The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-07 00:00:00

,PIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

Mr. O'Connell's declarations have thrown some
additional light upon the secret springs of the Whig-
Radical movement against Sir C. Manners Sutton.
It is now pretty evident that whoever votes for Mr.
Abercromby as Speaker, votes for Mr. O'Connell's
nominee. This is worse than being a pensioner on
the country, without any consideration of services ren-
dered to the public to justify the pension. The ac-
cepting office in a condemned Court, a short period
before its abolition, and stepping from its sinecure
dignity into the substantial comfort of a pension of
2,0001. per annum, may be reconcileable with Mr.
Abercromby's notions of high-minded patriotic purity ;
but we, who have always opposed all the unearned
and unmerited grants upon the pension list, cannot
regard this pension in any other light than one
which, upon an honest revision of the system of public
pensions, ought to be abolished. We shall probably
enter more into the particulars at a future oppor-
tunity. It is at present our intention only to make a
few observations upon the extraordinary circumstance
of the ex-Steward of the Duke of Devonshire being
nominated by Mr. O'Connell for the Speaker's chair.
It will be recollected that we mentioned some time ago
the name of Mr. Spring
_Rice as having been put
forward for this office by a portion of the Whigs. The
Whig papers did not deny the correctness of the state-
ment at that time, but they deny it now. When we
first mentioned the name of Mr. Rice, the present
O'Connellite competitor for the chair with the late
Speaker had not been put forward. Now we say that
we set no value whatever on the contradictions given
by the Whig-Radical Papers, to the statement of
Mr. Rice having been a candidate for a time.
We say he was put forward for the office by a
portion of the Whigs, who had at first thought
of Mr. Littleton for the Chair—but afterwards
turned their eyes towards Mr. Rice, for whom a can-
vass was actually commenced. Why another change
in the hero of the drama was made, and Mr. Aber-
cromby put into the part, remains to be explained. It
was reported that Mr. O'Connel refused to support
Mr. Rice, who had given him mortal offence by his
speech on the question of the Repeal of the Union.
Whether this be the truth or not, we do not know of
our own knowledge ; but with regard to Mr. Aber-
cromby, the repeal agitator has left it no secret that he
is animated with a most ardent zeal for his election.
He has issued his commands to the " tail" on that
subject, and declares that he shall, if possible, be in
London on the 16th instant, to organise a plan of op-
position to Sir C. Manners Sutton. He says that
" all minor differences should be sunk in their unani-
mity in the coming struggle." He says this in the
same breath in which he states that there is " no cure
for the evils of Ireland but repeal"—so that Mr.
O'Connell evidently thinks the success of the Whig-
Radicals in this struggle necessary towards the grand
consummation—the dismemberment of the emplre.—
Morning Herald.
The arguments of party-men are naturally and al-
most invariably shaped so as to accommodate their
sense of party-interests. That it is oftentimes a mis-
taken sense, matters very little. It may be a false
light—but they have no other to guide them. In space
or time they are incapable of looking beyond the cir-
cle in which " they have been used to act," or beyond
the succeeding hour. There have been too distinct
arid somewhat inconsistent charges brought against
Sir Robert Peel and his friends, by the adversaries
who preceded them in office. At first it was assumed
that the Conservative Ministers could not by possibility
hold the reins of Government, because the nation
would never recognise the fitness for power of men
who were enemies to reform. But when the Prime
Minister declares the falsehood of the assumption
that he meant to govern on anti-reform principles,
or that he was, in fact, an enemy to reform in
its true sense, they turn round upon the Right Ho-
nourable Baronet and exclaim, " Oh, then, it is a
fortiori impossible that the nation should recognize
your political fitness, because you are a Reformer."
They argue that a man who changes his opinions in
favour of reform can alter them from no other but
selfish and dishonest motives. How, then, stands the
case ? Sir Robert Peel objected to the Reform
Bill, for this reason, among many others—that it
would open the floodgates of democratic power so
directly upon the measures of the Legislature and
of the Crown, as to make it an extremely difficult
task to carry on the Government. Sir Robert Peel
would rather have had public opinion filtered through
the strainers and colanders, provided by the borough
system, and thus gently and gradually brought to
hear upon the functionaries of the state, than let in at
once the whole volume of popular feeling, and expose
the bulwarks and frame of the Constitution to the
chance of a severe concussion. We did not agree
with Sir Robert Peel, nor did the country : but that
avails not. The bill has passed. The position of the
'Minister who now accepts power is essentially different
from that of the same Minister when he held office
before the passing of the Reform Bill. He may retain
his former sentiments, and regret that the old machinery
of the Constitution has been replaced by any other ; but
he must know that a return to the old mechanism, or
any recourse to the principles on which it acted, is
now altogether impracticable. He is in the circum-
stances of a veteran seamen, who resisted to the last
the introduction of steam as a moving power into navi-
gation. But is there any seaman in his right senses,
who, once on board a steam-ship, will refuse to fill
his boilers, and to light his furnaces, leaving his vessel
like a log upon the water, and whistling for a wind ?
There is no use in bandying sophisms or hard names
about this matter. The Reform Bill has abrogated
the old clauses and conditions in the lease under which
an English statesman holds his political farm, and has
substituted fresh ones, by which he must henceforth
abide. Is he to be abused for an inconsistent or knavish
blockhead, because he fulfils the new engagements im-
posed by the landlord of the property ? Or, as the alter-
native, is a process of ejectment to be at once entered
against him, before it is ascertained that he will violate
his voluntary obligations, or fail to pay his rent ? It
would assuredly be very convenient for the Whig-
Radicals, if by the foul and opprobrious epithets of
turn-coats, renegadoes, &c., which we have heard
for some weeks past launched out against the Con-
servatives, the latter could be deterred from proceeding
with any measures of reform, and induced rather to
risk the universal hatred of their countrymen than to
stand the gibes of a faction which seeks their ruin.
If the Ministers will reform, and reform freely and
manfully, they will satisfy the sound part of the nation,
and may keep themselves in power for an age to come.
But by this course they will probably not succeed in
affording satisfaction to their rivals for office. Hence
they cannot at one and the same moment obtain favour
with the country and forgiveness from the Whigs.
The choice is now fairly before them. In fact, the
very publication of Sir Robert Peel's address to his
constituents at Tamworth is of itself an homage to
the principle of the Reform Bill, and, as has been
well remarked by a writer in the Quarterly Review
just published, is a sufficient earnest that lie feels
bound by the new and increased authority of public
opinion to throw himself upon it for support. At
what former period of modern history did a Minister of
the Crown ever dream of appealing directly to a con-
stituent body for their approbation and protection of his
general policy, the details of which he by the same in-
strument expounded ?—Times.
We are enabled to state, in the most positive man-
ner, that the most extraordinary exertions are at this
moment making to secure the re-election of Sir Charles
Manners Sutton as Speaker, by persons whose situa-
tion, and whose sex would equally, had they the least
feeling of delicacy or sense of propriety, preclude them
from interfering in such matters. If the courtly pro-
prietors of petticoats must needs indulge their propen-
sity for governing, let the sphere of their government ex-
tend no farther than their children and domestics ; or, in
those instances where their husbands are so inclined,

there can be no objection to their being included among
the subjects of their sway. We would even go farther ;
we are willing to acquiesce in their being " ladies of the
ascendant " at Almack's, and other similar resorts of

fashion and frivolity ; but we do not think that it
can add to their attractions to interfere with the govern-

ment of a great nation. It is an ungracious task to
expose, and point the finger of indignation at the poli-

tical misdeeds of the sex ; but false delicacy must not
in such a case stand in the way of a public duty. The
interests involved are not those of a few individuals, or
even of a party ; they are the interests of the nation,
and of the deepest magnitude. The country has already
suffered too often and too severely from " female in-
fluences behind the throne," to justify our silence
when we hear of the zeal and activity with
which certain " fair " canvassers are now ex-
erting themselves in behalf of Sir Charles Man-
ners Sutton. We grieve to be obliged to add, that
they have succeeded to an extent for which we
were not prepared. They have been successful in
quarters in which we had thought success impos-
sible. Sir Francis Burdett, we regret to say,
is, if we are rightly informed, one of the Re-
formers who have given in their adhesion to the
Court party in the approaching struggle for a
Speaker, and his example, we understand, is to be
urged as a plea for a similar course by others who
are Tories in their hearts, though Reformers in
profession. But will the electors of Westminster
submit to this conduct on the part of their repre-
sentative without remonstrance ? Will they de-
mand no explanation of the grounds on which the
Right Honourable Baronet attempts to defend the
course he intends to pursue ? And if those
grounds are unsatisfactory, as they must of neces-
sity be, will they hesitate for a moment in publicly
and in the strongest terms expressing their unqualified
disapprobation of his conduct ? The electors of West-
minster have in this case a public duty to discharge ;
let them not shrink from its prompt and fearless per-
formance. Sir Francis is the first decided Reformer
who is reported to have signified his intention of be-
traying the confidence of his constituents, and compro-
mising the interests of the nation by voting for Sir
Charles Manners Sutton ; and for the sake of deter-
ring others from following his example, it is right that
the displeasure of his constituents should be pro-
claimed, not only loudly, but immediately. It is only
by the electors throughout the country keeping a
watchful eye on their representatives, and severely pu-
nishing every deviation from the path of duty, that we
can have any security for their attending to our inte-
rests.—Morning Advertiser.
It is with extreme reluctance that we refer to an
article which appeared in the Times of yesterday, on
the appointment of the Marquis of Londonderry as
his Majesty's Ambassador to the Court of St. Peters-
burgh. We had begun to indulge the hope that we
should have been spared the necessity of any contro-
versy with a Journal which, within the last month or
two, has evidenced a disposition to uphold the cause
of law, property, order, and religion in Great Britain,
and to renounce at once and for ever the jacobinical
principles and temper by which it had, unfortunately,
distinguished itself upon so many occasions. The
conversion of our Contemporary was to us a subject
of unfeigned satisfaction. We rejoiced on the ac-
cession of the Times, supposing that thereby a
valuable and powerful acquisition had been gained
to what we believe to be the cause of public wel-
fare, tranquillity, and happiness. But it seems we
were mistaken. The cause of order and good
Government has made no such acquisition. Our
contemporary is yet only half converted. He is willing
to propitiate the favour of the intelligent classes of the
British people by speaking generally the language of mo-
deration and good sense, but he must pay, nevertheless,
an occasional tribute to the tap-rooms, with which hi-
therto he has been chiefly conversant. He will sup-
port the legal prerogatives of the Crown, with a special
proviso that the King shall never appoint an Ambas-
sador from among the men whom the Times, in its days
of Jacobinism, has thought fit to abuse. He will ren-
der justice to the Duke of Wellington upon condition
that he may be permitted without rebuke to commit foul
injustice upon the character of the Marquis of London-
derry. We know that we speak the unanimouse sense of
the whole of the Conservotive body in Great Britain,
when we say that they will be parties to no such igno-
minious condition. The reputation of the Marquis of
Londonderry is of infinitely greater value to the
cause of good government in this country than
the advocacy of the Times. And we feel that we
we should abandon our duty were we to remain silent
when that reputation is assailed, without the least sha-
dow of reason, without the allegation even of a single
derogatory act, and apparently for no other than the
futile and impracticable purpose of maintaining in one
single particular a show of that consistency which, so
far as regards the general scope of principles the main
current of transactions, has been frankly, resolutely,
and, we are bound to add, most meritoriously, aban-
doned. The following are the terms in which the
Times thought proper yesterday to speak of the appoint-
ment of the Marquis of Londonderry. We give the
article at length, in order that the observations we shall
append to it may not incur the suspicion of unfairness :
" Lord Londonderry is, it appears, appointed in reality
Ambassador to the Emperor Nicholas. When the
rumour of this unfortunate nomination first reached us,
we spoke of it, and in sober earnest, as a hoax—in
other words, as a step so ill-judged and reprehensible
on the part of the King's Ministers, that it could not
be seriously meditated by any man to whom the history
and political character of the Noble Marquis were
camiliar. We stand by our first declaration. It is an
appointment which the whole country will condemn.
Nothing can reconcile the people of England to the
employment of a functionary whose unfitness to repre-
sent the dignity and the civilization of England has
been already demonstrated. If, moreover, the choice
of a Plenipotentiary were to be determined by the con-
geniality of his political principles to those of the
Court where he is to reside, instead of to those of the
Government which sends him, the favour designed
for the ex-Ambassador to Vienna might be more
easily understood. As the case is, we cannot
and will not defend or palliate this unbecoming mission.
In what is here urged for the consideration of the

King's Ministers, we —say not a word as to the personal
-!haracter of Lord Londonderry, whom we have always
been taught to look upon as in his family and among
his intimates a most good-natured and kind-hearted
person. That he will convey to the Court of Russia,
with regard to politics, just what his old master the
Duke of Wellington puts down for him, and under
such a chief will not presume to utter an unauthorized
syllable, we are confident enough. But ought a Bri-
tish Minister at such a Court, and with so many deli-
cate questions pending, and such mighty interests at

stake—ought, We say, our Minister at St. Petersburgh
to be an automaton ? He ought, on the contrary, to be
all eye, all ear : the noble Marquis, like other Ambas-
sadors, must have feelers out, not, we hope, in all di-
rections, but in the right directions. Yet we should
like to be informed (and might then have every dispo-
sition to allow for it) under what extreme emergency
or embarrassment of party connexion it is, that such au
employer was forced to encumber himself by the ser-
vices of such an agent. Better save the salary, and
depute a Charge d'Affaires." In the above tirade
there is clearly nothing that can convince, while there
is much that must offend, every man of moderation or
good sense. It is poured forth against a Nobleman
who has heretofore been employed in the service of his
country upon occasions of considerable delicacy and
importance, and the propriety of whose official conduct
(we challenge the contradiction of the Times if what
we say be incorrect) has never in a single instance
been impugned or questioned by any competent autho-
rity. The history and political' character of the Noble
Marquis are familiar to the country. His history is
that of a servant of the State, who upon various occa-
sions has been intrusted with arduous and important
duties, and who in the discharge of those duties has

never incurred the slightest censure or reproach. His
political character is identified with those Conservative
principles in relation to the institutions of Great
Britain, and those just and honourable principles
in relation to her foreign affairs, which form
the highest and proudest distinction of that
eminent body 0.11 Statesmen whom the King
has recently called to Councils, and whom our
contemporary deems not unwoi-+Jiy of his support.
We venture to say, in direct contrauiti.L;nn to the
Times, that, so far from the whole country condemn,
ing this appointment, there is no man in the country
who will condemn it, with the exception of the very
small number of individuals who make it a rule to fol-
low the Times, lead where it may, and turn as often
as it will. We deny that the unfitness of the Marquis

of Londonderry to represent the dignity and civilization
of England has been already demonstrated, and insist
that he is far more fit to represent either the one or
the other (will the Times contradict us ?) than Lord
Durham, whose mission to St. Petersburgh we recol-
lect the Times vehemently applauded. Here, indeed,
we are quite safe from any contradiction on the part
of the Times, for that journal admits in terms that
the Marquis of Londonderry is a good-natured
and kind-hearted person, and, by implication, there-
fore, that he is no employer of bludgeon-men
when the press offends him, no systematic pro-
moter of litigious prosecutions against journalists for
doing what they believe to be their duty. The friends
of the Marquis of Londonderry may justly be offended
by the comparison ; but we are replying to the Times;
and to that journal it must be sufficient to say, that, as
a Representative of the dignity and civilization of
England, the Marquis of Londonderry is immeasurably
the superior of Lord Durham. The Duke of Wel-
lington has always been distinguished for the accurate
judgment and nice discrimination with which he selects,
for employments of various kinds, men well qualified
to fill them with honour to themselves and advan-
tage to the object they had in view. In this the Noble
Duke has seldom been known to fail, and the splendid
success of which his whole life has been little else than
an uninterrupted career, is to be ascribed principally,
it is generally thought, to his unparalleled skill in
the selection of the requisite kind of co-operation
for every purpose and occasion. The Times, over-
looking every other object for the sake of conveying
insult to the Marquis of Londonderry, speaks of his
" old master, the Duke of Wellington," forgetting,
apparently, that this expression, rude and uncouth as
it is, suggests an ample vindication of the appoint-
ment which the Times so virulently denounces. The
Duke of Wellington, then, by the confession of
the Times, cannot be unacquainted with the quali-
ties of the Ambassador whom he has appointed, any
more than he can be ignorant of the duties which
that appointment may be expected to involve.
The question for the country therefore is, whether
it is more likely that the Duke of Wellington
has erred in this particular appointment, or that
the Times, in denouncing it, has manifested, as is
not very unusual with the Times, a certain degree
of ignorance and presumption ? Our contemporary
insists that the Ambassador to Russia should possess
extraordinary qualifications. The Noble Secretary for
Foreign Affairs believes that the Marquis of London-
derry possesses all the qualifications that are neces-
sary. The Times wishes for a man who is to be all
eye, all ear. The Noble Secretary imagines that two
eyes and two ears may very well answer the purpose.
The country will not hesitate to decide for itself which
of the two opinions is the correctest one. We heartily
wish that the linzes were all eye and all ear, or rather
that it would use the eyes and the ears that it has to
any good purpose. In this case it could not fail to
be speedily recalled to the rational and moderate con-
duct which becomes a Conservative journal, by disco-
vering how much contempt and disgust its conduct
upon the present occasion has excited.—Morn. Post.
We cannot help admiring the dexterity of the To-
ries, in changing the mode of warfare with regard to
the Speakership. Sir Charles Manners Sutton be-
longs to a family which has supplied sinecurists and
incapables, for the consumption of the public money,
for generations. The late Archbishop of Canterbury,
not content with the enormous patronage at his dispo-
sal, provoked a very discreditable discussion in the
House of Commons, shortly before his death, by an
attempt to give, through a private Act, a valuable si-
necure of which he was not by law to dispose, except
during his own life, to two sons, should it not fall in
till after his death. In the Red-Book will be found
the Registrar of the Faculty Office, J. H. T. Man-
ners Sutton, Esq., with his two Deputies, who
discharge the duties, a sinecurist to an enor-
mous amount per annum, in whose favonr the
law was so set aside. This was out of the ordinary
way. But the regular spoil shared by this Arch-
bishop's family is enormous. Among seven of them
are shared sixteen rectories, vicarages, and chapelries,
besides preacherships and dignities in cathedrals. Of
the eleven daughters of the Archbishop, one married
the Rev. Hugh Percy, now Bishop of Carlisle, and
she was portioned off with preferments to the value of
10,0001. per annum, four of which were given in one
year. Another daughter married the Rev. James
Croft, who became Archdeacon of Canterbury, Pre-
bendary of Canterbury, Curate of Hythe, Rector of
Cliffe at Hone, and Rector of Saltwood, all pre-
ferments in the gift of the Archbishop. A sis-
ter of his Grace married a Rev. Richard Lock-
wood, and he was presented with the three vi-
carages of Kessington, Lowestoff, and Potter-
Heigham. The Rev. T. M. Sutton and the Rev.
Evelyn L. Sutton were made Chaplains of the
House of Commons. Besides, these nephews have
livings out of number. So much for the voracity of
of the Sutton branch of the Mariners family. The
Speaker was, to use a homely phrase, " born with a
silver spoon in his mouth." He is a well-bred gentle-
man, who carried himself well, and knew how to spend
a good income in an agreeable manner ; but without
his family connections he could never have risen in the
world. It truly becomes the partisans of Sir Charles
Sutton to fasten on Mr. Abercromby's retiring pension
of 2,0001. per annum. No person has ever questioned
the ability or the integrity of Mr. Abercromby.
Indeed, if he had lent himself to the dishonest pur-
poses of the Tories, and suffered an useless and ex-
pensive Court to be kept up, he would have been per-
fection itself in their eyes. It is most amusing to hear
the Standard talk in this manner—
Now, one word as to Mr. Abercromby and. his pension,
upon which the Morning Chronicle has bestowed a long
article to-day. We can afford to waive all consideration of
the jobbing, and chicanery, and thimble-rigging,' by which
the pension was obtained—and it was manifold, because we
have in the pension itself 2,0001. a year earned by no more
than two years of service, without any sacrifice whatever—a
corpus delicti, quite sufficient to convict Mr. Abercromby of
acting inconsistently with all the professions of his party—in
other words, to convict him of the grossest political dishonesty,
undor a pecuniary temptation. The question is not what
hugger-mugger work may have preceded his grasping this
2,0001. a year, but what service has he rendered to the public,
what avoidable personal sacrifice has he made for it ? When
the Morning Chronicle shall answer this question, it will do
something for Mr. Abercromby, but not till then."

If there was any hugger-mugger work in this case,
it was on the part of the Duke of Wellington and Sir
Robert Peel, and not on that of Mr. Abereromby.
When the Lord Advocate introduced his Bill for the
regulation of the Scotch Courts, including the Ex-
chequer, into the House of Commons on the Ist of

April, 1830, some time after Mr. Abercromby's ap-
pointment to the office of Chief Baron, he stated, after
a long preamble respecting the antiquity of the Court,
the necessity for its preservation agreeably to the Act
of Union, &c., that—
" It:was now proposed to abolish two more of the Puisne
Ba-
rons, so as to reduce the Court to one Puisneßaron and the Chief
Baron. He contended that the business of the department
could not properly be confided to one individual, however
competent ; and he thought it would be admitted that two
were the smallest number of Judges that the Court ought to
consist of. . . • . . He was prepared to
expect that some Hon. Member would argue that the Court of
Exchequer in Scotland might be entirely abolished ; he in-
sisted on the contrary ; Scotland was entitled to a Court of
Exchequer in some shape or other, even if some grounds could
be shown why it ought not to exist ; she had a just claim by
the terms of the Act of Union, that her Court of Exchequer
should not be wholly abolished. He made this assertion with
confidence, and with some knowledge of the subject, having for
eleven long years attended that Court, and argued every case
there under discussion before the Lord Chief Baron, Sir S.
• • _

Shepherd, that most learned and enlightened lawyer. He
maintained, also, that to throw the business of the Exchequer
into the Court of Session, would not only be most inexpedient
but most unjust ; neither could it produce any saving of ex-
pense if that were the object, inasmuch as additional labour
could not be thrown upon individuals without additional
emolument."

After so confident a statement by the Government
organ for Scotland, who was backed by the regular
Tory pack who so long reflected disgrace on that
country, the English Members were unwilling to com-
mit themselves to a positive declaration that the Court
. _

was useless. But Sir. Abercromby no sooner found
that the Court was worse than useless, than he exerted
himself .-pc),P the delusion respecting it ; and, to
the great annoyance of the Scotch Tories, succeeded
in obtaining an investigation berm 4 Committee of

the 1-Touse of CommonS. It is false that the Act in-
troduced in April, 1830, and passed on the 23d July
that year, contains any enactment for the abolition of
the Court of
.P‘che mier. It will be seen from the

extract from the Lord Advocate's speech, that he con-
templated its perpetuity ; and nothing but the honest
perseverance of Mr. Abercromby could have effected
this good. For the whole of the " saving, as is well
observed by the Courier—
" The public are indebted to Mr. Abercromby, who might
have pocketed his 4,000/. a-year, as Sir Samuel Shepherd
did, living in London, and only proceeding to Edinburgh for
two months in term-time. Sir Samuel Shepherd, at the pre-
sent moment, enjoys a far larger retiring salary, as Lord Chief
Baron, than Mr. Abercromby. Even Mr. Hume, on the
discussion on the Bill for abolishing the Court of Exchequer,
and superannuating Mr. Abercromby at 2,0001. a-year, ad-
mitted that, ' although he went into the Committee prejudiced
against the measure, he was now satisfied that it was a most
desirable arrangement, and that there would be no difficulty
in defending it.' "
In answer to the demand of the Standard, what
services has Mr. Abercromby rendered, and what sa-
crifices has he made for the 2,0001. per annum ? we
ask in return, what services would he have rendered had
he, instead of filling the office 27 months, pocketed his
4,0001. during his life ? Why does the Standard ap-
ply to Mr. Abercromby for the first time, a principle,
that a Judge who is dismissed by the abolition of
his Court, may be deprived of all compensation.?
Is there an instance of even a sinecurist being deprived
of his income on the abolition of the sinecure ? What
would the Standard have said if the Whig Government
had instantly dismissed the ten useless Bishops' in Ire-
, land, and even refused them compensation ? Even Mr.
O'Connell, till last vacation, never proposed to deprive
any of the sinecure Protestant Clergy of Ireland of
their incomes. Mr. Abercromby abandoned the sources
of his income in England fur his judicial office in Scot-
land ; and it would have been strange justice to turn
him loose on the world without a.shilling, because he
was too honest a man to connive at the continuance of
an abuse by which he pocketed 4,0001. per annum.
He has, however, always shown himself ready to ren-
der service to the public for his 2,0001. He received
no additional income from being Master of the Mint ;
and if the Reformers succeed in turning out the present
hypocritical crew, he will again have an opportunity of
serving the public for his 2,000/. The outcry against
Mr. Abercromby reminds one of the fable of the ani-
mals during a plague, who, consulting as to what might
be the cause of the celestial wrath, found out that the
hare had, in a case of hunger, eaten something on a
fast-day, on which it was deemed unworthy to live by
the lion, the tiger, the wolf, and other beasts of prey,
and accordingly the hare was sacrificed as a heinous
sin n e r.—/Vio rn ing Chronicle.