The Sun.
London, England, 1833-10-11 00:00:00

owners of the great collieries.. If such be the
case, it may naturally be asked, if competition
can produce such a result in one case, why not
in another ? To this obvious question we can-
didly confess we cannot give an answer, but
should, perhaps, be hitting the mark were we to
refer the inquirers to the holders of and specu-
lators in tallow for a reply. Whether the evil
rests here or not—whether it is the hateful spirit
of monopoly which thus obstructs the current
from fertilising or relieving the thirst for those
for whom it was intended, we will not take upon
ourselves to affirm, though we strongly suspect
such to be the case. If it is, why do not the
manufacturers, as their own apology and defence,
make known the fact in an authentic form ?
Why do not the electors of Lambeth, for in-
stance, ask their representative how the matter
stands ? In the mean time all that the public
can do is to seek out the dealers who offer
them the benefit of the reduction, and, by
patronising them, at length bring others down to
their terms. At any rate it is, we repeat, a pal-
pable injustice and absurdity that the State
should abandon a revenue which the people
are nevertheless still called upon to pay.—
Morning Herald.

We have never justified the partiality of Lord
Grey for his own family in the bestowal of his
patronage, but we admire the political senti-
mentality of the Tories, who find it convenient
to comment on this occasional blot in the repu-
tation of the present Ministry. The Tories no-
toriously trafficked in corruption, and maintained
every sinecure and superfluous office which could
provide for the aristocracy. The Peel family,
for instance, the Beresfords, the " Somersets,"
the Manners' family, the Lowthers, the Gren-
villes, the Buckinghams, &c. &c., have made a
tolerable profit of power. The partisans of
these " Conservatives" of places, pensions, and
sinecures, nevertheless, are particularly active in
denouncing the " nepotism" of the Premier.
But there is a wide distinction between the two
parties. Lord Grey has honestly cut down the
lavish cost and profligate expenditure of the Go-
vernment, and we do not doubt will promote fur-
ther economy and reduction of taxation. However
we may regret that in some instances he has par-
tially promoted his own immediate connections,
such a natural favouritism cannot cancel the
everlasting obligations of the nation to his pa-
triotic Administration. He has maintained no
useless places for the object of family provision.
The Tories, moreover, artfully exaggerate and
magnify his favouritism. The Bishop of Here-
ford, for example, including his prebendal stall,
barely averages an income of 4,0001. per annum,
the minimum provided by the recent Act for
an Irish Bishop, whose expenses are far
inferior to those of an English Prelate. Again
Sir H. Grey is not appointed Comptroller of
the Irish Household, as they say, and the To-
ries have swollen the salary of that office from
the real sum of 4001. per annum to the quad-
ruple amount of 2,0001. Further, Sir H.
Grey will lose 1,2001. per annum by the recom-
mendation of the Military Committee. We do
not doubt, however, that these falsehoods will
be speedily supplied by new inventions. The
manuflicturers of such party calumnies are well
aware that all who read them do not see the
contradiction. When the Conservative party
has done as much for the nation as the Ministry
of Lord Grey, then they may more ingenuously
and honestly reflect on the preferment of per-
sonal connections. No Administration has
brought forward more talent, or promoted more
persons on the sole recommendation of merit.
In some instances we have regretted, as in that
of the Country Bankrupt Commissioners, that
the Government parted with its just and legiti-
mate patronage. At the same time we trust
that the patriotism of Lord Grey will not be
tarnished by any future aggravation of this par-
tially just complaint of his Tory enemies.—
Morning Chronicle.