The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-17 00:00:00

TO OUR COUNTRY READERS.

We have repeated complaints from the country of
non-arrivals of THE SUN whenever any particu-
larly interesting matter is contained in it, from the
Norwich district especially. New, if the officials
or others whose desire for our intelligence is so
strong as to induce them to steal it, will let us know,
we should prefer giving them a paper, rather than
that our subscribers should be deprived of it. If
this be continued, we shall take other steps.

The publication of Tilz SUN !slaw spaesß commenced this day
at 20 minutes past Three o' Clock.

s

_~

J.v6

2V

Z-1 m.

WITH WATCH
" THE TRUE SUN" IS NOW
INCORPORATED.

LONDON :
SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 17, 1838.

That the Tory fiction anticipated quite as large a mi-
nority as that of Thursday night, on the question of the
Ballot, and were anxious, therefore, to do all in their
power to diminish it, is evident from the amazing pains
they took to stifle—or if not absolutely to stifle, at least
to abridge—discussion, and prevent thearg,ussents of the Li-
beral Membersfrom having theirdue weight with the House.
A variety of inexplicable sounds, mixed with much lively
and strenuous cock-crowing—to say nothing of miscella-
neous yells and brays and hisses—commenced at an early
hour of the evening, just as if the Regent's Park mena-
gerie had broken loose, and taken up its quarters on the
Opposition side of the House. It is but just, however, to
state, that no sooner had Lord Joirte RUSSELL com-
menced his speech, than these melodious interruptions
ceased on an instant, as if by miracle. The most viva-
cious Tory cock-crowings were hushed to perfect stillness ; I
and that which the Se AKER, with all the weight of his offi-
cial authority, was unable to prevent, was effected by the
first few magic words of his Lordship that lie would never
grant the Ballot ! It must be exceedingly comforting to
the Noble Lord to see the high ettimation in which he is
held by the Tories as an anti-Ballot declaimer. It must
almost, we should think, console him for the ill success of
his Consti:utional history, which, we have heard,- occa-
sioned his unlucky publisher a sciious indisposition, from
which he has never since recovered.

Lord BROUGHA M well observed last night in the House
of Lords, in the course of a brief but forcible speech, that
" another such victory as that of Thursday night, on the
question of the Ballot, would be their Lordships' ruin." It
would so, but hoc much more deplorable would the Tory
victory have been, had those from tvhomweltad a right to ex-
pect support, but acted with common honesty ! Then the
faction would not have been doubtfully victorious, but
positively defeated. Had the numerous hangers•on of
Ministers—those " small deer," who have secured a place,
or are on the hunt for a place—but acted up to the profes-
sions which they made upon the hustings, and been sup-
ported by those in the Government who had led 113 to
believe, and gained their elections in consequence, that
they were not unfavourably di.posed to the Ballot—the
question, so far from being left in a minority, would have
been carried by a majority. In fact, it has been lost solely
by treachery—and treachery of the worst dye. In vain would
the Tories have attempted to howl it down in the House,
hadnot the Ministerial hangers-on supported them. And the
knowledge of this circumstance brings to our mind that
colossal statesman, Mr. SHIEL. Where was this red-hot
Liberal—this enthusiastic advocate for the liberty of the
masses—when the question of the Ballot was under dis-
cussion ? Where were his tropes and metaphors, and glow-
ing patriotic apostrophes, which have been so often found
available in the cause of truth and honesty ? We have
looked long and anxiously, but we hare not found his name
among the supporters of the Ballot. The Journals of the
day give no record of his thundering culogiums in favour
of the Ballot. How is this ? Is the distance from Greenwich
to London so great that he could not possibly reach town
in time for the discussion ? or has he been afflicted with a
sudden indisposition, just at the critical period when the
support of every honest man was most wanted in Parliament?
We should be glad to have some explanation on this point ;
and also, whether it is absolutely necessary that a Liberal
Member who accepts a commissionership under Govern-
ment, should Ise saddled, by virtue of his office, with a gag
and a muzzle

We feel deeply on the subject of the Ballot ; because we
cannot disguise from ourselves the fact, that it has been lost
by the sheerest chicanery. It has not had fair play—nor
any thing like fair play. What between open foes, and con-
cealed foes—between those who opposed it boldly and
manfully, and those who ran away from it ; who shuffled
from it ; who had not the courage to say either " Yes" or
No"—the measure has been lost for the Session. But
no, not wholly so. The Whigs have yet an opportunity
of redeeming themselves. The door of repentance is
still left on the jar. The questions of Triennial
Parliaments and an Extension of the Suffrage, yet
remain to be discusssed, and when these are brought
forward, they may still have a chance of retracing their
steps. But will they do so ? Not a bit of it. On all
these points, we will venture to say they will he as infatuated
as they have already shown themselves on the question of
the Ballot. What, indeed, is to be hoped from a party
whose leader in the House of Commons proposes, as a sub-
stitute for the Ballot, an appeal, which he trusts will be a
successful one, to the tender mercies of the Tory landlords ?
Can mortal simplicity—we were going to say im-
becility—go beyond this? So Lord JOHN RUSSELL
actually thinks that he can persuade the faction
to lay aside its favourite nostrums of bribery and corrup-
tion, and thereby diminish its influence in the House ; in
order that he and his, may be enabled to say to Mr. GROTE,
when be next brings forward the Ballot, " Lo, the Tory
landlords have waxed virtuous ; there is no further occasion
for your measure !" In this instance we look on his Lord-
ship's speech as the sheerest drivel ever inflicted on Parlia-
ment. To imagine, for one moment, that a Tory would
ever be induced to lay aside the practices of intolerance,
because a Whig Minister implored him, almost on bended
knees, to do so, argues an unsophisticated simplicity and
ignorance of human nature only to be met with in the re-
cords of the cradle.

We here for the present dismiss this ungracious theme,
which we have taken up with no captious or party views,

but in a spirit of strict and resolute independence. It is
by slow degrees—and Heaven knows with deep reluctance
—that we have brought ourselves to think unfavourably of
Ministers but we should be more infatuated than them-
selves, were we to disguise from ourselves the fact, that
their recent conduct on the Ballot has been such as no
honest man can possibly approve. As a body, they have
deluded us up to the eleventh hour ; and at that critical hour,
humbug being no longer available, they have stripped off
their masks and shown themselves in their true colours.

We have copied from the Chronicle an analysis of the
division on the Ballot, from which it results, in the lan-
guage of the writer, that the Ministry could, by declaring
for the Ballot, ensure its success in the House of Com-
mons. It appears that among the 200 voters, including
tellers, for Mr. GROTE'S motion, there was only one Tory,
Sir GEORGE SINCLAIR. Among the 317 opponents there
were 63 Whigs, including the Ministers. Some of them,
probably about a dozen, would not vote with the Ministers
in favour of the Ballot, the remaining 51 would probably
vote with them ; deducting, therefore, 51 from the ma-
jority, and adding that number to the minority, the division
would be 266 against, and 251 for the motion : but there
were 73 Liberals absent, and of them fifteen are in office,
most of whom were kept away by their inclination to vote
for the Ballot, and by their reluctance to oppose the
Ministers. Adding them to the minority the number
would be precisely equal, or 266 to 266. Of the other
absentees a majority are known to be for the Ballot, so that
allowing nothing for the influence of Government, which
always determines a number of wavering votes, it is clear
that if the Ministers had not voted against the Ballot, the
question would have been carried in the house of Commons.
The writer we have quoted remarks that the Ministers
are at the head of 63 Whigs, and opposed to 200 of
their own regular supporters ; and he pertinently asks,
Can this go on ? Can the Ministers remain in office, or-
posing on an almost vital question the bulk of their own
friends? The notes, in an article which we also quote,
gives its answer to this question, by calling on the Ministers
to dismiss Sir HUSSEY VIVIAN, Mr. ROBERT STEUART, and
others who support the Ballot, from office. A measure of
that kind would at once place them in a rdnor'ty, and put an
end to their possession of power. Such a step they ❑either
can nor would take to gratify the Tories. The true answer
to the important question above asked, is to be found in
another. Do the Ministers more need the support of the
Reformers, than the Reformers need the z:ssistance of the
Ministry ?If the latter be the case—if the Reformers find
or suppose that they cannot attain any of their objects,
txcept bythe instrumentality of the MELBOURNE Cabinet—
tl.is state of things may go on, and the Ministers, uniting
with the Reformers on other questions, may keep posses.
sion of office. But the Ballot is peculiarly a consti-
tuents' question ; they insist oa it. The bulk of the in-
telligent electors, both in town and country, regard
it as vital to their security, and it will be some-
thing quite new in the history of this and of every nation, if
the millions, the mighty constituencies of the empire, can-
not, when bent on an object, dispense with the services of
any half-dozen of persons and attain the fulfilment of their
wishes.

If, indeed, Lord MELBOURNE were a ready and consum-
mate man of business, if Lord GLENELG were as prompt
and vigorous as he is kindly and humane, if Lord HOLLAND
could be incessantly active in support of his own princi-
ples, if Lord LANSDOWNE were as energetic as he is
honest and well meaning, if Lord PALMERSTON were con-
sidered like the elder PITT to hold the destinies of Europe
in his hands, if Lord JOHN RUSSELL had the commanding
influence in the House of Commens of the younger
PITT, if Lord Howicx were as bland and persua-
sive as he is intelligent and sincere, if Sir JOHN
HOCHOUSE were as politically honest as the world once
supposed, and as eloquent as his connection a ith Byron
made every man fancy ; if, in short, each and all the Mi-
niste7s possessed the personal influence of a WELLINGTON
in one House, and of PEEL in the other, the constituencies
might be at once convinced that to attain any one of
their ends, they must humbly support a Ministry which,
having received power from them, uses that power to thwart
their dearest wishes. Such, however, is not the ease ;
over the Peers the Ministers have no influence what-
ever ; and we are bound to say that the Ministry,
singly and collectively, are exclusively indebted to
the Reformers and to the constituencies for their
high places, and not to their personal influence or
abilities. We are not ungrateful for what they have per-
formed, and without scrutinizing their motives too closely we
gis c them credit for having rendered the country most impor-
tant services. But they have rendered them by fighting on
our side. They have been placed in power, not from any par-
ticular love we bear them, but as the exponents of our
opinions and the or;ans of our will. The Reformers sup-
ported them and honoured them because they were the
children and champions of Reform. They were strong in
our strength, not in their own ; and now that they fight
against their friends and for their opponents, their power
must depart from them, like that of Sampson when shorn
by his faithless friend.
The Ministers must be aware that there is not merely a
conflict of parties, there is conflict of opinions in society.
There may be a .juste Milieu policy by iialancing the opi-
nions and the interests cf the different classes, but there
can be no Juste Milieu of opinions. Opinions are right
or wrong, and they all are dependent on one another,
and form a connected chain. He who subscribes to the
doctrine of the Sovereignty of the People, cannot also
embrace the opinion that the Aristocracy are to be the
masters of the people. Adopting one or other of these
opinions he must follow it out to its consequences, or be
shut out from all party influence, and all political power.
The Ministers, we understood, by their professions on
several occasions, by their proposing to give municipali-
ties to to Ireland, by having given them to England, and
by their having promoted Parliamentary Reform, fully re-
cognized the great doctrine of the:sovereignty of the people,
and they are now acting against their own principles by re-
fusing the Ballot, in order to preserve the dominion of the
Aristocracy. .Their conduct in resisting their own sup-
porters, is as inconsistent as it is impolitic.

It is impossible to read the speeches made against the
Ballot, and more particularly the speech of Sir ROBERT
PEEL, without coming to the conclusion, that the real
cause of the opposition to it has been kept entirely out of
view. The great fear of the anti-popular party is, that is
would be effective, that it would deprive all those land-
holders possessing property above 500/. a year, of the
controul which they now exercise over their
tenants, and that the Reform Bill, instead of being compa-
ratively inoperative, would become what Lord J. RUSSELL,
seven years ago, intended it should be—the means of esta-
blishing a fair and impartial representation of the feelings
of the people. The very inconsistency of the arguments of
Sir R. PEEL, leads an impartial observer to the conclusion
that there is more in his opposition than meets the ear.
Inconsistent as he has often been, he far surpassed
his former exhibitions, in that respect, on Thursday night.
After long reasoning he came to the conclusion, that even
supposing the utmost secrecy to be observed, the vigilant
eye of the Steward, would find out defaulters, and that
the secret cannot be kept, even by the parties
themselves. Of what then is he afraid He is afraid
that in " times of popular excitement, if the Ballot
were in operation, the institutions of the country would be
in great jeopardy and danger." The very same argument
would apply agairist open voting. Has he so soon forgotten
what took place during the excitement of the Reform Bill ?
Has he forgotten that the great mass of the tenants of
the Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND, of the Duke of Buc-
cexucx, and almost every Anti-Reform landed proprietor
throughout the United Kingdom, voted in opposition to
the wishes of the landlord ; and that with all the influence
of property, and all the advantages of open voting, the
Tories did not form a fourth part of the first Reformed
House of Commons. True, he !said at the time that the
institutions of the country not only were in jeopardy, but
that with such a representative system it would be im-
possible for any Ministry to carry on the Government of
the country. In 1834, however, he believed it possible even
for a Tory Ministry and the most inefficient, toe, that ever
was formed, to conduct public affairs; and in 1837, when bri-
bery and intimidation had done their work, his confidence rose
still higher, and on the 20th of last November, he declared,
with his usual solemnity, that "our institutions were perfectly
safe in the hands of the intelligent and enlightened people
of this country." Such tergiversation was expected from
him, but it was not expected that the long-tried advocate of
Reform would, after the scenes that occurred during the

ate elections, have deserted the principle for which he '
contended in 1831, and be found on the same side with Sir
ROBERT PEEL voting against the only effectual remedy
for the gross injustice, the oppression, and often ruin, to
which thousands of independent electors arc now ex-
posed. Lord JOHN RUSSELL proposed no remedy, but he
will have an opportunity on Thursday, next, and we there-
fore await with some curiosity the result of the motion of
which Mr. CAYLEY gave notice last evening.

The Irish Poor-law Bill made considerable progress in
Committee last night. The general tone of the discussion
upon it, manifested the absence of every thing like party-
spirit ; and it really seemed the heart-felt wish of the House,
to render the measure as perfect as possible. Several
amendments were proposed, hut they were rejected by
large majorities.
The Times, this morning, asks—
- -•

" Is it, or is it not desirable—nay, indispensable to the full
enjoyment of his franchise, and to the defence of his own
honour, truth, and consistency, by each individual voter—
that he should have it in his power to turn to the poll-book
on each successive election, and hold up to the country the
evidence there recorded and unquestionable, that he had given
his suffrage for this or that particular candidate, and thereby
upheld, or endeavoured to uphold, certain public principles of
which such candidate professed to be the organ ?"

The one word " his" should be changed in this passage.
The voter does not enjoy his franchise, nor record his suf-
frage, under the present system, but his landlords ; and he
is merely the degraded instrument for giving supremacy
to an opinion the reverse of his own, and success to a can-
didate not of his choice. The Times is quite aware that
it misemploys the word " his," for it asks " whether the
franchise ought to be intrusted to those who are debarred
by their position in society from its free and independent
exercise?" It knows that the constituency is dependent,
and, like some other Conservatives, it would open up the
Reform Bill, to give us what they call an improved, be-
cause a narrowed constituency. As they like only inde-
pendent men for voters, they should have those who
are thorough reckless, for they alone are inde-
pendent. There is, however, no escaping the con-
clusion suggested by the two sentences of the Times.
Either the Ballot must be granted, or the dependent con-
stituency must be changed for an independent one. The
whole virtue of the Suffrage consists in its being his who
gives it ; the dependent constituency cannot give their
own suffrages. Lord JOHN RUSSELL ought now to be
convinced, as we have already said, that to grant the
Ballot is to raise a barrier against further change in the
Representation.

The Chronicle this morning will have the Reformers
hope that a Reformer may start for the borough of Pem-
broke. We cannot agree with our Contemporary. Our
correspondent there informs us that the two opposing par-
ties of Whigs and Conservatives have coalesced. The
Mayor of Tenby has declared that he lays aside his per-
scnal feelings towards the OWENS, and supports Sir
JAMES GRAHAM most cordially. No other person now
has a chance, or can have a chance ; and as the election
tikes place on Monday or Tuesday, no opposing Candidate
will, we believe, enter the field.

COAL MONOrOLY.--Why are there no petitions re-
specting this abominable tax upon the people ? We call
on our friends, the Coffee-house, Eating-house, and Inn-
kQeperv, to take it up. The Parliamentary Committee on
the Bill met yesterday pro forma, and will meet next week,
when a number of petitions ought to be ready for them.

The whole of the Paris Journals of Thursday have
been received. In the Chamber of Deputies on Thursday
the Minister of Commerce and Public Works laid on the
table projects of laws for the construction of four Rail-
ways, and the digging of as many Canals in various parts of
France. The canals were for uniting-1. The Marne and
the Rhone ; 2. The Marne and the Aisne ; 3. The Ga-
ronne and the Adour ; 4. And a canal collateral with
the Garonne, along the right bank of that river.
The Railroads were for connecting-1. Paris and
the Northern frontier ; 2. Paris and Havre ; 3. Paris
and Orleans, and 4. Lyons and Marseilles. Th cost of
these works is estimated at one hundred and sixty-seven
millions of francs—a triflng expense when their immense
importance, both in a national and commercial point of
view, are taken into consideration. The intersection of
France by Rail-roads will quadruple the internal trade of
she country by cheapening the transit of all descriptions
of goods, and effecting an inimense saving, in what is
of the . utmost value to a commercial people—time.
Towns now distant a week's journey from cue an-
other will be brought within the limits of a few hours'
travel without danger, fatigue. or even exposure to
to the inclemency cf the weather. More business will be
done in a week in the tray of traffic than was previously
performed in five ; and that, too, at comparatively as great
a saving of money as of time. Then, to a military country
like France, with an extensive frontier, liable to be invaded
at so many points, rail-roads will render an army of 30,000
men as efficient for all defensive purposes as a force
more than doubly as numerous with the old mode
of conveyance. Once railroads are estAblished,
a few days will suffice to concentrate at any given
point
. the
whole military strength of the kingdom--a fact which,
when fully ascertained by the Chambers, will lead to a re-
duction of taxation, by rendering a large standing army
altogether unnecessary.
It is hardly necessary to refer to the conduct of the
French Cabinet upon Railways to be convinced of itsim-
mense superiority over that of England in whatever has
relation to practical' statesmanship. Among the French
Ministers there are always two or more statesmen of busi-
ness habits, who take care to direct into some grand legiti-
mate channel the enterprising spirit of the community. The
interests of the nation are kept constantly in view, even
while the Government seems only intent on promoting, the
success of the local schemes of a Municipality or a Com-
pany. In England, on the other hand, the Government is
composed of theoretical Aristocrats, alternately the repre-
sentatives of two rival factions, who know nothing of prac-
tical statesmanship, and who seldom or never attempt it
its
consequences committing some blunder more mischievous in
consequences than the evil it was intended to remedy. Even
when an opportunity presents itself for effecting a great
nationalimprovement, it is lost sight of by Ministers, who are
for the most part too intent on the retention of office to
spare a moment to the business of the country. Rarely
does any man in Great Britain, who is not an Aristo
Fret by birth, ever attain to the dignity of a sea
in the Cabinet, no matter how commanding may be
his talents, unless he belong to the legal profession
and have spent the best part of his life in studies
calculated to unfit him for the every day duties of a really
useful Minister. Hence it is that the Government is al-
al-
ways the last to perceive the importance of any undertak-
ing, however beneficial to the industrious classes. Eight
years ago, The Sun, unsupported by any other portion of
the Public Press, endeavoured, day after day for months
together, to impress the Government with the national
importance of marking out, and giving every encourage-
ment to the formation of certain lines of railway, ra-
diating from London, and connecting, by the closest
commercial link, the remotest manufacturing districts
enand
of the
United Kingdom with the Metropolis. We then
noticed the immense advantage we would derive from an
was
constructionearlierti t ;
of
we theseremember
roads
w i
well l England
having
n
than
upon
the Conrepeatedly
assured our Government that if the then
opportunity
lost the Cabinets of Paris and Berlin would secure to their
people the start of us. But Ministers were too busy
watching the intrigues
of the Court to pay any regard to the
prospective commercial interests of the country, and the
consequence is that we must now be content to move in the
wake of Continental
y - Europe. To support, under the spe-
cious plea of eschewing monopoly, the do-nothing policy of '
the British Cabinet Ministers leave the entire direction
and
management of railways in the hands of private speculators,
who have made a species of South Sea bubble of what should
have been a national undertaking, superintended by Ministers
under the controul of Parliament. For great lines of road,'
connecting the extremities with the heart of the Kingdom,
we have zig-zag abortions of no earthly Use, but that
of finding employment for engineers, and filling the
pockets of jobbers and speculators. We do not con-
tend that it was the duty of Government to have
constructed the Roads at its own risk, while there
were hundreds of capitalists ready to undertake such works ;
but we do maintain that Ministers ought to have surveyed
the Kingdom, and defined the exact route of every line by
which it was to have been intersected. We contend further
that a certain time should have been fixed for the finishing
of each line, and that effectual measures ought to have
been taken to prevent the jobbing in Shares to the
shameful extent now familiar to every man in the
country. But practical statesmanship is not to be ex-
pected from the Aristocratic factions who alternately
and hereditarily direct the destinies of England ; nor
will a Government suited to the. wants of the times he
formed, till the people can better:infe their ! f into it
..-Se spirit into it
than they can by the occasional appointment of a plebeian
Attorney-General. Our leaders of faction. are clever enough
in the management of a Court. intrigue, but they are sad
bunglers of the commercial affairs of a great and powerful
empire. _

After the presentation of the projects of laws for Rail-
ways and Canals, M. PASSY brought forward the question
of Slave Emancipation. The Chamber was in the act of