The Sun.
London, England, 1833-08-03 00:00:00

objection to theatres, it will apply with equal weight to
a,l public places where peisons of both sexes congregate,
even to churches and chapels? But are we for that reason
to refuse to build any more churches and chapels, or pull
down those that already exist? Does not the Right Rev.
Prelate, moreover, see that his argument against theatres
and the course he pursues would leave us nothing but
tumbling and rope-dancing—are these more intellectual
and moral amusements than regular dramatic representa-
tions? We do ❑ot, however, blame the Bishop so much
as the House, for, although the Bishop knows nothing
about the matter, and therefore ought not to have med-
dled with it, their Lordships generally do understand the
subject, and, had there been a larger attendance, the result,
we are persuaded, would have been different ; for though
their Lord-hips may flatter themselves that they possess a
monopoly of political knowledge, they cannot make so great
a mistake as to suppose that the people are nut, and ought
not to be considered, the best judges of where and how
they shall arouse themselves, and of what portion of amuse-
ment should satisfy them.— Times.

The Lord Chancellor, on Thursday night, in answer to
a question from Lord Clifford, said lie would observe,
" that the Christian religion certainly was, in a sense, part
of the law of the land ; but it was not the Christian reli-
gion in the abstract ; no, it was the Christianity of the
Church of England by law established.—(Hear.) It was
not the Christianity of the Unitarian, of the Presbyterian,
or even of the Baptist, much less was it the Christianity
of the Roman Catholics—none of these were part of the
law of the land. The Christianity of the Church of
England was the only Christianity recognised by the
law ; and yet he was glad to say, that to all the other
unrecognised sects every office of the State was open."
The Duke of Wellington—a great doctor in such matters—
" differed with the Noble and L:arned Lord ; and thought
that the law of England derived the code of morality from
the Christian dispensation generally, and regarded that
dispensation generally as part of that law." While
the Lord Chancellor will only allow Church of
England Christianity to be part of the law, and the
Duke of Wellington will have Christianity generally to be
part of the law, the Church of England itself is deemed un-
Christian by some of those whose belief is thus made part
of the law. The Quakers, for instance, deem a Priest-
hood altogether an un- Christian institution. But, with
all deference to the Lord Chancellor, though the law
establishes teachers of a particular Christian sect in End-
land, and teachers of another Christian sect in Scotland,
this does not make Christianity part of the law. The
doctrines of Christianity have no doubt had their influence
on the law, but that does not make Christianity part of
the law. The la'e President, Jefferson, has shown that
the maxim that Christianity is pact and parcel of the law
of England, rests on a mistranslation of an old case re-
ported in Law French. " In a case (says Jefferson), of
quare impedit in the Year-book, 34 H. 6, folio 38 (anno
1458), a question was made how far the ecclesiastical law
was to be respected in a common law Court? And Prisot,
Chief Justice, gives his opinion in these words, ' A tiel
leis qu' ils de seint eglise ont:en ancien Scripture, convient
a nous a dormer credence; car ceo common ley sur quela

touts manners leis sont fondest. Et auxy, Sir, nous mime
obleges de conustre lour ley de saint eglise ; et semblable
ment ils sont obliges de conustre nostre ley. Et, Sir, si
poit apperer, or a settle que l'evesque ad fait come un ordi-
nary fera en tiel cas, adung nous devons ceo adjuger bon nu
auterment many,' &e. See S. C. Fitzb. Abr. Qu.
imp. 89. Bro. Abr. Qu. imp. 12. Finch, in his first
book, c. 3, is the first afterwards who quotes the case,
and mist 'keg it thus—' To such laws of the Church as
have warrant in Holy Scripture, our law giveth credence.
And cites Prisot; mistranslating ' ancien Scripture' into
' Holy Scripture;'—Whereas, Prisot palpably says, ' to
such laws as these of Holy Church have in antient writ-
ing, it is proper for us to give credence,' to wit, to their
ancient written laws. This was in 1613, a century and
a half after the dictum of Prisot. Wingate, in 1658,
erects this false translation into a maxim of the common
law, copying the words of Finch, by citing Prisot.—
Wing. Max. 3. And Sheppard, title ' Religion, in 1675,
copies the same mistranslation, quoting the Y. B. Finch
and Wingate. Hale expresses it in these words :
Christianity is parcel of the laws of England.'-1 Ventr.
293, 3 Keb. 607. But he quotes no authority. *
Then Blackstone, in 1763, iv., 59, repeats the words of
Hale, that Christianity is part of the laws of England,
citing Veutris and Strange. And finally, Lord Mans-
field, with a little qualification in Evans's case, in
1767, says that the essential principles of revealed
religion are part of the common law'—thus engulphing
Bible, Testament, and all, into the common law, with-
out citing any authority. And thus we find this chain of
authorities hanging liek by link one upon another, and
all ultimately on one and the same hook, and that a mis-
translation of the words ancien Scripture, used by
Prisot." Christianity is not a part of the law, and the
Jews would, like all other natural-born British subjects,
he at liberty to fill every office of honour or trust, but for
certain oaths appointed to be taken by particular statutes.
The common law could not be brought to bear on them,
any more than on any other natural-horn subjects of the
King, on account of their religious principles. The whole
question with respect to the Jews, lies in a nutshell. Is
there anything in the situation, character, or religion of
the Jews, which makes it advisable that they should not
he admitted to a full participation of the privileges of Bri-
tish subjects ? The Archbishop of Canterbury himself
gave the best answer to this, for he was obliged to admit
that there was " nothing in the code of the Jews, which
would not allow them to fulfil all the moral and social re-
lations of life."—Morning Chronicle.
The Solicitor-General has, we hear, abandoned his
complicated Bill for abolishing Imprisonment for Debt,
and thus adding additional anguish to those who are
now immured in dungeons, pining in wretchedness,
from their homes, their families, and their occupations.
To be sure, the measure proposed was the most crude, un-
digested, and impracticable that ever was introduced into
Parliament. It was impossible "to lick it into shape ; "
with all the aid of the legal and legislatorial talents of the
present law officers of the Crown, and the hundred lawyers
of the " reformed" House of Commons. The announce-
ment of the intended measure took place in the early
part of the session, and was hailed with feelings of joy,
and excited hope by thousands of unfortunate indi-
viduals, who sought to benefit by its operation. Delay
succeeded delay, till, at length, at the close of the
session, it was introduced into Parliament in a form
and with complicated provisions which precluded all
hopes of its success. Have the Government and the
Parliament any moral right thus to trifle with the
feelings of wretched and desolate outcasts of society ?
Are they aware of the anguish arising from disappoint-
ment and hope deferred ? Surely one honest, courageous,
and industrious representative might have been found to
suggest and carry through some measure to amtliorate the
cruelty of the existing laws between debtor and creditor—
laws which have been long acknowledged to be a disgrace
to the statute hook, and which are now doubly oppressive
by the operation of Peel's Bill. We beg solemnly to ask
the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will venture to press
the clauses in the proposed Bank Charter Bill for legal
tender in Bank paper, and the abolition of the usury laws
on bills of exchange, thus leaving the persons of unfortu-
nate debtors at the mercy of every hard hearted extortioner
to whom extreme necessities may compel a resort? Surely
in thus promising and then abandoning a measure of relief
so essential to the comfort and happiness of thousands of
unhappy individuals, both the Government and the Par-
liament have acted most unfeelingly, and, we will add,
most reprehensively. Parliament ought not to separate
until some steps are taken, and we call upon Mr. Hume
to bring forward the measure he proposed some years
since, and insist upon its adoption should no better mea-
sure be suggested.—Morning Herald.
We have before stated t hat the treaty between the Five
Powers and Holland was one of much easier settlement
than that between Holland and Belgium, and the discus-
sions at the meetings of the Conference, both on Wednes-
day and Thursday, prove this to have been the case. Teat
which took place tin the latter day was not altogether
satisfactory. The debt, we understand, was the principal
subject of deliberation. It was investigated in all its de-
tails, and not one point in connection with it settled.
This question presents so many obstacles that it is diffi-
cult to see the end of them, or calculate on the result.
The interests to be adjusted in this question are j erring,
and in some points almost irreconcileable with the respec-
tive objects of the parties in whose behalf the Congress is
deliberating. The desire entertained to have this long
pending negotiation brought to a close has been expressed
to be as strong as ever by the Members of the Conference
since the resumption of its sittings about three weeks ago;
but we fear the difficulties are not likely to allow of
spt edy solution.—Morning Post.

torn