The Sun.
London, England, 1829-07-08 00:00:00

never surely be at variance with religion, rightly
understood. What is there in the Christian re-
ligion that is opposed to any doctrine taught by
Mr. Malthus ? The Christian religion does
not, surely, say that a man should act without
prudence—that he should neglect those rules,
by the observance of which alone he can hope to
escape misery here. The ascetic notions which
monks and visionaries entertained, from a mis-
apprehension of religion, have been long re-
nounced by the Christian world. The means
by which it has been proposed to promote the
temporal happiness of man may not alwa) s have
been judicious ; but surely no one will seriously
contend that any Government ought to have any
other object than the promotion of the temporal
happiness of its subjects. The length of our
extracts prevents our entering further at present
into the consideration of this subject.—Morning
Chronicle.

Rather more credit is claimed in certain quar-
ters for the withdrawing of the Government
Candidate for Clare (if the fact be so), than the
real merits of the case can fairly pretend to. An
experienced Feeler was sent over, whose primary
object unquestionably was to procure the return
of Mr. Fitzgerald ; if that should be found
utterly impracticable, as from the first we assert-
ed it would, the same confidential partisan had
in his pocket a discretionary order to beat a re-
treat. Upon entering the enemy's country va-
rious mangeuvres were practised to effect the
primary object ; but they having proved ineffec-
tual, nothing remained to be done but to adopt
the rather mortifying alternative—and this is
the conduct that calls forth such unqualified
It would be a curious fact in the history of
the Drama if it could be ascertained what is the
total amount of the sums which the law has
drawn from theatrical property within these last
twenty years. At a rough guess we should be
inclined to say that the average amount which
law and litigation have drawn from all the Lon-
don theatres during that period, would have
been sufficient to have defrayed the ordinary ex-
pences, such as actors, scenery, &c.—of a mode-
rate-sized one. People talk of being ruined by
enormous salaries to stars and great actors.
Though this may, and doubtless, in some few
instances, has been overdone, yet it does not
seem very unreasonable that those who attract
the most money to the treasury should have the
larger share of their own earnings. But if we
were asked what it is has really rendered theatri-
cal property of late years so unproductive, we
should say that it was owing to the enormous
size of most of our modern theatres, and to the
foolish state of litigation into which disappoint-
ment, wising from that course, has involved so
many of them. That theatrical concerns are
not fit subjects for Courts of Law and Equity,
we have the highest living authority in the latter
department for saying. Lord Eldon, unques-
tionably the greatest of modern Judges, when-
ever the concerns of a theatre came before him,
uniformly recommended—nay, urged the parties
to legislate and arbitrate for themselves ; advice
which nothing but the most willful blindness or
obstinacy could reject. In the case of Covent-
garden Theatre, the whole litigation is on the
subject of an interest which is itself not worth
the purchase of one year's costs ; yet, on this
account, the time of the Court is to be taken up,
deserving persons reduced to beggary, and the
public curtailed in—if not ultimately, perhaps,
deprived of—the source of rational amusement,
which this temple of the legitimate drama has
hitherto offered them. The whole subject affords
a striking instance how little of common sense
finds its way into the ordinary transactions of
life ; and how heedlessly men rush upon their
own ruin and that of others, when a little
prudence, forbearance, and foresight, might
avert the calamity.—Morning Herald.
A Morning Paper of yesterday, attempts by
an elaborate argument, to show that the present
state of Ireland is not such as ought to disap-
point the expectations of those who advocated
the Bill for the Relief of the Roman Catholics,
upon the ground of its assumed tendency to pro-
mote and secure the tranquillity of that country,
or to discredit the measure which they repre-
sented as the infallible source of peace and pros-
perity. We will extract from the article to
which we allude a short passage, in which the
whole spirit and substance of the argument is
condensed :—" But," says our modest Contem-
porary, who accuses other men of impudence,
" But though heads may be broken, or peasants
shot, and the unfortunate policemen in revenge
be murdered, the people of Ireland are what
they were two years ago, minus their hatred of
the Government." This flippancy of remark
so inapplicable to the subject, and betraying as it
does so complete a destitution of taste, feeling,
and judgment, on the part of those who employ
it, is but little calculated to make the King
of England, or his loyal subjects, satisfied
with the present condition of Ireland.—
The Constitution of 1688 was not "broken in
upon" in order that heads might continue to be
broken, that peasants might be shot as usual,
that unfortunate policemen might in revenge be
murdered as before, that the people of Ireland
might remain what they were two years ago. The
object of the Bill, or rather we would say the
apology of a measure which militated against the
feelings of the people of England, was to allay
the agitation of Ireland—to render Ireland a
country in which men might reside who were not
absolutely tied to it—to present Ireland as an
open, and fair, and attractive field for the em-
ployment of English capital—the object or the
apology was that heads might not be broken,
peasants not shot, policemen not murdered, the
people of Ireland not the same that they were
two years ago ; and the very enumeration there-
fore of our Contemporary is a proof that the
measure which " broke in upon the Constitu-
tion of 1688" has produced consequences per-
fectly the reverse of those which were its osten-
sible objects and its only apology. But the sub-
terfuge to which our Contemporary resorts for
shelter against his own terrible admissions is of
a nature which should at least have admo-
nished him not to accuse any body of im-
pudence. The people of Ireland are the same
after Roman Catholic Emancipation as before,
" minus," he says, " their hatred of Govern-
ment." We do not understand the term " hatred
of Government," if it implies any thing more
than contempt and systematic disobedience to
the law ; and in this contempt and disobedience
the leaders of the Roman Catholics of Ireland
are, we confidently assert, more conspicuous and
determined at the present moment than at any
former period. Was it the intention of the law
to put down the Roman Catholic Association ?
Is a permanent Association, meeting at the Corn
Exchange, Dublin, and proclaiming theirinten-
tion to interfere in all future elections in Ireland,
any thing else but the Roman Catholic Associa-
tion in a new form ? When until now was that
hatred of Governments which consists in con-