The Sun.
London, England, 1824-01-31 00:00:00

[MORNING POST:jr

A " Fox. Dinner" has lately taken place in
Scotland ; and that such an event should happen,
seems to have puzzled a few wise politicians,
who would fain persuade us there must be some-
thing almost supernatural in Mr. Fox's public
principles and conduct, when men assemble on
the present day to celebrate them. But, in
reality, what has Mr. Fox to do with the dinner
parties of a certain number of Gentlemen who
find it convenient to eat and drink, and make
speeches and merriment together, with the view
of favouring their own personal or public objects ?
If that distinguished Senator had never existed
Mr. Jeffery and Mr. Cockburn would have
deemed it equally imperative as they do now, to
seize some public opportunity of recording their
opinions on passing events, and upholding the
conceit of their own importance, which it is so
natural for those who prosper by a particular sys.
tern of politics to entertain. To all this, how-

ever, we have not the least objection ; but we wish
to remark that Mr. Fox's name is a mere catch-
word forthe accommodation of persons who would
have it believed that they possess something in
common with that great character, and convert
this belief into a stepping stone to their in-
dividual ambition ; and that denominating a con-
vivial meeting of this sort, a " Fox Dinner,"
shows no intrinsic connexion between Mr.
Jeffery and the Administration of 1806, nor
indicates, in the smallest degree, either the lon-
gevity or prevalence of Whiggery. As to the
speeches on the present occasion they are really
beneath notice ; and should the other celebra-
tions of Mr. Fox's principles afford nothing
better, we fear the publication of them will be-
come so unprofitable as to destroy such specu-
lations altogether.

[nitrusu muss.]
If there is any one public appointment in
which it is of more importance than in another,
that the influence of personal or of party fa-
vouritism should be excluded, it is that of a
Judge. It is on this ground that we feel it our
duty to draw the public attention to the appoint-
ment of Mr. Alexander to the arduous and re-
sponsible situation of Lord Chief Baron, who,
independently of his advanced age, must be
wholly unqualified, by his previous situation and
studies, for fitly discharging the duties of it. It
is no reproach to any man—far from it, that he
has passed his grand climacteric ; but in his
seventieth year an individual is not exactly pre-
pared to enter on a new walk of life, and least of
all, to take his place, for the first time, on the judg-
ment-seat. Such an exercise of patronage is discre-
ditable. It is an act of injustice towards the public,
who have a right to expect that such an
im-
portant station should he filled as it ought to be
filled, and not made to furnish an example of
improper and unworthy influence. The decision
of revenue cases requires a mind long habituated
to that line of professional study with which
such cases are connected : to such decisions Mr.
Alexander must, of necessity, bring a mind
wholly unprepared. On the circuit, too, the
important duty will devolve upon him of de-
ciding in cases of life and death ; what previous
professional education has this Master in Chan-
cery had, that could in any mariner fit him for
the due discharge of a duty at once so awful
and so arduous ? This appointment, we know,
has excited the attention of the Bar, and with
it no slight accompaniment of censure and sar-
casm. For Mr. Alexander, personally, we have
no feeling but of esteem and respect. In private
life no man bears a higher character for every
amiable quality which can excite approbation and
regard : but his elevation to the rank of Chief
Baron of the Exchequer is, to say the least of it,
most indecent and unauthorized, and betrays a
disregard of public opinion, the display of which
is neither wise nor prudent.

[NEW TIMES.]
It has been suggested to us, that in order to
bring the whole of the London Dock Question
before our readers, we should insert the Reso-
lutions of the Merchants at the Baltic Coffee-
house, and the subsequent Declaration signed by
the same and other Gentlen; both documents
being referred to in the Advrtisetnent of the
Directors of the London Dock Company. To
this suggestion we readily accede ; and we
trust that these documents, together with what
we have already published, wilt be found to
convey a fair and accurate view of the whole
question. We allude not only to our article
of yesterday, but to one of December 23, headed
C 4 Transfer of Property)" and to the two very
full reports which we gave of the important case.
of Hawes v. Watson, argued in the King's Bench
Dec. 22, and again, on the motion for a new trial,
on 'Wednesday last.—We repeat, that in placing
this great mercantile and legal question as dis-
tinctly as we can before our readers, we beg to
be understood as merely discharging a public
duty. We cannot identify ourselves either with
the Directors or with the Merchants for many ob-
vious reasons ; but more particularly because the
expressions used by each party of the other
are inconsistent with the respect which we owe
to both. We certainly cannot say with the Di-
rectors, that the Resolutions of the Merchants
and subsequent statement signed by them " are
founded upon very erroneous views of the sub-
ject on which they treat ;" still less that " the
Gentlemen signing the declaration are desirous
that the Dock Company shall disregard an im-
portant privilege given by the law to parties en-
gaged in trade." On the other hand, we should
be extremely unwilling " to declare our disap-
probation of the conduct of the Company, as
being subversive of all that is fair and ho-
nourable in mercantile dealings." We are
persuaded that both parties act with per-
fect bona fides ; undoubtedly one of them
must be wrong, and the other right, in point
of law ; and certainly the dicta of all the
four Judges of the King's Bench, on Wednesday
last, but more especially that of Mr. Justice
Best, which we quoted, were strong against the
practice adopted by the Directors of the London
Docks ; but still we must remember, that the
Directors say they " have not taken any step in
the progress of this business without being ad-
vised by the Company's Counsel "—and we can-
not presume that those Learned Gentlemen had
not at least some probable grounds for their
opinion.