The Sun. — 1837-03-30 (London, England)

CARLOS. The Standard withdrew last night ; but the Post, acting on the shrewish principle of trying the effect of a last word, after a most pathetic appeal to the bygone reminiscences of an old ally, quitted the ground this morning. Our fashionable Contemporary has kept to the last within the nicest bounds of decorum, and even at parting only charges the Standard with the ladies-maidish offence of " hard heartedness !" Our readers may smile incredulously ; but to remove their doubts we quote the whole of the passage in which it occurs from the Post of to-day :  " We have no pleasure in pursuing a controversy which our valued friend, the Standard, gives such clear indications of .desiring to discontinue ; but the manner in which that journal took leave last night of the question compels us, most unwillingly, to say a few words more, in reply to its hard-hearted denunciations of Don Carlos. We need not tell the Standard that, from its previous station, the change in its opinions has been a matter of severe commentary in many parts of the metropolis, and a subject of surprise in all. The supporters of the Government and the advocates of revolution openly express their satisfaction ; while the friends of order, the Conservatives, who have hitherto looked upon our Contemporary with affection and respect, are alarmed at this unlooked-for tone, and anxiously demand why it is that the Standard has abandoned them ? These are indications of public opinion which no journal holding an elevated position can disregard. Our Contemperary may not perceive them, and, with an excusable self-love, deny that they exist ; but we will refer it to the columns of the Morning Chronicle, The Sun, and the Courier, for the proof of one part of that which we allege ; and to the quantity of desponding Conservative correspondence now before us for the accuracy of the rest. Is not the fact that three Journals, the daily opponents of the Standard, and advocates for every measure that it arraigns as fatal to the Constitution, are now overwhelming it with approbation, sufficient to induce our friend to re-consider the part that it has so unexpectedly taken ? We admit that on great questions an independent opinion must ever be expressed, and that principle is more powerful than party ; but why, may we inquire, has not this principle been advocated in the same warm manner before ?' It is not the principle that the Post objects to ; it is  the 'lard-hearted inconsistency of the Standard that 1 afflicts the compassionate bowels of our Contemporary. How harrowing to the feelings of so refined and sensi tive a mind must be the denunciation as a murderer of a Prince, who, without being a Sovereign de facto or de jure, merely kills every foreigner who falls into his hands. But as the majority of the people of England are not so tender of the character of princely rebels and murderers as the Post, we recommend our Con._  temporary to prepare himself for worse treatment of the Pretender—in words and deeds—than any he has yet experienced. Don CARLOS stands branded as a  murderer—as a cool systematic murderer—in the face of Europe. This is a damning fact which can ❑either he controverted nor questioned. His hands are red with blood—with the blood of Englishmen taken without a weapon in their hands wherewith to defend themselves. For the Post's allusion to ourselves, and to two of our Liberal Contemporaries, we care nothing. We are content with the approbation of the majority of our countrymen, who see in our exertions ample evidences of a desire to reform and consolidate our institutions—not a wish to destroy them.