The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-23 00:00:00

PUBLIC OPINION.

What the Tories think of the rights of other men
may be learned from what they say incidentally. The
Post, for example, defends Colonel Bruen's threats to his
tenants, by the doctrine that he had a right to be'Of-
fended because those tenants did not vote for him. The
right to be offended at the free exercise of an 'electoral
qualification is described as a right of property, from
which it follows that the right of property in the land-
lords is the duty of slavery in the tenants.
The same journal, writing on the same subject, de-
scribes Mr. Bolling's workmen as " enabled by him to
acquire the franchise as occupiers of /4e houses, in the
belief and understanding that they have no political opi-
nions that will lead them to vote against him." On
which showing the franchise is altogether the gift of the
Bollings and the Bruens of the empire to the industrious
classes. The Tories, therefore, look on the whole of
society as made exclusively for the rich—for whose advan-
tage the masses must be slaves body and soul. The
Chartists, who speak and vote for the Tories, give their
assent to the Tory doctrine that they are and ought to
remain slaves.

The Morning Post, accuses the Whigs of chuckling
at the idea, that the Conservative leaders will be unani-
mous in re-accepting Mr. Shaw Lefevre, for Sir Robert
is not a man to forget, that by choosing a Speaker from
among his opponents, he will gain two votes upon most
divisions. The Post considers, however, that the Whig
party by their conduct at the opening of Parliament in
1835, prevailed on the House to establish the principle
that the politics of the Speaker shonld harmonise with
the politics of the majority of the House, and indeed it
was in conformity with that principle, that Mr. Lefevre
himself was chosen. Upon this account, therefore, the
Conservative party, says the Post, should be against his
re-election.

The Herald takes a rational view of the choice of
Speaker. It abhors any propositions of party in relation
to any gentleman who has filled the chair with dignity
honour, and impartiality, and is convinced that Mr. Shaw
Lefevre has earned the respect of all parties.

The independent electors of Scotland and Ireland
are now attacked daily in the most ferocious language by
the great organ of the Tories. No epithet is too strong
for that unprincipled Journal. The Irish are ferocious,
fanatical, and intoxicated barbarians : and the constitu-
ency of Ilawick, consisting of the most independent and
Liberal electors in Scotland, are described as " Old Slit-
rig savages." Had they sold themselves to the Tories,
like most of the old freemen in English boroughs, they
would have been disgraced by the praise of the Times.

The Worcestershire Chronicle observes that the
Tories are wise in laying on oppression. The Tories can
calculate pretty exactly the extent of oppression to which
John Bull can submit ; they know how far they can just
load him without inflaming him to kick off his burden,
and turn upon his drivers, and they will hardly pass that
line.

With regard to the stumbling-blocks in the way of
Ireland's quietude and desire for justice, says the Dublin
Evening Post, "the priests are terrible men, and should
be suppressed if possible. But how are you to go about
it ? The only effectual way would be to murder the
priests. But, then, there is some difficulty here. You
must have at the very least, 200,000 men in Ireland
before you can commence operations, and these would
cost money. Besides, remember, that more than one-
half of her Majesty's troops are Irish Papists, and chances
are that three••fourths of any.new levies would be Irish
Papists also." These are mere hints, saith the Post.
The Cheltenham Examiner thus pointedly speaks,
alluding to the Tory majority :—" It is said to be a ma-
jority of eighty ; but a majority of eighty for what ?
Not for Stanleyism towards Ireland ; not for Church
Extension in England ; not even for opposition to Ballot
and Franchise Reform—but a majority of eighty only
for that question on which the Liberal party always have
been confessedly the weakest, and invariably hitherto, in
a minority, viz. the Corn-laws. Last year out of 477
Members who voted on Mr. Villiers' motion, the Tory
majority was no less than 123. But did it follow that
therefore the same majority existed against all Liberal
measures ? Manifestly not."

The Times—generously remarks the Ayr Observer
(a Tory organ)—in commenting on the state of the elec-
tions, chooses to be somewhat gross and unjust in re-
ference to the Scottish returns. We would have wished
that the re-action had been greater ; but we cannot join
in attributing the Liberalism of the " inferior portion of
the middle classes"—as the Times asserts—either to
" vulgar pride and conceit," or to a vain-glorious desire
of being "a century in advance of all England and Ire-
land in point of leeterature and leeberality." Such a
truly vulgar gibe is not only unworthy of the " Leading
Journal," but essentially wrong.