The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-19 00:00:00

,S.•

LONDON:
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1841.

The election for Nottingham excites much
public interest, and we sympathise with the
public. The two candidates at present in the
field are Mr. LARPENT, the active partner in one
of our most eminent houses in the East India
trade and Chairman of the East India and China
Association, and Mr. WALTER, the proprietor of
the Times. Against the latter we have no pre-
judices. We are bound, both by duty and incli-
nation, to support the interests of the press against
any other interest. We have lately read in the
eloquent pages of Mr. CARLYLE, though cer-
tainly we have not learnt from him, that the press
is the true Church and the members,of the press
the true priesthood of modern times. We be-
lieve, too, with him, that he who expresses
the public feelings, or has a voice to make
the public wants known, is one -of the
true rulers of society. We further agree with
him, that these true guides and rulers of society
must find their proper place in its councils, and
must be honoured according to their value. We
have of late, too, seen and heard so much of re-
spectable men in the City—men in great credit
—who are in the habit of speaking of public
writers with great contempt, who often strut, it
appears, in borrowed plumage, and turn out, in
the long run, to be the most callow, chattering
Jaws
,possible,—that we have not the slightest
regard or affection for your great City merchants.
We have every personal and professional reason,
provided the principles of these gentlemen be
similar, to prefer Mr. WALTER to Mr. LARPENT;
but our duty to the public rides paramount over
Our inclinations, and compels us to subject the
principles on which these gentlemen offer them-
selves to public support, to rigid examination,
before we conclude that one has a better claim
than the other to the support of the electors of
Nottingham.
What, then, are the principles of Mr. LAn-
PENT ? He offers himself as an independent
man, and he goes to the electors of Nottingham
with the certificates of Mr. MORRISON, Mr.
LEAF, and Mr. TRA VERB, that he is as worthy
a man as is to be found in the City of London.
Great is the honour of being recommended by a
man's neighbours, who know him. Being an in-
dependent man—not a nominee of the Govern-
ment—Mr. LARPENT is, and has been, the
steady and. consistent friend" of free trade.
He offers himself to the constituency of
Nottingham as the advocate of the principles of
free trade, including the abolition of the Corn-
laws. He denounced those laws as pernicious,
and very properly attributed all the evil suffered
under the New poor-law to the existence of the
law against the free importation of food. To
throw men on their own resources, and then to
y up those resources, he properly condemned.
Recommended by the .
most conspicuous advo-
cates of
Reform.
.in the metropolis, Mr. LAR-
PENT offers himselfto the electors of Nottingham
as the opponent of the Corn-laws and the friend
of free trade.

On what princi,nles does Mr. wALTER offer
himself? We cannot separate him front the
Times. As the owner of Bearwood, ex-Member
for Berkshire, and defeated candidate for South-
wark, what possible claim can he have on the
electors of Nottingham ? None. He goes thither
as the proprietor of the Times, and he claims
support exclusively on that ground. He is no-
thing, as a public man, but the owner and di-
rector. of the Times, and we must try him by the
principles of that Journal.
It has of late been much distinguished by its
opposition to the New Poor-law. Scarcely a day
has passed for several years that it has not as-
sailed that law. Accordingly 1
't told us on Satur-
day that Mr. WALTER
wa •
s pre-emmently the
friend of the poor. He is brought forward as
the opponent of the Nei Poor-law. He stands

But we have said that Mr. WALTER, as a
public man, is nothing separate from the Times.
What, then, has been the conduct of that journal,
in reference to the great question of free trade and
the abolition of the Corn-laws, on which the
prosperity of Nottingham depends? It knows
that the Corn-laws are an iniquitous evil. For
years it took pains to demonstrate that. It
knows that restrictions on trade are the curse of
the country. It once advocated all that is liberal
in commercial legislation. But, of late, the
Times has been regularly pledged to the Tories.
It has been a thorough party journal ; and the
bulk of the landed gentlemen, and the bulk of
the monopolists, are necessarily Tories,—
for Tory, monopolist, and bread-taxer, all signify
the same thing. It has accordingly ceased
to say anything against the bread-tax, or
in favour of the principles of free trade. At least
it has not evinced any zeal in advocating a cause
which it knows is most righteous. It has not
been merely an opponent of Corn-law abolition
and free trade—it has been a traitor. to that
cause. It professed noble and just principles,
but it has betrayed them. Mr. WALTER cannot
be separated from the Times, and the Times :s an
apostate from truth and righteousness, and a
traitor to the cause of the people and of freedom.
To elect Mr. WALTER as the representative of
the Times is to give a triumph to all that is dis-
honest, and ought to be despicable in politics.
We value principle more than we value our craft,
and much as we desire to see the press
honoured, we hope never to see it honoured in
the treacherous and apostate Times.
We do not join an Evening Contemporary in
condemning Mr. WALTER for seeking the support
of the Chartists, but we must seriously condemn
any Chartist who supports Mr. WALTER. No
journal has been more bitter in reviling and
stigmatizing the Chartists than the Times, and
to support Mr. WALTER iS to support their bit-
terest enemy. No other journal has so signalized
itself by vehement religious intolerance—no jour.
nal has been so forward in ridiculing politica
dissenters and in putting down freedom of ma
gious discussion.

It is the friend of Church-rates, and the foe of
democracy. It has latterly become the parsons'
journal, and has even lent its pages to advocate
faith in the priests as far superior to knowledge
in guiding the affairs of the world. It upheld
Catholicus, who censured Sir ROBERT PEEL
for supporting education. If Mr. WALTER
is to carry out in Parliament the principles
latterly espoused by the Times he must be the
opponent of the progress of knowledge and the
advocate of Church extension.

The conduct of the Times must endear that
journal and Mr. WALTER to the squires and the
parsons, and to them, we submit, should be con-
signed the duty of bestowing on him ho-
nours and rewards. For Chartists and Dis-
senters to vote for the representative of a Tory
journal, is to strike down all the principles
they hold dear. That Mr. WALTER should en-
deavour to slink into the representation of Not-
tingham under a Chartist cloak may be suitable
to the character of the journal he represents; but
he must be a base Chartist who ]ends a cloak to
Mr. WALTER.

The letter of Sir T. COCHRANE, which we pub-
!shed on Saturday from the Ipswich Express, is as
complete an exposure of the means by which many
Tories have been returned to Parliament as could
possibly be desired. Sir TnomAS was offered the
representation for a certain sum, and he paid that
sum before he left London. After he had been
elected a further demand was made on him
through the instrumentality of Mr. FITZROY
KELLY, who had guaranteed him the seat fora cer-
tain sum, which the Gallant Officer paid. Subse-
quently Mr. KELLY communicated to Sir
THomAs COCHRANE, that there were 2,000/.
out-standing debts for previous political occur-
rences; and, for the sake of the Conserva-
tives, these must be liquidated. Mr. KELLY
agreed to pay 1,0001., but the Gallant Officer reso-
lutely refused to be plucked any further. He
did, however, afterwards, on a demand being
made for 500/., express his willingness to con-
cede to it, if it would secure the future support
of the Conservatives of Ipswich; but that not
meeting the views of the electors, the Gallant
Officer announced his intention of dissolving his
political connection with Ipswich.
We hope, for the honour of Sir T. COCHRANE,
for the honour of Mr. F. KELLY, and for the
honour of the electors of Ipswich, that this
letter is a forgery. If it be not, it reflects in-
delible disgrace on all the parties concerned. It
may be customary to get into Parliament by
bribery, and one party may bribe as much as the
other; we exonerate neither; but this letter is an
open avowal that seats in Parliament,' and of
course the liberties of the country, are bought
and sold by venal electors and corrupt men
of wealth. We do not know how
the House of Commons, for its own credit sake,
can refuse to make an inquiry into the subject,
and we are sure that the Gallant Officer will not
again take his seat in the House without some
honest Member asking whether he acknowledge
the statements of that letter, or whether it be a
forgery.
It will be noticed that Mr. FITZROY KELLY is
represented by the letter as the negotiator of the
bargain. He it is, too, who represents to the
Gallant Officer that the electors of Ipswich are
not satisfied; and on his statement mainly rests
the proof of their corruption. He is described as
the author of the terrible imputations against
his own constituency. If that letter be true, can
Mr. FITZROY KELLY face the gentlemen of the
House of Commons, and face the public ? If
it be not a forgery, he admits that he sits
in the House by bribery, and as the representa-
tive of electors who have sold their votes. If
that letter be not a forgery, Sir THOMAS COCH-
RANE is in the same position, and the profession
he belongs to, on which lustre has been shed by
the name he bears, assures us that he never
again will resume his seat in the House of
Commons. It may not be thought advisable
to give the venal electors of Ipswich
another bribe by a new election, but the least
the public will expect is, as probably Ipswich
cannot be immediately disfranchised, that neither
of the nominal representatives of that borough
should presume to vote, or take any part in
the proceedings of the House of Commons.
pro againcdi ngs

But the exposure is peculiarly valuable as
an index to the practices in other bo_
roughs. Walsall, St. Albans, and Canterbury,
have all lately been accused of bribery. Who
will now believe, whatever may be the verdict of
Committees of the House of Commons, that

on the pauper interest, and asks that to place
him in Parliament.
If this were all we should have little to say
against Mr. WAL'rER. But he opposes a de-
clared advocate of free trade, and an opponent
of the Corn-laws. Mr. WALTER, then, is of op-
posite principles. He is an opponent of free
trade, and the friend of the Corn-laws. He is
the advocate of the pauper, and the landed pro-
prietor; the supporter of the idle, the profligate,
and the bread-taxers against the industrious
classes. He goes to Nottingham the advocate of
those onerous restrictions by which the trade of
Nottingham has been ruined. The electors of
Nottingham will not, we are sure, suicidally
elect a man who is the enemy of their dearest
interest.