the Act of Wm. IV. His proposition would be following out
the principle of the connection between the Poor-rate and the
Sewers-rate which the Legislature had already established.
His proposition was not the giving up of any principle, and had
the attention of the Legislature at the time of passing tl.e Act
been drawn to die subject no doubt they would have inclueei

Sewers-rate in the exemption.
Mr. Pxna: seconded the motion.
Mr. AUNT said that a large majority of the Commissioners
had decided that churches were liable to Sewer-rates, and this
motion went to show that the Commissioners were not inclined
to carry out their own decrees. It would not remove the diffi-
culties under which they laboured, nor would it have the effect
contemplated by the mover, for the Act itself was liable to two
constructions. It was so loosly worded that the latter part of
the Act defeated the former. He should like to know to what
buildings that Act applied. If he derived a profit from any of
that species of property the Act did not apply, and he should
like to know where the property of the sort was to be found,
either in churches or chapels, from which a profit was not
derived by pew-rents or otherwise. He believed that churches
as well as chapels were liable to sewer-rates, and he
thought this mot ion would only occasion difficulty.
The only way for them to proceed was to go on until the
attention of the Legislature should be drawn to the subject,
and they should pass an Act either exempting such property from
rateability, or giving the Commissioners power to enforce
their decrees. It was unjust that churches or chapels from
which a large income was derived should be exempt, and the
poor cottager should be taxed. He should not support the
motion.
Mr. Joseert Bacon; considered the motion did not partake
of the uncertainty of the wording of the Act, inasmuch as it
went to the positive exemption of churches, chapels, and places
of religious worship. _He certainly hoped the motion would be
carried. The exercising the power of rating places of reli-
ious worship now, for the first time, was in fact saying the
former Commissioners had neglected their duty. These build-
ings were all established for the good of the community, and
they ought not to be taxed. The rate could not be enforced
without going to law, which would be an expensive burden
on the district. As the power had so long lain dormant it
was most ungracious to enforce it now.
Mr. JOSEPH FULLER considered this merely a motion in
arrest of judgment;. it was asking them to upset the decrees
of Tuesday last. Why had they involved themselves in the dif-
ficulty at all ? and that would be the first question Lord Nor-
manby would ask them. He would ask them if they had in
one case established their right to assess these churches? II?

would move an amendment id the effect that it was only ne-
cessary for the Court to adhere, as heretofore, ttl the parochial
is4ssments, p.nd all these buildings would be exempted.
The arneficuilenti belt being seconded, fell to the ground.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY thought it did ditty of the Legislature to
consider what property ought to be exempt, and that the Court
had nothing to do but to administer the law as they found it.
Neither did he think Lord Normanby's Bill a proper one on
which to engraft a clause of this kind, When they found a
difficulty in carrying out the law, they would have a good ease
to go to the Legislature with fir relief. He did not agree with
Mr. Adey's construction of the Act alluded to.
The Cita lamas( thought they could with perfect propriety
submit to Lord Normanby the question of churches now. In
acting as they had done the Curt had only done their duty in
carrying out the law, and that duty having been a most invi-
dious one, they might ask to be relieved. What they had
done had been done merely in carrying out the presentment o
the Jury. It would have been snore judicious, perhaps, to
have drawn Lord Normanby's attention to the subject without
expressing any opinion on it. In whatever they did, he hoped
the Court would maintain its dignity.
Air. GRACE should oppose the motion in its present shape.
Mr. BEACH would have supported such a motion twelve
months ago, but wishing to support the character of the Court
for consistency, and what he believed to be the right reading
of the Statutes, he must oppose the motion. There was a
clear distinction between the Sewers'-rate, involving a large
outlay, and applicable to an extensive district, and a Poor-rate,
involving no outlay, or a Church-rate, applicable only to a pa-
rish. If a church was built upon a piece of land, which had
been previously liab'e to Sewers'-rate only, should it be ex-
empted to render more profitablt the church patronage of the
person who had the presentation of the living?
Mr. J. WHITE considered that as large revenues were de-
rived from churches, they ought to be charged Sewers'-rates,
out of justice to the inhabitants of the district. He could not
support the principle of the motion.
Mr. T. DYER said the question was, whether the Court
should re-establish itself in the public estimation, or go on
floundering in the way it had done. The object of the motion
was to do an act of justice. He denied that the Court was as-
suming to itself the power of legislation by this motion. They
merely threw out a suggestion for the consideration of the,
Home Secretary, without giving any opinion whatever on the
legal question. He did not believe six Commissioners would
be found to sign a warrant for seizing ecclesiastical property.
Mr. ADEY—I am perfectly willing to sign, for one.
Mr. T. DYER doubted whether he would find five other
Commissioners to join him. He would not sign for one, even
under the indemnity of the Court. He hoped the motion
would be carried by a large majority.
Mr. A'BECKET replied, and the Court divided, when there
appeared—
For the motion
15
Against it
Majority against the motion .... . ..... —8
Mr. CuaLmEas said, that after the decision which the Court
had just come to, he should not press his motion, requestino.
the Marquis of Normanby to introduce a clause exempting the
Royal Palaces, Houses of Parliament, Courts of Law, and
other public buildings from Sewers-rates.
Sir John Hanslerhad given notice of a motion for to-day,
that for the future the Sheriff be directed to summon a special
jury on all occasions; but Sir John not being present when the
motion was called on, it dropped, as a matter of course.
The Court adjourned at Half-past Four o'Clock.