The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-31 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF TILE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

A very witty man used to say that nothing was so
costly a s a good character, for it required a constant
outlay to keep it up. It strikes us that the Tories, at
ail tire ,es lax in their principles, and little scrupulous
os to the means for attaining their ends—never so
vell pleased as when they used to think they had sw-
eet dcd in deceiving by false pretences—have lately
thscended lower than usual in their trickery, so that
t Ivey will soon be in the happy predicament of pos-
ssing a character which can be kept up without any
cost. Their whole conduct in the case of the new
poor Law is so shamefully dishonest, that those
vlio defend it must. be prepared to justify the late
practices at a certain fashionable club. Abuse of the
_Poor Law is a regular part of the Tory system of
'canvassing ; and we have seen that the Chairman of
the Warwick Union had the cool effrontery to propose
a‘lr. Sergeant Adams at the late election in that place,
and a member of the Board of Guardians, who had
written a pamphlet in which he praised the new law
to the skies, and " lamented to see that the very viru-
dence of party politics is let loose against it," was a
warm partisan of a candidate who had no intelligible
claim to his support except the letting loose the viru-
lence of his party politics against the law in question.
_lt is everywhere the same. To their friends the To-
ries make no secret of their parading this hostility to
gull the weak and simple minded, and of their en-
tertaining so favourable an opinion of the Bill, that
they would regret nothing so much as the loss of
it. But they calculate on the Reformers being
so much' more tenacious of character that they
will never abandon the Bill ; so that Tory land-
lords and Tory parsons may continue to have
all the benefit of increased rents and Tithes,
and at the same time safely indulge in declama-
tion against the measure to which they are in-
debted for them. In the case of intimidation the
Tories equally endeavour to make the most of the
badness of their character. An elector when can-
vassed will say, " I have as many good customers
Whigs as Tories; but if I vote against the Tory can-
didate I know that all the Tories will at once with-
draw their custom from me ; whereas, though the
Whigs may be displeased, they will not proceed to
that extremity." The Duke of Wellingtor, Sir Robert
Peel, Sir James Graham, Lord Stanley, and, indeed all
the Tories of any note in Parliament, profess themselves
-warm admirers of the new Poor-law ; but, nevertheless,
the word has gone forth from the Carlton Club to heap all
mariner of abuse on the measure and its authors. The
abuse cannot be brought home to the leaders, and
it will be disavowed in good time. Mr. Walter may
twaddle as much as pleasest-against the Bill : the Duke
of Wellington laughs in his sleeve at the folly of the
man, but his patty endeafour to profit by it. All the
periodicals supported by them sing the same song :
they all endeavour to excite prejudice against the Poor-
law. The respectable members of the Legislature, as
they are called, affect to shut their eyes to this ; but
they chuckle at the thought of gaining votes by the
fraud. Blackwood' s Magazine for April contains an
elaborate article which furnishes some curious illustra-
tio ;s of the above remarks. The title of it is, " The
Whigs—the Itadicals—the Middle Classes—and the
People," and the object of the writer is to show how
the people may be turned tvainst the middle classes,
ni order to frighten the middle classes into an alliance
with the Tory Aristocracy. It seems to be a sort of
commentary on the observation of Coleridge, that the
Tories were short-sighted in not seeking to extend the
suffrage, as they had less to dread from the lower than
the middle elasses.—Morning Chronicle.
Two of our morning Contemporaries laboured hard
estcrday to stystain the misreprenta.tion which one of
them put forth on Wednesday, respecting Ministers
and the Irish Corpora,ian Bill. \Ve know not whether
we shoal congratulate the Post on its ingenuity, or
condole with it on the loss of its sielit. Had cur fa-
rilionable Contemhorary read correctly t!1:; cx'ract from
the Morning Herald, and our remarks thereon, it
would have saved him a world of trouble. The He-
rald said—

" At the commencement of the present session of P..r-
17=i:et, Lord .I*.ho Russell intimated, in very intelli-
tiOle terms, that it was the intention of the
oLlTlAdministra-.
t'n to which he belongs to resign, it they were SUCCCFS,
Itd in carryiog the Irish Municipal Bill in Mc House rf
Lords."

The Pact omits in its quotation the words printed 1
in it:flit-4, and consequently wanders into totally irrele- '
sant topics. The /lea':/el, too, " (' lu
.IVI-Ghee) perverts Lord John Russel's speech on the
of February ; but, as 1)0111 the Tory papers hate
bad the cznAour to quote the Noble Lord's words, we
think h s Loi d,hip will feel quite at case under these
attacks, for it fortunately happens that the t...xt falsifies
the commentary. Now what was the language of the I
Home Minister 11! Mich is carped at by the journals in
the interest of the Tories ? The Noble Laid said—
" I consider this (the Irish Municipal Bill) a question
of vital importance to the present Administration.—(Loud
cries .‘ Hear.") I am fully sensible of the evil of bring-
ing forward Bills year after year, and suffering them to be
deie,ned and lost, without takin / any farther step ?Ton the
Tt.---(Reacwed cries of. Hear,' and loud cheers.) * *
* * Ido not think that we could permanently go on,
r that we could be fairly entitled to ask for the confi-
dence of this House, if we, continuing an Administration,
saje' ed principles to be applied, with regard to the Go-
vernment of Ireland, against which we have decidedly pro-
tested.'
What is there here to warrant the assertion that
Lott] John Russell pledged himself and his colleagues
to retire from office should they fail to carry the Irish
Corporation Bill through the House of Lords in the
present session ? The extract affords no pretence
for hazarding so extravagantly unfounded an asser-
tion. Is it likely, we ask, that Ministers, possess-
ing the confidence of the country and the support
of the House of Commons upon this very-ques-
tion, would harbour for a moment the insane thought
of insulting the nation and degrading themselves
by retreating before a despicable knot of factiouz
•
bigots, with no other weapon for attack than a
gilded bauble ? Ministers resign, forsooth, should
a clique of corrupt and venomous Lords—the crea-
tures of a breath, and who enjoy their privileges ex-
pressly for the benefit of the people—blindly persist in
thwarting the public will. Is there not another wing
to the alternative, the preference of which would be
much more creditable to Ministers ? Cannot Peers
be created to neutralise the vicious preponderance pro-
duced in the Upper House by Tory policy since the
accession of the third George? And should this
prove ineffectual, may not the House of Lords be re-
formed as well as the old House of Commons? A
third " step," less Radical, is open to Ministers--
we mean an appeal to the country as the supreme and
rightful arbiter between Ministers and the Commons
cn the one hand, and the House of Lords on the
other. Lord John Russell and his colleagues are
doubtless " fully sensible of the evil of bringing
forward Bills—year after year—and suffering them
to be defeated and lost, without taking any
further step upon the subject ;"—and we rest sa-
tisfied they will not shrink from the adoption of
that " further step," should the Peers again mutilate
the measure, which their own honour and the interests
of the nation require them unhesitatingly to take. An
appeal to the people must necessarily tread upon the
~,beels of a rejection of the Bill by the irresponsible
Tory Peers. Should the country betray its own in-
terests and side with the corruptionists, Ministers will
preserve their reputation untarnished, and retire into
honoured privacy. But they will never succumb to
faction. Should they be driven from the helm, it
must be by the people for whose advantage they retain
office : they will never cover themselves with the dis-
grace of a flight before a profligate oligarchy. Let
this be our answer to all past, present, and future
quibbling and misrepresentations of the Tories on this
subject.—Morning Chronicle.
The Ministerial prints are full of rapture at what
they would fain persuade their readers has been a great
display in the North, and which they denominate, in
characters that a blacking-puffer might envy, " The
Public Entry of the Liberal Candidates for the Re-
'on of Leeds." The conductors of these
.• 7_ :4•_••1:7,7-.:the whole hog in all things, and, if they
serve their master's turn, we have no
-..,.'c0u1d swear that Mr. Rice had despatched
. a full-grown Westphalian boar barbacued,
e' appetite of the Jim Crow of the Treasury
; • y been satiated with one of the hind legs of a
Ai

sucking pig. Their zeal, too, vastly outruns their dis-
cretion, for certainly there was nothing very consola-
tory to Whigs in the affair about which they make so
great parade ; and if their masters know their own inte-
rests better than the men, the latter will assuredly get
more kicks than halfpence for their pains in this matter
when the Ministers return to town. However, just as
they describe the thing, so will we, upon their au-
thority, narrate it for the amusement of our readers.
This " public entry," then, took place on Easter
Monday, and the " Liberal candidates ' were Sir Wil-
liam Molesworth and old Mr: Baines. Their entry
was after this fashion :—Sir William Molesworth ap-
peared in his " own" carriage, as the Ministerial
crubs are most particular to tell us, and it seems that
tie was so good as to give old Mr. Baines " a cast"
on the occasion—not the only cast, we suspect, the
lelon.Baronet will give Mr. Baines ; for, as we are sure
of one Conservative at least for Leeds, if Mr. Baines
and Sir W. Molesworth start on the Radical interest,
we would bet two to one on the Baronet. But to
proceed with the description. The postilions were
attired in orange silk jackets and caps," at which
the four post-horses, we suppose, took umbrage, for
we find that the quadrupeds were accommodated with
a bit of ()ranee also. Of course, Mr. Baines and
Sir William Molesworth wore the same colours, and
though it " is not under white and black," we take
it for granted that Mr. Baines was sucking " a
real Seville" to match. Then there were flags and a
band of music. Now, it must be admitted by every
body that this was all perfectly en regle—that the
Baronet and Mr. Baines made their " public entry"
into Leeds precisely in the style of other candidates
for patronage in provincial towns at holyday time. For
instance, who does not recollect the " public entries"
of the late Mr. Gyngell, the conjuror ? He always
appeared in his " own" carriage, with his master-mer-
ryman by his side, chewing lighted tow, postillions
and four horses, bedizened with all the finery of the
show " properties," banners, and a band of music.
Such of our readers as have arrived at man's estate
need but this memento to bring that lamented quack
and his shabbily-fine cortege as plainly before their
mind's eve, as that of Sir William Molesworth was pre-
sent to the actual optics of the good folks of Leeds.
The object, too, of these public characters was the
same. Mr. Gyngcll's entries were for the purpose of
getting people to come to his show in the evening. So
was the entry of Sir W. Molesworth and Mr. Baines ;
and this brings us to the account of that part of the
affair. Taking the estimate of the Ministerial prints
to be accurate,—though we have little doubt that it is
greatly exaggerated,—the appearance of Sir W. Moles-
worth, Mr. Baines, the carriage, the four horses with
orange rosettes, the postilions with orange jackets and
caps, the flags, the band of music, &c., mustered a
rabble of men, women, and children, to the amount of
15,000 persons. We dare say that 5,000 would be
nearer the mark ; but, supposing the number to have
been 15,000, we do not think it very much, consider-
ine. that the attraction was not a little of the merry-
andrewD and mountebauk order,—that the day was
Easter Monday, which is almost an universal holyday,
especially among the juniciebranches of the " Liberals ;'
that in all times, and in all places, " one fool makes
many ;" and that the population of Leeds at the last
census was 123,393. And how many came to the
show in the evening ? According to the Ministe-
risl accounts, just -250 Thiele of that, reader I
250 out of a population of 123,393. Why,
Mr. Gyrutell would have had double the nuni-
her, though he could not have afforded to have
a dinner on the occasion, which these " Liberal
candidates" had. Yes ; the evening performance of
Messrs. Molesworth and Baines was at a dinner at-
tended by 250 persons, of whom the Ministerial
prints mention 14 by name, taking care, of course, to
dub them all esquires. These were G. Goodman,
Esq., Mayor, A. Marshall, Esq., and H. C. Marshall,
Esq., 11. H. Stansfield, Esq., and H. Stansfield,
Esq., J. Huldforth, Esq., J. Clapham, Esq.,
Hutchins-on, Eq., T. Pease, Esq., H. Bentley, Esq.,
G. Wailes, Esq., .1. Wilkinson, Esq., W. Cadman,
Esq., and D. Lupton, E-q. To these must be *tided
, (no name given). Sir W. Molesworth's
legal adviser and
liam's brother. It is not stated Whether the pus-
tilions are included among these esquires, most of
whose names our readers will now, we suspect,
hear of fur the first time ; and altholigh we have no
doubt they were all very respectable persons, still
we cannot help thinking that they constitute hut a
small and sorry sample of the elite of the wealthy
and populous town of Leeds. At the same time,
if the organs of the Ministers ate satisfied with such
a gathering on what they consider so great an occa-
sion, we ought to he ten thousand times more so: If
this be the strength of that party, then is ours strong
indeed ; and as for carrying Leeds by such men at a
contested election, the notion is too allsurd to be enter-
tained for a moment. Some time ago a Whig-Radical
writer appeared to consider that he had said a mighty
smart thing when he designated the vacation as the
period of the Conservative triumph, and the Session of
Parliament as that of Conservative defeat. The affair
we have here described is but one among a thousand
failures of the " Liberals," which demonstrate that
the same thing cannot be said of the party to which
the Whig-Radical dapper wit belongs. And we
arc very glad that it cannot : for to what does his as-
sertion amount but to this—namely, that the people
are of one way of thinking, and the House of Com-
mons of another,—that is to say, that the House of
Commons does not represent the sentiments of the na-
tion. But it is time we should drop the curtain upon
this Easter farce at Leeds. There was speechifying
after dinner as usual, hut it was below criticism. Poor
old Mr. Baines twaddle(' at a sad rate, and spit his
spite against the Church and the Bishops with a de •
gree of coarseness and ignorance that would have dis-
graced the lowest conventicle. Sir William Moles-
worth said ditto to Mr. Baines ; called, moreover, for
sympathy for the Canadian rebels and the Irish rebels,
passed his accustomed panegyric on the ballot, and in
the same breath complained of the Orangemen of Ire-
land because they acted in secret ; and he indulged in
various other contradictions and crotchets, which, being
neither amusing nor instructive, we pass over without
notice. One passage of his speech, however, we shall
quote as we find it reported in a Government print.
It runs thus :—" Then it is said that the great mili-
tary chief, the Duke of Wellington, is to be sent
as Viceroy to Ireland, to treat that country as an
insurgent province, and rule over it according to
his well-known maxim, that that which is gained
by the sword must be kept by the sword." We
are bound to believe that somebody has said this,
because Sir W. Molesworth asserts that " it is said ;"
but we are quite sure that whoever said it lied most
foully and most foolishly. If Sir W. Molesworth
gives credit to the tale, he must have lost his senses ;
and if he does not believe it, he ought, in common
decency, to have said so, instead of adding, as he did
when his audience cried " Hear, hear, hear," to it,
" I ask, will the people of England permit this?"
There was a time when Sir W. Molesworth would not
have acted this disingenuous part—when he would
have boldly declared his belief or his disbelief in the
story, and not have left it thus : but " company, vil-
lanous company," hath been the ruin of many a better
man than Sir W. Molesworth, and we are sorry to ob-
serve this symptom of his sickening for the worst of
all the infections with which the " liberal" camp is
cursed.—Times.
The Stockport Meeting on Wednesday, in approv-
ing of the Ministerial measure for the abolition of
Church-rates—the report of which appeared in yester-
day's Advertiser—is a gratifying response to the so-
phistries lately employed by the Episcopal Bench while
presenting petitions for the non-abolition. The Rev.
William Smith threw some light on the mode in which
these petitions have been manufactured, by the follow-
ing statement :—" A petition lately presented to the
House of Lords by the Archbishop of Canterbury,
against the abolition of Church-rates, had but twelve
signatures—and who do you think these parties were ?
Six of them consisted of the parish-clerk and his five
children, another was the sexton of the parish, two
were bell-ringers, and I know not what the others were,
but no doubt they were very respectable. The above
is, we apprehend, a tolerable sample of the whole
bulk of this precious commodity of episcopal peti-
tions in favour of Church-rates. It is impossible
to imagine any thing more ludicrous or more inn-

pudent than the sophistries which have been employed
by their spiritual Lordships while so disinterestedly
advocating the cause of the pro-rate petitions. We have..,
endeavoured to analyze the arguments of these- prti..
rate champions both on the episcopal bench and else-
where, and we can make nothing out of all the ver-
biage employed except the proposition—that the es-
sence of the Christian religion consists in the payment
of Church-rates. The argument might as well be cut
short at once by the announcement that Church-rates
are Christianity, and that the payment of 15,0001, a-
year to a Bishop for doing nothing is pure religion.
The example of the Hierarchy of this country will
prompt us the more readily to admit their conviction
that Church-rates are Christianity, inasmuch as they
have hitherto been the most fertile source of strife, ill
blood, discord, and persecution throughout the coun-
try. Another ingenious sophistry of the Right Reve-
rend pro-raters, in all probability, had some such a peti-
tion as the Archbishop of Canterbury's in their eye.
A ccording to them the fewer the number of petitioners
. .

in favour of Church-rates the more their case is
strengthened, inasmuch, say they, as the petitioners
show their devotion to the Church, by requesting to pay
money as a favour. According to this argument—if
the Archbishop's petitioners had been reduced from
five children to three, and from two bell-ringers to

one, their case would have been enforced. The ar;u•
ment reminds us of the dialogue between Whisker.

andos and Tilburina in the Critic :
" My wound is great, because it is so small."
To which the lady replies,
" Then 'twould be greater if 'twere none at all."
Such gross perversions of common sense as are em.
ployed by the pro-rate champions, are indeed only fi
to be laughed at. To hear them, one would imagine
that the people were in a perfect fever of anxiety to
spend their money in keeping alive the torch of dis-
cord throughout the country, and in destroying the
spirit of the Christian religion, by supplying its mock
expounders with new and wanton means of indulging
in all the pomps and vanities of the world. According
to the Bishops, the people are most zealously attached
to the payment of Church-rates. In that case they pay
the Church-rates voluntarily. What is that but the
voluntary principle ? Why, therefore, do the Churchmen
abuse it? It is clear when they do abuse it, they do not
know what it means. How are the schools, infirmaries,
asylums, charities, public and private, maintained, but
by the voluntary principle ? Why the greater part
of the Churches in the larger towns of England have
been built and are maintained by the voluntary prin-
ciple. And yet these brawlers, when it suits their
purpose, decry it. When, however, it suits their pur-
poae, they appeal to it. The rates are paid voluntarily,
say they, as is proved by the petitions, which arc valu-
able in proportion to their paucity. Then they are paid
by the voluntary principle. What occasion, therefore,
for the episcopal outcry for their continuance ? If the
people pay them voluntarily now, they will continue to
pay them when there is no compulsion. If, on the
contrary, they do not pay them voluntarily, then the
Bishops and the clergy stand convicted,upon their own
showing, of having got up fraudulent petitions, with a
view to give a false colour to the inclinations of the
English public. The pro-raters must accept one of
the above alternatives. We leave them fixed upon
whichever horn of the dilemma they may find most
tolerable to the vexed nerve of defeated machination.
Morning Advertiser.
The Bill which has been brought into the House of
Commons by Mr. Buckingham, puts one very much
in mind of the advice given to the. Scottish Parliament
by Drummond, of Hawthornelen—" that it be a sta-
tute that no public crier make Proclamation without
first opening, his mouth." This Bill is one of the very
oddest that ever was begotten of " wind-dreams" and
crotchets. It arrogates on the part of the would.be-
legislator a wonderFul knowledge of ail houses of pub-
ic entertainment—more, in fact, than could be expec-
ed from any ordinary man, even if he had done no-
Aling else than move about from tavern to tavern for
half a century. We have heard it remarked that a
certain personage, who shall be nameless, is the most
terrible of saints, when the fit is on him ; and so we
think is this Honourable M P. a terrible saint. _ We
shall not follow him through even one of the 46
clauses of his " New Temperance Bill," because we feel
quite assured that there is enough of good sense in the
House of Commons, or in any house that has got a
:,are and straightforward man in it, to give the Bill
more rest than the projector of it can hope fur.
This Hon. Gentleman has been a man of many
projects—but, some how or other, these prcjects
have all been addled. He went to India—to carry
the whole Government by a breeze ; hut it would
not do. He failed, notwithstanding all his efforts,
to attract the attention of the Governor-General,
whom he terribly libelled, notwithstanding all his
kindness to him, or in drawing any attention to
his instrument of noise at Calcutta. In the short in -
tvrteL!num, however, the Senior Member of the
Council seeing that this Honourable M.P. was in-
c orrieible, stilt him home. Then he applied to the
British public to pay him for " heating the poker ;"
but some how or other they would not, to the full
extent of his wishes. Next came the project of a
circumnavigating ship, but it never could get a fair
wind ; and so whether the world ever went round the
ship we cannot tell, hut we are quite sure that the ship
never went round the world. These remarks may
seem irrelevant, but they are not so in reality. " A
jack of 01 trades" is, proverbially, " master of none ;"
and we suppose that this is as applicable to the trade
of law-making as to any other. On this ground we
would ask the Honourable Member how he contrived
to qualify himself for being the legislator, par excel-
lence, in the matter of public-houses ; and how the
cumbrous muster of his clauses will diminish the
crime and misery of which, he says, " all places
at which intoxicating drinks are sold," " are the
fertile sources." How conies he to know this ? by
hearsay or by experience ? If the former, we desi-
derate the proofs ; and if the latter, we want evidence in
corroboration. We had always thought, that the per-
sons embarking their capital in a business were the
best judges of everything connected with that business
—that is to say, in the absence of monopoly, and with
a fair field, free alike to all who are qualified for enter-
in°. it. What objection is there to regularly licensed
public-houses under the present system ? Does Mr.
Buckingham mean to say that they are "fruitful sources
of crime and misery ?" If he does, we dare him to the
proof; and bid him set the crime and misery of private
houses and of those of the Licensed Victuallers against
each other, and say on which side the enormity lies.
The fact is, that the houses, as they at present exist,
are a very great benefit to the public. To many they
are indispensable at an times, and to all they are useful
at some times. Then why cut them into sections, and
say to one, you shall sell wine only ; to another, you
shall sell cider ; and to a third, you shall sell nothing
but essence of peppermint ? The house is open to all
the public, if they conduct themselves in a proper man-
ner ; and therefore the house ought to be permitted
to supply, if the proprietors so incline, every ar-
ticle in the way of rational entertainment which their
customers require. The present system insures the
perfect responsibility of all who keep houses of public
entertainment ; and beyond this, the very phrenzy of
legislation could not do more. We should be very sor-
ry to defend any system, or any thing, that could in
any way produce " crime and misery ;" but we are
well assured that happiness and hilarity are the staple
fruits of the present system of duly licensed houses of
entertainment ; and that if a stranger in London were
to have his chop in one place, his glass of ale half-a-
mile distant, and his wine or grog another half mile,
then, we are sure that whatever of crime might be in
the system, there would be plenty of misery. It was
said by a wit of no meal) standing, that when ladies be-
came unfit for sinners, they always made capital saints;
and what the wit said of she saints, appears to be
true, of some, at least, of the grey-bearded old women
that linger by the ruins of the late St. Stephen's
Chapel.—Morning Advertiser.

WlNE.—Taking a Blass of wine is the only social
habit that the disappointed spirit never unlearns. It is the
only symbol of perfect life. Hic non bibitur will suit nothing
but a tombstone.—Peacock.

WISDOM.—To reconcile man as he is to the world
as it is, to preserve and improve all that is good, and destroy or
alleviate all that is evil in physical and moral nature, have been
the hope and aim of the greatest teachers and ornaments of our
speciss.—Peacock,

THE STJN, LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 1837.