The Sun.
London, England, 1837-10-05 00:00:00

THE STN, LONDON, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1837.

handkerchief after handkerchief is drawn forth by that
distinguished opera " Conservative"—Mr. Filch. If
the scheme of villainy were deeper laid we might feel
it necessary to give it an unqualified denunciation, but
the fraud is so superficial, so glaring, that it is im-
possible not to indulge in a sort of ludicrous emotion, a
half-condemnatory, half-farsical feeling, at witnessing
the tricks of political Charlatanism. In these dull times,
" the phantasma, the hideous dream," the interim be-
tween the acting of a great event and its first concep-
tion—between, as we may suppose, the proposition
to reform the Lords and their actual reformation, for
this is the conclusion to which we must come—the
Tory Press in its serio-comic exhibitions has some
claims on public indulgence ; nay, its varlet contribu-
tors appear to lay the whole Liberal press under obli-
gation, for without their copious misrepresentations
there would be no variety in the manner of discussing
the leading subjects which occupy public attention.
There would be nothing on which to argue, the ra-
tional portion of the public being already convinced of
the necessity of the measures against which the great
force of the opposition is directed ; to enforce the ex-
pediency and good policy of these measures, would be
like persuading a hungry man to eat, or a man thirsting
in a desert to drink. Therefore we freely ac-
knowledge ourselves indebted to the Tory Press,
for the fresh subjects it supplies for discussion in
the numerous falsehoods of its invention. Not even
in the affecting an," hear:-rending tragedy of Tom
Thumb is there anything so pathetic—so convin-
cingly appealing to our sympathies, as a passage in
the Times of yesterday, wherein, in allusion to the
disposal of the police patronage in Ireland by Lord
Mulgrave, by which it is inferred that peaceable
citizens are left without protection, the writer, en-
deavouring to rouse the Orangemen into resistance
and rebellion, exclaims—" Great Heaven ! do Ens-
lishnzen live to see this day ? No protection Why
then, what say all writers on civil government 7 Why
the answer is, then—no allegiance." This "no alle-
giance" cry, taken in conjunction with the Address
of the Dublin Corporation to his Majesty of
Hanover, and the conspiracy which was exposed be-
fore a Committee of the House to set aside the suc-
cession, is calculated to excite a greater vigilance than
the ordinary harangues of the faction. And the sub-
sequent observations of the Times shows but too
clearly the association which existed in the mind of
the writer between the doctrine of " no allegiance"
and the Orange conspiracy, when he observes—
" If Lord Mulgrave will not suffer the force paid by the
people to interpose for the preservation of the people's lives
and properties, or for the maintenance of the Qicen's peace,
what title has Lord Mulgrave to be defended by the people
—on what plea dares he demand their allegiance--by what
pretext will ho dare to prevent them from associating for
their own defenco—reduced, as by his arbitrary and in-
famous deerse—reduced as civil society now is—Co a state
of nature? We maintain that, for this act alone, among
five hundred others which call for impeachment—for this
alone Lord Mulgravo is impeachable ; and we pray that he
maw be iinvache,l. We know he will be, if there exist
a single spark of public spirit in the Imperial !Luse cf
Commons."

This is all very tragical. What will become of Lord
Mulgrave ? Of his conviction by the House of Com-
mons, should he be impeached, of having ruled Ire-
land in direct contradiction to Tory principles, no doubt
can be entertained ; we must admit the chare; eu
only hope of saving his Lordship from the scaffold
must rest in that prerogative of mercy vested in the
Sovereign, which is not strained, and which, to provide
against accidents, we solicit in his behalf. Now comes
the bathos. Who will not sympathise in the zeal of
the Times, when, in anticipating the massacre of the
whole Protestant portion of the Irish community, it
exclaims—
What ! to consign every poor Loyalist in Ireland, by
one stroke of the pen, to unrestricted massacre ? Is it not
proclamation that every Protestant in the island, who
has not wherewithal to hire mercenaries for the garrison of
his dwelling, must make- his peace with the rebel ruffians,
by abandoning the religion of his ancestors, and turning
Papist on the spot."
If this do not rouse all the nervous old women and
hypochondriacs of England to contribute to the Irish
petition conspiracy fund, we know not what %Nil', unless
a few Protestants volunteer to murder each other, by
way of illustrating the dangers to which the whole sect
is exposed. The tranquillity of the Irish " Papists" is
most provoking—they leave the Tory press nothing,
but lies to comment upon. Could they but be pro-
voked to follow the example of their enemies, and cry
" no allegiance," there might be some hope to be en-
tertained of them."—Morning Advertiser.
Alderman Venable, who was once, we believe, a
candidate for the representation of the city of London
in Parliament, is reported to have said the other day in

•
the Court of Aldermen in reference to a motion respect-
ing the new Poor-law, that "It could not be in the
contemplation of any of the Aldermen to cast impedi-
ments in the way of so excellent a measure as the Poor-
law Amendment Act. Alderman Venables is a tho-
rough-going " Liberal " of the Whig-Radical cast,
and therefore we are not surprised at this expression of
his excessive admiration of the Whig law, to inflict
upon poverty the punishment of crime, and place in
the hand of •‘ Christian charity" a scourge of scor-
pions for the discipline of the destitute inmates of the
union bastile. When Alderman Venables and " libe-
rals " of his sort are told that the Whig law turns the
dearest affections of the human heart into the source
of the most poignant anguish ; that it sanctions the
tearing asunder of the relationship of husband and
wife—of parent and child ; that it leaves to the poor and
friendless man whom dire necessity compels to accept
of its cruel " relief," nothing but a sorrowing and lonely
existence upon a semi-starvation diet, an existence blast-
ed and withered, from which "all the pleasant boughs of
life are gone ;" that it forbids him to visit his accustomed
altars on the Sabbath-day, and insists upon the isolat-
ing distinction of poverty in the home of the grave I
When, we say, Alderman Venables and " Liberals" of
his sort are told that such are part and parcel of the
admirable provisions of the Whig law, they act just as
might be expected of such "Liberals" by calling it
excellent. Mr. Grote, at present a nominal represen-
tative of the City of London, is a Liberal also, or
rather an ultra-Liberal. He it was who, when the
present Lord Abinger, then Sir James Scarlett, made
some allusion in the House of Commons to the arbi-
trary and unconstitutional character of the Whig Bill,
tauntingly declared that his only objection to the Bill
was that it was not arbitrary and unconstitutional
enough ! The sentiments which Mr. Alderman Ye-
nables expressed respecting the oppressive and odious
Whig Poor-law make us glad that he failed in his
attempt to become a representative of the City of Lon-
don ; for the same reason we are glad that Mr. Grote
is soon likely to cease to be one. The poor are not
without an avenger even in this world, and Whiggery
found that out at the late elections. The law, as it
now appears in the statute book, is, Heaven knows,
arbitrary and unconstitutional enough, but it is not
quite so much so as it was when first introduced
to the House of Commons, when the Whig-Ra-
dicals hailed the " boon to the labouring population,"
introduced by Lord Althorp, with the heartless
plaudits of sycophantic inhumanity. This alone shows
what sordid tyranny the people of England might ex-
pect if ever they allowed a usurping House of Com-
mons, under pretence of " privilege," to assume to
itself the supreme powers of Government. The claim
of " privilege" set up by the last House of Commons
was monstrous, and we opposed it accordingly, being
convinced that of all tyrannies an unrestrained demo-
cracy is the worst, because it is the least responsible.
The Gospel, which we believe in as Christians—the
great charter of man's redemption—is particularly care •
ful of the rights and interests of the poor, and enjoins
no Christian virtue so emphatically, so constantly, as
charity. The Whig Poor Law was framed to eradi-
cate Christian charity, both from the laws and the
hearts of the people of England. Judge if a law so
opposed to the-benignant spirit of the Gospel can he
good, can be excellent.
" That man should thus encroach on fellow man,
Abridge him of his just and lawful rights,
Eradicate him, tear him from his hold
Upon the endearments of domestic life
And social, nip his fruitfulness and use,
And doom him, for the crime of poverty,
To barrenness, and solitude, and tears,
Moves indignation."
And what can the patriot say to a law that confers
upon three Government Commissioners the legislative