The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-29 00:00:00

EVILS CONNECTED WITH RAIL-
WAY CLERKS.

T 0 THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
89, Great Russell-street, Nov. 27.
Stn,—The remarks, extracted from the Poly-
technic Journal in reference to the " unnecessary
evils, &c., in railroad travelling," induce me to
trouble you with the following facts, illustrative of
the statements therein made.
Last Thursday I had to travel to Weybridge on
professional duty, and went to the George and
Blue Boar Tavern, in Holborn, to go by the
omnibus to the Vauxhall station of the Southatnp-
ton Railway.
All that I had with me was a carpet bag, which,
containing some delicate articles, I kept in my
hand. As I was about to get into the omnibus the
pert conductor cried out " Here, give us your
bag." I observed in reply, that I would keep my
bag. He observed, " Your bag shall not go in-
side" (there was one passenger inside) ; " your
bag goes outside." I went to the door of the om-
nibus again, and with all the impudence which
ignorance imparts, he kept the door shut, and said
I am master here," and would not allow the door
to be opened.
I was obliged to take a cab to Hungerford Mar-
ket to gain the steam-boat.
On my return, on the following morning, I went
to the office at Weybridge, and presented myself to
the clerk for a ticket ; he took no notice of my
application, but told me to stand out of the way,
for I was " in his light."
On the evening of the Friday I had to visit
Windsor on professional business, and on my re-
turn to town on Saturday morning, on reaching
Slough I presented a sovereign in payment for my
fare, and the clerk replied " No change," although
while I waited the young man received more than
would have given change.
These things are to be regretted—they indicate
something bad in these railways.
I have not found it so at the London and Bir-
mingham Railway, and I have had some experience
there, having this year paid for travelling on that
railway to Birmingham and Manchester upwards
of 1301.

Your's obediently,
JOHN EPPS, M.D.

BRADFORD Cliv-)RCH-RATE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
We have had a glorious battle here to-day, and a
glorious victory. Dr. Scoresby, the celebrated naviga-
tor, lately appointed Vicar, has endeavoured to carry the
Church-rates, which have been dormant some years.
A meeting was held last Friday in the church-yard
and a poll demanded ; the polling commenced yesterday
and terminated at four o'clock to-day (Wednesday.)
This day week the result will be declared, but the fol-
lowing is the presumed state of the question.
Your's respectfully,
A CONSTANT READER.
FINAL CLOSE OF THE POLL.
SECOND DAY AT FOUR O'CLOCK.
Against the Rate 3,892
For the Rate

Majority against the Rate -2,201
Bradford, N0v.27.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS

FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
(From the Times.)
The late accounts from the Mediterranean appear to
have been penned in moments of rather sanguine con-
fidence as to the speedy solution of some, at least, among
the difficulties which have hitherto frustrated the settle•
ment of the question between Turkey and Mehemet
Ali. A respectable evening paper of yesterday extracts
a passage from a Maltese letter of the 16th inst., where-
in it is asserted that the Confiance steamer had arrived
the preceding day with despatches, dated the 10th, from
Sir Robert Stopford, then anchored in Vourla Bay.
The writer adds, that the same vessel (Confiance)
brought intelligence of the Turkish fleet being on its
way from Alexandria to Constantinople. Now, it
will be observed that the " intelligence" of that
important fact is not affirmed to have been
official intelligence, or the despatches of Sir Robert
Stopford to have said one word about the matter. So
that the whole credit of the statement rests upon a
vague allegation in a private letter, that " the Con-
fiance brought" such and such a piece of news ; with
regard to which the first comment of every rational
person must be, that an event of such considerable
and auspicious magnitude ought to have been trans-
mitted to Malta through some precise, authentic, and
unquestionable channel. In the absence of all corrobo-
rating evidence to the truth of the above loose and iso-
lated information, it behoves us to suspend our belief of
the story, with, nevertheless, a hearty and earnest hope
that not only the restoration of the fleet may prove cor-
rect, but the more extensive and decisive benefit of which
it is represented to be either the fruit or harbinger,
viz., the adjustment of all immediate differences be-
tween the Pacha of Egypt and the Porte—embracing,
if they do really' embrace, others dependent on them or
connected with them, between the European Powers.
To us it has long appeared a question of some per-
plexity how even the immediate subjects of quarrel
now or lately pending, from the Bosphorus to the
Nile, could be securely set at rest. The value to
be affixed to a restoration of the Turkish fleet in
the eyes of any reasonable advocate of peace through
out Europe would be its indication of a readiness
on the part of Mehemet Ali to accede to the de-
mands of the Christian Powers. But what were
those demands ? If they corresponded with the
assurances of England, Austria, and Russia, that
they would permit no spoliation of the Turkish em-
pire, but would preserve its integrity unimpaired,
it is impossible that those demands could be satisfied by
a cession in perpetuity to Mehemet Ali of the vast pro-
vince of Syria, of which he had obtained no more than
military occupation, ivi.l that so recently, added to the
possession of the great isle of Candia for life, and that
of Egypt for ever. Yet those are the terms on which
we are told that peace is to be re-established between
the two Mahometan Powers, with the consent moreover
of England, mid in conformity with the views of France,
concurred in by Russia, and by the sober-minded Aus-
trian Government. One of two things is absolutely un-
deniable—either that the above arrangement has not been
agreed to, or, if it has, that the questions which have
been at issue are not settled, but remain more em-
broiled, if possible, than ever. That France, in the pro-
secution of her own grasping projects, should be eager
to effect an initiatory breaking up of Turkey by the se-
paration of all her African provinces, and to enfeeble
her still further by the loss of Syria, it is very easy to
believe. Besides the continued life of Mehemet Ali,
now seventy years of age, there would in that case
be no visible obstacle to retard the undertaking of
an enterprise long planned and programmatized in
the bureaux of the French Government, the execu-
tion of which only, but not the suggestion, was left
for Napoleon Bonaparte, Turkey once dismembered
of her two finest maritime provinces by a treaty
to which all the European Powers lent their formal
sanction, neither the Porte nor any of those Powers
could show one argument of recognized right for
employing force in opposition to the enterprise of
France, nor any better than such as might be founded
on mere individual and disputable jealousy of her am-
biti ;n. It is France only, therefore, that could be
really gratified by the disgraceful abandonment of all
professed principles, of which the other three Powers
would be guilty in authorizing that iniquitous usur
pation, miscalled a " settlement," through whicl,
Egypt would be agerandized and Turkey ruined ;
and the groundwork laid for a future, and not distant
struggle, between the maritime states of Europe them-
selves, for the protection of Egjptian independence on
one side, and the seizure of the country on the other.
If asked, therefore, whether we believe or not, that
an adjustment of the Turkish differences has been
for the present effected on the terms alluded to, our
answer must be in the negative. We believe not th(
intelligence," because it would imply the most con-
summate rashness in some of the negotiating parties.
We are unwilling to believe that a general arrangement
has taken place on the terms stated, because it would
be utterly degrading to the British empire. To the re-
turn of the Turkish fleet there can be no possible ob-
jection, if Mehemet Ali wills it ; but, to our paying an
extravagant price for it, we trust that most Englishmen
will agree with us, the objections are not to be sur
mounted.

We reprint from the Standard the correspondence o;
Colonel Thomas with the Horse-Guards, which pre-
ceded the censure with which Lord Hill has visited the
offence of the officers who attended the Conservative
meeting at Ashton on the 30th ult. The reprimand
itself appeared in our paper of yesterday. The mode of
making public this correspondence is a specimen of
Tory tactics. An appeal to the press on a question of
military discipline, between a soldier or officer and his
superiors, is not usually made with impunity. If it could,
the holding an army together would be no easy matter.
But your thorough Tory cares as much for military dis-
cipline as for religious or moral principle, when the sordid
joint-stock interests of his party are concerned. The
publication of the correspondence will, it has been
thought, serve the Tory cause. So, out it comes. But,
then, the " gallant men" whose spirit is to be vindi-
cated—do they stnnd the brunt and take the conse-
quences, like the Chelmsford shoemaker, when he
resists the five shillings and sixpence rate ?
0, dear, no : Colonel Thomas gives a copy con-
fidentially to a dear friend ; and he, either directly, or
through some other dear confidential friend, places it
in the hands of the editor of the standard, who prints
it without " Colonel Thomas's authority, or even his
knowledge ;" does it on his own " sole responsibility ;"
and runs no risk, we are very sure. of finding that re-
sponsibility at all inconvenient. The two thieves in
the fable, of whom one truly swore that he had not got
the stolen leg of mutton, and the other as truly swore
that he did not take it, seem to have suggested the in-
genious division of responsibility by which one party
escapes the penalty of publishing the correspondence,
and the other avoids that of a violation of confidence.
We know not whether the military or the editorial
profession has most reason to congratulate itself on
having members capable of so clever an arrangement.
Toryism is the same throughout—from beginning
to end, and from top to bottom. It grasps at every.
thing ; lets go nothing ; skulks, evades, fawns, rn
sults ; and covets at once the credit of the confessor
and the gains of the pickpocket. It is an unsightly
fungus on the trunk of humanity—a noisome ulcer on
the British character. In both Colonel Thomas's let-
ters he avoids giving any opinion on the indecent lan-
guage quoted from Mr. Roby's speech. He says the
expressions are quoted "as most insulting and disre-
spectful towards the Queen," but with that dry fact he
leaves them. They do not move him. He does not con-
demn them. He is not indignant that he should be
supposed capable of listening quietly to the infamous
scurrility. He has not a word of reprobation for it. He
has only a panegyric for the scandalous orator. Colonel
Thomas's eulogy on Mr. Roby's speech for its " high
spirit of loyalty" must be taken either as a Tory
joke, intended to be understood between himself
and his correspondent, or as a proof that the intel-
lect which is adequate to the command of a regi-
ment may fail most lamentably in characterising the
tenor and spirit of a speech which is yet so plain
as to be " level to the lowest understanding." We
are surprised that Colonel Thomas does not mention his
deafness. Very deaf must he and his brother officers
be not to have heard the most highly-wrought passage
in the speech, a passage on which the speaker, as a
Conservative orator, evidently piqued himself ; a pas-
sage which the Conservatives present heard, and
which they marked, from sentence to sentence, by re-
peated laughs and repeated plaudits. A military man,
and especially one entrusted with command, should have
quicker senses. Were the civil contest which has
been threatened to break out, this auditory obtuseness
might fail to distinguish between " God save Queen
Victoria," and " Long live King Ernest." We do
not like deaf officers who do " not hear particular
expressions." The imputation on the report of Mr.
Roby's speech, both by Colonel Thomas and the
Standard, is very pitiful. Do the Tory journals falsify
the speeches of their own orators, and interpolate them
with insults on the Sovereign ? The filthy calumny in
question lies between their orators and their journalists.
Atleast that is wheraColonel Thomas and the Standard
have put it. We are again reminded of the thieves
with the leg of mutton in the fable. But the trick
will not serve. Let the Standard consult its own files ;
let it refer to Mr. Roby's own latter ; the paltry pre-
text comes too late. The offensive words are avowed
beyond the possibility of mystification. Mr.
Roby's vanity has precluded his accommo-
dating Colonel Thomas and the Standard at
the expense of some nameless reporter. There stands
the dunghill, certified under his own dirty hands, and
the stains of its filth are on all the parties. The Stan-
dard evidently, if not purposely, misinterprets the terms
of Lord Hill's reprimand, in representing it as prohibit-
ing any attendance of military men at public meetings.
The words arc " party meetings, in their military capa-
city." The distinction makes all the difference between
this case and that of other officers to whom the Standard
alludes. Nor is this the point of the censure. It is
directed against the fact that Colonel Thomas and
the other officers in question have placed themselves
in the mortifying predicament of being obliged to
confess that they lent their presence to a meeting of
a strong party character, at which expressions were
uttered wnich they are unprepared to prove the
tropriety of towards the person of their Sovereign.
Only a disloyal Tory symposium could have betrayed
them into such a scrape. And, even then, they might
have been raised instead of lowered, in consequence of
their presence, had they protested, as English gentlemen
might have been expected to protest, against the foul
ispersion. By this censure Lord Hill has ailvanta•
geously distinguished himself from other authorities who
are not less bound to enforce decency in their subordi-
nates. Why are not the clergy of Ashton, Roch-
dale, and Canterbury reprimanded also ? Is Dr.
Russell less culpable than Colonel Thomas ? Can
any military irregularities be more offensive than
those of the Bristol clergymen,
which have com-
pelled the Lord-Lieutenant of the county to abser.4
himself even from their professedly charitable meet-
, ings, in consequence of the insulting language used
towards the
Queen ? The Dissenter is made to feel,
to his cost, that the Church has sonic power of discip-
line. It can levy fine and inflict imprisonmentfor a
five-and-sixpenny offence against the pocket. We may
not expect Tory Bishops to protect the character of
a Queen, who is not the sworn slave of their faction,
with the same vigour that is put forth for five-and-six-
pence. But episcopal charges, and circulars, and
speeches, do afford opportunities for the expression of
opinion and the administration of rebuke. Those op-
portunities are not altogether neglected when any lack
is evinced of profound respect for the mitre. And it
may be thought, by the laity, that there is no pro-
priety in putting the army very much a-head of
the Church in decency. The Bishops have waited till
a Tory soldier has set them the example of enforcing
good manners towards the Sovereign. That is, waiting
quite long enough to show their pious humility, which
presses not into the front rank even for the rebuke of
seditious ribaldry, and its quiescent or applauding recep-
tion. How much longer will their reverend Lordships
wait ? How much longer tolerate the irreverence which
clerical faction hurls, not at themselves indeed, because
their sympathy is assumed, but only at the head of their
Church ? It ia surely an anomaly that impurities
should repose quietly under the shadow of a Cathedral