The Sun.
London, England, 1832-07-25 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Duke of Cambridge, in the name of his
brother, the King of Hanover, has been pub-
lishing a proclamation, the object of which is t.
enforce, within the territory of that fortunate
kingdom, the mandates of the Frankfort proto-
col, against the long-recognized and most va-
lued rights of representative Governments
throughout the whole of constitutional Germany,
and against every attempt or aspiration of the
people to obtain such Governments where they
are not. In this proceeding of the Duke of
Cambridge, there is nothing to create surprise.
From few or none, we fear, of the Ira-potentates
whose names are affixed to that instrument, has
German liberty the slightest hope of redemption.
The people—the uncorrupted, the yet but half-
enslaved and up-roused people—must fight their
own cause, and feel no more compassion for
their oppressors, than the latter appear to feel
compunction for their crimes against German
faith, liberty, arid justice. In Hanover the con-
test on behalf of civilization has begun. The
second Chamber of the Hanoverian States has
protested, by a large majority, against the vicious
counsel given to the Crown on this occasion, as
contrary to the fundamental laws of the State and
provisions of the charter. This the Duke of Cam-
bridge overlooks. His Highness never once
notices in his State paper, the counter-project of
the Estates of Hanover. He treats the people
as it' passive obedience compriied the whole
measure of their rights and duties, as the Ser-
geant-Major of a regiment, some 40 years ago,
would have acted towards a squad of recruits.
But will this be submitted to, even by tractable
Hanoverian subjects ? A few weeks will show.
Nor is the spirit of resistance confined to Ha-
nover. The Estates of Cassel and Wurtemberg
are about to follow her example. The Estates
of all Governments where they exist at all in a
popular form, have a real sympathy with the
nations which elect them ; and they rest their
opposition to the decree of the Diet on its un-
lawfulness,—on its manifest inconsistency with
the 56th article of the final act of the Congress
of Vienna, which declares, that "representative
constitutions, having a recognized existence, shall
not be modified, but through constitutional
means,—that is, obviously, through means pro
vided by each separate Constitution, for its
own amendment, which is different from ex
ternal, military force. There seems to be too
plain proof on the face of the protocol, that
most of the Princes who signed it were in-
fluenced by the tender of Austrian or Prus-
sian bayonets, to uphold them in whatever as-
sumptions of despotic power each petty tyrant
in his own circle might meditate against his ill
starred subjects. Let not the population of
Germany, therefore, relax their energy, or place
trust in the patriotism of their several rulers for
protection against the wrongs of the Diet.
What Napoleon made of sixteen princes in
1806, Louis Philippe, with the co-operation of
Great Britain, may realize,—in spite of the
successors of those Princes,—with and for
the pe.ple of thirty-six German States, a grand
confederacy, to stem the encroachments of
Austria and Prussia, but to stem them by the
noble and moral power of opinion, superseding
the sword. We refer our readers to a descrip-
tion of the defects of the German constitution
under the, old empire, and of the fluctuations to
which it was exposed, and which it suffered,
from the want of all common bond of interest
and sympathy between its parts. Thence it,
dismemberment by Napoleon. Common griev-
ances at the hands of France, produce(' a con-
cord amongst all who bore the German name,
beyond any that had ever before existed. The
removal of the pressure relaxed the tie ; and
after 1814, Germany became as void as before
1806 of a centralizing and incorporating princi-
ple. Thus loosely strung together for the last
18 years, a fresh system of outrage creates a
-fresh bond of unanimity. The people find that
either the neck of 30,000,000 of rational be-
ings must be submitted to the axe of iVletteinich,
or that with their proper arms they must wrest
his weapon from the " Headsman. Whether
the German people have courage for the task,
we know not. It they try, they must succeed.
The Prussian soldiery have imbibed a taste for
Constitutions. Whatever they might achieve
in a French war, we doubt their inclination to
shed the blood of German citizens, demanding
merely that their lawful rights shall be respected.
Sure we are, that nothing can be more despica-
ble than for foreign writers, whose Governments
must be deeply affected by the nature of the re-
lations between the several German States, to
split hairs and trifle upon the question, whether
the exercise of supreme power over the whole
of Germany, by the two Monarchs of Austria
and Prussia, be not as perilous an assault upon
the equilibrium of Europe, in the form of an
assumption of all the most sacred rights of Go-
vernment in the minor States, as in the more
technical and honest shape of a direct invasion
of their territory.—Times.

A few days since, we called the attention of
our readers to two practical illustrations of the
consequences of what were called the amendinents of the House of Lords, in the Bill for
:tiolishing, the punishment of death in certain
cases. The instances we cited occurred in dis-
tant parts of the country on the first day of the
opening of the Summer Assizes. The pro-
ceedings on the Home Circuit yesterday, are, if
possible, more strikingly illustrative of the mis-
chievous tendency of those alterations which the
House of Lords, even after a conference with
the Commons, insisted upon making in the
Bill. The measure, as sent from the House of
Commons to the Upper House, abolished the
P '
imh
isment of death for cattle-stealing and steal-
ing in dwelling-houses ; and it enacted that, in-
stead thereof, the punishment should be either
transportation for life, or for seven years, or im-
prisonment for four years, at the -discretion of
the Court. Lord Wynford persuaded the
House of Lords to strike out all the minor
degrees of punishment, and leave the punish-
ment of transportation for life as the only
punishment in all cases. At Chelmsford
yesterday, in two cases, two young I men
were found guilty of stealing a larrkb,;and
were sentenced, under this Act,—.Wltans
portation for life. In the next ease a•Attan'
was tried and convicted for stealing
dwelling house 90 sovereigns and other inkoies..
He, too, was sentenced, under the same act 3 tOf
the same punishment as the lads who stole,,the
lamb ! Will Lord Wynford, on reading: these
cases, still think his alterations amendments or
will he regret that he did not leave to the Judge
the discretion of punishing the lamb-stealer with
imprisonment, or seven years' transportation,
instead of compelling the Court toput the house-
breaker and the minor culprit upon.'"the same
footing, and send them both beyond the sea 4, for
life ? We never had any doubt as to what 'the
effect of these amendments would be ; but we
were, and are still, unable to understand,the..po-

ltcy in which they were made. There can be no
rational objection to investing the Judges with
the power of inflicting minor degrees of punish-
ment, though it is, doubtless, essential that the
Legislature should fix the maximum ;,and in this
ease we think the maximum was rightly fixed at
a penalty less than death—but although there is
always more security in the certainty than in
the severity of punishment, yet, if the punish-
ment be both certain and severe, as well for tri-
vial as for serious offences, a direct inducement
is held out to the commission of the more seri-
ous offence, according to the ancient and profli-
gate maxim, that one may as well be hangedfor
a sheep as a lamb.—Times.

• A meeting will be held in the Crown and
Anchor Tavern, this day, on the subject of the
recent proceedings of the Diet at Frankfort. If
despots combine for purposes of oppression, the
least that the people can do is to express, where-
ever they are at liberty to do so, their detestation
of their oppressors. The great question which
was first agitated in France in 1789, can never
he settled till the civilised nations of the West
of Europe sweep away all the families who pre-
tend to any other right to govern than that which
is derived from the consent of the people, and
who refuse to acknowledge the principle of re-
sponsibility to the governed. In the course of
he forty-three years which have elapsed since
1789, the cause of the people has made prodi-
gious advances. The French Revolution led
the people of every country to institute compari-
sons between what Governments ought to be
and what Governments actually were. The
rulers could no longer expect blind obedience
from the people. In opposing the Revolution
they were obliged to have recourse to revolu-
tionary means. The rulers were obliged to rea-
son with their subjects, which was a great step
gained ; for men never attempt to persuade till
they are doubtful of the efficacy of commands.
No ruler of the present day would think of sell-
ing his people, as the Elector of Hesse sold his
troops to England, to be slaughtered in another
hemisphere in a cause in which they had no in-
terest. Prussia was obliged to appeal to the
people—the army, in which promotion was
confined to the Nobility, was opened to all
classes—degrading punishments were abolished
—and the people were relieved from feudal
oppressions of various kinds. The hearty co-
operation of the people could only be obtained
by endeavours to persuade them that Govern-
ments no longer consider subjects as property,
but were bound to employ the powers with which
they were trusted for the good of the people.
Ever since the French Revolution, the Sovereigns
have ceased to possess the blind confidence
in their power which they before entertained.
The people, on the other hand, are every day be-
coining more and more familiar with their rights,
and this familiarity constitutes the strength of
the popular cause. The armies of Austria, and
Prussia, and Russia, may advance, perhaps,
without opposition, to the Rhine ; but who can
calculate the consequences of the indignation
excited by the temporary triumph of lawless
violence over chartered rights ! In the first
instance, the soldiers very blindly execute the
commands of a superior ; but will the soldiers
always turn a deaf ear to the calls on their
sympathy ? It does not require the gift of pro-
phecy to foretel that force will fail against opinion,
and that in the war between violence and popular
rights the latter must sooner or later be tri-
umphant. The people will never, we fear, enjoy
security till all the Governments claiming to rule
by family rights are swept away. It becomes a
serious question if war should be kindled in
Europe by the military monarchies whether the
people should not at once make one great effort
to be rid of their dynasties. To the French in
particular, wearenotsure that it would not be ad-
visable, instead of waiting till the victorious armies
approach their frontiers, to throw down the gaunt-
let at once. They know, that if they are forced
to maintain at present large armies at aruinous ex-
pense, from a distrust of the military Monarchies,
these Monarchies will not be less disposed to
attack them when flushed with victory over the
Conbtitutional Germans. We suspect, therefore,
the French will be disposed to place themselves
at the head of the popular movement through-
' out Europe. They are in a very different situa-
tion from that in which we are placed. We shall
always be prepared to maintain that this country
ought to take no active part in the wars of the
continent. War is in itself a great evil, and a
nation is only justified in recurring to that evil
to avoid a still greater evil. A Government is
not entitled to embroil a nation in war, on any
ground less cogent than the preservation of its
independence, or the preservation of what may
ultimately endanger its independence. In this re-
spect we differ from the Continental nations, for
we are ourselves invulnerable ; and as we require
the aid of no other nation, we cannot, in fair-
ness, be called on to make war for any other
nation. Wars undertaken from mere sympathy
are unjustifiable. The French Government has
at length taken the alarm on account of Ger-
many. The slavish principles advocated by the
Journal des Debats have been repudiated by the
Government. On Sunday last there appeared
in that Paper a sort of Ministerial Manifesto,
embracinas, much more liberal views. But, ab-
surdly enough, the French Journalist supposes
that the people of England are bound to take
the lead of the French in opposing the rulers
of the Diet, because Hanover is one of the
States of the Diet :

" What are wishes in politics (says the French Journal-
ist) ?—Tell us, we beseech you, what hold we have on
Germany ? What right of intervention there could we
pretend to claim? Are we the sureties of the Confedera-
tion ? Or have we a stake in the country as England has?
—No, certainly not. It is the business, then, of England
first of all to. interfere. As for us, we have no right or
hold on the Confederation but by war. It is war, then,
that is in question. Is it desirable to declare it ? We
neither wish to rush into it heedlessly, nor to avoid it at
all haztrds. We say, then, War, it the , independence of
the German States be violated ; War, if any German na-
tionality should disappear; But if internal- dissentious
and disturbances he all that is in question, it is no part of
our t;lisiness to 'declare ourselyes igainst such of such a
measure adopted by the Diet. Our Whole duty in such a
else is to watch icarefully over their measures, and to Bre
that ihe-iiidija,,nacnieof np,titts in Germany is allowed
to perisly,in the struggle "between
of usurßatiqp, and Cince,asnatme say War,.,in case. liberty
_and despotism.
con-
quest ; and -ea4•Arefut and.jealous
krFoe,iterveution, in order )I,at such intervention may
watch in the event of an
-,,, .4.. -
uo i' teatryb96..kicisißigelt• ,.
ie.' - eovi -Or Er i aiia Itifii ai more 'todo
4,0 v
i'4‘4`ll i over' than--11-s8" 2"
Ih NlJan
wit . a - . •
' Ilii only' get
' .*.rnisfortinAl.4t:itpearu,..
-..W.annical dynasly,4, ,epyjent of
tig
ca ling to the tliione a toteign :=ftifiets, Nit. 4): had
:soine,of..tbe,blood of the: exileefatrrily in his
'veiiii.. '.if the nexi PrOtestaiit'in3 the order of
descent had been a beggar instead, of a petty
6erman Prince, it would have been a great
blessing to the country. All the wars of this
country down to the American war, from the
accession of the House of Hanover, were not for
British, bUt Hanoverian objects. The English,
however, though their blood and their treasure
have been liberally expended for Hanover, have

no portiOn in that country. " They rejoice at
nothing so much as at the prospect which now
opens to them of the passing of Hanover from
the Sovereign of these Kingdoms. The King
of England ought to be exclusively an English
King, acting through responsible English Ad-
visers. What a predicament are we now placed
in between loyalty to the King of England and
hatred to the King of Hanover. Every good
Englishman must pray for the King of Eng-
land ; and every lover of justice must wish that the
King of Hanover should reap the rewards of hi,
injustice. Should our present Sovereign
take it into his head to pay visits to Ha-
nover, like the two first Georges ; and should
his Hanoverian subjects reward him, for the
protocol of the German Diet, in a way which
would fill every loyal Englishman with grief, still
the people of England would no more be enti-
tled to complain, than if the question regarded
the King of Bavaria, or the King of Saxony.
No man can serve both God and Mammon.
No King of England ought to be an object of
the indignation of Europe in his capacity of
King of Hanover. The worst sentence ever
Mr. Fox uttered was, the declaring Hanover
ought to be as dear to us as Hampshire. No
man but Mr. Fox would have been forgiven for
such a saying. So far from Hanover being dear
to us, we believe even in these distressed times,
the nation would give a good deal to free their
Sovereign from the stain of having any connec-
tion with it. At all events, we are sure, the
nation will never contribute willingly one farthing
for the preservation of the throne of Hanover to
their own Sovereign. We protest, therefore,
against the doctrine of the French journalist,
that England is bound, on account of Hanover,
to interfere in German affairs. Such a doctrine
is an insult to the English nation ; it supposes
the nation to belong to the King, instead of the
King to belong to the nation. It supposes the
King proprietor of England and Hanover, and
that he may employ the means, derived from his
English estate, in promoting objects connected
with his German estate.—Morning Chronicle.

The sentencing of five burglars to death, at
one town on the Oxford Circuit, by Baron
Gurney, seems like an attempt to return to the
old sanguinary practice of the law, of which
many years of melancholy experience had de-
monstrated the futility. At one time it .was the
practice to execute all, or nearly all burglers that
were convicted, and common house-breakers also.
Public feeling was shocked, without any beneficial
result being produced in the repression of crime.
On the contrary, crime went on increasing, and
the revengeful spirit that usurped the name of
justice only multiplied its examples of blood to
brutalize the minds of the ignorant, and offend
the feelings of the enlightened and humane. By
degrees the moral power of opinion made en-
croachments on the barbarous practice of the
law ; the number of executions for the offences
which we have mentioned were reduced in pro-
gress of time from all, or nearly all convicted,
to one-half, one-third, one-fourth, one-fifth,
one-eighth, one-tenth, one-twentieth, and so on,
until, in the year 1830, the last year of the
Tory Administration, we find the proportion of
executions for burglary, compared with the con-
victions, was only about the one-fiftieth—there
having been in that year 104 convicted, and
only two executed. In the year 1831, the first
year of the Whig Administration—of those
Whigs who had, for 20 years before, been the
professed opponents of sanguinary laws—there
were 99 convicted, and four executed ; so that in
the first year of the Whig Government the exe-
cutions for this offence increased 100 per cent.,
or from the proportion of one-fiftieth, to that of
one twenty-fifth. For the crime of house-break-
ing, in the year 1831, there were 517 convic-
tions, and but one execution, making five execu-
tions in all, out of 618 convictions for the two
crimes of burglary and housebreaking, or one to
about 123 convictions. Now Baron Gurney
sentences five men to death for burglary alone at
the assizes of a single town, being a number
equal to the total executed in England and
Wales, during the whole of the year 1831, for
the two offences before mentioned ! The effect
of this example of judicial slaughter, if it takes
place, will be to make convictions more difficult
to be obtained, and, thereby render the very vio-
lence of the law conducive to the protection and
impunity of guilt. If we look for a certain num-
ber of years at the comparative number of execu-
tions and acquittals for the crimes of house-
breaking and burglary, we shall find that as the
executions diminished the facility of conviction
was generally increased ; and, on the contrary,
when the number of executions were increased,
the facility of conviction was diminished. This
will be understood from the relative number of
executions and acquittals. Let us take from
the year 1825 to that of 1831 inclusive. In
1825, and the six following years, the num-
bers executed for burglary varied as follow :-
12-10-10-3-4-2-4 ; and the acquittals
during the same time, were respectively for each
year, 101 115 —136-45-35--30 30.
During the same years the number in each exe-
cuted for burglary were 0-0--0-11-10-6
—1 ; and the acquittals 27-27-44-102--
167-136-97. Thus it appears that in the
rears in which 12 and 10 persons were executed
for burglary, the acquittals were 101, 115, and
136 ; but when the executions diminished to 4
and 2, the acquittals were no more than 30.
So in the case of house-breaking, in the years
in which there were 6 and 10 executed, the ac-
quittals were respectively 136 and 167, while in
the three years in which none were executed the
acquittals had decreased to 44 in one year, and
27 in the two others. Here we have the mani-
fest prcof that, besides the criminality of shed-
ding human blood, it is a serious obstruction to
the course of effective justice.--Morn.Herald.
One of the many errors into which the modern
race of political economists fall is the idea that
the possession of commodities alone constitutes
wealth ; yet any one in the least acquainted with
the practical concerns of life could tell them that
a man may have stores full of corn, of cotton, or
tobacco, and that unless he can find buyers for
them,- instead oPbeing a rich, he may eventually
become a poor man. Nothing is more noto-
rious in the manufacturing world than that per-
sons continually-become bankrupt, not for want
of goods, but for, want of buyers to consume
them : nor need we remark that if trade were re-
, diked to mere barter, what is now civilised so-
ciety`-would be reduced nearly to a level with
1 savage life. Real wealth consists in the abun-
co of the representative value, not in that of
commodities, which, for want of it, becomes on-
exchangeable. This may be strikingly illus-
trated in the case of labour. Labour may be
justly said to
Ebevetnhethseouirdceeaouf
faliltspsroudpuercaebaunnd_
of all profit.
applyingitnhem over a larger sur-
dance is absurd, so long as there is capital to set
consisting notpinrienadidnigm
it into action ;
objects, aliotirersa,nd butsthe number
ineousfmt loliaebruoeuowrf

face. Yet the Bishop of London would have
us believe that, while we have millions of acres
of uncultivated soil, and nearly as many more
whose produce might be doubled, we have too
many labourers, and therefore must put up wan
having more thieves. The absurdity of this is
so glaring that we should scarcely be induced
to notice it, were it not part, and no immaterial
part, of those injurious results which the con-
traction of the currency has brought upon us
He must be a blind observer, or a short-sighted
reasoner, indeed, who does not perceive that it
is not an excess of labour that oppresses us, but
a want of capital to employ it. The architect,
when he has finished a house, does not turn his
labourers adrift, but seeks to employ them in
building another—or if he finds that 10 can, by
improvements in tools, machinery, &c., do what
20 were required for, he either builds two houses
instead of one, or his extra number find work
elsewhere. This, at least, is the natural state
of things when the markets for labour and capital
are open. But then in steps the political econo-
mist, whose gloomy mind is clouded with theo-
retical notions, which he himself can neither
explain nor understand, and pronounces popu-
lation to be a curse, abundance of labour an
evil, and capital the source of national ruin ;
and he actually finds in the legislature of
a rational and intelligent people, men calling
themselves statesmen, so insane and besotted as
to adopt his experiments in lieu of the prospe-
rity we were then enjoying. Do we overcharge
this picture ? Let every man's present expe-
rience answer the question ; and if any proof
beyond his own individual state of experience is
required, let him look to the thousands of those
persons, the very sinews of national strength,
who are driven year after year from their friends,
their kindred, and their native homes, to seek
in exile a refuge from that starvation to which
the accursed policy of these men had reduced
them. These are some of the effects of Peel's
Bill, a measure which we do not hesitate to
affirm has brought more misery in its train than
ever resulted from the severest infliction with
which it has ever pleased Divine Providence to
visit a nation.—Morning Herald.
The Irish Reform Bill, we now perceive, will
pass the House of Lords without any resolute
or effective opposition, and every future Parlia-
ment, so long as the Union between the two
countries shall subsist, will of course be graced
with the presence, and illuminated by the in-
telligence, and dignified by the honour and pro-
bity of a considerable additional number of re-
presentatives of the Roman Catholic priesthood'
of Ireland. The O'Connell phalanx, which
has in the present Parliament shown some une-
quivocal symptoms of power, will then be more
powerful. This is the only point of view in
which it is worth while to regard the Irish Re-
form Bill. Every other consideration connected
with it is in truth insignificant. That this must
be the effect of the measure its advocates
do not attempt to deny. Some of them,
Lord Plunket for example, seem, on the con-
trary, to regard this consequence of the Bill
as one of its chief recommendations. It
would be unjust to Ireland, say they, to create
in that country a constituency less democratic
than you have consented to create in England
and Scotland. And the democracy of Ireland
being Papist, it necessarily follows that the
greater the proportion of Papist Members iii
every future House of Commons, the stronger
will be the proof that equal justice has been
rendered to Ireland. These propositions Lord
Plunket, who is something of a Jesuit, does
not like, for some reason or other best known
to himself, to announce very distinctly,
and he accordingly obscures them by a load
of what he no doubt knows to be mere non-
sense, respecting the expediency of disregard,
ing religious distinctions altogether. The
question, however, is, not whether Lord Plun-
ket can disregard religious distinctions (of
that we suppose there can be little doubt),
but whether the Papist democracy of Ireland,
under the guidance of their Priests, and the
Protestant democracy of England, under the
guidance of their consciences, can be expected
permanenily to disregard them ? We believe that
there will be no such neutrality on either side ;
nor do we wish that there should, for it would
imply, in the case of the democracy of the two
countries, whatever it may imply in the very dif-
ferent case of men so enlightened as Lord
Plunket, the entire extinction of religious feeling.
At the period when the Catholic Claims were
conceded we looked forward with full assurance
to the time when further claims would be ad-
vanced. Nor were we wrong in our prediction.
Is not Catholic Ireland arrayed in universal
hostility at this moment to the property of the
Church and to the authority of the law, so far
as it has for its object the protection of that pro-
perty ? Is not a large proportion of Catholic
Ireland clamourous fur the repeal of that legis-
lative union which alone prevents the transfer of
this property from one Church to another ? And
who can blame them ? Certainly not we, who
always said they would show themselves to be
bad Papists and bad men if they acted otherwise.
But will they, or can they, rest here ? These
points also being gained, as gained they inevit-
ably will be, what sort of Papists must the ascen-
dant democracy of Ireland prove themselves,
should they permit in their country the Govern.
ment, which will then be under their absolute
controul, we do not say to encourage, we do
not say to patronize or endow, but merely to
tolerate the pollution, as they must needs call
and think it, of Protestant worship ? Liberal,
enlightened, philosophic Papists! Papists re-
gardless of religious distinctions ! A nation of
papist Plunkets ! And when the democracy of
the two countries has obtained in each an equal
controul over the Government, and when Pro-
testantism in Ireland is reduced, as it will be
reduced, to struggle for existence, and when the
Protestant people of England become, as- they
are sure to become, active and zealous in the
cause of their persecuted religion,for what scenes
of horror and destruction will the mistaken li-
berality of the present day be found to have pre-
pared the way ? The genius of the Protestant
Church is mild and tolerant, that of the Church
of Rome persecuting and exclusive. This is a
valid reason why all lovers of peace and all real
friends to the welfare and prosperity of the
empire should wish to maintain the unequivocal
ascendancy of Protestantism in Ireland. The
aosncenodtenecqeuoafliptyopiesryawilml
eamnr,odautettle
ere
certainly dr
tnloieti
aggressions upon Protestantism, which the Brit-
ish Government will be compelled, and the
more strictly compelled the more it is democratic
in its Constitution, to resist and chastise. The
whole course of policy pursued for many years
past with respect to Ireland has been apparently
directed to produce the necessity for a re-con-
quest of that country ; and, probably, the con-
summation of this policy is not distant. An
op ortunity has now been afforded, in remodel-
ling the representation of the empire) to retrace

some of the most dangerous steps which have
yet been taken with respect to Ireland. It might
have been possible, by giving a decided predo-
minance to the influence of property in the elec-
tion of Irish Members, to prevent the formation
of a strong Popish party in the Legislature.
But, instead of this just, and wise, and humane,
and truly liberal policy, the gratification of the
democratic spirit which the present Ministers of
the Crown have contrived to excite requires, it
seems, an opposite course ; and the friends of
peace, order, and national welfare are once more
compelled to succumb to the decrees of an un-
principled Ministry and an infatuated populace.
—Morning Post.