The Sun.
London, England, 1830-02-01 00:00:00

which had produced a greater change in property than
the Revolution of 16S8, or even the great civil wars.
The Duke's Government rested en public opinion. It
was known that he was no favourite at Court; and
the Aristocracy held aloof from him Sir James
hoped, they ef 're, he would tale timely warning, and
secure to himself the affections of the people, by
Rtttb.lition to those measures of economy and re-
trenchtnent which were recommended to him by
rreetings such as that he no* had the honour to
address."

What a satire upon our glorious Constitu-
tion to say that a Minister is disliked by the
Court, disliked by the aristocracy, and only held
in regard by the people ! The truth is) that the
harmonious play of otir Constitution depends
entirely on the abandonment of all attempt to
pt-otett tht people. The King can do no good
of himself, but he can do mischief. The aristo-
cracy can do no good of themselves, but they
can do mischief. If a patriot King were de-
sirous of protecting the people from spoliation,
the wheels of Parliament would stand still. If,
again, a majority of the aristocracy were desirous
of enforcing measures of economy and retrench-
ment, they would have the Court against them.
The Court, in ordinary times, can always secure
its share of the good things, by coquetting be-
tween two parties. The late King always car-
ried his point by playing off one public man
against another. But we seem now to have ar-
rived at the natural termination of this wretched
syntetn. Things have come to that pass that
the situation of Minister is no longer desir-
able. If, as Sir James Graham says, the Court
is inimical to the Duke of Wellington, his
Grace may hold that enmity at defiance, and
boldly say, my situation at present is any
thing but enviable—if you can find men will-
ing to conduct the vessel of the State through
the shoals of the present period, take these men
in God's name, and on their heads be the re-
sponsibility. What gives power to the Duke
of Wellington at present is the utter impossi-
bility of continuing longer the corrupt system,
and the necessity for measures of reform and re-
trenchment to save us from a convulsion. The
question is not now what will please the Court,
and the Aristocracy—they have had their day ;
but which measure of justice to the nation can
preserve all—Court, Aristocracy and People—
from a common calamity. We live in eventful
times, and the signs' of which it is not difficult
to read. We have no doubt that the Duke of
Wellington has read them correctly. In ordinary
times he could only govern this country as his
predecessors have governed it—by corruption
and subserviency—by lending himself to the
transaction between Court and Aristocracy, to
the effect that, if you do not baulk us we will
not baulk you, and the people must bear all.
But this policy would now ruin him, and ruin
those for whose sakes he should enter on it.
He has already reaped laurels and wealth—he
does not retain office for selfish ends. Ile has
office on his own terms—he may act boldly and
fearlessly ; for who would dare to attempt, in
the present state of the country, what would be
detrimental to its interests.—Morning Chron.
The Evening Paper which devotes itself to
the service of the few and insignificent public
men who once called themselves Tories, and
who now profess themselves Reformers, defends
their consistency and sincerity by the assertion
that " the body who rule the House of Com-
mons is very easily described—the Borough-
mongers, they who inherit and they who sell
seats." The defence is insufficient, unless it can
be shown that " the Boroughmongers, they
who inherit and they who sell seats," have in-
creased in number or in power since the period
when the same persons who now advocate reform
were the zealous and determined opponents of
that measure. To show this, however, we
believe impossible. Yet this lame defence
is all .that an ingenious advocate can bring
forward on behalf the Tory deserters
to the . standard of revolution. He says
much more certainly, but all that he says beyond
this is not defence, but recrimination. We must
remind our contemporary that recrimination,
when resorted to as a defence, differs but little
from a confession of guilt. We know that we
need not remind any genuine Tory that it is.un-
:
worthy of him and of his cause to emulate the
qualities or to imitate the conduct he condemns
in other men. Man is by nature fallible. Human
institutions are of necessity imperfect ; but we
are not thence to infer the certain declension and
ruin of our country. Gradual decay and final
destruction would be, however, the certain con-
sequences of a state of society in which error
could be successfully pleaded as the defence of
error—apostasy of apostacy.—Morning Post.

The Courier, which would have the world
believe it to be the veritable " Sir Oracle" upon
all matters of official import, every now and
then lets out the very minor source of authority
from which its unauthentic nothings proceed.
Of this we have a specimen in our contempo-
rary's columns of Saturday, in which a nervous,
feverish, kind of allusion is made to what we
had quoted the day before as the late Mr. Tier-
ney's statements of what were the onerous na
ture of the duties belonging to the high-sounding
office of Treasurer of the Navy. The Courier
feels quite scandalised that it should be thought
this peculiar office is a sinecure ; yet takes at
the same time rather a singular mode of dis-
-1 proving it, viz., by stating that it is united with
the Presidentship of the Board of Trade, tha,
the joint salaries of the two offices may make
a competent provision for one great officer of
State, which either of them alone would not.
Now this is "backing one's friends" with a
vengeance, and flavours exceedingly of that sage
maxim, which accommodates the office to the man,
rather than the man to the office. It also brings
down modern patriotism more nearly and merely
to the standard of Cocker than the class of
office-bearers themselves (those, at least, of the
higher grade) are for the most part willing to
acknowledge. So the ground on which the tax-
ridden people of this country are to be told that
one sinecure office is defensible is, that it may
serve to swell the emoluments of another. But
we are better friends to office than the Courier,
after all. We contend that the office of Trea-
surer of the Navy ought not to be a sinecure ;
but that the due supervision of the receipts and
outlay of the immense sums required for the
British Navy call for the whole time and atten-
tion of a responsible officer; and that it is for
want of this supervision, and by transferring the
responsibility to minor hands, that so much
money has been stolen, lost, and wasted, in this
very department. The duties, of course, must
be widely different in times of war and peace ;
and we see, therefore, no reason why this office
(like another, with the nature of which the Cou-
rier, probably, is still better acquainted) should
not be paid by a war and peace salary. At all
events, that it should be kept alive as a decep-
tion, and as a kind of make-weight to some-
thing' else, is what we wholly condemn. If a
Treasurer of the Navy is not wanted, let the