The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-30 00:00:00

against Church reform. He would not suffer the finger of
improvement to touch the tottering fabric, and in a
very short space of time—far shorter than the Tories
dream of—he would have the satisfaction of seeing it
tumble to the ground of itself.

We wish some well-disposed, communicative Tory
would inform us where the re-action is, about which his
party has of late been making so much talk. Is it
in Nottingham, where Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE was re-
turned without a struggle ? In Taunton, where Mr.
D'IsRAELI can scarcely count one for his opponent's
dozen votes ? In Berwick, where Sir RUFANE DON-
KIN whipped the Tory whipper-in himself off the
course ? In Drogheda, where Mr. O'DWYER has a
second time won'the day ? In Yorkshire, where Lord
MORPETH bids fair to carry all before him? In South
Devon, where Lord J. RUSSELL'S prospects are
equally flattering ? In Essex, where, if promises
may be relied on, Mr. DISNEY will be at the
head of the poll ? In Scotland, where a Tory
dare hardly venture to shew his modest face ? Is it
in any of these towns and'counties that the so much
vaunted re-action has exhibited itself ; or is it in some
shy, sequestered nook, unknown to ARROWSMITH,
and which has not yet found a place in the geography
of the islands ? In putting this question we are actu-
ated by no other motive than a thirst for knowledge.
No impertinent or officious curiosity has suggested it ;
if, therefore, any Tory will do us the favour to answer
it, he may rely on our lasting gratitude.
Alas, he cannot 1 He may talk of re-action—think
of reaction—dream of reaction—but he cannot, at this
present moment, lay his finger on any one part of the
map of England, and say, " Here it is." Every
where the people are becoming more and more wedded
to Reform. Every where they are moving further and
further off from the old, worn-out system of Toryism.
But this, Heaven knows, is from no lukewarmness on
the part of the Conservatives. They have not yet
been caught napping, when they should have been on
the watch. They have shown no indisposition to
bribe, when bribery was necessary—to intimidate,
when intimidation was the one thing needful. No,
no. Whatever other " charge" we may have to bring
against the Tories, a reluctance to further their own
interests by all means, honest or dishonest, in their
power, is not one of them. They have failed for no
other reason than that they deserved to fail. It is the
moral sense of the country, speaking through its Re-
presentatives, that has been their downfall. They
asked a fair trial. It was granted them. No in-
temperate haste was shewn. No unfair advantages
taken of their position. They were heard calmly and
impartially throughout ; and now stand condemned by
the verdict of that very Jury whom they themselves
appointed to sit in judgment on them.
Is not this enough ? No. The Tories say, the ver-
dict was against evidence. Of course they do. What
culprit ever yet acknowledged the justice of a verdict
of Guilty ? The country, however, makes no response
to the Tory lamentations on this head. It views the
matter in its proper light, else wherefore the cool re-
ception that Mr. PARKER, in the South, and Mr.
WORTLEY in the North, have met with on their canvass
through their respective counties ? Had the Tories
been unjustly condemned, these gentlemen, as Mem-
bers of the aggrieved party, would have been received
with open arms by their constituents ; for an English-
man's love of fair play is proverbially paramount
to every other consideration ; but the truth is, the
people are satisfied with the late trial, and see no cause
to set aside the verdict that has been recorded against
the Tories.

Henceforth, then, l_ct, ti_lce men hold their tongues,
and submit, like rational beings, to their destiny. They
will do no good by making a stir. Yorkshire will have
nothing to say to them. Devonshire is equally in-
different. In spite of all their pledges, protestations,
and menaces, Lord MouPETH will overwhelm them in
the one county, and Lord J. RUSSELL in the other.

We have just perused a pamphlet by Mr.lt ICHARDS,
entitled "a Letter to Lord BROUGHAM in reply- to
ISAAC TOMKINS, Gent., and Mr. PETER JENKINS."
In this vapid production, the author falls foul of his
Lordship for having so far deceived him, as to lead
him to suppose that he was a man of vast intellect. It
is fortunate for Mr. RICHARDS that he will deceive
no one in this respect. There is not a man in exis-
tence, who on perusing his present abortion, will be
persuaded into any other belief than that its author is
a bore of the first water. Affecting to be smart, the
pamphlet is, without exception, the dullest we ever
read. We say this, not by way of censure
but compliment, for where there is so much competi-
tion among writers, for the palm of pre-eminent dull-
ness, it is greatly to Mr. RICHARDS'S credit that he
has distanced all competitors.

A pamphlet entitled England, Ireland, and Ame-
rica, replete with good sense, and abounding in very
valuable information, purporting to be written by " a
Manchester Manufacturer" has just been published
by Ridgway. Whatever opinions the public may
entertain as to the soundness of the Author's general
theory, there can be but one impression as to the purity
of his purpose, and the honesty of his intention. Nor
is he wanting in enlarged views, and a proper appre-
ciation of the prevailing sentiments of his countrymen ;
on the contrary, his opinions with regard to the present
wretched state of Ireland would in themselves entitle
him to be ranked among the few liberal writers who
have dared to expose to the view of Englishmen, the
primary cause of the many calamities that afflict that
unhappy land.
The object of the present publication is to repudiate
the policy recommended in a pamphlet called England,
France, Russia, and Turkey, which appeared some
two months ago—suggesting the wisdom of England
and France taking measures to restrain the further en-
croachments of Russia on the Turkish frontier. Our
Manchester friend contends that we can offer no sub-
stantial motive in justification of our hazarding a war
in favour of the SULTAN. He proves, by Export
Tables for upwards of a century, that our trade with
Russia is nearly ten times as lucrative as our trade
with Turkey ; and that while the latter country has
only quadrupled her purchases of British manufactures
during the above period, the former has " increased
her consumption of our goods nearly forty-fold."
All this may be correct, but we do not understand
in what way it can affect a questiori involving a prin-
ciple of justice. The increased consumption of Bri-
tish manufactures in Russia neither arose from good
feeling towards Englishmen, an admiration of the In-
stitutions under which they lived, nor the conquests
attendant upon Russian arms. Our trade with Russia
resulted from the sterility of her native soil, the igno-
rance and discontent of her people, and the fact of our
being able to export manufactures at the cheapest
rate. But can the author be so simple as not to per-
ceive that further conquests on the part of R ussia—
to meet him on his own ground—would have the ef-
fect of destroying our export trade in that part of the
world, by enabling Russia to compete with us in the
manufacture of those articles of which she is now so
plentiful a consumer ? Granting, for a moment, that we
can have no higher motive for interfering than the
protection of our commerce, is it not evident that if
Russia be now in a condition to enter into a rivalry
in trade with England, the possession of Turkey would
at once turn the balance in favour of the CZAR ?