The Sun.
London, England, 1828-03-08 00:00:00

the West Indies themselves, find it conducive to
their personal importance and their political influence
in England, to be exceedingly generous and humane
at the expellee of those- who, relying upon the good
faith of the British Legislature, have embarked their
fortunes in the West Indies. But grant that the
fact is doubtful whether free labour can be substi-
tuted for slave labour on a West India plantation
without annihilating its value, and it is very faintly
maintained, even by the most zealous of those who
aim at a cheap character for philanthropy, is it not
important that this fact should be ascertained,—
placed by ineontestible evidence beyond all doubts
or controversy before the Legislature shall proceed
to decree the manumission of slaves invito do--
mine. Until this is done, a law for the compul-
sory manumission of slaves would be a law of con-
fiscation,—unless accompanied by an express under-
taking on the part of the Legislature to compensate
the Proprietors if loss should eventually be sustained
by them in respect to the value of the estates, to
which they expected, and had a right to expect, the
slaves to remain legally attached. When Lord Nu-
gent talks of the law of God and Nature ; when
Mr. W. Smith insists that no presumption however
extended can give man a property in man ; when
Mr. F. Buxton exclaims that the property of the
West India Planters is derived from crime—why do
not these philanthropists direct their denunciations
against the Legislature of Great Britain ? Why
do they not say to Parliament, you, acting in the
name and with the tacit approbation of the British
Nation, have sinned against the law of God and
Nature; you have ,called into existence a delusion
which, with the legal name of property, is no pro-
perty; you are the original authors of the crime,
of which the present state of the West Indies is
the fruit—to you then we appeal, and to that na-
tion, in whose name and on whose behalf you
acted ; undo what you have done, and let the na-
tion as a whole sustain the loss, if loss there is to
be ? This would be candid and manly—it would
be, what the language now applied to the
West India Planters is not—it would be honest.
But the philanthropists do not and will not employ
it. They fear that the popularity they bold so
dearly would suffer, were they to propose any mea-
sure, or to hold any doctrine tending to increase the
burdens of the people at home. They would re-
joice to see the property of the West India Planters
confiscated—they tremble not at the idea even of
devastation and massacre in the West Indies; but
two things are indispensable to their happiness, and
for these no sacrifice can be too great, provided it
is to be made at the expense of others, to have the
name of Philanthropists, and to be popular with the
ignorant and unreflecting part of the community.
It is of course the merest folly to expect, while such
language as we have described is spoken and tole-
rated in Parliament, that the West Indian Body can
cordially adopt the recommendations of the British
Legislature with respect to the government of their
slaves. Are the Philanthropists actuated by this
folly, or by other and less pardonable motives and
feelings ?—Morning Post.
It is most amusing to hear Honourable Mem-
bers, in the examinations in the case of East Ret-
ford, gravely dwelling en the hardship of de-
priving the freemen of that borough of their fran-
chise on account of the well-established bribery of a
part of their number. What is meant by the fran-
chise in such a case ? The right to receive bribes,
to be sure. In what other way can the franchise be
valuable to a poor man, but in the power itgives hint
to put money in his pocket ? Poor people have ways
of reasoning of their own, as well as rich people ; and
there is one maxim very frequently in their
mouths, " the money is come wrongfully by;-but it
is as well we should receive it as others." So long
as there was no money raised from the people to be
shared by those returned to Parliament, the Repre-
sentatives were paid their charges; and the fran-
chise, so far from being considered a privilege,
was viewed as a burden. In Prvnne's Brevia Par-
liamodaria Rediviva, we have abundant instances
of places relieved from the burden of returning
Members on account of their poverty; and par-
ticular Boroughs were sometimes selected from
pique, as a means of punishing them. Men in the
present day are, in point of generosity, much about
what they were in the days of our forefather.
We do not find men canvassing to be placed on
Juries, or to be in other situations where trouble is
given merely for the public good. It could be no
privilege now to return Members, more then it was
four hundred years ago, except we suppose it pro-
ductive in money's worth. The small places can
only be valuable to the freemen as a franchise, be-
cause they yield them a larger share of the money
raised from the nation than the share paid by them
in the way of taxes amounts to. To consider the
exercise of the franchise as a privilege instead of a
burden, is to depart from the principles of the Con-
stitution. The franchise is a debt which indivi-
duals are bound to discharge for the common good.
The viewing the franchise as an estate implies,
what is notoriously known to be the case, that the
franchise has become a title to share in the plunder
of the public, valuable to those who share it in pro-
portion to die paucity of their numbers. The best
of the rotten boroughs are those which are openly
vendible; the worst, those which are so rotten that
the freemen are property of the individuals. But
as we cannot have the latter disfrauchised, we
must be satisfied with an occasional transference of
one of the former to a populous place like Binning-
ham or Manchester.—Morning Chronicle.
We hope the Parliament will oppose Mr. G.
Moore's Lottery scheme for a Canal through Ireland.
Lord Cloncurry has, we believe, something to do
with this scheme. It would not surprise us if he
had been trot hold of by some of the crew, whom
we disappointed, a year or two since, in their schemes
for robbing the people of England. The project
for cutting a Canal through Ireland is to raise the
money by means of lotteries in England—English
pockets are to be got into for Irish purposes, and this
while Ireland pays only five millions toward, the taxa-
tion, and has no Poor Laws, though her population
is seven millions ; and England pays fifty millions of
taxation, and has Poor Laws, and fourteen millions
population. The population of England to Ireland
is only as two to one, but her taxation, compared
with Ireland, is ten to one, and no Poor Laws in
Ireland, though heavy Poor Laws in England. Mr.
G. Moore must think that the people of England
are a little beside themselves to listen to such a pro-
ptssition. If there is to be a lottery in England, we
had better have one to get rid of some of our debt.
tint we-would ask Mr. G. Moore—if the people of
Ireland can raise 300/. a week by means of the Ca-
tholic Association, they might raise so much a week
by means of a Canal Association ? Why not call
the Catholic Association the Canal Association, and
spend the 300/, a-week, or 15,000/. a-year, on the
projected Canal. But we have no doubt that knaves
are goading on Lord Cloncurry, Mr. G. Moore, and
thg merchants, &c. of Dublin. Some ten or a
dozen wanting large salaries for their lives.—Morn-
ing Herald.

" McNeil v. McGregor,"
A case of Sects Appeal,
of considerable interest as well its importance, was
part heard on the 29th ult. in the House of Lords,
and further heard yesterday. As it has been post-
poned until Friday next, we shall have an opportu-
nity of again adverting to it. The lady, who is ap-
pellant, was regularly married in 1816 to a Mr.
Jolly, with the cognizance of the respondent,
McGregor. On the death of her father, however,
the respondent commenced an action before the
Scotch Consistorial Court, praying for restoration
of conjugal rights, on the ground that she had been
previously married to himself. lie obtained Judg-
ment, which was confirmed by the Court of Session,
and to reduce that Judgment the present Appeal
was made, The point of law on which the decision
seemed at first to hinge was, whether in an action,
winch went to affect the civil rights of Mr. Jolly
and his children, by the appellant, he and they ought
not to have been cited as defenders. Counsel were
heard on this point yesterday, when it was objected
by Lord Eldon, that the suit in the inferior Court