The Sun.
London, England, 1835-12-26 00:00:00

once and patronage of the Crown unnecessarily ex-
tended; but, on the other hand, we are to the full as

all that deficient in them: 'or tliis,
,lioN;4er, you
must take oiir With!: W 43 tr;ic
fc"' 61(11 0110641 aIT What right have
ytht any body else to inquire into our debts or
income, pqr bon&bills or mortgages, our means of
paying the stipend of our Ministers for the next
half-year, or of purchasing the candles even to light
our chapels during the present winter ?" This is-
literally what the Voluntaries say. Their conduct is
of course a flagrant breach of faith with the .Whig
Government, Who appointed the Commission at their,
urgent instance. It amounts simply to a determina-,
tion that the Commission shall be a nullity, that it
shall inquire as elaborately as it pleases into facts
which are not disputed by anybody, but that as to the
facts which are of the greatest importance to the de-
clared purposes of the Commission, and upon which
the greatest doubts exist—upon these there shall be no
inquiry whatever. To this• insulting breach of faith,
however, the Whig Commissioners and the Whig Go-
vernment patiently submit. To what will they not
submit when it proceeds from the enemies of any na-
tional institution, ecclesiastical or civil ? There can
be no doubt, in any reasonable mind, that on the pro•
mulgation of the instructions of the Dissenters' Com-
mittee to their several congregations to resist inquiries
so essential, it was the.duty of the Government in-
stantly to revoke-the Commission, and to proceed in
granting the required aid to the Church, just as if
there were no such persons as Voluntaries or Dissen-
ters in all Scotland. There is one passage in Mr. Bu-
chanan's excellent letter which places the whole sub-
ject of the resistance of the Voluntaries to the pro-
posed grant in aid of the Church in so luminous a
point of view that we cannot resist the temptation of
transcribing it here :
" In taking leave of Mr. Moncrieff—for though respect
for his name, and a regard to his connection with the
Commission, have led me thus publicly to notice his let-
ter, my controversy with him is done—l cannot • but ex-
press my regret and surprise to find him in the attitude he
has assumed. ' I write,' he says, as a friend to the cause
of the Church extension, which I have done what I could
to support. He did write as a friend, when, in his excel-
lent pamphlet on endowments of last year, he so clearly
showed that, when it. is considered that the funds of the
Dissenters arise from their congregations, and that nearly
all their chapels are sunk in debt, a little imagination may
supply a very intelligible motive for opposing any measure
that tends to diminish their numbers.' It is a pity that his
friendship should now_ lead him to advocate a course where-
by the truth at which he hinted, and the full exhibition of
which is so essential to the prosperity of the endowment
cause, is to be completely suppressed." _

anxious to see the talent, the purity, and integrity of
those who administer the laws sustained, which can
only be effectually done by placing the responsibility
where it ought to rest—viz., in the_ Crown;-:1--iowth
its sworn and competent advis . We have always
been inclined to rj.''';.; cull credit to Lord Brougham for
the very lest intentions in the establishment of what
is called the Central Criminal Court; but in its work-
ing, the evil we allude to has been greatly increased,
instead of being diminished. This must be apparent
to every one who is at the trouble of perusing the re-
turns which we invariably publish of the result of
its labours, from which it id apparent, that A pro-
portion of nearly nine-tenths of
.the eilminal offences
occurring in London and Middlesex, as well as in
those parts of the counties of Kent, Essex, and Surrey,.
comprised within the circuit defined by the Act esta-
blishing that Court, are tried by Judges of whose
fitness the Crown and its responsible advisers have no
' cognizance whatever, but who owe their appointments
solely to patronage and good opinion of the Aldermen
and Common Council of London. We have good
reason for believing that this result was not only not
anticipated by Lord Brongham, but that his inten-
tions, at all events, were that a much greater portion
of the labours of this Court should devolve upon the
Judge's of the land than it has hitherto pleased those
Learned personages to undertake.• Whether this
point be attainable or not we cannot take upon our-
selves to say ; but that the duties of the first Criminal
Court of the kingdom should continue to devolve
upon Corporation Judges, is, we apprehend, utterly
impossible ; especially after the clause in the late
Municipal Reform Act, which vests the appointment
of Recorders in all other boroughs in the Crown.
Nor is this the only anomaly which exists in the
proceedings of the Court to which we are allud-
ing, at which the presence of an Alderman of Lon-
don is essential to the validity of its proceedings, and
who actually fixes the sentence upon most of the
convicts in whose cases there exists any discretionary
power. Now what the magistrates of London have to
do with the matter beyond the magistrates of the
other four counties, including the city. of Westminster,
over which the jurisdiction of the Court extends, we
are at a loss to imagine ; and can scarcely conceive a
more unanswerable practical reason why the law itself
should be precise in defining punishments, than their
being left to the discretion of the persons we allude.
It would be better (but which we hope never to see)
that the Jury should fix the sentence, than that it
should be left to such a description of Judges. But
we admit we shall only be exchanging, in these re-
spects, one evil for another, if, with the increased
patronage which Municipal Reform will give to the
Crown, we are still to witness the absence of that
high law officer-from its Councils, on whose judgment
and responsibility such appointments should mainly, if
not wholly, rest. On this subject we would strongly
recommend the perusal of Sir Edward Sugden's letter
to Lord Melbourne ; while the evil of mere political
patronage never was more strikingly illustrated than
by what is now going on in Ireland, not a little aggra-
vated as it is by its being the work of those who pro-
fess themselves the steady friends of Reform—Morn-
ing Herald.

' Our readers, after bestowing upon this pregnant pas-
sage the attention which it unquestionably deserves,
will be at no loss to understand the whole secret of the
politics of the Dissenters of Scotland against the medi-
tated grant in aid of the resources and efficiency of the
Established Church. The voluntary churches are so
deeply involved in pecuniary embarrassments that they
dare not expose the state of their affairs, and the mer-
cenary supporters and not less mercenary creditors (for
in truth they are generally the same individuals) know
that the trade in religion in which they have embarked
their capital and labour upon what they call the volun-
tary principle, but upon what may with greater pro-
priety be called the shopkeeping principle, must irre-
trievably fail, from the moment that the State deter
.mines to do its duty to the Kirk of Scotland.—Morn-
ing Post.
We have before us a most ably written pamphlet,
entitled " Parliamentary Talk, or the Objections to
the late Irish Church Bill considered." After com-
menting with great force and cogent argument on the
resolution of the House of Commons, declaring that
any surplus funds, which might remain, after fully
providing for the spiritual instruction of the Pro-
testants of the Established Church, should be applied
locally to the general education of his Majesty's sub-
jects, without any distinction of religion, and that rjo
measure upon the subject of Irish Tithes could lead
to a satisfactory adjustment which did not embody that
principle, the writer proceeds to answer seriatim the
several objections which have been urged against the
adoption of this principle under the suave terms of
" Sacrilege," " Plunder," " Breach of Contract,"
" Perjury," and " Impiety." It is worse than ab-
surd to call a law emanating from the Legislature, that
Legislature the supreme authority in the State, by the
frame of sacrilege. The power that gave may also take
away, whenever the interest of the State and the cur-
rent of public opinion justify such procedure. It is
well obseaved—
" Preposterous indeed would it be for the Crown, No-
bility, or Clergy itself of England to maintain at this time
of day the inalienability of. tithes or church lands by the
supreme authority of the State. A large portion of the
possessions of each and of all of them was originally de-
voted to celebration of masses, to the expenses of a holy
war, to the maintenance of monasteries, to the erection and
repair of churches, and to the relief of the poor. From all
these objects, deemed by the donors pious and holy, it has
been diverted to the profit of Kings, Nobles, Colleges, or
Clergy. By whom and how ? By that very authority
which the cry of sacrilege, if it means anything, moans to
deny, or in some instances, by the far more questionable
operation of imperceptible * abuse and time. The doc-
trine, therefore, that a Parliamentary appropriation of eccle-
siastical property. to secular purposes is contrary to the will
of God, (and the term sacrilege in its second sense implies
no less) would shake the title of half the landholders in the
kingdom. None but Ultramontane bigots, a race nearly
extinct, have ever seriously maintained it:'
The author next demonstrates, both by a reference
to authority, and by irrefutable argument, that all the
interests, directly or indirectly, involved in the Tithes
or Church Revenues in Ireland, were carefully and
tenderly provided for, and protected, by the late Bill,
and that no property was diverted or altered from its
due course, but such as, according to precedent, general
reason, and actual law, that is, authority, expediency,
and justice, emphatically belongs to the State, and
therefore is fairly at the disposal of Parliament. The
other objections are disposed of with equal ability.
The structure of the argument is so complete in itself,
that to extract a part would be an injustice to the
writer. We, however, give his concluding observations,
which, from their impartiality and good sense, cannot
we.,:shosil4,4ope, to make au impression 0n.,a1l not
liliudeit to the-danger which bigotry
.and 4thaticisin',are
evoking on established religions :
" I do not hesitate in avowing a deliberate opinion that
the subversion of the establishment in Ireland would be
more disastrous than its existence. But once convince me
that the preservation of the fabric necessarily supposes the
perpetuation of the desolation and disorder which at present
surround it ; and I have as little hesitation in avowing the
opposite opinion, that the continued existence-of such a
Church is more disastrous than its subversion. It was by
removing the redundances which weaken and deface it, and
by draining off the deep and silent disaffection which is sap-
ping its foundations, that the late Bill with its clauses pro-
posed to secure the edifice. It will be fortunate if a persever-
ance in a contrary system do not render it as unstable as it
is unsightly, and accelerate the fatal day, when, in spite
of such buttresses and fences, as laws, parchments, and
speeches can supply, it may crumble into dust. The bill
of last summer-was certainly neither intended nor calcu-
lated to hasten such a catastrophe—the danger of it is not
likely to be averted, by stigmatizing-with the names of sa-
srilege, plunder, breach of faith, perjury, and impiety, every
temperate endeavour to blend with the immediate relief
and ultimate security of the Irish Clergy some national be-
nefits which may reconcile the public to the measure, and
must mitigate, if it do not entirely disarm, an hostility to
the Established Church, which, in the present state of
things in Ireland, is certainly not unnatural, and cannot,
while human nature is human nature, be pronounced utterly
unpardonable."—Morning Advertiser.
* Those who know any thing of the quadripartite partition
of tithes, and the desuetude into which it has fallen, will under-
stand what I allude to.

We recommend to attentive perusal the able, argu-
mentative, and conclusive letter of the Rev. Robert
Buchanan to the Earl of Minto, which we have in-
serted in another part of the Morning Post of this
day. The intention of this address is to prove, in re-
futation of a publication by Mr. Moncrieff, that the
Scottish Church Commissioners have conducted the
inquiry with which they were charged in a spirit of
the most indefensible partiality and the grossest injus-
tice. And to say that it fully and triumphantly accom-
plishes this design would be to convey a very inade-
quate idea of its power. Mr. Buchanan, in the pro-
secution of his argument to a conclusion the most
legitimate and irrefragable against the conduct of the
Commissioners, has introduced many facts and obser-
vations which go the full length of proving that the
establishment of the Commission was a most unneces-
sary and unwise measure, not calculated to shed
any steady or genuine light upon the subject of
inquiry, not intended to satisfy any honest doubts
as to the expediency of the grant intended to
have been made by Sir Robert Peel's Government
for the promotion of religion in Scotland, but founded
exclusively on a sectarian- hostility to the National
Church of Scotland, or upon the cold, calculating
policy of gratifying the passions or schismatical male-
volence, or of furthering the sordid speculations of
those who convert schism into a trade. The Commis-
sion was ostensibly established to inquire into the ex-
isting means of religious instruction in Scotland, in
consequence of a clamour raised by the voluntary party
against a proposed grant to the Scottish Kirk, upon
the pretence that the religious wants of the country
were already adequately supplied by their assistance,
or on the point of being so. To ascertain the truth or
falsehood of this allegation was the only pretext for
the Commission, to the appointment- of which there
were several very forcible objections, which this single
pretext—and Mr. Buchanan shows very conclusively
that it was no more than a pretext—was held by our
wise, liberal, and impartial Ministers sufficient to
overrule. To a Government holding the institu-
tions of their country in any degree of respect, or
entertaining towards them any other feeling than those
of hostility or contempt, the allegation of the Dis-
senters, that they were proceeding with great success
and rapidity, in many districts of the country, to dis-
credit, root up and supersede the Established Church,
would have presented one of the strongest reasons for
accelerating, instead of withholding or retarding, the
aid for which her exemplary, zealous, and devout Mi-
nisters had made application to the State. To an
honest and patriotic Government powerful dissuasions
from the appointment of this Commission of Inquiry
would have been found in its tendency to exasperate
the mutual enmity of opposing sects and parties in
politics and religion, and in the certainty that it Must
postpone for a considerable period, and render less va-,
luable and efficacious if at last conceded, that aid
which it could not be presumed that the Clergy of the
Church of Scotland had demanded upon frivolous or
doubtful grounds. It would have been considered also
by such a Government that the expense of this Com-
mission to the nation and to individuals could not be
inconsiderable, when compared with the sum actually
required to reinforce the funds and resources of the
Church. These considerations, cogent as they are,
had, however, no influence with the present Ministers
of the Crown. It was determined that the allega-
tions of the Dissenters from the Church of Scotland,
that their influence and resources had of late years
-greatly increased, and were now in rapid course of aug-
mentation, should be made the subject of investigation
by a Government Commission, thus recognizing it as
a valid ground of objection, if substantiated, to the ap-
plication of the Church of Scotland for-Parliamentary
aid. This being the state of the question, it seems too
monstrous to be believed, and could not be believed
upon any lower authority than that of the voluntaries
themselves, that the right of the Commissioners to in-
quire into the actual state of the funds of Dissenting
Congregations should be disputed by the latter ; nor
upon any authority inferior to that of the Whig Com-
missioners could it be credited that they had submis-
sively, patiently, and unreluctantly acquiesced in this
absurd and imprudent recusancy ? Who does not
perceive that it renders the whole inquiry utterly futile
and useless ? How are the Commissioners to give
any opinion as to the permanency of Dissenting
establishments, the great majority of which, it is
confidently alleged, are inextricably involved in debt,
and which sanction the allegation by resisting, in
conscious bankruptcy, all investigation into the state
of their affairs ? Or how can the Commissioners
advise the Government as to the chance of the volun-
tary system being so extended as to secure to the coun-
try an adequate supply of religious instruction when
the failing and insolvent speculators in the trade—for
the voluntary principle necessarily converts religion into
a trade—veil the state of their congregational affairs
in dark and impenetrable mystery, and audaciously say
to the friendly Whig Commissioners, " Pass your
time and earn your salaries in examining the financial
condition of the unendowed Churches of the Esta-
blishment ? They will be found rAs scanty, no doubt,
and as insufficient as the friends Church have
We tell Yfttt
described them. But can supply
°tfhatt hP
eve

THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.—In this island,
every individual whose name is found on the rate-book has
a voice in the choice of magistrates, as well as in the elec-
tion of the constable and other officers of the parish in
which he resides ; and perhaps there is no place where the
elective franchise is more sought after—whether for public
or private advantages, is another matter—than amongst us ;
it is, in fact, considered the most desirable privilege of a
Jerseymatis life. No wonder, therefore, that an attempt to
raise the property-qualification for the exercise of this poli-
tical right, and thereby to disfranchise a number of our
poorer inhabitants, has excited a spirit of opposition that
bids fair to defeat a measure which we must be allowed to
characterise as illiberal, impolitic, and unjust.--Jersey

Argus.
A young fellow, well dressed, was fined on Monday
in two guineas, for an assault upon a girl in Bridgegate.
It was proved that be struck her with a. stick, and then
pushed her over by a blow with his fist, by which the girl
was somewhat injured.—Scots Tintss,

Tfl.B Stthl,LOrDON, .J4'4l'. UMbAY, lijECiAlltEit 2, 1851".

CORONER'S
:INQUESTS.

•
On Thursday evening an incia6sf; idslAt Li
past midnight, was held at the Toy Tavern, near the pa-
lace, Hampton Court, before Mr. STIRLING and a re- 1,
spectable Jury of the inhabitants of the town, for the pur-
pose of investigating the circumstances attending the death
of Edward Chas. Saunders, a fine youth, aged fifteen, which
was occasioned. by a wound inflicted with a large butcher's '
knife by a.man named Richard Paine in the extraordinary
and lamentable manner detailed in the follcwing evidence
The unfortunate transaction has created a very painful
sensatian at Hampton Court and its vicinity, the more so
from the supposition in the first instance that Paine had
inflicted the mortal wound during a paroxysm of passion.
On the arrival of the Coroner, the Jury-room was crowded
to excess. A professional man had been engaged by the •
friends of Paine, but was not present during the proceed-
ings,. owing to the inquiry having been instituted very
abruptly, in consequence of the Coroner being in the town,
holding an inquest upon a child which was burnt to death.
Mr: James Turner, butcher, of Hampton Court, depoaed
that he knew the deceased youth, whose connections were
very respectable, and at his (deceased's) own choice appren-
ticed him to witness, although it was the intention of Mr.
Saunders to have brought; him up_ for the Church. On
Monday afternoon last witness was in his back parlour,
when he heard a loud exclamation of " Oh, my God, you
have killed me." On going out into the back premises, he
discovered the deceased reclining in the arms of Richard
Paine, one of his (witness's) journeymen. The lad's fea-
tures were very .pallid, and a quantity of blood was flowing
from beneath his trowsers. • Witness was very much
shocked at the scene, and inquired of Paine, who appeared
very much agitated at the time, the occasion of the acci-
dent ; who replied, that the' deceased had ran violently
against him (Paine), and a knife, which he had in his hand
at the time, had penetrated his body up to the handle.
Witness immediately sent for Mr. Holherton, a medical
man, who promptly attended, and on examination of the
wound the unfortunate lad-had received, expressed his fears
that it was mortal, and intimated that further advice was
necessary, Mr. Sadler Roots, of Kingston-hill, and his
son, shortly arrived, and the three gentlemen, adopted every
method to prevent fatal results, but their efforts proved un-
availing, as the deceased gradually sank, and died on Wed-

nesday.
By the CORONER—The deceased, who was a youth of
excellent disposition; and Paine, had always been on the
best terms. The latter I have had in my service some
time. He is humane and good-tempered. lam firmly of
opinion that the sad calamity was accidental.
By the Jury,From the time the deceased received the
fatal wound until his death he was sensible, and admitted
to me that he (deceased) was running violently round a
projection of the back premises, when he came in contact
with Paine. A few hours before he died he expressed a
wish to see Paine, and hoped that he would follow him to
-his grave, as he (deceased) said the cause of his death was
quite accidental, and that he heartily forgave Paine.
In the further examination of the witness he said that
Paine stated that he was proceeding from the shop to the
slaughter-house, and, in turning a corner, the deceased
came in violent contact with a large knife which he (Paine)
held in his hand, and which penetrated the abdomen of the
deceased.

Ann Petoe, servant to Mr. Turner, deposed that the
deceased and Paine had always been upon the most
frjendly terms, and after the unfortunate occurrence the
latter evinced the utmost feeling upon the occasion and
frequently shed, tsars.
Dinah Armstrong, of Twickenham, deposed that she
attended the deceased as nurse before his death, when he
said ho hoped no blame would be attached to Paine, who
was quite blameless.
Mr. Saunders, the father of the deceased, said that he
was satisfied that the death of his son was purely acciden-
tal, and that Paine was not in any way criminal.
The surgeon having stated that the wound was the
cause of the deceased's death, the Jury, after some obser-
vations upon the distressing nature of the case, returned a
verdict of " Accidental Death."