The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-25 00:00:00

BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION IN THE CABINET.
MR. GLADSTONE AND THE " TIMES."

( From the Liverpool Mail.)
Is there no modern Burke ? Is there not one plucky
fellow among all the six hundred and fifty odd "honour-
able members," or " scoundrels," according to Dan
O'Connell, among either or both, as the case may be—
who has the moral courage and the English manliness to
come forward and impeach a Jesuit Chancellor and a
jobbing Administration of bribery and corruption more
barefaced and more demonstrable than the worst dis-
closures before recent election committees ?

Are we jesting or romancing ? Far from it. We
distinctly and fearlessly assert—all jesuitical, sancti-
monious, and patriotic pretensions to the contrary not-
withstanding—that never within the present generation
has there been a more flagrant, no, nor, so far as time
permits, a more successful attempt at "buying
up " on behalf and in support of the Aberdeen
Administration and their monkish Chancellor's
Budget of minute mosaic-work, the sweet voices of the
"leading liberal" and whig-radical organs, everywhere,
and especially in our great cities and towns. The hugest
"sop " to traitors to the public weal, is that to the Lon-
don Times; but the Liverpool Mercury, the Manches-
ee Guardiao, the Leeds Mercury, and all such like
S,icinian, or Dissenterised prints are to receive incredible
bribes and boons. Yes, Tittlebat Titmouse, with his
windfall of ten thousand a year, was nothing but a poor
fool to some of them. Their mouths are to be stopped,
on the puerile principle of "Shut your eyes, but by all
means open your mouths, and see what Gladstone will
send you." We proceed to the proofs of our own grave
impeachment.
We take first and foremost the case of that vile and
most unprincipled print the London Times. One, at
least, of its present or former staff holds office under the
Aberdeen Administration. The tortuous tactics it has
long pursued, in respect to the taxes on knowledge (and
all knowledge, advertisements included, as we challenge
any to disprove, is knowledge, business knowledge,
practical knowledge), and, therefore, useful knowledge)
has long excited the disgust and scorn of every intelli-
gent man, who comprehends the whole question. Well,
Thursday week, the House of Commons by a decided
majority, by an unexpected doubled vote, by an
additional 100 voters, formally decided that the
advertisement duty ought to be repealed. No
doubt of it. Next morning, the leading journal, in
a most lugubrious article, which caused many a laugh
at its trembling monopoly, ventured to " congratulate"
the public on the repeal, "accordingly." The following
morning, Saturday, there was an evidently reluctant
admission :—" We do not for a moment doubt that with
the duty abolished there will be much more advertising."
But this was, seemingly, at a later hour, accompanied
with a paraded list of "factious" Tory members, who
had impiously resisted pledges as to the repeal of any
tax last spring ; but who (pursuant to Earl Derby's
pledge last Christmas) deemed the advertisement duty
ought to be abolished at the earliest moment
the revenue would permit. Monday morning came,
and with it stranger, spasmodic, and most sig-
nificant " remonstrances," avowedly addressed to
parliamentary greenhorns in general, accompanied with
still savager denunciations of Milner Gibson and
Advertisement-duty Repealers in particular. No doubt
the venal Times knew well what all this daringly
inconsistent staff was designed to settle, to wit, an alli-
ance, offensive and defensive, against all opponents of
the Aberdeen Ministry. Tuesday morning came, and
the precious plot began to come out ; true, the universal
press of the three kingdoms, already relieved by a vote of
the house, was to be cajoled, and, if possible, SILENCED,
beyond all question, its more important organs were to
be BRIBED ! Instead of giving the whole newspaper press
that entire relief from advertisement duty, formally
passed by the Commons House, a Loyola Chancellor of
the Exchequer had the wicked temerity to withhold part
of the promised sum, like Ananias and Sapphira of old,
for selfish and basest uses. Instead of conceding the
whole vote of the house, in favour of the whole press,
this sanctimonious Chancellor withheld a part —a
third part—wherewith to bribe the organs advocating
opiinons. Mr. Gladstone, to favour some
dozen prints, deliberately proposes to inflict on
hundreds of other prints all the vexatious enactments
and all the costly machinery for a duty threefold as pro-
ductive. But he knew his men. On the next morning,
Tuesday, there appeared the " leading" journal's most
fulsome thanks and unmeasured eulogies for all these
well-understood " bribes." Like Puff in the play—
audaciously supplicating a higher power to sanctify
whatever means they may use to encompass their ends
-it disgustingly falls to prayers, and with mock de-
votedness, exclaims :—" We cannot but congratulate
the British people on the great enterprise, the rare op-
portunities, and the high favour of Heaven—to which
they owe these great, we had almost said these unex-
pected, reductions from their hereditary burdens 1"

Now, not to pursue this revolting theme much farther,
we simply quote a mendacious pretence which, within
ten lines, precedes all this wretched stuff :—" With re-
gard to the abolition of the duty on supplements, it is
about the last thing we should have thought ourselves
of asking."
Here is an emphatic, distinct, brazen denial of a boon
—or bribe—long sought by the Times. Its exact import
and money value cannot but be well understood by every
Government ; inasmuch as the first duty of their Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer is to master all recent Blue
Books on taxation. Bearing all this in mind, we beg to
introduce to our readers an astute " lawyer," he de-
scribes himself—a lyarister, we believe—placed by old
Walter at the head of the Times. Well, what says he,
Mr. Mowbray Morris, to the Parliamentary committee
on newspapers t
Q. 2016. You are connected with the Times?
A. Yes, I am the Manager of it.
Q. 2028. You say the " Times" paid 66,000/. during
the last year (1850) for Stamps altogether ; how much
of that was paid for Stamps on the Supplements ?
A. 16,6661. odd for Halfpenny Supplements. But
that is not the whole amount. Sometimes the "Times"
publishes double Supplements, &c.
Q. 2235. You expressed a fear that the removal of
the Stamp would lead the public to patronise inferior
papers, &c. ?
A. Yns.

Q. 2226. Whatever was done with the Stamp on the
Paper itself, you think that the Stamp on the Supple-
ment decidedly ought to come off?
A. YES ? I enter my protest against it !! !
Lives there a creature worthy the name of an intelli-
gent human being ?—lives there any but born fools, who
cannot detect at a glance, see " how the cat jumps ?"
Here have we given chapter and verse, from Parliamen-
tary records, proving that, remembering how constantly
the Times issued double supplements, its cost of 16,6661.
for single supplements approaches 25,0001. per annum
for both kinds—to say nothing of another 25,0001. indi-
rectly thrown into its lap !

NEWSPAPER SUPPLEMENTS.

TO THE HON. THE COMMONS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.

The humble Petition of Charles Anthony, Proprietor of
the Ihreford Times Newspaper,
Sheweth,—That your petitioner, in common with the
proprietors of the newspaper press of the -United King-
dom, heard with gratitude the proposition of her Ma-
jesty's Chancellor of the Exchequer to repeal the half-
penny stamp on supplements to newspapers ; but that
they afterwards with surprise and concern learned, from
the official copy of the resolutions, that the said repeal
would apply only to supplements " containing wholly
advertisements."

That such limitation could only have arisen from the
circumstance of the right hon. gentleman being unac-
quainted with newspaper compilation ; inasmuch as it
would practically exclude nearly every newspaper in the
kingdom, with the solitary exception of the London
Tights—(thereby giving to the proprietors of that paper
an exclusive privilege, to the damage and injury of the
rest of the London and provincial proprietary : a civil
wrong which your petitioner sincerely believes was never
contemplated by the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the
Exchequer)—not any other publication having regularly
a surplus number of advertisements equivalent to the
filling of such supplement.
That the compiler or editor has no control whatever
over the number, length, or quantity of his advertise-
ments ; one day a few hours before publication he might
have two or three columns ; the next day five or six ;
the next ten or twelve ; and vice versa ; therefore, it is
obvious that constraining him to fill his supplement
with advertisements wholly, would cause inextricable
confusion, in fact would be totally impracticable. On the
contrary, the news columns are entirely under the con;
trol of the editor ; he can shorten or nthFn t em. a
their extent.
sequently, on these reasonable
will, the fluctuating number of advertisements
ehnotnoaun ra bdiiinescflhruoeetunisocenintgoof
That your petitioner con
or description of matter he
halfpenny stamp to all
tellyseerfosession, business, trade, or
news-
paperaapnpdlyp rtahscuetpi capirelp:rot
supplement ; discretion
tsuonfdwtshbatsoev.e,dle:ping free and lin.
uyadgutinrion to which the news-
responsibility, is as fairly
eplstfeniehaiattpaetvi
news-
paper
lrenreiedgfiest
ot,deoimrrtatobsarii
nnss
any
nttitthpyohp:artnotehutesfehnewr ndeesnertepe,daip.atpor atpuimrl
calling.

Yoiir petitioner therefore prays your honourable
house to grant the said unrestricted repeal, thereby
doing equal justice to all newspaper proprietors, allow-
ing the supplement, in the apt and forcible language of
the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer "to go
free through the post, as part and parcel of the news-
paper." The effect of such repeal your petitioner con-
scientiously believes will be to strengthen and elevate
the character of the imperial press ; to extend its sphere
of intellectual and moral influence""; and to afford in-
creased and useful information as well as rational enjoy-
ment to the great body of her Majesty's faithful
subjects.
And
house.n(l y)ur petitioner will ever pray for your honour-
able

CHARLES ANTHONY.

KILMAINHAM HOSPITAL.—A Parliamentary paper, in
return to a motion from Mr. Butt, contains copies of
the charter of King Charles 11., incorporating the Go•
vernors of Kilmainham Hospital ; of the fresh charters
granted by King George 11. to the governors of the hos-
pital ; of the Royal letter of King Charles 11., dated
19th of April, 1681, assigning a portion of the Royal
demesne for the building of the hospital ; and of the
warrant of the Lord-Lieutenant and Privy Council of
Ireland, dated the 23d of December, 1631 ; of the Royal
warrant of her Gracious Majesty, dated the 16th of De-
cember, 1845, regulating the establishment or the hos-
pital, and of the correspondence between the Rightrnors of
Hon.
Fox Maule, late Secretary-at-War, and the gove
the hospital, prohibiting the further admission of dis-
charged soldiers.