The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-04 00:00:00

high character of Mr. Fordham and Mr. Tatham
was established by a host of witnesses of the first
respectability, and Mrs. Esther Tompkins did
not appear to have in:proved upon a closer in-
spection into her history—we hold that on
Wednesday the inferiority of judgment displayed
by that Magistrate was beyond what we have ever
witnessed. It is stated in the report, that he con-
suited with the Bench (Messrs. White and Gre-
gorie, we presume). Indeed ! And this strange
commitment received the sanction of the whole

Bench ! The speech of Mr. Marriott yesterday
made the matter worse for himself than it was. In

endeavouring to extricate himself, he charged Mr.
Tatham, sen. with having refused to be sworn to the
character of his son. His logic was in substance
this :—I could only know the character of the par-
ties from evidence. When I found that Mr. Ta-

tham, sen. refused to bear testimony to the charac-
ter of his son, what could I infer but that the son
was capable of committing a fraud ? and Mr. Ford-
ham having been in company with a man, to whose
character his own father refuses to bear testimony,
he must be judged of by the adage, noseitur a sociis,
and he is just the man to have committed the fraud
with which he is charged. But, unfortunately, Mr.
Tatham, sen. had been sworn as to the character of
his son on the first examination, and Mr. Phillips
stated that both Mr. Tatham, sen. and his son were
ready to swear to that fact. But this was a tender
point. Mr. Marriott said, "he could not allow
Messrs. Tatham to be examined on oath as to Mr.
Tatham, sen. having given evidence to the character
of his son on his first examination." In another re-
port we have seen Mr. Marriott is made to say that--
" He was willing to allow witnesses to be called as to
the characters of the parties concerned ; but he certainly
would not allow witnesses to be called, as Mr. Phillip,
desired, to disprove any thing he said in his magisterial
capacity. He was positive Mr. Tatham, sen. had refused
to be sworn, or on oath to attest the character of his son
or suppo.ed friend ; and that all in the office formally
present well knew. He could ❑ot, consistently with his
authority and dignity, assent to such a proposal."
Whether Mr. Tatham, sen., was or was not sworn
is a fact that could easily have been ascertained.
lie might not have been sworn (though we have
no doubt he was sworn) ; but is there a man in the
metropolis who would believe that a father would
refuse to be sworn to the character of a son, whose
respectability was placed beyond doubt by the evi-
dence of several gentleman to whom he had been
known since his childhood ? Mr. Marriott seems

to be held in high respect by those who know him.
and we repeat that we impute to him only the want
of sagacity and discrimination. We have heard,
w•e confess with some astonishment, that he is the

destined successor of Mr. Const, as Chairman of

the Middlesex Magistrates.—Alforning Chronicle.
At the National Political Union, on Thursday
night, Sir Francis Burdett seemed to consider some

of the statements in the report read that night as
aspersions cast on the Aristocracy. 'We have had
an opportunity of perusing that document, and we
do not think it states more with regard to the body
in question than is borne out by fact. In the ac-
count of the circumstances leading to the formation
of the Union, the writer mentions—

" 1. The determination with which the Aristocracy
clung to the power which they possess, and which they
have so shamefully abused ; the powerlessness of Ministers
single-handed against this obstinate body, originally called
the National Political Union into existence. It was clear,
after the rejection of the Reform Bill by the Lords, that
the Aristocracy would not spontaneously renounce their
power : it was equally clear that the Ministers, who felt
themselves so weak as to be obliged to conciliate and bow
down before a portion of that body, were not strong
enough, unaided, to support the claims of the people. In
order to afford them the assistance they needed—in order
to give a definite form to the public opinion—to create an
organ through which that opinion could be efficiently
transmitted, the plan of a National Political Union was
entertained. The object was to put the wishes of the
people at large in organized array ; to give them by union
so imposing an appearance, that denial of their demands
should be hopeless, and direct oppression dangerous.
" At this time also, there was yet another circumstance
inducing the necessity for a means by which the people
might express their wishes. The cry of a re-action in the
popular opinion was raised by the enemies of Reform.
These infatuated opponents of good Government had mis-
taken, or pretended to mistake, the silent and dangerous
dissatisfaction of the people for an apathy towards Reform.
The gloom that was gradually settling upon the public
mind, preparing men for the worst, making them to ex-
pect, and fitting them to encounter all the perils of a vio-
lent struggle for good Government—this gloomy despair
was believed, or pretended to be believed, a quiet acquies-
cence in the will of the Aristocracy ; and the most danger-
ous crisis which has occurred for many years in the history
of this country, was treated with careless contempt by the
headlong and reckless enemies of the people. In order to
correct this dangerous mistake on the part of the Aristo-
cracy, in order to quiet the alarms and strengthen the pur-
poses of the well-meaning, but timid friends of Reform, in
order efficiently to direct the energies of the ardent and de-
termined, some means for the immediate expression of the
popular wishes, in a calm, legal, yet effective manner, was
absolutely requisite. To this purpose, a union of all
classes interested in good government was proposed, and
immediate measures taken to carry this proposal into effect.
" DIFFICULTIES ATTENDING THE FORMATION OF THE
NATIONAL POLITICAL lisuoN.--Great and manifold dif-
ficulties had to be encountered before the object desired
could be obtained. It is of the utmost importance that
these difficulties should be fairly stated—should be
thoroughly understood. These very obstacles being among
the most pernicious of the evils created by a mischievous
Government.
" Unfortunately, the classes which bad to be united,
viz. the middle and working classes, stood opposed to one
another in a distressing and dangerous hostility. Large
numbers of the middle classes had hitherto, from various
causes, been either the tame followers, or active sup-
porters of the Aristocracy. By the Aristocracy them-
selves, and the writers whom the Aristocracy bad won by
favour, or hired by money for the purpose, the middle
classes Lad been too generally taught to believe the working
classes lovers of riot, confusion, and spoliation ; they were
led to fancy them men rendered desperate by poverty,
seeking for change in order to grow rich by plunder ;
they were thus, on the one Land, set against the working
classes, while, on the other, they were impelled towards
the Aristocracy by those habits of crawling subservience to
all above, and arrogant assumption to all whom they
deemed below, which all Aristocracies have too success-
fully inculcated. Thus, fear of evil from the working
classes, hope of distinction, favour, and reward from the
Aristocracy, had hitherto rendered the middle classes
averse to any union with that part of the people whose
interests in fact were and are identical with their own."
Sir Francis said—
" He dissented from the aspersions cast on the Aristo-
cracy, and considered it as essentially necessary to have
such a body of men in society as it was to have the Ca-
thedral of St. Paul complete in a 1 its parts. Degrees
were necessary to society. He certainly did not wish to
confound the la.glier or Aristocratical orders of society
with the Olgarchy of the country, or the boroughmon-
gering faction that holds in tyrant chains the liberty of the

Pe' Vt.."
Aristocracy literally means the power or government
of the best. But it is not in this sense that the
word is received in Europe. By Aristocracy is un-
derstood a body of men possessed of an influence
not derived from the suffrages of the people, of
which they avail themselves to the advantage of their
own order, and the detriment of society. It is very
true, as Sir Francis observes, there must be de-
grees in society. Were all the property of a nation
equally divided among the individuals of that na-
tion, and a free scope left to industry, inequalities
would soon arise. There must, therefore, be de-
grees in society, if the fruits of industry are to be se-
cured, and property is to be respected. But as we
have said, Aristocracy, in common parlance, means
a body having influence independent of the people,
of which they avail themselves to plunder the
people. That the body possessed of that influence
in this country have availed themselves of it in a
way detrimental to the people, few will be hardy
enough to deny. It is in the nature of things
that a body possessed of influence independent of
the people should abuse it to their own advantage,
and be as it were instinctively led to seek to perpe-
tuate their
the people, and throwing obstacles in the way of
power by fomenting divisions mong
the removal of ignorance. We do not, therefore,
see how the report can be said to cast aspersions on
the Aristocracy. The object of the Reform Bill is