The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-27 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

Being, through the declared resolution of our reporters,
And the sympathy which we see is felt for them by their
colleagues on the establishments of other newspapers, pre-
cluded from publishing, and indeed from distinctly know-
Inc!, the language used by Mr. O'Connell, prefatory to
his motion for calling to the bar of the House, on Monday
next, a lady who is one of the proprietors* of the Times,
together with its printer, it is out of our power to do
more than state what has been represented to us as ths
gravamen of the complaint brought forward against the
reporters of the Journal by the Learned Member fel-
Dublin. We are told that in extenuation of the charge
of " wilful falsehood." which, most absurdly and most
malignantly, Mr. O'Connell had, at a pot-house meet-
ing, made against the body of gentlemen acting as re-
porters for the Times, be thought proper to dwell
exclusively on a circumstance which took place little more
than a twelvemonth ago, wherein Mr. E. Nugent was
accused by the Learned Member of having misrepresented
his expressions. This, we repeat, was the transaction
to which Mr. O'Connell is said to have re'erred last
night, as corroborative of the reproach of " designed false
hood," which he, nn Saturday last, launched against the
whole of our reporters, when Chairman of the Cartwright
Meeting, Fortunately, the details of that proceeding,
which occurred in June, 1832, are on record, and now
kesfore us. In his speech on the 22d of the month in
question, the Learned Member declared explicitly-Ist,
that the " manaeement" of the Times was wholly blame-
''-.:es of all share in the misrepresentation of which he com-
plained—an admission, indeed, for which we owe him no
aeknowledgment, since all the world, and he as well as
anybody, must be aware that the editors of a London news-
paper have no more to do with the reports of Parliamen-
tary proceedings than with the collection of that iniqui-
tous and beegarly impost entitled the " O'Connell Rent."
2dly. However, Mr. O'Connell assured the House on the
occasion referred to (viz., June 22, 1833), that he had
seen the reporter, and had been satisfied, not only of the
non-participation of the "management" of the Times in
misstatement from which he had suffered, but, further, that
the said misrepresentation was " unintentional" on the
part of the reporter himself. t Mr. O'Connell must also
recollect a correspondence on the subject, which, fortue
nately, has been preserved. With regard to the letter
signed by 11 of our reporters, let any individual ask him-
self what step would he have had recourse to under the base
provocation offered at a public tavern (and not, as Mr. C.
Fetesusaon, and Sir M. Ridley, and Lord Althorp, erro-
tecusly supposed, in the House of Commons), to these
4titired and honourable men? The letter hears the
signatures of its authors—why did the Learned Member
for Dublin, then, sneak away into an allusion to other
persons; whom he must have known, and did know, to he
'entirely unconscious of the reception given to his speeches
t.,y shy class of reporters? Why did he not move to have
tilt 11 "culprits," as lie would fain consider them, called
to the bar of the House? Why, in a place which shall
be nameless, did he shelter himself under the privi'eem it
afforded him to vent his mean and ungentlemanly fury
against more than one individual, with whom anywhere but
in that safe asylum for his un muzzled spite lie would scarcely
Clare to tamper? The casa is clear enough. The learned
person writhes under the consciousness that he has no sub-
stantial wrong to exhibit. He whines about the pri-
vileges of the House of Commons. None respect, none
value, those privi'eges mere than we do ; they are claimed
by the Parliament, and vested in it, for the highest of all
purposes—far the nation's good. They never were de-
signed for instruments of oppression ; they never were con-
etructed with a view to the gratification of inordinate vanity
ter low-minded m ;lice. The law and usage of Parliament,
a.vhich protect those privileges, are parcel of the law of
the land, and, when somewhat more strictly measured and
defined, will become an inestimable inheritance to the
country. But defined they must he. When reporting
speeches is laid down to be a breach of privilege, and for
perpatreting that breach a fellow-subject is summoned to
the bar, it will not do for grave Members of Parliament to
net up and pronounce in the face of the community, flint
because reporting is one crime against privilege, therefore
non-reporting must be another. Englishmen are not to be
punished under the dicta of one or more amongst their own
repre entatise s. The gentlemen, many of whom have
acted long and meritoriously for this journal, and have pow-
er-fel claims on the gratitude of Members of Parliament,
received at the hands of Mr. O'Connell, when president
of some pot house dub or mob meeting, the grossest in-
sult that man can endure from man. He called them
nothing less than a pack of deliberate liars. Must there
be nn resentment felt at this? Must men of character he
thus spit upon with impunity, and have no redress for
such intolerable outrage ? Nay, must the attempt to ex-
plaiii freir motives be treated as a crime ? They declare
they will not report the speeches of their slanderer, and
some wiseacres there are who exclaim, " Why, this is a
conspiracy." A conspiracy to do what? How will—
how can the House of Commons—astute though be some
of its inmates, where stretching the law of privilege is in
hand—how can it Ilea] with such an offence as this?
How—which is the only matter of real importance to be
thought of—how, we ask, will the House of Commons
apply a guage to the relative reports of Mr. O'Connell's
spa ches as compared with these of other speechmaking
individuals? One paper gives him a space equivalent to 20
lines, another one of 10; is the latter to pay by fine or impri-
sonment the price of the Learned Member's mortification?
Suppose the reporter for the last mentioned journal says,
" I could not give the whole debate verbatim,—a folio
volume would hardly have contained it; I was forced
to curtail, and to select and to distribute, and there
were a dozen other speeches which seemed to he better
worth public notice than that of the Learned Gentleman ;"
what answer, we should like to know, can be given to such
a representation? If the country should, in the wanton-
ness of its caprice, betray any great vexation or disappoint-
ment at not s-eine in the columns of certain newspapers
prolix jsremiades of the O'Connell kidney, the demand
will doubtless at last produce the supply, and the Learned
Gentleman may turn his dexterity from porter brewing,
rent collecting, and skulking from the repeal motion, to
the reporting, printing, and selling, if lie can, his own
very ill-used speeches. We, for our parts, can assure the
Le .rued Member that, until he made his murmurs public,
his dissatisfaction and alleged injuries were altogether un-
known to us, and that it its our wish to see him on the same
footing with seller public speakers. If, however, he so treats
reporters that, in their agony of resentment and disgust, the
'Whole body throughout the metropolis take it up with an
esprit die corps, there is, that we can perceive, no remedy
for such an evil but patience; until, in the natural pro-
gress of the feelings, those of strong indignation and
hatred towards injustice shall subside, and the offensive
and insupportable malice of the Member for Dublin be to
a certain point forgotten. What he proposes to himself
by the exhibition prepared for Monday next is more than
we can divine : we take it for granted that he does not
contemplate from it any large accession to that respect
which is so universally felt for his just and manly cha-
racter.— Times.

The abrupt conclusion by Ea•l Grey of the debate on
the Church Bill in the Lords on Thursday night led us to
believe that the amendment of the Atchbishap of Canter
bury was likely to impair some main provision of
the Bill, and therefore to require some very decisive
movement on the part of the Ministry. It seems,
however, that the Government, after two Cabinet
meetings, have determined that the alteration in
the Bill was too frivolous t to make it necessary on
that account alone to give up so important a Bill ; and
Earl Grey, on opening the business in the House, stated,
that although, from the manner in which the vote of the
previous night was taken, it had the appearance of a vexa-
tious and unnecessary opposition, yet en consideration be

This part of his motion the Hon. Member was, on the
spirited suggestion of Mr. Curteis, answered by the loudly
exrressed opinion of the House, compelled to withdraw.
-h " Mr. O'CONNELL wished to be heard respecting a breach
of the privilege of the House, and he should say but very few
words. What he wished to refer to was the breach of privilege
he had complained of with respect to the Times newspaper, in
which matter had been attributed to him which lie had not
spoken. Upon that occasion the Speaker had seemed to inti-
mate, that if the misrepresentation had been intentionally com-
mitted, the House was entitled to proceed. Bowing to the
Speaker's judgment, he (Mr. O'Connell) had inquired into the
subject, and had ascertained, beyond any doubt, that the ma-
nagement of that paper was not at all to blame. He had also seen
the reporter, who had satisfactorily explained to him that there
was no intentional misrepresentation in the case, either with
respect to himself, or any other Hon. Member ; and when he
considered that, from the inconveniences with which reporters
had to contend in the gallery, it must often happen that speakers
were only partially heard, and also that one reporter frequently
followed another in the middle of a speech, he could easily see
how misrepresentations might occur, without any intention of
attributing to an Hon. Member sentiments which he did not
express. He would say no more on the subject, except.to re-
peat his conviction that no blame whatsoever could attach to the
conductors of the paper, and that the reporter was equally free
from the reproach of intentional misrepresentation in the case
alluded to."—Parliamentary Report of June :22, 1832.
By frivolous, Earl Grey, if we understand him rightly,
means only this—that whereas the Archbishop has provided
that the commissioners shall apply the proceeds to building
churches in sinecure parishes, yet in the next line he declares,
what in the first instance had been overlooked, that if they
think for any reason it is inexpedient,they are not to do so—a
mode of enactment and repealing an enactment in the same
clause quite new at least, and quite worthy of the quarter from

had determined to proceed with the Bill, and that he might
probably, if it was worth while, have an opportunity, in
the progress of the Bill, of giving the House of Lords an
opportunity of re-considering their vote—that is, we sup-
pose he will fight the clause again on the report, and,
should he fail, then leave the House of Commons to deal
as they please with the amended Bill. Should his Lord-
ship renew the fight, we think that even the Archbishop
of Canterbury, though Bishop Phillpotts may breathe
an encouraging whisper in his ear, will not like another
trial of strength ; and the Bishop of London will again
see his way clearly, and Lord Wharncliffe abandon a
struggle which leads to nothing ; so that that illustrious
trio, Lord Rosslyn, Lord Lyndhurst, and Wm. Holmes,
will havo gained nothing by their deep laid scheme. The
erea'er portion of the House cf Commons who know
Eal Grey appear to think that the decision taken by Go-
vernment was the proper one, and that the trap laid for
him was too palpable to fall into. It is to be observed,
that this was well considered by the opposers of the Bill,
and a whip was made with a view of creating embar-
rassment to Government, by producing an amendment so
framed as to imply much, though it really did nothing to
impair the Bill. Lord Lyndhurst was brought from his
circuit, and the Bishop of London, one of the professed
advocates of church reform, was blinded into adopting
this indirect mode of throwing out a Bill which he had
promised to assist in improving. Even now we have not
seen the end to these vexatious oppositions, for although
the Bill has passed the Committee, the Earl of Kidding-
ton declared his intention of requiring more infor-
mation on the subject of the suppressed bishoprics,—a
proposition, which, if acceded to, must postpone the
measure for the session, which probably is the intention of
his Lordship. If there were time, the more information
the bettor, and the more would be exposed the gross abuse
of the sinecure livingsa which nobody appears to under-
stand, and which, even with a Board constituted as the
Board of Commissioners is to be constituted, cannot be
preserved much longer, and the blow once hit, by passing
one such Bill as this, the remedy must necessarily be pro-
vided in the next session of Parliament. After all, what
is it these unthinking Bishops require ? They are to
build churches, and to build glebe-houses, on livings of
which they have no other knowledge than that service had
never been performed there for more than three long years,
and that no parson had discharged any clerical functions
but that of diligently collecting tithe from a population
to whose religious wants lie had never in his life admi-
nistered ! And this is supporting the Protestant Church !
and this is propagating Christianity ! Do not these
illogical dignitaries know, that with all the appliances
which wealth, and patronage, and power could tannish,
their Church of Ireland has, been every day " going
to the dogs ?" and that, in spite of the absence of all
these false auxiliaries, or because of it, the adverse creed,
the Popish, has been increasing, multiplying, and " win-
ning over" proselytes from the establishment? The
Protestant church has been weighed down by its own
cumbrous and unwieldy trappings, while the Catholic,
despoiled, but stripped naked for the combat, has at length
overpowered her inactive and embarrassed enemy: Still,
after all, do the unreasoning friends of the establishment
cling to the very causes which have undermined and
ruined it, and call them the foundations and props of their
church. The House got through the Bill last night, and
the report is to be brought up on Monday.— Times.
The long notorious and scandalous corruption of the
freemen of Liverpool is at last likely to meet with that
exposure mid cure from a reformed Parliament, which it
his long merited and yearned for. The whole kingdom
knows that the teal political opinion and moral influence of
the electors of the borough of Liverpool have been hitherto
overwhelmed by the application of money—money ex-
pended in debasing and demoralising the humbler class of
electors, the freemen—and choked by the Upas.tree in-
fluence of a close, irresponsible, and sinister Corporation.
The municipal institutions of this country, in the corpo-
rate and unincorporated towns, have lifted into civic power
all those individuals most opposed to the popular interest,
and systematically excluded every gentleman of talent,
moral influence,and liberal opinions,who ought to have been
elevated to offices of power and authority. The reform of
these grievous abuses is, however, at hand ; and viciously
and strongly as the conspirators may contend against the
reformation hanging over them, their corruption will not
exist atiother twelvemonth. It was generally reported in
the House of Commons, last night, that the report of the
Liverpool Committee was agreed on yesterday and will be
presenti-d on Monday evening ; that it exposes all the mal-
practices of recent elections, and must lead to the disfran-
chisement of the freemen, as well as to a general reform
of the system of Municipal and Parliamentary elections.
The close Corporations we are not anxious for, as they will
doubtless be attended to, and duly corrected by the forth-
coming Municipal Commission.—Morntag Chronicle.
We had imagined that the question of privilege brought
forward on Thursday night, by Mr. O'Connell, would not
again be revived ; but our readers will see that a declara-
tion published in a contemporary (the Times), led to
another motion last night. We have already so fully stated
our sentiments on the question, that we may be excused
from offering any further observations at present. We
find that Mr. Cutlar Fergusson, Sir M. W. Ridley, Mr.
Hume, and, indeed, most of the Members, take the same
view that we took—name.y, that though a discretionary
power must necessarily be allowed to the Press, yet, like
other discretim:ary powers, it ought not to be abused;
and that the question is not between a particular Member
and the Press, but between the Press and the people of
England. Yet we must be pardoned for observing, that
we do not well see how the House can interfere with the
question to any good purpose. Are they aware of the dif-
ficulties in which they are about to involve themselves ?
They are about to draw to themselves the cognizance of
the most ticklish of all subjects, namely, the precise
quantity of the report of any Member's speech which shall
b, deemed equal to what the country are entitled to re-
ceive. Never did the Hoose enter on so ticklish a subject.
A speech may not be totally omitted, and may be so briefly
given as to be little better than an omission. They can-
not say where evasion ends and fide ity begins. With all
deference, then, they should leave this question to the
conductors of newspap Ts, who will settle it with their re-
porters better than they can.—Morning Chronicle.

Our readers will see in the proceedings of the House of
Commons last night, that no inconsiderable portion of
its time was occupied by a silly quarrel respecting a breach
of the privileges of the House, or rather respecting the
non-reporting of the interminable and continually re-
curring speeches of Mr. O'Connell. We never gave much
credit to this gentleman either for a pacific disposition,
for extraordinary discretion, or extraordinary gratitude ;
and we are not therefore surprised that one of his most
splendid efforts in behalf of " ould Ireland "—that
perpetual theme of complaint—should be a deadly
feud with those to whom Ireland owes more than she
ever did, or will do, to Mr. O'Connell, and to whom
likewise the Honourable Gentleman is more indebted
than to any others for that fame—be it for good or
evi'—which he enjoys. He has got into the Condine
forks, through his own intemperance, and Heaven help
him cut of his difficulties, for we assuredly shall not aid
him. Ho camplaies that a breach of the privileges of
the House of Commons has been committed by reporting
its proceedings; and yet the only object which he is
anxious to accomplish is, that his own speeches at least,
if not those of all the other Members of the H-use,
shall be more fully repot ted than they have hitherto been
He has blackguirded the press, and he has blackguarded
the reporters for the press ; and the latter have sent him
" to Coventry" by a universal determination not to report
his speeches, in order that no complaint of misrepresenta-
tion may in future be brought against them. It now re-
mains to be seen how the contest is to end. Mr. O'Con-
nell may call the proprietors and publishers of newspapers
to the bar of the House of Commons, and if the House
sees fit, they may he punished for having reported that
" Mr. O'Connell spoke ;" but, beyond this, neither be nor
they can do any thing; while, if it so please the fourth
estate, the third may very speedily suffer the most awful
of all visitations to it—a total eclipse. It may be the in-
terest of the press to report the proceedings of the House
of Commons, and also the speeches of its most sweet and
consistent Member, Mr. O'Connell ; but there is no power
on earth to compel it to do so, and the Member for Dub-
lin assuredly caught his elder brother by the wrong arm,
when it entered into his imagination to quarrel with the
press. What would he be without it—what is he, even
with it?—Morning Advertiser.

It will be seen by the report of what occurred last night
in the House of Commons that this assembly has deter-
mined in its wisdom to undertake the task of superintend-
ing the reports hencerorth to be given to the world of its
own debates. We should have thought, judging from the
I rogress which the reformed House of Commons has made
in the despatch of its proper business, that it would have
been reluctant to engage in so difficult and arduous an
'undertaking as its new enterprise will certainly prove.
In the opinion of a large majority of the community the
House of Commons is already burdened with duties not
merely comtnensura'e with its powers, but in some slight
degree exceeding them. We are now at the end of July,
and scarcely the business of the session is yet done in
the House of Commons. l-fow that Assembly is to get
through the business of any lutuie session, now that it has
nude! taken the additional task of criticising thereports of its
proceedings—a task which the vanity of individual
own - -. • • --afnol7 /1091,1/1/

one—we are quite at a loss to know. This, however,
is the concern of the House of Commons and of its con-
stituents rather than of the Press, considering the latter
as an interest separate from the former. It cannot be
concealed, however, that the matter is interesting also to
the Press—that it deeply affects the liberty of the Press,
and public liberty of every kind. The House has called
before it the printers and publishers of a Journal for the
offence of having declared that it will not report the
speeches of a particular Member. We boldly say that
this, according to the present law of England, according
even to the law and practice of Parliament, is no offence
whatever. We assert for ourselves and for each of our
contemporaries the right of saying, when and as often as
we please, that we will not report the speeches of any
particular Member of Parliament, inasmuch as we have
unquestionably the right of declining to report any Par-
liamentary proceedings whatever; and as in this, like
every other case, the greater must include the less. We
maintain that any interference with this right would be
an act of sheer tyranny and usurpation. We denounce as
an exhibition of odious and ridiculous despotism the
threat of punishment which has been fulminated
against the parties who are to appear at the bar of
the House of Commons on Monday, simply for doing what
is no violation of any known law. If the proprietors
and conductors of Newspapers are to be henceforth liable
to be dragged to the bar of the House of Commons, and
discharged, or mulcted, or sent to prison, according to
the degree in which any reports they may have published
shall happen to give satisfaction to the majority of that
Assembly, the situation of these parties will be a most un-
fortunate one. They will have to please at once the
makers of speeches and the readers of speeches, two de-
scriptions of effort which may very frequently be entirely
incompatible with each other. The most likely men of
all others to bring complaints of omission before the House
are the dull, vain, and empty ; so that, whoever may be
neglected, the dull, vain, and empty speakers must always,
upon the new system, if it should ever take root, be re-
ported at a length wearisome to the readers and destruc-
tive to the circulation of a newspaper. But the thing is
too absurd for even the reformed House of Commons to
persevere in it. This Assembly cannot fail to perceive
that any attempt to coerce the Press must inevitably fail,
and overwhelm its authors with ridicule and disgrace.—
Morning Post.

FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE.

WAR-OFFICE, JULY 26, 1833.

2d Regiment of Dragoon Guards—Capt. J. Davis, from the
half-pay Unattached, to be Paymaster, vice C. J. Furlong, who
exchanges, dated July 26. _

4th Regiment of Light Dragoons—Lieut. F. C. Fyers,
from the 47th Regiment, to be Lieutenant, vice W. Skipwith,
who exchanges, July 26.

Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards—Captain G. B.
Mathew, from the 70th Regiment, to be Lieutenant and Captain,
vice Cotton, who exchanges, July 26.
3d Regiment of Foot—Ensign S. Daniel to be Lieutenant,
by purchase, vice M. C. Golden, who retires; 0. N. Chatterton,
Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice Daniel, July 26.

7th Foot—Second Lieut. H. S. Kerr, from the 60th Regi-
ment, to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice the Earl of Rothes,
who retires, July 26.

- ,
36th Foot—Sergeant-Major W. W. Clarke to be Adjutant,
with the rank of Ensign, vice J. D. H. Hay, who resigns the
Adjutancy only, July 26.
40th Foot—H. Gillman, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase,
vice H. T. Bowen, who retires, July 26.
43d Foot—Hon. C. R. West to be Ensign, by purchase, vice
H. W. Bunbury, promoted, July 26.
47th Foot—Lieut. W. Skipwith, from the 4th Light Dra-
goons, to be Lieutenant, vice F. C. Fyers, who exchanges,
July 26.

54th Foot—Lieut. P. Clarke to be Captain, without pur-
chase, vice R. Stewart, deceased, July 16 ; Lieut. R. T. R.
Pattoun to be Adjutant, vice Clarke, promoted ; Ensign S.
Reed to be Lieutenant, vice Pattoun, appointed Adjutant ;
Cornet A. Macdonald, from the half-pay of the 15th Light
Dragoons, to be Ensign, vice Reed, July 26.
55th Foot—H. Edwards, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice
A. Campbell, whose appointment has not taken place, July 26.
60th Foot—Captain 'P. Crombie, from the 79th Regiment, to
be Captain, vice C. H. Churchill, who exchanges; H. Mait-
land, Gent., to be Second Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Kerr,
promoted in the 7th Regiment, July 26.
70th Foot—Captain W. Cotton, from the Coldstream Regi-
ment of Foot Guards, to be Captain, vice Mathew, who ex-
changes, July 26.

79th Foot—Capt. C. H. Churchill, from the 60th Regiment,
to be Captain, vice Crombie, who exchanges, July 26.
80th Foot—Ensign J. Scully to be Lieutenant, by purchase,
vice Thomas, who retires ; G. D. Pack, Gent., to be Ensign,
by purchase, vice Scully, July 26.