The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-14 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

We cannot too strongly impress on Liberal Mem-
bers the necessity of their being in their places to-mor-
row (Wednesday) as well as on the 20th, as the Tories
will be sure to attempt some manceuvre if they find the
Reformers unprepared. We have heard of one or
two Members who still remain in the country enjoying
the sports of the field, in the belief that nothing of
importance will occur until after the recess. We trust
they will take a more correct view of matters.
This delusion may be attended with serious conse-
quences to the cause. We repeat, that no Member
who does not wish to place the Reform cause in peril
ought, at a time like this, to trust to the forbearance
of the Tories. Indeed, after the note of battle on the
choice of a Speaker, given in the Times of yesterday,
no Liberal Member can he justified in pleading igno-
rance of the absolute necessity for his attendance in
his place to-morrow. " If," said the Times, " the
Conservatives should be disposed to give battle
at the earliest moment, they cannot want a pre-
text for it upon the choice of a Speaker. The ex-
ample of theii opponents, and the merits of the indi-
vidual whose authority in the Chair the members most
wish to perpetuate, will furnish abundant grounds for
a division." And this is the prelude to a long and vi-
rulent bill of indictment, drawn up with much indus-
try, with an evident view to stimulate Tory zeal on
the occasion alluded to. If after this warning Liberal
Members choose to absent themselves from their places
great will be their responsibility. Whoever has a con-
stituency for whom he cares, may rest assured that the
failure to attend to-morrow will on no account be for-
given him, if his absence should be the cause of the
success of any Tory manoeuvre. Again, then, we re-
peat, be in your places to-morrow ; there can be no
excuse for absence.—Morning Chronicle.
We have already remarked on a veracious article in
the last number of the Quarterly Review on Lord
John Russell's speech to the electors of Stroud, and
we now call attention to a letter from the Marquis of
Tavistock on the same subject. The truth is the
Tories are at their wits ends, and very savage. They
cannot bear any reference to the past, and they despair
of the future. Lord John Russell admirably exposed

their misgovernment, and the consequences of their
misgovernment of the country in this speech, which
has been widely and most usefully circulated, and the
Tories, therefore, wincing under its infliction, have
summoned (unless report greatly err) their pensioned
ex- Secretary of the Admiralty from his snug and rent-
free retreat in the Royal Palace of Kensington to
draw up their defence. No one doubts the talents
or Tory disposition of Mr. Croker, and he has ac-
cordingly done his best for his old friends and asso-
ciates. And if this be the best, how bad must be
their cause ! How bad and hopeless must that cause be
which can be defended only by vulgar abuse, juggling
recrimination, and palpable mis-statements. We refer
those who doubt to the article itself, where they will
find ample proofs and examples of this Tory method
of reasoning ; they will there discover that the Whigs
are not only responsible for the war with France, but
also for being Jacobins, and for having always opposed
it : that it is Sir Robert Peel who has mitigated the
penal code, and not the Whigs : that the Whigs did
not abolish slavery and the slave-trade, but a certain
Sir 'William Dolben : that the Tories are the true
Simon Pure abolishers of places, and the Whigs the
creators of them : that it is not to the Whigs, but to
Mr. Sturges Bourne and Lord Castlereagh that the
country is indebted for the best parts of the amended
Poor-law Act : in fine, that the Whigs have not
" common honesty; common courage, or even common
sense ;" all these qualities, together with truth, can-
dour, and refined language, being monopolized by Mr.
Croker and the Tories. This is further established by
LordTavistock's letter, which convicts them only of mis-
quoting his speech, and misrepresenting all the facts
respecting the borough of Tavistock. We will not
attempt to add a single word to Lord Tavistock's clear
exposition ; but the whole tale respecting the repre-
sentat.on of Tavistock and Stroud, with which Mr.
Croker and the Tories have enlightened their readers,
is so characteristic of the spirit and truthfulness of
their absurd assertions, that it is a pity they should
not be made more public, and the Tories, therefore,
must accept our labours in their service. They are
pleased, in the first place, to taunt Lord John Russell
with " being reduced to the painful necessity of de-
scending from the rank of a county Member to that
of a borough" (p. 519), and then, with a pleasing
forgetfulness and consistency, to taunt him, within
less than three pages, with Stroud being. only " a
PRETENDED borough, extending over a space of
country twelve miles long and eleven mile wide, con-
taining fourteen parishes, and a population of 41,000,
souls" (page 521). Surely the nearest approach to a
cdunty, and the least " descent," is to an independent
borough half as large as some of our counties, and
which would cover some eight or ten Tamworths.
They then misquote Lord Tavistock, and proceed to
attack him upon their own misquotation ; but we leave
this to Lord Tavistock's reply, and proceed with
Croker the Candid, whose appetite for misrepresen-
tation, growing by what it feeds on, ventures to as-
sert that—
" At the second Reform Parliament it was discovered
that Lord John was not secure in the county (Devonshire)
seat, and that if some timely precautions were not taken he
might be reduced to the necessity of taking refuge in the
abjured borough of Tavistock. But so early and so fla-
grant an instance of nomination was too much even for
Whig audacity, and it was evaded in name, and executed
in substance, with Whig dexterity. Colonel Fox was
quietly removed from Tavistock, and returned for Stroud,
where he sat for three months, as what is expressively called
a toarming-pan, till the defeat of Lord John Russell in
Devon obliged Colonel Fox, as had been foreseen, to make
the convenient vacancy by which Lord John got into Par-
liament for Stroud" (page 521).
Proud of this dexterous discovery, Mr. Croker goes
on to say—
,' THESE FACTS, if there were no other proof, would
satisfy our readers of the justice of those praises which
Lord John lavishes on himself and his Colleagues as to
the design and spirit in which the Reform Bill was framed,
and in which it has been executed" (page 521).
Now, these are Mr. Croker's and the Tories' facts,
and thete their reasonings and imputations ; but what
are the real facts—not the Quarterly Review facts—
but the plain matter of facts of the case ? Why-1.
That Lord John was returned for Devonshire in the
second Reformed Parliament. 2. That Col. Fox had no
thoughts of standing for Stroud until just before the elec-
tion, when Mr. liven, the late Member, unexpectedly
declined standing. 3. That Colonel Fox was then in-
vited to stand for Stroud by a deputation from that
borough, and had no communication whatever on the
subject either with Lord John Russell or any of his
family or connections. 4. That Lord John Russell
ret
did not lose his seat for Devonshire until a subsequent
election,
urmneodrefoiritasttz Stroud. 5.
Thatmonths
after
Colonel
Fox and
was until
neither
the Russell family, nor indeed any other family what-
ever, have any controlling influence in the borough
(county ?) of Stroud, and that Lord John has been
twice returned for these 14 parishes and 41,000 inha-
bitants, free of all expense. These are the plain and
notorious facts of the case ; and Mr. Croker and the
Tories know them
just as well as we do. But per-
haps we ought not to be too severe upon them, for
with such a cause to defend as the Tory misgovern-
ment of fifty long years, who might not be driven to
subterfuge, evasion, and invention, especially when
Bishops Phillpots and Murray are at hand to give
not only praise and absolution, but imitation and ex-
ample ?---Morning Chronicle.
We have resumed in another column our abstract of
the evidence given before the Committee on the Ficti-
tious Votes registered and polled in Ireland. As far as
the district of Belfast is concerned, our former extracts
will have shown but too plainly by what equivocal
generation the rank heat of the registry has vivified
these mud-born votes, and spread their pestilent swarms
over the natural constituency. Our extracts of to-day
will exhibit a very similar process in the smaller
borough of Clonmel—a place where it appears (not-
withstanding all the struggles of the Radicals
to show a smaller result) that a number of voters
amounting to between 50 and 60—that is, more than
a tenth of the whole constituency—were registered
in 1832 as 101. householders, the value of whose houses
ranged only from 31., 41., or 51., to 71., 81., and 91. per
annum, independently of many freemen who, though
! perhaps properly admitted to register, as possessing the