The Sun.
London, England, 1832-07-28 00:00:00

and ultimate protection against the ob-
stinate and abominable acts of the 80.
roughmongers. The eyes of the whole country
will be fixed on the spirit and exertions of the
smaller boroughs; and while the independent
electors oppose corruption and a lavish expen-
diture of money, let them practice that economy
and purity of election which can alone ultimately
redeem them 'from political thraldom and igno-
miny. Whether " Slints or Sinners" come
under the wing of borough patrons, or with
mock pretensions, let them repudiate impostors,
and support only sincere and tried men. The
blazoned subscription purses of the Conservative
Political Unions are but as " sounding brass or
tinkling cymbals ;" and if really applied at the
approaching dissolution of Parliament, the Con.
servative money will soon work its only cure.
The Anti-Reformers admit that the " purse" is
the only munition of war left to them by the
Reform Bills, and that resource must necessa-
rily prove but a sorry substitute for schedules A
and B.—Morning Chronicle.
The speech of the Lord Chancellor, on Thurs-
day night, led to a great deal of altercation last
night in the House of Commons. Some ex-
pressions attributed to the Lord Chancellor in
one of the reports excited greatly the ire of Sir
Edward Sugden. The passage which gave such
offence to Sir Edward is as follows :
" Yes (continued the Learned Lord), I am bound to
believe, nay, cannot for a moment doubt, that the Learned
Gmtleman (Sir E. Sugden) was wholly influenced by
this most praiseworthy desire of information. How could
I think otherwise, knowing, as I do, in common with
that eminent ' high law authority,' that philosophers have
long since eulogized this 1 tudahle thirst of knowledge as
the most distit4tushed attribute of humanity, and Ss the
most distinguished feature of an ingenuous and lofty in
teilect ?—(Cheers and laughter.) Yes, my Louis, we
Inv.- all read, that it is this Heaven-horn thirst of informa-
tion, and its condition—at least invariable concomit int—
a self-disregarding and candid mind, that most distin-
guishes man from the craw;ino• reptile—that most distin-
guishes man from the wasp that' stings, and from the wasp
that fain would, but cannot, sting.—(Loud cheers.) Aye,
distinguishes us from not only the insect that crawls and
stin.-s, but from that more powerful, because more offen-
sive, crew ore, the bug, which, powerful and offensive as it
is, iv, after all, but •o much loathsome vermin."—(Conti-
nue,l cheers and laughter.)

The question is, did the Lord Chancellor
use these expressions. Sir Robert Peel ob-
served, " that the report in the Times (from
which the passage is taken) has in one respect
the appearance of accuracy—it is very elaborately
given." Lord Althorp said, the Noble and
Learned Lord (Brougham) called on him to
say, that the report in that paper and in another
was very incorrect. We understand that the
Lord Chancellor used the words reptile, wasp,
and bug, but that the tone of voice in which he
uttered the sentence in which they were intro-
duced rendered it impossible for any reporter to
catch his meaning ; and it must be said of the
passage objected to, se non e vero e hen trovato.
The passage in the other paper also characterised
as inaccurate is sheer nonsense. Sir Edward
Sugden was quite furious. " I find," he said,
" that in another place a Noble and Learned
Lord, in the course of some observations made
with reference to my conduct, has thought fit to use
expressions towards me which no gentleman, who
has a regard for his own personal honour, nor any
one whose acts could be influenced by personal
fear, would have ventured to direct towards any
other gentleman." Without insinuating any
doubt of the bravery of the Hon. and Learned
Gentlemen, we must observe, that no men seem
to regret so much in Parliament the restraints
imposed upon them by etiquette, as those who
complain of privileged opponents. We once
had a setter, who, when he saw another dog
through a strong grating, was furious at the ob-
stacle opposed to his pugnacity, but carefully
looked the other way when a dog at liberty hap-
pened to pass near him. This, however, seems
a very pretty quarrel as it is ; and Sir Edward
Sugden declares, that " he has lost all respect
for the person who used these expressions." Sir
Edward is here as premature as he was in his
expression of regret at the Lord Chancellor's
appointments, before he knew the terms on which
they were made. He ought to have ascertained
first what were the expressions used by the Lord
Chancellor. There certainly is a presumption
that his Lordship did not use any expressions at
all approaching, in point of offensiveness, to
those imputed to him, in the circumstance that
neither the Duke of Wellington, nor any other
of Sir Edward's friends, who were present, took
any notice of what was said by Lord Brougham.
—Morning Chronicle.
Our readers will perceive that there was rather
an extraordinary scene in the House of Com-
mons last night, on the subject of the difference
between the Lord Chancellor and Sir Edward
Sugden. Sir Edward is not insensible to the
castigation he received ; indeed, it would require
something more or less than man to sit easy un-
der such a lashing. But the Learned Gentle-
man, being so sensitive, ought to have been
inure discreet. Why did he bring forward such
a charge as implicated in direct terms the politi-
cal honesty of the Lord Chancellor ? We
ask, why did he bring forward such a charge ?
for it was unfair and uncandid in Sir Edward,
and in those Members who echoed the same
statement after him, to represent his observation
as a mere question, which conveyed no attack
upon the character of the Noble Person whose re-
tort he deprecated. Sir Edward Sugden and
his friends may have forgotten—but the Lord
Chancellor and his friends, and the public at large,
could not forget—that this charge of political in-
consistency and dishonesty was only one of a
hole series of vexatious, irritating, personal
reflections, which, for some reason or other, the
Learned Gentleman has thought proper to in-
dulge in ever since the Lord Chancellor was
appointed to his high office. Sir Charles
Wetherell may rave about " a vocabulary of
calumnies ;" hut defensive severity is not
calumny. He and others may rave about the
privileges of the House of Commons, as if the
House of Commons could claim a monopoly of
privilege to itself. If there be any thing wrong
in a Member of one House attacking a Niember
ofranother, because that other could not be pre-
sent to defend himself, it must be as wrong in
the House of Commons as in the House of
Lords ; and in Sir Edward Sudden, who com-
menced the attack, as in the Lord Chancellor,
who returned it with interest. Galled as the
whole party evidently felt at the prostration of
one of their champions by the iron blow which
he had the temerity to provoke, the public see
nothing in the act but a strict and vigorous ap-
plication of retributive justice, which, whether
proceeding from the Bar, the Bench, or the Se-
nate, has its moral and its use.—Morn. Herald.

SIR DAVID BAIRD.—The memoirs of this
g 'dant soldier, which are shortly to be laid before the
public, will, we understand, give, tor the first time, a de-
tailed account of his brilliant services, both in the East, and
during the late war in the Peninsula. The volumes are
io be enriched by many private letters of the highest inte-
rtst, and the work is the production of a writer in every
rtspect qualified to do justice to the subject.