The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-01 00:00:00

Court, has come out with an offer of two shillings in the
pound to his creditors. The hearing of his petition is
adjourned to the 6th of January.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
PROM THE EVENING PAPERS OT YESTERDAY.

GLOBE.—The old proverb that you cannot eat
Pour cake and have it too, seems reversed by Mr.
resident Tyler, in favour of American foreign
policy.
He appears resolved to " have" the credit of
cultivating peace and eschewing warlike conquest,
and to " eat" the fruits of avowed hostile provocation
to Mexico—a State which had offered none. It is
curious to trace the self-contradictions in this lengthy
manifesto of self-aggra ndisement. It is stated to
be unreasonable, because impracticable, on the part
of Mexico, to persist in her efforts to repossess
herself of Texas. This would appear an argument
for letting the Texians alone to deal with her; but no
—the exhaustion of both the combatants would in-
duce the interference of other Powers ; " which, with-
out the interposition of this Government, might even-
tuate in the most serious injury to the United States," '
Presently it appears that it is not the exhaustion of
both the combatants, but the excessive vigour of one
of them, that is the object of legitimate apprehension
—and this apprehension, strange to say, proceeds
solely from a tender interest for Mexico :
"Mexico requires a permanent boundary between
that young republic and herself. Texas, at no distant
day, if she continues separate and detached from tho
United States, will ineviti bly seek to consolidate her ,
strength, by adding to her domain the contiguous pro-
winces of Mexico. The spit.t of revolt from the control of
the Central Government ha a heretofore manifested itself
in some of those provinces, and it is fair to infer that
they would be inclined to take the first favourable op-
portunity to proclaim their independence, and to form
close alliances with Texas. The war would thus be
endless ; or, if cessation: of hostilities should occur,
they would only endure for a season. The interests of
Mexico, therefore, could in nothing be better consulted
than in a peace with her neighbours, which would result
in the establishment of a permanent boundary."

It is impossible that Mexico should not be sensible
of this tender care for her interest ; and that she
should not feel that the United States, whose Execu-
tive would annex Texas with so little ceremony, are
likely to form much safer and less encroaching neigh-
bours than Texas, single-handed ! Particularly,
when—throwing off the thin veil of concern for either
party—President Tyler comes to the real motive fur
this attempted crowning meastu e of his :
" American interest would seem to require it. Tha
extension of our coastwise and foreign trade, to an amount
almost incalculable—the enlargement of the market for
our manufactures—a constantly growing market for our
agricultural productions—safety to our frontiers, and ad-
ditional strength and stability to the Union ; these are
the results which would rapidly develop themselves
upon the consummation of the measure of annexation."
Presently, the moral fAce is put on the whole trans-
action :

"We seek no conquest made by war. No intrigue
will have been resorted to, or arts of diplomacy essayed
to accomplish the annexation of Texas.
_Free and inde-

pendent herself, she asks to 'he received into our Union.
It is a question for our own decision, whether she shall
be received or not."

No intrigue resorted to, nor arts of diplomacy es-
sayed ! This is really too good, in the face of the
testimony of successive observers of those arts and of

those intrigues. Read any traveller in those regions,
from Featherstonhaugh to M rs. Houston. The latter
writer gives a story on this head, so good that it
should be true, whether it is or no. "We were
privately informed by a person worthy of credit,
that a negotiation for the sale of Texas, and to
which he had been a party, had been on the point of
being concluded between America and Mexico. The
latter were to make over Texas, for a stipulated sum,
to the United States. The transaction, as he assured
us, was all but concluded, and the pipers required
only the signatures of the respective Presidents, when
the person charged, on the part of the Americans, with
the necessary documents, thought he might fint as

well do a little busine.s on his own account. In-
stead, therefore, of proceeding direct to Mexico,
he betook himself to Texas to purchase land ; be-
ing induced to do so by the knowledge of the value
to which land would rise, inunediately on the con-
clusion of the sale. This detour._ was the cause of con-
siderable delay, and in the interim events occurred
which rendered the projected compact impossible,
and altered entirely the aspect of affairs." President
Tyler's involved narrative gives it to be supposed
that more than one slip has occurred, between
cup and lip, in this matter of Texas. Mrs. Houstoun
reporta the talk of Texian politicians on the pro-
bable destiny of the country. " The future fate of
the country, and its probable annexation to some
other Power, was discussed ; but what Power was it
to be ? that was the question. France, they declared,
had bean most anxious to obtain possession of them,
but her propositions had not exactly suited them, and
the affair had ended. England,• they seemed to think,
would be the most eligible country o,► which to lean,
but it was doubtei, and that very generally, whether
that Power would have anything to say to them."
All -this is loose enough talk ; but talk which was
heard on the spot in question. The objects of the
American annexation party (besides Mr. Tyler's ten-
derness for Mexico and for peace) lie on the surface.
The Southern States see in Texas a superior soil and
climate to their own, superior advantages for the pro-
duction, and superior outlets for the disposal of their
own staple products. The present Anti-Commercial
Tariff of the United States could not stand a day in
the face of a liberal commercial tariff of the indepen-
dent republic of Texas. But it is not merely a tariff
question. All communities depending on slave-labour
—depend on perpetual migration to, or annexation of,
new and fertile fields for its working. It is becoming
unprofitable in the States. Texas offers an apparently
inexhaustible field for its further operations ; and the
parties who have already inoculated that new region
with the taint, pretend that the labour of blacks alone
is available—owing to the climate. There is probably
about as much truth in this as in other such

allegations ; but what is very certain is, that
the older States may, for some time longer,
reap profit as slave-breeders and slave-dealers,
which they are in great measure ceasing
to reap as slave-cultivators. To the slave-interest—
the interest of that great domestic institution which
—by force of combination, and acting en masse,
domineers over all others in the United States—it
cannot be indifferent whether this new territory is
peopled by independent producers—commercial
rivals, under better commercial auspices—and per-
haps even abolitionists of slavery—or by subjects of
the same tariff as themselves—sure customers for
their surplus slaves, and fresh recruits to their already
predominant cause in the Union.
STANDARD.—We had laid aside our first pur-
pose of alluding to the Bishop of Exeter's reply to
Mr. M. Phillipps, in the determination not to be par-
ties to the continuance of a painful and dangerous
controversy. We have been compelled, however,
to resume our original intention by information
that 'Doctor Pusey has been since invited and per-
mitted to preach at Clifton... _Clifton is not, indeed,
we believe, in the diocese of Exeter,. but in that of
Bristol. As the Bishop of Exeter's argument, how-
ever, justifying the permission to Dr. Pusey to preach
at Ilfracombe, probably led to the invitation to the

Rev. Professor to preach at Clifton. The duty of a
Bishop, as laid down by St. Paul, requires before all
things that they who are to teach be men of sound
doctrine. [See 1 Timothy, i. 3, &c. ; 1 Titus,
11, &c.] The Bishop must not only preach
sound doctrine himself —he is required to
" stop the mouths of those who teach what
they ought not." This is, we say it re-
spectfully, the most peremptory, and. incom-
parably the most e- jellified and useful of the episcopal
fanctions. • Now, Doctor Pusey has been convicted
by competent authority of preaching unsound doc-
trine ; and it necessarily follows that it is the duty of
every bishop to "stop his mouth" as a preacher ; not,
certainly, to invite him, or to connive at inviting him
to preach. The Bishop of Exeter, indeed, intimates
that Dr. Pusey's conviction is void, because in his
opinion, the Reverend Professor was not fairly heard ;
this, however, is a reason that will not stand
in law—still less in substantial equity. With a pro-
test that Dr. Pusey was fairly and statutahly tried,
that he had a fair hearing for his own defence, though
not for the defence of his heresy in a formal thesis,
and that he was statutably condemned—with this
protest, we say, that with the order of the trial at
Oxford the Bishop of Exeter had nothing to dti. It is a
rule of law, admitting of no exception, that the judg-
ment of a court of competent authority is, until reversed
by a higher court, universally conclusive. Until lately
there were, and perhaps still there are, some offences
which rendered a man incompetent as a witness.
But was it ever heard that a judge permitted the re-
- cord of conviction, produced to prove the party's in-
competency to he questioned, on the ground that he
had not been fairly tried ; or, in one of those cases
in which a second conviction leads to a heavier
punishment, was it ever heard that the record of the
first conviction was allowed to be impeached upon
such grounds ? No, the law presumes that whatever
is done by competent authority is done rightfully ;
and upon the principle of law, the Bishop of
Exeter was officially hound to consider Dr-Pusey as
a preacher of unsound doctrine. Bishops, however,
it will be said, are not bound by the strict legal prin-
ciple. We cheerfully admit that they have a
much wider discretion, but with the enlarge-
ment of their discretionary power unquestionably
extends their responsibility. ' We contend that
the Bishop of Exeter needed not the au-
thority of Dr. Pusey's conviction to own the
dtity and to exercise the power of "stopping
the mouth," in his Lordship's diocese, of the
author of Dr. Pusey's sermon. Ills Lordship, it
.appeara, paid some attention to the proceedings
against the sermon at Oxford. It cannot be doubted
that a man so truly zealous of justice, and so
pious, as the Bishop of Exeter, carefully read and
candidly considered the, composition which
*xi the subject of these proceedings. As little