The Sun.
London, England, 1835-12-22 00:00:00

SPIRIT 02 THE PUBLIC JOURNALS

We are never to have done, it seems, with new ver-
sions of the Warsaw speech. Yesterday we gave, w;e
think, the fourth or fifth " genuine" copy of that me-
morable composition, under the rubric
.of the frontiers
of Poland. In substance all these variorum editions
are perfectly alike. They all breathe the same des-
potic rage—all make the same indiscreet. revelations of
the intentions of the Czar towards those whom he had
directed his scribes at Frankfort and Augsburg-to re-
present as his penitent and most loyal Subjects. No
man can doubt that if the Count Paskewitch, or Count
Orloff', for example, had, in a moment of unguarded
temper, pourtrayed the heart of-the Emperor, and be-
trayed his policy towards Poland, in the manner in .
which he has accomplished those objects himself,
such a proceeding would have been treated as a high
crime against the State, and the ill-fated Minister
would have been sent to cool his blood amidSt
the snows of Siberia. Unhappily there is as yet
no Siberia for Autocrats. If there were, Nicholas
undoubtedly would have found himself there by
this time, and most deservedly so, for the annals
of treason furnish no instance of atrocity so foul as
the declared and inexorable resolution of this Sove-
reign to massacre the inhabitants of a whole capital,
and then to convert it into a desert. We believe. We
do not exaggerate when we express our belief that the
promulgation of this threat has raised throughout the
civilized world a feeling against its author, which only
wants a seasonable moment to exhibit itself in a deter-
mination to rescue the object of his vengeance from
the perils with which he has surrounded it. The
Hungarians and the Poles w ere for many centuries in- •
timately connected ; they have fought together for the
same cause ; they have many sentiments and feelings
in common ; they are neighbours, and they are more-
over linked together by the sympathies of the national
freedom which they once enjoyed, and of which the
Hungarians, thanks to their own energies, have
never been wholly deprived. The Warsaw speech
is said to have produced a very strong effect among
the members of the Diet sitting at Presburg. , Re-
solutions are reported to have been adopted by the
Lower Chamber, condemning in measured terms.
the language of the Autocrat. Speeches were also de-
livered on the occasion, depicting in emphatic language
the horror with which the Deputies have read those
barbarous menaces of the Russian—and especially the
passage which implies the incorporation of Poland
with the empire as one of its provinces. Before the
publication of the harangue, it is manifest, from _the
denunciations which it contains, that writings not very
friendly to his Government had found their way into
that kingdom, and, moreover, that his police, nume-
rous and active as they are, have not the power to pre-
vent the introduction and circulation of such docu-
ments. . Since the Speech has been published,
the number of 'similar papers forwarded to Po-
land is so great, that the country is said to be in-
undated with them. This is just as it should be.
The Autocrat has his citadel of guns—his physical
force. The Poles have their Press, and its millions
of winged messengers. The contest has begun between
moral power and. brute force. There can 'be no doubt
of the issue, provided the Poles are prudent. The
agitation which prevails amongst them at present, both
at home and abroad, is the harbinger of their emanci-
pation, if they will only bear their wrongs with physi-
cal patience until the hour of victory shall be at hand.
Any premature attempt to excite insurrection will only
injure their cause, and-bring down the guns of War-
saw upon their heads. But the war of the printing-
press cannot be too energetically conducted. We look
forward to some important indications of the public
feeling upon this question in the French Chamber of
Deputies, as well as in the House of Commons, as -
soon as these assemblies shall have met. It is impos-
sible that the speech of the Czar can long remain be-
fore the world, without being answered in a suitable
manner by the authorised organs to such nations as
France and England. As his Imperial Majesty did
not deign to receive the address of the Municipality
of, Warsaw, on account of the " falsehoods" which
he said it contained, he must be pleased to hear the '
truth from the Representatives of countries which
have no motive for flattering him. As he loves to
hear the truth, let him by all means have enough of
it.—Morning Chronicle.
Mr. Daniel O'Connell is taking rope enough, and
is, unconsciously no doubt, converting it to its proper
purpose. He has published another letter on what
he is pleased. to call Peerage " Reform," in which
falsehood and folly contend throughout for the prize.
Whether the Whig 14 or 15 placemen, by an abuse
of courtesy called " Ministers," have yet made up
their minds upon the expediency of proclaiming their
independence
.of this political ogre, this autocrat of
Ireland, and leveller of the House of Lords, a few
days more of their brief span of official life will deter-
mine. But one thing is clear—namely, Daniel's utter
contempt for them and their deliberations, the perfect.
inßifferenne with which he sets them at defiance, and
bids them break with him if they dare. O'Connell's
late resumption of the project of repeal, which he
had pretented to relinquish, has been a direct insult
to the Ministers, whose existence as such is palpably
dependent on his pleasure. It told them in plain
English—" If you don't come up to the full mark
of my demands upon you—if you flinch at any one
moment from such measures for Ireland as shall
in substance be equivalent to a repeal of the Union,
that moment I will swamp you by a formal de-
claration of war. I shall_ first see whether you
will snap asunder the connexion between the countries
under some decent cloak of a regard for appearances,
and failing that prospect, I will do the thing myself."
So what but a brutal outrage upon these poor Minis-
ters, three-fourths of them Peers or the sons of Peers,
has been his fierce denunciation of the Peerage in its
legislative character ? Peers of England by universal
suffrage ; and this is a " constitutional reform" of the
House of Lords ! this, forsooth, a " simplification"
of complexities ! this a correction of " anomalies !"
But listen to the great Katterfelto for a minute, "with
his wig awry at his own wonders." The " principle
of representation in the Peerage," quoth he, " is one
already recognised and acted on ;" and then he treats
us to the original information, that 16 Scotch Peers
and 28 Irish arc elected, the former for the Parlia-
ment, the latter for life. Katterfelto, however, finds
it inconvenient to state clearly what is the plain fact
of the case—that the Peers so elected represent no
constituents but such as are Peers—they travel not
beyond the Peerage itself—they speak its senti-
ments—they act . upon its interests—they emanate
from it, and return to it—they do not represent, and
are not dependent on, the universal-suffrage rabble—the
constituency which he would assign to them. Next
comes a foul and villanous calumny upon the acts of
the House of Lords during the past session—that
" they determined to mutilate or destroy every measure
of utility to the public which was proposed to Parlia-
ment by the existing Ministry." If, for - " utility to
the public," we substitute the words " utility to the
schemes of Katterfelto himself," there 'may 'be some
truth in the accusation. He proceeds to threaten us
with an attack upon the " Monarchy," if he cannot
bring about the annihilation, of the Peers ; and in an-
swer to the natural surmise, that "if there be an elective
House of Peers, there will soon be an elective King,"
he tells the nation—this constitutional jurisconsultus—
this deep-read historian—comes out with the atrocious
nonsense, that we have " an. Elective King already ;"
because, indeed, James 11.. was dethroned, and Mary,
his daughter, substituted. Did this mountebank ever
read -a syllale.le of Burke. -or Blackstone upon the-Re-
volution e:f 16E8? Ejection 1 Why, there nmr wr s
so distireet an homas,-e paid to the hereditary principle
of oer... monarchy, as by the illustrious Statesmen and
la-eevers who directed this application of that mighty
remedy. The branch which had, divivalified itself
front reigning over England, according to the laws and
Constitution of England, was expelled ; and what
then ? Was there an open election among rival candi-
dates -ror the Crown, and some general favourite
chosen,, to the exclusion of claimants otherwise ..equal
in thr.ir pretensions ? No, the one corroded link in
the °chain of succession was flung away ; and the very
'ules'efal'bilneeorwd-aesr,litohockendexotn,wthoicillippirioolvd itself
dethe weight
l' e 1 gsior
of
and
lierieditacv monarchy. The modest dictum of the =inn-
tebank- ir, characterizing the conduct of the tw olionses
during -the last session is so exquisite, that we cannot

!withhold it. The Duke of Wellington, we are told, '
" succeeded with the Court party, to procure at once,
upon a most silly pretext, on the death of Lord
Spencer, a dissolution, first of the Ministry, and next
of the Parliament, converting himself, for weeks upon
weeks, into the autocrat of England :" Katterfelto
proving, by this sentence, that he is almost as
trustworthy a narrator of the events which he himself
has seen, as of those in a former century, which it ap-
pears he never read of. The Duke of Wellington
had not half so much to do with the dissolution of the
Melbourne Ministry of 1834, as had Mr. Daniel
O'Connell himself ; and the exercise of high-minded
and 'disinterested honour whereby the illustrious Duke
Surrendered to another statesman the chief place in a
Government which was already, by the Royal will, his
awn, seems, as might indeed have been supposed, quite
above the comprehension of Mr. Katterfelto O'Connell.
The juggler goes on. "In short, the Commons, led
by Lord John Russell, were right in every thing—the
Lords, led by the Duke of Wellington, were wrong
from first to last.(! I) This is the plain and simple
history of the last session ; there is nothing of heat
or passion, still less is there any thing of exag-
geration, in the detail of the facts." No, truly, there
is neither " heat nor passion"—all is deliberate, cal-
culating, cold-blooded, unprincipled, " plain and
simple," and downright falsehood. The Russell-
ridden House of Commons " were right in every
thing," because they voted every thing that could
forward the schemes and machinations of Mr. Katter-
felto O'Connell. The House of Lords were wrong in
every thing, because they had the wickedness to thwart
and frustrate such machinations. We have with some
difficulty found room for the entire of this voluminous
-rigmarole, to the exclusion of better things. Our first
intention was merely to publish what he calls propo
tsitions, being a string of puerile abstractions inter-
larded with impudent and malignant slanders. They
inay be termed 14 joints of the tail of Katterfelto s
performance, but have not even the low merit of sleight-
,of-hand to recommend them. We trust the reader
will spare an extra yawn to No. 9; which sets forth
with inimitable gravity the title of the House of Han-
'over to the Crown of these realms by virtue of
'‘‘ universal suffrage !" Upon the whole, we take for
;granted that heads of a Bill are already prepared in the'
secret department of Lord John Russell's office, and
in conformity with the 14 " incontrovertible proposi-
tions" of the learned Daniel Katterfelto ; for to our
understanding of Lord John's reach, Daniel must
doubtless appear a real conjurer.—Tiincs.

In our Saturday's impression appeared a letter from
Mr. Sheriff Salomons to the inhabitants of the Ward
of Aldgate. Is is characterised at once by that tem-
per, good sense, and public spirit, which the position
in which he has been placed by the Court of Alder-
men especially demands. His whole case is briefly
and forcibly concentrated in that address, and it is not
less worthy of the attention of the British public at
large than of the inhabitants of the Ward of Aldgate,
to whom it is more particularly addressed. Under
the above just impression of his position', Mr. S4eriff
Salomons divides the subject-matter of his address
into two parts—the first of which is local in its
bearings, as concerns the privileges of the Ward of
Aldgate, violated in his own person ; the second gene-
ral in its bearings, as affecting the 'great question of
civil and religious liberty—and those privileges---com-
prising as their chief distinction an equality befme
the law—which ought to be the birthright of every
Englishman. Mr. Sheriff Salomons justly complains
of tie personal and local nature of the grievance
inflicted on himself and on his fellow-citizens of
the Ward. He has great reason to complain ;
since in the character of Sheriff of London and
Middlesex he is serving one of the highest offices
known to the common law. If, then, he be incompe-
tent to the performance of an inferior function—that
of an Alderman—it must he evident that he is equally
incompetent to the performance of the very serious and
important duties which now devolve upon him. The
Court of Aldermen are either unable or unwilling to
perceive the mischief they are doing to society when
they thus, by their own act, intrcduee doubt into the
right
in
which a public functionary is deciding or act-
ing n cases of the most momentous consequence
to his fellow-creatures. By such an act they are tend-
ing to confound the elements of society, and to shake
its very corner-stone, more than the most desperate
leveller of whom they affect to entertain so susceptible
an antipathy. The decision of a Court of Aldermen
altogether—setting this point aside—is a combina-
tion of injustice which calls loudly, not only for the
application of redress in the instance of the especial
case to which it refers, but for an inatant applica-
tion of the besom of Reform to the dark archives
and dusty nooks of the Court in which so im-
politic a stroke of bigotry was secretly concocted.
Under whatever aspect it is examined, the features of
gross partiality and exaggerated injustice appear. If
Mr. Salomons had taken the declaration urged upon
him he might have been an Alderman now instead of
Mr. Humphrey, who is sworn in. In other words, if
he had violated his conscience, and committed an of-
fence therefore against' God and man, the Court of
Aldermen might pronounce him fit to sit amongst them.
But because he refuses to stigmatize himself by an act
of admitted criminality, the Court of Aldermen pro-
nounce him to be unfit for their association. We
leave them to the enjoyment of the verdict logically im-
plicated in their own act. But the affair grows darker
still when we look at what follows. Mr. Humphrey is
sworn in as Alderman, and not asked to take the decla-
ration. Others are' sworn in, but the declaration is not
urged. It is quite clear, therefore, that the urging of it
might have been equally waived in the case of Mr.
Salomons. It is quite clear that it might have been
so waived, unless for the invidious purpose of apply-
ing an obsolete Act to the malicious exclusion of an
obnoxious individual. To this complexion must
come at last all the stereotyped courtesy usual on
these occasions, and the usual forms of complimen-
tary no-meaning, viz.—" That there is no man in
the world for whom we entertain so high a respect—
no man with whorlt we should be so proud of asso-
ciating, either in public or private," &c. &c. These com-
pliments are something like those of George Cole-
man's Sir Thomas, who most politely begs the pardon
of the Frenchmen before he undertakes the unpleasant
task of cutting their throats. But after all Mr. Sheriff
Salomons did not refuse to take this identical declara-
tion : he required time to consult his legal adviser, in-
deed. But the Court of Aldermen chose to consider
this reasonable request as a denial, and resolved to
Burke the whole affair with a precipitation not usual
to their ordinary slow movements. They determined
to take the denial for granted ; issued their writ for a
new election the same evening, and have now sworn in
M r. Humphrey as Alderman, in the room of Mr. Sa-
lomons. We have thus two Aldermen in two Wards,
Portsoken and Aldgate,—the one the Alderman of
the people, the other the Alderman of the close Court
of exclusive incurables, whose veto thus nullifies/ and
abrogates the rights of free election. We might say
more on this subject ; but as our readers will per-
ceive by the advertisement to which we refer, that
Mr. Salomons intends to appeal to the Courts of
Justice for a legal decision on the point between him
and Mr. Humphrey, it will not be requisite to enter
at large—pendente late—into the legal bearings of the
question. We may, however, briefly express our con-
viction that a better case never went into Court. A
reference to .the annual Indemnity Bill will, indeed,
show that if the rule so rigidly applied to Mr. Salo-
to other individuals, the
mons, were to be applied
greatest confusion would occur. The very name of
the Bill shows its purpose—that its object was to pro-
vide that the public service should not be injured by
frivolous and litigious objections raised against indivi-
dual opinion, like those raised upon the present occa-
sion. Mr. Salomons very justly says that he is already
protected by the annual Indemnity Bill from the effects
of not signing that declaration, and that without that
protection he could not be permitted to act—not as
Sheriff of London only—but as a member of the
Common Council. But it is notorious, that' the
annual Indemnity Bill has always been considered
sufficient for its avowed purpose. We believe the
very objector to Mr. Salomons, • Mr. Alderman
Brown, was himself protected by it from exclusion
. from the Court of Aldermen previously to the
passing of the Test Abolition Act. With regard to
the national question involved in Mr. Salomons' ad-
dress, we need not say how fully we concur with it.

We cordially join him in urging the earliest applica-
tion to the Legislature " to prevail on Parliament to
cure an anomaly by which, British subjects, enjoying
the respect and good opinion of their fellow-citizens,
desirous to take on themselves the duties of office, and
willing to take every ,oath which the good and safety
of the State may require, are excluded from the benefits
of the Constitution, and denied those invaluable pri-
vileges, based on the principles of civil and religious
liberty, which ought to be the birth-right of every
Englishman." Considering the conspicuous part
which the Morning Advertiser has always taken in
advocating the emancipation of our Hebrew fellow-
citizens, from the disgraceful bonds which now fetter
their privileges and contract their exertions, we may
spare a detail of the arguments which we have so often
repeated. We Shall, however, return to their consi-
deration whenever we see occasion for benefiting and
advancing a cause identical with civil and religious
liberty. We shall be at our posts in maintaining that
battle as soon as the Legislature meets whether
baffled or successful—but always having Percy's en-
couraging battle-cry, " speranza" for our motto.—
Morning Advertiser.
The question at issue between the United States
of America and France, when stripped of the compli-
cations with which a crooked and dishonest diplomacy
has surrounded it, liei in a very narrow compass. It
is, when reduced to its real merits—when pared of
all garnish and bombast—a mere creditor and debtor
transaction, with an account stated on the one side
—a promise to pay on the other, and a violation of
that promise upon payment being called for. If a
war should arise out of this question, all the re-
sponsibility of that war must fall upon the Govern-
ment of France—the justice of the case is with Ame-
rica. Let us see what are the simple facts. When
the revolution of " the barricades" and the simplicity
of Lafayette had raised the son of Egalite to the
throne, under the title of Louis Phillippe, America
applied to France for the settlement of an old pecu-
niary claim, which had been pressed without effect
upon preceding Governments. The demand led to
much negotiation, and at length the French Go-
vernment offered a sum in full of all demands, which
America refused to accept. This led to new nego-
tiations, which were carried on during a space of
nearly three year;, and of which it is only necessary to
know the result, in order to understand on which side
Justice will draw the sword in case of a war between
France and America. That result was a recognition by
the French Government and the French Chambers of
a sum of twenty- five millions of francs being due !o
America—but, upon America demanding the sum
thus acknowledged to be due to her (which is consi-
derably short of the original demand), the French
Government refuses to pay. It is true the Gover9-.
ment of Louis Phillippe, though withholding the pay-
ment of this just debt, in fact, does still make a con-
ditional promise of payment, the condition being that
the President of the United States shall withdraw, or
apologise for some expressions " offensive to the dig-
nity of France," which lie used during the protracted
negocietions on the claim, in consequence of the shuf-
fling and dishonest tricks practised by Louis Phillippe's
Cabinet. The legality of the debt being established,
what right, we ask, has France to annex any condi-
tions to the payment ? Let her pay the debt first,
and then settle the point of " national honour" after-
wards. It i,s a strange way of vindicating the national
honour, to refuse the payment of a just debt: If a
man in private life so attempted to, vindicate his-
honour, his conduct would be considered very shabby
and dishonourable. Suppose a debtor to say to
his creditor, " I acknowledge I owe you 1,0001.
It was very difficult to make me acknowledge
that I owed you any thing. I kept you out of
it a sufficiently long time to put your patience and
yonr temper to the test ; at last you threatened to
have recourse to harsher measures unless I paid ; fear
did what honesty could not induce inc to do, and I
promised to pay, but at the same time I declare, you
shall never have a farthing of your money unless you
apologise for your threat,"—what would be thought of
a debtor who spoke in this way ? Why, that there
was a portion of the fool, but still more of the knave,
in his composition. Such is the language which
France, the debtor, adopts towards America, the cre-
ditor. It is language
worthy of the political morality
of the Doctrinaire Ministers. and their Citizen-King.
When the American claim was formerly rejected in
the Chamber of Deputies, and before the American
President used the threatening expressions, who can
doubt that it was rejected by the contrivance of the
French Government itself ? Whatever pomp and pa-
rade of opposition there may be occasionally made in
the French Chamber to the will of the King of the Bar-
ricades, there is no real opposition, at least no effective
opposition to the Royal will in that Chamber, and
never can be, while France is governed by a mock Re-
presentative system, which is, in fact, a close Corpora-
tion. The whole constituency of France, for a nation
of 36-millions of population, does not amount to more
than one-third of the electoral body of England under
the horoughmongering system, with, including Scot-
land, not above half the population. Well, the Cham-
ber of Deputies, which has been ever since the "glo-
rious days of July" the passive instrument of the arbi-
trary policy of Louis Philippe, and whichhasgone with
him all lengths, even to the adoption of the atrocious
Fiesclii laws, in his but too successful endeavours to
enslave the country—that Chamber rejected in the first
instance the American claims. Why so ?—The
Chamber undoubtedly understood it would be agreeable
to the Court to do so, or they would not have dared to
reject it. Is it to be supposed that the influence of
Louis Phillippe was irresistible in the Chamber for all
tyrannical purposes, and that the -Chamber only op-
posed him with effect when he was anxious to do an act
ofjustiee? Credal Juderus ! Louis Phillippe had no de-
sire to do justice, but he wished to shift the responsibi-
lity of injustice upon the Chamber of Deputies. It is
true the chief of the Doctrinaires, the Due de Broglie,
with his colleagues, resigned their places pro tempore,
knowing that they could step back again whenever they
pleased—that resignation was necessary to save appear-
ances. But the American President was not to be thuS
tricked. He did not oppose Louis Phillippe with his
own diplomatic weapons. He did not meet trick by
trick and chicanery by circumvention. He did not
address the Citizen-Despot as our Government did the
Northern Autocrat, " with hated breath and whisper-
ing gentleness." He spoke of the fraud committed
upon America in language not to be misunderstood,
and denounced the dishonesty of France. The threat
brought the Chamber to reason, or rather the Govern-
ment that inspired the Chamber. After five years
of shuffling and evasion the debt was acknowledged,
but Louis Phillippe and his Doctrinaire Ministers
still wished to stave off the day of payment. The
Citizen-King has long had the credit of being rather
tenacious of the maxim of " mine ancient Pistol," that
" base is the knave that pays ;" but President Jackson
seems resolved to make an honest man of him, or
to compel him to unfurl the tri-color in a war of petty-
fogging injustice against a free State, after knocking
his forehead in the dust before the Autocrat of Rus-
sia, and leaving Poland to its fate. The British pub-
lic are aware that we are no admirers of the democracy
of North America, with its myriads of whip-galled
slaves, and its barbarous Lynch-club committees of
torture and assassination. But in the question now at
issue, America has right and justice on her side, and
the French Government, while pretending to be sensi-
tively anxious for the national honour, tramples public
faith and common honesty under foot. If General
Jackson allows himself to be lulled by a Government
which has borne contumely, insults, and kicks, from
the destroyer of Poland with exemplary patience and
resignation, the stern Republic must, for the future,
" hide its diminished head" in the face of the civilised
world.—Morning Herald.
In another part of our impression will be found three
additional versions of the speech delivered by the Em-
peror of Russia at Warsaw. The one; however, which
is deserving of the most attention is that published by
the Journal de St. Petersburgh. The Paris Messager
des Chambres gives a Polish report of this celebrated
address, which differs in every essential particular from
the Russian account.' We shall not attempt to recon-
cile the differences, but for the curious in public docu-
ments we have thought it our duty to aflbrd every in-
formation which can throw a light upon the real lan-
guage used,by the Czar. It is sufficiently obvious that
threats were held out; which, under existing eircuth-