The Sun.
London, England, 1835-10-27 00:00:00

Zfie

LONDON,
TUESDAY EVENING. OCTOBER 27, I 535.

It is a thousand pities that Lord WiNcHiLsEA—
who is a well-meaning man, though somewhat spar-
ingly furnished in his upper story—cannot keep quiet ;
for he never stirs, but to expose himself. His letter
to the " Members of the Synod of Aberdeen," about
which the Tory journals are now making a prodigious
fuss, is, without exception, one of the silliest tirades
we ever read—so silly, indeed, that we wonder
his Lordship's well-withers did not protest stre-
nuously against its publication. Was there no
one in all Aberystwith bold and honest enough to
advise the Noble Earl to put his epistle behind the
fire ? How could such drivelling nonsense be allowed
to find its way into print ? We say nothing of its
grammar —for aristocratic authors are apt to be
above the vulgar considerations of syntax but
what is to be said for his Lordship's assertion,
that the incendiary fires of 1830 were not occa-
sioned, as has been generally supposed, by the
pressure of agricultural distress, brought about by a

long continued course of Tory misgovernment ; but
were the " work of the Popish party," who of course
were filled with rage, and disgust, and all devilish
notions, at the bare recollection of their having
been emancipated on the preceding year ? It is
strange that the Noble Earl is so
,wroth with
the Reformers, for on looking into those portions
of his epistle which we can contrive, with some

little attention, to understand, we find that his object
and theirs, as respects the Protestant Establishment,
are precisely the same. " I can honestly assure you"
says he, addressing the Aberdeen Synod, " that the
object for which our party is associated is the mainte-
nance of the Protestant religion, which we justly regard
as the foundation of our national and moral greatness."
So say ,and with somewhat more propriety, the Reformers ;
and this is the very reason why they are now striving
their utmost to obtain a Reform in the Church. They
feel, with Lord WINCHILSEA, that our " national
and moral greatness " is bound up with the " mainte-
nance of the Protestant religion," which, however, can
only be maintained, by the Church being purified of all
its inveterate abuses. In this last respect they certainly
differ from the Noble Earl ; but as their primary
object is precisely the same, we wonder he can allow
himself to get into such a towering passion with
them. Why too does he attack that defence-
less innocent, O'CONNELL, so ferociously ? Is

it not enough that DANIEL is never to be
allowed the honour of dining with Mr. NATHAN
GOLDSMIDT, who has solemnly pledged himself to
rush out of a tenpenny chop-house the instant he sees
the Liberator even passing the door ; but he must
also be subjected to Lord WINCHILSEA'S " in-
extinguishable vengeance"—as that meek youth
DISRAELI would say ? Really his Lordship should
have some compassion for a man so deplorably si-
tuated—particularly as he must feel in his heart con-
vinced, that DANIEL has no more idea of upsetting
the Protestant Establishment, than he himself has, of
Swallowing HALLEY'S comet, tail and all. For ourselves,
we consider " the foul-mouthed Agitator" to he one of
the sincerest friends that the Irish branch of the Pro-