The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-01 00:00:00

THE PUBLISHERS' CIRCULAR.

It is said there is nothing new under the Sun, but
we think we have at last discovered one, if not in The
Publishers' Circular, at least in the idea of rcvietving
a publication of such a character. But here it is
full of interest, variety, and a world of knowledge I
Never yet did book issue from the Press to compare
with it ; it is, indeed, a vocabularly of marvels—books
in embryo—books just issuing from the Press—
new Editions of old, or of books whose popu-
larity has made them joyfully scarce for the
author and bookseller—books lately published on
every conceivable subject presented once more to
the public gaze to renew old recollections—and,
last of make assurance doubly sure—a
classified Index of every thing good, bad, and indif-
ferent, to wind up the circle of knowledge for the benefit
of those who are blessed with a bad memory. Really
we do not know where to find a compendium of literature
so comprehensive, yet so universal as the Publishers'
Circular, for the especial gratification and emendation
of all those who wish to shine forth in the " glorious"
field of literature. It embraces everything scientific,
moral, political, or religious—and all for the price of
two-pence a fortnight, or two shillings a year. But its
peculiar merits will be best understood by the follow-
ing announcement on the title page :
" The Publishers' Circular' is intended as a concen-
trated medium for the first announcement and publication
of all literary works and new editions. Three thousand
copies will be regularly circulated gratis, in single copies,
among literary persons, book societies, and retail booksellers,
in the United Kingdom. The newspaper stamp is affixed,
in order that The Circular' may pass free of postage to
all parts of the United Kingdom. Any individuals of the
above description desirous of having ' Circular' sent
to them regularly, arc requested to transmit their names
(post paid) to the editor, or to their own bookseller.
When the names shall amount to the stipulated number of
three thousand, all subsequent subscribers will be expected
to pay 4s. in advance for the year's subscription. Book-
sellers will be supplied with any number of copies they
may require, for the purpose of presenting to their cus-
tomers, at the cost price-2d. each.
"As The Publishers' Circular' must necessarily be very
extensively distributed in the most influential quarters, and
as the Advertisements will he displayed in a methodical and
advantageous manner, and charged at the lowest possible
price, every Publisher will find it to be his interest to cause
all his first Announcements to appear in The Circular,'
which will thus be made an object of research to the read-
ing public.
" The Publishers' Circular' will be published on the
Ist and 15th of every month, by the editor, Mr. Sampson
Low, at his Office, 57, Skinner-street, Snowhill, London."
All the world knows that the present Government
professes to be the friends of general education and
literature. W e take them at their word ; and here
we beg leave to direct the especial attention of
the Cl►ancelbr of the Exchequer to the duty
on advertisements, particularly literary advertise-
ments.

We have school books advertised at the
price of one shilling, for which a duty of
one shilling and sixpence is charged ! Call
you this promoting education ? In the Circular before
us, there arc hundreds of advertisements consisting of
only three or four lines each, announcing works of
a truly useful description, averaging, perhaps, about
three shillings each, upon which the same duty of
one shilling and sixpence is charged. This, in the
words of Lord Liverpool, is really " too bad." It
amounts almost to a mockery to be talking and
boasting of diffusing education among the people,
if the well-springs of knowledge are thus locked up at
the threshold. If Ministers do not abolish the
advertisement duty on books, the public will begin
to suspect, and with justice, that the grand scheme of
National Education is nothing better than a grand
humbug. We may speak strongly, but we speak
sincerely, because we wish Ministers well, and the
cause of National Education better.

THE ARBORETUM BRITANNICUM,
Nos. 47 and 48.
THE SUBURBAN GARDENER, No. G.
THE ARCHITECTURAL MAGAZINE, Nu. 45.

Longman and Co.
These very useful publications arc all conducted by
Mr. J. C. Loudon—one of tlic most indefatigable and
voluminous writers on the sciences of Horticulture and
Architecture of the present day. They arc very hand •
somely got up, embellished with numerous wood-cuts and
engravings, many of which are very neatly executed.

RAILWAY MAGAZINE.
James IVyld, Charing• cross.
The present Number contains sonv3 elaborate arti-
cles of an original character, with others that have
already appeared in the public prints ; but being of
a scientific character, naturally find their proper
level and resting place here. The curious reader
will find whatever appertains to railways, rail-
way improvements, and a vast deal of other scientific
information, in this well conducted repository.

BPI,RIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

" They decided according to their respective poli-
tical feelings, but it is mere folly to call this forswear-
ing themselves," says. Fraser's Magazine in an article
on the Grenville Act, speaking of the determinations
of the Tory Committees on election petitions in the
opening of the late Parliament : " it is mere folly to
call this forswearing themselves." The Members only

took a solemn oath to decide fairly and honestly be-
tween the parties—to- give " a true judgment accord-
ing to the evidence, so help you God ;" and though they
" decided in every case but one in favour of their own
party," and from " political feelings," yet it is " mere
folly to . tall this forswearinc, themselves !" Ex
confesso they broke their solemn oath from a cor-
rupt motive, and nevertheless did not forswear them-
selves ! Now, although this is very weak, if not
very wicked, or both weak and wicked, we really
believe not only that the writer of the article
in Fraser's Magazine, but that many members of
Election Committees, prevail upon themselves to
think (requiring no great degree of persuasion)
that the oaths they take at the table of the
House of Commons are something like the Custom-
house oaths which used formerly to be administered,
taken, and broken, by hundreds or thousands in a day.
They believe that these obligations may be totally dis-
regarded with impunity whenever " political feelings"
call for it, and that they are committing no moral
offence in deciding directly contrary to the evidence by
which they have sworn to be governed. " Perjury"
is an ugly word. and therefore Fraser substitutes "for-
swearing '." but the offence is nothing short of " per-
jury, wilful and corrupt. Whether a man violate his
oath for a sum of money, or for any other equivalent,
the effect is the same ; the perjury is wilful and cor-
rupt. What answer is it to assert that both Whigs
and Tories are equally guilty of this high crime ?
Yet this is the utmost that Fraser can say for it.
The more extensive and general the practice, the
more it proves the immediate necessity of altering
the law as it at present stands. Nobody has yet
ventured to contend for . the purity and excellence
of the tribunal called an Election Committee ; the
Tories all admit that it is on many accounts objec-
tionable, and all that can be advanced in favour of it
by their organs is that " it works impartially ;" and
that, whether the Committee be formed with a Whig
or a Tory majority, the result is always according to
the majority, and in avowed violation of what was
meant. by the Legislature, when it passed the Grenville
Act, to be a solemn and a binding obligation. The
perjury (we will not mince the matter) then is admit-
ted ; but it is contended that it is not perjury—not
even " forswearing"—only the breach of an oath, be-
cause " political feelings" required it. This vin-
dication, such as it is, applies to the members of •the
Committee : they may do as they like, being, in fact,
less bound than if they had pledged their honour
to decide " according to the evidence ;" but what
is to become of the witnesses ? Why are they not
to enjoy the same impunity ? They give their testimony
upon oath, as provided by the Grenville Act ; and
if the "Committee may disregard their oaths, why
are the witnesses to regard theirs ? " Political feel-
ings" have often induced the persons who were called
to prove a case to violate their oaths, and they have
been formerly punished for it with transportation, pil-
lory, fine, and imprisonment. Why are they not to
enjoy the same exemption as the members before whom
they give evidence ? If so—and there can be no
sufficient reason for drawing a distinction—to what
confusion and crime would not the Grenville Act lead?
At present the members of a Committee are avowedly
guilty of perjury, which they commit, it seems, without
being aensible of any offence, and without remorse
they send a witness to Newgate for prevarication.
The members of the Committee are to all intents
and purposes judges; and what should we say
to a Judge of the land were he, in excuse for the
violation of his oath, to allege that on a trial
for a libel his " political feelings" had induced
him to misdirect the jury ? In fact, everything that
has been said, or can be said, on either side of the
question, evinces the necessity of an amendment of the
present system, and increases our regret that that
amendment was not made when the Reform Bill was
under discussion. We do not think it necessary to
go again over the ground we before travelled, in order
to show the impossibility of appointing an impartial
Committee, nor shall we repeat the reasons we gave for
believing that in the nomination of Committees the Li-
beral side of the House must be under an indisputable
disadvantage. That disadvantage will be the greater if
the Tory side of the House, as suggested by the article
in Fraser, do not scruple to acknowledge that when
nominated and sworn on a Committee they do not con-
sider themselves at all bound by the oath they have
taken. " These are the times that try men's souls,"
says Fraser, but surely this is a misprint of " souls"
for seats ; at all events, it is an odd mode of trying
" men's souls" to instruct them that they may break
oaths taken before God and man with perfect impu-
nity ; but it is a very intelligible mode of trying men's
seats, and that must probably have been the writer's
meaning. He just afterwards adverts to the number
of seats for Irish counties and boroughs that arc to be
assailed. The Times, a day or two ago, stated it at
twenty-four, and the Tories might as well make it
forty-four as twenty-four, while they are about_ the
calculation ; and, if we do not mi:ctake, our Contem-
porary and some of his fellow-fabricators originally
gave out that many more than twenty-four Members
of the people's choice were to be turned out for the
very reason that they had been chosen by the people.
However, as the period approaches, the Tories grow
more modetatc, and Fraser ultimately states the
number very low indeed. He first gives it as twenty,
then for some reason or other, he• drops down
to fifteen, and finally, from fifteen to " six or
eight." These " six or eight " petitions he makes
sure of establishing ; and well he may, if the mem-
bers of the Committees, setting at nought all the evi-
dence by which they have sworn to be governed, may
decide merely according to their " political feelings."
If such is to be the issue, we shall think the Tories
extraordinarily forbearing if they only adhere to twenty-
four cases, especially when backed by the " sacred
fund." It is worth while to remark that the Times
of yesterday warns all Peers and Members of Parlia-
ment to have nothing to do with the fund, well know-
ing, as we stated on a former day, that Peers cannot

. -
constitutionally interfere with elections or returns, and
that the mere fact of subscription ought to disqualify
every Member of Parliament from sitting on a Com- 1
mittee. This is, indeed, throwing a wet blanket over
the undertaking. The cause of the Tories is bad,
as they are well aware ; but they may have the con-
solation of knowing that their cause, bad as it is, is
better than their advocates.—illorning Chronicle.
We have seen in the columns of several of our
Contemporaries nu:nerous articles reflecting upon the
conduct of tnc City Committee appointed to superin-
tend the arrangements for the dinner to be given to her
Most Gracious Majesty on the 9th of this month ;
and we have also been informed, not only publicly, but
privately, that the greatest partiality has been exhi-
bited by the same Committee in the apportiol-L„g the
tickets. Thus, for example, we were .irif,mried two
days ago, that our ContemporPri- ihe Times, had re-
ceived two tickets of af.4lmissio'n to the festival, the
Chrortele . two, and the Morning herald two, and
that none hack peen app ortictied to any other journal.
The day afterwards we
Statement was not e
truer and werteh t only again ioucnformticketed thof aat th
de
-
mission had 'nee', arrtioned to the Times, to the
Chroni,:,:e, and
to
bei•;,g omitted I allil e Post, the Morning Herald
Ors that one again,
nera_e last night, it reached our
/ , the Chronicle, and the .
Times
'were. Ir-
on a division selected as the only fit and pro-
iier channels for chronicling the events of the day,
And that the Advertiser, upon b • eing proposed, was re-
jected by a majority of one. What the real state of
the ease may be, it is impossible for us to divine;
but until we have officially that a learn e— the 'Myer-
liser—which, without exception, is the leading
journal of the metropolis, so far as its circulation and
the number of its readers are concerned—has been
Excluded, we cannot by any possibility; bring our-
HIM to believe that the vote of exclusion referred e—
to could have been agreed to by any member or mem-
bers either of the Court of Aldermen or of the Court
of Common Council. We know of no just offence
which this journal has ever given to the civic Cur-