The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-10 00:00:00

selves, though they will not allow their supporters
to have such things. If the Government all happen
to agree (or find that it does aot interfere with their
several constituencies to agree), with each other,
then, whatever scruples you may have upon those
questions upon which they happen to agree—then
must you vote with them—for to simple members
of Parliament there must be no such things as open
questions. Oh, no—that is a privilege reserved only
for Ministers. Again—to the landowner we would
say—remember Lord Althorp at the beginning of
the session declared " that the Government, as a
body, would oppose any motion for a repeal of the
corn laws." Is Mr. Edward Ellice, Secretary at War,
with 2,500/. a year, no part of the body of the Gover-
nment ? Is Mr. Poulett Thomson, Vice-President
of the Board of Trade, with 2,0001. a•year, no part
of the body of the Government ? Is Lord Howick,
Under Secretary for the Home Department, with
1,5001. a-year, no part of the body of the Govern-
ment? Is Mr. Charles Wood, Secretary of the
Treasury, with 2,5001. a-year, no part of the body of
the Government? Is Lord Duncannon, First Com-
missioner of Woods and Forests, with 2,0001. a-
year, no part of the body of the Government ? Is
Mr. Littleton, Chief Secretary for Ireland, with
6,000/. a-year, no part of the body of the Govern-
ment ? Are Messrs. Vernon Smith, Labouchere,
Bernal, Colonel Fox, &c. &c., with their 1,2001. and
1,4001. a-year, no parts of the body of the Govern-
ment ? If they are parts of the body of the Go-
vernment, then has Lord Althorp —. If they
are not,—then are Lord Duncannon, Mr. Ed-
ward Ellice, Lord Howiek, Mr. P. Thomson,
Mr. Charles Wood, Mr. Littleton, Mr. Vernon
Smith, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Bernal, Colonel
Fox—No-Bodies!—and we wish them joy of
their estimation by their colleagues in the cabinet.
Again—to the manufacturers we would say, can't
you see that your members, when they said that
they would work your points for you, merely did
by you, as the Witches did by Macbeth—" paltered
with you in a double sense ?" What was the use
of their voting for you, if exactly the same numbers
in the cabinet voted against you ? The next time
let them promise to make the question a cabinet
question, and then, either you will be relieved, or
they will go out—and then you will know that they
are in earnest. Again—to the general supporters
of the government we would say, if the ministers
are to drag you through the mire, whenever there
is mire to be dragged through—but if they them-
selves will never touch any thing that is soiled—
what are you but their mud-boots—their stepping-
stones ?—and if you submit to this, what are you
fit to be, but their mud-boots and their stepping-
stones ;—and whenever they wish for the future to
have a little sport—and an open question—what
will they call—both it and you, but—their mud-
larks ?—Morning Post.

Lord John Russell must be highly flattered by the
eulogies bestowed on him in the John Bull for
liberality towards Mr. Gleig. " Lord John Rus-
sell," says that Journal, "is chiefly known by his
extraordinary play of " Don Carlos," and by his
gratuitous revivification of the lively poems of Sir
Charles Hanbury Williams; but still he has shown
a feeling which deserves praise, and which, we are
sure, is worthy, because it meets with reprobation
from the papers which usually support all his other
most unjustifiable measures." Lord John must he
far gone indeed if he does not blush when he reads
this. John Bull repeats the evasive declaration
of Mr. Gleig, that "he is not, nor ever was, the
editor of a newspaper," and proceeds to say, "Now
as Mr. Gleig never wrote political papers, and has
confined himself to works which, without meddling
with party feelings, do him infinite credit as a lite-
racy man, we at once acquit Lord John Russell of
the small motive of buying him over—that is out
of the question; we really believe it to be a
due appreciation of the merits of Mr. Gleig,
and as one small redeeming circumstance in
a life full of large and abominable political
faults." The key to Lord John's appreciation of
Mr. Gleig's merits is not difficult to find ; but we
do not -wish to dwell on the weaknesses of a man
tc, who as the country is indebted for a share in the
concoction of the Reform:Bill. We would not, how-
ever, advise him to make another such appoint-
ment. The Kent Herald of Friday, after insert-
ing the letter of Mr. Gleig, observes—" We find
from the rejoinders to this pretty specimen of con-
venient equivocation, that the question is perfectly
well understood by the leading London journals and
by the public, so that it is unnece,sary for us to com-
ment at much length upon it. We shall only re.
mark, that the complacent collocation of Lord John
:Russell and myself, and Mr. Gleig's careful regard
for Lord John Russell's reputation, are perfectly
ludicrous to those who recollect the foul and de-
basing epithets, the frantic execrations, heaped
upon the authors of the Reform Bill, and all its sup-
porters by the reverend contributors to the
Kentish Gazette, in 1831-32, of whom Mr.
Gleig was the principal. What a charm-
ing presentation volume to his patron could the
gazetting Chaplain make by collecting and reprinting
all his diatribes against reform and reformers ! We
believe that its perusal would shock and shame even
Lord John Russell himself—and that is saying much.
The assertion of not being, nor having been, The
Editor' of a Kent Newspaper, is what, in any one
but a conscientious clergyman, would be styled in
common parlance, a paltry equivocation. Mr.
Gleig was sufficiently identified with the editorial
duties of the paper in question as joint conductor and
constant contributor, to incur the moral and literary
respon,ibilities of an avowed editor—what he was
paid by the Kent Conservatives for his thick-and-
thin work, remains hidden in the secrets of the
Kriatchbull conclave—he might do it gratuitously
from his hatred towards Whig Ministers anti their
liberal adherents. All this Mr. Gleig calmly glosses
over by owning the soft impeachment' of having
r.vritten various papers in opposition to the Reform
pin.' Who would, from this vague declaration,
imagine that he had mainly supported (we must not
say edited) the political department of a high-flying
Tory Journal, whose contents, at that time, were
characterised by an intemperate coarseness, a vulgar
And rancorous scurrility, a personal and ferocious ma-
lignity towards its political opponents, exceeding
anything before known in this county ? Nay, on
one occasion, the assassination of a rival editor of
liberal paper was plainly recommended to the
Erst Kent Yeomanry Cavalry! Meek man of God,
how unfortunate to be connected with this Tory
paper so closely that the most illiberal and virulent
articles were universally attributed.to his pen ! On
this supposition, the only excuse then found for
them was, that the writer had not shaken off his
emerly habits as a soldier of fortune, not freed him-
zelf entirely from the contaminating influences of
;he camp." The same paper gives the following
history of Mr. Gleig's connection with the Tory
press of Kent :—" The true nature of Mr. Gleig's
Connection with the Kentish Tory Press is as fol-
lows :—For some time he, in conjunction with the
Reverend Mr. Molesvvorth, was intrusted with the
entire management of the Kentish Gazette in the
leading editorial department; but by the ruffianly
violence of their writings, these clerical ponti-
cians disgusted most of the respectable sub-
scribers to that paper, copies of which were almost
weekly burned in various public companies; and
after some disputes with Messrs. Smithson, the pro-
prietors, the Gazette was abandoned, and another
paper, called the Kentish Observer, was started un-
der the same auspices, and carried on is: tire same
reckless spirit of rabid conservatism." We shall
only add the following extract from u letter from an
old correspondent of this journal :—" Mr. Gleig may
not have written against the Reform Bill since it
has become the law of the land, but his support of
Ultra-Tory principles is as strong and strenuous as
ever; and I have no doubt the cause will be as
strongly advocated as ever, though not openly.
There are a few highly deserving clergy in the
county, who have sacrificed everything to the con-
scientious adherence to their principles, to whom
some preferment ought to be given ; and which act
of justice would be hailed as an omen of a return