The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-14 00:00:00

ta to the public. Meanwhile, amidst the mighty.eom-
plications of a great empire; it is strange to see
how little the agitatitin of the recess is an accu-
rate test bt' the precise ground upon which the
battles of party are fought in the session. Strange if,
after steering through the Scylla of Mr. O'Connell,
and the Charybdis of the Orangemen—after escaping
the discontent of their ablest supporters in their adhe-
rence to the imperfect and mutilated Reform Bill—after
conquering all the hostilities of the most powerful Church
in Christendom—after extricating themselves from the
meshes of Canaria, and hearing the buffets from both
sides in the angry contest of Corn and Cotton—strange
indeed if the Melbourne Ministry should find their
most imminent peril on a question that has excited
no agitation,—but little remark,—quickened in that
most familiar neighbour of our empire called Afghan-
istan, and involving the interests of personages
so thoroughly well known to all parties as Schah
Soojah-001-Moolk and Maharajah Runjeet LSingh !
We cannot quit the subject of the Address without
expressing our great satisfaction at the paragraph which
promises a " most speedy and certain administration of
justice. This appears to us the essence drop which fla-
vours a great deal of Nothing and water. The only way
to convince the working classes that this Parliament is
not as bad as they say, is to give them protection against
the most exasperating wrongs. Next to cheap bread is
the benefit of cheap and prompt justice.—Examiner.
Since we submitted to our readers in an early part of
to day's edition, the fact of Lord Glenelg's ill-treat-
ment, and consequent resignation, many have been the
rumours which have circulated as to his Lordship's suc-
cessor. One feeling, however, pervades all classes—we
mean that of disgust and contempt for the conduct of
those who have permitted Lord Glenelg to go on, in-
curring all the responsibility of the measures which
have been taken with regard to the Canadas, the West
Indies, and all our colonial possessions, for months,
during which they had made up their minds to get rid
of him immediately on the meeting of the Parliament,
in which he might be enabled to vindicate his past con-
duct, or justify his policy. On the first day of the
Session—although up to that day he had constantly at-
tended the Cabinet Councils, in the implicit belief that
he had the fullest confidence of his colleagues—they
ejected him by a " round robin," and without either
ceremony or consideration, cast an indignity upon
him unparalleled, we believe, in political history.
We are glad, however, to know that Lord Glenelg has
rallied all his long dormant energies, and has written a
letter which, for power and spirit, reminds us of the
palmy days of Charles Grunt, before he united himself
to those who have thus betrayed and degraded him.
This letter we may, at no great distance of time, submit to
our readers. But we would ask the remaining members
of the Cabinet individually, which one of them now
fancies himselfsecure, or which one of them has, or can
have, the slightest faith in his colleagues, or dismiss from
his mind the suspicion that he may be the next victim to
intrigue and duplicity ? There is one of the body who
has already served in every Administration which has
existed during the last quarter of a century, excepting
that of Sir Robert Peel, who we should imagine likely
to feel some apprehension that his turn may conic
next ; and assuredly it would come if any further
jobbery were considered necessary by his friends.
Now, as to Lord Glcnelg's successor, there are, as we
have said, various rumours. Some have it, that Lord
Normanby—under the arrangement made without Lord
Glenelg's kaowledge, when his Excellency the Lord Lieu-
tenant was last in town—will have the Colonial Seals :
and then some revive the report that Lord Radnor will
go to Ireland ; but it is more commonly thought that
Lord Clarendon—who has been sent far—would suc-
ceed Lord Normanby. All these schemes, however,
are interfered with, by the claims of Lord Howick upon
the colonial portfeuille ; claims which Ministers will have
some difficulty in resisting ; especially as Lord HoWick's
official parliamentary training has rendered him much
more competent to the duties of the office, than Lord
Normanby just assuming it, and not versed in the de-
tails, or familiar with the system, could possibly ba
supposed to be. In this case, Lord Howick must
be called up to the House of Peers, it not
being customary that more than two of the Secre-
taries of State should sit in the House of Commons.
The excuse trumped up by the existing Cabinet for
their conduct is, if possible, an aggravation of their of-
fence ; for as we hear, so far fiom admitting the allega-
tion of Lord Glenelg that all the offensive measures
which have driven him from office were adopted in his
absence from council, they declare he was present at all
discussions—that he made no objections, but on the
contrary, kept nodding his head, and that they consi-
dered " silence gave consent "—the fact being that his
Lordship was during the whole period, as usual, fast
asleep.—John Bull.
TilE QUEEN'S SPEECH.—It is the good sense of
the people which tells them that their bane is the
Corn-laws ; that the House of Commons is not, to
scarcely a particle, their representation ; that it is not
a neutral, but an inimical body ; and that the whole of
their proceedings are but an outrage against property,
opinion, and freedom in every sense of the word. On
this part of the Speech we join issue with the Crown.
The Queen depends upon the efficacy of the law ;
we rely upon its destruction. She appeals to the
good sense of the people, and so do we ; and we
are assured that this good sense being predomi.
nant, the present system of representation cannot last
another year, and that the Corn-laws will give an in-
creased impetus to the glowing execration of that pri-
vileged body which has inflicted their curse on the peo-
ple. The Queen depends on the public sense of justice.
The challenge is fair ! Immediately that the popular
sentiment begins to operate, Ministers will throw justice
to the dogs, and resort to the " efficacy" of the
law. The mode in which this vile Speech has been
received, might at least cure us of any similar exhi-
bitions. It is a law of Parliament that the young
men who are to go through the humbug imposition
of moving an address, confine themselves servilely to the
Speech itself. Here the rule has been reversed, or rather
conversed, for although the puppets that did the Minis-
terial bidding could not oppose the Speech, they intro-
duced into tle debate those topics which Ministers had
carefully omitted. This is a base collusion between the
Cabinet and its tools. We had better have one thing
or the other, Let the speech be expressive of policy
at least on important subjects, or let it die a natural
death. Why omit the state of the Navy ?—the subject
of national education ?—that of the Corn-laws ?—thatl

cured only 86 votes, and yet to deny his proposition was
as absurd as to say that the sun is the origin of darkness,
and that light existed before the sun.—Weck/y Dis-
patch.
THE DIVISION ON MR. DUNCOMBE'S MOTION TO
AMEND THE REFORM ACT.—Should the professing
Liberals who voted against Mr. Duncombe's Amend-
ment be hereafter the objects of popular suspicion,
classed among the " Finality men" and accounted "sham
Reformers," they will have no ground to complain of
injustice. They preferred a junction with Tories and
Tory-Whigs to the discharge of their duty to their
constituents. Every Member in the majority, who
pretends to regard the Ballot as desirable, the
Suffrage as too exclusive, and -seven years toe
long a term for the duration of Parliaments,
was guilty of inconsistency and dereliction of duty.
For what was the scope and meaning of the
Amendment ? Simply this—that the Reform Act
requires improvement, and that the House would take
the subject into its early consideration Will the Ballot..
men or the advocates of Triennial Parliament deny that
the Reform Bill needs amendment ? If they will not
and cannot deny this, why did they refuse to give effect
to their opinions when the opportunity was offered ?
They cannot pretend that the matter or the wording
of the Amendment was offensive to the Queen, or that it
was brought forward or supported in an indecorous man-
ner. The Ministerial Address was not short of its com-
pliments ; neither was it proposed to append a syllable of
reproof or even of advice to her Majesty. The Amendment
but declared that which many, who rejected it, have of-
ten affirmed, and gained their seats by pledges to maintain
with their votes. Even the miserable pretence, that to
carry the Amendment would have been to "let in the
Tories," was too gross for anybody to avow, except Mr.
James of Cumberland. That gentleman, we must sup-
pose, could not " count the noses" on the Tory side of
the House, or he must have perceived that Ministers
were sure of a majority ; yes, and of a majority com-
posed of men who would not have abandoned any prin-
ciple or cheated any constituency.
Of Tories in the House there were
Doubtfuls, sure on this question to vote with Tories 9
Ministers and men in office 3O

310

The professing Liberals (excluding Doubtfuls) in
the majority, were only
Deduct the phalanx of officials

146
30

116
The minority was 86 ; whence it appears that the majo-
rity of unplaced Liberals against Mr. Duncombe's
motion was just 30. And moreover, in this number
are reckoned twelve Members whose connexion with
the Ministers is so close as almost to destroy their inde-
pendence—
Mr. G. A. Abercromby, Sir George Anson, Lord
Charles• Russell, Mr. Ellice, Captain Ellice, Mr. Elliott,
Mr. Ilobhouse, Mr. F. J. Howard, Mr. Lefevre, Lord
Leveson, Lord Alfred Paget, Mr. W. Stanley.
With the deduction of this dozen, the majority of Li-
berals dwindles down to 18. Very creditable, indeed,
it is to the following gentlemen, that they, (whose
names are especially exhibited for the information of
their constituents,) should have made up two-thirds of
this glorious majority !
Mr. Bannerman, Aberdeen ; Mr. Berkeley, Bristol ;
Mr. Baines, Leeds; Mr. Clay, Tower Hamlets; Mr.
Humphery, Southwark; Mr. Strutt, Derby; Mr. Erle,
Oxford; Mr. Hastie, Paisley ; Mr. Kionaird, Perth ; Mr.
Mark Phillips, Manchester; Mr. Sergeant Talfourd,
Reading.
Each and all of these gentlemen, we believe, profess
themselves dissatisfied with the Reform Act, and desirous
of progression. As for the following, being members of
the Government, they cannot call their votes their own :
the list illustrates the system of selecting official men for
Representatives of the People :
Mr. Baring, Portsmouth ; Sir John Campbell, Edin-
burgh ; Lord Dalmeny, Stirling Burghs; Sir George
Grey, Devonport ; Sir John Hobhouse, Nottingham ;
Lord Morpeth, West Yorkshire; Mr. J. A. Murray, Leith;
Mr. Parker, Sheffield; Sir Henry Parnell, Dundee: Lord
John Russell, Stroud; Mr. Sheil, Tipperary; Mr. Poulett
Thomson, Manchester ; Mr. Charles Wood, Halifax ; Mr.
Vernon Smith, Northampton ; Lord Seymour, Totnes ;
Sir R. Rolfe, Penryn.
A glance at these lists shows that the responsi-
bility of Members of the House of Commons to their
constituents, and representation, as it is called, arc
little better than a nullity. The Members for
most Liberal constituencies are found opposing a mo-
tion to take the amendment of the Reform Act into
consideration ; and in several instances the vote of one
Member neutralizes that of his colleague. Thus,
Reformers. " Finality" Men.
For Plymouth, there is Collier versus... Bewes ;
Northampton, Currie Smith ;
Bradford, Lister Busfield;
Leede, Molesworth Baines ;
Halifax, Protheroe Wood ;
Sheffield, Ward Parker ;
Coventry, Williams Ellice;
Southwark, Harvey Humphery;
East Cumberland Aglionby ...... ...James ;
Dublin, O'Connell Hutton.
The selected instances are of men representing the same
boroughs, and professing the same polities, found on
different sides. The catalogue might be extended con-
siderably by the addition of places which have elected
Members of avowedly different politics. London
City, Westminster, Finsbury, Lambeth, Birmingham,
Wolverhampton, arid Leicester were truly represented.
Glasgow gave one vote, Mr. Deanistoun's (Lord W.
Bentinck being absent), on the right ride ; Manchester
and Bristol both wrong, Hull neutralised. On the
the whole, the scrutiny of the Division-lists creates no
disappointment to us. The minority is most respect-
ble ; but it ought to have been swelled by the votes of
many who appear in the Tory-Whig lists. 7'ory. Whig
it is properly called, for the Tories were to the Liberals
as 280 to 146.—Spectator.
POPULAR EDUCATION : THE DISSENTERS.—TIIC
mixture of insult and cajolery with which a certain
portion of our political Churchmen are accustomed to
treat the Dissenters of England, is both offensive and
ridiculous. Offensive, because of the haughty tone of
assumption and scarcely covert contempt which is
adopted ; ridiculous, by reason of the pretence that
such a tone is intended to be conciliatory towards
the " non-conformists." Of this class the Times
is the organ. Different alike from the open
bitter hatred of the Standard, and the sectarian
bigotry of the Record, intended probably to in-
fluence those insincere and self-seeking Dissenters,
who delight in communion with the Treasury, and at-
tendance upon the aristocracy, it seems to us to be the
most deeply insulting. Of these observations the lead-
ing article of the Times of Saturday, the 2d inst., may
be taken as an illustration. Can the writer of that
article mean what he has written ? or does he merely
intend to amuse his High Church readers by misplaced
irony at the expense of the Dissenters ? Can he be-
lieve " the more enlightened lay Dissenters" can be
led to forget the ribaldry of the earlier parts of
his article, by the canting Jesuistry of the latter ?
To the sober, liberal, and " enlightened," whether Dis-
senter or Churchman,—Lay or of the Ministry,—we
shall do an essential service by exposing the virulent
hypocrisy of the " leading journal ;" controlled, if report
speaks true, by a Tory Peer, and an ex-Whig, but
now, for good considerations, Tory Judge. The
writer commences by stating that it is a " delusion
to suppose that the Established Church does not
possess the confidence of the more enlightened lay
Dissenters ;" and cites " evidences of the fact" which
are said to be " both numerous and conclusive ;"
some of which we will now examine. The first is,
" the trifling amount of marriage business done in the
many non-conformist chapels licensed for that purpose ;'
and the coarse-minded writer thus proceeds to
" empty the vials " of his unmanly venom upon
such of his country-women as presume to dissent
from the doctrine or discipline of the dominant
sect. " The system of Superintendent Regis' r trs is not
in favour -with them. The lovelier sex of puritans
won't endure being pointed at as the superintended
of the young Mr. Thingumbob's ; so, in nineteen
cases out of twenty, they prefer to be regularly mar-
ried at an episcopal altar." This is a favourite topic
with the organs of the dominant and domineering
hierarchy ; and it is quite consistent with the dark
spirit and unenlightened age in which ecclesiastical
establishments had their origin. It is intended to
operate as a moral torture—the modern substitute for
thumb-screws—upon the feelings of sensitive and re-
tiring females. We know not to what extent it may
be true that Dissenters are still driven to use the ser-
vices of the Episcopalian priests for the celebration of
marriages ; but we can easily conceive that the studied
contumely of the formalities by which the marriages of
Dissenters in their own chapels arc surrounded may induce
many to feel indifferent when they pass under the yoke
of the hierarchy, whether it be held by the hands of a
Clergyman or a Superintendent-registrar. The present
kw, which permits the marriage of Dissenters in their
own places of worship, is little more than a mockery.
There is but one mode, and it is a very simple one, by
which justice can be done to all sects of Churchmen and
Dissenters. Let the certificates of all Dissenting ministers
have precisely the same effect, and be notified to the civil
registrar in precisely the same way as those of the Esta-
blished clergy. Thus would the national object of a civil
registry be attained, and the religious feelings of all
sects satisfied. Why should not Dissenting minis-
ters publish bans of marriage in their own chapels?
Why should not licenses be granted by such minis-
ters ? Are they less worthy of trust ? Do they per-
form their duties LESS carfully than the Established
clergy ? Even the coarse jester of the Times dare
not affirm either. The other evidences offered—
Dissenters sending their children to schools where
they are t rained to the communion of the Established
Church,—the alleged "exultation " of some of
them " in the domiciliary visits of parish clergymen"—
the appointment of Episcopalian clergymen to master-
ships of proprietary Dissenting schools—and the se-
cession of very rich Dissenters from their own sect,
merely prove, when such cases occur, that amongat the
Dissenters there are persons who profess and practise not
—who are weak,
wavering, time-serving, or insincere :
does the Times imagine there are none such in the
bosom of the Church ? But beyond the fling at Dis-
senters' marriages, the main object of the article we refer

the state of the representation ? and in all point;,wiii;
respect to the Suffrage, the Ballot, and the duration "of
Parliament ? All persons in both Houses treated
the Queen's speech with a decent contempt. The
Earl of Hardwicke gave notice that he would call the
attention of the House to one omission from the speech.
The Duke of Wellington confessed that he felt no ob-
jection to the Speech, a very lame and impotent cora-
pliment to her Majesty. The Duke of Richmond agreed
to the Address, but very much disagreed from those whO
moved it. Lord Winchelsea would not have troubled
the House with any observations on the Speech, but for
the objectionable remarks of those who moved and se-
conded the Address. Lord Brougham assured their
Lordships that there was nothing to be found in the
Speech that called for any observation. Thus was her
Majesty scurvily treated in the House of Peers. In
the other House the case was no batter. Sir Robert Peel
treated her Majesty's Speech as an object of contempt, or
at least as a nonentity, and called the attention of the
House to the real business of the county, as if the Speech
ought to have related to any thing else. Even Lord
John Russell confessed that most important points and
questions had been omitted from the Speech, but added,
that they might be brought forward in future debates.
Another Minister of the Crown treated the Speech as a
thing of form and ceremony, and the address as another
thing of courtesy, and entered upon what he confessed
to be an important point of national interests, which had
been totally omitted by the Throne, namely the Corn
Laws. In fact, all parties differed upon all points ex-
cept one, and that was, that the Speech of the Queen
was to be entirely thrown overboard, and that the business
of the country was to be conducted without the slightest
regard to her Majesty's oratory, and par infrence to her
Majesty herself. The prelude of one debate must have
an inevitable consequence. The pretext for omitting the
Corn Law Question from theßoyal Speech appears to us to
be little less than infamous. It is said that the question
is to be left open to the Cabinet. This has for ever
been the vile refuge of a balance of parties. During the
very many years in which the Slave Trade was discussed,
Mr. Pitt always said that it was an open question, and
yet he might have crushed the trade in one year had he
been sincere or honest. What esteem can the country
have of a Government which, upon points involving
almost the national existence, professes that it has no
collective opinion whatever? When mischief is to be
done it is a Cabinet question—where benefits are to be
diffused we have no Cabinet whatever. The Duke of
Wellington was more honest in Parliamentary language,
for when Mr. Huskisson gave one honest vote the Duke
dismissed him with the exclamation, " It is no mistake,"
which might be translated into the phrase," It is a Cabi-
net question." A question which is to left open implies
a question to be lost, and lost with the good wishes of
the Administration. The Ministers may urge that if
they were to carry a Bill for the repeal of the vile
Corn-laws in the House of Commons, they would be
unquestionably beaten in the House of Peers. Why not
let them take their stand on this ground? According to
the Speech, they are doing it on the Irish Cor-
.

poration Bill. if they can incur the disgrace, or
what we should call, the honour of a defeat on the
Corporation Bill, they may as well risk the ques-
tion of the Corn.laws. The fact is, that Ministers have
made up their minds to a compromise with the Peers
pon the Irish Corporation Bill, to the effect of totally
annihilating the substance of the measure. They have,
therefore, no objection to insert the question in the
Queen's Speech, but they are determined that the Corn-
laws shall be open to debate, or in other terms over-
whelmed by majorities. In former days, Cabinets split
upon vital policies and compromised all minor differences.
Now the case is reversed. The House. of Commons
has no connexion with the country, and Ministers might
bring- it into unison, were they so disposed. The peo-
ple must look to themselves, for they have no friends in
the upper classes. Even Mr. Duneornho's motion pro-

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY,-EVENING EDI

to seems to have been to recommend the clergy to admit
the use of the " Assembly's Catechism" for Dissenting
children in the Episcopal schools. This is a most insidious
attempt to disarm the opposition of the less sturdy and
intelligent amongst the Dissenters to some scheme of
general education UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF
THE CLERGY OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH, which is
unquestionably being concocted by our Whig and Tory
factions. As uncompromising advocates of religious free-
dom, we warn the Dissenters against all such schemes—
such " harmless indulgences to Dissenters" from their
haughty contemners—and call upon them to assert bold-
ly the principle, whatever obstacles may oppose its com-
plete reduction into practice, that an established sect is
a gross infringement of liberty of conscience.—Weekly
True Sun.

SLAVERY in the UNITED STATES

Extract of a letter from a gentleman in New York, to
a friend in England, dated 16 January, 1839
I inclose you a copy of a mock petition, lately pre-
sented to Congsess by J. Quincy Adams, but which
was refused acceptance ; the satire is well merited,
though it does not raise a blush on the face of the
Southern Members.
This Memorial showeth—That whereas sundry evil-
minded and ignorant persons have petitioned Congress
for a recognition of the independence of Hayti, other-
wise called St. Domingo, a black republic ; and whereas,
should such recognition take place, a black negro am-
bassador must necessarily take up his residence at the
seat of Government, to the great scandal of slave-
holders, and the eternal disgrace of the Anglo-Saxon
blood ; and whereas a President (a " Northern man
with Southern principles") could not maintain ami-
cable relations with sueh a functionary ; and whereas,
unless the President interposed his authority, such
functionary would not be permitted to mix inl good
society, or receive the usual civilities paid to other
public characters ; and whereas, such treatment would
necessarily give offence to the Government of which he
is the accredited representative, thereby leading to his
recall, and in all probability to a war between the two
countries : for these and various other reasons unneces-
sary to mention, your Memorialists humbly pray that
your honourable body would enact a law prohibiting
any foreign nation from sending to our own any man
who is not a full blooded Anglo-Saxon man, and can
trace his lineage back to Japhet, without any taint,
mixture, stain, or blemish from the accursed race of
Ham, from whom the inhabitants of Africa are de-
scended. And they further pray that an Act may
be passed prohibiting any one from holding any
civil or military office in the United States who shall
have the least mixture of African blood in his veins.
And to carry this law iota snore complete effect, your
Memorialists pray that there may be a standing Com-
mittee of the House appointed, called " The Committee
on Colours," or " The Whitewashing Committee,"
whose duty it shall be to examine into the pedigree of
every Member of Congress, and every man appointed
to public office, especially in the slaveholding States ;
and whenever, in any case, any taint of African blood
be discovered, such Member shall instantly be expelled
from office, and his place filled with a pure Anglo-Saxon
American. And your .Memorialists further pray that
that notoriously false assertion contained in the Decla-
ration of Independence, viz. that " all men are created
free and equal," be erased from that document, and
burnt by the hands of the common hangman.
And your Memorialists will ever pray. (Signed
by 46.)
The Slavery question is becoming more serious every
day in its effects upon the feelings of the Southern
people ; they no longer love the Union for its own
sake, and all their distinguished men look forward to
the time when its dissolution is probable, if not una-
voidable. All the exertions now being made to ex-
tend their railroads to the Western waters, and to esta-
blish a direct trade with Europe for the importation of
every article of consumption, are for the express purpose
of rendering them independent of the Northern States
in all respects.
The emancipation of the negroes in the West Indies
is looked upon as a piece of political insanity on the
part of Great Britain, and the total ruin of the
whole white population is confidently predicted
Judging from the public prints, I should think.
that the planters of Jamaica were very gene•
rally doing all they could to ruin themselves and
the ncgroes, and seem more fearful on this account than
on any other. if the proprietors, or their agents, were
sincerely desirous of the success of dui great experi-
ment, they would by kindness encourage the poor black
in every possible way ; instead of endeavouring, to coerce
them, by offering them wages insufficient for theircomplete
support. The punishment, however, will fall on them-
selves eventually, if they persist in such an insane
course. No one will pity them !
John Quincy Adams's opinions upon slavery in the
United States, extracted from a letter addressed by him
to the Secretary of the Rhode Island Anti-Slavery
Society, dated Washington, Dec. 13, 1838 :
No one attentive to the progress of our history as an
independent nation can fail to perceive that in the silent
lapse of
,time slavery, the very name of which our revo-
lutionary fathers inflexibly excluded from the Constitu-
tion which was to secure to their posterity the blessings
of liberty, and which was tolerated only to give time for
its extirpation, has been winding its cobweb thread
round all our free institutions, till we have seen
a free inhabitant of a free State delivered up to
a dungeon and chains, upon false pretences—de-
livered up without the benefit of his habeas corpus—
without the shield of a trial by his peers. Nor is this
outrage upon all human freedom alone. We have
seen this same demand advanced at the edge of the
bowie knife, and with the threat of civil war, if denied.
We have seen hanging denounced in the Senate of the
United States, and assassination conspired by a public
Minister of our own abroad, against a champion of
human liberty, for pointing the finger of merited execra-
tion against the breeder of slaves for sale. We have
seen and heard—but my pen refuses to trace the hor-
rors which we are witnessing from day to day in the
convulsive agonies of slavery, clinging to ber human
victims, and struggling to perpetuate her blessings, ce-
mented with African—no, with our own native Ame-
rican blood.