The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-02 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF TfIE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Papers presented to Parliament explana-
tory ofthe state and tendencies of the trade of this
country, in certain articles of British manufac-
ture, during the last threeyeais, are by no means
consolatory to those who merge every other con-
sideration in that of an increase of manufactur-
ing labour and production. The plain fact was
insisted on two years since by this Journal,—
and we were hooted at by the mob of commer-
cial and ministerial sycophants, high and low,
for having the boldness to assert it,—that Eng-
land has now, for the first time, to encounter
manufactiiring rivals all over the word ; and that
it is the necessary growth of foreign manufac-
tures-which has really produced the diminution
of our own, more than any circumstance that
cduld have been avoided by the wisest course of
domestic legislation, though not to the total ex-
clusion- of many for which we are-indebted to a
policy the reverse of wise. In the years ending
the sth of January, 1825, there were exported
from Great Britain upwards of 344,000,000
yards of cotton _cloth ; Jan., 1826, 330,000,000 ;
and Jan., 1827, 267,000,000,—a loss of nearly
80,000,000 of yards. But in that article by
which we contribute to feed the manufac-
tures of other countries, cotton twist and yarn,
in a half raw-material state, our exports have been
extending,in the, same time, from 33,000,000 pounds
to 42,000,000. With regard to woollens, the Bri-
tish trade has likewise declined. In the years end-
ing January, 1825, 7,349,000 yards; January, 1826,
7,803,000 yards ;- and January, 1827,. 4,941,000
yards—a decline of two-fifths ; and, in the teeth of
such a falling off, the agricultural monopolists are
attempting to enhance the price and lower the qua-
lity of the British woollen cloth, by the Mi-
nister to lay a tax on the import of foreign' wool.—
Linens have sunk, in the three , years above-men-
tioned, from 63,000,000. yards to 39,000,000. Ma-
nufactured hardware and _cutlery, have diminished
from. 214,000 cwt. to. 192,400 cwt. Leather, from
1,744,0001b5. to 1,461,0001b5. In every other branch
of-exports, save iron and steel only, there has-been
a visible reduction. The two latter articles have ex-
hibited an increase from 851,5781. sterling, to
1,107,724/.—Times.

Mr. Sergeant Cross has been appointed At-
torney-General of the Duchy of Lancaster by
Lord Begley, the Chancellor. We recollect that
Mr. Sergeant Cross was grievously disappointed
when Mr. Scarlett was preferred to that post,
himself having stronger claims, as he presumed,
on the patronage of Government, by identity of
paiblic principle with its leaders. The explana-
tion was, that Mr. Scarlett's greater eminence at
the bar rendered it impossible to pass him over.
Is Mr. Sergeant Cross then, who has written a
pamphlet, addressed to the late Duke of York, against
the Catholic Claims, more identified in political sen-
timent with the Chief of the Administration than
any other man on the circuit ?, Or is he the most
eminent in talents on the circuit ? A Minister, or
a man, who means to effect a purpose, should adopt
all the preparatory means which lead to its comple-
tion, or he will be thought insincere in his profes-
sions. Probably Mr. Sergeant Cross may have
changed his opinion on the Catholic question.--Times.
On Friday, in our notice of the proceedings
in the House of Lords, with respect to the Dis-
senters' Marriage Bill, we alluded to some ob-
servations in the New Times, which seemed to
us calculated to produce an impression that the
Established Church of Scotland had the mono.-
poly of celebrating marriages in i!At country.
The New Times of Saturday reverts to the sub-
ject, which is discussed with as much vehemence t
as if the fate of the empire were dependent on
the issue. It is no joke to come into collision
with such a furious braweansir. We shall give "
our contemparary " the benefit of his lecture,
without curtailment :
" We• have no hesitation," he observes, " in re-stating
what we formerly said ; and we have as little in adding,
that, on the subject of Scotch marriages, the Chronicle is,
without exception, the most ignorant personage that ever
undertook to instruct us or the public. We need not refer
hiin tothe Directory of the Church, nor to the decisions of
the Law Courts, but to any Scotcbman, or Scotchwoman,
in London—and it• contains a few— to convince him of
this. Banns, in Scotland, cannot be proclaimed any where
hut in the Established Church of the parish where the
parties have resided for the six weeks immediately prece-
ding proclamation ; and if they reside in different parishes,
the banns must be proclaimed in the Established Church of.
each. The certificate of their having been regularly pro-
claimed, can be granted by one officiary only—the Sessions
Clerk—who is appointed solely by the Session (Vestry)
of the Established Church. There is no record of any
description in Scotland, but the one kept_ by that func-
tionary. Not only _no Clergyman, but no Justice of
the Peace :tor even buckle-beggar, to use the phrase
of our Contemporary, dares pronounce the cere-
mony of marriage without banns having been produced
to him, under heavy penalties. What is called a
marriage without banns is merely the attestation of an in-
dividual, that a man and woman appeared before him, and
acknowledged themselves to be marrial persons. The mar-
riage ceremony in Scotland is, in.no case whatever, per-
formed in a Church, but at the residence of the parties or
their friends ; and lie who can talk so wildly about them
knows as much of the customs of that country as he does
o 1 those of the moon. The ceremony may, after banns
uuiyproclaimed, be performed by any Clergyman, and that
fact we distinctly stated. This laxity in Scotland arises
partly out of the state of the law, which holds two per-
sons married, to all intents and purposes, who merely ac-
knowledge each other as man and wife ; and partly out of
the peculiarities of the Presbyterian Church, in recogniz-
ing no set forms either for marriage or any thing else.
Where the law revires no form, and the Church imposses
none, it is not easy to'see what purpose could be served by
compelling people to be married by the Established Clergy-
man. Still, as we have stated, so strongly is the propriety
felt of lending the sanctions of religion to a compact of so
much importance, that no.marriage is celebrated in Scot-
land but by a Clergyman. In England, on the contrary,
the law distinctly requires, mitt the Church, with the au-
thority of the law, distinctly lays down a form. There
are no marriages of presumption here ; the rule is, ' no
ceremony, no compact! And hence the mischief which
must necessarily arise where proper rules for establishing
the fact of such a ceremony's having taken place are not
laid down, *Nell, we contend, is the case in Mr. Smith's
Bill."
It is not our ititention to enter into any .for-
mal controversy on*this subject. Our object in
alluding to the observations of our contemporary
was to guard against 'an inference long drawn in
England from his use of the word Scotch Church
and Clergymen, that Scotch marriages to be re--
"nular must be celebrated by the. Clergy of the
r,
Establishment: " Banns," he says, " cannot ,
be proclaimed any where but in the Established
Church of the parish, where the parties have
resided for the six weeks immediately preceding
proclamation."—ln Hutcheson's Justice of Peace,
2d edit. Edin. 1809, vol. ii. p. 221, it is laid
down The proclamation must be made in
the parish churches of the parties. If the cere-
mony is to be performed by an Episcopal Clergy-
man, the proclamation must be made in the Epis-
copal congregation also. Of course, if the parties
belong to any other Disi<enting Congregation, the
proclamation should take place there as well as in
the Parish Church." The various dams of Pres-
byterian Dissenters have their Sessions .and Ses-
sion Clerks, as well as the Establishment (gene-
rally the Precentor), and series of Church
Courts, and observe the Directory for public
worship ; and banns are regularly published in
the different congregations. In all' the Dis-
senting congregations of the PresbyterianS all
the solemnities are required
,which are -required
in the Established Church ; and parties in ccim-
,

all the solemnities. Runaway, marriages used
to subject the offenders to -a rebuke ; and if they
refused ' obedienbe they could not have their
children baptized, or enjoy other Ecclesiastical ad-
vantages. When we said " a regular marriage does
not imply a marriage in an Established Church, but
a marriage in the Church to which the parties be-
long, in contradistinction to a marriage attested by
a Justice of Peace," &c., our object was not to spe-
cify the place of celebration, but to show that regu-
larity meant a marriage agreeably to the, regulations
of the religious community to which the parties be-
long: Every one knows that Church is used in a
number of significations, and that the oldest and
also the most general signification is in the commu-
nity, and not any particular place of worship. As
our Contemporary refers to the Directory of the
Church, we might observe, that in that Directory
the Minister is publicly to solemnize the marriage
" in the place appointed by authority for public wor-
ship." But as we do not wish to cavil, we allow
that in practice marriage is usually celebrated else-
where than in the church, very often at the house of
the ClergYman, especially where the parties are poor.
The disuse of the church arose probably from a par-
ticular recommendation in the Directory, " We ad-
vise that it (the marriage) be not on the Lord's
Day." This recommendation originated in the
ideas of the Puritans that the Sabbath ought to be
day of mortification. Hence Fraser of Brae, Mi-
nister of Culross, after the Revolution, observes in
his Memoirs, " I think it a greater sin to marry on
the Lord's Day than to yoke a plough, inasmuch as
the work and concern is greater; and I judge it to
he one of the provoking profanations of the Lord's
Day, the sinful continuance of this; and I seldom
ever see those marriages blessed that were celebrated
on that day ; they must be strangely mortified crea-
tures that dO not find their own pleasures that day."
Our contemporary is mistaken in asserting that the
l'7resbyterians have no ceremony of marriage. In
the Directory it is expressly laid down, " the Ali-
ister (if ,no impediment be acknowledged) shall
tluse first the man take the woman by the right
and, saying these words : " I, N. do take theeN.
be my married wife ; and do in the presence of
(pod, and before this congregation, promise and co-
vienant to be a loving and faithful husband unto thee,
tintil God separate us by death." Then the woman
shall take the man by his right hand, and say these
Words—[Here the words are repeated, with the sub-
stitution of husband for wife.]—Morning Chronicle.

! Some time ago, in remarking upon the abuses
cif Corporations, we alluded to that of Devizes,
in Wiltshire, and expressed n hope that the
c. venerable ,and select body" who exercise the
ective franchise in the borough, to the exclu-
on of the rest of the inhabitants,
.and levy taxes
n the subject, under the name of tolls, would be
Compelled to produce their charter, and expose
dome of their secrets to the eye of the law. This
has happened sooner than we anticipated, for a
ride has been grained by the Court of King's
Bench against certain Members of the Corpora-
-4 on, on, to shoW cause why one or more information
r informations, in the nature of quo warranto,
4iould not be exhibited against them, with a
viewl to ascertain by what authority they seve-
;ly exercise the office of chief or capital bur-
sses of the borough of Devizes. The persons
against whom the rule has been obtained, are,
vve believe, those who constitute the last batch
of burgesses made by the veteran Directors of
the local Divan. The present proceeding' is in-
stituted for 'the purpose of ascertaining whether
those and similar elections are made in compli-
ance with, or in violation of the terms of the
Charter ; and to show that the authority really
is, the Charter must be produced. Now, we
re always understood the Corporation to have
en very anxious not to have any light let in
0611 their proceedings but what was necessary
for the ainvenience of their own-operations. They
!lave endeavoured to inyolve_their.. Charter iii_aa
much mystery as if diey feared its production
would witness against their doings. A sort of
Freemasonry has been practised in this, as
well *as in. many other Corporations, which
has been tolerably successful in preventing the
inconvenient disclosure of secrets. We are told that
previously to the election of any person or persons
to fill up the vacancies in the, extremely limited num-
lier of members to which the Corporation, in the
lfipse of time, by management, has been reduced, a
lort of inquiry is made into the principles and senti-
ments of the class of•persons from among whom the
selection is to be 'made,- and those only are chosen
whose accommodating' tempers and pliancy of dispo-
sition make it certain that they will always irnpli-
tlY adhere to the system as they find it—eat their
udding—and ask no troublesome questions. We
Have heard 'of a practice, in some rotten Corpora-
tions, of making each candidate take an oath before
lie is actually appointed a new member, not 'to dis-
close the secrets of the body ; but as such oaths are
illegal, we cannot presume,- until we see it proved,
that the Corporation of Devizes go that way to
work, although their secrets are certainly as well
kept as if the lips of each new member were sealed by
the most imperious obligation; yet perhaps self-inte-
rest is the strongest of all ties, and that, we have no
d'oubt, each member of the Corporation feels. It isnot
the state of franchise alonethat we wish to see investi-
gated ; an inquiry into the state of the funds also
would be interesting and useful. For what purpose
is the Corporation allowed to levy taxes in the name
of tolls ? Was it not to defray the expenees of
paving and lighting the streets, keeping watch and
ward, &c. ? Now, how comes it that a subscription
was lately made under the pretence of paving and
lighting the streets, to which subscription Mr. Wat-
son Taylor, one' of the Members for. the-Borough,
contributed I,ooo4—and the other Member, Mr.
Pearse, likewise gave a large sum, but vre'do not '
just now recollect how much. This looked like
very substantial gratitude for their election; but it
did not save the farmers of the neighbourhood a
penny in their tolls. Of course, where such grati-
tnde is shown, the Corporation can never be at a
loss fir fit and worthy Representatives ! The cha-
rities:whieli this Corporation have under their con-
troul ought to be ,comprehended in the inquiry. We
hope they Will be sifted to the bottom. The law
should protect. the rights of the poor with as much
jealousy.as the estates of the rich.—Morning Herald.
A' Morning Contemporary was wrong in
terming Mr. Slaney's fill for amending the Poor
Laws an Act ; it is still a Bill, and very likely
.to remain so. In physical evils, the more dan-
gerous and difficult the disease, the more nume-
rous do we always find the remedies. Slight
ailments are for the most part left to the regu-
lar practitioner, and every empiric has a specific
for cancer and consumption. A like rule holds
good in respect of political evils. The. reform
of the Commercial, .or of the Criminal Code, is
left to established men—hut such a reform as
that, of the poor Laws, is an atchievement to
which any young Member thinks himself equal.
It must be confessed, in favour of such attempts,
that where the evil is of surpassing magnitude,
the dishonour of failure in the application of a
cure is proportionably small. And it is fair to
add, of most of the cures proposed for the evils
of the Poor Laws, that, like the vinegar and
brick-dust of the quack in the farce, if they are
not calculated to produce much• good, they are
not 'likely to 40 much harm. From this de-
scriPtion we must, however, except the proposal
of Mr. Slaney, which, whatever be its other
defects, is not of an inoperative character. Mal-
thus, in his- most ingenious Essay of Po-
pulation, proposes, if we recollect rightly,
that persons -who- married after a certain
ten, ihould forfeit all claim to parochial

fixed D,

od s

belief. Every one knows to what virulence of
abuse, and what absurdity of misrepresentation,
this proposal exposed him. The object' of Mal,
tus Was to check excess of population, which,
hen pressing on the limits of subsistence, he
deemed to be the fertile mother of most of the
crimes and misery of this world. He propoSed
to effect this by a very simple process, namely—
ly every man to support his own
Children, judging that, in that case, he would
Calculate the chances of being able to keep a fa-
mily before he put himself in the way of having
one. We do not pretend to decide between
Malthus and his opponents, as to the legitimacy
of his deductions, some of which are, perhaps,
coloured by his attachment to a theory which he
has so successfully demonstrated. We, refer to
his plan only to show by what different pro-
cesses of reasoning different men endeavour to
reach the same point. MalthuS would put an
end to the Poor Laws by imposing pruden-
tial restraints upon marriage ; the Honourable
Member aims at accomplishing the same end, by
holding forth a bonus to those who shall yield the
most ready obedience to the command to increase
and multiply. The former says, do not marry; or,
if you do, have as few children as possible, for you
shall get nothing from the pariSh to help you; ; the
latter says, the sooner you marry, and have half-a-
dozen children, the better; for if you remain single,
or have but one or two, we will not give you a
penny to keep you from starving. Tospeak seriously
—wherein consists, we should like to know, the
difference, in respect of inhumanity, in refusing relief
to six, and in refusing it to seven ? We who are
not much conversant in metaphysical niceties have al-
ways imagined that the existence of suffering was a
sufficient cause for the exercise of charity, and ad-
mitting all the virtues that have everheen attributed
to the said number seven, we cannot, see that an
able bodied peasant and his wife, with no children,
if they have nothing to eat, and nothing to do, are
not as proper objects of relief, as if they had five.—
The . Poor Laws are an evil; but they ate not an
unmixed evil. Much physical suffering is redresied
I& 'their operation,- which private benevolence would
never reach, or would reach too late. And, looking
to them in a general point of view, there is
a degree of moral grandeur in the contemplation
Of a system which-- goes.as far as human institutions
can, to provide food, for the hungry, and cloth-
ing for. the naked, and which constitutes the na-
tion at large, a father to the fatherless, and a hus-
band to the widow. There are many disagreeable
features in the detail.of the system, but the prin-
ciple of it 'bespeaks a generous and a Christian feel-
ing in the 'community ; and it is most honourable to
the country gentlemen, that, with all their occasional
grumbling at the burden, they have always been
found strenuous opposers of any attempts to relieve
themselves at the expense of the poor. Real relief
is indeed, unattainable by legal enactments. By the
diffusion of education—by showing to the labourer
and artizan that their own comfort will be most
effectually promoted by an abandonment of the Poor
Laws, we may at length succeed in getting rid of
them; but such a process of cure will require a
somewhat longer period than will intervene between
this and' the Ist of January, 1831.—New Times.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Jume SO.

The LORD CHANCELLOR was engaged on bankrupt pe-
titions, of no public interest, until half-past one o'clock,
when he rose for the purpose of attending a Privy Council
on the Recorder's Report.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 30,

SMITH V. JONES.

The ATTORNEY-GENIRAI and Mr. Gunsey, on behalf
of the defendant, showed cause against a rule nisi for a new
kriat obtain.' by Mr. Marryat. The cause was tried at
the Middlesex Sittings after Hilary Terna,ta-foro x.ora -.-
terden, and a verdict was found for the defendant, who is
the Marshal of the King's Bench prison. The action was
.for the edeapo of- Abraham• Simmonds, a prisoner-in the
rules of the Bench, at-the suit of the plaintiff, who aver-
red that the Marshal permitted him to escape on the 3d of
October last. It appeared from the report of the trial,
which Lord Tenterden read from his notes, that Simmonds
being of the Jewish persuasion, and October 3d being a
festival among the Jews, the plaintiff employed several
people to watch on that day Simmonds's lodgings, who
saw him leave them in the evening and go out of the rules
to the house of a Mr. Hart, a Jew, where they saw him
through the front parlour window, and where he passed
the evening. This was the the escape relied upon. The de-
fence was, that Simmonds had a brother named Elias;
that there was so strong a likeness between the two brothers,
that none but their moat intimate friends could distinguish
them apart ; and that on the evening in the question it was
Elias, and not Abraham, who came out of Abraham's lodg-
ings, and was traced to Hart's house by the plaintiff's wit-
nesses, who had mistaken him for Abraham. Several
witnesses were called to prove the resemblance, and that
Abraham was not at Hart's house, but that Elias was.
Elias, however, was not called, being too ill to attend the
trial. On this evidence the Jury found for the defendant.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. GURNEY now con-
tended, that the jury came to a proper conclusion, and
affirmed that there never was a case in which the testimony
of so many witnesses hung better together.
Mr. MA RRY4T, in support of the rule, said, that the
affidavits on which he had moved were so numerous, that
the testimony of the persons making them was deserving
the consideration of another jury.
The COURT made the rule for the new trial absolute on
payment of costs.

SPARKS AND ANOTHER AGAINST SPURR AND AN'OlifER.
This was an action.by the endorsee against the acceptor
of a bill of exchange, in which the plaintiff was nonsuited,
and a rule nisi for a new trial was obtained.
Lord TENTERDEN read his notes of the trial.
Tl►s bill was produced, and the signature of the defendant
as acceptor was roved, but the words " payable at Fry
and Chapman's" appeared on the bill immediately following
the name of the acceptor, and in a different hand-writing.
His LORDSHIP ruled, that it lay upon the plaintiff to
prove that those words were written by the defendant, or
with his assent, and the plaintiff failing in so doing, was
nonsuited.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now showed cause against
the rule for setting aside the nonsuit, and argued that the
burden of the proof was properly cast upon the plaintiff,
for it Would be impossible for the defendant, who had not
the custody of the bill, to show bow any alteration was
made in it.

Mr. CAMPBELL and Mr. JUSTICE, in support of the
rule, contended, first, that the alteration was immaterial,
for that the case of " Young v. Rowe," in 5 Maule and
payableSelwyn at a particular
place,
there ties no necessity to aver
a presentment at such place ; and the statute of 1 and 2
Geo. iy. c. '7E3, enacted, that acceptances payable at parti-
cular places are general acceptances, unless they are ac-
cepted payable at such places only i alid that, therefore,
the addition of the words "payabliat Fry and Chapman's')
made no alteration in the legal effect of the acceptance;
and they, secondly, contended, that it rested upon the de_
fendant to show that there had been an alteration
bill, for that the words " payable at Fry and Chapman
tawhe
following the name of the acceptor, instead of following the
word " accepted," and preceding the Pam, was not an
unusual way of writing an acceptance, and that the dif-
ference of the hand-writing could easily be accounted for
from the frequent usage oepersons emploYing their clerks
to write every thing for them but their names: they there_
fore submitted, that neither of those circumstances were
strong enough to raise a presumption that the bill had
actually been altered at all, and that it therefore lay Upon
the defendant to prove that the bill had been, in point of
fact, altered after the acceptance. •
The COURT, on the first point, referring to the case of
" Master against Miller," 4 Term Reports, held that, as
aay alteration in a deed, even in an immaterial part, made
by a person claiming under it, rendered the deed void, so
the alteration in this hill would make it void, unless it
were made by the acceptor, or with his assent; but on
the second point, they made the rule for a new trial ab-
solute upon payment of costs, in order to give the plain-
tiff an opportunity for removing the difficulty of the bur-
den of the proof, or, if on the new trial he failed to do
so, to enable him to get the question, which was one of
considerable importance, raised upon the record by ten-
dering a bill of exceptions.

THE KING Z. WTI. HENRY MACKAY.:
Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS showed cause against a rule,
for a criminal information obtained by the Attorney-Ge-
neral against the defendant, who is an attorney, for send-

a letter to Mr. Ackerley, abanister, calculated to
Provoke him to A breach of the peace.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said that the letter did not pro-
Voke a breach of the peace, and that therefore the Court
would discharge the rule, but without costs.

THE KING V. JOHN BERNARDO DA ROTCHA.

Mr. BROUGHAM mentioned this case, which was moved
on Friday, and produced the affidavit required by the
Court to bring home to the defendant the libels pub-
lished upon his Excellency the Marquis de Palmella,
upon which the Court granted a rule nisi for a criminal
information.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE SO.
BEASTON V. COLLIER.

This was an action on a special agreement of service. It
was tried before t'he Lord Chief Justice at Guildhall, during
the sittings after last term, when the following appeared to
be the facts of the case :--In 1803 the plaintiff entered
into the service of the defendant, who was an army and
navy agent, as clerk, at a salary of 70/. a-year. This ser-
vice commenced on the 25th of March, and a contract was
made between the plaintiff and the defendant, by which it
was agreed that the plaintiff was to be employed by the
year current. In this manner the plaintiff went on until
March, 1811, when a fresh arrangement was made, by
which the plaintiff's salary was increased from '7O/. to 5001.
a-year. This salary he continued to receive up to October,
1819, when Mr. Collier died ; but no difference arose
from this event, the plaintiff still continued to receive the
same salary from his successor, up to January 24th, 1827,
when he was dismissed, having, received a notice to that
effect on the 23d of December, 1826. His salary was
paid up to the 24th of January; but he insisted that, his
engagement being a yearly one, he was entitled to his sa-
lary up to March. These were the facts of the case, and
the Jury being of opinion that the plaintiff had a right to
receive the remaining two months' salary, gave him a ver-
dict of 831. With this verdict his Lordship expressed his
entire satisfaction.

On a former day in this term, however, Mr. Sergeant
WILDE moved for, and obtained a rule to show cause why
the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial granted.
t. Mr. Sergeant SPA WKIE dill day showed cause against
the rule.—Rule discharged.