The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-08 00:00:00

o,e Church of Ireland, than there exists between
either and a Railway Bill, it was briefly disposed of,
and with edifyina-clearness, by Lord Haddington, from
whose speech we subjoin a pointed and striking pas
sage. Indeed, it is only in such times as these that
such a mixture of effrontery and folly could he heard
of as the assertion that there is no relationship be-
tween two laws of which the common tendency is to
s!rengthen the hands of those who acknowledge for
their one paramount object the destruction of the Pro-
testant Church :
" The Noble and Learned Lord had said, that there
was no more connexion between the Bill before the House
and the two other Bills which were in progress in the
Commons than between any of them and any road, or
canal, or railway Bill. It only showed to what shifts
men of ingenious minds were driven when they resorted
to such an argument as that. Did this question bear
on the question of the Irish Church ? All the friends
of the Irish Church conceived that this question bore
strongly upon that question. So, too, said all the ene-
mies of the Irish Church. All those who asserted that if
there was to be happiness or justice for the people of Ire-
land with a Parliament deliberating in Great Britain, as-
serted that the only chance for it depended upon the total
abolition of the Tithe system, and upon a public declaration
by the Legislature that no man should contribute to the
support of the Church of England who was not a member
of it. In a word, they joined themselves with the Volun-
taries, and having done this, they said, Give us this mea-
sure of Municipal Reform, and we will no longer agitate
for the Repeal of the Union.' Nay, they were willing to
take instalment after instalment, provided that each instal-
ment which they took was aimed at the destruction of the
Protestant Church. They declared, moreover, that though
they might take what they wanted by instalments, they
would not, on gaining one instalment, be content without
gaining all the rest. They declared over and over again,
Give us this Bill of Corporation Reform, and then see
whether we will not get afterwards all we want.' "—Time,.

Some of the Radical prints have been chuckling at
what they choose to term the diminished majority of
Conservative Peers on the Municipal Bill last Friday.
Diminished majority ! Why, what would they have ?
Do they want more beating than was administered to
them by a majority of 77 Lords ?—almost equal to
three-fourths of the Whig Peers who voted, includ-
ing their 7 Whig-manufactured Bishops ? We can
tell the Radical gigglers, however, that it was by a
mere concurrence of accidents they were debarred the
comfort of a defeat somewhat more signal in point of
numbers than that of which they complain. The fol-
lowing authentic enumeration of the names of Peers
who had given in their proxies against the Bill since
they first became acquainted with its provisions, Lut
who were omitted in the list by the illness, absence,
or oversight of the Noble Lords to whom the proxies
had been intrusted, will show that the totel majority
ought to have been 88, instead of 77, namely—Mar-
guises Ely, Exeter ; Earls Warwick, Belmore, Ennis-
killen, Farnham, Munster ; Viscount Doneraile ;
Bishop Oxford; Barons Skelmersdale, De L'lsle. It
thus appears that 11 votes decidedly Conservative
were lost through pure mischance on the division. Be-
sides which, it is right to be known that the sons of two
deceased Peers of Lord Grey's creation, viz.,—Lords
Dunmore and De Sumarez—voted against the Go.
vernment on the last occasion. So much for re-action
among the Lords.—Times.

We never had any sympathy with Radicals or Ra-
dicalism, but we never despised the • old -Radicalism,
as we do the ridiculous coxcombry of the present
Radical set to which Mr. Temple Leader belongs.
The old Radicalism was a very rude, but still a re-
spectable, sort of erroneousness. It was a bold,
blunt, intelligible thing ; it was professed by men who
were thoroughly in earnest, and who manifested along
with their short-sighted violence in politics a sound
healthy English feeling in other matters. They
never teazed the public with the paltry prate of
political dandyism. They did not talk Frenchified
philosophy in a bastard lingo, which is neither
French nor English, but a sort of pedantic cockney-
ism, fit only for the literary ladies of. Bishopsgate-
street Within. The old Radicals were to be op-
posed for their errors, and hated for their obstinacy
and violence, but, apart from their politics, they
were by no means contemptible. We felt that
they were our countrymen—that they had national
sentiments like ourselves—and that if there was real
and palpable danger to our religion and our laws, they
and we would make common cause to repel the enemy.
Not so with the wretched set of vulgar pamphleteering
boobies who now call themselves " enlightened Radi-
cals," and who are straining all their powers of affecta-
tion to thrust upon us Mr. Temple Leader as a Mem-
ber for our City, in the room of Sir Francis Burdett.
We do not see how a thorough downright Englishman
can look at this knot of absurd and conceited pretenders
with anything but contempt. They are eaten up with
affectation, and in politics or out of politics they are
equally un-English and contemptible. There is no
hope of such people. " Foppery," said that sound
British philosopher Johnson, " is never cured. It is the
bad stamina of the mind, which, like those of the body,
are never rectified : once a coxcomb, and always a
coxcomb." Such are the " enlightened Radicals" of
the present day. In all their nauseous and nasty
writings, of which magazines, reviews, and self-reported
speeches contain such a tiresome and offensive abund-
ance, we have never met with one generous sentiment
or one energetic thought. Their utmost success, and
to that but a very few of them reach—is in a certain
small art of ridicule. As scoffers at fidelity in matters
• of religion, and generous feelings in matters of politics,
they may claim a sort of eminence, but this " bad
eminence" is all of which they can boast. Their or-
dinary political talk and writing consits of a mere jar-
gon of affected terms. In the use of these one follows
another in vile and vulgar imitation, and the end of
all is that, in their opinion, they alone understand the
science of Government, and therefore they alone
shall pronounce upon what terms the liberty of Britons
shall be enjoyed. The grand pharos of this sect of
new-(angled Radicals is Sir William Molesworth's
Review, and the next light, which makes amends
for its lesser magnitude by its more frequent appear-
ance, is the Examiner newspaper. The latter we hold
to be rather the cleverer of the two in its small way,
and we have been a good deal amused with its pe-
culiar jerking and spark-emitting vigour in yester-
day's appearance. If Mr. Leader be not Member
for Westminster it will be no fault of the Examiner,
which not , only says the best it can for him, but
brings forward all the " enlighted" argumenta-
tion and Liberal lies which the Chronicle of the
preceding week had furnished in the cause of cox-
combry and the Westminster Rump. Our weekly wit
is particularly delighted with something which Mr.
Grote has said about Mr. Leader, and vows that the
saying of this wise man of the East " states with great
clearness the true nature of the contest." Now this
statement of great clearness, is a good illustration of
what we have been saying about the affected and (to
us) unintelligible jargon of that set of coxcombs to
which Mr. Leader and Mr. Grote both belong. " The
broad distinction," says the latter of these personages,
" between Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Leader is,
that Mr. Leader is an advocate of the onward princi-
ples of good and cheap Government, while Sir Francis
Burdett is an advocate of stationary principles, the
adherent of the Tory faction. Between such men
no genuine Reformer can hesitate for a moment."
Divesting this sentence of its feebly rancorous epithets
of abuse, Mr. Grote's " great clearness" upon " the
true nature of the contest" comes to this, that Mr.
Leader is an advocate of the " onward principles" of
Government, while Sir Francis Burdett is the advocate
of "stationary principles." Now, we would very re-
spectfully ask, in the name of common sense, and of
common English, what is the meaning of this ?
" Onward principles"—onward fiddlestick ! We could
understand the onward principles of a coachhorse, and
very much approve of them, but what is to be made
of the onward principles of a Government ? The
business of Government is, we humbly submit, to
hold in and restrain the ratural tendency of man-
kind to excess, rather than either to push or to drag for-
ward. But, after all, what sicnifies a metaphor ? Is
it to be seriously told the electors of Westminster that
Mr. Leader should be the man of their choice be-
cause he is for " onward principles ?" Is it upon
the strength of nonsensical jargon like this that men
of common sense are to turn their backs upon Sir F.
Burdett, who tells them plainly that he is for the main-
tenance and improvement of the existing institutions
of the country ? The phrase " stationary principles,"
of which the enlightened Mr. Grote, patted on the