The Sun.
London, England, 1827-09-06 00:00:00

and peremptorily asserted, that the superintend-
ing power of England has been, and still is, to
her Colonies, the source of happiness and prospe-
rity, far beyond that which the Colonies without
her assistance could possibly obtain. This pro-
position is daily repeated in a thousand different
forms. In Parliament it is on all occasions as-

sutned ; and any one who, iii that Assembly, should
be so presumptuous as to question it, would be
visited with unmeasured scorn and indignation.
If we were to ask in what shape the blessings,
whose existence is assumed, are usually conferred
upon the colony, we should have our trouble for
our reward ; all persons in, and most persons
out of Parliament, seem as ignorant of the state
of our Colonial Government, as of the admini-
stration of the Khan of Tortoni.. To reform

this ignorance, and to dissipate existing illusion,
we have endeavoured to lay before our readers a
correct statement of the present situation of the
Colonial Government, and of the consequences
resulting from that Government to the Colony.
Among these consequences are :-1. Improvi-
dent expenditure of the public money ; 2. Check
to the progress of education ; 3. Mal-admini-
stration of justice ; 4. Exciting disgusts and
quarrels among the people, and thereby retarding
all improvement. These evils we think we have
plainly traced to the existing connection with
this country; and we have now to ask what be-
nefits exist in consequence.of that connection, to
counterbalance this host of injuries ?"—When
a connection is what it ought to be, no one
thinks of asking what benefits exist in conse-
quence of it. They are felt by all.—Morning
Chronicle.

The British Constitution, if we may rely
upon the authority of Whig writers, is one of
the most changeable and uncertain things that
ever existed. Like the eamelion, it can assume
any colour, and, unlike every thing else in na-
ture, any form or shape. A Morning Paper of
yesterday, speaking of the late ministerial ar-
rangements, says that " it was proved that Lord
Goderich had recommended Mr. Herries to the
King, not his Majesty to Lord Goderich: the
constitutional objection was here overturned in
the outset." From these remarks we learn, that

it is not only unconstitutional for the King to ap-
point his own Ministers, unless they are recom-
mended to him by certain individuals, but that
it is also unconstitutional for his Majesty to re-
commend any gentleman or gentlemen to form
part of his Cabinet; so that the utmost autho-
rity that a King of England possesses in this re--
spect, is that of a mcv veto. Such is the na-
ture of the Constituti4 which we deduce, and
which we think fairly deduce, from this para-
graph. But what was the doctrine held by the
writer of this same paragraph a few weeks ago,
when the Administration had to be re•modelled,
in consequence of the illness of Lord Liverpool?
Was it not the very reverse of that which is now
laid down ? We were then told, that the King's
will ought to be unfettered as to his choice
of Ministers, and the seceding Members of the
Cabinet were loaded with all kinds of abuse for
not having acquiesced in the appointment of Mr.
Canning. It will surely not be argued, that
though the King has a right to originate the ap-
pointment of a Premier, yet he has no right even
to recommend-a Chancellor of the Exchequer !
We are aware, indeed, that it may be said, that
his Majesty having commanded my Lord Gode-
rich to form a Ministry, it 'vas unconstitutional
in him afterwards to interfere. But this reason-
ing amounts to the same thing as saying, that a
master having ordered- a confidential -servant to
execute a certain commission for' the said
master has no right to take any farther interest in
the business, much less to tender his advice as to
what manner the affair shall be carried into
effect. For our part, we do not pretend to know
whether his Majesty did actually recommend
Mr. Herries to Lord Goderich ; but, if he did,
we must say, that the conduct of the Whigs, in
raising such an outcry against the King's recom-
mendation, has been one of the most ungracious,
not to say impudent and overbearing acts, we
ever recollect to have read or heard of.—Morn-
ing Herald.
If it be true, as we understand it is, that Lord
Palmerston was the candidate for the office of
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had the sup-
port of the Whigs in the Cabinet, it throws a new
light on the purity and consistency of their prin-
ciples. It was objected to Mr. Herries, as one
of the Morning Papers which boasts to be the
organ of the Whigs admitted, that his intimacy
with Mr. Rothschild might be productive of
too close a connection between the secrets of the
budget and those of the Stock Exchange ; and
that at all events, the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, if incapable of so grossly abusing his pub-
lic trust, as to make it subservient to speculations
in the funds, ought to be, like Caesar's wife, not
only pure, but unsuspected. This is the way,
it will be recollected, that the paper in question
argued that objection with respect to Mr. Ber-
ries, of which the public have heard so much.
With what show of consistency then, we ask, is
it, that they could vote for the appointment of
Lord Palmerston to that office, who appears to
have had quite as close an intimacy with Mr.
John Wilks, of Joint-stock scheme celebrity, as
ever Mr. Herries had with Mr. Rothschild.
Do these Whig politicians imagine the public
have neither observation or memory ? Do
they suppose that public opinion is as flexible
as their own principles, and that political li-
bertinism to be called virtue in them, which
would be called corruption in their adversaries ?
Do they pretend that familiar association with
absurdity,
kuntxychhange ? If
a notorious projector of Joint-stock schemes is
the objection which they
more creditable or less dangerous in a Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer, than an intimacy with the
Mr. Brogden prevented
they do not assert such ow could
ean4 to vote for Lord Pal-
merstondid
to Mr.
to takef
? 'Was not
tthe
eanS
from holding the office of Chairman of the Com-
mittee of Ways and Means in the House of
Commons, on account of his connection with
the Directors of the Arig„, Mining Scheme ?
and is not the - Devon, and Cornwall Mining
Scheme in as bad odour with the public as ever
that project was ? In this we only adopt the
line of reasoning with regard to Lord Paliners-
ton, which the Whigs laid down with regard to
Mr. Herries, only that it applies to the former
with ten times more force. If Mr. Broaden
was rightly superseded in his office of Chairman
of the Committee of Ways and Means, because
of his ponppction with one ill-omened scheme,
would it not be preposterous to invest any per'
son with the far superior • office of Chancellor, of
the Exchequer, or, in other words, Master of
the Ways, anti Means, who had, and we
believe still has, as interested a connect
tion with another? We were of opinion
at the time that Mr.
Brogden was rightly
superseded—not on the ground that any knowing
participation in the fraud which some parties had
committed on the public had been brought home