The Sun.
London, England, 1835-01-27 00:00:00

put -an end to church-rates and all other-burdens which
bear upon those who do not belong to the Church ;
and what more does the country want ? What more
does it require ? What more do the great body of the
clergy wish for ? To talk of the building of more
churches in the present day, when those already built
are not half filled, is to return to the age of darkness,
and to raise enemies to the Church where enemies did
not previously exist. Verily, were we to speak in the
spirit of party, we might say of the authors of this
notable scheme of national taxation—" the Lord
hath delivered our enemies into our hands."—Morning
Advertiser.

Our opinion of Sir Robert Peel was not so low as
to prepare us for the gross untruth in his history of
the Melbourne Ministry. The Tory writers have
found it convenient to identify the Grey and Melbourne
Governments ; but we did not suppose it possible that
the Chief of the Ministry would attempt to ground his
accession to office upon the same false pretence. We
expected, at least, more ingenuity from Sir R. Peel ;
but in this respect we may have been unreasonable,
for it is probable that the most consummate art could
make nothing better of so bad a case. When we see
such a master of the plausibilities as the Premier
having recourse to a notorious untruth, we have most
decisive evidence of the hopelessness of his cause.
There is the wildness of despair in the attempt
to place to the discredit of the Melbourne Ad-
ministration the secessions from the Grey Go-
vernment ; nay, the resignation of Lord Grey
himself, the breaking up of his own Ministry, is
numbered among the weaknesses of the Melbourne
Government. This is, indeed, but another version
of the wolf's quarrel with the lamb—" If it was not
you it was your grandfather, and that's all the same."
By the resignations of Lord Stanley, Sir James
Graham, the Duke of Richmond, and Lord Ripon,
the Grey Ministry got rid of the impediments to the
reform of the Irish Curch. This was the defecation
of the Government. Lord Althorp tendered his re-
signation, it will be remembered, upon the difference
with Lord Grey as to the re-enactment of the political
clauses in the'Coercion Act, and Lord Grey then with-
drew ; upon which the King sent for Lord Melbourne,
and charged him with the formation of a new Ministry.
This change was so material that it allowed of Lord
Althorp's return to office, though Sir R. Peel has the
effrontery to assert that Lord Althorp retired from the
Government which his party supplanted. With re-
spect to the policy towards Ireland it was certain that
the Melbourne Ministry was more liberal than that of
Lord Grey ; for Lord Grey, in retiring, had given way
to the men of the milder counsels .who had differed
with him as to the Coercion Act, and the improved
spirit of the Government was afterwards manifested in
the appointment of some staunch supporters of the po-
pular cause. The choice of these men was accepted
as a sign that something was to be done—that there
was to be an end of the system of sacrificing friends in
the vain attempt to propitiate enemies ; and, therefore,
those who trembled as others rejoiced at these appear-
ances seized the first pretext for dismissing the
Ministry, before it had the opportunity of realizing
the good hopes that were entertained. We have
given this brief sketch to show the more strongly
the variance between Sir R. Peel's statement and the
truth. It is certain that if the Melbourne Ministry
had been the same as the Grey in principles, spirit,
and intentions, there would have been no shadow of a
reason for the retirement of Earl Grey. The difference
may not have been great, but what there was must
have been on the side of improvement, and more re-
solute counsels ; but the Government, changed for the
better, as it was generally thought, in these respe, ts,
was refused the trial which is now claimed as a matter
of right by its successors, in whom we have a change
so wofully for the worse. When next Sir R. Peel speaks
on this subject, and speaks where he can be answered,
we hope he will be asked to name the period in which
the Melbourne Ministry had its trial, and to explain,
at the same time, his notions of the identity of
Ministers under a change of heads and combinations.
At present, with a marvellously convenient logic, he
would at once discredit the Whig Ministry because
becatise of the changes in it, and argue that it was
tried, as there liad been no change to destroy identity.
Thus, when the object is to make out that it was tried,
it is one and the same under the auspices of Mel-
bourne or of Grey ; but when the object is to dis-
parage, it is not the same, for the best men are
said to have withdrawn. Sir Robert rates the seceders
as the best, because they halted short of an im-
portant principle of Church Reform adopted by their
colleagues ; and as they wer: so backward, he in-
vited them to join his Ministry. Yet we are told with
matchless impudence that this Government will go as
far, or farther, than its predecessors—and in the work
of Church Reform ! In one particular Sir Robert Peel
is frank enough. He refers to what he has been as a
Reformer, and declares that such as he has been he
will continue to be. This Ministry must then, ac-
cording to his assurances, be a mere revival of the Mi-
nistry of 18.29 and 1830—it simply carries us back to
those years ; and yet they cry out that they are untried,
though judgment was given against them five years
ago, and they protest that what they were then they are
now. If Sir Robert told us that we were not to judge
tf what he is by what he has been, he might have some
claim to a new trial, that is to say, if the people were
so credulous as to believe him.—Morning Chronicle.

ROLLS' COURT.

KNATCHBULL V. FEAItNHEAD.

The arguments in this case were to-day concluded.
His Honour the MASTER of the ROLLS said that be
should look through the papers before deciding whether
he should direct an inquiry in this case, which seemed to be
rather a hard one against the defendant.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

THE KING 1.7. DYER AND HALL.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL showed cause against a rule for a
mandamus to be directed to Messrs. Dyer and Hall, two
Magistrates of the county of Middlesex, commanding them
toissue a warrant of distress against the goods of James
Beale, to enforce payment of a rate assessed for the sup-
port of the poor of the parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields,
and St. George, Bloomsbury. There was an estate in St.
George's parish, well knewn as the Spencer Estate, be-
longing to a gentleman named Spencer, who resided in the
principality of Wales, and who was the owner of about
150 houses in tho- parish in question. Beale had been the
collector of his rents, but was well known only to fill that
office, every one being aware that the houses belonged to
Mr. Spencer. One of the churchwardens himself held one
of these houses. The Court would not interfere in the
manner now prayed if there was any doubt as to their
authority to do so, nor was it clear that the parties applying
for a mandamus had another remedy. Here the parish had
another remedy, by action. This was a distress warrant,
applied for to enforce rates alleged to have become due in
1833. In the meantime Beale had paid over to Spencer
all the rates he had received, and yet he was now sought
to be charged with them. The application was made un-
der the provisions of the 11th of Geo. IV., a local. Act re-
lating to those two parishes. He submitted that the rule
for the mandamus must be discharged.
Mr. TuEssiGmt said that it was desired by the parish to
take the decision of this Court upon the question whether
the rates of the small houses should be collected or not.
Unless this mandamus was granted is was impossible to
collect them.
Lord DENMAN said that the power now contended for
was large and extraordinary. There might be good reasons
for making the owners of lands or the collectors of rents
rateable for property in the parish, for they had the profits
of the estates in their hands, and might conveniently be
called on to pay the rates ; but at the same time, before the
Court could enforce the issuing of a distress-warrant in such
cases there must be clear proof given that such a power
did really exist. He much doubted whether there was
any such authority here.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE and Mr. Justice WILLIAMS
concurred.—Rule discharged.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.