The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-20 00:00:00

It will be seen from our Parliamentary report that Mr..
Harvey brought forward his motion last night, for a revisionL
of the Pension List, but that he found the call of the,
House, which was enforced at his desire, of little use to-
wards obtaining a majority, or even securing an audienco.
The disappearance of a whole flock of Reformers of ever),
shade, as soon as they had answered to their names, was an;
occurrence which cannot fail to make a stir among the con-
stituency at the next election, when many an Hon. Member
who considers it a good joke at present to have given the
motion the go-by, will laugh at the wrong side of his
mouth, on finding himself at the wrong side of the
poll-book. Can those Gentlemen be ignorant that
their constituents are dissatisfied and disgusted with
:.he unmerited pensions;which constitute, as they con-
ceive, so large a proportion of the present list ?
Can they be ignorant that a day of reckoning
must come, and that the desertion of their posts Upon
such a question as this was an an act of insubordina-
tion that will not be lightly passed over ? How strongly
does the conduct of Lord Sidmouth contrast with the
conduct of many a brawling Reformer. His Lordship re-
linquished a pension not likely to be included in the list of
objectionable grants ; and in so doing he set an example
which reflects the highest credit on his name. But we be-
lieve it will Le found that many of those who had promised
every thing on the hustings forgot that the practical ques-
tion was the proper test of their sincerity. There are those,
however, who will not forget it ; and we have no doubt
that upon the proper occasion they will brush up the droop-
ing memories of their Representatives, and remind them of
what they have done in a manner that can neither be mis-
taken nor disregarded. The Ministers and their supporters
deceive themselves, and only themselves, if they think they
can long resist the demand of the people to prune and re-
gulate the Pension List. Even the division of last night
shows that the known sentiments of the people are not
wholly without their influence. Another election would
set matters in a still stronger light ; and who can under-
take to say that the Government is so firm at the present
moment as to have no chance of putting the popularity of
the present vote to the formidable test of a new election ?
—Morning Herald.
We find that we have hitherto had much too (rood an
opinion of those who support the Ministry in the daily
press. We had no idea that they could be guilty of such
black ingratitude as we see exhibited in the Morning C'hro-
nick of yesterday. Our contemporary, in discussing the
reception which the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill met
with in the House of Lords on Friday evening is exces-
sively severe upon their Lordships generalls', and especially
upon Lord Lyndhurst, for having insisted upon taking evi-
dence upon oath as to the facts upon which the Bill is
founded, before they passed such a Bill. Now this is the
most monstrous ingratitude we ever heard of ; for if the
Chronicle had taken the trouble to refer to Lord Lynd-
hurst's speech, it would have been seen that a principal
reason on his Lordship's part for this further inquiry was
his desire that a special favourite of our contemporary—
namely, the Attorney-General for England, Sir John
Campbell, Knight—should have an opportunity of clearing
h character from certain shocking aspersions which are cast
upon it in the.evidence taken by the House of Commons re-
garding the same matter. Surely this ought not to be regarded

as an offence by Sir J. Campbell's friends. The evidence ob-
tained by the House of Commons respecting the bribery at
Stafford was not on oath, the Hon. House not being em-
powered by law to take such evidence. It is only by re-
ference to this fact that we can account for the extraordi-
nary statements made relative to Sir John 'Campbell ; and
were the Chronicle to examine the matter further we think
it could not but admit that Lord Lyndhurst took the most
considerate course for that learned person's reputation, in
giving the world an opportunity of knowing that such
charges against so grave a functionary could not be sub-
stantiated on oath. It is strange that a Ministerial paper
:,hould dwell with apparent pleasure upon the imputed ve-
nality of Stafford, and the gross bribery alleged to have
I)een practised there, when the most striking evidence on
the subject fastens the bribery upon the King's Attorney-
General, and therefore must (for the present) be in com-
mon courtesy rejected, as incredible. How differently, and
how much more kindly for the Government officer, does
Lord Lyndhurst handle the subject. The following was
his courteous and most considerate manner of treating it :

" The evidence contains some statements so incredible is
themselves—of a character so extraordinary—that I, for one,
must withhold my belief of them, until, at least, they have
been more completely established. Why, in that evidence a
case of the grossest bribery and corruption is made out against
his Majesty's present Attorney-General. Shall I, then, as-
sume that charge, that accusation, to be completely established,
without affording to Mr. Attorney-General the opportunity of
appearing at the bar of this House to defend himself from a
charge so grave ? lam making no rash and unfounded asser-
tion. I shall read to your Lordships that part of the evidence
to which I allude. It was described in the Report as the
evidence of a solicitor _ _

" Question—Have you any knowledge of bribery baying
taken place at the last or previous elections ?
" Answer—Not at the last, but at Sir John Campbell's.

xmnicirs u. 4 I ? a
put
...
z - jrtm
" Answer —I paid them myself at o

" In what interest are you?

" Answer—Sir John Campbell's.'
" To other questions the witness answered that out of 556
who voted for Sir John he (the witness) paid. 531. That
31. lOs was given for single votes, 61. for plumper% ; that the
voters were paid directly after they had voted, but that the
money was promised before.
" That solicitor, then, clearly imputed to the Attorney-Ge-
neral the infamous crime of bribery and corruption. I will
now read to the House part of the evidence of another anony-
mous witness, described as a banker long resident at Stafford.
It is to this effect—that at Sir J. Campbell's election be ( Sir
John) had drawn largely upon their bank ; that the drafts
were paid in small notes and coin, and especially in silver,
altogether between 2,0001. and 3,0001., and that there had
been at that time no entertainment to account for such dis-

bursement.
" So far, then, as related to the evidence, it is impossible
for your Lordships to proceed upon it alone to the disfran-
chisement of the borough."
Now we submit it to the consideration of all impartial men,
whether, if Lord Lyndhurst had been himself a Minister,
and had been guarding the reputation of a colleague, he
could have done more for his Majesty's present Attorney-
General than he did in the above speech ; and yet he is
assailed with all manner of bitter words by the Ministerial
Journal. It is enough to make Lord Lyndhurst vow never
to do a good-natured turn again—at least for a political op-
ponent—as long as he lives. Would our worthy friend the
Chronicle prefer that Sir J. Campbell should continue to
lie under the imputations which the unsworn evidence has
cast upon him ? Would it rather that he who has expressed
his virtuous indignation respecting the bribery at Ipswich—
that he who but the other day went down to prosecute upon
a bare surmise—an unfounded suspicion of bribery at Great
Yarmouth, should himself remain a recorded briber and cor-
rupter ? Do Sir John Campbell's friends really wish that
an Act of Parliament should pass against the borough
which he represented, founded upon allegations of gross
bribery and corruption practised by him ? The supposition
is monstrous ; and yet, if it be not true, we cannot under-
stand why his friends should be angry that the Lords have
determined to take evidence on oath, and thus give him an
opportunity of wiping away the foul spot which the ano-
nymous solicitor has temporarily cast upon his once pure
reputation. Either Sir John Campbell has been guilty of
gross bribery and corruption, or he has not. If he has, it
would be well to ascertain so important a fact by the best
kind of evidence ; if he has not, would it not be abominable
to legislate upon evidence which asserts that he has
Perhaps Sir John Campbell's friend and our distinguished
contemporary the Chronicle will be pleased to say which o f
the alternatives it would choose to abide by.—Morn. Post.

TITHES.-Yesterday a meeting of market-gardeners
was held at the King's Arms Hotel in Palace-yard, to consider
the Bill now before Parliament relative to the commutation of
tithes. Mr. Wilmot in the Chair. Mr. Byng, M- P., and
Mr. T. Law Hodges, M. P., and several other gentlemen ad-
dressed the meeting at considerable length, and urged that the
proposed measure was one of peculiar injustice towards the
market gardeners, who embarked more capital, and displayed
greater skill and industry, than any other cultivators of tha
soil. After a long discussion it was resolved that every oppo-
sition should be made to the Bill, and should it prove ineffectual
that endeavours should be made to procure the insertion of a
clause that would in some measure protect the market gar-
deners from its general operation.
Our Toulon Correspondent announces that Prince
de Joinville is to embark shortly at Toulon for a voyage, the
destidation of which was unknown. Upon this slender foun-
dation the Nouvelle Minerve has raised thefollowing paragraph,
in which there is not a syllable worthy of credit. _Minerva
will surely lose her ancient renown for sagacity by indulging
in romances like these :—" The Prince is to sail from Brest,
The duration of this voyage has
landena t
oo n phrios c ce d
return, t tahnedlvinidao
llittaikOecucpanth;
ewasilletsouocrh
Na
at p
oSlte.
nH et
transporti,ee
nso them
c a
lat to Franca
th arth e Arrival of these glorious remains
will coincide with the fates of July, in 1837. It is even said,
but this we will not guarantee, that the British Government
but given its assent to the translation of the bones,
British man-of-war will accompany the Prince's
health arc now the only obstacles to this expedition."
Las nots
thaton s only
his return to France. The fears of the Queen for
a
vessel on
her
Galignani.
We are glad to learn that the handlooin weavers,
certainly the worst paid of any of their brethren of the work-
ing classes, have lately obtained a considerable rise of wages.
In the couuty of Fife, the weavers of bed ticks have obtained
10 percent. advance, and on dowlas and other coarse fabrifabric.;
fully 50 per cent. Thisthe of the linen
speaks well for state
manufacture. —Scotsman.