The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-20 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

We noticed yesterday, in connexion with the spite-
ful scurrilities of O'Connell, some droppings from his
vocabulary, which had been picked up by the slander-
ers of the Evening Press in the joint service of Derry-
al an and Downing-street, and turned to the honest
urpose of bespattering the Times. Together with
commentary upon these outpourings of the Trea-
ury slop-bucket, there appeared a distillation from
them in the pages of a morning print, mixing up some
special abuse of Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham,
Mr. Walter, Sir G. Sinclair, &c., with what was
meant to finish by a deadly assault (for about the ten-
thousandth time) upon this journal. The company
assigned to us is not such any upright and fearless
man need be ashamed of, and the charges shared be-
tween them . and us are such as it implies no small
merit to have provoked from a quarter like that whichhas uttered them. The words " desertion of principle,"
" revolting tergiversation," " betrayal of trust," " de-
sertion of friends," &c., are parrot phrases, which the
pot-house journal has, in its regard for public mora-
lity, so misused as to deprive them of all definite mean-
ing—of every serious hold upon the attention of Eng-
lishmen. These accusations may, one and alj, be
summed up in the favourite nickname of " renegado,"
which the envious and foul-mouthed cur that snarls at
us as regularly as the day star rises has repeated for
years past at th. 6 conductors of the Times. Now,
what is a renegado ? According to the Dictionary,
it has two significations—first, a man who abandons
his faith ; second, one who deserts his party. We
should like to hear it fairly and broadly stated, in
which of these senses has the Times ever been a " re-
negado ?" We should be glad especially to have the
application of that opprobrious term explained with re-
ference to our conduct during the last six years, and to
the principles and objects of a Reform policy. What
principle then, or what article of political " faith,"
has the Times in any instance abandoned ? From
what professions or measures have we swerved ?
Emancipation—The Test Act—the Bill of Parlia-
mentary Reform—the release of Dissenters from the
legal restraints imposed upon them in respect of mar-
riage and baptism—the reform of English corporations,
by getting rid of self-election—the extinction of
ralities—the reform of church discipline—the commu-
tation of tithes—a poor law. for Ireland ;—what more
would any English or Irish patriot of sound mind and
constitutional spirit require ? and from which of these
great fundamental measures—of a real and solid re-
dress of grievances—of a prospective, enduring, and
impartial good—have we ever for one moment flinched,
or failed to advocate with all the zeal of which earnest
and honest public writers could be capable ? What
shadow of apostacy is here? Had we ever promised
more than is comprehended in such views of national
policy ? Have we ever performed less than was implied
in such a promise? To the abstract principle, that a state
has power, we mean moral, as well as actual power, to em-
ploy any portion of the _public resources, including the
revenues of an established church, to whatever uses may
be deemed by the Legislature most righteous, after the
interests of religion itself shall have been fully and
completely provided for, we gave our assent, when, as
a mere abstraction, it appeared to have been broached
for no pernicious or criminal purpose,—when our belief,
in common with that of two-thirds of the community,
founded on repeated, confident, and solemn assevera-
tions by parties assuming to be well informed, was, that
the income of the Irish clergy amounted to six times
that which it has proved to he,—namely, 3,000,0001.,
instead of less than 400,000/.,—when the Whiffs, not
having yet sworn the destruction of the church, ap-
peared by their numbers capable of stemming the tor-
rent of Popish and revolutionary violence,—and, lastly,
bffora it had become manifest that the working of such
an abstract principle, once voted, being left implicitly
in the hands of O'Connell and the priesthood, would
by them be turned to the practical ruin of the Irish
church, through a system of pinching, -screwing, and
plundering, which, under the guise of" employing" a
surplus,. would be really busied in " creating"
one, and vesting its proceeds in the discretion and
polity of those who were pledged to its destruction.
Was there . any abandonment of principles, or
betrayal of trust, or apostacy, or tergiversation,
in withholding from O'Connell that which, with
equal knowledge of the true financial statistics
• of Ireland, we would have refused to Lord Grey,
had he asked it, which he did not, and still
more to Lord Melbourne, who objected to the very
principle of appropriation, until he ceased to have a
will of his own ? But if we have abjured no principle
of state policy, what patty, or man, have we ever de-
serted to whom our faith was pledged ? Can any party
much less any faction in the state—presume to say that
we ever tied or bound ourselves to support it—that
we ever, by word or deed, have compromised the inde-
pendence and free agency of this journal ? We ask
them each and all—each and all we defy them—to
bring forward even the faintest plea for accusing us of
such a surrender of our perfect freedom ? When we
saw those in power who promoted our own measures
for the public interest, we co-operated with them, we
encouraged, supported, and to that extent defended
them ; when they did or attempted that which we dis-
approved of, we boldly and sternly, and to their dis-
comfiture, attacked them, on the points with regard to
which we differed ; when they were succeeded, noini-
bY their own followers, but really by those who
had denounced and persecuted them for not pnrsuing a
course subversive of the monarchy in church and
state, we shook the dust from off our sandals—we
waged war openly against a power which was already
belligerent against the British empire, arid towards those
of whom the Times had never been a friend, it became
a•dectared and inexorable enemy. Does Lord John
Russell or Mr. Daniel O'Connell pretend that we ever
sought their political alliance—that we ever hound our-
selves to assist them, or even tolerate them, as Minis
ters of the British Crown, or dispensers of the execu-
tive power, or guardians of British liberty or of the
Protestant-religion ? We should think they will not.
All those great principles, and all those specific mea-
sures within which, as it ever appeared to us, were
embraced, or through which would be promoted, the
most sacred rights, and the most precious interests of
our country, we have continued to this hour to main-
tain and to abide by. We strove to enumerate them
in a preceding part of this article. The atrocious
fraud of substituting Irish priests for Protestant cor-
porators, and varnishing over the trick by calling it a
grant of " equal rights". to Ireland and to Great Bri-
tain, is me of which the more intelligent classes of our
countrymen begin to be already conscious ; and we
fear not that the resistance we have opposed to such a
scheme will lose us one friend whose good wishes and
sympathy would not be disgraceful to those on whom
they were inflicted.—Times of Saturday.
One of the best " signs of the times," is the attempt
which " The Times" has at last ventured to make to
prove its honesty and consistency. Long did our
Contemporary remain silent on the delicate subject of
its own character, and most ludicrous, indeed, was the
effort on Saturday to show that all the world are in a
delusion respecting its apostacy. It is not a renegado
not it—it never deserted its principles and its friends:—
it never was guilty of any betrayal of trust. It re-
mains precisely where it did—true to its principles
and its friends as a needle to the pole. The observa-
tion has often been made that hypocrisy, by simulating
virtue, affords a proof of the esteem in which virtue
is held ; and we are in like manner justified in infer-
ring, from the attempt of the Times, lame and laugh-
able though it be, to show that it does not merit the
reproaches which have been heaped on it, that
betrayal of trust, desertion of principles, and apos-
tacy, excite only loathing and disgust on the
part of the people of England, and that there-
fore the Times has experienced .to its cost the
truth of that maxim that honesty is the best
policy. Though Barrington and Bill Soames might
find few persons disposed to give credit to their
asseverations of innocence, yet the very attempt to de-
ceive the public into an opinion of their moral worth
would be in some sort a tribute to the morality of the
age. Pope Leo the-Tenth did not even affect purity ;
and the fact that all succeeding Popes have either pos-
sessed or affected it, is. a proof that the moral tone of
• Europe was greatly raised by the Reformation. We
honestly confess, therefore, that we were delighted with
the effort of the Times to shake off the. character for
everything foul, base, and dishonourable, which it has

acquired. The evidence thus afforded of the efficacy
of the punishment which an offended and indignant
public can bestow on apostates and renegades, will
prove by no means one of the weakest safeguards to
principle and consistency. But then to prove that
black is white, is indeen an uphill effort ; and it is
just such a task as this which the Times has under-
taken. " What principle," exclaims our Contempo-
rary, "or what article of political faith has the
Times in any instance abandoned ? From what pro-
fessions or measures have we swerved? Emancipa-
tion, the Test Act, the Bill of Parliamentary Reform,
the release of Dissenters from the legal restraints im-
posed upon them in.respect of marriage and baptism,
the reform of English corporations by getting rid of
self-election, the extinction of Pluralities, the reform
of Church discipline, the Commutation of Tithes, a
Poor-law for Ireland ; what more would any English
or Irish patriot of sound mind and constitutional spirit
require ?" Why, as to Emancipation, the Test Act,
and the Bill of Parliamentary Reform, the Times
cannot now swerve from them, for they took place

before the apostacy. It endeavours, however, by sup-
porting the men who are the deadly enemies of those.
measures to prevent them bearing the fruits for which
they were demanded. As to the reform of English
Corporations, the Times did indeed most strenuously
labour for it before its apostacy ; but after that event
lustily did it labour to second the efforts of Lord Lynd-
hurst and the Tories to defeat the measure in the House
of Lords. How the Standard and other old Tory
papers may feel under this attempt of the Times,
we do not know. The Standard and the Times
were bitterly opposed to each other to the middle of
November, 1834. The Standard and the Times arc
now advocating the same measures, and supporting
the same men. One of them must be an apostate.
The world generally give the Standard credit for con-
sistency ; but we leave it to our evening Contemporary
to determine which is the renegade. The reform of

Church discipline is so conveniently vague an expres'
sion that it may mean anything or nothing. The ex.
pediency of a commutation of tithes is allowed by al
parties ; and as Mr. Walter is ambitious of the rep
tation of the poor man's magistrate, the Times sup.
ports a Poor Law for Ireland, as it opposed the new
Poor Law for England. But what are all these to
the purpose ? Is there a man whom the Times now
supports whom it did not abuse down to the middle
of November, 1834 ? Is it not notorious as the sun
at noon-day, that the Times is labouring to support
the men whom it reviled, and to thwart the men whom
it supported down to that period. That it has thrown
its shield around Orangemen and ultra-Tories—that it
is opposed to every liberal measure, and labours to pre-
vent the Reform Bill from having its necessary fruits ?
Did it not in July, 1834, say " That the Tories
waited only until the session of Parliament should be
near expiring to oust the Whigs, and to play such
gambols during the seven months' vacation (perhaps
knock up a general war for one of them) as might
enable them to divert the spirit of the country, to
throw an unnatural share of power into their own
hands, and turn a dissolution to the credit side of their
account with fortune. 'We told the Whig Ministry
not to wait for the ripening of such machinations."
And did not the Times, the moment the machinations
were successful, go over to the Tories, and abet them
in their
,gambols r Did not the Times, in August,
1834, tell us that the Orangemen instituted " civil
war, that is, a civil war to be carried on by English
men, money, and resources, for the exclusive benefit of
these same. blood-thirsty Orangemen ? Did it not
speak of barbarism in the sacerdotal vestment, and
ask, " is it for such unhallowed warfare that Britain
must gird herself with the sword ? Take for
granted that England should enter the lists and
choosing the • Protestant for her temporary ally,
should put down, as she might do at her own
pleasure, the party whom she thought it most
just and expedient to humble—do these firebrands
of the old ascendancy dream that she would ever
again establish her own supremacy on the wretched
foundation of one sectarian_ coterie ?" And what has
the Times been doing ever since November, 1534, but
advocating the Governm2nt of the wretched founda-
tion of one sectarian coterie ? What has it been
doing but endeavouring to excommunicate the great
holy of the Irish people because they are Catholics ?
Did not the Times, so late as November 6, 1834, tell
us that " the Tory party would march into Downing-
street to that very same patriotic and popular tune to
which the Duke of Wellington marched hastily out of
it. Next, they do not promise any Corporation Re-
form. They do not promise any perseverance in the
-system of Law Reform. They will not admit Dis-
senters to the Universities, nor do they promise to in-
demnify that body by chartering an University of its
own. Such are the pledges, affirmative and negative,
whereby the Tories flatter themselves that they can
seduce the people of England to trust once more to
their. political guidance." And yet the Times in a
few days supported these same Tories, though
they did not promise Corporation Reform, though
they would not admit Dissenters to the Uni-
versities, and though they did not mean to give
any efficient Law reform. Did not the Times tell
us that the Duke of Wellington was " not an eli-
gible Minister for us Englishmen ?"—that " there
never existed a Minister more ienorant than the Duke
of Wellirrgton, while in office, of the wishes and opi-
nions of his countrymen "—that " his political horizon
extended no further than from Downing-street to the
Horse-Guards ?" How often has the Times told us
that Sir Robert Peel was hypocritical and trea-
cherous ?" On the 22d of June, 1832, the Times
charged him with heaping " reproach and shame upon
the Duke of Wellington," and observed if the Duke
ever forgives the candid speech " of Sir Robert, he is
more pigeon-livered than we think him." Did not the
Times eulogize Mr. Edward Ellice for " his vigour,
his straight-forward conduct, and his good sense ?"
and has not the Times lately been representing that
gentleman as the very reverse of 'straight-forward ?
What paper published the following reasons for new-
modelling the Pees ?
" Suppose the Peers and the nation are in direct opposi-
tion to each other upon a point esteemed of high importance
to the people, which must give way—the nation or the
Peers ? There is no getting over that one argument. If
the Peers, a, small body of four hundred individuals, should
(which we trust they never will) think fit to stand forward
in hostility to the whole people of England—if their Lord-
ships choose to employ the powers granted to them for the
general purpose of concurrence in measures of legislation,
to ends of discord and embarrassment—they bring the po-
litical community to a dead look ;' they in truth deprive
the country of the advantages of Civil Government, and
make it obvious, that either their particular character, or
the nation itself, must be altogether new modelled."
This was the language of the Times in 1833. But
we will not fatigue our readers with an enumeration of
parties, principles, and men, supported by it previous
to November, 1834, and opposed by it since that pe-
riod. In every thing it is the opposite of what it was.
If this is not being a renegado, what does renegado
mean ? We should recommend to Mr. Effingham
Wilson to give another " Extraordinary Times," en-
riched with the illustrations of apostacy it has afforded
since the appearance of his publication ; but we fear
that the public are now too indifferent about the Times
to remunerate him for such an undertaking. When
the apostacy was fresh, and the public were first struck
with such an unparralleled instance of profligacy and
tergiversation, they were naturally desirous of refresh-
ing their recollections of the past. But indignation
has given way to indifference, as the Times knows to
its cost, and the effrontery of the denial of apostacy
will only provoke a smile. The Times has been now
too long an object of disgust to the people to excite
much attention to anything it may do. Its decline has
been more rapid than that of any journal of which
anything is known ; and though, like Colonel Char-
terms, it might wish a new character, it cannot shake off
its infamy.—Morning Chronicle.
We earnestly entreat the serious attention of our
readers to the following startling document
TO THE EDITOR 01'- THE TIMES'.
Sir—The following is an answer from the Poor Law
Commissioners to the petition of the clergy in the seve-
ral parishes contained in the Eastry Union in the county
of Kent, requesting permission for the paupers in that
union to have the liberty of attending divine service in
the parish church.
"TO THE CLERGY OF THE SEVERAL PARISHES IN THE
EASTRY UNION.

" Poor Law Commission-office, Somerset-house, June 9.
" Gentlemen—The Poor Law Commissioners for Eng-