The Sun.
London, England, 1838-10-26 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS

The subject of Canada ought to be tabooed to the Times.
To readers of all parties its continuing to discuss Canadian
affairs, and more particularly to utter a single opinion on
the conduct of Lord Durham, must appear in the light of
an insult. A Journal that scatters all sorts of extreme opi-
nions, without the slightest regard to principle or consis-
tency, brings the odium it has justly incurred to the cause
it has disgraced by its advocacy. Even a pious sentiment
in the mouth of Mother Cole becomes inexpressively revolt-
ing. But the truth is, that the Tories have so disgraced
themselves by their conduct with regard to Canada last
Session, that a more reputable advocacy could not benefit
them. If anything could have been done for them,
the Standard would net assuredly have consigned all
of them, with the single exception of Sir Robert Peel—the
manly Sir Robert—to the reprobation they so richly
merit But the Standard would not throw away its logic
in defending conduct which violated the recognised
constitutional principle that the authority of men in
high situations of trust ought not to be diminished by
interference of the Legislature, and that, in order to pre-
vent them from thinking themselves free of their responsi-
bility, due confidence ought to be reposed in them, or dis-
approbation with their Administration fairly and openly
urged. But besides, as the Standard has ably demonstra-
ted, the whole of the objections of the Tories resolved
themselves into an inability to comprehend the distinctions
between a Legislature and an ordinary tribunal, and in
what character Lord Durham issued his ordinances. It
becomes necessary, for the sake of the good government
of the country in future, that the flagrant departure of the
Tories from the ways of the constitution should be held up
to general reprobation, that a practice which would cut up
responsibility by the roots, and invest the House of Lords
with executive functions, may not be suffered to grow into
a precedent. The House of Lords cannot administer
Canada or India, or any of our distant possessions, and
it is not entitled to sit in judgment on each separate
act of those who do administer them. It used to be '
said that the losses of the Austrian Generals in Italy,
during the war of the French revolution, were attributable
to the folly of the Aulic Council of Vienna, which traced
out a plan of campaign, which the Generals were in no
case to depart from without leave. But the folly of making
the Governor of the North American Colonies the mere
puppet of the House of Lords, who are to have the direc-
tion of all his movements, is not less than that of fighting
Italian battles in Vienna. It is in some sort an apology
for Ministers that a Tory majority in the House of Lords
coerced them into the course they ultimately pursued, but
there 'can be no apology for the Tory majority. We are
told, indeed, by the Times, that the Conservative States-
men, having laid before them by those professional autho-
rities in whom they most justly confided a case of clear and
broad unlawfulness in a public functionary of the
highest rank, could do no otherwise than act
upon such authorities, and would assuredly have
been far from justified in scrutinizing the motives of
Lord Brougham, and voting in defiance of what
they were informed was the law, because he with whom
the inquiry originated had projects to help forward, and
passions to indulge, which were shared in by no Conserva-
tive." This defence, which supposes an inability on the
part of the Conservatives to have an opinion of their own,
does not redound very much to their reputation. The time
was when the opinion of lawyers in either House of Par-
liament on constitutional questions were held in much less
account. Had Sir William Follett or Lord Lyndhurst
given vent to their legal trifling in presence of Burke
or Fox, these great men would soon have reduced them to
their proper dimensions. But let us give the Devil his due.
Lord Brougham was the cleverest of the opponents of
Lord Durham in the House of Lords ; but the animus dis-
played by Lords Ellenborough, Lyndhurst, and other Tory
Peers, sufficiently evinced that talents of a very inferior order
would have been sufficient to seduce them into the course
they pursued. Indeed, Lord Ellenborough may almost lay
claim to having displayed, in the debates previous to those
on the ordinances, as much eagerness to destroy the
authority and influence of Lord Durham in Canada as was
displayed by the Noble and Learned Lord whom the
Tories now wish to burden with their iniquity in adli-
tion to his own. Lord Brougham's motives ought to have
been appreciated; and the Tories ought not to have blindly
followed his guidance. As English gentlemen it might
have been expected of them that they would not dishonour
themselves by waging a pitiful war against a public func-
tionary to whom a high trust was confided, because an
enemy of that functionary hallooed them, and two or three
pedantic lawyers abetted him. The Times may strive to
show that they were lawyer-ridden ; but to establish their
imbecility is not giving them the best title to preside over
the affairs of this great empire. Even the Standard, with
all its new-born enthusiasm for Sir Robert Peel, would
find it a hard task to dispose the country to place con-
fidence in those whom it has so successfully proved to be
incapables, but without whom Sir Robert could not carry
on an Administration.—Morning Chronicle.
As desperate circumstances require desperate undertak-
ings, we have been amused within this day or two by cer-
tain vehement but wofully unprofitable shifts resorted to on
the part of some of our Contemporaries, for the extrication
of one of their political allies from an awkward position in
which he has contrived to place himself. It became our
duty, on Tuesday last, to bring under public notice a pro-
ceeding, the indecency of which was the least reprehensible
portion of it, so far as regarded the greater number of the
actors, but of which the wickedness was much aggravated by
the indecency in the case of that particular individual on
whom it was our painful office more especially and pointedly
to animadvert. The subject we allude to is the meeting
summoned by the sheriff of the county of Meath, in Ire-
land, to petition for an " utter extinction" of tithes in
name and substance, including necessarily the aboli-
tion of that rent-charge into which the ancient pay-
ment of tithe has been commuted nithin the last six
months, and which constitutes at this hour the only legal
fund for the maintenance of the Protestant Established
Clergy. To the requisition for the above meeting with
such an avowed and audacious object the first name signed
was that of " Headfort ;" and the Marquis of Headfort
was therefore called to the bar of public reprobation by the
Times with something of the same homely spirit of un-
shrinking freedom in the cause of truth as we have fre-
quently before exhibited towards culprits more distin-
pished than Lord Headfort, and in all respects his bet-
ters. We affirmed and demonstrated that the purpose
for which Lord Headfort signed the requisition was one
of which he could in no manner aid the accomplishment,
without committing the grossest outrage upon his Sove-
reign, and the most heinous perjury in the face of Al-
mighty God. We affirmed and demonstrated that Lord
Headfort, as a sworn Privy Councillor, a sworn Lord-
Lieutenant of a county, and a Lord of her Majesty's im-
mediate household, by joining, and indeed leading, a pe-
tition to the Queen for the entire abolition of the Church
Establishment, was not merely violating his own solemn
oath, but importuning his Sovereign to break her coronation
oath, so recently sworn in the presence of her assembled
subjects. For the preliminary offence perpetrated by Lord
Headfort, by affixing his signature to the public advertise-
ment of such a project, we expressed the opinion prevailing
amongst all honest Protestants, that it was the bounden
duty of the Queen's advisers to dismiss the aforesaid Mar-
quis from every office held by him at the pleasure of the
Crown. We persist b that opinion with more earnestness,
if possible, than ever. It is one against which no shade or
colour of argument can be adduced. A Morning Paper
which does, par excellence, the scavenger's work of Down-
ing-street, Pimlico, and Windsor Castle, for him who is at
the same time First Lord of the Treasury and exclusive
Mayor of the Palace—for him who seems to have monopo-
lized in his own person all the powers of the State, and
functions of the Royal Household—the Journal in question
has, we say, attempted, however faintly, a defence of Lord
Headfort, whose dismissal from the service it no doubt fears,
as the inevitable prelude to that of many other placemen'.
Every one will have already guessed that an excuse for
crime in such a quarter cannot be deficient in folly any
more than knavery. To give an example, therefore,
of both attributes, we have to state, that the Trea-
sury vassal affects to understand our condemnation of Lord
Headfort's offence as an attack upon the right of petition—
" the most sacred right of a British subject :" that he asks
us to " tell him what Act upon the Statute-book it is not
competent to any subject of this realm to petition the Le-
gislature for the repeal of, or what existing institution any
British citizen (Lord or Commoner, Englishman or Irish-
man) may not lawfully, rightfully, and conslilutionall y, call
upon Parliament to modify, reform, or re-construct ?" and
again, " this assault upon a Noble Marquis for merely sub-
scribing a requisition for a meeting to petition Parliament"
(he forgets to say for what) "is made by the leading
Journal of the party which would fain have itself con-
sidered the great bulwark of British law and free-
dom." And so the Conservative party " would fain
be considered," and let us tell the sneaking equivo-
cator, so the Conservative party is considered by all
who value either law or freedom, as the great—
nay, at this critical period of our history, the only bul-
wark of them both. The whole passage that we have
quoted above is one tissue of fallacy and falsehood.
It
confounds the " right of petition" with the flagitious abuse
of that sacred right; and it fraudulently mixes up and
incorporates an exemption from the penalties of the law
with a title to the especial grace and favour of the Sove-
reign. The Times did not assault Lord Headfort for
merely " subscribing to a requisition" for a meeting to
" petition Parliament," that is palpably untrue, and it was
an untruth which did not and could not have escaped the
attention of the person who indited it. It was not for any
exercise of the right of petition, but for the indefensible
nature of the object which the requisition signed by Lord
Headfort was intended to Komote. When v‘e are asked

0 what existing institution any British subject may not
lawfully, rightfully, and constitutionally call upon
Parliament to re-construct, or what Act upon the
statute-book such British subject is not competent to
petition the repeal of," our answer is—" The Act
of Settlement," passed for Protestant purposes, and
vesting the Crown of England in the Protestant House of
Brunswick, is one which he who petitions against may not
be hanged or transported or sent to the treadmill for doing
so, but will any honest man allege, that although such a
petition may be " lawful," the name of any British subject
can be " rightfully or constitutionally" subscribed to such
a petition ? Will any man say that a British subject ca-
pable of signing such a petition could be " rightfully or
constitutionally" appointed a Lord of the Bedchamber, or
continued in that honourable office about the Sovereign,
after having so subscribed his name ? Suppose a petition
addressed to Parliament to abolish the House of Com-
mons : a British subject might, we believe, " lawfully"
subscribe his name to that petition, whether the House
were to receive the petition or not ; but if signed by any
Member of the House of Commons, is it credible that
the House would, on the resignation of an existing
Speaker, elect such a petitioning " British subject" to
succeed him ? Suppose a petition calling upon her Ma-
jesty to abdicate her Imperial Crown : we do not know
that such a petition would be unlawful—that is to
say, punishable by any criminal proceeding. But would
it be a " rightful or constitutional" exercise of the privilege
of petition ? Could the " British subject," whether Lord
or Commoner, who betrayed such a feeling towards the
Queen and Monarchy of -England, be granted a mark of
Royal favour, or be suffered to retain in his possession such
a mark of favour, without an abuse of the Queen's " un-
doubted prerogative" so criminal and monstrous as to in-
sure the impeachment of the profligate Minister who so
perverted the powers intrusted to the Crown ? Suppose,
again, a petition to the Queen praying that she would be
graciously pleased to perjure herself, by destroying the Pro-
testant Church Establishment of the United Kingdom. It
may be our opinion, it is certainly Lord Headfort's, that
such a petition does not render those who subscribe it
amenable to punishment as felons. But is it not a consti-
tutional question to ask whether such petitioners are sub-
jects who ought to be promoted by the Queen, or retained
in her Majesty's service, undisturbed by a single re-
buke, unbranded by any demonstration of the Royal
displeasure ? We, for our parts, with all devoted
and loyal attachment to the Crown, conceive the Church
to be an institution more sacred and vital to this
Protestant Monarchy than the Crown itself. The
Crown depends upon the Protestant Church by law.
The Crown is inseparable from it, and cannot exist without
it. The Coronation Oath and the Act of Settlement, in
which it originates, make the abandonment of Protestantism
a forfeiture of the Crown. Once more, then, the attempt
of Lord Headfort to pervert the right of petition into an
instrument for the abolition of that Church with vl hich the
Crown of England has been indissolubly and for ever by the
fundamental laws of the British Monarchy united, affords
proof of such " a wrongful, unconstitutional," animus in the
projector, that although he may not be punishable by any
process of law, he ought unquestionably not to be held
up, and countenanced, and patronized as a sample of
the description of British subjects whom her Majesty,
under the advice of her Prime Minister, deems best
entitled to enjoy those honours of which she is by
law the dispenser, and those emoluments whose
saurce is in the revenues of the State. The question being
one of duty in the counsellors of the Crown, we affirm
once more, that the man who has so abused the right
of petition as Lord Headfort in his assault upon the
Protestant Church, cannot, without infamous abuse of the
prerogative and for the most corrupt ends of faction, be
continued in the enjoyment of favours and distinctions, of
which the Royal will was made the fountain tor the sake
of strengthening the institutions of the monarchy, not of
overwhelming them with ruin. We have designedly
omitted all reference whatever to the rapacious writ of
Church robbery for the indulgence of a greedy and brutal
selfishness, which alone could move an Irish landlord,
calling himself a Protestant, to relieve his estate from
the rent-charge allotted to the Clergy—because it was our
desire to present distinctly to the eyes of Lord Melbourne
once, alas! regarded as a supporter of the Church, the
constitutional character of this execrable proct ding, as
being that upon which there could not be (while upon mo-
tives there might be) any reasonable difference of judg-
ment ; and we now ask Lord Melbourne, when Colonel
Verner was deprived of his office for a toast which no law
upon the statue-book could possibly have strained into a
misdemeanour, whether he, Lord Melbourne, will be cor-
rupt enough to sanction the sophistry of his newspaper tool,
or to assert that because Lord Headfort may not be amen-
able to law, he ought therefore to be marked out and
cherished and distinguished for a daring and unconstitu-
tional act, by the unchanged enjoyment of his Sovereign's
especial favour.—Times.

The civic election movements have commenced in
Edinburgh.
WATER WELL DIRECTED BY A TEETOTALLER.
—On Monday evening, about eight o'clock, an elderly lady.
apparently in great distress of mind, was crying " Fire, fire !"
at the door of Mr. Mann, surgeon, Bartholemew Close. On
entering the house it was found that a room on the second floor
was on fire, to all appearance threatening destruction to the
whole house; but by the persevering application of a man
named Crew, in the employment of Messrs. Rippon and Co.,
buckets of water, under the direction of Mr. Giles, one of the
officers of the East London Water Works, who handed the
water to Crew, were used one after another with such success,
that the fire was soon got under. As soon as this was effected
the teetotaller, for such Mr. Giles proved to be, went to see
after the ladies, and to assure them that all was safe. They
asked him what he would have to take after his exertions and
services. lie replied that he was a teetotaller, and had satis-
faction within himself 41ready. To prevent his taking cold, he
added that he always used the same fluid as beverage with
which he had. then been wetted externally, and which he be-
lieved was the surest preventive to taking cold. The parties
separated, well satisfied. If the teetotallers do not partake of
the salamander, or fire-king qualification, it is evident that in
cases of emergency they are not deficient in courage or coolness
to direct their energies with skill and success.

On Sunday night a person of the name of C onnor,
while accompanying his sister home, was attacked by three
individuals, at a place called Botnay, near Maryhill, when
a scuffle ensued, and he was struck on the head with some
heavy weapon, and so severely injured that he died during the
night. A lad of the name of Walls, a shoemaker, has been
apprehended by the police, and transmitted to the sheriff for
examination, as to the murder of Connor. It appears from
information which has been obtained, that the weapon by
which the fatal blow was struck was what is commonly called
a " skull-cracker." The person who used this weapon is said
to be the prisoner Walls.— Glasgow Chronicle.
A very lengthened inquiry took place on Wednes-
day at Deptford, touching the death of a youth named Mel-
ville. It appeared that a few days ago some of his fellow-ap-
prentices had been " larking," when one of them was shoved
against him and both fell, deceased being undermost. He
complained of pains in the loins on being raised up, and at
night became worse. He died on Monday last. A post mortern
examination of the body showed that Melville had previously
been labouring under a disease of the lungs, which would pro-
bably have proved fatal at no distant period ; but the surgeon
thought that death might have been accelerated by the fall.
The jury returned a verdict of—Accidental death, acquitting
the lad who fell upon deceased of all malicious intention to.
wards him. The Coroner cautioned the deceased's comrades
agains; " larking."

The Dumjries Courier of last Tuesday has a three-
columned account of a dinner and ball given to commemoratg.
e
the majority of Wellwood Maxwell, Esq., jun., Atin
" In the evening" (says the Courier) the whole villagelnf scot.
neighbouring heights—not the balefires that blazed beattie was brilliantly illuminated
' • fires, too, blazedzed i_ frn " the
om the
days of weir," but beacons betokening gram
peace. The very poorest cottagerz had
windows, whether feuars on the estate of un sties or other-
tnue, affection,
candles in their
wise, and it was easy to read in so many demonstrationsh
the recognition of acts which many a time and oftave made
the heart of the widow and orphan sing for joy. Alo
lone
woman
in a little cottage had only a single candle; but still it
it
was very cheerfully displayed ; and one of the speakers at th
dinner remarked, that an exhibition so endearing reminded
him of two things—she who, out of her little., gave more than
others did out of their much ; and, secondly, of the London
cobbler who placed a farthing candle in his window at the illu-
mination in honour of the battle of Trafalgar, and wrote
under it—
' Nelson, tho' dead, lives in each British heart,
Hear that and tremble Master Bonaparte.'
All and sundry were exceedingly anxious to honour suitably so
interesting an occasion ; and many a wish was expressed that
Mr. Maxwell, sen., might long be spared to enjoy the esteem
and friendship of the thriving community around, and that
when he is gone, his representative, as he bids fair to do, may
walk in his footsteps, and profit by the bright example so long
and undeviatingly set him."
On Wednesday afternoon an inquest was held at
St. Olave's workhouse, Southwark, on view of the body of
James Wilkinson, aged 38 years. It appeared from the evi-
dence, that the deceased was a seaman, belonging to the Ema-
nuel, which trades between York and London. On Sunday
last he obtained leave of the Captain to go and see his cousin,
who resides in Salisbury street, Lisson-grove, with whom he
spent the day, being then apparently in good health. He re-
turned to the vessel shortly before eight o'clock on Monday,
and immediately afterwards complained of being very ill. Mr.
Clarke, a surgeon, living in Dean-street, Southwark, was sent
for, who promptly attended, but the unfortunate man expired
just expired before the surgeon reached the vessel. Verdict--
Died by the visitation of God. The deceased, who was a re-
markably fine man, has left a widow and two children totally
unprovided for.

THE NORTHERN YACHT STEANIER, NO
Ih-
telligence
has yet been obtained of this, we fear, ill-fated
vessel ; and in the absence of any information regarding her,
the too probable conjecture is, that the bark must have gone
down, and that her passengers and crew hare all perished um
heard
azd
unscen Adver ti,str of Tuesday last.