The Sun.
London, England, 1838-08-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 1838.

social repose and security which may enable him to add to
this little by the uninterrupted exertton of his daily industry.
To him more than to a rich man revolutionary convulsion
would be utter ruin. Away then, with the contradictory
arguments which, by imputing destructiveness to the class
of operative Reformers, impute to them a deficiency in
forethought and prudence, and an abnegation of the ordi-
nary principles of self-preservation. The English public
are too wise to be gulled by the interested imposthume of
any such absurd imputations ; and they will persist in de-
stroying abuses—whatever sinister designation may be given
to the wholesome operation.—ilforning Advertiser.
Haying yesterday stated our opinion fully upon the pro-
priety of the refusal by the Dean and Chapter to
allow the statue of the author of " Don Juan'' to be
placed in Westminster Abbey, we need not go further into
that question at present, inasmuch as our arguments re-
main unanswered. But, incidental to the main question, a
point of debate has arisen touching the poetic merits of
Lord Byron, respecting which we cannot avoid making a
few observations. It has pleased some of our Contempo-
raries, both Liberal and Conservative, for instance the
Globe and Standard, to assign to Lord Byron an inferior
place in the ranks of British poets. The former of these
Journals demands the admission of his statue into West-
minster Abbey, despite the mediocrity of his genius, be-
cause, we presume, a reverence for religion was not one of
his " prejudices." The other alleges the inferiority of
his talents, and the decline of his poetic fame, as an
additional reason for excluding from a Christian church
the sculptured tribute to his memory. We think
the justifiable and all-sufficient ground for refusing
his statue a place in the temple of our holy reli-
gion is that the poet prostituted his great talents to the
ignoble service of the sceptic school, and threw a danger-
ous fascination round doctrines detrimental to man's eternal
interests. We want no other reason than this to justify
Dean Ireland in the course which he has adopted. If this
does not afford a full and satisfactory justification of the
alleged " illiberality" of the Westminster ecclesiastics to-
wards the memorial of the poet nothing else can. It is vain
to rely on the mediocrity of Byron's poetic genius. The
Edinburgh Reviewers made that discovery very early in
his literary career. The Jeffries and the Broughams of
that publication, not foreseeing that they were one day to
have the misfortune of becoming " lords" themselves, were
glad of the opportunity of catching a young Peer in the fact
of attempting to climb Parnassus, and no juvenile poacher
in another sort of preserve was ever belaboured more mer-
cilessly bya couple of inexorable gamekeepers than the poetic
lord was by his unsparing critics. But he took a splendid
revenge. By one of the ablest satirical poems in the lan-
guage he prostrated his critics, who sank to the humiliation
of soliciting the suppression of a work thus terribly effective.
No mediocrity of talent—no genius below that of a
very high order—could have accomplished what Byron did
at a very early age by the publication of the satire called
" British Bards and Scotch Reviewers?' Never did mali-
cious criticism, conducted with considerable power, and
until then truly formidable to all the authors who were
not " pets" of the Edinburgh Areopagus, receive so severe
a blow since the time that cynical Denis and facetious
Gibber experienced the vigorous retaliation of Pope's
sinewy arm. Public opinion immediately reversed the de-
cree which the criticism of the blue and brimstone livery
had fulminated against the young patrician bard. The cul-
prit who, in the name of " gods, men, and columns," had
just before been condemned to the perpetual mortification
of the " silent system," came forth the laurelled victor from
the poetic dock, and, followed by the acclamations of
thousands, took his triumphal course up the heights of
fame. His next effort, if we mistake not, was the
" Childc Harold," a poem which we do not fear to say is
not inferior to any descriptive poem in the language, whe-
ther we regard the graphic felicity of its scenic delinea-
tions—the beauty, richness, and pathos of the senti-
ments with which its sketches of nature are interspersed
and relieved—the melodious rhythm of the verse, or the
masculine force of the diction. Where does our language
present nobler bursts of poetic inspiration than those which
the sympathising wanderer breathes forth over the fallen state
of the once and free glorious Greece, to whom all the arts
of old did Homage, and into whose lap literature poured her
sparkling treasures ? To be sure it is some drawback from
the pleasure which this noble production of genius affords
to be eternally " bored" with the solitary quotation which,
by some means or other, the Irish Agitator has filched from
a work the manly sentiments and generous patriotism of
which he is as incapable of appreciating as he is of regulat-
ing his political conduct by any rules of justice, honour,
or sincerity. He has, indeed, contrived to vulgarise one of
the most magnificent appeals of Byronic inspiration by his
stupid and unmeaning repetition of
" Hereditary bondsmen, know ye not
Who would be free themselves must strike the blow ?"
Greece understood these words in their proper sense,
and subsequently endeavoured to realise them by her
revolution. In following Byron over the ancient scenes
of classic glory—in treading the valleys and plains where
the battles of ancient freedom were fought and civilisation
triumphed over barbarism—we are made to feel what we
can only describe in his own glowing and graceful words:—
" Where'er we tread is holy haunted ground,
No earth of thine is lost in vulgar mould,
But one vast scene of wonders spreads around,
And all the Muses' tales seem truly told."
To turn from ancient to modern times, what scene in
any poem surpasses for all the qualities of epic description
the stanzas in the same work on the " Battle of Waterloo"
beginning—
" There was a sound of revelry by night,
And Belgium's capital had gathered then
Its beauty and its chivalry, and bright
The lamps shone o'er fair women and brave men ?"
The allusion to the fall of the Duke of Brunswick is in-
deed sublimely pathetic. In attempting to celebrate this
greatest of modern battles Scott and other poets completely
failed. Byron alone was equal to the task of investing the
" crowning victory" with its appropriate gloom and glory.
We are obliged to revert to passages like these--passage;,
which we could multiply to a length which would occupy a
larger proportion of Mr. Spring Rice's " superficial inches"
than we have at our command—for the purpose of answer-
ing the traducers of Byron's genius—who represent him
only as a fashionable not an immortal poet, and would
place him below the level of Scott and Southey. Would
that he had kept his muse as free from the contaminating
intercourse of an infidel philosophy as that of those two
distinguished writers, whose works
(with the exception of
some juvenile productions of one of them) contribute to
the happiness of mankind by the beneficial cultivation of
religion and morality. There is a well-known passage in
Byron's " Giaour," beginning with the line " He who bath
bent him o'er the dead," which would be worthy of Shak-
speere in the finest flight of his imagination ; but the spirit
of the sceptic clouds it at the close, when he exclaims, al-
luding to the extinct vital principle
" Spark of that flame, perchance of heavenly birth,
That gleams, but warms no more its cherished earth."
The faults of Byron's poetry are many and glaring ; but
his beauties, like those of our greatest poets, are stamped
with the impress of imperishable genius. In estimating
his intellectual rank we must judge of him as other great
poets are
judged—as Alilton and Shakspeare and Spenser
are
judged—by their best works or noblest efforts ; and,
estimating Byron's claims to poetic celebrity in this way,
we need not fear that the prediction of his being a perish-
able fame will ever be verified while the English language
subsists. It was therefore that yesterday we said, " when-
ever a national pantheon is erected to the memories of
England's great men in arts, in literature, and arms, we
should like to see the statue of Byron placed there among
those of the first of England's poets." If he had never
written anything else, that, the noblest of sacred odes,
which commemorates the destruction of the army of Sena-
charib, commencing
ceoeotvrne
e ddo onlyr
toen t
nfhntrsaheoee
necessary
sstalstatue Deathayhnrrodyiscoesat
of this
to append
compositionhi
pasi
pepr
gpeerJuyneodae hptr
tn
productions
utei
onotcfsot
moi rtoedmehapne 'yecsi
" The Assyrian came down like the wolf in the fold,"
tbiosl
it
:eon: ntisgehp,
uroteeafi
perhaps,ocgptnNeae N:sd'
passages
aoli
te
euvwss
would of itself have immortalised him. With the xe
r
t
of distempered intellect, or morbid ambition, such as
,6 Cain," " Manfred," or " Don Juan," to account for its
exclusion from a Christian cathedral.—Morning Herald.
It is a curious and noticeable fact, that Ministerialists busy
themselves with the most extraordinary perseverance in
decrying the last grand stroke of Ministerial policy before
the adjournment of Parliament. Is it possible that their
patrons are pleased with this perpetual objurgation of that
which by adoption (whether willingly or unwillingly) they
made their own ? They tell us that the policy pursued in
the House of Lords with respect to Lord Durham's Go-
vernment and ordinances, was rancorous and contempti'ide.
If so, why did the Ministers take it up ? If it was" contemp-
tible"on the part of those who avow themselves Lord Durham's
sive.uilld,phtb7ereeradrei
political opponents, to correct his errors, and to keep him
within the limits of his lawful authority, surely it must have
been much more "contemptible" on the part of those who
pretend to be his friends, to take up that very same
course. It may be urged that even if they had not done
so in the House of Lords, the decision of that branch of
Parliament would have been the same, since Noble
Lords are so obstinate that they will not listen to the
voice of the charmer Melbourne, charm he never so wisely
—nay, not even if he blandly attempt to win them over
to his way of thinking by telling them that they are acting
like a truculent democracy ! But how did it happen that
in the House of Commons, where Ministers have—or at
least have had upon some trying occasions—a majority.—
how comes it that there also, the Ministers not only did
not, oppupe, but actually adopted, that which Ministeli,listg
now call a ranee), ous and contemptible course, of ?
We know that upon very important occasions—and surely
this was one—the Ministers have been able—with the

respectable assistance of the O'Connell tail—to muster a
majority almost equal in amount to the number of
persons in the House whose salaries depend upon
the Ministry being able to stay in. Now being in
this proud position in that Honourable House—
albeit they are not able to muster more than a poor mi-
nority in the other—it seems strange that they should not
have taken advantage of it, to show their sense of the
" contemptible policy" of the Conservatives respecting
Lord Durham's Government. Really this matter seems
quite inexplicable, and we recommend the Ministerialists
to refrain from vilifying the policy adopted by their patrons
until they are prepared to show how Statesmen—be they
even as profound as Lord Melbourne, and as dignified as
Lord John Russell—can consent to the adoption of a eon,

temptible policy without becoming contemptible them-
selves. We humbly submit that under the influence
of nervous trepidation, or some other cause unfavourable
to deliberate correctness, our amiable Ministerialists have
made a confusion of persons and of epithets. The case
was this—Lord Durham bad been sent to Canada with
very large powers, but by the first despatches which came
from him after he had entered upon the business of his Go-

vernment, it appeared that large as those legal powers
were, he had exceeded them ; and, while governing in
the Queen's name, had distinctly violated the laws of
the country. It is clear—admitted on all hands, we be-
lieve—that vice-regal privileges, even when wielded
by a Whig-Radical, do not extend to the violation of
the law. Two courses, therefore, are open—either to

leave Lord Durham to bear the penalty of having violated
the law, or to pass u law specially for his protection in this
regard. He had violated the law, which was a fault, but

then he had probably violated it through ignorance, which
was a misfortune, and as he was the Queen's Representa-
tive, it was thought that on that account some courteous
consideration might be shown him. The Conservatives,
therefore, resolved upon the lenient course of passing such
an Act as would exonerate Lord Durham from the conse-
quences of his illegal acts. That was their policy, and
that i, now called rancorous and contemptible by those
who wish to uphold not only Lord Durham but the pre-
sent Ministry. We see nothing rancorous in saving a
political opponent from the consequences of his illegal
acts, or contemptible in screening her Majesty's Repre-
sentative from the degradation of punishment for his mis-
takes. But these are Ministers who got in a great passion
and abused the Conservative Lords for what they proposed,
and who then, because they found they were in a difficulty
from which they could not extricate themselves, consented
to adopt the policy they had abuied. These are Ministers,
who, after trying their utmlst to defend the ordinances of
Lord Durham, advised the Queen to disallow them as il-

legal. What is to be said of their conduct ? If there
happened to be any stray epithets expressive of contempt
lying about, which it were expedient to " use up," with re-
ference to the proceedings on Canadian affairs, does net
this conduct afford rather a favourable opportunity for their
application ? We opine that the contemptible policy,
supposing there has been any such thing, is that of
the men who, for the sake of office, consent to wield
what they have described as the weapons of Lord
Durham's foes, against their friend Lord Durham.
The confusion of the hapless and irritated Ministe•
rialists touching these Canadian affairs, seems to grow
greater every day. It was but yesterday we found
them quoting with apparent approbation the language
of a Montreal newspaper, which, though indeed it
upholds Lord Durham, upholds also the doctrines .of Ca-
nadian rebellion. This Montreal paper is, or seems to be,
favourably looked upon, because it says that " men op-
posed by every old political association to Lord Durham,
acquiesced in his appointment, simply because they felt
confident that he would neither be fettered into inactivity,
nor forced into blunder by the necessarily mischievous inter-
meddling of an authority three thousand miles of; with
his every contemplated action." Now, if this be not
sheer nonsense—if it he not a parcel of words without
any meaning at all—it means that Canada ought to
have a Government independent of the mother country,
and that the Government of that province, by British
councils, must necessarily be a mischievous intermed-
dling ! Is it to be understood that our Government ap-
proves of this doctrine ? If so, why is not Mr. Papineau the
most excellent of Canadians in their sight, and Mr. Roe-
buck the most enlightened, among colonial statesmen ? If
it be a rice that Canadian Government should be fettered
by British intermeddling, the Canadian rebels are right,
and they who resist them are wrong. Perhaps, how-
ever, it is only the despotism of Lord Durham that is to
be held better than the Government of British laws. Any
one but he requires to be " intermeddled " with, but his
wisdom is better than all law, and should be above all in-
terference. Is that the doctrine of the Ministerialists ? If
it be not, we wish they would tell us distinctly what is
their doctrine regarding the Government of Canada ; for
while they say that rebellion against British authority
ahould be punished, and yet praise the assertion that the
exercise of authority over Canada by the Government in
Britain is necessarily mischievous, there is an apparent
contradiction and a great perplexity, which no one save
themselves can unravel.—illortring Post.

SLAVERY IN THE FRENCH COLO

NIES.

The colonial question begins to dominate all others for the
present in France. The colonists are exerting themselves to ward
off the two evils by which they are assailed at once—emanci-
pation of their slaves, and their exclusion from the home
market by the production of beet-root sugar. Each French
colony has a delegate in Paris, salaried almost as largely as a
minister. With this they have tempted liberal deputies and
advocates to become their delegates and champions, witness
M. Maugin. But the result has been obloquy to the deputy
accepting the post, rather than profit to the colony. Guada-
loupe and Bourbon have just chosen Messrs. Dufaure and
Laurence for their delegates. The former has refused, and it
is not thought that the latter can accept.
At the same time Nantes, Bordeaux, and other seaports
have formed a commission for directing their efforts to pro-
cure a diminution of the duty on colonial sugar. The present
delegates have prayed the Government for an ordinance per-
mitting the French colonies to export their sugar to other
ports than those of France. On this subject the Minister, not
a ell knowing what course to take, has asked the advice of the
Superior Council of Commerce. The members of this council
being not in sufficient numbers in Paris, the advice, and con-
sequently the issuing of suah an ordinance, is deferred.
According to statistical notices published by the present
Minister of Marine, the four French colonies alone worthy of
being taken into account contained the following free and slave
population
At the close of 1835 Martinique had a population of
116,031, of which 35,000 were free, without distinction of co-
lour, the rest were slaves. Of the 38,060 free, 29,000 were
men of colour.
Guadaloupe, at the end of 1835, counted 31,252 freemen,
and 96,322 slaves ; and of the free two-thirds were men of
colour.
13ourbon, at the end of 1836, counted about 40,000 free,
and 70,000 slaves.
French Guiana, at the end of 1836, counted 6,656 fres, and
16,705 slaves. Of the free little more than 1,000 were whites.
The French Legislature has, therefore, to deal with a po-
pulation of about 260,000 slaves.
The French Government under Louis XVIII. and Charles
X. favoured or tolerated, not merely the slave system, but the
slave trade. A solemn report of a parliamentary commission,
presided by M. Passy, passed this judgment ; and, indeed the
statesmen of the epoch scarcely denied it. M. de Chateau-
briand, in his recent work on the Congress of Verona, admits
that he there opposed the efforts of the British plenipotentia-
ries, because, quoth that most egregious of political coxcombs,
the zeal of England for the abolition of the slave trade is
purely for her own interests, and to prevent other nations from
profiting by what she has abandoned. From statesmen ac-
tuated by such principles nothing else could have been ex-
pected. In 1831 the abolition of the trade began to be se-
riously and sincerely acted on by France. In 1832 the
patrones were legally entitled to their freedom. In 1833 the
colonial legislatures were reformed, but to no purpose : the
resistance to projects of amelioration from home were resisted
even more strenuously in the new than in the old councils. In
1836 Government proposed issuing ordinances ensuring the
private property or pecule of the slave, and at the same time
his right of redemption.
The colonial legislatures replied, " that slavery was the
great social law of the colonies," and that the Government
had no right to issue any such ordinance. It is thus evident
that the contrary principle, that of abolition, must be decreed,
prepared, and finally enforced by the mother country. The
Chamber of Deputies are determined on passing some legis-
lative measure. To prepare one that will answer expecta-
tions in France, without exciting too much opposition in the
colonies, is the present task and consideration of the French
Cabinet.—Morning Chronicle.

EXTRAORDINARY ACCOUCHEMENT.—At an
early hour last Sunday morning, as Sergeant Cole, 17 G, was
passing through Chiswell-street, he found at the corner of
.11opemaker-streeta very good-looking young woman in mo-
mentary expectation of becoming a mother. She said that
she had been servant to Mr. May, a linen-draper in Chiswell-
street, who had compelled her to leave his house shortly be-
fore. The Sergeant found that the emergency was too press-
ing to admit even of an immediate removal to the workhouse,
and he knocked up the landlord of the Ship wine-vaults, who
readily allowed the young woman to be taken into his, house
and placed in the bar. The attendance of Mr. Leeson, a
surgeon, was promptly obtained, and in a few minutes a fine
child was ushered into the world. Shortly afterwards the
mother and infant were conveyed to St. Luke's workhouse,
where they are now in a thriving condition.

On Monday evening last, a poor woman named
Duane, residing in Pump-lane, near Moyderwell, left her
infaiit child in the cradle, while she went out of her cabin
on some business, leaving nobody in the house to take care of
the infant. When, shocking to relate, on her return, she found
the poor baby- nearly devoured by a hungry pie—the eyes
and die face, with rrBaly taus of 1.1:c Lod:),
rated and eaten. Thu poor innooeut must. Hive suileied
dreadful torture before death put an end to its agony.—
.Kerry Post.