The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-05 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sia,—On behalf of Mr. Alexander F. Ridgway, of No.
42, Leicester-square, I beg to call your attention to a para-
graph which appears in your newspaper of last evening. It
is headed " Singular Affair," and alludes to some acceptances
of a Noble Lcrd.

As regards my client, the paragraph is a malicious libel,
calculated to do him serious injury, and is, for the most part,
grossly false, as will be shown by the following statement, the
truth of which he is willing, and indeed most anxious, that
you should satisfy yourself of.
So far from Mr. Ridgway having been entrusted by Lord
- (the Noble Lord alluded to) with several bills, to the
amount of some thousands, to get negotiated, and not having
(as alleged its the paragraph) arranged the transaction to his
Lordships' satisfaction, Mr. Ridgway never received from his
Lordship, directly or indirectly, any bill or note whatever,
either to get discounted, or for any other purpose. But, on
Friday last, Mr. Ridgway, in the ordinary course of his busi-
ness, received from a respectable customer, his Lordship's
promissory note for 500 L, due on the following day, and made
payable at No. 69, Pall-mall (Messrs. Hammcraley's), with
instructions to present the same for payment. Mr. Ridgway
was wholly ignorant of the circumstances under which that
note was drawn and negotiated, though he has since ascer-
tained that the indorser gave full value for it by a check on his
Bankers for the sum of 475.4 which was duly paid. On Sa-
turday morning, therefore, when the note became payable, it
was duly presented by Mr. Ridgway's clerk at the Banking-
house of Messrs. Hammersleyf from the hands of whose cashier
it was snatched, and retained by an Attorney's Clerk employed
for the purpose. The insinuation that Mr. Ridgway was then
in the vicinity, awaiting the result of the presentation of the
note, is not the least malignant part of the libel. The fact is,
Mr. Ridgway was filched from his own counting-house in
Leicester-square to that of Messrs. Hammersley in Pall-mall,
immediately the occurrence took place.
Having thus explained the transaction, it is my duty to in-
form you that Mr. Ridgway feels it due to himself to take
prompt and decisive measures, not only to have the libellous
part of this paragraph forthwith contradicted in the most dis-
tinct and unqualified manner, but also to discover the author
and propagator of this most unfounded attack on his character.
Without prejudice, therefore, to my client's right to appeal
hereafter to a Court of Law for that redress at your hands
which the great injury he has sustained by the publication
clearly entitles him to, I now demand of you the earliest in-
sertion in your paper of a positive contradiction to that most
calumnious statement ; and I also require you immediately to
trace the author of the original manuscript ; to give up to me
(as the attorney for Mr. Ridgway) his name and address ; and
to furnish me with such evidence as shall prove him to be the
originator of the scandal.
I am, Sir, your very obedient servant,
HENRY WALKER.

5, Southampton-street, Bloomsbury,
August 4, 1835.

.*** The paragraph in question was copied from the Ob-
server ; but as no names are mentioned, we know not whether
it alludes to Mr. Alexander F. Ridgway, or any other gentle-
man in Leicester-square. On this principle we have omitted
the name of the Noble Lord.—Ed. Sun.

We are happy to be enabled to state, that in the
extensive borough of Finsbury a far greater number of voters
have registered than hitherto. The friends of Reform have
nobly done their duty, and by their united exertions their num-
bers far exceed their antagonists. This is convincing evi-
dence of the progress of the popular cause, and paints in glow-
ing colours the ultimate downfall of tyranny and oppression,
the supporters of which, though they may be determined as
long as possible to cling to their rotten constitutions, are, by
so doing, but rendering their final destruction more inevitable.
PORTSMOUTH, AUG. 3.—A public meeting was
held here on Monday morning, at the New Sessions'-room, of
the rate-payers of the borough, of which David Spicer, Esq., the
Mayor, was Chairman ; it was called by special advertisement,
and the room was filled ; the object was to petition the House
of Lords to pass the Municipal Reform Bill as sent to their
Lordships' House by the Commons. An attempt at an
amendment was made by the Tories, but the attempt failed
altogether, and the address, which will be presented to the
House of Lords on Wednesday, was carried unanimously.
A number of the troops of this garrison have attempted dur-
ing the past week to desert, and enter into the Queen of
Spain's service ; almost universally the men have been de-
tected in time and brought back, and the miserable result now
ensues of a court-martial upon each offence. The consequence
of such court-martial is very plain ; punishment must follow
the soldier who breaks his oath and forfeits his fealty to his
king and country, and attendant upon such punishment, should
follow expulsion from the army. We allude to this matter
more particularly to revert to the 87th regiment, from which
corps, it has been said, that some men deserted with a non-
commissioned officer, fully armed and accoutred. This is not
quite true. A lance corporal, with six men of the corps, did
desert, but without their arms and accoutrements. In a wili-
tarlYiew, this distinctive is very material.

LONDON,
WEDNESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 5, 1835.

The evidence which was brought forward yesterday, in
the House of Lords, against the Municipal Reform Bill,
is just what every one was prepared to expect—partial in
the highest degree, and so flagrantly absurd, as to be un-
worthy even a moment's attention. Parsons, Town-clerks,
Deputy Stewards, and Attornies, all more or less interested
in the question ;—these were the sort of men who were
summoned to their Lordships' Bar, to prove the more than
maiden purity of their respective Corporate Bodies. Well
might Lord MELBOURNE protest against such a mode of
proceeding ! Well might he repudiate it as a precedent ;
for a more dangerous one was never yet sought to
be established. And how do their Lordships at-
tempt to justify it? 'Why, forsooth, by their patriotic
desire to advocate the rights of Freemen! They
have suddenly discovered that the Ministers of the
people's choice are in league with the Parliament of the
people's choice, to injure the people's interests, and there-
fore they are resolved to crush the monstrous conspiracy,
and save the deluded people in spite of themselves. And
who are the men who have made this startling discovery,
and determined on this line of conduct ? The very same
who opposed Slave emancipation ; who for years kept the
Catholics and Dissenters in the most degrading thraldom ;
who twice threw out the Reform Bill ; who passed the Irish
Coercion Act with breathless haste, amid shouts of accla-
mation ; and who on every great public question that ever
came before them, made a point of taking the unpopular
side ! And is it from the lips of men like these that we
are to expect to bear the language of freedom ; or, to be-
lieve in its sincerity, when we do hear it ? No, no ! We
are not quite such fools. We know well that no good can
come out of Nazareth. Long, and melancholy experience
has convinced us that no faith is to be put in the House of
Lords ; that under pretence of being our friends, they are our
bitterest enemies ; and that when they talk to us of their res-
pect for the privileges of freemen, they are not to be believed
on their oaths. But it is not enough that we give discredit to
their Lordships' professions. We must do more. We
must bestir ourselves. We must look actively about us ;
and instead of groaning passively beneath the incubus
that is seated, like lead, on our chests, consider how, and
when, we can shake it off. We must ask ourselves this
question—does the House of Lords exist for its own ex-
clusive benefit, or for ours ? And having..
,settled this
point, which can admit of not the slightest doubt, to our
satisfaction, then, we must be prepared to act. We re-
gret to be compelled to hold this language ; but it has been
wrung from us by the conduct of the House of Lords.
Warnings they disregard—remonstrances they laugh at—
they are to be convinced only by some such active, peremp-
tory demonstration on the part of the people, as that to
which we have been alluding.
For the last fifty years and upwards, scarce a Session has
passed, but these men have been separating themselves
more and more from the popular cause. During that long
period not one act of kindness have they shown us. Every
concession has been wrung from them, as if it were their
heart's blood. At the present crisis they are more divided
from us, if possible than ever. They even seem to be a
different race. While we are all pressing on in the career
of improvement, they are standing stock-still. While we
are looking forward, they are looking back. They have
nothing in common with us but our language, and even this
they contrive to pervert so as almost to render it unintel-
ligible. For instance, in the aristocratic vocabulary, the
" rights of freemen," means the " paramount authority of
the House of Lords ;" " Reform" is synonimous with
" Revolution," " Dissent" with " Infidelity," and " Ultra-
Toryism" with " Toleration ;" while with us, in our plebeian
vernacular, these words bear a meaning diametrically
opposite.

- Lord MELBOURNE, who well knows, and fitly appreciates
the temper of the House of Lords ; who sees that they are
fast drifting on a quick-sand in which, if they do not
speedily hoist sail and put about, they must inevitably be
engulphed, gave them one more—one last—emphatic warn-
ing last night. " I protest most distinctly," said his Lord-
ship, " against your present proceeding, both upon reason
and upon principle. Ido not hold myself bound to it as a
precedent ; I deem it, my Lords, to be most erroneous,
most prejudicial, and most pernicious ; and I will not be
bound by it in any respect. But at the same time, my
Lords, I feel I am bound to bow to a majority of
this House. I wish it to be understood that I consider
myself as bowing to a majority, and to that only,
and not to any thing that I have heard in sup-
port of this proceeding. But I protest against it on
reason and on principle. I, however, consider myself as
being coerced by a superior—mark me—as being coerced
by a superior power ; therefore, my Lords, you may act
as you think proper." This is strong language, and the
question to which it naturally gives ruse, IF, how long is

-
V\ . e•-,-*-,-,. .::$l7lB -
,e'-- . •'-, lc,,
‘,.- • ,:i:P.,,,
---,

Zin -Ji:.!:(1I.