The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-06 00:00:00

PUBLIC OPINION.

We quote the following from the Times:—" The '
confessions of those enlightened benefactors to their
own pockets, who subscribe 1001. now, that they may
hereafter realise 1,0001., at the expense, as it of
course must inevitably be, of the rest of the commu-
nity, and who coolly denominate themselves the while
an Anti-Monopolist League, continue to increase in
intensity and delicacy. A gentleman who seconded
a motion at the Great League Fund Meeting' at
Liverpool, mentioned, with all humility, and without
any desire to be considered egotistical, that he had
gladly given his 1001. for the next year to accomplish
the objects of the League. He had hopes that he was
promoting his own individual good to no small extent
by extending free trade principles. He was not ashamed
to avow his belief, that his 1001. subscription would
bring him back ahundred timeslool.,Y' the objects of the
League should happen to be attended with success.'
How beautiful. is the modesty with which this humble
seconder shrinks from the ostentatious mention of his
own charity ! He feels perfectly miserable at thus
being obliged to trumpet his own praises, and to pro-
claim to the world that he has subscribed 1001. for so
disinterested and magnanimous a purpose as that con-
templated and avowed by the League. But he
shortly reflects that there is, after all, no such great
necessity for being ashamed of his subscription ; his
money is no gift, but only a speculation ; it will bring
in no small profit to himself; so he takes courage."
The Chronicle says :—" Well—we suppose Lord
Ellenborough's friends will now at least not attempt
to deny that he ordered the evacuation of Affghanisan,
before he was aware of the release of the prisoners
For ourselves, we did not require what we now have
—his own assurance of the fact. We knew the man ;
we knew what he had done before ; we knew that it
was General Pollock's refusal to obey the order given
in March to retreat, that led to the advance upon
Caubul ; and, therefore, when we saw Lord Ellen-

borough's proclamation of the Ist of October, in which
not a word was said of the release of the prisoners,
we saw in it only a repetition of the same cowardly
command to leave the men, women, and children to
their fate. Our statement was of course met by vio-
lent and indignant denial. The thing was impossible ;
the very object of the campaign was to release the pri-
soners ; how absurd, then, to suppose that Lord Ellen-
borough would announce the campaign as closed, an d

order home the troops until he was aware that that object
was accomplished. However, we suppose Lord El-
lenborough will not be rejected as evidence on this
point. The proclamation, ordering the troops to
retire, is dated October 1. The first general order
announcing the release of part of the prisoners is
dated October seven—six days afterwards, and the
second general order announcing the restoration of
all the prisoners is dated sixteen days afterwards, that
is, on the 17th, in each case the Governor-General
communicating information which had just reached
him. Is the proof complete ? Is it necessary to
strengthen it by calling to mind that when Lord
Ellenborough issued his proclamation it was impossible
that he could have known that the prisoners were released?
Now, we appeal to men of all parties, and ask is the
Parliament of this country to be called upon to thank
a man who twice deliberately proposed to withdraw
the British army from Affghanistan while a number
of British subjects were held there in captivity ?"
We take the following remarks from the Herald:—

" The Charge of the Bishop of Llandaff delivered on
the occasion of the triennial visitation of his Lordship's
ctocese in October last, and just published, is full of
that firmness in matters of faith, and charity in non-
essential formalities, which so eminently distinguish
the Church of England. Had the intolerance of Rome
or the polemical furor of Dissent been characteristic
either of the hierarchy or the priesthood of our holy
Establishment, the unhappy controversy which has of
late years divided its members would, as is the case
in the Kirk of Scotland, certainly have disturbed the
peace, if not endangered the very existence of the
Church. It is because of the moderation, due appre-
ciation of their own position, and the profound sense
of their awful responsibility with which the learned
and pious Bishops who now sit in the high places of
the Church are imbued, and because of the respectful
obedience which the working clergy give, as by their
oaths bound, to their ordinaries, that in spite of the
most formidable division of opinion that has for two
centuries past penetrated into the Establishment the
Church herself is in no danger. There is in truth an
earnest desire generally existing amongst both clergy
and laity of the Establishment to extract all that can
benefit the Church from the now we hope fading con-
troversy.