The Sun.
London, England, 1839-10-07 00:00:00

LONDON:
MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1839.

We are told that we took on Saturday an exag-
gerated view of what the Tories would do if they
were in office ; and that they would not and could
not, as we then said they would. Be it so. They
demand these things—what, then, is the inference ?
Why, that the Tories are seeking to excite
discontent, and break up the Government on false
pretexts. They know, is implied by their apologists,
that what they demand is impracticable. They are
then hypocrites, thorough hypocrites. There was
no Whig when in opposition, no Radical at any
time, who ever proposed a measure which he
did not deem bona fide a practical one. He
might be mistaken, he might find in
office that he could not carry his opposition
conceptions into effect, but he had an honest
belief that his propositions were practical. The
Tories, however, admit that their propositions to
repeal the Catholic Emancipation Act, to enrich
the Church, to levy additional taxes, to pay off the
national debt, etc., are impracticable. With their
customary hypocrisy—hypocrisy which is so habitual
to them that they scarcely know when they are
guilty of it—the Tories, and particularly the
parsons, endeavour to excite the prejudices of
the people against the-principles of a system which
they are convinced cannot in principle be altered.
The Whigs and Radicals in opposition struggled
for objects which they believe to be attainable, and
if attained they believe they would be publicly
beneficial. The Tories, on the showing of their
friends, are bawling for measures, and kindling the
passions of the people in favour of objects which
they know to be unattainable, and if at-
tained, they know would be injurious. Never-
theless, with almost unexampled malevolence, they
do their utmost to excite the most baneful and
unsorial passions in their dupes, to gratify which
would endanger the public security, for the mere
purpose of getting into office. With all clue respect
to them, and with a full conviction of the meaning of
the term, we affirm that the conjoint attempt of
Rey. Mr. STOWELL and the Times, of the parsons
and the mere politicians, to excite the animosity of
the Protestant population against their Catholic
fellow-citizens, which both Mr. STOWELL and
the Times, both the parsons and the pOliticians
know, could not be acted on, is nothing less than ex-
tremely
wicked. If any conduct deserves the name
of devilish, it is the present conduct of the Tories
in relation to the Protestants and Catholics.

The few observations we have of late made on
the currency, once again an important and absorb-
, ing question, have excited some remarks in our
Contemporaries, and have induced authors to send
us their lucubrations, some of which we shall no-
tice. We copy the article of the Conservative
journal, which adverts to an opinion we have ex-
pressed. It certainly remains true, although bank
notes are of equal utility to gold in performing
the functions of money (we believe they are
more useful than gold, or they never would
have displaced and superseded it), that they
are not an actual payment, but only a promise to
pay. It is so written on their face, and the fact
cannot be denied.
But then we are said " to have formed a mis-
conception of the functions of money ;" how our
Contemporary has jumped to that conclusion we
are not aware, for we said not a word about those
functions, and, except as our observation has
sheariv,gedia6ss
elaborate a peg for our ingenious Contemporary to
essay on, that essay does not
concern us.

There—is only one point of the essay which we
shall notice. The Conservative Journal asks,
" Will any one venture to assert that paper money,
properly managed, may not be sustained at the
same level of value as gold?" We shall make no
such assertion ; but how properly to manage it is
the difficulty. Now, to us.it always has appeared
that, to preserve it in its true character of a pro-
mise to pay, so as always to carry with it as great
a moral certainty as possible that what it
pro-