The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-18 00:00:00

public ; and t hat conduct which he regrets in his con-
stituents is a manifest dereliction of duty him. He
must have known, or ought to have known, those
facts long ago, as well as the Manchester manufac-
turers. The decay of the Nottingham hosiery was at
least known more than a twelve-month ago, and it was
his duty then to have warned the Parliament, in a
season of tranquillity, of the certain consequences of
continuing the Corn-laws. He admits, too, that he
had an opportunity, but he preferred silence," because
his pretty long Parliamentary experience had made
him judge" that to keep the public and the Parliament
in the dark as to these facts was the best way to serve
the cause of the Corn-law Abolitionists. He may
have served that cause by hi 4 avowed silence, but he
has sacrificed his own reputation. We cannot acquit
Mr. THomsorr. He either knew the facts which the
Manchester Chamber of Commerce has brought to
light, or he did not. if he did not, his ignorance is
wholly inexcusable ; if he did, his concealing them is
wholly unjustifiable. He is largely paid for his la-
bours in this field ; the Manchester manufacturers are
not ; and every word of reproach he utters against the
inactivity and backwardness of his constituents, falls on
himself with the weight of condemnation. They may
have neglected their interest, but he has neglected his
duty.

We trespass on no conventional secrets, and are
guilty of no professional discourtesy, in speaking of
Mr. HENRY GEORGE WARD, Member for Sheffield.
as the Editor of the Weekly Chronicle, for h^ courts'
notoriety in that character. Not cont,:„, withspeak-
ing from the Tribune to the
lc~he aspires tosway
• .
the Press. His ambition is so lofty, that he employs
a double ladder to
:each the top. He is both CAN-
NING and Cc.;Si3ETT united, and is to outshine the
former loy his tongue, and the latter by his pen. We
find it necessary to remind him, that if he will be great,
he must be just. But for the character and weight,
however, which his name has imported to the Weekly
Chronicle, we should not have noticed its lucubrations.
By an accident, we did not see his last Sunday's
production till it was too late yesterday to notice his
attack on The Sun. He heads an article, " INFAN-
TICIDE AND THE SUN," as if we had advocated an
abominable doctrine, which we, almost alone, had the
courage to stigmatize. After calumniating Mr. OAST.
LER and Mr. STEPHENS, because the latter is re-
ported to have calumniated the Poor-law Commis-
sioners, the Member for Sheffield thus proceeds to
calumniate us :
We see with deep regret in The Sun of Tuesday, a pas-
sage implying a belief in the monstrous assertion of Mr.
Stephens, that " Marcus" was, in point of fact, a Poor-law
Commissioner in disguise, " which (says our Contemporary
gravely) we did not before know." The Sun then adds, that
this execrable individual ought, at once, to be torn to pieces
by the people, and that a similar fate should be reserved for
the Government, which stands between them and their prey.
We blush while we read these things, and reflect that it is
in one of the Leading Journals of a civilized country that they
are tobe found. Such gross ignorance and prejudice might
have been overlooked in the Operative or the-Northern Star.
but they are inexcusable in a Paper of higher pretensions, and
The Sun will find that it has much to make amends for in the
judgment of all rational men.

To make the misrepresentation apparent, we must
again place before our readers the passage of The Sun
referred to, as follows :

" So much for the ignorance of the Chronicle's Reporter,
on which alone he condemr,a the language and ignorance of
others. Mr. Stephens, also referred to that book in his ser-
mon at Ashton, as reported in our Paper on Friday, and he
gave us, horrifying as his statement was, no information con-
cerning it, except that it was written by a Poor-law Com
missioner, which we did not before possess. If that be so, we
can find in his proper and overwhelming indignation almost
an excuse for the thrilling curse which he then denounced
against those who should obey the Moloch law of such a demon
as the author. It is incumbent on the Government, we can
assure it, if it would not excite in the mass of the community
a sentiment of horror and detestation which no pen nor tongue
can describe, to cleanse itself with the Poor-law Commission-
ers from the supposition that it ever countenanced, en-
couraged, or was privy to the publication of this murder-
recommending book. We are for equal justice, and if Mr.
Stephens is to be punished for his language, without reference
to the state of mind of his auditory and its cause, this Poor-
law Commissioner, and any Ministers who countenance him,
ought at once to be torn in pieces."

It will be seen, therefore, that in reply to the
Chronicle Reporter, who had charged some persons
with credulity and others with wilful deceit, in speak-
ing of the existence of such a book, we said that Mr.
STEPHENS had given us no information concerning
it, we did not before possess, except that it was written
by a Poor-law Commissioner, adding an " if," to show
that we did not adopt it. We (lid not use the word
" know," or the • phrase falsely marked as a quota-
tion from our Journal. If we had implied what
the ex-Member for St. Alban's ascribes to us, he
ought to have done us the justice to state, that on the
next day, we distinctly declared that we never believed
Mr. STEPHENS' calumny, nor do we now believe Mr.
WARD'S calumny, which connects Mr. STEPHENS'
name with the authorship of the notorious work. Bo-
fore Mr. WARD ventured on censure, he should have
read what was written, and do all men the justice not
to misrepresent them. That he has adopted a version
of our remarks from some careless club lounger, is
pretty evident by ascribing to us, in the concluding
part of the first paragraph, sentiments and language
which bear no resemblance to ours. It may be a fault to
be over-credulous concerning Poor-law Commissioners,
but is a crime to calumniate and misrepresent, and we
recommend Mr. HENRY GEORGE WARD not to waste
his blushes on us, but keep them for his own sins.
It may be ignorance and credulity, let us add, to
believe that such a book as the one in question could
have proceeded from any person of high station—but
let us tell all ignorant superficial pretenders to a know-
ledge of the social sciences, that its doctrines are fair
deductions from some prevalent theories of population,
and some Acts of the Legislature. Abominable, as
those doctrines may be, they are merciful and gentle-
manly compared to the practice of the Legislature, of
which Mr. WARD is a Member, of slowly starving
grown persons out of existence, from sordid motives, by
prohibiting them from receiving the bounties which
Providence places within their reach. When the

work of MARCUS fell under our notice, we at once

stigmatized it as one of the necessary horrors of the
Corn- laws. Our Legislators generally adopt Mr.
MALTHus's one-sided theory of population, for that
gentlemen wholly overlooked the increase of produc-
tive power which takes place in a compound ratio
as population advances, so that one person's labour
now supports several in comfort, and while they adopt
that false theory they take measures to limit and cur-

tail the supply of food, which no art and industry,
according to MALTHUS, can produce in sufficient and
continued abundance. It may be credulous in us to
believe, that the class of men who embrace his
theory and enact Corn-laws would carry out the
consequences of his theory and their practice to their
legitimate conclusion, as is done by MARCUS, but we
see in our belief no such quality. MARCUS is a hu-
mane politician compared to the authors of the Corn-
laws. The fact, we believe, is, that the superficial
thinkers who constitute our empirical politicians,
have been astounded at seeing the practical conse-
quences of their own pet theories and schemes made
palpable to the world ; but we rejoice to find, in their
abuse of us, the evidence that some of them are yet
ingenuous enough to blush at the horrid consequences,
now they are disclosed, of their own errors. We hope
that these ignorant pretenders, and Mr. WARD, if he
be one of them, will reflect and amend.

From our Queen's Bench report, it will be seen
that the Parish of St. George, Hanover-square, on
the application of Mr. DOANE, at the rising of the
Court yesterday, obtained a rule nisi, calling upon the
Justices of Middlesex to show cause why a writ of
certiorari should not issue, requiring them to bring
into Court all the orders and proceedings of the
Justices connected with the County-rate made by
them on the first of last November.

We have also to direct the attention of our readers
to the report of the 141iddiesex County-day Meeting of
the Justices, a perusal of which will show the inhabi-
tants of the county the advantage of irresponsible
management of the County-rates. According to the
statement made by the Hon. FREDERICK BYNG, it
appears that the original estimate for the Hanwell
Asylum, for 600 patients, was one hundred and
:ti.-ut.).-three thousand pounds ; but tile actual expen•
daure for the Asylum for half the number of patients
—viz., for 300—was one hundred and twenty-two