The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1835.

tinned misrepresentation of its real merits, by two o
our contemporaries—the Herald and the Times. WeJ
mention the former journal first, because it takes the
lead of its coadjutor in brazened assertion, and total
absence of argument. After a lamentation over the
fallen glory of Sir Robert Peel—the righteous dis-
missal of the Speaker—and other matters which oc-
curred in the beginning of the late Session of Parlia-
ment, it proceeds to give the following list of mea-
sures proposed by Sir R. Peel—or, rather, which he
stated that he would propose—and to contrast their
amount with the only one measure which the Mel-
bourne Cabinet was enabled to bring to a conclusion.
LORD MELBOURNE'S PERFORM-
ANCES IN 1835.

Great Britain for aid against her rebellious and tri-
umphant vassal, then .threatening. the safety of Con-
stantinople, and Russia would have. regarded without
jealousy or distrust the succour rendered to Turkey
in this emergency by Great Britain. The Czar
had taken an accurate measure of Lord Palmer-
ston. There was no occasion for jealousy or mis-
trust. His Lordship was busy just at that mo-
ment in capturing the merchant vessels of Holland.
The disposable navy of Great Britain was tossing
about in the North Sea. And the affairs of
Turkey could not wait his Lordship's greater
leisure. So the task of repelling ' Ibrahim Pacha
devolved upon Russia. Of this intervention, invited
or occasioned by the apathy, the weakness, or the
folly of the British Government, the treaty of Unkiar
Iskelessi was the natural and immediate result. Turkey
had, according to the confession of the French and
English Ambassadors, received from Russia permis-
sion to exist a little longer at the date of the treaty of
Adrianople. The same privilege was now again con-
ferred by the same hand. Such favours from Govern-
ment to Government are seldom rendered gratuitously.
Russia did only what any other Power in similar
circumstances woad have done, in claiming her re-
ward. She. obtained it. It was the treaty of Un-
kiar Iskelessi. The advocate of the Russian Govern-
ment is wrong in attempting to persuade Europe that
this treaty is unimportant as it affects the • posi-
tion of her Western States in relation to the affairs
and transactions of the East. He might have taken
loftier ground, and have successfully maintained it, but
that which he has assumed is manifestly untenable.
Russia, by this treaty acquires what she had not be-
fore—a recognised interest in the interdiction of the
passage of the Dardanelles to the vessels of war
of Great Britain and France, and the right. not
only to insist that the strait shall be defended by Tur-
key for Russian purposes and objects, whenever or
however they may arise, but in case of visible indispo-
sition or. inability on the part of Turkey to fulfil this
stipulation, the right equally indisputable of taking
possession, with her own troops, of the batteries which
command this important passage, and doing for her-
self what Turkey had become unwilling or unable
to perform. There is scarcely the merit even of inge-
nuity in the argument that Turkey has the right
to interdict the passage of Russian vessels of war
equally with thOse of Great Britain and France, that
the treaty merely detaches the policy of the east of
Europe from that of the west, and affords to Toulon
and Malta the same protection that it-yields to Se-
bastapul and Odessa. Has Great Britain or France
any countervailing treaty with Turkey which binds her
to close the Mediterranean to Russia, as she is bound
to close the Black Sea to them ? Or, if they had,
would there be the same guarantee for a faithful execu-
tion of the engagement ? Could Great Britain or
France man the batteries of the Dardanelles with their
own. artillerymen, or menace with their legions the
walls of the Seraglio, the moment they conceived a
suspicion that the stipulations of such a treaty were
likely to be evaded ? Russia can only be accused of
having availed herself of the opportunities of aggran-
dizing her power, which Great Britain and France
were so infatuated as to afford her. But from this, if
it be an accusation, she cannot be redeemed. She
now holds the Dardanelles under her absolute control.
The fact cannot be disputed. But the blame is that
of Mr. Canning and Lord Palmerston much more than
of the Emperor Nicholas.—Morning Post.

SIR R. PEEL'S MEASURES FOR
1335.-

English Church Reform.
English Tithe:Commutation.
Irish Tithe Commutation.
Irish Church Reform.
Dissenters' Relief Bill.
Ecclesiastical Law Reform.
Civil Law Reform.
Military Law Reform.
Church Rates Bill.
Municipal Corporations Reform. ;Municipal Corporations Reform.
Our Contemporary then exclaims, in a. voice of
triumph :
‘, We ask any honest reformer to look on this picture and
on that, and then tell us whether the resignation..of Sir Ro-
bert Peel has not turned out as we foreboded that it would, a
great loss and calamity to the country, especially to the cause
of Reform ? And how is it that those from whom that cause
had a right to expect so much, have done so little? We know it
will be said (but with what truth ?) that the House of Lords
have been the obstacle, and that but for them the cause of re-
form would have been in a more thriving condition. In an-
swer to this, we again request every honest Reformer to cast
his eye over the above balance-sheet, and ask himself how
many of Sir Robert Peel's plans of Reform have been so much
as mooted by his successors, and whether he does not find that
only one of them, besides the Corporate Reform Bill, ever so
much as found its way to the House of Commons, still less to
the House•of Lords?"
Softly, if you -please ; for, in the first place, nothing
is known of these clap-trap announcements of Sir R.
Peel, except their mere titles—secondly, all the mea-
sures alluded to by our Contemporary were either pre-
sented for the consideration of the House of Commons,
or in a state of preparation—and, thirdly, there is no
proof that even if Sir R. Peel had been allowed to
.remain in office, he would have either presented such
measures as would have been acceptable to the
House of Commons, or that they would have received
the assent of another branch of the Legislature, by
which he is cordially hated. The amount of loss,
therefore, in the shape of Reforms, sustained by the
forcible ejection of Sir R. Peel from office, is of a
very questionable nature, and becomes much more
doubtful when the character of the person from
whom the measures were to emanate is justly con-
sidered. Need we repeat, that that person had previ-
ously been in office during a period of twenty years,
and in office in situations which not only gave him
the right to propose such measures of reform, but
rendered it, in some measure, an imperative duty on
his part to propose them ; and yet that he not only
never proposed them, but
,was generally among the
foremost of his unhallowed faction to defend the
iniquities which it is alleged they were intended to
destroy ? Need we say that he was the most
determined enemy of Catholic emancipation, and yet
that he swallowed, on the ground of expediency, a
more sweeping measure of emancipation than any
one had previously dreamed of ? Need we add
that he was equally opposed to the Reform Bill—nay,
almost vowed a vow to be recorded in heaven, that
he would have nothing to do with the Government of
the country under the operation of such a Bill—and
yet that he was the first to accept office when ten-
dered to him, although its acceptance, under all the
circumstances of the case, was anything but honour-
able ? And yet this is the man—this is the "reclaimed
Vidocq, whose ejection from office time country is
called upon to mourn—whose loss has bean a " na-
tional calamity"—and who was, instead of one sub-
stantial measure of Reform, to have given us a dozen I
Thank heaven, that the country, at whatever expense,
has been saved from the moral disgrace which it would
have sanctioned from receiving such reforms from such
unclean and suspicious hands! The Times is more bold
than its humble coadjutor, and furnishes an appearance
of facts, in one case at least, in support of the charge
which it attempts to maintain—we mean the case of the
Bill for doing away with imprisonment for debt, which
was read a second time in the House of Commons on the
18th of March, but did not reach the Lords until the 17th
of August, and was ultimately deferred until the next
Session of Parliament, with the approbation of Lords

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL

Yesterday a working man named -John liam'cins was
brought before Mr. Alderman BIRCH, charged with
striking Mr. Mondella Simon, of Charlotte-street, White-
chapel, for putting down tie end of an umbrella which Haw-
kins had poking out under his arm, so as to endanger the
eyes of persons having occasion to pass behind him.
Mr. Alderman BIRCH said he was daily in the habit of
putting down the ends of sticks and umbrellas which clumsy
fellows carried under their arms, to the peril of everybody's
eyes, and it must be seen whether, for doing this, a person
was liable to be knocked down. As Mr. Simon was
anxious to leave London he would not send the case to the
Sessions ; but if the defendant did not satisfy Mr. Simon he
would call in another Magistrate, and they would impose a
fine upon him.
The defendant eventually made his peace by paying 10s.
to the ward school, and 10s. to the complainant's witnesses.

Brougham and Denman. But this is a solitary in-
stance ; and the instance is even not in point ; for had
the session opened under the auspices of his Majesty's
present advisers, at the usual time, the Bill might have
reached the House of Lords in June instead of Au-
gust, and no pretext consequently have existed for
postponing the consideration and passing of the mea-
sure. The circumstance, however, of one-third of the
Session—or rather more—having been consumed in
endeavours to oust the Tory usurpers of power from
their places, as well as of their continued opposition to,
and obstruction of, all measures of reform, are carefully
kept in the back ground, though to them, and to them
only, are to be fairly attributed the success of the
few only, out of the many, beneficial measures pro-
posed and introduced by his Majesty's Ministers.—
Morning Advertiser.

We extract from the Journal de Frankfort two
able articles, the ostensible object of which is to vindi-
cate the conduct and designs of Russia in her last
negotiation with the Porte, but which are far more
successful, if regarded as an exposure of the apathy or
blindness which have for many years characterised th e
policy of England in all that relates to the affairs of
the East. It has been the object of every successive
Administration, from that of Mr. Canning to the pre-
sent time, in which the Whigs have hny share, to
hasten by every means in their power the annihilation
of Turkey as an independent State. This has been
their constant object from the date of the Greek
Treaty, if the objects of statesmen, like those of
other individuals, are to be inferred from the visible

tendency of their acts and the plain meaning of
their public declarations. The exploit of Sir
Edward Codrington and the speeches of Lord
Holland are in perfect harmony, so far as this

purpose is concerned, with the negligence and apathy
of Lord Palmerston. And, now that the attention of
the British public is attracted to the affairs of the East,
it can excite no surprise that, while writers in the in-
terest of Russia attempt to allay the alarm of this
country at the consequences of the past blunders of her
statesmen, they should do little more than show how
great and fatal these blunders have been. There is
much in the article of the Journal de Frankfort that
is calculated to awaken the people of England to a
just sense of the past folly or weakness of their
own Government. When the Russian army had
passed the Balkan, an& advanced to within ten
day's march of Constantinople, the Ambassadors
of England and France, we are told, announced
to Russia that if she proceeded farther the Turkish
empire was at an end. This was in truth all they
could do ; for up to this moment Russia had been
aided and encouraged by England and France in
an invasion, undertaken not only with the sanction of
those Powers, but in pursuance of an express compact
to which they were parties. But was this calculated
to uphold the dignity and influence of England and
France at Constantinople ? Could Turkey from that
moment have any confidence in the effective aid of
these Powers in any strait to which she might sub-
sequently be reduced ? Was not this message an
unambiguous confession—perhaps a reluctant, cer-
tainly, in the actual position of affairs, an unavoidable,
one, but was it not, at any rate, a plain and distinct
confession—that Russia was, even then, substantially
the master of Turkey ? It is evident, indeed, that in
recalling this humiliating passage to recollection the
Russian writer can have intended only to deride the
policy of England and France.. But Russia was
moderate. She did not destroy Turkey. She was
content with having extorted from England and
France the confession that she might do so when she

liked, and with imposing terms of peace which would
yield her pretext and occasion enough for com-
pleting at any future season all that she then, in her
exemplary moderation, thought fit to leave undone.
The paper again vindicates the conduct of Russia in
respect to the more recent treaty of Unkiar Iskelessi in
a manner which conveys a bitter sarcasm upon Eng-
lish policy. Turkey applied to the Government of