The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-07 00:00:00

an accessary before the fact to murder, and liable,
upon .conviction, to the same punishment as the prin-
cipal. His Lordship has, however, thrown off the
correction. -with Evans altogether in this matter ; but
has he declared that he will recal the Royal Marines
from a service into which it is now clear that Brie
tish subjects cannot enter without becoming demo-
ralised ? No ;he has not said he will do any such
thing. Has he said that he will have General Evans
called to account for the disgraceful use which he
has made of the name of the King of England, in
dragging the revered name of a Monarch distinguished
for his clemency, in.o his bloody degree, as an autho-
rity for putting his Majesty's subjects to death ? No.
Lord Palmerston has been content with clearing him-1
self of any share in the criminal responsibility of the
measure ; but, as a British Minister—as one in whose
hands, was placed the honour of the country, he ought
to have done much more, that the insulted civilisation
of England might be vindicated, and that Government
itself might stand clear, not merely of the legal, but
the moral guilt of the transaction. To allow the
Royal Marines to continue to " co-operate" with the
British auxiliary legion after that, does seem very like
a practical approval' of the conduct and proclamation
of General Evans. Professing peace, will Ministers
sanction more than the barbarities of ' war ? they
persist in exposing any portion of the King's troops to
the contaminating influence of cruelties which civilised
nations have abjured and which savages only have been
accustomed to practice.—Morning :Herald.
An article in the Times of yesterday affects an air
of great exultation at the result of the division on the
appropriation principle, and does not hesitate to pro-
claim the downfal of the Ministry as a necessary se-
quence of the decreased majority, which is vauntingly
referred to as an evidence of the question losing ground
in public opinion. We arc ever ready to do justice
even to an opponent ; and therefore believe the an-
ticipation of a change of Ministry to have originated
from mere illusion, and the assumption of a change
of public sentiment to have arisen from sheer impos-
ture ; and thuS that the writer infused one part
of folly, and three parts of knavery, into the delete-
rious compound with which he drugged his readere.
Nothing can be more absurd than the expectation
that a change of Ministry would stop the "roeress of
e
Reform. On the contrary, it would increase its impetus.
The present Government have gained'ey their unswerv-
ing loyalty to the interests of tiee people such a firm
hold on the confidence of th
.e country, that a smaller
concession of popular r'.ghts would be accepted from
them than from any party whatever which might su-
persede them. Were the Tories in office to-morrow,
if their access*son would not cause a convulsion in the
country, they could not retain the reins for a fortnight,
unless, as in the case of the Catholic Emancipation
Act, by bringing forward measures even more liberal
-than those which they previously opposed. If the
people do not now exhibit any violent demonstration of
feeling—to what is their forbearance to be attributed?
l'o what but their confidence in the present Adminis-
tration, and the hope that the benefits- resulting from
Reform, now proved by the unprecedented prosperity
of the country, will be still increased by the same
agency to which we are indebted for our pre-
sent flourishing condition ? The repose of the
country is not the symptom of indifference, but of
hope. But let the Tories attempt another usurpation,
and how quickly would the scene be changed ! This
would, undoubtedly, be the most certain, though, per-
haps, not most desirable, means of rousing the people
into that activity which is essential to the speedy and
effectual completion of those reforms, without which
it, is impossible that the state can maintain its posi-
tion either at home or abroad. How absurd the an-
ticipation, that a change of Ministry will effect a
change of popular opinion in respect to measures
based on immutable .principles of justice, and which
need only to be understood to command the support of
a whole nation ! No, the progress of reform cannot
be checked while the people stand true to themselves.
Ministers may be changed, and parties and men may
change their position in the ranks, but the onward
movement must be the same, because there is a voice
from behind which cries " forward"--a voice which
defies disobedience, being the united expression of' a
people's will. The supposition that the decrease of
the majority from 39 to 26 on the appropriation prin-
ciple, is a proof of a'change of opinion, is most falla-
cious. Several of the Liberal Members who voted on
the previous occasion were absent from illness and
other causes, amongst which, we may perhaps mention
the conviction that this, like several other measures
of amelioration, cannot be effected until the House of
Lords be reformed, and therefore it would be waste of
time, under existing circumstances, to attend farther
to the discuskion or division upon it. If a change of
opinion have taken place, it must be shown by the
lists, and we challenge the Tories to point out a
single individual who voted on the last occasion
differently from what he did on the former. It is
asserted that the appropriation principle is already de-
feated ; but if so, what will be the consequence ? Evi-
dently the abolition of tithes. in fact, it is doubtful
if even the appropriation clause would save to the
Church Establishment the revenues it has so perse-
cutingly exacted, and so profligately misapplied. The
result of the opposition to the settlement of the
question on the appropriation principle already has
been an increase in the proposed reduction on the
amount of tithe to be levied as a rent charge, and
another year's delay will be amply sufficient to set the
question at rest even without legislative interference.
In Ireland tithes are dying- a natural death, and the
only chance of resuscitating them would be the speedy
adoption of such a measure as that at present before
the House of Commons. The Tories exclaim against
the appropriation principle as dangerous to the exist-
ence of the Church ; but it needs no argument to prove
that the principle of reduction which they have.them-
selves adopted and admitted in the measure proposed
by Sir R. Peel, furnishes a precedent of a far more
destructive character. If reduction be carried to suf-
ficient extent, there will be no need to quarrel about
appropriation. The exultation of the Tories on the
present occasion is merely the hectic excitement which
in certain maladies precedes dissolution. As a party
they are already defunct, though the smile remains on
the cheek while the core is in a state of putrefaction.
Their worst enemies could not wish them to pursue
any other course than that which they have adopted.
The Ministry may die its death either by its own
hand, or by an assassin blow from the Tories ; but
the people die not, and in their nostrils is the breath
of reform. A worse accident could scarcely happen
to the Tories than that of their being compelled,
under present circumstances, to accept office. Every-
thing that they have said they would be compelled to
unsay ; and, as in the case of the Reform Bill, they
would either be obliged to swallow the appropriatien
clause, or to vacate the offices which, contrary to the
spirit of the nation, they had in their vain gloriousness
usurped. To the Ministry wo are attached—to the
cause of Reform still mote; l and with these impres-
sions on our mind, we say, without hesitation, perish
the Ministry, flourish a Tory Administration, and
flourish also tinder their regime a greater Reform—
even a Reform of the House of Peers—than Whigs
or Radicals ever dreamed of! Thank God, the
Tories would do anything to obtain or keep office.—
Morning Adterliser.
The cross and revolting atrocity of the " General
Order" issued by Brevet-Lieutenant-Colonel Evans
continues to be the subject of universal comment,
and but one opinion seems to be entertained of
this sanguinary and disgraceful proclamation. Not-
withstanding the assertion. so coolly expressed by
0 ,
Lord Palmerston on Tuesday night, in reply to
Sir Robert Peel, that it is a genuine document,
there are some persons who still doubt whether a
Member of the British Senate, a man holding a
commission in his Majesty's service, could have
aT.xed his signature to such earl extraordinary and
monstrous proclamation. It is certainly extremely
difficult to bring the mind to the belief that any
act Pf cruelty and tyranny on the part of an Eng-
lishman could exceed in atrocity the course of
cruelty pursued during the civil war in Spain. ,
We waded, therefore, last night with much anxiety
through the columns of the Courier and Globe,
with the hope of finding some denial of the authen-
ticity of this iniquitous " General Order ;" but the
silence of our Contemporaries leaves now little room
- to doubt that this arbitrary and cold-blooded act,