The Sun.
London, England, 1832-07-05 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The case of Somerville can hardly fail to at-
tract much attention, and to give rise to discus-
sions-of a delicate nature. The statement often
made and repeated on Tuesday night by Mr.
Hume, has never yet been contradicted. The
man was punished nominally for a military of-
fence, but in reality for having sent a letter to a
newspaper. That the regiment might be in no
doubt on the subject, Major Wyndham, when
the punishment was about to be inflicted.
harangued the regiment, not on account of the
heinousness of a recruit refusing, after having in
vain already made the attempt, to ride an un-
trained horse, but on the impropriety of a sol-
dier's expressing political opinions, and giving
encouragement to the mob. Major Wyndham
knew that punishment for the alleged military
offence would have appeared to the regiment in-
tolerable tyranny, and therefore would have
excited great discontent in the regiment, and
it was, therefore, of importance, that there
should be no mistake about the matter.
Besides, lie wished, through the punish
ment of Somerville, to deter other sol-
dier.; from following his example. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that
though every soldier had a right, in common
with every other Englishman, to express his
opinion upon questions of politics, yet that
there must be a line drawn beyond which that
right should not be exercised. But where is the
line to be drawn ? Soldiers are told by judges,
in solemn charges, that they do not cease to be
citizens, and are bound to discharge the duties
of citizens. They ate, of course, bound to obey
their officers in all that regards military duty.
But it strikes us that it is both unjust and im-
politic in officers to interfere directly with the
acts of the soldier which involve no violation of
military duty. It is impossible to prevent sol
tilers from knowing what is passing around
them, and equally impossible to prevent their
having their opinions on public affiirs. The
officer of the Greys who attempted to make it a
crime in Somerville to give utterance to his sen-
timents at a particular crisis, acted, in our opi-
nion, very unwisely. The better way would
have been to have winked at the matter. How-
ever, the question has now been mooted, and
further inquiry must take place.—Morning
Chronicle.

According to the advocates of the Bishop of
Exeter, Bishops and other non-militant per-
sons ought to be allowed to take any liberties
they please with truth, without exposing them-
selves to censure. For instance, the Standard
of last night complains of Lord Grey's " break
ing out into such terms of violent insult against the
Bishop, as of course withdrew the attention of
all hearers from every other consideration but the
Premier's violation of the usual cour-
tesy allowed to Bishops and other non-
militant persons." If Bishops take part in
dr-bates, they must he guided by the rules
which the laity prescribe to themselves with re-
gard to assertions. Were a Bishop to be pri-
vileged to state what he pleased, without ex-
posing himself to the risk of having his conduc•
suitably characterized, the temptation to gain a
temporary advantage might too often prove an
over-match for his principle. Either we must
pay no attention to any statement whatever made
by a Bishop, or he must expose himself to the
same loss of reputation which a layman is subject
to by a departure from the truth. BUt let us
hear what is urged in behalf of the Right Rev.
Father in God :
" In the case of the Duke of Buckingham's letter (says
the Standard), the Right Rev. Prela-e merely put
question upon a public rumour (treating it as such) re-
specting the Duke of Buckingham's letter. Even taking
the case as broad!y as it was falsely put by the Lord Chan-
cellor—even supposing that the Bishop of Exeter had.
upon the authority of the Times and its Correspondent.
assumed that the ay.-rwents of Radical' were correct.
and conveyed the substance of the Duke of Buckingham's
letter, was it any imputation upon his Lordship's discre
lion, veracity. or caadour, that he put the question he did
put ? The Times and his Correspondent had long claime,
an intimate familiarity with the secrets of the Treasury ;
the assumption imputed to the Bishop concerned a publi
cation in a public journal—a matter as pu;ilic as the statue
at Charing cross—and, therefore, one in respect to which
falsehood could not be successfully practised for a mo-
ment ; and his Lordship's qrestion was addressed to those
most able and most interested to deny the crime alleged
again-t them, indirectly by the Times and by Radical'—
directly by public rumour. But, if there was nothing in
this quarter's-old transaction to impeach the discretion,
veracity, and candour of the Bishop of Exeter, why was it
pressed into the Debate last night, if not to divert atten-
tion from the dishonest intrigue in the General A-sembly.
and to give Lord Grey an opportunity of vapouring ab. u
the ewitempt and disgust which his Lordship feels, and
even dares to avow, when they are directed against u
Ilighop?"
Now, how stands the fact? Lord Durham,
as our readers may remember, having, on Sa-
turday the 13th of April, indignantly repelled
the charge insinuated against him by the Bishop
on Wednesday the 11th, the Right Reverend
Prelate, thus challenged, rose, and deliberately
stated—

"About five or six weeks ago.—(Order, order, spoke.
and symptoms of general impatience.)—A charge has been.
made against me, and if not irregular, I wish to advert to
it,—(Cheers.) There was a statement in the Times
newspaper regarding a correspondence with a Nobl.
Duke (Buckingham) whom I see opposite. I hope he
will forgive my speaking of it in this way in his presence;
and it is my earnest hope th4t he will contradict me if I
stare what is untrue, and correct me if 1 state what is
im-
,rroper. About the 2:3d of January, or some such period,
there was a direct allusion in the Times to a supposed
correspondence between that Noble Duke and his M-jesty,
as well as between a Noble Duke and his Majesty's 5..-
crerary. The nature of the correspondence appeared to
he stated with such particularity, that if it were at all
true, it seemed to me that the information mu-t have gon,
to the Newspaper from some person who had had access to
the correspondence.—(Cheers.) It seemed to me also more
probable that it should have found its way to the public
from some Member of his Majesty's Government, than
from the Noble Doke.—(Continued Laughter and cheers
from the Ministerial side, and great confusion and di,
turhance on all ,ides.)" _ _

The Duke of Buckingham, thus appealed to,
said :—" Certainly part of my letter—part of
that letter which I placed in the hands of tin-
King's Minister, was inserted verbatim in the
Times newspaper."—(Repeated cheers from the
Opposition benches.) In the Times news-
paper, a correspondent, " Radical," had alluded
to the fact of a letter having been written by the
Duke of Buckingham to the King ; but so far
from any part of " Radical's" letter being a
verbatim copy of the Duke of Buckingham's
letter—on a comparison of the letter of " Radi-
cal" with the letter of the Duke of Buckingham,
it was found that there was not a single passage
in the former which bore the slightest resem
blance to anything in the latter. The Rigln
Bev. Prelate on Tuesday night affirmed, " that
he had never made any confident assertion on
the subject. He had merely said that he had
heard that such a circumstance had occurred,
and had asked the Noble Duke (Buckingham)
if he would permit him to inquire if it was true,
and the Noble Duke had answered that it wa-
true." Now, our readers will see that on the
13th April the Bishop positively averred that
the nature of the correspondence between the
King and the Duke appeared to be stated with
karticularity. Hey did, indeed, put a luestiou

to the Duke of Buckingham, but the object o;
That question was, that the Duke- would contra-
dict him if "he stated what was untrue." He
stated what was untrue ;" but the unfortunate
Duke, deceived by the confident language of the
Bishop, improved upon him, and affirmed what
was still more untrue, that part of his letter was
inserted verbatim in the Times. This, we trust,
will be a lesson to the Duke of Buckingham as
long as he lives, never to state as certain that of
which he knows nothing himself, in reliance on
the good faith of a Bishop. If the Bishop had
not stated in so positive a manner that the letter
from his Grace to the King had been stated
qith particularity in the Times, but had asked
his Grace whether any part of his letter had
ever appeared in that paper, he would probably
have spoken more cautiously ; hut he was seduced
by the confident manner of the Right Rev. Prelate.
N ow,when were these averments made? On the very
I,st day of the debate on the second reading of the
Reform Bill. It was impossible to contradict
the Right Reverend Prelate and the Noble
Duke at the time. The object cannot be mis-
taken. The chances were ten to one against
the discovery. The confident manner might
have induced a belief that it was founded in
truth. The date was distant about three months
back, and the mass of matter in a daily paper
is such, that the recollection of what has ap-
peared in distant Numbers must be at least vague.
Fortunately the file was searched, and the Bi-
shop was found out. We see no reason for
sparing the author of so discreditable a trick be-
cause he is a Bishop. The elevation of the in-
dividual, on the contrary, affords the strongest
reason for speaking of the trick with the utmost
severity of reprehension. In truth, as from the
sacred character of a Bishop men are naturally
led to repose more than usual confidence in his
statements, they are justified in resenting the
more keenly any advantage taken of their confi-
dence. It is due to public morals to visit this
departure from truth in such a way as to impress
men with a due sense of the danger of taking
liberties with the truth, to serve a present pur-
pose.—Morning Chronicle.

The case of the soldier Somerville is one
which, beyond all question, calls for grave in-
quiry ; nor does it appear that Ministers can
have any imaginable motive for leaving in its
present state of obscurity a subject which has
produced far greater irritation throughout the
kingdom than would, under circumstances by
no means improbable, be consistent with the
public peace. The charge brought by Mr.
Hume against the military authorities, is, that
Somerville was sentenced by a court-martial
to the severe punishment of 200 lashes, nomi-
nally for refusing to mount a vicious horse,
which he, a young soldier, was unable to man-
age ; but really for having addressed a letter to
a newspaper on a political question whereon
much excitement prevailed, and which was con-
-toned by the commanding officer of the regi-
ment into an " atrocious libel." Mr. Hume
described the case incorrectly, when he said it
gave rise to the question, whether an
" Englishman, on becoming a soldier,
forfeited the rights and privileges of a
citizen." With all deference to the Member for
Middlesex, no such question can be raised out
of such a transaction as he has himself repre-
ented. Had Somerville been openly tried
.And punished for writing the letter alluded to,
respecting the political disposition of the regi-
Tient of which he was a member, then, doubt-
less, every Englishman would have begun to ask
himself, whether the act of enlistment in the
British army reduced a free citizen to the con.
lition of a slave. But no such charge as that of
libellous or seditious language was brought
igainst Somerville. No punishment was in-
dieted on him for any such alleged offence. The
question, therefore, stated by Mr. Hume has no
concern with the proceedings of the court-martial,
on the face of which, if the Secretary at War
speak truth, there is not the smallest colour for
disputing or defending the constitutional rights of
Englishmen to freedom of opinion. But there
ire facts on record which give rise to other
questions. First, the ostensible crime was a
repugnance on the part of a half-taught soldier
to mount what he conceived to be a dangerous
horse,—an offence for which the cruel punish-
ment of 200 lashes was awarded. Now, with a
,trong and conscientious desire to maintain that
discipline without which every army must be-
come an intolerable nuisance, we really are bound
to declare ourselves astonished at the obvious
lisproportion, in the present instance, between
the crime and penalty. If the only thing of-
fensive in Somerville's demeanour was merely
,vhat related to the unruly horse, then the ap-
propriate question is, ought such barbarous pu-
iiislunents to be sanctioned by Parliament for
.iuch trifling proofs of misconduct ? But
there is something which throws suspicion
upon this case, and substitutes another in-
quiry for that which had just been men-
tioned. It is alleged that acts, more insubor-
dinate and inconsistent with military disci-
pline than Somerville's, were committed,—one
in particular by Andrew Scott, who refused to
go to the riding-school at all, and yet was let
off with a few hours' confinement in the guard-
room ! This, then, savoured, not of general
severity, but of direct harshness towards one in-
dividual soldier, as compared with his comrades.
The cause of such a sentiment is explained by
Mr. Hume (of the truth of whose account we,
of course, know nothing); for he asserts that
Major Wyndham, both in conversation with
Somerville, and at the place of punishment,
descanted upon the crime for which this unfor-
tunate soldier (perhaps an ill-behaved one,
though of that there is nothing said) suffered.
And what was that crime ? Was it a refu-
sal to mount on horseback ? No; it was the
having written, and acknowledged himself
to have been the author of; ' the atrocious
libel" before refeired to ! This fact, then,
tends to confirm the suspicion created by the
former one—viz, that there was something not
only harsh, but foul, in the treatment which So-
merville underwent. The second question, there-
fore, is, not " whether soldiers have ceased to be
citizens ?" but whether the grossest fraud shall
he perpetrated in this country under the same of
inikary justice ? Great difficulties beset the
the case. Sir J. C. Hobhouse represents the
Court to have been a General Court-martial, all
the members of which must have been sworn to
judge according to the evidence on the particu-
lar charge submitted to them. The General
Court-martial, probably, consisted of from
eleven to thirteen members, far the larger
portion of whom were taken from other re-
giments, than that to which Somerville
belonged, were not cognisant of his political
propensities, and therefore not imbued with that
specific prejudice which Major Wyndham, on
Mr. Hume's authority, stands reproached with
.-ntertaining. Sir John Hobhouse declares that
not a syllable respecting political or libellous
offences of any kind appears on the proceed-

ings. It does then, undoubtedly, seem MOE'
in-credible that a dozen military gentlemen 6;
rank and experience, upon their oaths, should
have apportioned the corporal punishment of s
fellow-subject to hearsay crimes, which they were
not assembled to investigate,—instead of that
particular offence which formed the proper busi-
ness of their meeting,—and the subject matter of
the only evidence, which without a flagrant disre-
gard of their honour and their oaths, they could re-
ceive. If, then, the officers composing the General
Court-martial be acquitted, as no doubt the%
must be, of injustice so disgraceful,—what shall
he said as to the severity of the sentence for a
trivial transgression ? The answer is, we do not
know; but even that striking disproportion is a
circumstance which requires to be cleared up.
Again, assuming that no part was left for Major
Wyndham but to execute the sentence of the
Court-martial, or so much of it as he migh.
approve of, the only question that can be raised
respecting him is, as to the difference between
the amount of punishment which Somerville
would have received at his hands, had he not
written political letters, and that which Major
Wyndham did actually think proper to inflict
upon him. No solution of such an inquiry at
all equivalent to proof or certainty, can, it is
obvious, be looked for. But still enough may
be established against Major Wyndhatn to lay
the foundation of some protective laws or rules,
on behalf of those of our countrymen who bear
arms in the humbler ranks of the military ser-
vice, so that they shall not feel themselves to he
utter outcasts from the free society which is de-
fended by them, or be driven in desperation to
hug an inexorable bondage. We prejudge no
man, but let Mr. Hume proceed. Sir Robert
Peel's language upon that subject smelt of the
same old shop as did the panegyric of the Duke of
Wellington in the other House upon the oppressor
of Poland; his Grace appearing to feel more horror
at a few hard words which burst from the lips of
humane and high spirited Members of Parlia-
ment, when speaking of that despot, than at all
the treachery, brutality, pillage, misery, massacre,
and multiform outrage, perpetrated in his name,
upon the illustrious and unhappy Poles. We
rejoice that Nicholas has been so honestly
spoken of by the English Parliament, press, and
people. We rejoice that both he and his Field
Marshal, the Duke of Wellington, have begun
to hear truth, after both being too long spoiled
by adulation. Russia will concede nothing but
to fear. Let her learn the feelings of England
through her bitter and contemptuous reproaches.
It is, in spite of Lord Grey's deprecation, the
most auspicious prelude to Lord Durham's ems
bassy.— Times.
Some strange assertions were made in the
House of Lords on Tuesday night. The Mar-
quess of Londonderry, who, to do him justice,
is never restrained by prudential considerations
of any kind from asking questions or volunteer-
ing opinions, led the way at this work. The
common phrase of provoking a discussion has a
singular felicity, es applied to his Lordship's
Parliamentary eloquence ; and the subject he
chose in this instance, namely, the mission of
Lord Durham to St. Petersburgh, afforded him
a diplomatic theme, on which, no doubt, he feels
himself at all times peculiarly entitled to speak.
The validity of his Lordship's title to speak upon
such subjects is founded on the fact of his
being himself a diplomatist, which is founded
again on the fact of his having been employed
and paid as such by his late brother, who did
many things while in office for which the people
of this country ought to be equally grateful to his
memory. But the Noble Marquess is not merely
a theoretical, he is a practical diplomatist, which,
as every body knows, is the more important
character of the two, for the theorist only un-
derstands the science, while the practitioner
pockets the salary. On the solid ground of
salary, therefore, the Ex-Ambassador felt him-
self authorized to enter the lists, and he did
it in his usual headlong style, as if he were
plunging down a precipice. His Lordship's
first effort was to develope the purport of
Lcrd Durham's mission. This he assumed
to be the softening down of the expressions
applied in the House of Commons, the other
night, to the Emperor of Russia's conduct. It
was for his Lordship, as a diplomatist, to ex-
plain how a mission could nave acted in such a
case. It could not be denied that the expres-
sions had been used, for they were repeated and
gloried in by those who had used them ; and as
to sending a person so high in office as Lord
Durham, merely to tell the Autocrat that the
expressions were disavowed by Ministers, would
have been a proceeding, the necessity of which
could not be easily apparent to those who had
never drawn salaries as foreign envoys. But it
was in the obstinacy of the King of Holland
that the Noble Marquess found a congenial
spirit to call forth his wannest panegyric. There
might be some inconsistency In invoking peace
and soliciting war in the same breath ; but there
would have been much more inconsistency in
condemning the obstinacy of the King of Hol-
land out of the mouth of the Marquess of Lon-
donderry. We were surprised, however, to find
the Duke of Wellington enter into a sort of
competition with the Noble Marquess in extra-
vagant and mischievous declarations. Scarcely
had the Marquess of Londonderry asserted that
the King of Holland was one of the bravest and
best of men for keeping Europe in a state of su-
spense and agitation ,than the Duke of Wellington
thought proper to eulogise the Emperor of
Russia as the most rigid observer of treaties in
all Christendom. 'file Duke of Wellington is
really most unfortunate in his proceedings of
late. It was scarcely possible for him to have
chosen a subject more truly unpopular at the pre-
sent moment than the praise of the Emperor
Nicholas, even if it were only general praise ;
but to praise him upon the very ground of his
observance of the faith of treaties was carrying
the joke to a length which no one could have
anticipated who entertained the smallest respect
for his Grace's capacity. The King of Holland
and the Emperor of Russia stand in high favour
with the Anti-Reformers ; but the people of
this country look with disgust at the obstinacy
of the one and the falsehood and cruelty of the
other. To what a pitch of self-importance
must the flatterers of the Duke of Weilington
have raised him in his own opinion, when he
could think of opposing his single assertion to
the authority of facts, and the general condemna-
ion of mankind ! The Emperor of Russia is
by this time well known, and he has been too
well described in another place to be taken for
any thing but what he is. Upon the whole, the
assertions of the two Noble Peers were too ex-
travagant to do
thane
ogbireeacttsmoifscthhieeifr,
peaitnheegryiriiic,t tioe
way r
of•adovafnsceir„vgintgheir own claims on public estima-
tion.—Morning Herald.
As soon as the Court of Cessation, to its
immortal honour, declared that the etat de siege
was illegal, the Government announced that
there was, on their part, a previous tleterrnina-

tion of putting an end to it—but not till then.
This is part and parcel of the trickery of the
Casimir Perier system which survives its author,
but which, as long as it is persevered in, will
aroduce nothing but dishonour and calamity to
France. If the Government of Louis-Philippe
intended to raise the state of siege as an exercise
of power, either unconstitutional or unnecessary,
why defer making that amende to the insulted
feelings and violated rights of the nation until
the decision of the Court of Ca,sation made it
impossible for them to continue the despotic
system ally longer, without hazarding an angry
and despotic collision, not with a Republican
or a Carlist mob, but with the power of the na-
tion to which the " Citizen King" owes his
throne ? Had the raising of the state
of siege preceded the decision of the Court
of Cassation, it would have had the effect
of an atonement for a great offence agains
public liberty, and if it did not quite appease
the irritated feelings of the friends of con-
stitutional freedom, would have mitigated their
resentment—while the concession would not
have compromised the dignity of the throne, for
it would have appeared a matter of Royal grace
and repentance, rather than act of redress ex-
torted by compulsion. The report of Montalivet
endeavours to persuade the people of France that
the Government had no intention of continuing
the state of siege longer than it was assured of
the restoration of tranquillity in Paris, and the
stability of the Throne, and the institutions of
July. As to the first point, the tranquillity of
the city of Paris, we were assured of that by the
Government papers the day after the suppression
of the tumult. They told us, the metropolis of
France was never more tranquil, nor the people
never more loyal. Why, then, should there
have been a proclamation of martial law at
all ? We firmly believe it was for no
other purpose than to try an experiment as
to how far the mass of the French people
were prepared to submit to the yoke of absolute
power, which, if it could be established in
France by the Citizen King, would probable
cause the tyrant of Russia to look less narrowly
to his title, though still we do not think that
his succeeding in making himself a despot would
cause the northern Autocrat to overlook the re-
volutionary origin of his power, and to admit
into the family of legitimate Sovereigns the re-
negade King of the barricades. The speech of
Odilion Barrot will raise his name in the estima-
tion of all men who prefer the sacred claims of
country to objects of selfish ambition. Well
did he remind the Court that the declaration of
Paris being under martial law, was one of the
Crimes with which the Ministry of Charles X.
was charged. Since that celebrated trial before
the Court of Peers oaths had been taken to go-
vern by the laws alone. How happened it then
that, in contempt to those laws, which guaran-
teed to all the citizens their natural judges, they
were deprived of the safeguard of a jury, and all
the other protecting forms for which France had
struggled for forty years, and obtained in 1830 ?
It would be too bad if Louis-Philippe could
succeed in the attempt which subverted the
throne of his predecessor.—Morning Herald.
The statement made by Mr. Keith Douglas
on Monday evening, setting forth the immense
importance of the West India colonies to this
country, and the folly of expecting similar be-
nefits to result from free labour, are deserving
of the deepest consideration, and we trust will
succeed in impressing on the Government and
on the country the true merits of this much liti-
gated question. The opinion of Government,
on which all their measures are formed, and on
which all their legislation proceeds, is, and we
call the particular attention of the colonies to
what we are about to state, as being, whatever
they may hear to the contrary, the real origin
and cause of the danger with .which they are
menaced, that the value of West India agricul-
tural properties would be prodigiously increased
by the emancipation of all the slaves in the colo-
nies, and by renting the land to them afterwards
or by employing them on it as free labourers.
The belief and conviction of the British Go-
vernment is, that these emancipated slaves would
readily engage in agricultural labour necessary to
raise those tropical productions which can
be only brought to the European markets at
proper and profitable returns. They fur-
thermore believe, that these slaves, when
emancipated, would perform much more labour
than they now perform. and at a less expense
to their employers, and in consequence
_of which
the returns from West India estates would be
more than doubled ; and they, therefore,
believe and contend that although the value
of the slave, which value is at present
considered to be the principal part of the
master's property, will be lost to that master by
his emancipation, still the master would become
a richer man than he was before, because the
value of his land would be proportionally in-
creased, perhaps more than trebled, on account
of the vast and increased returns which free la-
bourers would produce upon it. Such, we as-
sert, are the views and the opinions of the pre-
sent Government regarding _this important sub-
ject, and in a particular manner such are the
views and opinions of the directing and the
working machinery of the Colonial-office on this
important and difficult question. But every one
at all acquainted with the colonies, and with the
nature and habits of the uncivilized African, and
indeed with the nature and habits of the natives
of the Torrid Zone in general, knows how foolish,
absurd, and impracticable such opinions, such
views, and such projects as those which Go-
vernment entertain are, and also that the measurs
grounded upon them, which they mean to carry
into effect, will produce the total destruction of
all agricultural capital and produce in the colo-
nies, and consequently the total loss of these pos-
sions as nurseries of trade to the Parent State ;
but however absurd, and certain it is that such
will be the result of the measures which Govern-
ment seek to follow out, sill such is the true
state of affairs ; still such is the point at issue.
The question therefore, to decide, is, not that
Government are wrong, as they are wrong, but
what method and what measures can be resorted
to to get them undeceived and properly informed
on this subject, in order that they may relinquish
their projects, and by which means alone the
colonies, and all the British property that is
vested in them, may be saved from ruin, and
preserved for the benefit and to the profit of the
Parent State. We call upon the colonies, there-
fore, to look firmly at the dangers which assail
them. We call upon them to resist them by
union, and by every constitutional means in their
power. The sooner they take the
better, the sooner the struggle will
be
groundove over,
thefo r
there is yet honesty and
justice
country to secure the protection
and the rights of British subjects in every part
of our dominions, against any system of despo-
tism and injustice, which even in these times,
ominous and perilous as they are, may attempt
sufficient
of t the properties
in this
LO rear its head in this country, providing thew.