The Sun.
London, England, 1833-02-21 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

It is fair to ,gilre the argument-of Ministe ts in fa,
your of courtsmartial in preference to any otiher tri-
bunal; we, therefore, will condense into a few sen-
tences what we understand to be the Ministerial
justification :—The reason for haxing court smartie]
to judge the culprit is, that it was found under the
Insurrection Act, and even in the administration of
the ordinary laws, that the Magistrates became
marked men, and were remembered and pointed out
for vengeance to all future time. Thus, they were
so intimidated that they dared not act, and crime
wal committed with impunity. By substituting
military men, who do not continue in the country,
and therefore are not exposed to future vindictive
recollections, you strengthen the arm of justice.
There is no danger of officers being influenced by
local feelings, like resident magistrates, to be guilty
of partiality and injustice. If this statement were
true in all its parts, it would be a reasonable defence
of what appears to us the most objectionable part of
the coercive Bill, but we have not seen any well-
authenticated instances of persons in the rank of
Judges, Magistrates, and Grand Jurors, being inti-
midated, nor do we see how the present Bill will
exempt any of the persons here enumerated from
the exercise of functions of a nature quite as
likely to be odious as any now exercised. The
deeper crimes, the more flagrant outrages, are still
to be tried before the ordinary tribunals.; and
the most vexatious processes of the extraordinary
powers created by the Bill which will originate in
the class of magistrates and of grand jurors. It is
the poorer class—the witnesses—who most require
protection, and whom the Bill leaves totally unpro-
tected, unless the severest penalties for non-appear-
ance are considered as substitutes for protection.
The argument that military judges are safer than
civil judges, because they may leave the country in
which the others are domiciled, implies that the
coercive system will create a fund of hatred, which
will be a permanent source of vindictive outrage to
the residents (some of whom must at least be ac-
complices in the unpopular proceedings) after the
temporary executors of the act have made their
escape. Can we, under such circumstances, en-
tertain any sanguine hopes of any very useful, at
least of any permanently useful, results from the
measure? A stupid rumour is industriously pro-
pagated that some Irish Member exercises an influ-
ence over our opinions. There is no Irish Member
who has the slightest influence, direct or indirect,
on any gentleman in any way connected with the
political, literary, or general management of this
paper ; and any person who either publicly or pri-
vately pretends that he has such power is guilty of
a deliberate falsehood.—Times.

Some persons seem to think that they have made
an amazing discovery in having ascertained, by an
actual inspection of the statute (ay, by an actual,
inspection of the statute 1.) the unequal distribution
of the stamp, legacy, and auction duties on d fferent
kinds and amounts of property —a fact which every
man, woman, and child who has 'ever paid for a
stamp receipt, or has ever held a stamped instru-
ment, must have known before, and which every-
body who can read can ascertain by their yearly
almanacks or pocket-books as readily as the fare of
a London hackney-coach hired by the mile or the
hour. These same persons have made the addi-
tional discovery, that the tax is in all cases heavier
on the smaller portions of property to which it at-
taches than on the larger, and that at a certain
amount, which of course is seldom supposed to be
exceeded, it ceases to rise altogether. This important
fact—which must now be considered a great dis•
covery—is likewise open to all the world, and, we
believe, is known to most of the inhabitants of
this enlightened country, through the medium of
those same veracious works, annually renewed,
to which we have alluded. But the third great dis•

covet), for which credit is claimed—as the corollary
of the two others, does not appear' to us to be
supported on the same irresistible evidence, and,
therefore, as partaking. more of invention or fabrica-
tion than of discovery, does not deserve the same
profound attention or ready acquiescence ; we mean,
of course, that part of the new system which
ascribes this larger per centage of stamp duties
imposed on small than on large sums to the parti-
cular position of our legislators—to their total want
of honour in legislation—and to their selfish dispo-
sition to throw the weight of taxes from their own
Moulders on those of their poorer countrymen. We
have never contended for the perfection of our pre-
sent system of taxation; on the contrary, we believe
that it involves multiplied errors in financial science;
and that it embraces specimens of most of the de-
fects and blunders (short of mere arbitrary exac-
tion) which can be found among nations on whose
ignorance we smile with contempt. Our taxes on
industry,—on the raw materials, or on different
stages of manufacture,—our taxes on the food and
comforts of the people,—our taxes for commercial 11
monopoly,—our taxes which are expensive or vexa-
tious in their collection, and which yield little to
the Treasury in proportion to what they take
from the pockets of the nation,—are as impo-
litic as can well be imagined, and ought imme-
diately to be revised and modified. But we are quite
certain that the sages who now come forward with
their discoveries, or their nostrums, are not the per-
sous who understand or can recommend any exten-
zi,va or safe system of improvement. The best sys-
tem of taxation is a subject too large and important
for us to enter upon at present, but as falling on pro-
perty actually accumulated, and passing by will or
otherwise from the possession of those who had ac-
quired it into the-hands of successors, to whom no-
thing was due on account of their own labours, a
moderate and equitable legacy or succession duty
would constitute at first sight an unexceptionable im-
post it is difficult, however, to graduate the scale
of duty on legacies, wills, and letters of administra-
tion, so as to render it most productive to the reve-
nue, without appearing to oppress certain classes of
the people. The greatest part of the legacy or tes-
tamentary duty arises, of course, from property sworn
much below 30,0001., and though the scale alters
from 2 per cent. below that sum to 1 per cent.
above it, it cannot be reckoned a great hardship to
all who receive an inheritance between 10,0001. and
29,0001. that they pay proportionately a little more
than the successor to a fortune of 30,0001,
in the case of large fortunes, if the tax
were to rise in proportion to the amount of the
ityoperty to be disposed of by will, parties would have
tern;ltationii to alienate the surplus of their revenue
Above the!c probable wants during their lives, and
thus ascape the hands of the Exchequer altogether,
rather than yield it a greater contribution. We
Must, however, say that we can see no good reason
why landed estates should escape altogether the pay-
ment of that duty oil 3 change of possessor which
is imposed on the transmission of personal property.
The omission, we are at the same time convilieed,
slid not proceed from a desire, malignantly ascribed
to our legislators, to save themselves from taxes
which they laid on others, whatever credit ,for sel-
fishness we may give{ a boroughmongering Parlia-
ment. The legacy duty, and the duty on probates
of wills, was suggested by its facility of collection,
and from the existence of a previous machinery to
enforce its payment. In the succession to landed
estates no will was required. But another conside-
ration of still greater importance, which tends to
equalize the duties on real and personal property, is,
that the duties on deeds, conveyances, marriage and
family settlements, affecting land, fall exclusively on
landed proprietors, while no similar tax exists on
the transfer or disposition of personal estate. In
looking at the Stamp-office returns for the year
1828 ( the most recent in our possession), we
find that under this head was collected the
sum of 2,056,3.58/., or nearly one-third part
of the whole revenue from stamps, under
all their different heads of deeds, law pro-
ceedings, and legal instruments, legacies, pro-
bates of wills, and letters of administration, bills of
exchange and promissory notes, receipts, insurances,
newspapers, almanacks, and pamphlets, advertise-
ments, stagecoaches, postshorses, race-horses, and
other smaller items. Mr. Humphrep, as quoted

by Sir Henry Parnell, calculates that 1,800,00 0
falls annually upon land for these transactions o
transfer, while only about 2,000,0001. falls upo
personal estate, for that succession duty which
landed property escapes. This calculation agrees
nearly with the returns of 1828, when the legacy
duty amounted to 1,066,0911., and the duty on
nrnbates of wills and letters of administration to
838,2201. But it is absurd to suppose that, though
tire tax on the succession even to personal estate
does not affect directly the possessors of landed pro-
perty, therefore that landed proprietors altogether
escape from it. All the provision which is made
for younger children, for widows, for relatives, or
for friends, by the wills of the aristocracy, or owners
of freehold property, as well as by the wills of
those who have no interest in land, must be
registered, and on that part of their fortune
they pay the same tax as others. Let anybody
look at the wills proved, or the letters of ad-
ministration taken out, in Doctors' Commons,
and they will find that a great proportion of the
funds belongs to landed proprietors. At any rate,
there never could be a more malignant falsehood,
or a more stupid misrepresentation, than to describe
this as a tax falling peculiarly on the poor and la-
bouring classes. The poor are seldom called to
prove wills at Doctors' Commons, or to transfer
estates—and if they are, the means of paying the
tax are provided by the property which they claim.
It is, in fact, property which they receive for which
they had not laboured, and from which therefore
the state may levy an equitable contribution, without
any more injury to them than to the richest Peer in
the land. Though this is no defence of an unequal
scale of duties, nor meant to be so, it is a sufficient
answer to that impudent piece of charlatanism which
would represent the poor as injured by a tax on a
kind of property by which they unhappily almost
never can benefit. To the alleged charges of in-
equality in the stamp duties on mortgages, bonds,
and other securities—on conveyances and leases—
on annuities on promissory notes and bills
of exchange—on insurances and receipts, as they
affect different values of property—though we by no
means think the scale correct, the same answer
may be given. The object of the Legislature
was to raise the greatest amount of revenue by in-
cluding the greatest number of transactions, and,
except in the case of leases or conveyances, it does
not follow that the tax on the smaller parcels of
property transferred or connected for falls exclu-
sively on the middle or lower classes of the people.
A nobleman may have a bill of exchange for 50/. as
well as a plebeian, and may have a receipt to give
on a twopenny or sixpenny stamp as well as his
tailor or bootmaker. It is, besides, a gross delusion,
or a wilful falsehood, to represent any of these taxes
as falling upon the poor or the labouring classes,
wlao never see bills of exchange, bonds, conveyances,
or mortgages or settlements. It is no doubt de-
sirable that the scale of our stamp duties, if they
are to be preserved, should be revised, and that re-
vision, we are told by the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, has already proceeded so far as to enable him
to promise the country Bills of amendment in
the present session; but in the mean time let
riot the ignorant and superficial run away with
the idea that all is wrong because the tax ap-
pears unequal, or conclude that it was imposed
by the rich to oppress the poor, while it almost
never can reach the poor at all in circumstances
of distress. On the subject of the auction duties,
the ignorant declamations to which we have alluded
are too stupid to deserve notice. Let those who
;pink that they have discovered a mare's nest in
finding Out the inequalities or demanding a revision
of the stamp duties, look at what has been said in
every publication on the subject for several years
past, particularly in a little work published in No-
vember last, called The Law and Commercial Daily
Remenzbrancer, and in the reports of the House of
Commons nearly three years ago. Even the alma-
wicks, from which some of our legislators perhaps
derive their chief knowledge on the subject, omitted
to give the stamp list in 1831 on account of the con-
templated changes. We, in consequence, find the
following curious announcement in the Englishman's
Almana ck for 1831, published in Noverriber, 1830:
" By a resolution of the House of Commons passed in the
session of 1830, it was determined that the stamp duties should
he altered ; and as it is probable that this decision will be
carried into effect early in the session of 1831, it might only
tend to inconvenience were we to republish them in the pre-
flt almanack, particularly as we have inserted a very copious
table of them in that for 1830."—Times.
We can conscientiously bestow more praise upon
Mr. Stanley's proposed measure for the reform of
the Grand Jury system in Ireland, than upon Lord
Althorp's plan of Church Reform, yet we are far
from being able to give it unqualified commenda-
tion. It is a measure calculated to lop and prune
the more luxuriant branches of corruption springing
out of the great trunk of the upas tree of local
taxation, which has grown into an overshadowing
magnitude in proportion as it has impoverished the
land—but it will pot uproot it. " Whatever," says
pr. Johnson, " is worth doing, is worth doing
Well." But it is not well to set about reforming
the grand jury system of Ireland, and not to re-
'strain the power of grand juries within the limits
defined by the Constitution of England. There are
;several of the provisions of Mr. Stanley's Bill that
deserve to he described as salutary regulations, pro-
vided it were right to continue at all the grand
jury power of local taxation; but we say that it is
not right that it should continue. The grand jury
is a body instituted for the purpose of putting in
inotion the penal justice of the kingdom, and for
protecting innocence against frivolous and vexa-
tious prosecutions, by determining whether the
bills of indictment preferred against persons for
crimes or misdemeanors, are sufficiently sup-
ported by evidence, to justify the putting the
accused parties on their trial. They have, by the
immemorial usage of the common law, also the
power of presenting nuisances within the limits of
the jurisdiction of their respective Courts. They
have claimed, in some instances, the right of inspect-
ing prisons—a right which has been disputed---:but
which, if not clearly belonging to them by the
Common law, ought to be conferred by statute, as
being for the benefit and protection of the subject.
It is not for the benefit or protection of the subject
that Grand Juries should have the power of local
taxation, defined by the limits of counties or other-
wise. A Grand Jury should have no temptation to
jobbing thrown in its way, lest the fountain of kis-
; Vice may be tainted at its very source. Accordingly
the founders of the Constitution of England never
thought of such a monstrous combination as that
'which associates with the proper duties of the grand
inquest of a country, the office of a local oligarchy
of taxation. It would be just as wise and con-
"sistent with sound principle to unite in the one
person the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer
and that of Chief Justice of England. There
have been several statutes passed, at various times,
to preserve the purity of Grand Juries in England.
In Ireland those bodies have, under an old system
of misrule, been allowed to usurp the functions of
tax-makers. What was at first abuse has subse-
quently become law; but it is law that never can be
consistent with the spirit of the Constitution, or the
interests of justice., We have said that Grand
Juries have the power of presenting nuisances; but
a Grand Jury which exercises the power of local
taxation is itself a nuisance, and such are those
jarldicofiscal bodies in, Ireland whose practices are
the object of Mr. Stanley's Bill. As the Church
Reform Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
omits altogether the- master-grievance of the Irish
people, as far us the Church is concerned, which is
tithes, so Mr. Stanley's Bill leaves the master-evil
of the Grand Jury system to flourish in substantial
power under a new form--we mean the taxing pre-
rogative of a body not elected by the people, but
nominated by the Sheriff for the time being, and
therefore not, in any way, representing the people
%% horn they tax, but violating in all their fiscal pro-
ceedings (even leaving out of the question the gross
practice of jobbing with which they are chargeable)
tire great maxim of our constitutional law, that no
man shall be taxed but by his own consent.
The provisions of Mr. Stanley's measure may miti.

gate the jobbing, but cannot destroy it—new shoots
of corruption will spring up while the parent stock
remains—and it is only by restraining the powers
of Grand'Juries within the limits of the Constitution
that the evil can be removed.—Morning Herald.
There seems to be a general persuasion in the
House of Commons, that Ministers are sincerely
desirous of grappling with the diseases in the social
system of Ireland. But the persuasion is hardly
less general, that they have continually present to
their minds the difficulty of gaining the assent of
one House to measures of a thoroughly beneficial cha-
racter. Measures of severity will meet with no

impediment in the House of Lords. But a great
majority of the representatives of the people can
only be induced to consent to measures of severity,
on the understanding that they will be accompanied
with a redress of the most crying grievances. Here
is the difficulty of Ministers. Those measures which
will meet with no obstacle in one House will be
precisely those which will be most strongly opposed
in the other. It must be borne constantly inmind,
that where there are abuses they are always pro-
fitable to some; and it unfortunately happens that
the chief of the abuses of Ireland are profitable to
the aristocracy. No one can be so simple as to
suppose that the establishment of the Protestant
Church of Ireland is kept up for the good of the
people. Were the Government of this country inde-
pendent of the aristocracy, and at liberty to consult
only the good of the people, the funds applicable to re-
ligious purposes would never be bestowed exclusively
on an establishment for 1-IGth of the people. But then
Ministers must consult the aristocracy; arid so far from
consenting to a distribution of the funds applicable to
religious purposes on any equitable principle, it is
ten to one that they will hesitate to sanction the
very limited Reform which has for object merely
the removing the most ugly of the deformities of
the Protestant Establishment. It is for the sake of
these very deformities that they are in love with
that establishment. What are the crying evils of
Ireland ? The first and foremost is the state of
destitution of the great body of the people. The
agitation is the necessary effect of that destitution;
and to remove the effect, we must remove the cause.
In the work of a celebrated political writer, speak-
ing of the attempt to persuade a great Sovereign
that the disorders of his time were caused by agita-
tion, he observed, " They took care not to tell him
that turbulent spirits can never move a people but
when that people are unhappy, and that such a one
who passes in his age, and with the crowd of his-
torians, for the author of revolutions, is merely a
man displaced by the displacement of all others, and
who becomes the incendiary of his country through
the same qualities that would have rendered him its
ornament and champion in better times." The same
idea was well expressed last night by Mr.
Richards, in the discussion on a petition from
Maidstone, who observed that he regretted " that
Ministers had not brought forward measures founded
upon a large, comprehensive, and statesman-like
view of the case for which Parliament was called
upon to legislate. He could not but consider that a vast
deal too much importance was attached to the agita-
tion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin.
—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," in which Mr.
O'Connell's voice was distinguishable.) That
Learned Individual would seek in vain to attach the
people of Ireland to a system of agitation, if Minis-
ters would in earnest apply themselves to the ques-
tion of a redress of grievances, and endeavour to
allay the growing discontent, by giving those sub—
stantial reforms which were required by reason,
justice, and humanity—(Loud cheers)—by doing
away with that most abominable system which en-
forced the payment of tithes, to support a Church in
which the people were not interested.—(Cheers.)"
He added that " though a young Member of that
House, he hoped he should not be considered as
taking too much upon himself in proposing a Bill (as
at an early opportunity, he should do) for investing
the tithes of Ireland in trustees for the benefit of the
poor of that country—(Hear, hear.) He was no
enemy to the established Church—he was not an
e emy to the Protestant religion—by no means;
but he thought the system required alteration ;
though it should be managed in such a way as not
to permit the tithes to pass into the pockets of the
Irish landlords—(Hear)—but to contribute to the
comfort of the industrious poor." What is the
case with regard to the Irish landlords ? that they
literally take the whole of the produce of the soil,
with the exception of the potatoes, on which the
wretched cultivators are fed. The very announce-
ment of the rental of Ireland, being sixteen millions,
speaks volumes. If all the landlords of Ireland
were sunk in the sea, the Irish nation would be no
greater loser than if some fifteen thousand beggars
were sunk in tile sea. They are merely consumers
of produce; they have not the merit of English or
Scotch landlords, of adding to the productive
powers of the soil, by expending part of the pro-
duce in improvements. It is for the benefit of the
poor that the property of the rich should be re-
spected ; but in no other sense are Irish landlords
entitled to respect. They are protected, because
it is necessary that they to whom the law gives a
monopoly of the soil should be protected. But if
any means could be devised for withdrawing a por-
tion of the produce from them to the actual culti-
vators, it would be a blessing to the nation. The
English and Scotch farmers have been enabled to
acquire capital from an improved cultivation, be-
cause they do not pay more than a third, at most,
of the produce to the landlords. And the very
first step in the improvement of Ireland will be
the securing a greater share of the produce to the
actual cultivators, as a fund for future improvement.
The author of an able work, just published under
the title of " An Inquiry into the Principles of
Population, exhibiting a System of Regulations for
the Poor, designed immediately to lessen and finally
to remove the Evils which have hitherto pressed
upon the Labouring Classes of Society," devotes a
large portion of his book to Ireland. He justly ob-
serves that " the identical objections started by
Irish proprietors against the poor laws, the dispas-
sionate inquirer would select as the most cogent
reasons for their introduction. An entire change
would be effected in the tenure of the land, and in
the proportion of produce which goes to each class
engaged in cultivation, the landlord, the farmer, and
the labourer. * * # # * *
Such is described to be the natural fertility of Ire-
land, that were improved modes of husbandry in-
troduced, bread might be substituted for the potatoe
amongst the Irish people, and yet the export of
corn to Great Britain be increased. The suddivision
of holdings in land must unquestionably be charac-
terised as the origin of this imperfect husbandry ;
. and though great changes have recently occurred, it
is yet questionable whether the aeraran system has
. received its final doom. It might be imagined that
landed proprietors, seeking their own interest,
would get rid of a confirmed nuisance ; but
in extenuation, it is justly said that fear of
direful consequences amongst a dispossessed and
exaspetated tenantry prevents many from pursuing
their inclinations, and adopting the ordinary remedies
of effectual clearance. Were it really true thavnothing
operated to obstruct this consummation but the dis-
positions of the tenantry, or laudable benevolence
on the part of the landlord, we might leave natural
amendment to its own salutary operation. But it is
to be feared that, amongst some of the landlords or
sub-possessors, there is still an itching palm to set
up small parcels of land to the highest bidder. and
to keep their tenantry in abject dependence, in or-
der to reap large emoluments from their distresses.
_When the natural resources are developed to a
high degree, the land should be cultivated at a
small outlay of, human labour; considerable capi-
talists will then become farmers, and avail them-
selves of skill and acquired resources, in pushing
the soil to its most generous yielding. The capi-
talist necessarily requires a remunerating profit on
his investment ; the larger his capital, the greater his
share of the produce; and rents thus relatively fall,
when compared with the entire return derived by
the actual occupier. The chief part of the produce
in this case is obtained by a person in the middle
sphere of life of high utility, who spends it on the

spot with a view to reproduction, and not by a
landlord living on revenue who spends it unpro-
ductively. In place of this beneficial system of
cultivation, let us attend to the existing prac-
tice in Ireland. No capitalist, no skilful and
enterprising farmer, actually cultivating the land as
in England, is to be found. With partial excep-
tions, two parties only exist—the lord and the vas-
sal. The redundancy of population occasions keen
competition. for every unoccupied piece•rif land, of
which the rent-receiver, in some of the gradations
between the great proprietor and the lowest middle-
man, avails himself ; lie demands the highest rent;
and, as a natural consequence, reduces the cultiva-
tor to the most prolific description of production—
the potatoe." We shall add to our quotation an-
other, which may be said to contain the very mar-
row of the question :—" Constituted as society now
is, it may be laid down as a broad maxim, that it
is not possible for any people to enjoy order or hap-
piness, or any one of the perfections of civil liberty,
unless the majority are comfortable in their worldly
circumstances. This must be the commencement in
every comprehensive plan of reforniation." A whole
nation must not be abandoned for ever to all the
horrors of destitution and its effect—violent out-
rage, merely because some ten thousand individuals
are determined that they shall enjoy, without de-
duction, some sixteen millions of rent collected by
British bayonets, at the expense of the people of
Britain. Property is held on conditions, and one
of them is, that the mode of management should
not be incompatible with the well-being of the
people, and the peace and order of a country.—
Morning Chronicle.
We wonder that no independent Member of
Parliament has yet directed the attention of the
country to the monstrous partiality with which
Ministers have composed the Committee who are
to report upon tile merits and demerits of chartered
Corporations. We published their names but a few
days ago. Upon a reference to the enumeration
our readers will find not half a dozen Conservatives
pitted in most idle conflict against a score or two of
reckless Levellers. If it is intended to discuss a
matter of most momentous interest with any sem-
blance of honesty and caution, why is not the
Committee, from whom we are to have a report
upon its merits, constituted with some show of
fairness and propriety ? And if it is determined
to make short work with the question—to abolish
at all hazards the furred gowns and the gilded
maces—to tear the seal from the parchment, and
annihilate the town clerk for ever—why are we
mocked with an inquiry upon a subject upon which
his Majesty's advisers have fully formed their deter-
mination ? That Ministers should have resolved at
this time to bring forward a measure for the Reform
of all corporations would convince us, if we were not
before convinced, of the absence of all practical wis-
dom from the Councils of the Government. They
had enough of Reform, we all know, to occupy
them for some time. Reform of the Church—
Reform of the Law—Reform of Taxation—Reform
of Expenditure—all these Reforms were demanded
with more or less vehemence by one or the other
sect of Reformers. But this Reform of Corpora-
tions was a Reform which had not as yet inspired
the lucubrations of the pamphleteer, nor enlivened
the symposium of the club. It was a difficulty
which no man forced upon the Cabinet, a burden
which the laborious shoulders of Lord Althorp most
superfluously assumed. When, however, it was de-
termined to superadd this toil to all for which
the House of Commons was already prepared,
surely an upright Minister would have committed
a matter involving the ownership of property, the
preservation of the public peace, the administration
of justice, to tolerably unprejudiced hands. We
could point out some—several—of the Members of
his Lordship's Committee, who, having been op-
posed at their respective elections by the influence
of a corporate body, are ready, at any loss to the
country, to destroy the strength of that influence.
If the representative of the town of Cambridge is
properly a Member of the Committee, why is not
the representative of the city of Norwich sitting by
his side ? We are far from maintaining that a re-
vision of the constitution of Corporations is to be
avoided or condemned. On the contrary, it is
because we think such a revision very desira-
ble that we reprobate strongly the spirit
in which it is commenced. It is because
we wish to see the municipal government
of our cities and towns vested in the most
responsible and respectable of their inhabitants that
we anticipate with alarm the report of a Committee
in whose eyes we are sure nothing that is respon-
sible or respectable can ever find favour. The sub-
ject assumes its most serious aspect when we recol-
lect that the Irish Corporations, as well as the
English, are to be submitted to the scrutiny of these
admirably selected inquisitors. The Irish Corpora-
dons have been exclusively Protestant, and the very
purpose of their existence was to support and secure
in Ireland the interests of what we used to call our
National Church. We commend these corporations
to the undoubted candour, the tried integrity, of
Mr. O'Connell and Dr. Baldwin. We suppose that
Lord Althorp has made up his mind that the re-
medy which is requisite for one island cannot but be
beneficial to the other, upon the principle of the
physician, who,
" if Tom went sick to bed,
Would clap a blister on Tom's brother's head."
—Morning Post.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 20.