The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-16 00:00:00

MORNING EDITION.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE DAILY PAPERS of, YESTERDAY.
( From the Morning Chronicle.)
We are unwilling to enter into any controversy with a writer
in the Examiner, who contends that in the controversy re-
specting Mr. AP Leod we have no right to complain either of
the sui reme Government or of the local authorities. We are
as strongly impressed as he can be with the calamitous re-
. sults, both to this country and America, of which war cannot
fail to be productive; but we entertain a confident hope that
sear will be avoided. We differ, however, with the writer as
to his assumption that the Americans are in the right and we
are in the wrong. The statement which he adopts from Sir
F. Head does not, for instance, bear out his remark,
" that the attack (of . the Caroline) prima facie was un-
lawful. It was a midnight attack on American citizens
in an American boat moored to the American shore. It was
not an attack in the progress of hostilities ; for it
appears that not a shot had before been fired by
Mr. Mullah or his militiamen or volunteers." This,
we apprehend, is sacrificing the spirit to the words.
The force on Navy Island had cannonaded the British village
of Chippewa. That the cannonade was ineffectual did not
make it the less an attack. If a man aims a blow with a stick
at the head of another, but the blow does not reach the head,
the man struck at would not the less consider himself attacked.
knotting that a constant communication was kept up between
Fort Schlosser and the island, Mr. M'Nab might reasonably
anticipate a mere effectual cannonade from the sympathisers
obtaining possession of cannon of more extensive range, in
which case the village of Chippewa would have been destroyed.
The attack was made when armed men took possession of
Navy Island and fired on Chippewa. The Caroline was hired
by the ruffians to convey cannon and men from Fort Schlosser
to the island, and in following the Caroline to Fort Schlosser
and taking possession of her the Canadian militia were resisting
hestiiities, and not commencing them. The case which the
writer in the, Examiner afterwards supposes to prove that the
American authorities are in the right, is not in point—
" The American authorities," he says, "have done precisely
what we should have, and, indeed, must have done, under si-
milar circUms`aoces. If a mixed band of French refugees and
English ruffians were to take hart in a French civil war, to
land on the French coast and annoy the neighbouring country ;
if they derived recruits and supplies horn our shore, and, be-
fore our Government could prevent their doing so, a steamer
should run from Dover to France, and entry them arms and
men, and return at night and moor in Dover Harbour—if, are
sae, under these circumstances; a band of French vo'unteers
should at midnight enter Dover Harbour, attack the steamer,
loose her from the pier, and endeavour to kill the crew and
scuttle the vessel, should we or should we not, on the alarm
being given in the town, interfere to stop such proceedings ?"
To make the parallel complete, the writer should have al-
lowed this mixed bind of French refugees and English ruf-
fians to obtain possession' of Dover Castle, and leisurely, day
after day, use the steamer in conveying cannon and other
stores and men from it to the French coast. In such a case
the English Government, being unable to vindicate its
authority, could not justly blame the French Govern-
ment if, in self defence, it proceeded to attack and scuttle
the steamer in Dover harbour. The question seems to us to
b too serious to be left to the cognizance of a local court in
the State of New York. It is possible that the plea suggested
by the writer in the Examiner might be allowed, and that,
even if convicted, M'Leod might not be executed; but even
as a matter of prudence we question the propriety of the course re-
commended. We are persuaded, on the contrary, that the course
on which Government has entered is much more likely to he
attended with pacific results. If APNab and his party were
in the wrong, 2nd it could be established that the Americans
on grounds of international law are entitled to redress, the
Government ought not to lose a moment in giving satisfaction.
But we fair an abandonment by the British Government of in-
dividuals, whether regulars or militia, who in their mode of '
defending the British territory kept within the strict line of
their duty, would be little likely to purchase a continuance of •
peace, while it would entail dishonour on those who should
consent to such a proceeding.
(N tom the Mornina Post.)
The long article of The San, which professes to comment
upon the observations on home and foreign trade, which we
offered to our readers on Thursday last, seems to us to go very
wide of the mark. It is from no dist espect to oar Contem-
'wary, or disregerd of the subject., that we do not reply to the
article in question, but because we think that we have already
s ated, with sufficient fulre ss and distinctness, our views upon
the points to which the article relates. Let us repeat, how..
ever, that our great object is to ma'ntain (so far as it may he
possible) such a system of proteeton and restriction as will
afford opportunities of remunerative industry to all classes of
the pe .ple, whether agricultural or manufacturing We are
very jealeus of any change calculated to diminish the amount
of our home agriculture, because, if that were wholly or in
part abandoned', we hate no conception how the people now
employed in it would find renur.erative employment.
(From the Times.)
The fresh perplexity into which the affairs of the East have
been thrown is not cured by the answer of Lord Palmerston
to the questions of Lord Francis Egerton aad Sir Robert Feel
as to the authenticity and the tenour of the hatti-scheriff, by
which the nominal hereditary Government of Egypt has been
restored to Mehemet Ali. The House of Commons listened
to that answer on Friday night not only with impatience, but
wth contemptuous indignation. There is but one voice in all
parties (unless we arc to except the Ministers of the Crown
and the r morning organ of Donnhig-street) to reprobate a
course which looks lilac double-dealing on the part of Eng-
land. There is but one feeling amongst political men united
by nothing but a common sense of justice and honesty—
namely, tt at the only proper disavowal of so discreditable
a praceeding is the instant recall of the author of
this mischief. That individual masks himself, wa are
told, behind a diplomatic pre& nee : but we defy the
Ministers, collectively and individually, to declare to Parlia-
ment that Lord Ponsonby did use due diligence to prevent the
publication of this hatti-scheriff, or that he did not use undue
and unauthorised diligence to promote it. The Foreign Se-
.cretary is advised that this stinted and suspicious readmission
of the Pacha to the Pachalic which he governs, and to his
master's favour, in an act of the Sultan attne. If it be so,
it is certainly the very first step which the Sultan has
thought prok-.er to take on his own independent authomity
with regard to the Pacha of Egypt since the collective
note of July, 1639, was signed. The moment for acting
proprio vigore is either not yet come or long since past.
Are we, then, to infer that the Four Powers had no
cognizance eT this hatti-scheriff? That not a whisper of ad-
vice has been allowed to reach the Divan since the Turkish
fleet returned to a Turkish port ? And that the Sultan is left '
to put " his own acts," in force without the knowledge or
against the consent of those by whose interference he has re
Ii
-
covered whatever power over Syria and Egypt he may now .
possess ? These suppositions are ridiculous. . The Porte may
be made to bear the odium of measures too dishonest, too
crafty, and too indiscreet to be avowed by Christian Foreign
Secretarie' ; but it is to our Ministers that the world looks For
the fair and just exercise of the pewee they have helped the
Sultan to resume. The Allies ought to have known the pro-
visions of this grant; they ought to have stipulated, that con-
ditions which had been backed by British men-of-war
should be as exactly observed as if they had been made by
British officers. I.ord Palmerston states, that it was un-
doubtedly the intention of the Four Powers to grant to Mehe-
met Ali the bona fide hereditary possession of Egypt in the
direct line. If that was their intention, who has prevented it
from being carried into execution ? Are their forces so con-
temptible, or their diplomacy so unskilful, that they cannotob-
tain from the Porte the ratification of their own promises, the
fulfilment of their own desires? The agent who urged the
Porte to the "act" which it is now alike inconvenient either
to avow or to-disavow, was the same who urged the Porte to
pronounce the decheance of the Pacha—contrary to the inten-
tions of the Four Powers : the same who denounced, in the
most violent language, the -terms of the Napier convention—
contrary to the intentions of the Four Powers : the same who
advenced the time of the blockade of Alexandia—contrary
.to the intention of the Four Powers : the same who,
in 1839, urged the dying Sultan to risk his last army in
the fatal campaign of that year—contrary to the . desires
of every. prudent statesman in Europe. That agent
vas and is the British Ambassador at Constantinople. If these
dis:strous end ill-judged measure:; were all " acts of the
Sultan," Lord Ponsonby ought to he recalled for having failed
in his duty cf using British influence to avert such precipitate
emeeses. If they were, as we firmly believe, all or most ef
them the consequent s of his direct in.tigation or indirect
machination, Lord Ponsonby ought to be disavowed, recalled,
and disgraced, for having presumed to frustrate the intentions
of the Queen's Allies, for having thwarted the instructions of
the Queen's Ministers, and for having allowed the promises of
the Queen's officers to be broken. Is the peace of the world
again to be placed in j. opardy because Lord Ponsonby is a
well. connected Nobleman ? Is the influence of England to
make the Porte more vindictive and unjust than has been the
wont even of Turkish Princes?

(From the Globe.)
The Times has returned to the question of tae St.
Sulpice Seminary. On Tuesday last we answered its
article of the preceding day. h now, on the very day
of the discussion, returns to the matter. We cannot
now touch upon every point of sophistry in its observa-
tions, nor unravel the jumble of Ideas into which it has
purposely fallen. Our Contemporary's notion as to the
supremacy of the S.,vereigr, to which he triumphantly
refers,
is perfectly unsound. It is a supremacy in tem-
poral not in ecclesiastical matters : it is not a negative
of different churches, but the reverse. Henry VIII. was
declared bead, not of the Lutheran but of the Catho-
lic church ; and though many discouragement; were
employed in after times to put
and it is, it not an
down the latter church,
they have since-been removed,
Esta-
blished, a recognised Church. The case is the reverse
in Canada. No such discouragements have been employed
there ;and .f they had,
it would not only have been con-
trary to good faith, bat we 51100 l havelost Canada l e-
fore this,as we shall if we don't mind what we are
is an
The notion in Canada is that tl.e Cathowe
established religion there. As to the ()curt of
national organ or not, that is quite a
dii,ffe"n
affair. A Church may be, al we have in-
stances stances in other countries, an Established Churcn,
albeit not the national organ in religious matters. With
respect to the passage quoted in the former Canada
Act, that it was not intended to operate, nor did i'
operate, as a defeaz ince of the right of prope ty or
lands enjoyed by the Seminary of St. Suipice—it sim-
ply operated to take away the claim for the future
to tithes, dues, and other personal payments, &e., from
individuals not of the Roman Catholic f&tb. The other
points we need not again refer to. The doughty Bishop
is, we believe, not v,ry strong in the hole of persuading
even his own party of the poVey of insulting the C:1-
tholics of Canada, and repudiating. -the spirit, if not
terms, of treaties and laws which had been aeeed upon
for so long a time.
(From the Standard).
We should be extremely sorry to be oblige 1 to
fear that public atteLtinn 13 not steadily fixe 1 upon
the debate which will take Wave this night in the
House of Lords upon the Bishopof Esetet's motion
relative to the San Sulpiee Ordinance. The ;In.'. is,
as regards the present and the future, of a deete of
importance which it is impossible to overrate. The
Hectic:, of Lords, if we may respectfully speak the
truth, is upon its trial before the people. if the
House decide according to law, and in the spirit
of the Protestant Constitution, it will regain the
position in the opinion of the country which it occu-
pied two sears ago. If, yielding to any influence,
bow much soever respected, it connive at revoking
the Reformation, it will continue to sink, as—
we must not conceal the truth—it has been sinking
since the passing of the Irish Municipal Corporation
Bill, the Clergy Reserves Confiscationß ill and some
other such Bills. We knowc ‘tti
that the maintenance
of its as well as any -;
proper Oleo by'the House. of Lords, is
as
nee •sary to the
pudic goud as to the safety of the.acti:twra .3
oni tha:. nothing hut a general ruin eau follow the

humiliation of that branch of the sovereign power ;
but the Peers cannot be saved in spite of them-
selves, and it were the part of an enemy, not
of a friend, to conceal from them the truth, that
their hold upon public confidence has diminished and is
diminishing, under that guidance to which they have too
often submitted. The question to be submitted to
their Lordships is a simple one. It is this :—will they
permit the Queen's Ministers to carry back her Ma-
jesty's empire to the superstitions of the fifteenth
and to the policy of the thirteenth century ? The
ordinance signed by Lord Sydenham is in direct vio-
lation of the Acts of Henry the Eighth, Edward the
Sixth, and Elizabeth, for the establishment of the
Protestant faith in all the British dominions ; but it is
more—it is in violation of the Acts of Henry the Se-
cond and Edward the First, for restraining the grasping
cupidity of the Romish Church, and securing the inde-
pendence of the Church of England, even while that
Church remained in connection with the Papal See.