The Sun.
London, England, 1837-10-25 00:00:00

truth verified by the experience of 2,000 subsequent
years—when he asserted that the despot's sycophant
and the demagogue arc but. the same person plcced iii
different circumstances. ,Tha predominant influence
n
with both is selfishne and the hatred of equal liberty The one avails himself of the p-Ower of ali ilidiVidual to
advance his selfish interests and depress his betters; the
other for
,the nme object resorts to the power of the
multitude.' The history of the Greek democracies fully
confirms the truth of the ancient IvoAlril of kv‘! have
been thus opp-ainnely reminded by nkir Contemporary.
TheWiractsm of the Athenians—the most civiliei; of all

the democratiesta.tes,l,vasas tyrannical and capricious ate
exercise of power as any that was ever exercised by a
single despot. To aervirc eminence in the Stattl hti
great talents, pletnlid achievements, or superior vir-
tue, was sufficient to call forth the envy of the dema-
gogues of Athens, anti the exercise of the terrible power
with which the ready tools of their malignant passions
—the populace—were invested. Men, who like Thc-
mistocles, saved their country by the exercise of a mag-
nificent genius, or adorned it with the accomplish-
ments of transcendant ,virtue, like Aristides, were
treated no better than /some of those distinguished
victims of Russian despotism, who have been dragl;cd
Nom their homes in unhappy Poland, and arc now
expiating in the mines or frozen deserts of Siberia, the
crime of too patriotic an attachment to the liberties
and independence of their native land. The Ruian
Autocrat has been libelled, says the democratic Dur-
ham. The Russian Autocrat has succeeded better in
crushing the expression of free opinion within his do-
minions, than the liberty-loving Durham did in this
free country, when he, a magnanimous leader of the
people, wielded the unreformed law of libel against

he Press, and took nothing by his motion.

Who

has libelled the Russian Autocrat? We fear we are
as deep in that guilt, seeing that truth is a libel, as
any of our contemporaries—deeper in it than all the mi-
nisterial and Liberal journals put together. We have
held up to public odium and execration the atrocities
of which Poland has been the scene, and Europe the
witness. We have denounced the insolence and ex-
posed the treachery of the " ally" that goaded the
Poles to insurrection through the agency of the savage
Constantine, and then erased them as a nation from
the map of Europe, because he was aware that the
miserable Whig Ministry of Great Britain would treat
with the most complaisant meekness the outrage put
upon the national honour, by tearing to pieces the
treaty of Vienna, which, under the guarantee of Eng-
land and 'France, made the independence of Poland
part and parcel of the settlement of Europe. Who
has libelled the Autocrat of Russia ? again we ask.
Lord Durham's political friend—the man who calls
himself the " Queen's -friend"—the man who is now

Lord Melbourne's friend and chief support. Daniel
O'Connell, at the time of the Polish struggle, or soon
after it, not being then on very good terms with the
Whigs, called the " libelled" destroyer of Polish
liberty a " miscreant" and a " monster." A great
proportion of the House of Commons, though not in-
dulging in language quite so coarse, reprobated his
cruelties in terms not less severe, yet the men who used
this language when it was, too late, had previously co-
operated in that job of jobs—the Russian-Dutch Loan
job—whereby our Liberal Ministers extracted some
millions sterling out of the pockets of the people of
this country, to enable the Muscovite Emperor, at the
critical moment, to pour down new levies of barbarians
upon the plains of Poland, where successive Russian
armies had found their graves. Immediately after the
" libellous"- attack of the majority of the House of
Commons upon the bright reputation of the Autocrat,
Lord Palmerston and his colleagues sent out an Am-

bassador-Extraordinary to Russia. Two different ob

jects were ascribed to that political mission in the Mi-
nisterial journals, both of which subsequent events
showed to be false ; or, if true, miserable failures. One
was the restoration of the independence of Poland ; but
immediately after that mission the Poles were perse-
cuted with more merciless ferocity than ever. The other
was the settlement of the Belgic question ; but the
Belgic question has never yet been settled, and, we sus-
pect, never will be settled, but by the sword. What,
then, was the real object of that mission ? Lord Dur-
ham can best tell, for he was the Ambassador. Was it
to apologise to the Autocrat for the " libellous" lan-
guage of the House of Commons, and to soothe his
wounded feelings? We know not what the real object
was, but we do know that the history of Russian litlicy
ever since has been a history of open or secret aggres-
sion upon British interests, of insults to the British flag,
and of contemptuous defiance of the British nation.
Will Lord Durham condescend to inform the public
what reparation he exacted from Russia for the insults
to the British flag in the waters of the East ? Will
his diplomatic Lordship condescend to say what satis-
faction he obtained for the outrage to the national
honour in the case of the Vixen? Our Whig
Ministers have made us do what the degenerate Ro-
mans did—pay tribute of our gold to the Northern
Barbarian, and it cannot be wondered at that he de-
spises us in return. When it was proposed, under
Sir Robert Peel's Government, to send out the Mar-
quis of Londonderry, a Tory certainly, but as cer-
tainly a high-minded British soldier, as Ambassador
to St. Petersburg, who does not recollect the outcry
which the Whigs and their supporters raised against
the appointment in the House of Commons ? On
what was Mr. Sheik motion for an Address to the
Crown against that appointment grounded ? Was
it not on an alleged bias upon the mind of the
Noble Marquis, which might lead him to take too
favourable a view of Russian policy, and there-_
by endanger those British interests which it was
the duty of a representative of the free monarchy of
England to guard with the most jealous vigilance ?
Well, the motion had the effect of causing the appoint-
ment to be cancelled, or what amounted to the same
thing, causing the Noble Marquis to resign. Under
these circumstances, is it not a piece of as cool assu-
rance as ever was beai.d of, that tliie democratic noble-
man whom a triumphant faction forced upon the Crown
as the man best qualified by his uncompromising libe-
ralism to watch and defeat the anti-British designs of
the northern despot, should now come forward and
tell the British people that the .Russian Government
has been libelled, which is in effect to say that Mr.
Sheil's motion against the appointment of the Marquis
of Londonderry was one of the grossest " humbugs"
that ever was played off by our jobbing Liberals upon
this much befooled country ? We should like to know
what it has cost the nation for the several embassies of
the Earl of Durham, which have all ended in a eulogy
on the destroyer of Poland, and the insulter of the Bri-
tish flag ?—Morning Herald.
The fall of Constantina is a most important event,
and the Government of Louis Philippe has received
by it an amazing accession of strength. It is parti-
cularly valuable at this Moment, when the country is
about to proceed to new elections ; and we may, without
hesitation, anticipate returns highly favourable to the
Government. The honour of France is aveng,ed—the
defeat of last year is washed out in the blood of the
former conquerors, and the glory of her arms receives
an additional lustre from its having been once tarnished
on the same Spot. It is for France to rejoice, and -for
the family of the King of the French to feel the influ-
ence of the event in their future fate ; but England
has another interest at stake ; and it is worth our while
to reflect that the consolidation of our great rival's
power in the north of Africa, isnot to us a circumstance
of a satisfactory nature. When Charles X. prepared
the expedition which subdued Algiers, the Duke of
Wellington demanded explanations of the Cabinet
of the Tuilleries as to its future intentions, and he re-
ceived the most solemn assurances that, after the
pride of the Bey. was humbled, and satisfaction
given for the insults offered to France, the
army would be withdrawn, and no possession taken
of his territory. These assurances were repeated
by Louis Philippe to the British Ambassador after
the revolution of 1849 and the honour •of France
became bound as solemnly as it could be for the
evacuation of Algiers, and the abandonment of the
African coast. We need not say how ill those
pledges have been fulfilled—how M. de Polignac
forgot, in the intoxication of conquest, the promises
that he had made to the British Government—and
how Louis Philippe forfeited his word, on the eva-
sive ground that his own wishes were overruled by
the public opinion of his people. The result has
been, that France has resolutely set about the forma-
tion of a colony, and has endeavoured to extend,