The Sun.
London, England, 1833-08-28 00:00:00

AUGUST MEETING, 1536.

TIIURSDAY.-Sweepstakes of 100 sovs: each, h. ft., for
the produce of mares covered in 1832; colts Bst.

fillies Bst. 21h. (31b. allowed, lko.) Two miles.
Mr. I'. 0. Powlett's b. f. by Partisan—Miss Fanny'as
dam; Mr. lioulds worth's h. or ro. f. Tarquina, by I:'''"
lius—Torelli ; Mr. llouldsworth's Centurion, by Emil.'"
—Miss Maltby; Major Yarburgh's b. f. by 1.""`r11.7
Laurel's dam; Duke of Leeds b. f. by Waver4)—
a br or .
13r ti-
Rye (31b); Duke of Leeds b. c. by .1 err'',
~," br.m i byh
. ipse) sb. C. The
by Whisker—Lady Paul (31b.); :Mr.
GullyMr.Walkel
11b_r..0)Va.lkeri's ch.. f.
Mr. Gascoigne's b. f. by li
Langan or Falcon—Lady Georgs.ialora_i;srsil.s.ikps.ey,sof.
by
Mr.
k.
cbWhisker
ey_i
pEeGdmei
bi_lsi ui
dQse—uFa'Adalri
rii)si
I,B„;Corrbi.))ai
i%i
Bowes'siLi ch.w efs. $
(d)e.al).bhyy
Catton—Emma,
Jerry—Lady of iyebyyllNlVChl'ii:(tk3reeilrbi.n;)a'; Mr. S. L. Fox's f. by
ru..
the Tees;
tt:anaordcldoorrLby
Dizabetb.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Czar Nicholas of Russia has so far
winced under the public indignation expressed
by the House of Commons in the debate on
Mr. C. Fergusson's motion of the 21st ult.,
for an address to his Majesty on the treat-
ment experienced by Poland, as to feel it
incumbent on him to publish a manifesto, ex-
planatcry of the rights which he acquired over
that unfortunate country, and vindicatory of
the manner in which he has fulfilled the obli-
gations imposed upon him by the treaty of
Vienna in 1815. The manifesto, the writer
of which must have been conscious of the
uphill work he had to execute, is the most
elaborate that we have ever read ; but, from
the inherent badness of the cause, it is the
feeblest also. No part of the conditions of
the solemn treaty of 1815 is dwelt upon as
of importance but that which " unites" Poland
to Russia, being the ex parte construction of
the Russian advocate, while the restraints, qua-
lifications, and limitations of that union, as
distinctly specified in the treaty on behalf of
Poland and of Europe, as the union itself was
on the side of Russia, are slurred over as of no
value wha'ever, or declared to be but incidents,
secondary and subordinate, to the fundamental law
transferring Poland to the Russian sceptre. Now
the union of Poland to Russia, permitted and au-
thorised by the treaties of Vienna, was not an
incorporating union. Yet, as such it is sub-
stantially treated by the Russian advocate
throughout. Poland, under that treaty, was to
have a " popular representation," and " na-
tional institutions," " adapted to the political
existence that the Emperor should think fit to
grant to his Polish subjects." If these latter
words be not pure jargon, or designed by all
the negotiators at Vienna to neutralize the force
of the preceding obligation, could it, let us ask,
have been contemplated for one moment, that
the phrase "adopting a popular representation,
and national institutions," was to justify the
extinction of both ? Yet that is the sense con-
tended for by the fag of a Russian manifesto
writer. If the parties to the treaty of Vienna
had been satisfied to vest an unlimited power
of treating Poland as he pleased in the Emperor
of Russia, we must say that prodigious trouble
was taken to little purpose in the framing of
those celebrated treaties. The attempt to bring
the whole Polish question within the exclusive
arbitrament of Austria, Prussia, and Russia,
the three parties who have been all along the
main violators of every right, divine and human,
which Poland was interested in enjoying, is of
a piece with the cool audacity of the entire
composition. If Russia fancies that it will
influence opinion here in her favour; she reckons
without her host.—Times.
Our chivalrous contemporary the Standard
was last night extremely romantic in vindication
of Lord Warwick, and we should suppose was
assisted by his Lordship's butler. The case of
the Earl of Warwick is an issue of fact, and
the Noble Earl, never very ingenious or remark-
able for his powers of composition, is, like a
drowning man, sinking deeper at every plunge.
The Standard finds it convenient to accuse the
Government of plotting the removal of the
Warwickshire Lord Lieutenant, whereas the
Reformers complain that the Ministry did not
dismiss the unworthy servant of the Crown on
the conviction of the special report of the Com-
mons Committee. His Lordship conveniently
abstained from explaining the awkward imputa-
tions against him, and ventured on the dangerous
defence of an alibi. The indictment against the
Noble Earl, as assigned in the report, consists
of the following five counts :
" That the gross bribery which, by the report of the
Committee on the 13th day of May, prevailed at the last
election fir the borough of Warwick, on the part of the
agents of the Hon. Sir Charles John Greville, remains
uncontradieted ; the agents and parties implicated in such
liribery not having produced any witnesses or evidence
before this Select Committee to disprove the same.
" That gross bribery at the last election fur the said
borough has been proved to have been committed by
William Oram, William Trepess, jun., Joseph Trepess,
William Henry Betts, William Ayres, George Buckley,
Samuel Dingley, Henry Thomas Cooke, and the Town
Clerk, James Tibhitts, all electors of the said borough ;
that the money distributed by those persons in such gross
bribery appears to have been paid to them by the said
James Tibbits, and that such money was supplied to the
said James Tihbitts by Alexander Brown, the then steward
of the Right Hon. Henry Richard Greville, Earl of War.
wick, from the private funds of the said Earl of Warwick,
standing in the name of the said Alexander Brown, at
the Warwick Bank of Messrs. Greenway and Greaves.
6' That it appears to your Committee that there were
unusual and serious riots previous to and at the said last
election, and that there was great injury to the persons of
the burgesses and destruction of their property ; that the
aid of the military was called in to support the civil
power ; that such riots and disturbances originated in the
introduction into the borough, by the agents of the said
Sir Charles John Greville, of large bodies of strangers
and non-resident agricultural labourers, many of them in
the etnoly of tenants of the Earl of Warwick, and of
hired fighting men from neighbouring places ; and that
such persons were maintained and paid by Henry Thomas
Cooke and others, and the money provided by the said
James Tibbitts, town-clerk.
" That it appears that the Right Hon. Henry Richard
Grevil'e, Earl of Warwick, a Peer of the Realm, Lord
Lieutenant of the county of Warwick, and Recorder
of the borough, in violation of the resolutions and stand-
kg orders of the House, did unconstitutionally apply, by
his agent and steward, Alexander Brown, 3,0001. and
upwards towards the election expenditure and promotion of
the political interest of the candidate, Sir Charles John
Greville, in the transfer of such sum of money to James
Tibbitts, town-clerk of the said borough, who appropria-
ted the same to the various corrupt and illegal practices
at the last election, the office of town-clerk being in the
appointment of the Recorder.
" That Alexander Brown, steward of the Earl of
Warwick., subsequent to the election of 1831, caused
numerous
borough, and
(many of them non-resident in the
gh, and dependents of the Earl of Warwick) to be
fictitiously rated to the
A
n l a
James
p oor of the two parishes of the
d
said borough, and eh'
said Earl, for
fitheet;
c f fly in respect of property of the
tious rpeurpose of creating ft audulent
votes, and that
by Alexa eipts or rent appeared to have
been prepared
ndbeerr oßfrsouwehn
cioni
osuurp pboi r t o f
dth e m
that a considerable num e r
eons were erased from the Re ist f E
tors y-rat e p -
ge
vising barriders, but that c by the re-
masnyidwrs ore retained, and voted
a
at the last election for the
rr l e T
Johni b
bG
rr
re•
vine, and that Alderman Henry Smyth
the town-clerk, aided and abetted l anderßrown in
supporting such fictitious votes; but that the
to Honourable
corrupt
Sir Charles John Greville does not appear
Com-
mittee to have personally participated in the aboveyour
and illegal practices.
" That your Committee have been impeded in their n-
i
quiries by the absence of Alexander Brown, the Steward
of the Earl of Warwick, and that it was proved to their
satisfaction that due diligence had been used to procure
the attendance of the said Alexander Brown, and it is their
opinion that such absence was wilful, and for the purpose
of impeding their inquiry."
if his Lordship in a second " explanation," or
the Standard, or any anxious Tory, can satis-
factorily rebut these specific and grave accusa-
tions, we shall exceedingly rejoice. The Earl
of Warwick may have been advisedly absent
kiitm these disgraceful transactions were accom.
~,/,_,l.Nnp)ished by his money, with his property,
.and for
• 141' tfirp-itilltereSt ;" but it is somewhat curious, as
.41V01-9.iricidenc—,lhat the final state of the poll was
—l!':c,...NZ-:Oatismittett• this Lordship by an express or
ial rept / When the evidence appears, we
_
AU. set tths _matter in its true light ; and, in the
-
alifiekth le;'; e repeat our sincere advice and re-
commendation to his Lordship—to resign his

Lieutenancy and Itecordership, or we imagine
he will be displaced from the former by a vote
of the House of Commons next session, and
from the latter by the judgment of the Court of
King's Bench.—itiorning Chronicle.
Our contemporary of a Treasury Evening
Journal, whose turn for a solemn and rather
occult sort of waggery makes it often difficult to
discover whether he only points a sermon or
perpetrates a joke, affects to mistake us respect-
ing the omission of the name of the Morning
Herald from the Parliamentary debate relative
to the Russian treaty with the Porte ; and even
that falsification of historical accuracy in report-
ing we only adverted to for the purpose of show-
ing that, while he laboured to bring our cor-
respondence into discredit, he was too well con-
vinced of its truth to allow, as far as he was
concerned, even a Parliamentary record to tes-
tify to the quarter from which it came. Though
he spoke slightingly, it is evident he did not
think slightingly of that page of modern " By-
zantine history" which we gave to the public.
As to being especially noticed in his own com-
mentary, he falls into an amusing error if he
thinks we are ambitious of that sort of fame. We
can well bear the obscurity which his perpetual
silence would inflict upon us. We certainly do
not want of any parasite of the Treasury a
" certificate of existence." If our contemporary
had confined himself to a nibbling notice of our
correspondence, without mixing up the merits of
the case along with it, we should have had
less to say upon the subject ; though we pre-
sume be would consider any reasoning or opinion
too long that exposed the incapacity of his pa-
trons at the Foreign Office and their employes
in foreign stations to vindicate the honour, pre.
serve the influence, and protect the interests of
England. Nor can it he said of us that, with
regard to Russian policy, we are wise only after
events, for when the Treasury Journals were all
with one accord joining in strains of compliment
to the honour and good faith of Russia, we over
and over again warned Ministers to be on their
guard against the subtle and treacherous diplo-
macy of that power. Often have we been sneered
at and taunted by the Treasury prints for expres- '
sing our doubts of the sincerity of Russia in
professing to bring about a speedy and amicable
adjustment of the Belgic question—we have
more than once appealed to the history of the
past to throw light upon the present designs of
Russia—we blamed the Wellington Adminis-
tration, in the day of its apparent prosperity, for
lowering the character and endangering the
interests of England by a truckling subserviency
to that Power, whose great object, ever since
the overthrow of Napoleon, has been to strike
a deadly blow at the political influence and
the commercial and maritime superiority of
England. The deaf adder is not more deaf to
the voice of the charmer than Ministers were
to any warning from any quarter as to the cir-
cumventing policy and ambitious designs of
Russia. Their infatuation which was perfectly
unaccountable, made them accomplices of the
deception practised upon themselves, and, what
is worse, upon the country, in the Turco-
Russian treaty, Our Ministers were certainly
not wise &fore experience. The question now
to be solved is, have they become after expe-
rience. Or will the smooth and guileful lan-
guage of the Northern Autocracy, while it lays
one iron hand on the ruins of Poland, and the
other on the wreck of the Ottoman empire, lull
them into the sleep of blind confidence again ?
The expense of a naval expedition to the Bos-
phorus, to prevent Russia from establishing her
supremacy there, perfectly appals our economical
contemporary. He is not so much alarmed at
expense, or the opposition of Mr. Hume, when
he has got to perform the dirty work of defend-
ing such a thing as the nefarious Russian-Dutch
loan job, whereby the destroyer of Poland, the
violator of the treaty of Vienna, was rewarded
with millions of English gold to encourage him
to laugh us to scorn among the nations.—
Morning Herald.
The inquiry on the stationery contract, as it
is called, has elicited curious facts, and we are
inclined to suspect the following business points
have not received the attention they deserve
from Government. It appears that the osten-
sible contractor was Jonathan Muckleston Key,
while the real contractor was Sir John Key, the
Member ; and so little were even appearances
attended to, that the bills drawn in the name
of the contractor who signed the bond were
(kraal by another party without his authority,
and accepted, by way of making payment for the
goods supplied at the instance of Sir John Key
himselF. They were, therefore, no discharge to
the Stationery Office. In the progress of the
inquiry these facts having appeared, the following
letter was sent by Mr. Jonathan Muckleston Key
to the Chairman, Lord Granville Somerset:—
" August 12,1833.
"My Lord—l understand it has been asserted in your
Committee that the Bills drawn during the past and pre-
sent year for the goods delivered under my contract were
not drawn in my name, or by my authority.
" I certainly do not recoPect that I ever gave authority
in words to my brother, or any other person, in my name
to draw such bills; but I knew that payments were to be
made by drafts at thirty days' sight, and which I expected
would I e received by my brother ; and I adopt, without
hesitation, those bills which have hitherto been drawn in
my name for the goods delivered according to contract.
" I have, &c. "J. M. KEY."

This recognition of the bills was of course
quite right on the part of Mr. Jonathan Muckle-
.ston Key ; but we suggest that it should be
formally made to the parties concerned, viz. the
Comptroller of the Stationery Office, or the
Lords of the Treasury, for we think this letter
to the Chairman of a Committee of the House
of Commons is not a valid instrument for the
purpose intended. It appears, also, that there
should be a new bond relative to this contract,
the present being a mere nullity in consequence
of a curious fact, viz., that a Mr. Francis
Hahn tendered by Sir John Key for one
of the sureties of his brother Muckleston
was not only without any property, but
under age, being only 19 (see 2d Report, page
46). Sir John, it seems, thought a juvenile
surety suitable to a juvenile storekeeper. The
attempt to pass this young man off instead of
his father, who had been surety for two or three
previous years, did not succeed, and the result
of the failure was that the father came forward
himself and signed the bond ; but to accommo-
date the bond to him several erasures were
made after it
aniht the
had been signed by the contractor
Muckleston
other surety, which era-
sures make theknoinwsstrument mere waste water, as
every body
Key's intelligent and tcept perhaps Sir John
respectable friends at the
Treasury. We understatedt that the Hon, 13a-
rnha
ronet, no longer M.P., is
and it would have been very° u retain his contract;
unhandsome indeed
convenient
to deprive him of that, after his
destruction of Mr. Wood's letters° tsitm
d ay after
the inquiry commenced. We must add one
word in illustration of the unfortunate igno.
rance which prevailed at the Treasury of the
dealings of Sir John ivith the Stationery

Office. (4 Nobody at the Treasury," Lord
Althorp says, " knew that the contract was
where it was." Now it appears from the
evidence that until within this twelvemonth a
peculiar writing paper called "\Vhatman's Turkey
mill " was, on account of its superior quality,
used to a limited extent for the superior Go-
vernment offices, at an extra price ; and it is
established by the evidence, beyond the pos-
sibility of doubt or misconception, that this
arrangement was overthrown by the interference
of Sir John Key himself at the Treasury, and
that in consequence of this interference no ex-
clusive or peculiar quality of paper was al-
lowed any longer to the superior offices. But
still it must be true—for Lord Althorp and
Mr. Stanley have said it—that nobody at the
Treasury knew that the contract was where it
was. The simple-minded innocents of the
Treasury ! The truth-telling apologists of the
Treasury in the House of Commons !
Morning Post.
We give, in another part of this day's paper,
one of the most infamous documents which has
ever appeared in our columns—infamous in its
design, and infamous in its object—worthy of
the Court of Russia, and worthy of it only.
We need scarcely observe that we allude to the
manifesto of that Court in answer to the late
debate in the House of Commons upon the
subject of Poland and her innumerable wrongs,
and in vindication of the policy pursued by
Russia towards that unfortunate, but heroic
country. How the northern barbarian struggles
to show that he has right on his side for all the
enormities which he has perpetrated ! How he
strives to get out of the stipulation to continue
a separate existence, distinct institutions, and a
popular representation, solemnly guaranteed to
Poland by the treaty of Vienna! How he
winces under the declaration of Lord Palmer-
ston, that he considered the question of Poland
and her institutions to be still open—to be still
in abeyance—as one that concerned all Europe,
and which had not been settled ! How he
dreads the spirit of liberty again awaking amidst
the desolation of a ruined country and a dispersed
people, and summoning to its aid the free and
the brave of every country and of every clime !
And what is the cause of all this apprehension
and of all this sensitiveness to even the bare
mention of the name of Poland ? Is it her
wrongs—her well-known wrongs—which cry
aloud for vengeance to the freemen of every
land, and which, if the Emperor had a heart to
feel, or a heart to break, would long ere now
have broken it. But though there be woe, and
fear, and trembling, with the Autocrat, lie is
still for holding onward—he does not repent
him of the evil which he has done, and the ca-
lamities, both public and private, of which he
has been the author to unhappy Poland and her
children—nay, he attempts to justify it, and
declares that no one has a right to interfere
between him and his prey. The scabbard, he
says, was thrown away, and when 'Warsaw
fell, the law of the strongest gave to him the
right of dealing with the weakest as he
thought fit. So, indeed, it has been, and so
we fear it must be with Poland for some time
to come ; but it will not be so always. The
manifesto in question, artfully drawn up as it is,
betrays in every sentence of it a conviction of
wrong—nay, if we may so speak, a secret shrink-
ing from the iniquities which it attempts to jus-
tify, which might be improved by energetic re-
mons!rances on the part of France and England,
into something like a surrender of the prey ;
while, however clouded the horizon may now
he—however dark and distant the prospect of
Poland's regeneration, we see no more reason to
despair of it, than we do of the abolition of op-
pression and tyranny throughout the world ge-
nerally. The light is breaking in on all sides—
free institutions are the demand of the people in
all quarters—and do what they may, the op-
pressors of the human race—the creatures that
live but for themselves, and for the evil of their
kind—will neither be able to shut out the one,
nor to suppress the other. The struggle, in-
deed, is as yet only commencing ; yet the
victory may be deemed as certain as that the
dawn will in due time be followed by meridian
splendour.—Morning Advertiser.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, AUG. 27.