The Sun.
London, England, 1829-06-16 00:00:00

creation for the tradesmen of the metropolis.,
their wives, children, andfriends ;" but if he
were confined to a sedentary trade for six days
out of the seven, in sooty London, he would
probably argue differently. The comforts of the
lower classes are too much neglected by the
Aristocracy of the country, and we do hope that
this attempt to deprive " tridesmen" of the
pleasures -of fresh air will be defeated. 'Sir
Charles Burrell Fa :,.s that " the Lord of the
Manor ought not tolie precluded from improving
his property." Certainly „ not ; but that is not
the question. The question is, whether the
Legislature shall confer upon the. Lord of the
`Manor a property ? If hc.posseSsed an exclu-
-7ile property in Hatnpstead Heath, his present
application to Parliament would be unnecessary.
Sir M. Wilson possesses certain rights in Hamp-
stead Heath —the copyholders have also their
rights in it, as have also the public at large,
who have a right to go upon it, breathe the pure
air, and enjoy a delightful prospect—a right of
no little value in the neighbourhood of sup Ita
city as London. The leaseholders have also

thetr tight in the common ; it renders their
house::. Inure valuable by the inducement which
it Wills out to people to visit the place, zald
tctale in it. We hope that should this Ili!' pass

the COllllllOll5, 1V1111:11 13 not, however, N-cr.,

likely, that the Lords will throw it out of their
House. W►'e have received the petition, and
have been :quested to give it insertion ; but it
is such 'a wordy unmakeoutable rigmarole (drawn
is evidently by a solicitor), that we must be ex-
tatsed from giving 'l.—Morning Hcrald.
Among other improvements, which aic anti
have ben long called for in the metropolis, ,is

the removal a the Hay.market from the street

culled.

It is almost ludicrous to witness the

intonsistency with which these things arc done

tit d not doi;c. While the New Street Commis-

. •
:?ioners Consider Ciamng-cross and Cod:spur-

street (two of the widest places hi London) as
too narrow for a hackney-coach stanch -they

quietly look on and see the hay market thronged
and blocked up with dung-cart, for no other

reason we ever could discover or bear of, but

that the jobbing Justices of Westminster might
retain some little, dirty, ill-exercised patronage
over the place. This spot in the outskirts of
the metropolis and on the very edge of St. Mar-
tin-in-the-Fields, was no doubt originally very
judiciously chosen ; and it is precisely for the
ismne reason—viz., that the parish of Si. Martin
is not now in the fields—that it ought to be re-
mo7ed to someplace in the suburbs, such as its
present site originally was; but that it should
remain because it has become a nuisance, merely
that Mr. A. or Mr. B. may get twopence upon
every truss of hay or straw, under pretence of
seeing that they are weight, is too absurd to ad-
mit of defence. What must foreigners think of
the boasted inwrovements of our metropolis,
when we suffer ode of its principal thorough-
fares, and the locale of two of our theatres, to
remain a receptacle for clover, and a crowded
gangway of wheat straw ibid.

We perceive that some of our contemporaries
have taken occasion, on the discussion of the
French Budget, to compare the church esta-
blishments of England and France, and to extol
the superior cheapness of the latter. We will
pursue the comparison one step further than
they are disposed to carry it, and say that France
has had an Atheistical Revolution and England
has not—that the Government of France have
now to struggle for the restoration of religion in
that country, while in England the Government
and the people agree that the support of religion
is one of the first duties and interests of the
State. Invidious comparisons of this nature be-
tween the revenues of our Bishops and other
eceles;astical dignitaries, and the revenues of the
same description of functionaries in France,
shows either that those who institute them are
bad reaSoners, or that they are desirous of revo-
lution.- In England the Church as a corporation
is the possessor of immense .estates, in the same
manner and by the same tenure as a large ma-
jority of the lay proprietors of the-country.--
Nothing i-,hoit of a general convulsion can dis-
posSess the Church, and the same convulsion
which could dispOssess the Church would
equally dispossess all other considerable proprie-
tors. This is so clear, that every man who in-
dicates, however obscurely or indirectly, that in
his opinion Church property is tangible, ought
itt once to be set down, whatever may be his jro-
fessions, as the adVocate of a general confisca-
tion. The estates appertaining to the See of
Canterbury, or London, or
,Durham, or Ar-
magh; are at the very least as sacred as those
which belong to the Duke of Bedford or the
Earl Grosvenor. No reason can be urged for
an invasion of the former which may not be
urged with still greater force for an invasion of
the latter. If it be an evil that the Archbishops
of Canterbury and Armagh enjoy estates which
arc supposed to be more than commensurate to
the services they render to the counnunity, surely
it is a greater evil still that the Duke of Bed-
liad, the Earl of Grosvenor, and many others,
should enjoy greater estates, without rendering
any services to the community at all. The
estates held bye one class of proprietors are as
productive as those which are held by the other.
llie tenants and peasantry dwelling upon the
former are just as happy, perhaps rather happier
and more prosperous than those who cultivate
the latter. If then confiscation were to begin,
the dictate of reason would be to make it
begin with those who do nothing in return
for what they are _allowed to possess, and
to spare to the last those who hold their
estates upon the understood condition that they
shall discharge arduous and important duties.
There can be no stronger proof that a public
writer is desirous of bringing about a revolution,
and that he. is the enemy of religion, than an at-
tempt on his part to seduce the nation into a
belief that the revenues of the Church of Eng-
land arc a charge upon the people of England.
The rent of every landowner in the country is
quite as much of a charge upon the people-as
the revenues of the church, and the nation can
have no motive to desire a confiscation of tho
latter without having a still stronger motive to
desire the confiscation of the former. Where the
clergy are stipendiaries to the State, the case
altogether different. The people hive
then the same interest in reducing their allow-
ance as in. keeping the expenditure of Govern-
ment in the lowest_ convenient point in every
other department. Such is the situation of
France in consequence of the Revolution. We
arc very far from thinking that it is a desirable
situation for any country ; and whether desirable
or otherwise, nothing is more certain than that it
never can be the situation of England, unless by
the effect of a Revolution similar to that which
France has undergone. To harp upon the mag-
nitude of our ecclesiastical revenues, as present-
nninriltrignn with - (how, 0!