The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-20 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Times of Saturday had another touch in the
magniloquent style of guiding the political opinions of
three-fourths of the people of England, or rather an
improvement on that boast. It appears that the peo-
ple of England cared nothing for the Reform Bill,
Catholic Emancipation, the repeal of the Test Acts,
or Ecclesiastical and Tithe Reforms ; and that the
Times all hte while moved them like so many pup-
pets. It could have prevented all these Reforms.
Not one of them could have been carried " had the
Times been one of its opponents." How lucky for
us Reformers it was that the Tories did not think of
forking out their cash and quieting this great mover of
the people of England till the great effect was produced.
The Times opened the door to Reform :

-" but to shut
Excell'd her power ; the gates wide open stood,
That with extended wings a banner'd host
Under spread ensigns marching might pass through,

With horse and chariots rank'd in loose array."

If Lord Lyndhurst, and Sir Robert Peel, and the
Duke of Wellington, instead of abusing the Times,
calling it traitorous, unprincipled, and so forth, had
known how to use it, they might have had no cause to
repent their bargain. Are we to understand that this
boast of the Times is to meet the reproach that it has
lost its power now, or is it a feeler for another turn ?
It may turn and turn, but its meretricious practices
have deprived it of value. But we will allow the
Times to give its boast in its own language :

" ‘Vhatparty have we ever deserted ? None ; for to
none have we ever sworn allegiance. What principle, or
measure, or great system of national policy once espoused
by the Times. has the Times ever, even for one day, aban-
doned? Let any abusive and lying blockhead, hired to
rail at his betters, answer that. What public principle
once proclaimed by the Times has this paper afterwards, at
any period, or under any circumstances) flinched from
strenuously enforcing? Roman Catholic Emancipation,
the relief of Dissenters from obnoxious tests, Reform of
Parliament, the correction of ecclesiastical abuses, and the
effectual and permanent commutation of tithes—what Bri-
tish .Tournal outstripped the Times in manly and dauntless
energy on behalf of each and all of these great measures?
Nay, we challenge the political world to answer us, which
of these measures (aye, which one of them) would have
fbrced its way against the manifold impediments opposed to
it had the Times been one of its opponents ? This is
truth, not wanton arrogance."

Not wanton arrognnce ! ono ! When was the
Times ever known to be arrogant ? It commits, how-

ettr, the trifling mistake of the fly in the fable, which
while it revolved with the wheel supposed it caused the
wheel to revolve. The Times was certainly powerful
when it advocated principles dear to the people of
England ; but what a beastly libel on that people to
pretend that they had no principles but what the Times
chose to give them ! It could have made them, for-
sooth, Reformers or anti-Reformers at pleasure ! We
can have no wish, and it is not certainly our interest,
to undervalue the power of an organ which adequately
represents public opinion ; but the strength is derived
from the people, and when the people find their organ
treacherous they deprive it of that strength. The
Times would not be that despised thing it now is,
the very by-word for everything contemptible, if it
could have moved the people like puppets—if, when
it abandoned the cause of Reform, it could have
made the people also abandon it and commit /Ho
de e. We should like to see how the I)uke
of Wellington, Sir Robert Peel, and Lord Lynd-
hurst would look were the Times to apply to
them for a certificate of its consistency and honesty at
the time when it exhausted its vocabulary of abuse on
all three. Lest their memories should fail them, we
must favour these statesmen with a few specimens of
the characters drawn of them by our Printing-house-
square Contemporary. We thought we had fairly
shamed our Contemporary out of its impudent claim
to honesty and consistency, as it has for some time been
silent on that head. But we find we have given it
credit for more grace than it possesses. We must
resume the task of doing justice to the merits of our
Contemporary. It will not be unprofitable, for, in the
space which has elapsed since the Thugs became a re-
negade, youths have shot up to manhood, and the
proofs of the depravity of the Times, and the signal
punishment which it received from the people, will
teach them an admirable moral lesson.—Morning
Ch-onide.

The discussion on the motion of the Rev. Mr.
O'Malley was again adjourned by the General Asso-
ciation on Friday, after the meeting had heard the
speeches pro. and con. of Mr. Sharman Crawford and
Mr. O'Connell. The substance of the former's
speech vas given in4our paper of yesterday ; to-day
we give :Th. O'Connell's. We cannot compliment
the Honourable and Lemma Gentleman upon the

cogency of the arguments with which he combated the
proposition before the meeting. In every thing that
Mr. O'Connell has said about the former misgovern-

anent of Ireland we entirely concur. But if we-wanted
one proof more glaring than any other of the truth of
this; position, it would be supplied by the fact, that in
Ireland there is not, to this day, a legal provision for
the poor. In that country alone, of all civilised
states, are the poor dependent for subsistence upon
eleemosynary aid. That burden falls altogether on
the shopkeeper and farmers. The landed proprietary
and the Church contribute nothing to it. When
misfortune or sickness sweeps away an Irishman's
property, he and his family have either to starve or
rob or crave alms from those who happen to be them-
selves close verging on mendicancy. Such a state of
things must not be any longer continued, no matter
who would perpetuate it, or from what considerations.
The feeling of Great Britain on the subject is noto-
rious ; it is the one point of union between .conflict-
ing parties ; and it is pretty clear that even amongst
his own countrymen Mr. O'Connell stands in a de-
cided minority on this question. This is a sufficient
answer to those who affirm that Mr. O'Connell op-
poses a Poor-law for Ireland in order to uphold his
influence in that section of the empire ! Let him
persist in that opposition, and our conviction is that
he will himself weaken his power than it could be
weakened by all the malice and energy of all his foes.
Now, we do not desire to see Mr. O'Connell's influ-
ence with his countrymen impaired ; for we deem it
useful, if not indispensable, to the achievement of his
country's rights ; and we do, therefore, sincerely wish he
would lay aside his prejudices on a question where reason,
_ religion, justice, and facts are against him—a question
which he cannot persist in opposing without seriously
reputation and his power. We do not
damaging his
say that his amendment is not a proper one. On the
contrary, we think it extremely desirable that the Asso-
ciation should proceed on this as on another critical
and important occasion with prudence and discretion.
That body ought not to resolve rashly on any topic, as
it ought to be always prepared to carry its deliberate
resolutions into active operation and full effect; There-
fore it is that we approve of Mr. O'Connell's amend-
ment. The resolutions ought to be referred to the
Committee. But when in Committee we do trust that
Mr. O'Connell will exhibit a more unprejudiced feeling,
than has manifestly dictated his speech on Friday.
This is the only occasion of late in which we could
discover him napping. We cheerfully acquit him of
all those unworthy motives to which some of our Con-
temporaries, liberal as well as illiberal, attribute his
conduct in reference to the Poor-law question, but we
cannot possibly approve of the course he is pursuing,
or of the reasons he assigns for adopting it. As to
the specific resolutions, whether ultimately adopted,
modified, or rejected, they cannot fail to make the par- '
sons think. The Tory Peers have brought their
reverend friends into a pretty mess.—Morning Chron.
It appears from an account we publish in another
column of a Whig-Radical dinner at Northampton,
that poor Lord Spencer is going the way of all flesh
—don't be alarmed, reader—Nye mean of ail flesh
lie fattens—that is to say, is growing wondrous heavy
just before Christmas. With that good-nature that
always characterized his Lordship, he proposed the
health of his Majesty's Ministers, but, with his usual
clumsiness, and forgetting Spain, and Portugal, he ex-
pressed a hope that the course of the Government
-would be just and straightforward !" Then, waxing
energetic, as we are told, he is reported to have said, I
cannot see how any man who advocated Reform in
Parliament can think that his Majesty's Ministers
are going too far." If this be so, we are heartily
sorry for the mischief that has befallen his Lordship's
optics. Having yet to learn what connexion there can

possibly be between Reform in Parliament and giving
" a heavy blow and a great discouragement" to Protes-
tantism m Ireland—which Lord Melbourne candidly
admitted would be the consequence of the Irish Church
Bill—we have no difficulty in seeing what his Lordship's
eyes will. not show him. It may be that his Lord-
ship's recollection is affected as well as his eyesight. If
not, he will probably bear in mind that he said, in the
House of Commons, that he would prefer civil war to
the repeal of the Union. Well, his friends, the Mi-
nisters, have made a league and covenant with O'Con-
nell and his rebel gang, who declare that nothing short
of the repeal of the Union will ultimately satisfy them.
Has his Lordship altered his mind on this subject ?
Is he, to use his own very striking language
at the
Northampton dinner, still inclined to " show fight"
for the Union ? In either case, where is the straight-
forwardness of the course Government is pursuing ?
But it would be a wilful waste of time and labour to
attempt to argue with Lord Spencer ; because he de-
clared that " he did not think it was morally possible
that be ever should change his opinions," and he as-
signed some excellent reasons for this thinking—we
beg pardon, this not thinking. Among these the most
remarkable was, that " he could have nothing to gain
by changing those opinions, and should have every
thing to lose." If we were not afraid of weakening
the force of this very conclusive reason, we should be
inclined to suggest, that it is as impossible for some
men to change their opinions as it is for some to
change their shirts. It is necessary in the one case for
a man to have two ideas at least, and in the other two
shirts at least ; but it sometimes happens that folks are
found with only one of these commodities, and then
there can be no change, because it n'y a pas de quoi.
—Times.

The more that the people and their real friends
peruse the eloquent and able speech of Sir William
Molesworth, at the great reform meeting held at Tot-
ncss, last Wednesday, the more they Nv ill be convinced
of the sincerity—although they may doubt the saga-
city—of that straightforward and uncompromising pa-
triot. We touched on Saturday on the leading cha-
racteristics of the various speeches made at the abdve
great meeting—principally with a view to that para-
mount question of public interest—which may, indeed,
emphatically be called the question—the urgent and
immediate necessity of Peerage Reform. There are,
however, two peculiar features of the speech of Sir
William Molesworth which appear to call upon us
for a few additional remarks. We may class them
conveniently under two heads. The first concerns the
question of Ballot. The second concerns the propriety
and necessity of making open questions of all the re-
maining desiderata of Reform. Wifh regard to the
first, Sir William defends himself from certain flip-
pant imputations brought against him in quarters af-
fecting to have the authority of Government ; by
stating that he should consider his honour compro-
mised in leaving the numerous majority of his consti-
tuents in humble life to the persecuting malignity of
parsons and landlords. The argument is Good quoad
the detached question of the ballot. But it is not so
detached now. There is a time for all things. We
have advocated the ballot long before Sir William was
returned to Parliament. But to urge it now—to make
it a sine qua non—would, we are satisfied, be inju-
rious to the cause of reform. We quote Sir William's
arguments on the subject of open questions, sensible
that we can add nothing to their force in point of rea-
soning, nor 'to their eget, addressed as they were in
the emphatic language of friendly independence to a
Cabinet Minister then present :—" A system of Cabi-
net opposition to these liberal measures of which the
popular party approve is incompatible with the rresent
state of affairs. Of such a system the people ought
to disapprove, and do disapprove ; and to such a sys-
tem neither the people nor their representatives will
much longer assent. This system must, therefore, be
changed. I agree with your worthy representative
(Mr. Parrott), that the question of the ballot should
not be made a Cabinet question, but, as he states, it
should be made an open one. The great, questions at
issue between the two parties ought to be made open
questions. Let there be no Cabinet opposition to the
Ballot—nor to a reform in the House of Lords—nor
to any of the other great popular measures. Let any
person connected with the Government be at liberty
to vote on these questions, as he in his judgment
deems best. I feel it my duty to tell you, my Lord,
as you are connected with the Government (and I
trust you will receive my information in kind part,
coming, as it does, from one who really wishes well
to the present Government), that unless concessions
somewhat similar to those be made to the popular
'arty, it is vain to hope that an union of parties will
much longer exist. By making those reasonable con-
cessions, the Government will rally the people round
them, will infuse fresh energy and confidence in the
nation,. and will retain the support of those who, like
myself, would willingly be their friends, but who can-
not sacrifice every principle even for the sake of their
friendship." Upon this subject we concur with Sir
W. Molesworth. No benefit ever accrued from mu-
tual sacrifice of principle. No ultimate good was ever
done by the suppression of opinion for the sake of in-
terest. Honesty is the best policy in this case as in every
other. Character is strength in the constitution of a Mi-
nistryas in every other case. What good has been gained
by requiring of public men the sacrifice of their own opi-
nions to the paramount opinions of the Cabinet for the
time being ? Nothing has resulted from these com-
promises but increased weakness, disunion, and un-
popularity. The individuals who have made these
sacrifices of consistency have been rendered by those
very sacrifices less capable of serving the cause and the
party for whom those sacrifices were made. Such
questions, it is therefore quite clear, should, for the
interest of the C4net itself, be made open questions
by any Ministry wiTich claims or aspires to the cha-
racter of being a Ministry of the people. With the
opinions of Sir William Molesworth on the subject of
open questions, we, therefore, concur. At the same
time we must repeat our conviction, that neither the
ballot, nor extended suffrage, nor short Parliaments,
nor Church nor Municipal Reform, can be with pro-
priety considered equal in importance and in ur-
gency to the question of Peerage Reform. That ques-
tion being carried, the other desiderata will follow as
a matter of course. Peerage Reform ought to pre-
cede every other. Tire question it involves is, whether
there shall be or not a stoppage or suspension of the
vital functions of the body politic. It is ridiculous
to talk of delaying such a question—if we have
rightly described it—of postponing it, or of com-
paring it to any other question of "'Political Reform."
What would be said of an individual in common life
who avowed, either in public or in private, his disincli-
nation to look some urgent difficulty in the manage-
ment of his affairs in the face. We need not say what
he would be called ; but we say to each and every
procrastinator, "De tefabula narratur." Such con-
duct is as ridiculous as the conduct of the medical
conclave in " Gil Bias," who discuss abstract then.
rems of medicine while the breath is escaping from the
body of their unhappy patient. We say again, and
with all the emphasis which we can impart to words—
.that the first thing to do is to remove instantly the ir-
responsible obstruction of the Peerage. Public energy
must not be divided by the consideration of too many
things at
a time. We are for the " one-thing-at-a-time”
principle in
preference to the " all-things-at-once "
principle. All ,
the intensity of political agitation must
be brought
to bear with undivided weight and mo-
mentum on that " one thing needful "—the Reform of
he
of Lordse----Morning Advertiser.
The Corporation of
the House
London deserve the thanks of
humanity for their liberal vote to the .suffering Polish
ire) fu%st?'"licoesse eyes —Victims
et
of a sullen and barbarous tyranny—
love of
country, their unconquer-
able patriot-passion, is an inexpiable crime. Deserted
by Tories at one time, betrayed by Whigs at another,
and, latterly, abused and vilified by Radicals, when
appealing, in their deep distress to the generous sympa-
thies of Englishmen, never was there a people whose
cause was more righteous in itself, or more calamitous
in its issue. From the first hour of their manly strug-
gle to achieve their national independence—a struggle
unblemished on their part by any such acts of vindic-
tive ferocity as have brought liberalism into hatred and
contempt elsewhere--they had our assistance, such as
it was, given freely, given . zealously, and without re-
gard to party considerations. For the question of the
independence of Poland rested on a higher ground
than that of party politics—it Concerned the faith of

treaties—it was intimately associated with the cause of
civilization and the cause of humanity. England will
one day have, we fear, abundant reason to bitterly re-
pent the faithless and pusillanimous conduct of her
Government to the deserted and betrayed Polish peo-
ple. The colossal and barbarian power that has since
wrested Turkey from our • influence, by the treaty of
Unkier Iskelessi, and pursues with the noiseless tread
of a stealthy, but indefatigable policy, the path of an
anti-British ambition, should not have been allowed
to cancel, with a dash of the pen, the treaty of Vienna,
and erase the Polish nation from the map of Europe.
In the year 1794, when the brave Kosciusko was in
the field, Earl (then Mr. Grey) deprecated, in a strain
of generous and impressive eloquence, the apathy with
which the Tory Government of that time viewed
the heroic straggle of the Poles. The world afterwards
saw the same Earl Grey invested with the mantle of
power, which had fallen from the shoulders of a Tory
Premier, and did he and his Whig colleagues vindicate
on the Treasury benches the generous sentiments to-
wards Poland which shed a moral lustre upon the path
of their official exclusion ? Far worse than apathy
did they manifest. The British Government was then
bound by a solemn treaty, which did not exist in 1794,
to the preservation of_ the national independence of Po-
land. But Russian influence was stronger with our
Liberal Government than the obligations of a treaty,
and operated upon its policy with the force of fascina-
tion. Not only did our Whig Ministers abstain from
insisting that the treaty of Polish independence should
be respected, but they proposed and carried—carried
in a reformed House of Commons I—the vote which
took five millions of money, on pretence of the Russo-
Dutch loan, out of the pockets of the English people
to replenish the exhausted exchequer of the Autocrat
who had torn the Treaty of Vienna to pieces, and to
enable him to bring down fresh masses of troops on the
Poles, wearied with beating successive armies of the
barbarians. This is one of the darkest pages in the
modern policy of England. Would that it could be
torn away for ever ! Prussia also was permitted to
" co-operate" for the subjugation of Poland to Rus-
sia, and even to confiscate the property of British ma-
nufacturers going to Warsaw. The reward for our
connivance at this treacherous intervention was the
Prussian Commercial League to exclude the com•
merce of Great Britain from the States of Germany.
Thus the sacrifice of British interests quickly followed-
the compromise of British honour, and the violation of
British faith.—Morning Herald.
There have been two instances lately of very strong
testimony borne to the public spirit and patriotism of
the Marquis of Chandos, of which he ought to feel
justly proud—the one the banquet given him by the
Conservatives of Winchester and its vicinity ; the
other his dismissal from the office of Steward of the
Corporation of Winchester by the Whig-Radical Town
Council. The next thing to having the praise and
respect of good men is to receive the marked disappro-
bation of those whose praise would imply the desertion
of duty, and the sacrifice of principle. The praise of
factions and sordid politicians Lord Chandos is not
likely to receive, and will certainly never deserve, until
he forsakes the path of a pure ambition and an ho-
nourable fame. He must, therefore, console himself
for the loss of the Stewardship of the Winchester
Corporation, by the consciousness of the want of
those essential qualifications for the office which,
in proportion as they raised him in the opinion
of the Whig-Radial Town Councillors, would
sink him in the estimation of all the sup-
porters of Constitutional and Protestant principles in
the country. It is not at a crisis like the present, when
the question is the preservation or ruin of the institu-
tions of the empire, that a man in the station of Lord
Chandos can, without compromise of principle and loss
of legitimate influence, refrain from the bold and manly
declaration of his sentiments. Nor has he refrained
from the most explicit and decided avowal of his opi-
nions upon the great topics of political discussion and
conflict which agitate the country. He who did not
hesitate to sacrifice office and reject the dazzling
allurements of power, rather than violate his pledge to
the farmers of England, is not the man to shrink, at
any time, or under any circumstances, from the honest
performance of his duty, or to fear the consequence,
whatever it may be, of an uncompromising vindication
of his principles. At the dinner given to him .the
'other day at Winchester, he furnished- additional proofs
of his determination to stand firmly and unflinchingly
by the principles which his conscience sanctions, and
to abide, with high hope and heroic fortitude, the fate
of the cause which his sense of patriotic duty has
chosen for his' own. In the speech of the Noble
Lord, which will be found in another column, he
says that he " advocated as a public man nothing
from which the virtuous and intelligent portion of the
community would ever desire to see him swerve—of
that he felt perfectly confident ;—but of this, likewise,
he felt confident, that from those principles, based,
as lie believed, in the public good, no consideratiOn
under Heaven would ever induce him to swerve.
Could any circumstance supply him with additional
inducement to abide by his principles and theirs—he
should say theirs, for they were identical—that cir-
cumstance was to be found in that evidence of the
soundness of those principles derivable from the pro-
gress that they were daily and hourly making." When
will any of our Whig Ministers speak out in the same
manly and decided tone, and let the country know
whether there are any, and what principles they are
which they are not prepared to sacrifice on the altar
of political expediency ?—meaning, thereby, the gra-
tification of their own personal and selfish ambition.
—Morning Herald.

SECOND EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.
THE LONDON GAZETTE

THIS EVENING.

Commission signed by the Lord Lieutenant of the West Riding of
the County of York, and of the City and County of the City
of York.

South West Regiment of Yeomanry Cavalry.—James Brown
Gent., to be Lieutenant, vice Watson, resigned, Dec. 14.

DECLARATIONS OF INSOLVENCY.

EDWARD ANDREWS, schoolmaster, Beresford-street, Wal
worth.
ELIZABETH LEWIS, ♦ictualler, Abergovenny.
BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED.

WILLIAM CRAVEN, paper-manufacturer, Horsforth, York
shire.

BANKRUPTS.

JOSEPH MOULD, cheesemonger, Newgate-street, to sur-
render Dec. 30, at twelve, and Jan. 31, at eleven, at the Court
of Bankruptcy. Hutchison, Crown-court, Threadneedle-street ;
Graham, official assignee, Basinghall-street. •
THOMAS BALL, licensed victualler, West-street, Soho, Jan.
4, at twelve, and 31, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Fry,
Cheapside ; Graham, official assignee.
ISRAEL ALEXANDER, horse-dealer, Chiswell-street, Fins-
bury-square, Dec. 27, at one, and Jan. 31, at twelve, at the Court
of Bankruptcy. Bel2her, official assignee ; Young, Mark-lane.
EDWIN BARTHROP, woolstapler, Wakefield, Yorkshire,
Jan. 2, at one, and 31, at eleven, at the Sessions House, Leeds.
Adlington, Gregory, Faulkner, and Follett, Bedford-row, London ,
Sewell, Chatteris, Cambridge ; Taylor, Wakefield.
JOHN RICHARDSON, carpenter, Watling, Norfolk, Dec.
26, and Jan. 31, at eleven, at the Globe Inn, King's Lynn, Nor-
folk. Smetham, King's Lynn ; Milne, Parry, Milne, and Morris,
Harcourt-buildings, London.
JOHN TURNER, cotton-manufacturer, Heywood, Lancashire,
Jan. 9. and 31, at twelve, at the Commissioners'-rooms, Manches-
ter. J. and W. Heron, Manchester ; Johnson, Son, and Weather-
all, Inner Temple, London.
SAMUEL DUTSON, inn-keeper, Bury, Lancashire, Jan. 18
and 31, at ten, at the Swan Inn, Bolton-le-Moors, Lancashire.
Chester, Staple's Inn, London ; Armstrong, Chapel Walks,
Preston.

_
JAMES CHARLES SMITH, upholsterer, Denmark-Ifill,
Camberwell, Dec. 31, at half-past eleven, and Jan. 31, at twelve,
at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom, Abchurch-lane, official
assignee ; Oliver, Cheapside.
GEORGE THOMAS FERARS, bedding-manufacturer, Great
Pulteney-street, Golden-square, Dec. 30, at twelve, and Jan. 31,
at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Whitmore, official assig-
nee, Basinghall-street ; M'Duff, Castle-street. Holborn.
THOMAS WILLIAM CLARKE, inkeeper, Horncastle, Lin-
colnshire, Jan 2 and 31, at eleven, at the White Hart Inn, Spilsby.
Walmsley, Keightley, and Parkin; Chancery-lane, London ; Oahe_
row and Son, Horncastle.
JOSEPH WOLLETT, merchant, Gould-square, London,
Dec. 31, at half-past Twelve, and Jan. 31, at One, at the Court
of Bankruptcy.' Alsager, Birchin-Lane, Cornhill, official assignee ;
B. and 0. Drew, Bermondsey-street.
. RICHARD GEORGE CLODE, wine-merchant, Birming-
ham, Jan. 10 and 31, at One, at Radenhurst's New Royal Hotel,
Birmingham. Michael, Red Lion-square, London; Griffiths, Bir-
mingham.
WILLIAM CATTARAL, merchant, Liverpool, Jan. 7 and
21, at one, at the Clarendon Rooms, Liverpool. Taylor, Turner,
Sharpe, and Field, Bedford-row, London ; Lowndes and Robinson,
,
Brunswick-street, Liverpool.
RICHARD PRINCE and FERDINAND EICHMAN, stuff-
printers, Manchester, Jan. 9 and 31, at eleven, at the Commis-
sioners' Rooms,
Manchester. Johnson, Son, and Weatherall,
Temple, London ; Hulme and Andrew, Manchester,