The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-19 00:00:00

SHERRIES,

Very Good
Excellent ditto, pale or brown
Fine old ditto, straw coloured....
Very superior ditto
Marsala, first quality
Fine old Rota Tent
Old Lisbou and Mountain
Bucellas, excellent
Welt India Madeira 345.
Old East India ditto, very fine s2s. 58s.
Sparkling Champagne 6os. 70s.
Clarets
A Large Assortment of Wines always on Draught.
SPIRITS.

225.
285.
34'.
40s.
245.

GALLON.
English Gin, of the first quality 6s. Bd. to Bs.
Mouls's celebrated Old Tom
The Best Old Jamaica Rum
Very Good French Brandy
The nest Old Ditto, very excellent 265. 6d.
Irish and Scotch Whiskies, genuine from
the 5ti11.....:, ,' l2s. 16s.
Patent Brandy :::4... lBs.
Fine Old Ruin. Shit?
Highly Rectified Spirit of Wine
- Bottles, hampers,,&., to be paid for on delivery, and the amount
allowed when returned:
No Orders frelwthe Country can be attended to without a Re-
,' mittanee- - .

W. MOULS,
STREET, NEWINGTON-BUTTS.

LONDON,
THURSDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 19, 1835.:

The attack made upon Mr. ABERCRONIBY'S reputa

tion as a public man must be considered by every dis-
passionate mind as a signal failure. There is no poli-
tical blemish, however slight, that his adversaries would
not have eagerly and gladly caught at, if, in the scrutiny
of his public career, any such had been discoverable;
but the most sedulous and rigid search has been unable
to detect a single act throughout the course of his long
services upon which a charge of incorrectness could
be decently sustained. Nay, more—so spotless does
his character appear to be, that neither an act nor a
speech can be found which admits even of plausible
contortion I This is no small negative eulogy, and
the fact will be duly appreciated in the proper quarter
on a needful occasion.

The would-be calumnies about his pension
will not, of course, outlive the hour for which they
were intended. The turpitude of the transaction,
as regards either the donor or the receiver, is too
ridiculous to justify further attention. No persons
talk more fluently than the Tories about the sacredness
of " vested interests ;" yet never had a public man a
greater moral claim to his, than the ex-Chief Baron of
Scotland ; but then, to be sure, Mr. ABERCROMBY

is not a Conservative, and that may alter the aspect of
matters. It might have been supposed that of all ques-

tions to be raised whereon to found a slanderous alle-
gation, anything relating to pensions would have been
most studiously shirked by the Tories. Not so, how-
ever : with their own peculiar effrontery, they have been
actually prating about it, with such a bold and lofty
swagger, that we can scarcely bring ourselves to believe
their party was ever identified with the disgraceful and
profligate recklessness, which marked their distribution of
the pension funds when formerly in office. To render the
intended ignominy upon the " Scotch sinecurist" and
the Whig Government still greater, the Tories—of all
people upon earth—have just laid down as a proposi-
tion, that " the honest dispenser of a pension will take
care that the country receives a quid pro quo for its
annuity !" 'Why, have they faces of brass to talk
about honest dispensations and equivalent services,
with their own pension-list offending the nostrils of
every man in the kingdom ? Was ever impudence
carried farther ? Did not shame prevent their declar-
ing their " services" performed by those who are now
deriving their bread and honey from the pension purse ;
and did not the Whigs, from motives of mercy, help to
screen them from the disgrace of an exposure ? And
yet they now turn round and talk of a quid pro quo
and honesty of dispensation, and of Mr. ABER-
C ROMBY'S just pension as " a monstrous job !"
That gentleman and his friends may well be proud

that nothing more unbecoming can be ascribed to his
public character than such pension-holding. His
enemies have not been lacking in zeal to discover a

stray error, had one been to be found7l; but they have
failed, and the failure speaks more for the honour of
his reputation than any testimony which his admirers
have yet adduced.

We have been exceedingly anxious in our desire
to furnish to our readers a faithful record of the din-

ners given from time to time to the Conservative can-
didates, by way of solace to their defeat, and of the

speechifications thereat ensuing : if not edifying, they
have been at least especially droll from their extreme
farcicality. The COCIIRANES, the BURTONS, the
WooDs, and the WOLVERLEY ATTWOODS, consti-
tute a brilliant display of Conservative patriotism,
modesty, valour, and eloquence. To draw a conclu-
sion from their encouraging expressions of ultimate
success, one might suppose that the struggle was about
to commence, rather than that it is already concluded.
Do the " fond confiding" Tories really believe that
elections are to become as plentiful as new moons?
Their wishes may be father to the thought, but what
mocking fancies will not hope suggest, before despair
takes full possession of the mind ? A certain Evening
Journal in the Conservative interest, a few weeks
since, did indeed favour us with the announcement,
that election after election would take place, until a
Tory House of Commons should be framed. Though
the writer was made to eat these his own words a
night or two after, his party would nevertheless appear
to be sanguine in their expectations of such an event,
and consequently of the infallible success that will at-
tend their appeals. The first part of their expectaticns
may, by possibility, be realised, for many strange
things now and then come to pass ; but, with all hu-
mility, we are inclined to question the latter. The
Liberals can well afford to abide the issue. We offer
no presumptuous comment on the oratory of the Tory
love-feasts ; but we hope our readers have derived the
amusement which was intended to be conveyed by the
narratives we have given.

The ingratitude of the CITIZEN-KING in continuing
the incarceration of M. CARREL and the patriots of
July, by whom his MAJESTY was placed on the
throne of France, is a stain which no subsequent acts
of liberality shall ever blot from his reputation. So
long as freedom can boast of an honest chronicler of
her champions, so long will the fame of M. CARREL
and his fellow sufferers be the theme of universal ad-
miration ; while the base treachery of Louis PHI-
LIPPE will be remembered as a proof of the legi-
timacy of his descent from a race which an Empire
rose in arms to exterminate.

In the annals of royal ingratitude—and they form the
most copious record of Courts—we do not remember
having read anything more shameless than the conduct
of Louts PHILIPPE, towards the brave men to whom
he stands indebted for the sceptre which he now sways
so despotically. In the east the bow-string has been
known to reward the most important services; but we
hold with (3/ESA R that instant death is less-cruel and
intolerable, than the misery of a long imprisonment, and
the continual wearing out of the heart and the en-
feebling the mind, by a system of unceasing persecu-
tion. Moreover, are we not justified in presuming that
if the CITIZEN-KING touches not the life of his victims,
want of power has more to do with his forbearance
than want of will ? If his MAJESTY has only stayed
the vengeance of his arm when he could extend it no
farther—if he has only ceased to spurn, spit upon, and
revile the instruments of his unmerited elevation, when
the laws had removed them beyond the reach of
his authority—we may safely infer that the ob-
jects of his fury stand not indebted to him
for their temporary deliverance. The monarch who
would incarcerate a patriot, who had raised that
monarch himself to a throne, in order to effect the
deliverance of his country, would cut short the thread
of his existence, if he dared to do so with impunity.
Where the double crime is not committed, we are not
to attribute the apparent leniency to a weakness of
will, or the stings of an upbraiding conscience.
SWIFT, in one of his letters to GAY, states, that after
thirty-five years' acquaintance with Courts, he found
them consistent in five things, one of which
was—never to forgive those whom they had
grievously injured. History confirms, or rather esta-
blishes the truth of SWIFT'S proposition, with
the very important additional fact, that the unforgiven
of Courts have seldom been known to want Royal
assistance, to accelerate their departure to the world of

spirits.
What most surprises us is, that Louis PHILIPPE,
whatever may be the extent of his personal enmities,
does not relax his severity against the patriots of July,
were it only from a regard to his own interests, and
the preservation of his crown. He cannot look around
him—he cannot hear himself addressed by the mean-
est officer of his household—without being forcibly and
painfully, we should think, reminded of the im-
mense power which conduct, such as his, must
place in the hands of M. CARREL and his noble-
minded fellow-prisoners. By these brave men
was his MAJESTY'S Royal predecessor hurled from
the same pinnacle of power and ambition on which he
now stands—his sceptre was broken like a hollow reed
—his kingdom and his glory departed from him—and
he who swayed the destinies of a mighty Empire, in
the course of one month descended from a Throne, to
wander forth a fugitive, indebted to the charity of
strangers for a roof beneath which to lay an exile's
head. If the patriot's pen contributed more than the
warrior's weapons to produce this wonderful achieve-
ment, why does not the present Sovereign of France
guard against its employment for the overthrow of
his Government, and the extinction of his race ?
If 'neither gratitude to those who elevated him
to a Throne, and placed a Crown on his head,
nor a regard to the opinion of foreign States,
are sufficient to restrain his innate love of des-
potism, he ought at least to remember that kings are
sometimes dethroned by the same power, and by the
same means which enthroned them. He has not yet
outlived the generation which banished CHARLES X.,
nor will his remotest posterity survive the memory of
that glorious achievement. Let him, therefore, bear
in mind, that the same upright principles which ren-
dered it imperative on Frenchmen to rid themselves of
one tyrant, will impel them to act with equal severity
to all others. True patriotism knows no distinction
of persons, because it never acts from private
motives, or personal considerations. It knows no love
but love of country—of mankind ; and recognizes none
as enemies but the enemies of liberty. To deliver a
nation from one tyrant, only that he may be succeeded
by another, is not patriotism but caprice.
Notwithstanding the obviousness of these truths,
and the frequency with which they are forced upon the
attention of the CiTizEN-KING, his MAJESTY goes on
in the same blind head-long course, accumulating

the mass of national odium which every moment
threatens to burst upon him. Madly bent upon
the gratification of his own ambition, he grasps with
a desperate resolution the entire reins of Goverment, and
confiding in th• faith of an army which betrayed the
cause of his predecessor, he spurns the opinion of his
people, and contemns the idle precaution of delegat-
ing the dangers and the responsibilities of office.
Aware that M. CARREL, and the patriots of July,
would never consent to the unconstitutional abuse of
power entrusted to him for the noblest purposes—and
sensible that their virtue could neither be under-
mined by bribes, assailed by flattery, or subdued by
honours, he foolishly imagines that the only means
by which he can secure himself from their just ven-
geance, is by burying them alive in the dungeons of
France. He hates them for virtues which he
cannot conquer, and is too ambitious to imitate.
Their patriotism is a reproach to him—their disinter-
ested services to effect the freedom of France, a barbed
dart which constantly rankles in his heart, reminding
him that his part in the national drama was that of a
desperate gamester, whose eye was never moved off the
plunder—and even their poverty and their sufferings
are objects of jealousy to a King who sees them more
honoured in their dungeons than he is on a throne.
The people of France will not, however, long per-
mit the course of justice to be perverted, to satiate the
revengeful feelings of even a Monarch. If the KING de-
lay to liberate the editors of the Nationnel—if he cancel
not the sentences which have been passed on public
writers sentenced to the companionship of the most
abandoned criminals, for the alleged crime of speaking
the truth about his Government—we should not he
astonished to learn, that before the expiration of
twelve months, the nation had resolved to dispense
with his Royal presence at a nearer distance to Ver-
sailles than the Palace of Holyrood.

Brussels and German papers have been received.
The former state that the Post Office arrangements
between Belgium and Holland have been completed,
and that, on both sides, the greatest civility and polite-
ness is shown in the ready conveyance of letters :

VIENNA, FEB. 9.—Five per Cent. Metalliques, 101,i • Four per Cent
94; Bank Shares, 1,310 --yillgemeine Zcitung, Feb. 13.

BELGIAN FUNDS.—BRUSSELS, FEB. 17
Actual Debt, 2v per Cent,

Rothschild'ii.l;;a'ri, Five per Cent lOO
Loan of City, 1832, Four per Cent. iiti

We have inserted in another column a letter on the
subject of Lady HEWLEY'S Chaiity, on which we
have a few remarks to make. Our correspondent
seems to be in some alarm for our orthodoxy ; but he
may quiet his fears—we think ourselves fully able to
take care of our own faith, though we are not of those
who make it a matter of conscience not to let their

sympathies stray beyond the bounds of their own sect.
If we sympathise with the Unitarians, it is not be-
cause we agree with them in their theological dogmas,
but because the proceedings adopted towards them ap-
pear to us to savour somewhat of religious persecution,
—and persecution we abhor. A persecuting spirit is
hateful in all men—in a Dissenter it is immeasurably
disgusting.

With the merits or demerits—the truth or false-
hood—of the opinions respectively professed by the
two contending sects, we have nothing to do. Such
subjects are not adapted to the pages of a newspaper,
nor shall we be drawn into the discussion of
them. Each party are, we have no doubt " fully
persuaded in their own minds" of the purity of
that faith, which, in the exercise of the right of pri-
vate judgment—a right acknowledged, we believe, in
its most extensive latitude, by both the sects—they
have adopted. The exercise of this right neces-
sarily leads to a diversity of opinion, and it cannot be
denied that much extravagance has resulted from it ;
but where is the remedy ? Is not this as natural as
that moral evil should sometimes result from free

agency ?
Men are accountable to their Maker alone for their
religious belief. They have not only a right, but a
most sacred obligation, to form this belief for them-
selves, by searching the Scriptures—the only fountain
from which the pure waters of life can be drawn. If
this duty is discharged with humility, diligence, arid
honesty of purpose, though the conclusions at which
the enquirer may arrive should be different from those
which we have formed, have we any more right to find
fault with him, than he has to find fault with us? Are we
not bound to allow to our neighbours the privilege
which we claim for ourselves ? If we punish him,—
that is, if we make him suffer in any way for his reli-
gious sentiments—are we not persecutors ? Do we not
infringe his liberty ? Do we not in reality strike at
the principle on which the Reformation itself was
founded, and on which alone it can be justified—the
principle that every individual has a right to think
or himself in matters of religion?
We come now to the consideration of those parts of
our correspondent's letter, in which he disputes the
correctness of our representation of the VICE-CHAN-
CELLOR'S judgment.
In the brief and impartial view which we gave of the
state of the question between the litigating parties, we
remarked, the only point to be decided appeared to us to
be who are to be considered " Godly preachers of Christ's
Holy Gospel," and that "the VICE CHANCELLOR,
removed the trustees, not on the ground that they had
misapplied the funds, but because they did not hold the
same religious opinions which Lady HEWLEY held—
or rather was presumed to have held—thus laying
down a principle which would oust the Protestant
trustees of every Catholic foundation in the kingdom."
Our correspondent asserts that the VICE-CHAN-
CELLOR'S proposition was that the Unitarians were
not " Godly preachers of CHRIST'S Gospel," and
that he proved this by two arguments, first, that " the
doctrine of the Trinity was an essential doctrine of the
Gospel ;" and, secondly, " that they do not believe
the Gospel," because the " improved version" is es-
sentially different from the genuine translation, and
therefore unquestionably not "CHRIST'S holy Gospel."
We must, in the first place, inform our correspondent
that the doctrine of • the Trinity was not so much as
once mentioned by tile VICE-CHANCELLOR. He
laid down the same position that we have stated as to
the point at issue, but instead of testing the qualifications
of godly preachers of Christ's holy Gospel" by the
Gospel itself, as our correspondent supposes, he tried
them by the standard of Lady HEWLEY'S supposed
‘‘ opinions." These are his Honour's words ; but
it does not appear to me that the question in this
case to be determined is, whether they were properly
called Christians or not ; but whether it was consistent
with what appeared on the trust-deeds of Lady HEW -
LEY, having regard to such evidence as had been pro-
duced of what her sentiments were, that the Unitarians
could be allowed to participate in the benefit of her
charity ?"
He proceeds, accordingly, to inquire what Lady

wt, EY'S religious opinions were, and, by the help
of her own will, the will of her husband, who had
been long dead, and the will of the Rev. Dr. CouL-
TON, and by BOWLES'S Catechism, he makes out a
creed for this good old Presbyterian lady, consisting of
two articles, namely, the divinity of our Saviour's per-
son, and original sin. His Honour then goes on to
to Show that the Unitarians do not hold these two doc-
trines, and pronounces his DECREE in the folilowing
words :—" That no persons who deny the Divi-
nity of our Saviour's person, and who deny the
doctrine of original sin, as it is generally under-
stood, are entitled to participate in Lady HEW..
LET'S charity"; and " that all the Trustees who are
Dissenters, and deny the doctrine of our Saviour's
divine person, and the doctrine of original sin, must be
removed."

nittanee.