The Sun.
London, England, 1834-01-14 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

There are two great bodies of Englishmen
who complain of grievances affecting themselves,
and arising from the present condition of the
Church of England ; Ist, the Dissenters, who,
under sundry denominations, unite in calling
for a removal of certain specific disadvantages
suffered by them in their daily and domestic
concerns, by reason of their not belonging to
the Episcopal Church—viz., as already enume-
rated in this journal—the want of a registration
of births, ditto of marriages, the inability to bury
their dead in churchyards according to their own
rites, and the want of access to the means of a
learned education at our Universities. Of these
four evils, the first, second, and fourth on the
list, will probably be got rid of without much
trouble. The third bids fair to be made, on
the part of the established clergy, a matter
of more persevering opposition, on the prin-
ciple that if a service not that of the church
is read in the church-yard, the next step will
be to perform it in the church itself.
Another grievance alleged by the Dissenters,
and one of a more extensive, and we believe
irremediable nature, is the connexion of the
Church with the State, by which they seem to
mean that there is a fund, which the Legislature
has full authority to dispose of at its own free
will, now appropriated to the maintenance of an
Episcopalian clergy ; perhaps they also murmur,
although they have not distinctly stated so much,
that the Bishops have seats in Parliament. Such
we think may be understood to embrace the out-
line of the " grievances" complained of by Dis-
senters. But there is yet a body of Englishmen
much more numerous than the Dissenters,—
namely, the whole nation, including Episcopa-
lians, Dissenters, and Catholics, who have also
their grievances in relation to the Church of Eng-
land to be removed. They, one and all, enterta;n
the most bitter sense of the oppressive character
of that revenue by which the Church has hitherto
been supported,—viz., the tithe of all agricul-
tural produce. Against this system the lay com-
munity of the Church of England is not less
embittered than any of the rival sects, whether
Catholic or Protestant. Again, there is a re-
maining division of grievances, which affects
more immediately, and wounds far more keenly,
the entire communion of the Church of England
than their Dissenting neighbours ; because they
are to be found, not in the principles, doctrines,
discipline, or any other essential characteristic
of the Established Church, but in its temporal
administration merely, of which they constitute
the abuses. With regard, then, to the Dissen-
ters, we have already stated our hope that their
practical grievances will before long be redressed ;
and for their great speculative wrong—or, in
other words, the existence of the Established
Church and its rank and attributes as one
of the institutions of the country—we really
cannot see much benefit in carrying on a dis-
cussion between parties who differ widely on
first principles, and are, some of them at least,
we fear, not much inclined to extricate the
question even from its unnecessary difficulties,
by a clear exposition of their own arguments,
or a frank understanding of those opposed to
them. The attempt to involve the subject of
an establishment defended on strictly temporal
and political grounds, in a maze of theological
subtleties, or of precepts and authorities from
Scripture, of which nothing can be conceived
more gratuitous than the assumption that they
are ever so remotely applicable to the only
question in dispute, is one which fills us with a
strong distaste for controversy so conducted, and
from the hopelessness of its leading to any satis-
factory result, has decided us on putting an end
to it. Dr. Epps, for several of whose preceding
letters we have made room, though at some
inconvenience, now favours us with one of un-
common length, but which, after a tedious
journey, seems to us to come back, like Tony
Lurnpkin's mother, to the post it started from.
If the learned Doctor would help us to a word
less offensive than " special pleading," and
equally descriptive of his mode of arguing,
we should be happy to use it in reference
to his last letter, which he will pardon us
for declining to publish. In answer both to
him and to various other correspondents, we
here positively declare our utter repugnance
to proceed further with a controversy which can
lead to no practical good, inasmuch as every
man of common sense is aware that many years,
possibly some ages, may elapse, before Parlia-
ment will legislate on the speculative views of
the Dissenters. We invite the attention of our
readers to an account of a county meeting of
Devonshire, held at Exeter on Friday last. The
discussion turned on the amount of agricultural
produce which should be transferred to the
clergy, in commutation for tithe ; and the pro-
position made to the meeting, and carried by a
large majority, was, that a sum equal to one-
tenth of the net rent payable to the landlord
should be the amount of commutation awarded
to the Church. This proposal, though carried,
was warmly resisted by Lord Ebrington, Mr.
Divett, and Captain Buller. It does not appear
to us that among reflecting men any objection
has been urged against the gross amount of the
revenue appropriated to the Church, but merely
to the source from which it was derived, and
to the monstrous inequality of its distribution.
Whether the whole income of the parochial
'lergy would produce an average of 3001. or
400:. per annum to each, we do not believe that
it has met, or would meet, with any general op-
position on that score, admitting th'at clergymen
ought to possess the decencies of life, and to
have at their disposal some small means of cha-
rity. When, therefore, it was recommended to
the landowners of Devon, that one-tenth only
of the net rent of the soil should be granted to
the Church in lieu of tithe, the meeting ought
to have taken as an element of its calculation
upon the equity of such a suggestion, some
knowledge of what the existing tithe amounts
to when paid in money. IN ith regard to tithe,
it should be also remembered that no wise or
just Legislature would think of transferring the
income of the clergyman, or half of it, to the
landlord's pocket ; and that by bringing forward
extravagant motions, the whole object of church
reform might for the present be defeated. Thu
country is not so indebted to the landed interest
for corn laws, mal-administered poor laws, or
°a go. such blessings, as to sacrifice the Church
on the altar of the squirearchy Moloch. The
abuses of the Church, we know and insist, must
be remedied, but not for the sole benefit of a less
deserving race of men. We have left ourselves
no time nor space to advert to other topics of
church reform ; a pressing one, that of the epis-
copal patronage and ?evenues, must therefore be
re*erved for to-morrow.— Times.
akVe insert in another part of our paper a
dltlaration which has already received the sane-
`iaf some of thelnost distinguished and in.
flue 1- communion with the Church

of England, and which expresses sentiments to
which no sincere member of the national Church
can hesitate to subscribe. It is necessary that
some such general expression of opinion and
feeling should be put forth, now that the enemies
of the Church of England are so active as we
behold them in their endeavours to prepare the
way for measures which are not precisely de-
fined, and thus elude investigation,but which we
may naturally expect, from what we know of the
character and objects of their most zealous pro-
moters, are calculated to lessen the influence
and impair the foundations of the Church. This
is necessary, first, in order to give to the Sove-
reign that support which lie is entitled to expect
from his faithful subjects in his wise and vir-
tuous determination to resist any attempt that
may be made in any quarter to invade the rights,
property, or discipline of that Church which he
has sworn to maintain and defend. This
is necessary, also, in order to strengthen
the hands and sustain the energy and the courage
of the defenders of the Church in Parliament.
And last, not least, this is necessary in order
that the immense body of men who are sincerely
attached to the Church, constituting, we believe,
a great majority of the people of this country,
may be enabled to look back without remorse
at their own conduct, let the issue of the ap-
proaching conflict between the Church and its
enemies be what it may. That some measure
of aggression upon the Church will be proposed
during the approaching Session there is the
greatest reason to apprehend ; for the present
Ministers of the Crown have never yet, whether
in or out of office, resisted the influence of that
class of their supporters whose proclamations
of hostility against the Establishment become
louder and louder every day, and who are
plainly determined to require the sacri-
fice of the Church, as the indispensable
condition of their continued adhesion to
the Administration. What form this attack
may assume it is at present impossible to
foresee. But it is, therefore, only the more
important that those who would prevent the
total overthrow of that venerable and beneficent
institution should be arrayed and disciplined for
an encounter in ,which, if thus prepared, they
will repel, we trust, the first approaches of its
foes. The assault may be violent or it may be
insidious. From present symptoms we are in-
clined to suspect that it will be of the latter
character. It will, we apprehend, be the object
of the enemies of the Church to veil their attack
under the cloak of such plausible reforms as may
seem most likely to create divisions among its
friends. This is the great danger against which
it especially behoves the sincere friends of the
Establishment to be upon their guard. And
we know of no means by which their unani-
mity can be so effectually preserved as
by the universal resolution to defer ab-
solutely and implicitly upon all questions
which threaten to excite doubts or dissensions
among churchmen to the opinion of the able,
zealous, and faithful heads of the Church, the
duty of whose sacred office it is to watch over
its welfare and promote its efficiency. The lay
members of the Church will do well to avoid
perplexing themselves with questions upon the
merits of which many of them may probably
feel themselves incompetent to form a decided
opinion, and to content themselves with the
general but inflexible determination to resist to
the utmost of their power any proposed change
affecting in the slightest degree the rights, privi-
leges, property, or discipline of the Church which
is not recommended to their acquiescence by
the unreluctant support of a decided majority
of the Episcopal Bench, or which Ministers do
not submit, in the first instance, to the House
of Lords, in order that the best opportunity
may be afforded to those elevated guides and
guardians of the Church for the expression of
their unbiassed and independent opinion.—
Morning Post.

COURT OF CHANCERY-JAN. 13.

KING V. HAMLET.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL appeared in this case
for the Honourable Robert King, eldest son and
heir apparent of Viscount Lorton. In 1828, Mr.
King, the plaintiff, wished to obtain a loan, and Mr.
Newland, solicitor to Mr. Hamlet, the jeweller, in
Sidney's-alley, entered into treaty with him to effect
that purpose. Mr. Newland, on behalf of Mr.
Hamlet, offered to negotiate with Mr. King a loan
to the amount of 8,0001., the whole of that sum to
be paid in goods. Mr. King gave as a security an
annuity of 8001. per annum on certain Irish estates
settled on him by a family agreement, but, that an-
nuity appearing to be incumbered to its full value,
Mr. King mortgaged his reversionary life interest in
the family estates to Mr. Hamlet. For the sake of
greater security Mr. Hamlet required Mr. King to
give a promissory note for 8,0001., and also ob-
tained from that gentleman two warrants of
attorney to the amount of 16,0001. each, and also
a power to lease out the property. Mr. King agreed
to these conditions, and, after signing the necessary
instruments and deeds, he selected from Mr. Hamlet's
shop jewellery, plate, &c., to the amount of 8,0001.,
which goods were, after a month's delay, received by
his solicitor, and afterwards sold by Mr. George
Robins fora sum greatly inferior to that for which they
were advanced. The object of the present suit was
to have the mortgage deed given up by the de-
fendant to the plaintiff; and he had no doubt but
that he could now prove to his Lordship's satisfac-
tion one of the most material points in the case, viz.,
that Mr. Hamlet knew that the only property of
Mr. King consisted of this annuity, settled on him
by his family. He commented at considerable length
on the very unusual securities given to Mr. Hamlet ;
he required, besides the interest of five per cent. on
the goods advanced in lieu of money, promissory
notes, two warrants of attorney, and a power of
leasing the property. Mr. Hamlet had made an at-
tempt in his answer to induce his Lordship to be-
lieve that such a dealing as the one now the main
point in this case was an ordinary transaction with
men of fashion going to be married. Let it be so,
and he should still think it a money-lending trans-
action, Mr. Hamlet lending his money to his own
advantage, and to the least possible advantage to
his debtor. To advance money did not then suit
Mr. Hamlet ; for although he was to have his five
per cent. interest on the loan, and the other great
securities, yet that was not so profitable to Thomas
Hamlet, Esq., of Cavendish-square, as for the trades-
man of Sidney's-alley to furnish goods instead of
money. He should, in concluding, only advert to
the fact that Mr. Hamlet swore that he would not
have entered into au agreement unless the plaintiff's
father, Viscount Lorton, had given his consent. He
thought his Lordship would be surprised when he
told him that no communication had taken place be-
tween Viscount Lorton and the defendant; in face
that they had never come by any chance in contact
with one another; and therefore, as to his having
given his consent, it was impossible for him to have
done so. Viscount Lorton and Sergeant Lefroy,
the brother-in-law of the plaintiff, swore most de-
cidedly to the contrary.
Sir E. SUGDEN was heard at great length on the
same side, and was followed by Mr. PERRY.
The further hearing was postponed till to-morrow
(this day).

Mr. Ralph, of Etterby, near Carlisle, had a
dish of new potatoes on New Year's Day, which be had
reared in the open air.—Kendal Chronicle.