The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-28 00:00:00

danger, therefore, both in advancing and retiring the gal-
lant officer wisely preferred the latter, that he might have
the head-quarters of Sir J. Colborne within reach of him,
instead of waiting to be blocked up in a more hazardous
position, where he could not so readily be extricated or
supported. This resolution of Colonel Wetherell, we re-
peat, proves the inadequacy of the regular force at once to
repel the insurgents and to hold the country. At a sea-
son of the year, therefore, when reinforcements by sea
are impracticable, our hope must be that volunteer
draughts from the British population of both provinces
may be brought effectively into the field before the
troops are worried and worn out by the frequent assaults
of a multitudinous enemy. Should the British race of
colonists come freely forward, there is little doubt of a
favourable result to the operations of Sir John Colborne,
and a speedy extinction of M. Papineau and his dupes.
How the complicated questions arising out of the ano-
malous condition of Lower Canada, in respect of her laws
of property, and of her much abused political privileges,
are hereafter to be disposed of, there is now no occasion to
anticipate. First " catch your hare,"—first put down the
rebels. In the mean time we should like to understand
from the Queen's Ministers, when it was, and at what date,
that they sent out permission to Sir John Colborne to pro-
claim martial law in Canada, should events, in his opinion,
require such a precaution. Lord John Russell boasted
loudly that Sir J. Colborne " had been" authorized to put
the country under martial law. When, we ask again, was
the Governor-General so authorized ? Did that order
make part of those " contingent instructions" which any
statesmen who knew their business must have deemed an
indispensable part of it, on the receipt of even the very first
of that long series of despatches, wherein Lord Gosford has
for many months past been officially exposing to them the
fearful state of Lower Canada,and the probability, according
to Lord John Russell, that the malcontents. there would

break out into open rebellion. If, with the prospect of
a rebellion for more than half a year before their eyes.
the Melbourne Cabinet not only neglected to send an addi-
tional soldier to North America, but deliberately withheld
from the Colonial authorities in that quarter those discre-
tionary powers for discouraging rebellion, seizing hold of
rebels, and fortifying the hands of the Royal Government,
without which no Sovereign can be protected against the
machinations of high treason, then are there estab-
lished against these Ministers two grounds of impeachment
instead of one-Ist, that the military force was not
strengthened ; 2d, that the execution of justice upon
traitors was not strengthened ; and with regard to the se-
cond point we de affirm, that if, upon the facts as desclibed
by Lord John Russell himself, the authority to praclaim
martial law throughout Canada was not transmitted to Sir
John Colborne before last Friday, or sonic diiy subsequent
to the receipt if intelligence through this journal that rebel-
lion had actually burst
~forth, no culprit that ever lost his
head upon the block deserved to he hrouelit to account for
mieprision of treason more palpably than Lords Melbourne,
John Russell, and Glenelg. However, the truth cannot
now be cushioned. The papers are printing, and, if incom-
plete, they can be rendered perfect by interrogatories put to
Ministers in both Houses of Parliament.—Times.
There can be no truer maxim in political affairs than
this—that where disputes are to be managed, of which the
ultima ratio may be war, the weakest policy is in the end
the most cruel. Of this the world has recently had abun-
dant evidence in the case of !Spain. Had Great Britain
not interfered at all, or interfered with power and vigour,
the war in Spain would soon have come to an end ; but be-
cause Gnat Britain into rlered weakly—because the half-
and-half policy, ar:s:pg front conscious wrong, has been the
policy of Gr. at Brit/tie, a dreadful war has been protracted,
and horror after I orror has been perp tr.ted, until the
heart sickens at the contemplation of unceasing and unmi-
tigated ferocity of which unhappy Spain is the theatre. The
same essentially cruel policy is now producing its terrible
effects upon our tallow-subjects in Canada. The British
Administration should either have determined to give up
Cenada, or to govern Canada. But it did neithc r the one
nor the other. Afraid, upon the one hand, to act upon the
principles of Radical recklessness, which, under the name of
philosophy, denies the advantage of Colonial possessions
altogether, and afraid, en the other hand, to assert the
authority of the British Crown in such a manner as would
have proved to the Canadians that Great Britain was de-
termined to retain both her colony and the obedience of her
colonial subjects, everything has been neglected to which
a wise Admictistratiun would have attended, and miserable
scenes of warfare are now the 'consequence. Nothing can
be plainer, even from the facts already before Parliament,
than the remissness of our colonial government, its vacilla-
tion, its timidity, its want of determined action towards a
clearly defined end ; and all this it will call a liberal end
conciliatory policy ! We trust this nation will not be im-
posed upon by any such misrepresentation, but, on the
contrary, demand that a vigorous policy of one kind or
another, shall be taken to put an end to Canadian
troubles. We very much doubt that the present Mi-
nisters are capable of any such policy. Their conduct
hitherto would lead to the conclusion that they are
not ; but the British empire is not to be shaken be-
cause its present Ministers have no firmness of purpose
or energy of action. If the present Ministers have
not the disposition or the decision to put an end to
war—if, uninstructed by events, they think of con-
tinuing the fatal policy which has led to rebellion, other
Ministers must be found more capable of dealing with
difficult circumstances. It radical policy wrre followed,
Canada should at once be given up. The political phi-
losophers of the radical school, with a vehenoince which
shows their perfect conviction that they canna.. be wrong,
maintain that it cannot be the interest of the mother
country to retain the government of a colony against
the will of that colony, and that it is not more ad-
vantage to possess a colony than to trade with an inde-
pendent kingdom. We hold this to be nothing better
than frantic theory. If we admit that the government
of a colony is to be surrendered because the colony
is unwilling to be governed, upon what pretence can
government be maintained at home ? If Canada is
to be at liberty to throw off its allegiance, merely
because it does not like to continue its allegiance,
what answer could be made to Cumberland, in the
event of the people of that district taking a dislike
to their present government ? Or, to take a more
probable instance ;—if we admit Canada to separate
itself from Great Britain, as a right springing out of
Canadian dislike to our government, what answer could
we make to Ireland if she begged leave to take advantage
of the same convenient species of shifting allegiance ? The
radical doctrine in this matter is mere nonsense. A state
may attempt to manage too much, as France did under
Napoleon ; bht to set up a general right of defection, or
to maintain that Governments lose nothing by loss of domi-
nion, would quickly bring a state to insignificancy, and ulti-
mately to ruin. With regard to the greater advantage of
intercourse with an independent kingdom, it is, doubtless,
true, that the commercial intercourse with a prosperous
independent kingdom is more advantageous than that with
a discontented and disturbed colony ; but if a colony be well
governed and obedient, it is absurd to say that our power
over it as a government, can be any disadvantage to us in
our traffic with it, while it is quite clear that that power
secures to ourselves advantages which, were it independent,
would be shared with others. Our present administration,
however, while they reject the radical doctrine of the
efficacy of separation, have pursued the policy which leads
to separation, and that, too, under the worst of all possible
circumstances. It now remains for them, by a severity
which might have been avoided, to make amends for re-
missness which ought to have been avoided. Such is the
only alternative of a weak and improvident administration.
—Morning Herald.
Let Ministerialists strain and struggle as they will, they
cannot escape from the common sense conviction of the
British public that their conduct with respect to radicalism
in the country, and rebellion in Canada, has been most
disgraceful to British Government and most dangerous to
British interests. By whose error and by whose neglect
is it that, notwithstanding the unequivocal indications of
revolt in Canada which have existed for the last six months,
there is now in that province no more than the ordinary
force for the preservation of British authority ? How
happens it that, with warning (sufficient for any watchful
Government) of what has now taken place, the period at
which something effectual might have been promptly done
has been suffered to pass by without anything being
done Canada is in revolt (and that not unexpect-
edly, except it be by the Government, who ought
to have been most alive to the matter), yet we can-
not convey any effectual assistance to re-establish and to
maintain the authority of Government within less than
four months. Is this a misfortune merely, or is it a
fault ? We say it is a fault, and a most gross and palpable
one. We acknowledge that Governments, as well as Ge-
nerals, may be taken by surprise, when the enemy is secret,
energetic, and vigilant ; but, in the present affair, there is
no excuse for the Government being taken unawares.
There has been no " surprise" in the case. The want of
preparation must have arisen from sheer laziness, or in-
firmity of purpose, or—worse than all—from disgraceful
political entanglement with the party who patronise the
Canadian revolt. Let Ministerialists wriggle and shuffle
as they will, they cannot evade these natural and rea-
sonable convictions of the British public. It signifies
little that Ministers now have separated themselves from
the extreme Radicals, whose ullima ratio we now find to
be revolt. They cannot deny that the men in England to
whom Canadian rebels look (and do not look in vain) for
sympathy and support have been heretofore encouraged
and strengthened by themselves. They may try to blind
the people of Enqland by now affecting much anger
at the conduct of Mr. Leader, Sir W. Molesworth, and
other men of that party, who openly rejoice in the cut-
break of Canadian treason, but Ministers cannot deny
that, but but for themselves, these men would not now be

in the British Parliament. Do they think that this
has nothing to do with our present difficulties in respect of
Canada ? They cannot think so, nor will they succeed in
persuading Great Britain that they are guiltless of gross
infidelity to the Crown in this matter. They knew—they
must have known—last summer (unless the hypnotic
draughts swallowed by Lord Glenelg were of far more
than common potency) that revolt was ripening in Ca-
nada. And what was their conduct? They did not
make an,' military preparation for the security of British
power and British property in the coining winter, when
to send effectual aid would become a physical impossibi-
lity ; but they did strain every nerve to put into the Bri-
tish Parliament the friends, the advocates, the agents of
the Canadian rebels ! They consulted—not for the ho-
nour of the Crown—not for the protection of
the Queen's loyal subjects in North America—but for
their own official existence, which they then thought would
be promoted by returning Republicans to Parliament rather
than Conservatives. This was the policy—this the fidelity
—this the patriotism of the present Ministers of the
Crown. What situation would the country now be in if
their miserable craft had then succeeded, and if (as their
newspapers boasted just before the election would be the
case) only a very few Conservatives had been allowed here
and there to struggle into Parliament from the obscure
parts of England? Where do the loyal people of England
now look for safety from the feebleness of Government
and the fury of misguided rebels ? Is it to the extreme
Radicals who, by means of Government influence, found
their way into Parliament? No, they look to the Conser-
vative party, who, thanks to the sound principles and good
feelings of English electors, form a majority of the re-
presentatives of England. Such Ministers are worthy of
the support which they achieved for themselves at the
elections. It is with regret that we see them owing
their official existence to any other. There can be no
doubt in the minds of reasonable men that the Canadian
rebels have derived much of what is (with more pedantry
than correctness) cared moral support from the Ministers
of the Crown against which they are in rebellion. When
these rebels saw the Government actively supporting Mr.
Leader, Sir W. Molesworth, Mr. Hume, and the rest—
when they saw that a Ministerial candidate was withdrawn
from Bath, lest the interest of Mr. Roebuck should be
weakened—they no doubt believed that the men of this
party commanded some very powerful influence in England,
Which would prevail in obtaining all they asked, if they
showed that nothing less would satisfy them. When they
saw that, in proportion as these extreme Radicals became
violent, and thereby forfeited the confidence of intelligent
and respectable constituencies, they were taken up by the
Government, and helped into Parliament from places
more under Ministerial controul—n hen they saw such
things done by the British Administration, is it any
wonder that they, too, were encouraged to extreme
acts of violence, and hoped to thrive by the same means
as their friends in England had thriven ? Certainly
not—the Ministers have been themselves the indirect en-
couragers of Canadian rebellion. And now—according to
the old rule in such matters—who are so loud in denouncing
the treason as they who encouraged the traitors? The
Ministerial writings breathe slaughter and vengeance
against Canadian rebels ; but they who send forth such
writings should remember that but a very short time since
they were extollng in every trope and figure of which their
rhetorical skill was master the friends of Canadian re-
bellion in this country. The extreme Radicals professed
long ago very nearly all that they profess now touclieg
and concerning Canedekn matters. Since their open exhi-
bition of community of sel:t:nient and sympathy of hope
with Monsieur Papine.at they 11,..ve been over and over
again applaud...A by Ministeri.d ‘Nriters as the fittest of all
men to be Members of Parham: nt. From Ministers
themselves they have got something better than "empty
praise"—they have had the " solid pudding" of seats in
Parliament bestowed upon them I These things have
happened too recently to be yet forgotten. Ministers and
Ministerialists may red and rave--•-may shuffle and prevari-
cate as they will, but upon Government intrigue, Govern-
ment neglect, and Government pusilanitnity, the blame of
Canadian revolt must mainly rest.—Morning Post.
Three interesting notices of motions which are to be
brought forward immediately after the reccs;, distinguished
last Saturday's closing proceedings. The principal was by
Mr. Wyse, fur the establishment of a Board of Education
and the appointment of a Minister of Public Instructior.
We have throughout expressed our sympathy with the oh-
ject of this notice—as well when referring to the motion
made last year by Mr. Ewart for the same purpose, us
when noticing more recently Lord Brougham's elaborate
and magnificent speech on the subject of a general system
of national education. The two other notices to which we
began by adverting, are subordinate, or rather auxiliary to
the useful object proposed by Mr. Wyse. They all com-
prehend the purpose of popular education in the broad
and useful sense of the ward. One of these motions is for the
encouragement of scientific institutions, by exempting struc-
tures devoted to them from the taxes on building materials.
The third of these motions of which notice has been given, is
by Mr. Slaney, for planting and embellishing public walks
in the vicinity of the chief provincial towns. The latter
object comprehends the education of the public eye by
means of a daily familiarity with objects of taste, as well as
the healthy recreation of the people during the intervals of
their industrious labours. To these proceedings in Parlia-
ment on Saturday we may add (as an associated subject)
Mr. Hume's motion for the correspondence on the subject of
the gratuitous admission of the public to the national monu-
ments, between the functionaries charged with their super-
intendence and the Government. This is a subject which we
shall not suffer to let sleep. All the above series of pros-
pective Parliamentary measures is intimately connected with
the great utilitariau object of raising the moral, social, and
intellectual character of the people. With that result will
always be combined the diffusion of true political know-
ledge. That knowledge will tend to do away with such
degrading scenes of corruption as were exhibited during the
last election. It will break up the impure springs of undue
influence, bribery, and intimidation. It will cripple the
chief instruments on which Tory predominance relies.
Freedom and knowledge go together. A well-instructed
people will always be a well-conducted people. The false
pretences of exclusive privilege and factious jobbery will
fade before its superior knowledge ; and the improvement
of the taste of society will at once increase its comforts,
augment its enjoyments, and multiply, nationally and in•
dividually, the impulses of industry and the profits of com-
mercial enterprise.—Morning Advertiser.

Dr. Warneford, whose name has been of late so fre
que►►tly associated with works of beneficence and utility,
is contemplating the formation of a school upon a new plan
in the neighbourhood of Gloucester. This (if the report
be correct) will make the fourth laudable or charitable do-
nation of the. Doctor's, within the last two years, compre-
hending an expenditure of nearly 10,0001. Legacies are oc-
casionally bequeathed for eleemosynary or other purposes,
where the testators (satisfied with the goodness of their
intentions) commit entirely to others the carrying of their
designs into effect, as well as the controul and management
of the funds for the purpose ; but too frequently, by such
means, have pious views been either wholly changed, or
only partly attended to. The Rev. Doctor has thought proper
to avoid such perversion by having his plans carried into
operation during his life, and under his immediate direction,
wisely considering that intentions left to be performed by
others are only half accomplished ; but that if they are
once set in motion under regulations conformable to the
wishes of the donor, future guardians cannot easily deviate
from the prescribed course. Dr. Warneford has never
coveted Church preferment, and during the larger period
of his life was without a benefice. In 1796 he married
Margaret, daughter of Edward Loveden Loveden, Esq.,
of Buscot, by whom he has no issue. His only brother,
Francis Warneford, of Warneford's place, Wilts, who mar-
ried a sister of the present Viscount Ashbrook, died in
1835. The family of Warneford is the oldest in North
Wilts, in possession of ancestacial property.
ROBBERIES ON CIIRISTMAS-DAY.—Between
one and seven o'clock in the afternoon, the house of Mrs.
Frances Ward, in the Hackney-road, was entered by means of
skeleton-keys, and robbed of a quantity of cutlery and wear-
ing-apparel, valued at fifty pounds. Between five and six
o'clock, the house of Mr. Thomas Daniels, No. 30, Walnut-
tree-walk, Vauxhall-road, was also entered by means of
skeleton-keys, and robbed of a very valuable silver snuff-box
and a quantity of wearing-apparel. Between six and eight
o'clock, the house of Mrs. Mills, No. 29, Nicholls-street, New
North-road, was likewise entered by means of skeleton-keys,
and robbed of a number of brooches, a gold chain, a double-
cased silver watch, a gold watch, a number of table and tea-
spoons, and thirty sovereigns. Also, about the same time, the
house of Mr. Jones, No- 7, New South-street, Chelsea, was
entered by similar means, and robbed of a gold watch, and a
quantity of plate, consisting of table, tea, and salt spoons, a
pint mug, and other articles of %attic. Likewise, about the
same time, and by similar means, the house of Mr. Ralph, 60,
Lower South-street, Chelsea, was entered and robbed of a
silver watch, a small French ditto, a quantity of plate, consist-
ing of table, tea, and salt spoons, several turquoise, ruby,
wedding, hair, and other gold rings, a number of brooches,
and about twenty pounds in cash ; and between six and nine
o'clock the same evening, the house of Mr. Stokey, No. 8,
Farling-street, St. George's in the East, was also entered and
robbed of a quantity of wearing-apparel, several Thibet shawls,
squares of lace, 20 sovereigns, and a considerable sum in silver.
CIIININEYS.—Chimneys were hardly known in
London before the reign of Richard 1., and then ttey only
existed in the religious houses, and in the balls of the principal
nobility. The citizens lighted their fires in the middle of their
apartments, and let the smoke escape as it could, by the door or
window. Their comfort and utility vivre, however, so obvious,
that they soon began to be generally adopted, and towards the
middle of the fourteenth century it was rare to find a house in
London without a chimney, although in the rural districts the
old fashion was left undisturbA for an age after. As the in-
habitants chiefly made use of wood for fuel, the nuisance was
not so intolerable as it would have been had they burned coal.
—Machay's History of London,