The Sun.
London, England, 1829-05-04 00:00:00

(FROM THE MORNING HERALD.)

If the Duke of Wellington's forthcoming great
measure of Finance were (as we do not suspect it to
be) a call for a general contribution from all property
towards The reduction of the National Debt, of
course the tithes, both in clerical and lay hands, as
well as the holders of the debt Itself, would he called
upon to pay a fair proportion, and none could com-
plain of the inequality or injustice of such a step,
however wide opinions might be upon a project
which would come home so feelingly to the pockets
of all. For ourselves, we think that some such measure
would be the wisest mode of meeting our financial
difficulties. If a man's estate were mortgaged to
nearly the amount of its rental, leaving him little or
nothing to live upon, after the various claimants for
interest are paid, the wisest thing that such a van
could do would be to sell so much of his land or
houses as would pay off the whole or part of the
incembrance, and give himself, by such an operation,
a surplus of rents sufficient to live upon. But the
idea, which is still harped up.m in some quarters,
that the Church Revenues alone are intended to be
looked to for this purpose, is really too preposterous
almost to be dealt with seriously. Such a spolia-
tion would amount to little short of a dissolution of
the social contract, and those who could be found to
assent to it might expect, and most justly too, that
their own turn would come next; and would be
called upon to yield unpitied to the same injustice
which they had thus inflicted upon others. But
we do not believe that either justice or policy
would permit the Duke of Wellington to be
a party to any such a measure as this.—
Considering how the Clergy have annoyed
his Grace by their firm opposition to his
late Catholic Emancipation Bill, he tray, perhaps,
have no objection to frighten and annoy them a
little in his turn ; but beyond that we believe the
report in question to be a mere " weak invention
of the enemy," whose " wishes are farther to the
thought." In fact, laying the injustice of such a
project out of the question, its impolicy is quite
sufficient to stamp it as the offspring of minds which
do not calculate upon the truth or falsehood of what
they say. A Prime Minister, in good truth, knows
the value and importance of church patronage too
well to slay the bird which lays such valuable eggs.
No, no, the Church may feel herself, as she is en-
' tilled wto 40, quite easy on that head ; or, if she

tealiv has any fears, she has only to look on and see
the body of lay tithe-owners who are sailing by her
side, and with whom she must swim or sink tope,
ther.—The Duke of Wellington, all,powtiftil ti.s he
may think himself, dare not touch eo much as a hair
of their head exclusively. But whether the Church
will be able to maintain her present large revenues,
Without making them more conducive than they
now are to the general purposes of religion, is quite
another question. Whether indolent pluralists shall
revel in useless wealth while industrious Cerates art
starving—whether Bishoprics shall swell to Princiu
palities, while those who are 'entitled " to live by
the altar" can barely subsist by " the crumbs which
fall from the rich man's table"—are points well
worthy the consideration of those who have learnt
from experience to know that a timely reform of
evident abuses is the surest means of preventing
consequences which all who really value otir Church
Establishment must be anxious to avert.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL

Mr. George Bailin, a coal-merehantt of Pankiicle, at-
tended before Mr. Aldermen, AisS.Lii-, on Saturday, upon
a summons for d'eliVeribg to Messrs. Vizetelly and Brans-
ton, the pl'ititers, in Fleet-street, on the 16th of April, 24
tacks of coals, which did not amount to the quantity they
were sold for, reckoning three bushels to every sack.
Mr. Phillt,9, and a clerk of Mr. I farmer, attended on
1)..:.1..aif of the defendant, and the complaint was made by
Mr. Tout quand, one of the principal land coal-meters for
Surrey) who explained that he was not interested in ob-
taining a conviction, inasmuch as the penalty would go to
the cotinty.rJte of Surrey ; but such was the vigilance of
the Surrey coal-meters, that the forfeitures amounted to
40,0001. a -year !
Mr. Phillips took several objections. First, that the
whole of the coals should have been measured, to ascertain
that the deficiency in some sacks was not compensated by
a n overplus in others, whereas, in the present case,
three sacks had been shot before any- re-measurement was
required.
It was contended, however, and decided that a pur-
chaser of coals, by wharf measure, may have any part
of the whole quantity re-measured, and for every sack
not mntaining three bushels, the vender is liable to be
fined 40s.

Mr. Phillips next urged that the summons described the
deficiency as in the whole quantity which the 24 sacks
contained, and not as in each of the 24 sacks separately,
which was the charge now made. . _

The City Solicitor overruled this objection. The ap-
pearance of the party cured any defect in the form of the
summons.

Mr. Phillips's next objection was, that more than 201.
in penalties could not be recovered, except by action in the
Courts at Westminster; and the full penalties now sought
amounted to 461.

The City Solicitor got over this by saying the magistrate
might and would mitigate the penalties so as to bring
the ca,e within his jurisdiction.
The argumentation, am., upon these points (which
would fill three columns) being concluded, the merits of
the case were entered upon, and Ivers Elverson, a labour-
ing meter, deposed that lie attended to re-measure the
coal., and measured 29 sacks, 2'e of which contained
less than the proper quantity. He had a particular ac-
count of their contents; the first had two bushels and
three pecks only in it.
Mr. Phillips, the complainant, and the magistrate,
however, all agreed that the meter should refrain from
stating the deficiency in each sack, or upon the whole of
the sacks together, and after hearing some other witnesses,
Mr. Alderman ANSLEY decided that the charge had
broken down, bee tuse it was not proved whether the coals
were sold as pool measure or wharf measure. If it were
the former, the buyer was not entitled to a re-measure-
ment, because it was not demanded before more than one
sack had been shot. To show that the buyer was entitled
to have any particular sacks or number of sacks re-
measu-ed, the coals being sold as wharf measure, the
vender's ticket had been put in (the form of the pool
measure and wharf measure tickets being different), but
the party who received it from the defendant's carman
had not marked it at the moment so as to be able to
swear that the one now exhibited was the same ; nor
was it traced, by the production of witnesses, from hand
to hand, from the moment the carman delivered it to the
present time. He therefore disntissed the complaint.
Mr. Jackson, a coal merchant at Horsclydown, attended
on a complaint from the same quarter, for not delivering
the usual ticket with some coals, but as the complainant
had ascertained there was no fratolu'ent intent, he would,
without at all entering upon the case, assent to a nominal
fine being imposed, and the defendant pleading guilty, was
fined ss.