The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-24 00:00:00

(Goodwood ..

23
AUGUST.

The Pottery
Worcester ..
Brighton
York

A ork
WolverhamV,on .........
Devon and taeter l2
Stockton l3

Stourbridge
Weymouth 25
Newport Pagntl 27
SEPTEMBER.

Warwick

Leicester
Doncaster
Heaton Park ... 23
Newmarket First October ..•

OCTOEIM.
Newmarket Second Oct l2
Newmarket Houghton 22

ouw/F.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

We intended to-day to pursue the political prospects
of the Ministers, but we are stopped, literally stopped;
our hands are tied. We may make this confession
voluntarily and without phrase, because we are assured
that the " Tail," as well English as Irish, are dissa-
tisfied with the appointments that have been made,
which were unexpected, and may be of consequence.
It is said that in the distribution of offices it was cal-
culated that good things would have fallen in other
places. Our political arithmetic affords us no means
of judging in the matter. Our task, therefore, is that
of mere narrators ; and because we are, in a sort, he-
ralds to the public (not that we think there is any-
thing worth relating, or fitted for the public ear), we
tell the tale as it has been told to us. In the first
place, then, a fierce gentleman of the late Opposition
declares, all through the town, that he has been most
wofully neglected. He protests, till the very church
porch shakes, that he has been maligned even to his
enemies, and cushioned by his friends. " Good God I"
he exclaims, " have I not written the leaders in an
evening print for weeks past, and have they (the arti-
cles) not told ?" somebody said sold;" but as a man
of veracity he put the sanguine gentleman right, and
told him they had not sold. With a sigh he declared
that he " ought to have had something." Then there
is Mr. Sheil, who has been overlooked in the Irish
appointments. He threatens a motion (of which we
shall have to speak by and by), which we take to be
an indication that all the joints of the "tail" are not
equally supple, that they are not to be wagged or
curved ad libitum. In this country, among the Eng-
lish Radicals—we have it upon the best authority—
distrust and discontent prevails to a very serious extent.
One of the Adelphi looked for a foreign appointment,
which nevertheless has not yet fallen to him. The
other took a cottage for his wife, put himself into
lodgings, and went about inquiring with a careless air
whether "an Under Secretary had a house apportioned
to him." It turns out that he was not, though he be-
lieved he was, interested in the reply. To-morrow we
may know more about these matters, or, which is
equally important to our readers, we may not ; but as
our admirable and affable Ministry is scarcely yet
complete, it would not be fair to discuss more of the
symptoms of their hard-heartedness at present. In
point of fact, the Cabinet is so insignificant, that we
hardly know what to say about it.—Times.
The question which has been lately agitated in the
City, relative to the periodical election of Aldermen,
we need hardly observe, is a very important one, and
involves the consideration of a principle of great value
touching the administration of justice. When this
question was discussed a few weeks ago in the Court
of Common Council, its interest merged in the greater
importance of the proceedings in Parliament. We had
neither space nor time to give it the notice or attention
which it deserved. We now avail ourselves of the op-
portunity afforded by the recess to make a few observa-
tions on a question so intimate!) connected with what is
called " Corporate Reform," and the interests of local
government. Advocating, we do, all real and as
sub-
stantial reforms in our corporate and other institutions,
we cannot bring ourselves to fall in with that headlong
and rampant rage for innovation which mistakes every
proposed alteration of things established for reform. Let
us calmly consider whether the character of the civic body
would be raised, and the interests of local Government
benefited by the suggested periodical election of alder-
men, according to the recent decision of the Court of
Common Council. It will be recollected that, a few
weeks ago, Mr. Alderman Thomas Wcod moved the
following resolution, in reference, we believe, to some
report of a Commitree upon civic reform :—" That the
present Aldermen be continued, and that all future
ALletrnen be elected for life, subject to the following
restrictions—viz. bankruptcy, insolvency by deed of
composition, or taking the benefit of the Act, convic•
tion of fraud and other misdemeanour by the verdict of
a Jury—absence for a given time without leave of the
Court, and general imbecility." To which it was
moved as an amendment, " that all Aldermen here-
after to be chosen should be subjected to periodical
re-election by their constituents. This amendment
was carried by a majority of twenty-five, in a Court
consisting of 101 Members—but as the total number
of Members of the Common Council is 266,
there remain 165 who have not yet expressed any
Opinion on the question. Complaints have been made,
and justly made, from time to time, of Aldermen
neglecting their duties, more especially as Magistrates,
and thereby causing great inconvenience to the public.
This is an evil which required, and ought to have, a
remedy ; but we cannot help thinking that the remedy
rroposed is one that would work a greater evil than
that which it is intended to cure. If it be possible to
make Magistrates attentive to their duties without
sacrificing their independence, it is well ; but we do
not think that to render those who are concerned in the
administration of justice dependent upon periodical
election by the people or any other power, is the best
way to secure their impartial uprightness in the dis-
charge of their duties. We are of opinion that Mr.
Alderman Thomas Wood's proposition, which makes
" absence for a given time without leave of the Court" a
cause of deprivation, would remedy the evil complained
of, without subjecting those Magistrates to that pe-
riodical election, which would make them completely
dependent upon the few busy leading politicians and
canvassers, in their respective wards, who direct as they
please the suffrages of the many. The occasional
public inconvenience caused by the non-attendance of
Aldermen to form a Court of Justice might be ob-
viated by the infliction of a heal!) fine in every in-
stance of neglect, and a certain number of such in-
stances of abandonment of duty, should be a cause of
deprivation. This would be much better than render-
ing one who has to perform the delicate and difficult
duties connected with the administration of justice de-
pendent upon the breath of popular favour or caprice.
It is the proud boast of this country that the superior
Judges are independent both of the Crown and the
people. Who that regards the pure and impartial
administration of justice would like to see the Judges
of the Courts in Westminster Hall subject to dis-
missal at the pleasure of the Crown, or obliged to go
cap in hand to the people periodically, like the candi-
dates for the representation of Westminster ? Among
those who opposed with spirit and ability the proposi-
tion for making the election of Alderman periodical
was Sir Peter Laurie. Since then the speech of the
worthy Knight has appeared in print, of which we
have been favoured with a copy. It is an able, intel-
ligent, and dispassionate argument, well supported by
historical references, and illustrated by practical exam-
ples. He impugns the principle of periodical election
upon the same ground that we do. He shows that
when the election of Alderman was periodical (for
those who sneer at the wisdom of our ancestors some-
times choose to rely upon ancient precedents), the du-
ties which they had to perform were only those of a com-
mon constable. He also shows that when they were in-
trusted with the administration of justice the practice of
periodical election was abolished, as if to secure their in-
dependence. The recognised independence of the supe-
rior Judges does not do away with their responsibility.
They are liable to Parliamentary animadversion, or im-
peachment for gross neglect of duty, or malversation in
office. So let the Magistrates, whether Aldermen or
others, be independent, when once appointed, of both the
Crown and the people, and only removable in case
of proved delinquency. Sir Peter Laurie illustrates
the danger to the administration of local justice which
would follow from Aldermen being made subject to
periodical popular election, by the following practical
argument :—He says " the publicans of the City are
a numerous, united, and powerful body, and their
conduct is frequently brought under the notice of the
Magistrate, and, with his election before his eyes in
a few months, it might be difficult to act as independ-
ently as his duty required—at all events, sure I am
that he could never purge himself from the suspicion
of acting from interested motives." We spoke of
the offence of bribery yesterday at the election of
Members of Parliament, in the terms of reproba-
tion which it deserves ; but the following quotation
from the same speech will show that, if our civic Ma-
gistrates were subjected to periodical election, the
heaviest purse, and dip least scrupulous conscience,
would sometimes carry the day against every qualifica-
tion of talent and virtue. Sir Peter says—" And an
Alderman, after he has been elected to the Ward, is to

be subject to the veto of a Common Hall, forsooth I
Did you never hear of such a thing as bribery in that
Hall ?—I know it well, for my Committee refused to
buy 300 votes, at 7s. 6d. a vote, and I lost my
election in consequence ; they were offered to the
Liberal Committee opposing me, who purchased
them and the triumph of principle at the same
time." This statement was made in the Common
Council and does not appear to have been contradicted.
We must, therefore, take it for granted that even the
Liberal or Ultra-Liberal candidate is sometimes indebted
to something more substantial than popularity for his
success. Upon a review of the whole question we fear
that far more evil than good would result from making
the Civic Magistrates dependent upon the favour
and caprices of the popular bodies among whom they
have to administer justice. We can hardly doubt
that it would become far more difficult to induce re-
spectable candidates to come forward for the office of
Alderman than at present. To be secure of filling the
civic chair is one inducement which would exist no
longer ; and men who give their services to the public
withoutlpay are at least entitled to some honorary rewards.
It was said by some member of the Common Council
that, inasmuch as an Alderman, when once elected for
his ward, becomes a Magistrate for the whole City, he
should be subjected to a new election by the whole of
the constituency of the wards. That was well met by
Mr. Alderman Thomas Wood, who observed that each
Common Councilman, upon being elected by his own
ward, should be subjected, on the same principle, to
the collective elections of all the wards. For our own
part we think that the rejected motion gave all the
power necessary to punish delinquency or neglect of
duty by Aldermen, without destroying that indepen-
dence which is essential to the honest and impartial
administration of justice.—Morning Herald.
The Tories love a job—it is their ruling passion.
It is not only strong with them in death (witness Lord
De Grey's commissioning of some six or eight ships,
several of which are not yet built), but it lives beyond
their graves, for the Treasury Tories have actually just
perpetrated a posthumous job. They resigned, as we
all know, on Saturday week, when Lord Melbourne
kissed !lands upon his appointment as First Lord of
the Treasury. On the following Monday a Treasury
messenger was detected carrying off books and sta-
tionery in so suspicious a manner as to cause his being
taken before the police, when he was committed. Now
in consequence of Lord Wharncliffe absenting himself
from town with the Privy Seal, it was not possible to
complete the formal appointment of the new Trea-
sury Board until Tuesday, so that the two new Se-
cretaries of the Treasury could not be installed in
office before that day. This was entirely owing to
Lord Wharncliffe's remissness ; but the Tory Se-
cretaries of the Treasury, with that keen scent
for a job which is the true badge and bond of
their party, did actually, on Monday, being two days
after they themselves were, to all- real intents and pur-
poses, out of eice, proceed .to dismiss the unfortunate
messenger, and forthwith, without a moment's pause
for inquiry, appointed—whom have they appointed ?
why, they have appointed Sir Robert Peel's butler in
his place ! This is jobbing, posthumous jobbing, with
a vengeance; but we trust the present Treasury will not
be so weak as to confirm the appointment. Dirty as
the job itself is, there is a still heavier offence in the pe-
remptory dismissal of the man, since it is a prejudg-
ment of a case which may come before a jury. The
messenger should have been suspended until after his
trial, but such respect for justice would have allowed
the appointment to slip through the Tories' fingers.
Thus, then, the unhappy messenger is to be sent to his
trial with a dismissal from office for his offence already
recorded against him, in order that a Tory Secretary of
the Treasury, who, in consequence of Tory Lord Privy
Seal's remissness, remained nominally in office two
days after his own discharge, might create a vacancy in
order to fill it up with the ex-butler of our self-denying
E x-Premier.—Morning Chronicle.

It wculd hardly have been thought possible a year
ago that Lord Melbourne and that portion of the
Whigs who constitute whatever has any claim to
re-
pectability in his Administration, would have con-
sented to take office under Mr. O'Connell. Yet that
they have clone so is evident ; for we do not expect to
find among all the casuists in the employ of the present
Ministry one sufficiently skilful to point out any dis-
tinction between holding office under an individual,
and holding office subject to-an absolute power of ejec-
tion at the pleasure of that individual. That those
who have voluntarily placed themselves in this position
in relation to Mr. O'Connell have contracted an obli-
gation to obey him implicitly in all things—the penalty
of recusancy being no other than loss of office, a pretty
severe penalty, and one which Whigs will do anything
rather than pay—is manifest to any attentive observer of
public transactions. Lord Melbourne, with the whole
power of his Administration, cannot displace Mr.
O'Connell, or the most insignificant of his adhe-
rents, from the position which they occupy. But Mr.
O'Connell can displace Lord Melbourne and the whole
of his Administration whenever he thinks fit merely
to intimate that their measures do not afford him com-
plete satisfaction. Who, in such circumstances, is the
real Minister ? Whose influence is most likely to
predominate in all public transactions and decisions ?
Of Lord Melbourne and Mr. O'Connell which is the
more independent of the other--which the more power-
ful in national affairs—which, in a word, is the master
and which is the man ? It is impossible to reflect
upon these questions without the strongest feelings of
alarm and disgust. There is the most painful humi-
liation and the most tremendous danger in the fact
that the nominal Prime Minister of the King of
England and the whole of his colleagues should hold
their elevated stations upon a condition so ignomi-
nious as that of cultivating with humble assiduity and
precarious success, the patronage and favour of one whom
they, in common with the great body of their country-
men, regard as an object at once of scorn and hos-
tility—of one whom they, with the full concurrence of
the people of Great Britain, have held up to the eyes
of mankind as a public enemy—of one who is the un-
disguised foe of this country and her institutions, and
who has made it the chief business of his life to
alienate from Great Britain the affections of a whole
nation of her subjects, and, by industriously diffusing
amonc, them sentiments of hatred and jealousy of
British authorities and British connection, to under-
mine the prosperity of the empire in the meanwhile,
and finally to prepare the way for its dismemberment
and destruction. We have not exaggerated in a single
feature the character of Mr. O'Connell, whom the
present Ministers of the Crown court as an ally, and
in whom all clear-sighted and candid men recognise
their imperious master and Sovereign Lord. How
fatal to the interests and the honour of Great
Britain it must be to invest such a character with
even the semblance of political power, the present
Ministers of the Crown cannot pretend to be ig-
norant. Mr. O'Connell is the only individual sub-
ject of the British Crown whom in . modern times
the Sovereign has been advised to describe in a
speech from the Throne as an enemy to the peace,
the welfare, and the freedom of his subjects. Mr.
O'Connell, no longer than a year ago, was the mover
of the only proposition in the British House of Com-
mons, which any Administration in modern times has
deemed it expedient to confront and oppose by a con-
current resolution of the two Houses of Parliament.
And, monstrous as the assertion would appear, if we
regarded only the actual position of parties, it is a
literal fact, nevertheless, as every man in the British
dominions is sufficiently aware, that the rebuke, un-
paralleled in our modern annals, which Mr. O'Connell
received from the Sovereign—that the extraordinary
resolution of the two Houses of Parliament, de-
nouncing his proposition as indicative of the most
dangerous designs, and pregnant with the most
fatal consequences to the State—were both of
Them concocted by an Administration comprehend-
ing the same men, with few exceptions, that now
seem to hold the reins of power, and who crouch
to and fawn .upon Mr. O'Connell as the chief
support of their tottering and precarious Govern-
ment. But it is not from the personal qualities of Mr.
O'Connell, nor the reckless proposition which he has
offered to the House of Coinmons, that the mischief
and danger of his acts are to be fully estimated,
although the former has been visited by the severest
censare of the King, and the latter by the reprobation
of the two Houses of Parliament. What is chiefly

calculated to excite suspicion and alarm is the character
of this Gentleman as the agent and mouthpiece of the
turbulent and disloyal portion of the Roman Catholics
of Ireland ; as the open abettor of all the outrages
which this wicked and desperate party are in the
daily habit of perpetrating upon the property and
persons of their" Protestant fellow-subjects ; as the
leader in those incessant attacks which the Irish
Roman Catholics have been making for years upon
the established institutions of this Protestant State ;
as the man who represents in his own person the
united power and the aggregate virulence of an
unscrupulous and embittered faction, levelled as
they are against the institutions, the integrity, the
peace, and the welfare of the empire. It must surely
produce a mingled feeling of dismay and indignation
among the Protestant people of Great Britain to be-
hold Mr. O'Connell, the repealer of the Union, the
fomenter of discord, the patron of assassination and
robbery, the author and leader of the sacrilegious and
too successful crusade against the legal property of the
Church—it must, we say, excite indignation and dis-
may to behold such a man the active ally and close
confederate of the Administration—the true source of
its power—the absolute arbiter of its fate—and, by ne-
cessary consequence, the absolute ruler of its conduct.
Let it not be pretended, however, that the bondage in
which, as a consequence of their actual position, Lord
Melbourne and his colleagues are held by this wicked
and mischievous agitator is on their part an involun-
tary bondage. It is a slavery to which they have ea-
gerly sold themselves for the sordid and ignoble love of
place. To what rational or intelligible end but to
rivet upon the necks of the Whigs the degrading chain
of the Popish faction of Ireland, and its artful and
arrogant leader, has every motion of Lord John Rus-
sell in the House of Commons, from the first day of
the session, been directed ? Why was Lord Canter-
bury rejected as Speaker, but to get the Whigs into
place in the character of O'Connell's slaves ? Why
was an unmeaning amendment proposed to the custo-
mary address to the Crown—an amendment so un-
meaning that we venture to say no man in England,
not even he who proposed it, remembers at this mo-.
ment a single word that it contains ? Why was an ab-
stract proposition put to the vote and carried, and
that abstract proposition then converted into a prac-
tical calamity by mixing up its poison with a wise and
skilfully-constructed measure of immediate and urgent
necessity ? How could all this have been but that
Lord Melbourne, Lord John Russell, and their col-
leagues were gasping for office, and impatient to hug
the gilded chain which, in the actual position of their
party, must be its odious and disgraceful badge ?
Morning Post.
It has been observed that there is a great similarity
between the physical position of an army and the moral
position of a Government. The General who has tact
enough to take up a good position, will in most cases
be enabled to defeat or resist successfully a superior
force, and he will also retain the power of avoiding
dangerous or disastrous expedients which a bad posi-
tion would render inevitable. Nor is a Minister other-
wise situated : if he assume a position badly chosen, he
exposes himself not only to defeat, but he may entail
utter discomfiture on the party supporting him, and fur-
nish arms to his opponents which they otherwise would
never have possessed. This comparison between the
position of a General and a Ministry has been recalled
to our recollection by the result of the stand Sir
Robert Peel has made on the Church question. The
Right Hon. Baronet has no doubt acted from conscien-
tious motives ; but we doubt whether they have not
been adulterated by political feelings. In fact, is it
credible that a man of Sir R obert's talents and tact
should not have been perfectly satisfied from the com-
mencement, that the days of the Established Church in
Ireland are numbered in the minds of the great mass of
the people of the empire, and that the best means of pro-
longing its agony would have been the adoption of sorre_t
plan similar to that proposed by Lord J. Russell, so as to
remove for a time the difficulty, and bring the edifice to
the ground without occasioning a shock to the country ?
We are convinced that Sir Robert Peel feels that what
we say here is the fact, but, unfortunately, the Right
Honourable Baronet cannot forget the virulence of
some of his ex-Orange friends on the occasion of
Catholic emancipation ; and no doubt he has been
fearful of incurring a second charge of apostacy.
'Well, what was the consequence ? He took up a
bad position—he was defeated ; but the defeat was
nothing compared to the consequences which must re-
sult to his party. Look to the organs of that party, to
the most moderate and best conducted of them, and
see the abyss into which the ex-Premier has plunged
them. Do they speak of the vital interests of the
country ? Do they speak of the conservation of the
unity of the empire, or of the national dignity, so mi-
reraiely sacrificed of late years abroad ? No, they talk
now of nothing but Popery ; their cry is, " Long
live the parsons and the tithes !" They rave about
the progress, or supposed progress, of the Papists,
in power and influence. In fine, they seem all to
have lost their reason. They are all precisely in
the state of the routed troops fora General unfortunate
in his position. For, seriously speaking, who in the
mass of the people of this country cares about, or fears,
the progress of Popery? We know what the parsons
think—they dread the loss of their temporalities ;-1170
know what the aristocracy think—they fear that their
estates are in danger ; but where is now the man
who, being conscientiously a member of the Church
of England, or of any other section of Pro-
testants, would join in the cry of "No Popery,"
which, if it means any thing, means that the
Papists, as they are termed, ought to be put down,
or rather persecuted. If we know what the parsons
and the aristocracy think, we know what the people
think, and let any one go amongst them, let him in-
quire into the opinions of the electors of the country, of
that part of the electors who are really masters of the
elections, and who are in consequence the real consti-
tuents of the House of Commons,—go to these men,
we say, and talk to them of " no Popery," and you will
soon learn their opinions—no matter what may be their
religious feelings, you will find that they are almost, if
not absolutely unanimous, in wishing that every
religion should have a clear stage and no favour.
The Right Honourable ex-Premier did not, pro-
bably, foresee, when he was taking up his posi-
tion, that it would lead his partisans not only to
render themselvess ridiculous by their ravings re-
specting Papists and Popery, but that it would lead
them absolutely to fight the battle of O'Connell and
his tail without being aware of what they were doing.
The aim of O'Connell and the persons termed Papists,
has been to prove to the people of this country that
they are really and bona fide friends to liberty—we
may almost say unlimited liberty. Now the great mass
of the people of this country have got it into their
heads, somehow or other, that the party which sup-
ports the Right Honourable Baronet is hostile to all
liberal institutions both at home and abroad. If, then,
the organs of that party succeed in demonstrating, as
they are essaying to do, that O'Connell is the David
who slew the Tory Goliah, why should not the cause
of Popery gain ground every day in the minds of the
people ? Why should not those who think that they
alone are the friends of liberty in this country, end by
believing that the cause of Popery is their's ? And
why should not Popery become associated in the minds
of many men with their dearest ideas? But there is
another point worthy of notice. Amongst the Papists
as they are termed, both English and Irish, both lay
and ecclesiastical, there were many desirous of sup-
porting the Administration of Sir Robert Peel, and
who really are Tories. But how was it possible for
them to keep their course when they read the Bed-
lamite effusions of the Age, the John Bull, and the
Standard, not to speak of some other of our contem-
poraries, who we sincerely believe are, at the present
moment, merely labouring under temporary derange-
ment. If any of their fellow Papists of the Whig persua.
sion meet them, they of course will endeavour to prove
that the Tories intended a crusade against their body,
and although this may at first be laughed at, yet a
few extracts from the Tory journals will not fail to
raise the Tory Papist's bile, and finally bring him to
admit, that if he be unwilling to secede from his party,
he cannot think of supporting it ; perhaps he will end
by opposing it, and thus O'Connell will increase his
influence and power by the secession of some, or the
neutrality of others. It is thus that Sir Robert Peel,
by taking up a false position, has occasioned his own

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 1835.