The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-29 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

" There is not, perhaps," says Goldsmith, " a more
whimsical figure than a man of real modesty who assumes
an air of impudence ; but a man of real impudence who
assumes an air of modesty, seems to us to the full as ridi-
culous, and such is precisely the case with the Times of yes-
terday. Speaking of the pending election petitions against
Tory Members, it observes, with a laughable affectation of
candour and impartiality," On the merits of these, or of any
other individual cases, or batch of cases, we are not pre-
suming even to hazard an opinion : the Committee are the
only lawful judges of those merits, and of the fitness of
costs." How extraordinarily, how commendably diffident!
" We are not presuming to offer an opinion !" Oh, by no
means : " the Committee are the only lawful judges." To
be sure they are, and we do not wonder that the
Times should hold; them up as patterns of disinte-
rested purity ; especially as Members of all political par-
ties are agreed that a worse or a more corrupt tribu-
nal could hardly be invented by the wit of man.
Election Committees are left to their merited fate, as un-
worthy to be preserved the moment another mode of de-
ciding controverted returns is discovered : therefore they
find a fitting advocate in the Times—the honest, consist-
ent, pure, disinterested, and unbiassed Times, which will
not " presume to offer an opinion" on the merits of the pe-
titions against the Tories, but will leave them to Commit-
tees as " the only lawful judges." What is this, but in
other words to assert that the Tories (for of such the
Committees will assuredly in most cases be formed) are
" the only lawful judges" of the merits of Whig petitions
complaining that Tories have usurped seats to which
they have no right ? Surely we need not go over the
giound again to shew in what way it is impossi-
ble that an Election Committee, as at present con-
stituted, should be impartial, setting aside its total
incompetence from ignorance of the law which it
professes to administer. The reason why it was
thought in 1770 that this species of tribunal would
be suliciently unbiassed was, not that the Members
would be without predilections, hut that indepen-
dently of men of no p trty, of whom there were then many,
a selection would be made of individuals representing the
sentiments of every political party in the House of Com-
mons. Thus those who were 40posed to be upright would •
be kept so by the equal pressure Of props on all sides, which, if
the pressure were not equal, would throw them out of the
, perpendicular. This wasthe reason why theoperation of the
Grenville Act in former times was not so glaringly objec-
tionable ; but now that there are only two parties in the
State, each party struggling to obtain a majority on the
Committee, and one or the other inevitably succeeding, no-
body can be satisfied with such a notoriously defective tri•
bunal. We do not care, as we have before remarked, whe-
ther the greater number of Committees have been of
Whig or To,y inclinations : our objection is to the
system, and can there be a stronger fact to establish the
necessity of a change than this, that of twenty-one Com-
mittees appointed after the election of 1834-, ten decided
in favour of the Whigs, and eleven in favour of the To-
ri.-s, preci e'y according as the majority of Members on
each Committee was either Whig or Tory. Now, the
Times knows, as well as we know, that with a little good
m inagement (and the exc.:, Ilence of the Tories et all sorts
o trickery is universally admitted) " Conservative" Com-
mittees, as our worthy Contemporary c-1:s them, may be uh-
taieed in nearly every case, and here we have the secret of
'she deference of the Times to those laalics as " the only law-
ful judges," and of its diffidence in "n it presuming even to
hezard an opinion" on the merits of the petition; fil, d on
the Libsral interest. The Committees, to lie sure,
are such admirable, incur. uptible, and imp .rtiai tribunals,
thet the Tones, with all its lose of virtue and ltete2sty, can
Sind no fault with them. petitions, toe, arc not to be
prejudged by it. No ; it will " not presume even to
hatai;! an opinion" regarding them. But let the reader
note the consistency of our excellent Contemporary ; he
cannot be consistent for ten lines together ; for if he did
not int, nd to prejudge the merits of the petitions presented
by Liberals against Tories, what did he mean by tilkiae, of
so: 11,' which had been prepared by " the wholesale contractor
for the electioneering work got up by the Reform Club."
and of others " which still keep their heads wave wale; ,"
and " arc under the conduct of the same coe:prehensiye
practitioner" ? Why, what brazen impudence is ! The
l'ae.s, forsooth, will not prejudge petitions. I I casan fo rap nd
that it should " resume even to hazari an npLi.m.' upon
their merits and their chance of success ! although it must
say that some which " have been abandoned" were pre-
pared " by the wholesale contractor for the electioneering
work got up by the Reform Club," and that others " which
still keep their heads above water, are under the conduct
of the same comnreliensiv.3 practitioner." When Judge
Jeffries was in the West of* England trying those who had
been concerned in Monmouth's insurrection he chareed the
jury in one case in these terms :—" Gentlemen, I shall not
presume to ha:zard an opinion as to your verdict ; but this
I must say, that if you al.ow this rascal to escape, y ou
will leave unhanged the greatest rebel in the whole kine-
dom." The Times not only imitates Jeffries, but actually
uses his very words.--dlorning C'hronicle.
It is melancho'y to reflect on the expedients to which
party spirit will resort with the view of promoting party
purposes. The Tines of yesterday, with its usual disre-
gard of facts, labours to make a handle, for Tory objects, of
the non-settlement of the boundary line between the United
States and Canada. It seeks to make the circumstance an
agar tvation, in so far as this country is concerned, of the
qaarr,l between the Canadians and the British settlers,—
just as if the United States were to seize the opportunity
presented by the existing disorganization of Canada, to en-
force the adjustment of the matter in dispute by an appeal
to the bayonet, instead of by an amicable negotiation. There
is not oa Y no truth in the representation given on this sub-
ject by the Tithes, but it is even destitute of probability; and
what is more, the writer must know as well as we do, that
such representation isneither based on truit nor probability.
The wish is father to the. assertion he Makes. He
converts his wishes into facts with a recklessness and vio-
lation of truth, for which the apostate print in which he
lucubr.,tes, has, for the last three yours, possessed an un-
enviable notoriety. The United States, putting out of
view its declared abhorrence of war, and the practical
evidence it has of late years afforded of a disinclination to
engage. if it can be helped, in hostilities with any other
power, can have no conceivable motive for the course which
the Times represents it as having in its contemplation to
pursue. Has it not an abundance of territory already ?
Has it not more territory than it has yet been able to
turn to that profitable account to which it doubtless will,
in the course of time, be in a condition to turn it ? But
this is not all. Not only would the United States gain
no positive adiantage from an accession of territory in
the quarter to which the Times points—even assuming
that its appeal to arms would be crowned with suc-
cess—but it would be a loser to a very great extent by
any hostile demonstration against this country. The ne-
cessa .y result of any interruption of the friendly relations
which now happily subsist between the two countries,
would be most injurious to the commerce of the United
States; and its Legislature are too well aware of this,
and have too much sense to make so great a sacrifice in
the effort to gain so trifling a prize. But even were the
Government of the United States, or that of this country,
so self-willed, as to contemplate engaging in a war for so
trifling a stake, the great commercial communities of both
countries would at once frustrate their intentions. The
people, both of Great Britain and of the United States,
are duly alive to the vast importance, in a commercial
point of view, of perpetuating the friendly understanding
which now subsists between the two countries ; and in this
.knowledge.of their mutual true interests, we have an un-
doubted guarantee for the preservation of peace.—Morn-
ing Advertiser.
The London Ministerial papers have, within a day or
two, given circulation to a plausible and pernicious docu-
ment, the authorship of which they assign, upon rumour, to
Dr. Lingard. We have no doubt the rumour is a correct
one, as the Doctor is a Roman Catholic ecclesiastic who
has sufficient confidence in his literary ability to venture
upon the public discussion of matters political ; and the
document in question is just such as might be expected
from a clever and unscrupulous man whose aim is to
weaken the defences of Protestant Government in Great
Britain. The document is in the form of a letter to the
Lord Chancellor remonstrating against the solemn de-
claration made by her Majesty at the opening of the
Parliament. It much offends the Romish Doctor that,
in these days of political " liberality," when so many of
the principles of the Whigs of 1688 are practically re-
garded as obsolete prejudices, the Sovereign of the British
realms should still make a solemn " decaration against
Popery" before the assembled Parliament. We are
not surprised that the political sensibilities of the Romish
Doctor should be roused at this, and, without any dis-
position to give needless offence, we will add that we
are not sorry there still remains in the practice of the Con-
sitution this opposing thorn in the way of Romish encroach-
ment. The Rev. and Romish Doctor—if it be indeed
-.true, as the Ministerial papers hint, that Dr. Lingard is the
aothor of this letter to the Lord Chancellor—thinks it not
only hard, but most unreasonable that our Sovereign should
" condemn in the most solemn manner the worship and
pr,vtices of the greatest body of Christians in the world."
This hoast of the largeness of their numbers is never
°mitt( 'Si by Romish advocates, when an opportunity offers
for int' educing it ; but we need hardly say in reply that the
vastness of number by which error is professed, makes the
error none the less, though it irak the consequences thereof
snore grievous. Nor is there any arguntentanz ad verecun-
diam in than fact of the largeness of the number of those who
profeee the: Romish doctrine, for the M 333 is an ignorant mass.
In Frarlee, the religion of the people is for the most part
a mere ceremony, and though the Church of Rome may
still, for the sake of policy, enumerate the French people

among her children, they are most assuredly not of the
faithful, and care equally little for Pope.or Presbytery, ex-
cept that the former is more given to gorgeous shows, of
which they are fond. In Italy and Ireland, where the mass
of the people are true and zealous members of the Romish
Church, they are so exceedingly ignorant, that no respect
is due to the judgment of the multitude, however great.
On the contrary, we find that in Protestant countries, and
in the Protestant parts of Roman Catholic countries, the
people are generally well-instructed and intelligent. We
maintain, therefore, that there is no such monstrous pre-
sumption in denouncing the superstitions of Popery with
reference to the numbers who profess Popery. The
Romish Doctor argues that it was " cruel and inde-
corous to e.ract from the Queen such a declaration
and condemnation" as that which her Majesty made at.
the opening of Parliament. The Doctor puts forth all
his powers of plausibility upon this occasion. " Cer-
tainly," lie says, " it will not be denied, that before a man
may safely and consistently affix the stigma of superstition
and idolatry on any church, it is incumbent on him to
make the doctrine and worship of that church the subject
of his study ; to be satisfied that he understands them
correctly, and to weigh with impartiality the texts and
arguments by which they may be assailed and defended.
But who can expect this from a woman of eighteen ?"
May we not exclaim in our turn, " But who could expect
this doctrine from an ecclesiastic of the ever-intolerant, ever-
persecuting Church of Rome ?" Is it not certain that
even in the catechisms, out of which children are instructed
in the first rudiments of religious doctrine, as maintained by
the Romish Church, they are made to "declare" that those
who are not of the Romish Church are heretics, and cannot be
saved? Whether is it more monstrous to declarethe doctrines
and practicesof a Church to besuperstitious and idolatrous, or
to proclaim that all beyond the pale of that Church are
heretics who are odious in the sight of God, and ought to
be odious in the sight of man ? Dr. Lingard thinks he
may safely declaim against all who affix a stigma upon a
Church, because he and his sect acknowledge no Church
but their own ; they indeed denounce heretics, but accord-
ing to their way of stating it, they say nothing against any
Church. They pretend that it is most uncaritable to
impute superstition, because they never impute that them-
selves as a fault ; but do they not impute something worse ?
Let it be granted, however, that though it should stop
the mouth of Dr. Lingard, it is no general answer to
a charge of cruelty and ind'corum that the Romanists
are more cruel and more indecorous. We deny that
the declaration of her Majesty can justly be described
as cruel or indecorous. As for the argument that the
declaration must have been made without sufficient
knowledge, we answer, that it is in the nature of an
assent to that which has been determined by the know-
ledge of others, and neither does, nor is understood to
intimate a deduction from such examination us that which
the plausible doctor describes. The " declaration" is not
to be held cruel or indecorous, because it is a measure of
security for the Protestants of Great Britain that their
Sovereign shall be Protestant. If an ePctual security
could be obtained without including a condemnation of
the Romish Church, it would, doubtless, be better ;
but the most recent experience proves that, as yet,
so other effectual security has been devised. We
have seen, from the example of the oaths of Ro-
man Catholics on taking their seats in Parliament,
and their conduct subsequently, that any declara-
tion of forbearance with respect to Protestantism is ca-
pable of being es ailed. So long as the British nation is
determited to have none but a Protestant Sovereign on
the throne, it does not appear th :t there is any Cffeellal
secerity for this being so, except the exacting of a decla-
ration atra:est Popery. Tie Church will not excuse that
contempt for its authority ; but anything short of that it
will arrange for its ultimate advantage.—Mornireg Herald.
Error in politics—or what we conceive to be error—we
oppose with the best arguments we can, drawn either im-
mediately from considerations of what is most conducive to
the happiness and nobleness of mankind, or immediately
from considerations of what is due to the institutions which
reason and experience prove to be worthy of support.
But they who discuss political matters es they arise in the
daily business of the world have frequently to deal with
something much worse and more disagreeable than political
error. We incan the creeping baseness and the low hypo-
crisy of those who go wrong lirom no error in political opi-
nion, but epou the miserable caLsideration of personal or
factious edvaneere. Tilere are men who, while holding a
certain position front an i tea held somewhere, and fostered
by themselves, that they are devoted to certain political
principles, do, nevertheless, show by their conduct that in
reality and truth they care not me straw for these principles,
but pursue only an advantage which has nothing to do with
priticiple. It is our opinion that against such men as these
—against such trucklers and traffickers in politics—it
is right that sincere min of all sides should unite. We
would have these creatures hunted from the political field
to the obscure haunts which nature has prepared for such
vermin, which only disgrace an honourable striving after
political good. Our genuine political opponents we
regard not as opponents at all, but as assistants, while
they are maintaining the cause of sincerity and disinterested-
ness in political conduct. We readily postpone the battle
while the pilferers of the camp, with no soul for honest
fight, are receiving the scourging which is their due.
These being our sentiments, we rejoice to avail ourselves
of the assistance which our out-and-out Radical Contem-
porary the Spectator every now and then gives in expos-
ing the dishonest crew who work—not for that which
politicians ought to work for—but for advantage to them-
selves. We hold our Contemporary to be not only wrong'
but most perniciously wrong, in the political prin-
ciples which he strenuously advocates ; but as we believe
him to be sincere, we respect the devotedness with which
he labours, and as we know him to be vigilant in the
exposure of pseudo-Radical subserviency, we thank him
for his open exhibition of their meanness and their per-
fidy. Tice public are aware that though the political tone
of the present Ministry has been, since the commencement
of the Session, that of marked hostility to the English
Radicals—and though it has been in this respect exactly
the opposite of that which was maintained at the late elec-
tions, and expected by the Radicals to be maintained in
Parliament at the meeting—yet but a very few Radicals
have been honest enough to express openly and manfully
their disappointment, and to act upon it in their public
conduct. Instead of doing this, they have gone about
whining and whimpering, and trumping up the lamest ex-
cuses for the Ministerial language, which, out of fear of
their -constituents, they dare not to defend. While
they pretend to Radical principles, and by this
means get seats in Parliament from Radically dis-
posed constituencies, they in reality want nothing
but Ministerial favour for themselves, and thereupon
they become the apologists of the Ministers who
find it for the present their interest to treat Radical prin-
ciples with contempt. The Ministers do this because they
are sure of their men. Their object is to conciliate the
Conservatives, who are strong, and as for the pseudo Radi-
cals, they know they may treat them as Spaniel dogs are
treated. The Minister " may trample upon them, and
again show them a piece of bread, and pat them, so that
they come frisking to him." Of these pseudo Radicals
perhaps the most conspicuously nauseous is Mr. Ward, the
Member for Sheffield, and accordingly the Spectator takes
him in hand for his apology for Lord John Russell and the
Cabinet at the Sheffield Reform meeting, and flays him to
the very bone. Mr. Ward wishes to represent that the
contempt cast upon Radical nostrums on the first night of
the Session was merely the result of some strong feeling of
the moment, and that Lord John Russell was not declaring
the deliberate judgment of the Cabinet. After showing,
from an enumeration of authentic and notorious facts, that
it is " no better than infantile credulity to imagine that the
Ministers as a body did not concur with Lord John Rus-
sell," the organ of the genuine Radicals proceeds thus to
dispose of the pseudo Radicals who are the supporters of
the Ministry that has disowned them :
" For the mere declaration of Lord John Russell, however
tardy, the Ministers shall not be blamed by us. Their pre-
vious mystification of the Radicals was treacherous ; their
avowal on the first eight of the session was sincere. Yet
much Radical wrath was excited by the unwelcome announce-
ment that it is not on matters of detail, or questions of expe-
diency, but on principle, that the Whigs and Radicals differ.
The inference from this vexation is that they only want a pre-
text for truckling—that if the,Whigs would have allowed them
—if Lord John Russell had kept up the delusion—the pseudo-
Radicals in the House of Commons were ready to follow him
hoodwinked through another Parliament. But it no longer
answered the ends of the Ministers to keep up appearances
with their Radical allies. Having determined to look to the
Tories, and stick to the landed interest, the aid of the repre-
sentatives of large towns became unnecessary and undesirable,
at the expense of offending the aristocracy and the squires.
Even the pension inquiry, which was extolled as a proof that
the Whigs were yet better than the Tories, turns out to be a
cheat—a bubble that has burst already."

This is a good picture of the Ministers and their men
of all work, the pseudo Radicals. As for the Tories, we
would have them remember that as Lord John Russell
never thought of expressing any partiality for the landed
interest till he quaked for fear that he would be beaten in
the House of Commons by that interest, so, if any change
take place to make the town interest the strongest in the
House of Commons, Lord John will not think of that
which he now very conveniently, but rather surprisingly,
discovers to have been the intention of the Reform Bill.
The Conservatives who depend in the slightest degree
upon the newly-found moderation of the Whig Ministers
are men whom experience cannot teach. These Ministers
have proved themselves to be thoroughly unprincipled, and
no man who makes principle and common sense his guides
will trust them. As for the spaniel Radicals, who lick
the hand that patted them last Session, and spurned them
this—and that out of no change of opinion, but a change
of interest merely—we leave them to the honest scorn of
all manly uninds.—illorning Post.