The Sun.
London, England, 1821-05-14 00:00:00

them, that it has done much to unmask political
hypocriSy, and to reduce to its true level political
charlatanerie : we think that with some most
blameable severities and even unfeelingnesses
toward individual females, it has done much to
rescue the female morals of the country from one
great contamination ; and with some unfortunate
violations of Parliamentary Privilege, it has con-
tributed in no trifling degree to defend the cause
of the Parliament and the Constitution in a crisis
of imminent danger. By what hands this has
been principally effected will probably remain for
ever a secret;and perhaps the principal contributors
to the work are even unknown to each other.—
The secret of Junius has been preserved above
half a century ; but that of John Bull is of a dif-
ferent nature. The paper was made by the crisis.
Weapons of the deadliest kind had been hurled
at all that we hold dear. Private and public ca-
lumny had been alike directed against the Legis.
lature and the Sovereign, against the liberties,
the morals, and the religion of the country.
Numerous individuals no doubt were eager
to ward off, some one blow, and some ano-
ther. All that was wanting for them was a ral-
lying point ; this, the persons who have been
brought to the bar of the House of Commons, or
even men inferior to them in ability, might
easily have supplied ; and in so doing they were
almost certain of obtaining a rapid sale for their
publication, and consequently, of securing to
themselves a handsome profit. This affords to
our mind a sufficient solution of the mystery with
which John Bull was enveloped, and with which
it was the obvious interest of the proprietors to
envelope it. The occasional contributors were
probably numerous : the Editors may neither
have known nor have sought to know who sup-
plied their lion's mouth—sure that, at such a
period, and in such a country, it could not want
materials for its weekly repast. It is possible
indeed that there may have been something more
in the business than we have here surmised ; but
to imagine that any member of the Government,
or other eminent person in the State, would ven-
ture to undertake the direction of such a ma-
chine, is to know very little of the human mind,
and nothing at all of that strong feeling of re-
sponsibility, which, in the present state of
society, is so universally prevalent among public
men.—(Aid.)
[ALORNING CHRONICLE.]
We certainly are far from approving of the
assumption of uncontrolled power by the House
of Commons, in the punishment of Breaches of
Privileges, and have always thought that that
power ought to be limited to the removal of ac-
tual obstructions to their debates, We, there-
fore, wish that the infamous attack on Mr. Ben-
net, which has lately occupied so much of the
attention of the House, had been proceeded
against in a different manner. It was well ob-
served by Sir Francis Burdett, that the only per-
son in the case who could be said to have been
guilty of a breach of privilege, of really inter-
fering with the freedom of debate, was the per-
son who called upon the Hon. Member (Mr„
Bennet) to account for what he was supposed to
have said in Parliament.—One thing cannot
fail to strike all reflecting persons in the
speeches of Ministers, and in the comments
on the case in the Ministerial Papers, namely,
the attempt to white-wash John Bull, at the
expellee of the Press in general. Lord Lon-
donderry seemed to see no difference, in a moral
point of view, between a misrepresentation inad-
vertently committed in the report of a speech,
and the studied malignity of the attack on Mr.
Bennet. The present offence could by no
means, he said, be considered as more flagrant
than the one (an acknowledged unintentional
misrepresentation) to which he alluded."—
God help him ! "He should certainly," ob-
served also his Lordship, " have been happy,
if at a time when torrents of libels were
poured forth against individuals as valuable as'the
Honourable Member who was the object of
the present, a manly and British spirit of in-
dignation had manifested itself on the other
side of the House against those infamous at-
tacks, and in support of our most sacred insti-
tutions." In the very same spirit The Courier
of Saturday observes, " A year or two ago (not
to refer to a more recent period), when a gang
of ruffians were evidently co-operating to traduce
and vilify every thing that is venerable and ex-
cellent in the State ; when the Throne, the
Altar, and the Bench were defiled by one com-
mon and indiscriminate eruption of foul and ma-
lignant falsehoods—and when private calumnies
were heaped upon all who were the friends of
Government in the most atrocious manner—what
then did the Opposition say and uo ? Did they
lend their influence to stem the polluted torrent ?
Did they raise their voice to arraign the crimi-
nals ? Did they interpose their shield to protect
an adversary, or defend the Throne ? No. Their
influence was exerted indeed, but it was to em-
barrass the Executive who sought to abate the
nuisance ; their voice was heard, and loudly
heard ; but it was to transfer the blame from the
criminal to the victim ; the shield was displayed,
but it was to save the guilty." Now we are
far from wishing to defend the licentiousness of
the Press, or from approving of some of the pub-
lications, which periodically or occasionally have
appeared both in this metropolis and else-
where. But among the most objectionable of the
publications which ever issued from the Press of
this Country for many years, we have seen no-
thing which could at all come into comparison
with John Bull. General abuse directed against
the public conduct of men filling public situa-
tions, intemperate declamation against real or
supposed corruption, loud and unqualified con-
demnation of the abuses in the representation of
the country, we have often seen. But is there
any analogy between such an exercise of the
Liberty of the Press, as we have been describ-
ing, and the system on which John Bull has uni-
formly been conducted ?—ls there no difference
between intemperate argument, misplaced decla-
mation, or vague abuse, and the private slander,
which day after day has been served up with so
unsparing a hand to the readers of the Journal
in question ? The old and the young, the dead
and the living, have all been by turns the sub-
jects of this calumny; and most ungenerous and