The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1834

almshouses for the Legislature-Ist, the plastered and
gilded ruins of the former edifices.; 2d, the ruined
gildings of Buckingham Palace, for which, it must
with all deference be added, if his Majesty had at his
accession to the Crown avowed that his royal disrelish
was incurable, from 100,0001. to 150,0001. of the pro-
duce of our taxes might have been saved to the people
of this country. We finish by asking for at least an
intimation of what is to be done, and why ?—Times.
Who is Mr. Robert Mounsey Rolfe, Lord
Brougham's new Solicitor-General ? He is a Gen-
tleman, elevated (?) to the rank of King's Counsel
by the amiable, consistent, and well judging Lord
High Chancellor, who refused that appointment to
one whose learning, talents, and acquirements, are
universally recognized, and whose position both on the
Home Circuit and in Westminster Hall gave a virtual
right to the honorary distinction. But whence springs
the said Rolfe ? Oh, from the united boroughs of
Penryn and Falmouth, which returned him at the late
general election, when, as an inducement, he assured
them, " That his presence in the House of Commons
was of the greatest importance for the purpose of fur-
thering the amendment of the law ;" and, he might have
added, " his advancement in that profession." Re-
turned to Parliament what has he done ? Voted
silently, but steadily, in Ministerial majorities ; yea
and nay have been his eloquence, obedience to the
whipper-in his peculiar talent. But where stands his
name in Westminster Hall ? Echo answers, " Where."
Whom can we select, is the question. Sugden, Knight,
and Pemberton are Tories ; Bickersteth repudiates
office ; and the blessed Reform Bill has left us no seats
in Parliament for our new Law Officers. The said
Rolfe sits for Penryn ; he, therefore, is our man. Ay,
ay ; but he must pay a " Dudley" visit to his consti-
tuents, who will, we trust, mete out to him " Camp-
bell" measure. We call upon Mr. Freshfield, the
honest and consistent Member for Penryn in the two
last Parliaments, and whose conduct at the late gene-
ral election won him the regard and respect even of his
opponents, again to come forward, and we have no
doubt Penryn will add another instance to the many
already on record, of that re-action which has been pro-
duced by the combined causes of Whig dishonesty and
returning good sense on the part of the people of
England.—Morning Post.
We should not have again recurred, after the ex-
pod which we gave on Monday last of what is now
termed " the Brougham and Durham controversy,"
.and the clencher of our evening contemporary the
Globe on the same subject, to a question so utterly
unworthy of discussion, if not also in a great mea-
sure devoid of interest, as that personal affair, had not
the Courier of last night provoked us to the barren
contest in an article, brief indeed, and intended to be
conclusive, but which, of all that we have been doom-
ed to peruse, exhibits the most complete specimen in
our recollection of what logicians term a series of non
sequiturs. We agree with that evening contemporary,
that the more that " affair is meddleth with, the more
offensive it becomes," and for the precise reason that
the injudicious friends of Lord Durham would make
that of it against'the Lord Chancellor, which the facts con-
nected with it will not bear out; but we totally disagree
with him in his statement of the case as it now stands.
Our contemporary is methodical, and gives his state-
ment under six different heads.
" 1. We believe," says the Courier, "no intelligent per-
son, who read the Review, can avoid seeing that one main
object of the writer was to injure Lord Durham in the
opinion of the Reformers, who were about to confer public
honours on him at Glasgow."
We trust that we are gifted with some intelligence,
as well as some of our friends and readers, and we are
ready with them to make oath that, whatever the in-
tention of the writer of the article in the Edinburgh
Review may have been—(the said writer being con-
sidered by the Courier to be the Lord Chancellor, al-
thoughlno proof of the fact has hitherto been exhibited)
—the palpable object of the article was to defend a
particular course of action, and to exhibit Lord Durham
as a practical, though not professed approver of it—
but not to injure that Nobleman by such exhibition of
of the difference between his theory and his practice.
" The mode," says the Courier, "in which this was to be
done, was by insinuation, rather than direct charge."
Now, there is not an insinuation to be found in the
article in question from beginning to end—neither is
there a charge in the sense in which the word is used
by the Courier. The charge, if charge there be, is a
mere statement of fact, in illustration of the propriety
of pursuing a particular line of policy.
"3. The matter of reproach," adds our cotemporary,
" is contained in the following passage :
" First, there was the 201. qualification, which the
scheme, as reported by Lord John Russell and the rest of
the sub-committee, contained, and which would have de-
stroyed a hundred rotten burghs, and created about twice
that number! This was changed by the Cabinet to ten
pounds, and Lord Durham made no objection—a change,
however, which he may (though most incorrectly) represent
as no compromise, because it was an extension, and not a
clipping of the plan.'
" Here three facts," says the Courier, "are stated as
affecting Lord Durham. First, that the Sub-Committee
reported in favour of a 201. qualification ; second, that the
Cabinet changed this to a 10/. - third, that Lord Durham
merely made no objection.' The natural inference is, that
the Cabinet, as a body, was more liberal than Lord Durham
in this matter."
Here, unquestionably, " three facts are stated as
affecting Lord Durham," but not to his in ; for
had such been the case, he might well say, " have
mercy on me !" inasmuch as, as we shall presently
spew, the whole of the facts are capable of proa
Here, for example, are the words of Lord Grey, o

the 7th October; 1831 :
" It has been urged," said he, "by some persons that
this qualification (101.) is too high, and will exclude many
respectable persons in the small country towns from the
right of voting, which they ought to possess. On the one

hand, however, very many have stated, and in particular,
the Noble Lord opposite, who dwelt on this part of the
measure at great length, that the qualification is too low,

and will not afford an adequate representation to property.
lam ready to admit that our first intention was to form he
new constituency of the occupiers of 201. rental ; but we
found, on inquiry, that the constituency would be so narrow
and confined, in many of the country towns, that the large
body of the householders would be excluded."

Upon the same occasion, or nearly at the same
time, the Lord Chancellor also observed—
" It is said, indeed, that we have pitched the qualifica-
tion too low ; but are we not now debating on the principle
of this Bill ? And is not the Committee the place for dis-
cussing whether that principle should be carried into effect
by a qualification of 10/., or a higher one ? I have no ob-

section, however, to consider the mere matter of detail here

and if I can satisfy the Noble Earl ( Harrowby) that all
over England, except in London and a few other great
towns,
.101. is not too .low, and may expect his vote after

0 •
all. Now, in the small towns—l speak in the hearing of
Noble Lords who are well acquainted with the inhabitants

of them—persons living in 16/. houses are in easy circum-
stances. This is, undeniably, the general case. In
fact, the adoption of that sum was not a matter of

choice. We originally proposed 2.0/., but when
we came to inquire, it appeared that very large places had

a most considerable number of such houses: One town,
for instance, with 17,000 or 18,000 inhabitants, had not

!went y who rented houses rated at 201. a year. Were we
,o destroy one set of close boroughs, the Old Sarums and

Gattons, which had at least possession to plead for their
title, in order to create another new set of boroughs just as
close, though better peopled?"
Now here are the facts stated, the secrets disclosed,
—at least what for party and malignant purposes are
now termed secrets—and yet who will accuse Lord
Grey of having made a charge against his son-in-law
in these revelations, or of having disclosed any Cabi-
net secrets which it was dishonourable to make known ?
Who will accuse Lord Brougham on the same score ?
But then, says the Courier, one charge is that Lord
Durham " made no objection ;" and why should he,
when the qualification had a more liberal tendency
than that which was originally suggested ? The beau-
tiful non sequitur, however, of the Courier's reason-
ing is to be found in the " natural inference that the
Catnii.7t was more liberal as a body than Lord Dur-
ham. in this maiL"."
Durham being simply
r.ian of a Sub-Com-
mittee, think of it, reader) the LAI,-:
and not the Committee itself I We neeci;CFcelY

proceed farther with this painful and tedious analysis.
The remaining facts and inferences of the Cou-
rier are either disposed of by the preceding extracts
from the speeches of LOrds Brougham and Grey—by
the extract which we gave the other day from Lord
Durham's Gateshead speech—or b) his announcements
at Glasgow ; while with regard to the charge, as it is
termed, of " clipping and compromising" alleged to