The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-13 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The appointment of Mr. Shell to the office of Commissioner
of Greenwich Hospital, in the place of the late Mr. Creevey,
has been censured by the Standard. Before proceeding to
notice the remarks of our Contemporary on Mr. Sheil's ap-
pointment, we have to observe that there are two departments
department. The Com-
missioners belong to the civil department. The other Corn-
Sir Henry Parnell, Lord Duncannon, Ed-
ward are
is overpaid ; or the system of the establishment
und George Tierney, Esq.
appointment may be objected to because it is unnecessary, ,
iwnarthdeiHiaons,pkietalL, aocmkielrit,aryEr:cinid, a civil
An
itforms a part may be objected'to. We have never
Hospital ought to be reduced as nhlcriT;:riesany, declaration that a Commissioner-
issi the complaints of the
have we ever heard from any of them to the
nor ha
shooilfrei
iawpbredioicifafcrhuGosmirete
et
W , now objections
answer the institution is naval,
TIC iiistitaliZ
Standard : —lst. . a naval one ; what ex.
bue.r.ithe office is not in the naval but civil department of it. If
Standard wishes a reform of the institution—to have all
the
offices filled exclusively by sal ors—that is another affair. The
Administration merely continues the institution on the
present
amount of salary..
footing on which it has always been continued. 2dly. " Mr.
Shell is a barrister by profession, representative of an Irish
p 'erica has Mr. Shed?" We
inland county, and there is no reason to suppose that he ever
saw the sea, except in crossing St. George's Channel. He
is not even an English lawyer, should legal knowledge bo
deemed a recommendation ; nor even a very eminent Irish
lawyer, could a knowledge of Irish law aid him in the
management of the Hospital estates, which certainly it
could not. He has never had an opportunity of mani-
festing his administrative talents, in any department of busi-
ness." We are not aware that a knowledge of English
law or Irish law is an indispensable qualification for the ap-
pointment ; and we will thank the Standard to name the Com-
missioners in times past who have been named for their legal
qualifications. But it so happens that Mr. Shell might have
justly claimed high professional honours in Ireland, and it
would be strange if an eminent Irish lawyer should be found
without sufficient legal knowledge for a Commissionership
of Greenwich Hospital. If an 'lrish lawyer; be no English
lawyer, an English lawyer must be no Irish lawyer ;
and in that case Sir Edward Sugden's appointment in Ire-
land was a gross abuse. Mr. Sheil is perhaps the most elo-
quent speaker in our day, but he is not a mere speaker.
There are in the House of Commons men who can speak
fluenly on the ordinary questions, that occupy the House, in
whose speeches, however, there are few or no indications of a
cultivated mind. Mr. Shell is rich in illustrations derived
from the most varied sources, and full of allusions proving
his familiarity with the whole field of literature. There
are those who wonder that Mr. Sheil, with claims to any
situation, should have taken an office so poorly requited as a
Commissionership of Greenwich Hospital; but the individual
must be fastidious indeed who pronounces Mr. Sheil unfit for
the office. But Mr. Sheil found fault with the appointment
of Lord Londonderry to the embassy to St. Petersburg. Who
supposes his Lordship qualified for that or any other embassy?
Not, surely, the Duke of Wellington, who proved, by the lec-
tures he has since been obliged to read to the Noble Marquis
in the House of Lords for his absurd speeches, that he shares
the general opinion with regard to that nobleman. This was
one of the worst attempts of the Tories during their interreg-
num, and they can hardly feel very grateful for the inoppor-
tune reference of the Standard to the service rendered to
the country by Air. Shed, when his sarcasm fright-
ened Lord Londonderry into an abandonment of the
appointment. The great objection to Mr. Shell, we suspect,
is that he is a Reformer. And we, on the other hand, con-
sider Lard Melbourne's Administration entitled to praise pre-
cisely because they have appointed a Reformer. If offices are
to be retained, they ought to be filled by supporters of Minis-
ters, and not by their opponents. The Whigs are open to
much censure for persisting too long in giving a preference to
Itheir opponents over their friends. Ibis absurd liberality only
exposed them to the sneers of those whom they so favoured,
while it produced discontent in their friends. On the prinei-

ple that entitles a Ministry to the support of the country, they
are bound to distribute their patronage among their political
adherents. To favour opponents, so far from disarming oppo-
sition, only affords it encouragement. When we see Ministers
proceeding in the true course of giving what they have to be-
stow to those who afford them support, we are bound
to applaud them. If a public man believes his own
principles the best fitted, if acted on, to promote the wel-
fare of the country, it is his duty to secure, wherever
he can, the services of men sharing those principles. Common
sense must tell a Minister that he betrays the interests of the
Crown when he bestows its patronage on those who oppose
the servants of the Crown. The Standard has made the dis-
covery that appointments to office of Reformers-indicate the
breaking up of a Reform Ministry. It seems the London
Correspondent of the Scotsman has communicated to that
paper what its editor has since pronounced " startling and fal-
lacious statements," which were published without careful
examination. The Scotsman accounts for the criticisms of
its correspondent on the acts and policy of Ministers from his
belonging more to the section of Radicals than the editor, and
being influenced by his position as a member of that party
We dissent in foto," says the Scotsman," from his assertion that
Ministers have sunk in public estimation. We lamented Lord John
Russell's uncalled and most impolitic declaration at the opening of Par-
liament in November; but a faultless ➢linistry, like a faultless man,
is a monster the world never saw. And we should think more
meanly than we do of the British public if the unexampled and glorious
services of the Reform Ministry in the last seven years could not cover
a much more serious error than this. Where are the symptoms of
Ministers neclining in public favour ? We discern none. We see,
indeed, a furious outcry raised against them for one of their most en-
lightened acts, the new Poor law. We see the vengeance of the three
Established Churches enlisted against them, because they are the friends
of religious liberty. «e see, also, itinerant demagogues, some of whom
are probably in the pay of the Tories, trying to inflame the ignorant
against them, by preaching Universal Suffrage, and pleading for the
right of Trades' Unions to plunder capitalists. One object of
these missionaries of evil undoubtedly is, to alarm men of pro-
psrty, and induce them to seek refuge in the ranks of Toryism;
and in this object they are probably succeeding to some extent.
We admit that owing to these causes there is what some may be
pleased to call a reaction to the prejudice of the Government ; nor
shaliw e waste time in disputting about the mooning of a word. But
we believe that the bitter hostility of the parties we have described has
raised Ministers in the estimation of the most enlightened and most
influential part of:the Liberal public; and whatever be the consequence,
sure we are we shall never see the day when, for the purpose of keeping
up popular excitement, according to the :counsels of some, or gaining
the support of the Oastlers, Stephenses, and Trades' Unionists, they
will cater to the appetite; of the ignorant or evil-disposed, by bringing
forward measures which are either useless or dangerous."

But the Standard seized with avidity the passage in the
letter in the Scotsman, as proof positive that the Tories had
only to say the word, and office was theirs. Day after day
has it cited the Scotsman with exultation ; and now the ap-
pointment of Mr. Sheil places the matter beyond dispute.
May Ministers continue to supply proof to the Standard of
their breaking up, by appointing always good Reformers to
offices falling vacant for which they are qualified !—Morning
Chronicle.
There aro said to be four candidates for the office of Clerk o
the Ordnance, vacant by the appointment of Sir L. Hay to the
Governorship of Bermuda. The aspirants are—Colonel
Evans, Mr. Ward, Mr. E. Bulwer, and Mr. Bannerman
Colonel Evans would, it is thought, have had the preference'
but the Ministers dread an election for Westminster. The,
rival pretensions of Messrs. Ward and Bulwer have been urged
with so much earnestness and pertinacity, that Ministers shrink
from any decision between two such doughty personages ; as
a middle course, therefore, they have, it is stated, given the
place to Mr. Bannerman. If, however, Lord Glenelg should
be ejected by Sir W. Molesworth's motion, Mr. Ward and
Mr. Bulwer may, perhaps, venture to contend for the prize of
the Colonial Office. Modesty, we apprehend, will not hold
them back.— Times.

Thursday next is the day appointed for once more submit-
ting to the decision of the House of Commons the important
question of taking the votes of Parliamentary electors by way
of ballot. The necessity of a strong muster of those favour-
able to the proposition cannot be too forcibly impressed on
the mind of every Member of the House of Commons desirous
of proving himself a genuine friend of the representative prin-
ciple. Important as have been the measures upon which
the House has already decided, amongst which we may
adduce the Canadian and Irish Poor-law Bills, as affect-
ing the preservation of the empire in a state of unity and
integrity ; yet even these, though more immediate in their
consequences, will exercise less influence on the ultimate des-
tiny of Great Britain than must the measure to which we now
solicit the must earnest solicitude of the popular branch of
the British Senate. Other laws are, for the most part,
limited in their operation to the subjects to which they
more directly refer ; but the adoption or rejection of the
Ballot, as exercising a most extensive influence in the
constitution of the Legislature, must operate most powerfully,
either for good or ill, on all the measures which may be sub-
jected to the consideration of Parliament. There can be no
question that, in the present relations of society, if it be de-
sirable to obtain the free voice of the constituent body in the
election of representatives, there exist no means of effecting
that object, unless through the medium of secret voting. The
arguments hitherto alleged against the Ballot are so obviously
contradictory, untenable, or absurd, that it is needless to
reiterate their refutation—such fallacies and sophistries can
no longer impose on the British public, who see clearly
enough through the shallow subterfuges with which the oppo-
nents of the Ballot would delude them. It will no longer
avail to lament over the extent of bribery and corruption at
elections, and express an opinion half in the spirit of promise
to one party and of threat to another, that should such
evil practices continue, the Ballot or some similar re-
medy must be adopted. The party who could give
utterance to an opinion like this, however he may en-
deavour to adduce objections to the Ballot, must feel an in-
ward conviction of its efficacy-. The expression is an ad-
mission of the whole question, otherwise it would be folly to
talk of putting an end to 'bribery and corruption by the intro-
duction of the Ballot, if it were at the same time asserted that
the Ballot would prove utterly inefficient to such objects. Yet
this is a folly which has been perpetrated by more than one of
the not least influential Members of the House of Commons.
It is high time that such miserable pretences should be aban-
doned. The public expects from the Liberal side of the
House, at least, some more substantial arguments against the
Ballot than the flimsy sophistries by which it has hitherto
Leen attempted to conceal the real motive of opposition
—hostility to a full and fair representation of the
people. As friends and supporters of the present
Ministry, we feel it an incumbent duty to warn them of the
danger of continuing their opposition to this most necessary
measure. Had it been adopted in the last Session, or had the
Government merely shown an inclination to adopt it, far diffe-
rent would have been the result of the recent elections, nor
would it be necessary to conciliate the Opposition benches by
curtailing liberal policy of its fair proportions. If any
doubt, however, be really entertained of the efficacy of the
Ballot, a fair opportunity presents itself of subjecting it to the
test of experience, by adopting the proposition of Sir Harry
Verney, who has given notice of an amendment on Mr. Grote's
motion, to the effect " That it is expedient to make trial of Vote
by Ballot in the election of Members of this House ;
and for that purpose, in case bribery or intimida-
tion, or both of them, are proved on any election pe-
tition now pending, and a new election is ordered,
such new election shall be made with vote by Ballot."
Ilere is a safe and satisfactory mode of at once testing tho re-
lative merits of the secret and open system of voting. Where
the open system has failed, it certainly cannot be any harm to
make trial of the secret. The experiment, at least, is due to
all parties; and should any opponent of the Ballot object to
the trial, it will leave no doubt of his little credence in the
force of the arguments hitherto urged against that measure.
The experiment would soon prove on which side lay the error;
and surely, where undue returns have been declared by a Com-
mittee of the House of Commons to have been made under the
system of open voting, in such cases at least, and for the sake
of appearances even, it is but fair to make trial of the Ballot.
Morning Advertiser.

A great many people have been asking for the last ten
days why the Whig-Radical Administration was not turned
out upon the question of the Canada Government Bill ? Our
weekly Contemporary, the Spectator, which often notices things
that other papers think it as well not to notice, and maintains
a charming impartiality of detestation towards both Whigs
and Tories, gives the following passages upon the forbearance
of the Opposition :
" It is rumoured that many of the Tories think their party corn.
mitted a blunder in allowing the Canada Bill to pass. They will not
soon have such another opportunity of defeating Ministers on Liberal
ground. To the discovery of this mistake is attributed the manifesta.
tion on Thursday night in the House cf Lords. But the Duke had
pledged himself to the Bill as well as Sir Robert; so It was too late to
take up a different position.
" Indeed it would not accord with the long.sighted policy of the re.
sponsible leaders of the party to turn out the Whigs, juct yet. By his
present course, Sir Robert Peel is damaging his opponents, and
strengthening his own party, systematically and surely; thereby laying
the foundation for a longer term of office when the time comes for
taking it. The more (sager Tories, and the small fry of office-hunters,
are impatient; but they are curbed by their cautious and calculat-
ing chiefs."
Our Contemporary is always clever ; but here rather too
much so, if his object he the diffusion o truth regarding po-
litical affairs. No man of good information entertains se.
riously the belief that the present opposition is an opposition
for the sake of place. There may be a good many among the
Tories who think (and that not upon merely selfish grounds)
that it ought to be a more place-seeking Opposition than it is.
There may be many who consider that immense practical
mischief is occasioned by leaving the Executive Government
in such hands as now abuse it, and that the controlling influence
of Conservatism in the Legislature is not enough. But it is
certain that the great bulk of the Opposition are exceedingly
indifferent as to whether their party be in place or not, and
the object of their Parliamentary conduct (unlike that of all
Whig Opposition) is rather to assert their own principles than to
drive their adversaries from the Government. To treat, therefore,
of the tactics of the Tory party, as if their desires had no other
aim, end their efforts no other object than either the proximate or
ultimate dislodgement of the present placeholders, is to proceed
upon a totally erroneous basis of fact. Thee is no point upon
which it is more difficult for an honest Toi-y to come to a dis-
tinct judgment than this very one, of the good policy of driving
the Whigs from Downing-street at the present time. The
Revolution of IST?. was so fearful in its aspect, and the reco-
very of the British people from its extraordinary concussion
has been so much more than even the most sanguine among
the lovers of political order could have expected, that Tory
leaders may he well excused if they feel themselves but too
happy in the legislative influence they now possess, and not
unwilling to act upon the sage proverb which recommends
that well should be left alone. Of course they are not to
abate a jot of that influence in maintaining the true Conserva-
tive principles, against every measure of real tyranny or
snu.-ious liberalism which an unprincipled and incompetent
f Government may submit to Parliament; but if they find that
I they may do this, and that the Ministry—willing to yield

any thing and every thing but place—gives way to their
suggestions, it is not surprising that they should be
content with this victory, and be in anything but an
envious mood towards the occupants of Downing-street.
But if it had been the cue of Conservatives to to 11 out the
Ministers ups the Canada Bill, does not our shrew i Con-
temporary see the nature of the difficulty? How are you to
defeat people who will not contend with you ? Ccrta rile, if
the Ministerial party had not been fully as des:itute of the
spirit of pugnacity as Bob Acres in the play, there was
abundant provocation given for a decisive conflict upon the
Canada Bill. As well might the Greeks have blamed
Menelaus for not spearing Paris upon the field of Troy, as
the Tories blame their leaders for not defeating the Mi-
nisters upon the Canada Bill. The Ministers gave up
the battle, and abandoned the field. There is no ima-
ginable proposition of the Tories upon that Bill that
the Whig Ministers (looking at the host that sat op-
posite to them) would not have deemed it expedient
to agree to. "As far as regards the matter of form,"
said Lord John to Sir Robert Peel, "we should be
willing to accede; but if you come to the substance of the
thing—" " But Ido come to the substance of the 'thing,"
replied Sir Robert; "the Bill must be altered both in form
and in substance." " Well, well, have it your own way, inexo-
rable man I" quoth Lord John; and so it vas. What more
were the Tories to do in the way of opposition ? If the Tories
were mere place-hunters, like the Opposition in 1835, they
might indeed, like that Opposition, have thrown their princi-
ples to the winds, and, by joining with the Crown and Anchor
gentlemen, carried a vote to which even the Whig-Radical
Ministers could not accede. But if the Tories are not to ob-
tain place until they do something of this kind, they will never
obtain it. They leave such successes to be achieved by the
Russells, the Rices, and the Palmerstons. To return to the
Spectator's paragraph. The Tories (whatever may be ru-
moured) do not think that a blunder was committed in permit-
ting the Canada Bill to pass, though many of them do
think that the Bill, even as it stands, taken in connection
with the whole policy of the Whigs, is one of the disgraceful
acts of the Whig Government for which, among the rest, it
will be execrated in time to come. But every Government
must, to a certain extent, he left to manage its affairs in its
own way. As to the distinction attempted to be established
between what is called the " long-sighted" policy of the Tory
leaders and the impatience of the " more eager" Tories, we
consider it to be founded upon the mistaken supposition that
either the less eager or the more have for their principsl ob-
ject the getting office. With them office is merely contem-
plated as a means of practically enforcing sound principles of
government ; and while they compel the Whigs to pay proper
respect to Conservative principles, they have none of that
hunger for office which is the offspring of combined vanity and
necessity. These two things are the grand influencing prin-
ciples of Whig- Radicals.—Morning Post.