The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON., THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1841.

says, " is everywhere the born enemy of lies."
It pretends to be founded on religion, while it
seeks only pelf. It lays claim to exclusive holi-
ness, when it has all the worst vices of our
common nature. It has in its mouth no
other words than public good and social
order, meaning all the while a bread tax
and the slavery of the multitude. It talks
of public happiness -- it means the aggran-
disement of a few worthless idlers at the expense
of the industrious millions. It pretends to be
loyal to the Throne, while it thinks only of seiz-
ing power for itself. Prostituting the best and
holiest names, such as public order and religion,
to its own party purposes, Conservatism is, from
beginning to end, one great and terrible lie. Its
dupes begin to find it out.
The Church and Conservatism are nearly one
and the same, for Conservative politics all centre
in upholding the Church. Hence our Contem-
porary, when he talks of "a Conservative party
in Parliament making the faith and the spirit of
Christianity its rule," opposed as he is to the Dis-
senters, must mean, the faith and spirit of Chris-
tianity as found in the Church. It adopts, then,
the policy of rallying all Conservatives round the
Church, having for standard-bearers the Bishop
of EXETER and Sir R. INGus. Now of this
Church—or rather of the priesthood, which in all
political squabbles is what the word Church
stands for, and never for the congregations—the
present number of the Edinburgh Review gives
us an instructive picture. It first shows that all
the Puseyite party are sophistical Jesuits, play-
ing with words as children do with toy
chucking them together without any rerad to
their real place ; and next, it shows th:4t all the
non-Puseyites in the Church requAre a similar
latitude to enable them to have -4 reasonably quiet
conscience. We will quote the passages
" Here is a man, who, ori being ordained a clergyman
of the Church of England, swore in the most public, the
most positive, the most sacred manner, that he believed that
General Councils, 'without the least hint of any ex-
c ption, may err, in things pertaining to God, and delibe-
rate.y declaring that some General Councils are infall.ble.
What man after this need hesitate to take any oath, however
repugnant 'co his sentiments, if he may without breach of
conscienvm afterwards insert any exception he chooses? What
but the terror of a Court of Law, that judges only by the letter,
need ever bind a man down to keep, not his promise only, but
his oath ? What Jesuit needs scruple to uphold the morality of
mental reservations, if Mr. Newman's exception is moral ?
Let us suppose some Roman Catholics to have taken the oath
of allegiance to the Queen, and to have been afterwards de-
tected in a conspiracy against her throne and her life, and
let us suppose such an one to be asked, how he re-
conciled his treason with his oath ; why should he not answer
that his oath was intended to be kept only when his duty to
the King of kings did not require otherwise, and that the duty
of dethroning heretics, when practicable, was a real though
unexpressed exception to his oath? What would be the feeling
of all England on hearing such an answer? Why, both in past
and present ages, have such mental reservations excited the
detestation and abhorrence of all men? Why have all re-
pectable Catholics been so extremely vehement of late years in
disclaiming the least participation in them? Because they are
loaded with the guilt of falsehood in its most heinous form ;
because they insert, after the promise, exceptions unexpressed
at the time it was made—exceptions contradicting the very
words of the pledge given—deceiving the imposer of the
pledge—and destroying all confidence in the honour and good
faith of mankind. And where is the difference between the
mental reservation of the Jesuit and the exception of Mr.
Newman? In principle there is none whatever. They both
alike are violations of the cardinal rule for the observance of
engagements that they are to be kept in the sense with which
he who gives the promise believes the other to impose it. They
vitiate the [ledge given, and convert it into an instrument of
deceit. Indeed we greatly wonder that an English clergyman,
admired by a large party, and pretending to be a reviser of
holiness and Christian principle, should thus teach his foi-
-1 Ave-rs how to say one thing and mean another. Had Mr.
Newman boldly proclaimed that he did not agree with the
Article, his offence would have been much less. But to differ
from the Article, and then to endeavour to persuade honest
and scrupulous consciences that they may lawfullyand religiously
swear they agree with the Article, yet by means of an arbi-
trary and unexpressed exception, may believe just the con-
trary, is something which we will not characterize as it de.
serves."

" We shall probably be met with the question,—' What,
then, is every one who subscribes the Articles obliged to agree
with the most minute statement contained in them, inter-
preted in its original and fairest sense ?' We frankly answer,
No. It is impossible that so eaten-ive a document, embracing
such a vast number of propositions, varying in importance
from the highest principles of religion to mere details of ordi-
nary life, should have remained unaltered for centuries, and
yet continue to be in entire harmony with the opinions of men ;
that the progress of thought and knowledge, the advances
made in history, antiquity, criticism, &c., should have left un-
touched all and each of its many statements. It is an evil
very much to be deplored that the Articles, no more than the
University statutes, the observance of which is equally enforced
upon oath, are not brought in unison with the times. But since it
is not so—since men are still called upon to pledge themselves to
them in their ancient and unaltered foi m—the only way in which
we conceive it possible for an honest man to justify the act to
his conscience is, to satisfy himself that he thoroughly and
unreservedly assents to their essential spirit ; and that he does
not differ from them but upon points which may be departed
from without breaking away from the for.damental truths
which they lay down as the constitutive principles of the Church
of England."
_ _

We have little doubt, from the spirit of the
whole article, that it is written by some distin-
guished member of the Low Church party; and
taking it, therefore, as authority, can anything
be more melancholy for the whole body of par-
sons, and more hopeless for the nation, than the
picture it sets before us ? The clergy, according
to these extracts, do not, and cannot, believe the
Articles they swear to. Time has made innova-
tions in them. One party tries to reason a diffe-
rent meaning into them, and the other swears to
them with a secret reservation, or gives to them
a meaning of its own. The clergy are all sensi-
ble that the State Church is a falsehood, and
their whole lives are passed in vail at-
tempts to reconcile their convictions to their
interest. By that they are made miserable,
and the public morality is undermined. The
foundations of the State Church are laid in false-
hood, and insincerity pervades every part of the
building. Men, as we learn from the Times,
will no longer be content with such mockeries;
they seek the true and the real, and they will
and must trample the false and unreal out of ex-
istence. Hence the separation of honest men
from the Conservative party.

Some uncertainty, it is said, prevails at Not-
tingham as to Mr. WALTER'S opinions on the
Corn-law, and on Church-rates. Our state-
ments that Mr. WALTER, when in Parliament,
twice neglected to vote for motions directed
against the Corn-law, and that the Times has not
lately exerted its power against it, should put
an end to all doubt on the subject. Neither Mr.
WALTER nor the Times dare openly advocate
the Corn-law; but they do what is worse, they
burke all discussion on it as far as they can, and
so endeavoUr to convince the public that it is
matter of perfect indifference. The abo 4
the Corn-law would interfere wio ,eir pet
of
discussion, and take
..neir occupation. away their '
Mr. WALTER is a poi' • •
_Lucian solely on the
strength of his-
law,
vabl-
and if
..ntipathy to the Poor-
law, law were mac* of no
store=concei
importance by the nation being re-
to prosperity, Mr. WALTER would lose
i,ne single theme of his eloquence. He and the
Times are worse than friends of the Corn-law—
they are traitors to the cause of abolition.
We think the public has a great right to com-
plain of the Times on this ground, because there
was a period when it took the lead against
Corn-law. It showed its iniquity ty ..
periodi-
cally contrasting the orice of 'wheat here with
its price in France and: Belgiuni, and so taught
and hate the Corn.law.
the public to appreciate
It taught the publi ''... also to denounce that law,
and now wl 'en encouraged by its former ex,-
ample 'cite public has made an attack 011 the
Corn-law, and when by itts aid the public
might secure a victory) it runs away and leaves
the Anti-Corn-law party in the lurch. All
that party have good reason to complain of the
boundoTriniait:,traenaclheaerreybyall h
ttoesmhoewants in theirheirreenptomweenrt.
t o ethhueii•er Church-rates,
bons
,n
st
to
oe
greitnire rids and avowedly opposed 0 that Dissenters, and it
hasA helds
olsf f°C1111:11311.
rates up to ridicule. It is notoriously and
avow-
edly the champion
of the Church.
Mr. WALTER
has for some years taken the
same side. hen
he was in Parliament, for example, in 1837,W he
voted against the resolutions
relative to
Church lands, which the CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER proposed with •
a view to
extinguish Church-rates. 1-1 •
e is -
able, therefore, to the Dissentersnot favour)
and may
perhaps be gratified by reflecting that
at Not he may almost hear the Leicester bells,
which are rungover the incarcerated Air.l3A/Les,
Dissent and democracy are standin ocs
of ridicule in the Times; yet Hr. WALTER,.
with great hardihood, appeals to the democracy for
support. How any Chartist could vote for Mi.
WALTER, would be to us quite inexplicable,
had we not been informed that the people about
Nottingham are reduced to so sad a state of dis..
tress, and have been so often disappointed, that
they support Mr. WALTER Out of hatred ftpd a
desire of veiigeance. " I care notliiiigh for

ciple," is the reply, we are told, of these men,
when remonstrated with forsupporting Mr. WAL-
TER, " I Will have revenge." Mr. WALTER, then,
if he be returned, of which we believe there
is not the smallest prospect, would be the repre-
sentative of Chartist vengeance and Conservative
falsehood. Violence and humbug is the motto
of the Times and Mr. WALTER.

We yesterday quoted from the volume of
Correspondence on the Eastern Question, just
presented to Parliament, an extract from a des-
patch from the Russian Plenipotentiary, Baron
BRUNNOW, to Count NESSELRODE, which ap-
peared to us to demonstrate that Lord PALMER-
STON had been wanting in his duty as a British
Foreign Minister, when, in September last, he
consented to entrust Russia with the protection
of Constantinople, provided three or four British
ships of the line were, for mere form's sake, suf-
fered to enter the Straits of the Dardanelles.
We now publish, in another part of The Sun,
Lord PALMERSTON'S despatch to the Marquis of
CLANRICARDE, our Ambassador at the Court of
St. Petersburgh, on the same subject, in wh'.-on
we
are astonished to find his Lordship's
jtestimony
of the fulness and fidelity of the --
oble Baron's
report of the interview bet ;keen such very un-
equal
mo-
derate, and, under 11.'ile circumstances, pusiFaui-
meqouual
s aasdlevp in
asts
Lort:tie....paArLt `of diplomacy. But
mEnsTom,s
proposition of
sending a mockery of a naval force to co-operate
with R
u",.;la in the Bosphorus, it was not without
great d- ifficuity—not without a conviction that by
other means could the British and French alli-
ance be broken up—that the EMPEROR con-
sented to it. And when he did consent, and the
Baron BRUNNOW was Treaty was signed,
ex-
pressly commanded 'to demand from Lord
PALMERSTON the amount of the naval force to
be placed at the disposal of the SULTAN. Tile
object of this demand, which, with the answer to
it, we have also quoted, was evidently to ob-
tain from Lord PALMERSTON an official
statement of the force destined to enter
the Dardanelles. Lord PALMERSTON appears
to have understood this, and hastens to set the
EMPEROR at rest on the subject of his cherished
wish to become alone master of Constantinople.
" The amount of naval force," says his Lordship
in his note of the 15th of July, " which we could
spare for such a purpose (the defence of Constan-
tinople) must necessarily be limited by a conside-
ration of the aggregate amount of our squadron
in the Mediterranean and of the other services
which that squadron will have to perform ; I
had occasion to make known to your Court, by a
despatch which I addressed to Lord CLANRICARDE
in October last, that in such a case we should be
able to send but a small number of ships to the
Sea of Marmora. I have now communicated
with Lord "MINT°, and I have to state that our
Mediterranean squadron consists of the ships
mentioned in the accompanying list ; and consi-
dering the various duties which that squadron
will have to perform, we could not conveniently
undertake to despatch more than three or four
ships of the line, with a proportion of frigates
and steamers, to co-operate with the Russian ships,
in the event of the SULTAN requiring the aid of
the two Powers for the defence of his capital."
Would it ever be supposed from this language
that the object of Lord PALMERSTON was to give
a pledge to Russia not that he could not but that
he would not send more than three or four ships
of the line to the Dardanelles in the event of the
Russian fleet entering the Bosphorus ? By a re-
ference to his Lordship's despatch to the Marquis
of CLANRICARDE it will be seen that his great
difficulty was to obtain Russia's permission to
send a single British ship up the Straits. Mark,
too, that the three or four ships were only to
be spared at the personal request of the SULTA N—
a request which Lord PALMERSTON well knew
Russia, when mistress of his capital, would never
suffer him to make. But before Lord PALMER-
STON wrote this jesuitical note lie had performed
the business of Russia, and only sought to con-
coct a document to throw dust in the eyes
of the British House of Commons. For what
was there to protect of Turkey, with Constanti-
nople garrisoned by a Russian army ? Of what
importance is it to England what estimate the
inhabitants of Syria form of our prowess pro-
vided we sink into insignificance at Constan-
tinople ?
The publication of these documents will more
than ever endear the Gallant Commodore NA-
' PIER to his countrymen. But for the prompt
gallantry of this heroic officer Lord PALM ERSTON
had prepared a train the firing of which would
have blown up the Ottoman empire. For Con-
stantinople once again fairly in the occupation of
Russia, the House of OTHM AN, to parody the la-
conic decree of NAPOLEON, would have ceased
to reign ; and occupied Constantinople would
have been by Russia, but for the series of bril-
liant victories obtained by the Gallant Commo-
dore on the coast of Syria, which compelled
IBRAHIM PACHA to evacuate that Province.
By a prodigy of British valour, as yet neither
duly appreciated nor rewarded by the British
Government, Turkey has been saved from the
open violence of her enemies, and the more dan-
gerous wiles of her pretended friends.
If our readers regard as too severe these stric-
tures upon the conduct of a Minister, who has
hitherto had, from equally pure and patriotic
motives, our humble meed of support, our answer
is, the documents are before them, and they are
welcome to take a more favourable View of it, if
they can do so consistently with a due regard to
the interests of the country. The facts from
which we form our judgment are sufficiently simple
and intelligible—Lord PALMERSTON'S consent to
the sole occupation of Constantinople by an un-
limited number of Russian troops, and of the
presence of an equally unlimited limssian fleet
v.iteUmstances short
oin f B
the ootstpolri oar
nu ,ilul under .n 0,3
f the military and
naval power of Old tnglan
d the natural ally
and protector of tb Ottoman Empire.

I The -
extraordinary express received from Paris
on Tuesday, and published in the morning edi-
tion of The Sun, contained the latest news from
French Africa and Spain, found in Monday's
papers, which have reached us by the ordinary
Post-office conveyance. We shall therefore con-
fine ourselves to-day to the quotation of such pa-
ragraphs in the French Journals as we deem of
general interest.
FUNERAL OF NAPOLTON,-*Wt km by the report of the
Minister, which accompanies the bill for a supplementary credit
for the expenses of the funeral of Napoleon; thatt thek hairsceeded by 000,000 f. the million Voted bar fhb Cnambers. The
expense of the removal Ofthe
remains from St. Helena to
Paris was MAO., the preparatory works for the ceremony of
the funeral a
nounted to 1,352,8091., and the construction of
th': temporary tomb, striking of medals) &e., Foit 242,060 f.
The amount required by the Minister for the erection Of the
permanent tomb It 600;uuth:, ind the exebtiticih of, it is ,td be
awarded after a public eckiipetition iiiitist4:—Ualinant.
Feettett COMMERCE.—The American
Statesineti Whn propose taxing French manufactures imagine
certain wrongs done to Ameriel by trance: 4iirdifig to
them, America is
,the victim Of the of the French
Custom=house.chity upon cotton imported from the
United states had been lowered to 20f. per 100 kilogr.s
Whilst the cotton from other parts remained flied at 25f.
and 30f. Under this law the imptirtatieh of cotton from Ame-
rica has risen from 7,659,400 to 43;780)000 kiiogr.,
100 .kilo.
and hits thus inetiated hi the proportiOn .A. td ; re-
presents at kier 100 ei tide eiportation ; yet the
Antrielkna pletend that their cotton is unjustly tr. ated
by ttse cotton of Egypt paying 5 "les
.grarnmes lest on impel tition. Ttie4i hive alsii Hiscbberbcl that
• the French entertained tii6 most sinister designs against.
NOrth Am%rica. with respect to the tobacco eought
by us in the United states, in such an increasing quantity that.
from 1626 to 1838 the importation of the tobacco of the Union
into France had increased six.feith The !lee dl South Caro-
lina pays but 111 q whilst that of Piedniont pays df., and stil.
the Ameticans complain of our partiality against thetit. If iris
interest at all is sacrificed in the commercial tr. aty between
France and the United states, it is ours, because since the con-
vention of 1822 the Americans have the monopoly of the nevi
getion between the two countries: In this rapid motion o:
exchange, the French shipping only plays a miserable part.
Ia ici(l3, our share was about one-third; since 1822$ our share
has only been of 12 ur 13 hundredths; and'lB37 Was though,
a miraculous year, when our share was one-sixth.ourna
des Debits.
A letter from Alexandria, 27th lilt., in the Commerce, states
that 10,000 sailors, who had been landed to work in various
villages, had been Ordered 18 go again on board the vessels of
war in the harbour, and that five 60-gun frigates had been put
'on the stocks. Great activity prevailed in pushing on the
works of the new dock) which had been suspended. Rein-
forcements of troops continued to arrive from Cairo and the
interior, and were stationed in the camp of Mahmudieh ; but
as the plague existed among them a sanatory cordon of National
Guards was drawn round the place. Stillman Pacha was ex-
pected from Cairo, and was to have the command of all
troops in Lower Egypt.
LT/le Quoiidienne announces. that M. de Villets, who has
4"'13 'fixed his residence in the environs of Toulouse, has ar-
riVed'at Paris, -
LeNgthin is yet decided respecting the promotions in the
orHonour, which are to be made on the
It is affirmed, however, that Mies been resolved Ist of May.
that nodeco-
rationshall be given thiiyear to the functiouries of the Ctn.
. .

• • • '.,

tral Board; but it is believed that there will be numerous ex-
ceptions to this rule.
It has also been resolved in the Council of Ministers that,
considering the advanced period of the Session, no new protect
of law shall be presented. M. Martin (du Nord) is not sr. ry
for this declaration, which will enable him to put off till the
next Session the modifications of the law respecting the Office
of Notary. But the reclamations which are made in all.quar-
ters are so pressing that the Keeper of the Seals may find him-
self morally obliged to lay before the Chamber, in a few days,
the project of lam drawn up by the Council of State.—Le
Temps.
The Quotidienne, after repeating what we (the Commerce)
said a few days ago of the manner in which the Ministers
mean to obey the law on the fortifications, as regards the
simultaneous execution of the continuous enclosure and of the
forts, adds :—" We are able to give the Commerce the assur-
ance that it is not mistaken. A conversation, which has been
faithfully reported to us, will make it acquainted with the im-
mutable programme of the execution of the law of bastiles.
A courtier said to a person who has great influence in the
Camarilla, and in the Administration, "It is not possible 4' t
you i.hould have money enough to erect the advanc- ""a;
the continuous wall." " Assuredly not," wa- ....a forts and
t
we want only the forts, and the milli.- tne answer ;
will be sufficient for them." voted by the Chambers
• What you have done wits • And when you shall be asked,
mean that that part the, continuous wall?'—" ?'—" °hove don't
We shall erectof
the law shall be absolutely a dead letter.
•
points
some portions of the wall, here and there, at
ere they may be useful to us ; but, at the same time,
the -
continuation of the fort will be prosecuted with vigour.
Then, when they are promised, we shall propose to the Cham-
ber to vote us two or three hundred millions, rather mote than
lets. The Chambers will be frightened and the millions will
be refused. Then it will not be our fault. We shall have
paid due regard to every point, even to the simultaneous exe-
cution. Ask Soult !"—Le Commerce.
. .