The Sun. — 1840-05-12 (London, England)

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1840.  they are not what the Amerinns can Humaos, and  perhaps they are angels.  When the Tories say they act in obedience to some great rule of right or to satisfy their own conscience, what do they mean ? Is that rule anything but a crotchet of their own ? Are their consciences anything but a respect for the teaching of other men, and very often ignorant and interested men ? Take Lord ` STANLEY'S Registration Bill as the example. What does he propose by that, other than to carry out his own crotchet, that his own shortcoming and unjust Reform Act for Ireland should not be set aside ? Or, take Sir R. PEEL'S support of the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill : what does he propose to himself farther than the gratification of his ovtn purpose of carrying religious instruction, by the priests of the Church of England, as far as possible ? Lord STANLEY and Sir ROBERT PEEL both say these are righteous objects. They mean only that they are in conformity with the teaching of ►heir instructors at college, or their parents at home, or with their own personal experience. Why, then, their preference of what they call principle to popularity comes to this : they prefer their own experience, or the experience of their friends and teachers, to the wishes of the multitude ; they are in love with themselves, or their souls are still swayed by the tenets of their masters ; they despise living men, and worship some one or two dead men. This may be right—we say nothing against it—but we say it is absurd in the Tories to despise popukrity as a merit, and obey precedent and follow rule, for it turns out, when the analysis is completed, that both are alike a deference to the opinions of other men. The only difference is, that the popularity is a deference to living, the respect for principle probably political principle —a deference for dead men. Alan is still their idol, though for their purpose they pretend to despise a large portion of the human family.  We said on Wednesday- that the most horrible thing of all, in relation to the murder of Lord WILLIAM RUSSELL, would bz.. that the assassin should remain undetected. The examination at Bow-street yesterday has convinced us that there is something still more horrid,—to bring home the guilt to a domestic. It will be impossible, after such a circumstance, for master and servant, wherever suspicion is the inmate of a bosom, to live together without dread. 'Wealthy people are naturally timid, and prone to apprehension. They have much to lose, and many persons are anxious to got what they possess. One example of a domestic—that much-trusted class—imbruing his hands in their blood for the sake of property, will make every domestic an object of suspicion, and render the lives of the rich miserable. If they have not before learnt, they will now learn, that wealth may be a source of great anxiety.  If there be any who doubt this, it iertet be these who hold that the more solemn the sanctions by which a contract is ratified the less binding is it on the contracting parties. How far this duty has hitherto been funled, or how far it has been neglected, it is not our present purpose to inquire. A more fitting opportunity will occur for adjusting that question when we come to review serirrtinz the different proceedings which have marked the progress of this extraordinary case. As to the course which it is incumbent on her Majesty's Mi. nisters to pursue in this affair, what can be more clearly defined ? Why is Lady