The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-27 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

Why will not the Reformers quarrel with each
other ? The Times has proved that they ought to do
so, and the Times ought to be a great authority with
them. How can the Radicals coalesce with the

Whigs ? The latter, we are told, do not intend to
destroy the Church, to concede Ballot and Household
Suffrage, and Peerage Reform ; and as the Radicals
are honest men, who are not actuated by selfish mo-
tives, but merely 'wish to throw all our institutions into
a Medea's cauldron, their objects will not be advanced
by keeping the Whigs in office. " Nothing under
Beaver'," says the Times, " can they hope to gain by
supporting the Whigs, but the remote chance that at
some distant period, and under some possible change
of circumstances not to be traced upon any exist-
ing map, they may be able to bring round the
official Whigs and the Conservative opposition
5n both Houses to tolerate these revolutionary
chimeras." This is, of course, a cogent reason
for supporting the Tories. Again, we are told as a
reason for the Whigs abandoning the Radicals, that if
the former " still pretend that their system of reform
presupposes the maintenance of the Church and State,
and Monarchy, while, as is notorious, both English
and Irish Radicals denounce all three as grievances
fit only to be swept away before the march of mind, we
submit that it is not with the latter body we are to
attribute to the Whigs any common name designating
political alliance or partnership, but manifestly with
Sir Robert Peel and the Conservatives, who are, one
and all, solemnly pledged before the country to as
much Reform, that is, as much beneficial change, as
may be consistent with the maintenance of Church
and State and Monarchy.' " We will not now stop
to inquire how wide is the interval between the
most liberal Conservative and the most timid Whig.
But it would be as unfair to judge of all the
Whigs from the extreme next to Conservatism, as to
judge of all the Tories from the extreme next to
Whiggism. The Whigs may wish " the mainte-
nance of Church, and State, and Monarchy," and yet
Lord Melbourne and Lord Stormont may attach dif-
ferent meanings to Church, and State, and Monarchy,
and consequently entertain very different ideas as to
which ought to be " maintained." A conformity be-
tween those who would concede some Reform, and
thoee who hate the very name of Reform, can beget
at best very abortive measures. The Church, and
State, and Monarchy, are words of convenient vague
ness. The Duke of Newcastle would no doubt tell
us that the pension to his mother, out of which
he was shamed by the exposures of " Radical,"
was necessary to the support of the State. We have
never heard that the Duke of Wellington com-
plained of the impropriety of the pension granted
to and received by his own mother. The monstrous
inequalities in the Church—pluralities and non-resi-
(knee—are declared by the Tories essential to its ex-
istence. The more unlike the Church is to that of
the Apostles, of whom our Bishops are the legitimate
successors, the more perfect it is in Tory eyes.
The Whigs maintain the Monarchy because they deem
it the best security for the liberty of the people. The
Tories see only in the Monarchy a pretext for large
establishments, civil and military, at home and abroad.
Touch a useless place of great emolument, a Tory in-
stantly exclaims, " You are endangering, the Monarchy.'".
The only public expenditure of which he is impatient
is that on commissions to ferret out the abuses in cor-
porations and courts of law. This expenditure is bestowed
for good and efficient services to the public, and is so
much withdrawn from Tory idlers—and therefore the
Tories will protest against it in the name of the economy
of which in this instance they are enamoured. The
Whigs and Radicals will not quarrel just now to please
the Tories. Many of the Radicals no doubt wish
that some of the Whigs were rather less like the To-
ries, but they do not like the Tories the better on ac-
count of this resemblance. They may not be satisfied
with the extent of Reform conceded to their demands ;
but they know why they cannot obtain more. If the
House of Lords refuse to pass uninutilated the mea-
sures sent up to them from the Commons, their Lord-
ships would only be more complaisant to a Tory
Ministry, because its measures wcre of no value
to the public. The best proof to the Radicals
that there is a wide difrerence between a Whig Re-
f.-rin Ministry and a Tory Conform Ministry, is the
liatred of the Peers to the former. Well, but
say the Tories, what do you gain by having a Mi-
nistry who cannot carry the Lords along with
them ? Much. They gain the valuable demonstration
that without a reform of time Lords the just expecta-
tions of the people will be disappointed. The pitcher
goes so many times to the well that it is at last broken.
The Louis may trifle with the people once and again
with impunity ; hut one day a fitting occasion may
present itself for curing the evil. We owe to the Mi-
nistry of Lord Melbourne the whole force of the de-
monstration that the Lords and a reformed House
of Commons cannot act harmoniously together.
Lord Grey, from tenderness towards " his order,"
withheld the demonstration, by taking on himself I
the odium of withholding the measures which he
knew the Peels would not pass. Lord Melbourne,
by universal admission, has moved straightforwards,
as his sense of duty compelled him, and the conse-
quence is the bitter hatred evinced towards his
Government by the Peers ; and, on the other hand,
the profound impression on the national mind that
the Peers are the rotten part of the Constitution,
to which the knife of the surgeon or strong medi-
cines must be applied. The Tory organization through-
out the country is compact and powerful. One man of
twenty thousand pounds a-year possesses much more
influence than forty men possessed of five hundred
pounds each. Though the property of the Tories
bears no proportion in amount to that of the middle
classes, yet the interest of any single individual of the
latter in any proposed reform is infinitely less than
the interest of the Tory in the existence of abuses, and
of this the Corruptionists are well aware. A Tory of
five thousand pounds a-year obtains a living of two
thousand pounds or three thousand pounds a-year for
one son in the Church, a place of five thousand pounds
or six thousand pounds a-year for another in the colo-
nies, and for a third and fourth the prizes in the army
and navy are open to him. The reduction of a mil-
lion or two of expenditure is seriously felt by the
gentry, but the benefit accruing to an individual of 5001.
a-year from the diminution of taxes is comparatively
small. Hence the Tories fight pro aris etfocis. Hence
their resort to intimidation and other foul practices.
It is true were the middle classes to be united intimi-
dation would fail, but there is at present a want of
union, and the dread of being sacrificed renders many
timid men neuter. But the Radicals are not such
asses to be in love with" Air tyrants, because the
Whigs either will not or .cat ot go at once to the root
of the evil. They will not quarrel with each other
merely to enable the Tories to play their old pranks.
They know that the Tories still in' their hearts hate
the very name of Reform, and sigh for that Constitu-
tion which the Duke of Wellington thought so_per-
fect that nothing could approach its excellence. They
will not only not quarrel to please the Tories, but they
will in due time reward those members who have lately
earned from the Times the reputation of honest and
consistent Reformers.—Morning Chronicle.
The Patriot newspaper adverts to a conviction
which is very generally felt by the Dissenting body,
that before they can have the full concession of their
claims, it is indispensable that they should have a
greater number of friends, from principle, in Parlia-
ment. Is yet plainer language necessary ? Then the
Dissenters mean to say, that until there is a greater
number of themselves in the House of Commons, their
interests will not be properly attended to. We are
only surprised that this conviction never forced itself
on the minds of the Dissenters now. What-
ever sympathy has been expressed by Members of the
House of Commons in the grievances to which the
Dissenters have been so long subjected, has been by
men whose sympathy arose from their general attach-
ment to the principles of civil and religious liberty,
and not from any fraternity of feeling with the ag-
grieved, considered as Dissenters. There are many
Liberal Members who advocate the interests of the
dissenting body in the Lower House of Parliament.
Whenever any question affecting their rights is brought
forward, the Members in question vindicate those
rights in general terms, and always give them the sub-
atantial benefit of their vote. This is all very good in