The Sun. — London, England, 1835-01-31 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The first adventure of the ex-Ministers is to be an attempt upon the Speaker's chair. A correspondence will be found in this day's paper between Lord John Russell and Mr. Abercromby, the former of whom presses upon the right hon. gentleman the urgent en treaties which he has received " from many quarters, and in the strongest terms, to place before him the ear nest wishes and general concurrence of those with whom he (Mr. Abercromby) had been connected in public life, that he should allow himself to 'be put in nomination for the chair." Lord John adds as an ir resistible argument in furtherance of this object, that the suitors to, or backers of, Mr. Abercromby, view the present election of a Speaker as a question not ' solely of individual preference, but of public prsuciple. Mr. Abercromby, deaf, as it appears , he had been, to all previous applications on the same subject, however earnestly couched, suffers himself to be prevailed upon by the new motives suggested to him, of " vindicat- , ing a public principle," and becomes a candidate for the succession to Sir C. M. Sutton. It might sound harsh to the ears of Whiggisin were we to call this proposition, so acceded to by Mr. Abercromby, a " factious " proceeding of the Whigs. Former Whig parties, perhaps all Opposition parties, who felt them selves strong enough for such an encounter, have shown a desire to measure their strength with the Go vernment, and to force a Speaker of their own selec tion. With the mere act of opposing the Ministerial candidate, there may be no cause for any but a strict adherent of the Ministry, or a personal friend of Sir M. Sutton to quarrel ; but with the alleged grounds of the transaction, much. Among those grounds we do not reckon that which Lord John has professed to bring forward, because in truth his Lordship has not enabled us to comprehend it. His Lordship calls the question of Speaker one of " pub lic principle," without attempting to offer us the shadow of an _explanation as to what " public " principle" it involves. Mr. Abercromby, however, seems more versed than We are in the hieroglyphics or Freetnao s nry of his late noble colleague's communica tioh, for the right hon. gentleman at the first glance declares his perfect satisfaction at the phrase, though presented to him in all its mysterious abstraction ; and being aware, no doubt s that " a" public principle means some principle the vindication of which will indemnify him for the surrender of his own love of ease and inde pendence, he consents to the sacrifice, and becomes the rallying point for politicians of as many colours as there are candles in the house. Far be it from us, who have more than once borne willing respectful testimony to the talents and political character of Mr. Aber cromby, to make our disapproval of the measure to which he has now lent himself an inducement for need lessly disparaging or condemning his motives. It is, however, impossible to refrain from stating that the only clear construction which can be put upon the word " principle," as employed by Lord John Russell and accepted by him, is, that they mean by it a " party " principle, like any other war cry, to battle. But there is something worse than common party bitterness in this manoeuvre, when we consider against what indivi dual it happens to be directed. Why was Sir Charles Manners Sutton proposed Speaker of the House of Commons by Lord Grey's Government ? The curs of the clique are now snarling at the late Speaker, for his " sonorous sentences "—for the absence of epi grammatic point in his observations—nay, for his want of definite meaning—and, astounding as it may seem, for his actual ignorance of Parliamentary law and precedent, as compared with the proficiency on these points of other members of the House of Commons ! The common-sense question to ask therefore is —did not Lord Grey's Government know all such matters just as well when they recommended Sir C. M. Sutton for Speaker, as now when they strive to get him rejected ? Has Si'i Charles become still more awfully sonorous ?—has his language become more devoid of meaning ?—has his igne7a.pee of Par liamentary law increased with his experience'? Has his temper or patience, or courtesy, or indefatigal'le diligence, or unvarying impartiality, or any other of those attributes which have so long and eminently dis tinguished Sir C. M. Sutton—has any one of them, vl'e ask, declined from its recent excellence, and left nothing but the caput mortuum of the Right Hon. Gentleman behind? If not, there is inconsistency— there is caprice, or something worse than either, mere faction, at the bottom of this Whig machination. Again, Sir `Charles Manners Sutton was honoured by the last House of Commons, and on the recom mendation of his Majesty's late Ministers, with a re tiring pension of 4,0001. per annum. Where has Mr. Joseph Hume ensconced himself ?—of what capi tol is he now cackling the salvation ? Why was he not of the ex-Cabinet at Brocket-hall, when the pro posal was broached and adopted, that instead of Sir C. Al. Sutton being raised to the chair, and his retiring pension of so many thousand pounds a-year being there by saved to the public, another gentleman should be appointed Speaker, whereby pension and salary would be simultaneously -drawn from the country and not . only that, but an increased retiring pension* created in the event of the new Speaker's resignation or dismissal; and so on ad infinitum ! We repeat, where are you, Joseph ? Will you patronize such abominable waste as this ? You, at least, will not pretend that any principle in polities is worth 4,000/. a year, and as you boast of being an independent man, far less worth, in your microscopic eye, is any party principle. What is the justification of all this rage put forth by the mi serable scribblers of the faction ,against Sir C. M. Sutton ? Why, that he conspired to turn out the last Ministry We really thought That malice could be shamed when it could not be softened, and that even the most stupid slanderer might find out tfie unprofit ableness of reiterating a lie which had often been ex posed. But this is not the case which the hue aril cry against Sir C. M. Sutton, although it is known universally that he had and could have had no earthly concern in the overthrow of the Melbourne Ministry, although it is equally notorious that he could not have restored them,—no, nor could the Duke of 'Wel lington, had he ever so much desired it. The purely formal acts of the late Speaker, his attendances when summoned to the Privy Council—nay, his purely social ones—his dining where he was invited, have been tor tured into proofs of a conspiracy (in itself chimerical), and laboured into arguments for setting up a rival to the Chair. The public have a right to ask, what act has Sir Charles Manners Sutton ever been guilty of, as Speaker, which can be alleged as exhibiting the slightest tinge of political partiality or unfairness ? He is known to have certain opinions. Is that a crime ? Entertaining strong opinions, if he represses them in action, and maintains an unbiassed bearing in spite of them, is it not a title to esteem and favour, more than to the hostility of honourable men ? But reasoning would be thrown away upon those whose blind ani mosity Sir C. M. Sutton Bs chiefly to provide against. The policy of the proceeding has been already analyzed in this journal. The ex-Cabinet have had cause to fear that they will not carry an amendment to_the Address, implying distrust of his Majesty's Ministers. But it is essential to show a bold face to the country, and to raise an opposition upon a point which may, according to their apprehension, carry with it a less daring de fiance of all regard to fair dealing, as between the House of Commons and the collective body of the Government. They flatter themselves it may be easier for them through this collateral question to give a side blow to the Government than to attack it successfully in front,—we suspect they will be miserably disap pointed in both cases. — Times. It is no longer doubtful that the Whig-Radical party in the House of Commons have determined to do all that they can towards placing in the Chair a Speaker whose political principles and predilections correspond with their own, or, in other words, so far as it depends upon them, the new House of Commons is destined not to have as good a Speaker as the last. The correspondence between Lord John Russell and .Mr. Abercromby, which we insert elsewhere, presents niany topics calling for remark, to a few of the more vronunent of which we must for the present confine o urselves. In the first place, enlighten us although much this corasre to s the pon- deuce does n ot serve to probable choice of a Speaker by the new House of Commons, it gives us very distinctly to know by whom Mr. Abercromby is already entitled to a pension of 2,000/. cc. Chief Baron of Scotland. Reformed Parliament. Up to that time, it is quite unnecessary to say that he was regarded, in the eyes of both Whigs and Tories, as a most impartial anti efficient Speaker. Otherwise the Whigs would have opposed his re-election at that time. Now, we ask, if any complaint of partiality, or unfitness of any sort, had been made against him .during the two Sessions which measured the duration of the first Reformed Parliament ? We confidently say, " None whatever." We doubt if any Commoner in England could have kept so much order in an assembly of such mixed and turbulent elements as Sir C. Manners Sutton did. To support the dignity of the Chair with his suavity of disposition, and to preserve the demeanour of the ac complished gentleman, - amid scenes and emergencies which tried the temper as much as they elicited his accurate knowledge of the law and practice of Parliament, proved his qualifications to be of a rare, or rather a pre . ..eminent order. Why, then, look for another Speaker ? Certainly not for the pur pose of finding a better qualified Speaker, for that is impossible ; nor for the purpose of finding one as well qualified, for, if that be possible, it is certainly not in the person of Mr. Abercromby that his rival is to be found. We, who belong not to any party, judge of official men by their fitness for office. We believe that the qualifications of Mr. Abercromby - are not thought of by the party that propose him. This gentleman had lately signalised himself by proving, by Whi g -Radical logic, that the exercise of the King's lawful preroga tive might become the subject of a vote of censure. It was consequently expected that he would have moved that vote of censure ; but as the wild and absurd pro ject has been abandoned, it is thought by his party that the next best thing is to move him into the chair, wit" the hope that such a demonstration of their strengtl will have the effect of moving the King's Ministers ou of their places, before the Parliament and the country can have any opportunity of judging of the character and intentions of the Cabinet by its measures. We trust an experiment, so obviously for the purposes of party, and against the, public interests, will be signally defeated.—Morning Herald. We exceedingly rejoice to bear that ,Mr. Aber cromby has permitted himself to be put into nomina tion as Speaker of the new Parliament. When we consider the high professional character, the integrity, judgment, and fairness of this gentleman, it is im possible to withhold our confident expectation that he will be found admirably suited to sustain the dignity, and to perform the duties of the important office for which he will be nominated. It might have been better if the Reformers bad resolved to a trial of strength with the Tory Ministers on some other question ; not that we suppose it an unimportant matter that the Speaker of the House of Com mons should maintain those principles which are likely to advance the interests of the country at large ; but the gauntlet has been thrown down, and the country will wait in the calm expectation that the Reformers , will in this matter act upon principle. The votes of members on this question will be closely watched ; let every man do his duty, unintimidated by the eulogiums that will be passed upon Sir Charles Manners Sutton by his political friends. We could once have added our testimony in his favour, but his character as an arbitrator has been tarnished, and it is absolutely necessary that he should be superceded by a more effective, moderate, and impartial man. Mr. Abercromby is such a man, and Iwe cannot speak too highly of his public spirit in permitting himself to be nominated for the laborious and frequently unpleasant office. The Tories are now using all their influence to induce the Members to vote for the former Speaker. We have not, however, the least fear as to the result of the question ; but it is at the same time most important and necessary that Whigs and Reformers should join together in good earnest to secure the election of Mr. Abercromby, and defeat the wishes of the Ministers. We cannot, in conclusion, do better than quote an admirable pas sage on the subject from the last number of Mr. Fox's Monthly Repository :—" Devoutly is it to be hoped that no false delicacy, no foolish fear of being called factious, no vain expectations of future opportunity, will interfere with that immediate decision of the great question between the Ministry and the people, which is so aptly provided for by the forms of Parliament. The battle can never be so well fought as on the first two topics that must necessarily engage the attention of the House, viz., the choice of a Speaker, and the Address. The first is not a mere matter of form ; nor, now that the transition has been accomplished from a nomination Parliament to a representative one, Can it be again treated as only a question of conve nience for the dispatch of business. There is nothing, henceforth, to interfere with the appointment of a man who, while qualified by ;his experience and attainments for the routine duties of the office, shall also be qualified, by his principles and character, to represent the Reformed House of Commons ; who shall be in sympathy with the majority of that House ; and who may, therefore, without the incongruity which was temporarily sub mitted to, be presented to the King in the face of the country and the world, as the first commoner of Great Britain, To endure, now, the elevation of a member of ' the party,' the one party which alone disturbs and confronts the nation, to so conspicuous and honourable an office, would show an indifference and insensibility as culpable as they would be extraordinary. But while the strength or weakness of the new Adm inistration will, in all probability, be exhibted by this question, it is that of the address by which their fate will be de cided. Aud here we trust that the Reform ers in Par liament will rise to the full sense of the responsibility and dignity of their position. The occasion is a mag nificent One. It is for them now to give an elevated tone to the popular feeling, a defined aim to the na tional desire for improvement, a distinct expression to the great principles of Reform, The amendment on the Ministerial Addreee of lit to be a national manifesto, embodying the desires and tietermina tions of the people on the mode and agents of Government. There should be none of the little tricks of the old party conflicts. None of the ambi guities by which Parliamentary tactitians used to catch straggling votes. Carried or lost, if lost it can be, it should tell why the country will never again voluntarily endure the misrule of party. It should denounce those who, after the lapse of so many generations, have re vived the exercise of an irresponsible prerogative, the obsolete and fatal claim of the Stuart dynasty, For royal interpositions it should demand accountable ad visers, It should proclaim, that, when a pnlelie act is imputed to the King personally, as in the dis missal of the late Admonstration, there is a gross violation of all that, by courtesy, le called the Con• stitution. It should indicate the absurdity of calling for public confidence in the hitherto systematic op ponents of public right. It should declare that the na tional Reformers tenaciously uphold the sacred ness of property, and the obligation of applying pub lic endowments to public purpo se d ; and t h at , there fore, they claim for the pe o ple th e b e n e fi t of educa tional and religious fund s, which are grosely abnsed in their monopoly by a sectarian and political hierar chy. It should assert fa an d entire civil equality f or the holders of all the diversities At liPPlogipa t : opi nion. It should announce their determination to or libe- r r a ec u t z t e h tehaebuses, spirit, t of municipaloexten a extend e ttititgv and institutions. It should pledge them to apply the now recognised 'principles of Reform to all political, legal; Or religious esta blishments, that may require revision, Argl in the re spectful, but manly language of flee men, speaking wi sh the voice, and armed with the authority of a free people, it shee;kl_ remind the Sovereign that he holds his crown but by common acquieseslts, . copl _ m on good ; that it befits not his station to lenilins au thneity to the selfish purposes of a party ; that in th ese sen timents he hears his felt to Rpm' to t he Peg le • and that should he, by renewing that ap` allow the accursed enginery of electioneering de m00444411!) regain to bear upon their weak • fle es, their dependence, ;0)4 tliqlf few, eligy. will arouse the popular spirit to such a manifestation of de termined principle and resistless power as shall make faction, corruption, and oligarchic pride call on ra c k s and inountaio's to screedthei4 OYU A f i gment . Let the majority, as majority, we think, and a large one too they must be ; let them but thus speak, an d the hearts of the mere men of 'office will quail within subordinate spite of their angry loudness, be them, while the grurnblings and vitu p eration of their another very important office in ' that assembly is to be filled, that, namely, .of Opposition leader, if self-election may be presumed in such a case to have any validity. The correspondence is profitable indeed to both the eminent . •persons engaged in it. Lord John appoints himself leader of the Whig-Radical Opposition, and obtains the ready recognition of his self-constituted authority . by his disinterested friend Mr. Abercromby., This is Lord John's share of the gain, and it is mach. We know something in Lord John Russell's favour, which we did not know two days ago ; having now learned that there is one Mem ber of Parliament in addition to himself who thinks him qualified to lead -one side of the House of Com mons. And the advantage derived by Mr. Aber cromby from these' friendly letters is reciprocal. The world is now apprized that another Member of the House of Commons, besides himself, thinks him a fit competitor for ; Sir Charles Manners • Sutton. No thing can be more agreeable to contemplate than two gentlemen thus amiably engaged in conferring advantages and distinctions each upon himself, and mutually upon each other. In the next place, Lord John Russell and Mr. Abercromby agree in the opi nion that it is necessary for the vindication of a public principle that the new House of Commons should differ in opinion from the last and several former Houses, so far as to profer for its Speaker the latter gentleman to Sir Charles Manners Sutton: but neither of them condescends to inform us what the public prin ciple is which requires this kind of vindication. This obscurity is unfortunate, since it compels us to conjec ture and speculate in a manner which, upon such a sub ject, we should have been as well content to avoid. Is the public principle to be vindicated by the elevation of Mr. Abercromby to the Chair of the House of Commons, the same as that which induced Mr. Aber cromby to fill at once the situations of a hired steward of the Duke of Devonshire, and one of the nomi nees of that Nobleman in the House of Commons ? Is the public principle of which Lord John Russell and Mr. Abercromby speak the same as that which induced the latter, when he had exchanged his Devonshire Stewardship for the office ofJudgefAdvocate,under Mr. Canning's A dministratien, he having been till that time a staunch supporter of Parliamentary Reform, and the repeal of the Test and Corporation Act, to cheer his new leader, more loudly than any other man, when the latter solemnly pronounced his determination to oppose the repeal of the Test and Corporation Act, and to oppose Parliamentary Reform also, to the last moment of his political life ? Is the public principle of our leader and Speaker-self-elect of the new House of Commons the same as that which induced Mr. Abercromby to accept, at the hands of. the Duke of Wellington, the office of Lord Chief Baron of Scot land ; and, having filled that office for a year or two, to avail himself of the opportunity of a facile and friendly Administration being in power to secure, at the public expense, a pension of 2,0001. a "year for life, with all the future chances of a new and more ambitious flight ? Is the public principle of these re spectable correspondents the same as that which has made the liberalism of Mr. Abercromby constantly fluc tuate, up and down, to the exact point at which it coincided most perfectly with his personal interests ? We cannot answer these questions, and we sincerely wish that Lord John Russell and Mr. Abercromby, by stating plainly what public principle it is for the vindi cation of which they are so solicitous, had dispensed us from the necessity of asking them. With respect to the issue of the contest, if Sir Charles Manners Sutton should condescend to allow himself to be placed in c ompetition with such a person as Mr. Abercromby, there can be no doubt. No House of Commons, no deliberative assembly that ever existed in the world, could hesitate for a moment between two such compe titors.—Morning Post. It now appears beyond all doubt that the design of opposing the election of Sir C. M. Sutton to the Speaker's Chair has not been abandoned. The Whig- Radicals did not hit upon this project for trying to heat the new Ministry, in the very outset of the Par liamentary campaign, and before they could have an - , ortunity of submitting their measures to the Legis opt lature, they had ascertained that there was not the slightest c../lance of succeeding in the absurd and : 4 4 the King's exercise of his law factious attempt to n. - ful prerogative the subject of a vote of censure. Hay weakest dupes or ing discovered that none but the ‘ most desperate tools of faction could iiC j nduced to lend themselves to an endeavour to place the House of Commons in collision with the Crown on grounds perfectly untenable, the Whig-Radicals resolved upon making the election of a Speaker their battle-ground , and so they looked about for some person to contest the Chair with the Right Hon. Gentleman, whose able, dignified, and impartial administration of the duties of that high office had given unqualified satisfaction to all parties up to the end of the last Parliament, and had frequently extorted praise and admiration from his political adversaries. Since this project was first announced great doubt and uncertainty have prevailed as to the choice of the indi vidual to be put forward as the President of the new House of Commons by the Whig-Radical party. Originally Mr. Littleton was named, but the damage which his public character received from the disclosure of the " confidential intercourse" with Mr. O'Connell, and the development of the plot which drove Lord Grey from the Cabinet, could be no recommendation in the eyes of Conservative and Constitutional Whigs, without whose assistance the ultra-Whigs or Destruc tive party could have no hope of success. .The idea of starting Mr. Littleton was scarcely entertained when it was given up. Then the name of Sir James Graham was put forward, but, as we surmised, without his own consent ! for although Sir James Graham is cordially hated by all the ultra-Whigs and Destructives, because of his honest and manly sacrifice of place and power rather than step beyond the limits of ~zfe and constitutional reform, yet, as they well knew Nt the colours of faction, in the forthcoming conflict, coeld not be unfurled under more favour able auspices t, t l.3n by making him the standard bearer, they would have gladly supported him for the purpose of making their battle sure. If, indeed, they succeeded, which even on behalf of such a candidate we do not think possible, Sir James -Graham, as Speaker, might have the opportunity of presiding at the passing of measures to demolish those ancient in stitutions of his country, which his secession from the Whig Ministry, when they were diverging from the road of improvement into that of destruction, proved him so anxious to. protect. In such a cause, however, the Whig-Radicals found that Sir James Graham was not exactly the man willing to be made a " cat's-paw." He responded not to the call publicly made upon him. They then turned their eyes to the Right Hon. Gentleman who was lately Secretary for the Colonies, and who signalized himself in that capacity by countenancing the Australian Emigra tion scheme—a job of extraordinary boldness and magnitude, and also the scheme for sending English labourers to take the place of the West India negroes in the pestilent and intolerable climate of the sugar islands, which is almost too much even for African constitutions. The experiment of putting this gen tleman forward, though we readily admit his supe rior abilities and industry to those of several of his late colleagues, did not promise success. The pulse of the public was felt, and we believe the opinions of many Members of Parliament sounded upon it, but the result was the withdrawal of Mr. Rice's pretensions. In the mean time application had been made to Mr. Abercromby, to know if he would stand, and this gen denim, after a good deal of coquetting between his modes t krzd his ambition, finally answered the call in the a tive. Mr. Abercromby is, therefore, the known and now acknowledged competitor for the Speaker's Chair with Sir Charles Manners Sutton. If we thought better of the Whig-Radical cause than we do, we should be sorry to see it lowered in public opinion, and endangered by making the choice of a Speaker for the new Parliament a subject of factious contention. The oosti would be very different, indeed, if the opposition to the electim) 9f Sir C. Manners Sutton was for the purpose of placing 14 the Asir some person better qualified for the situation than that Right Hon. Gentleman, who has presided in several Parliaments with general approbation, and whose superuy #tress for the office, though an undis guised Conservative, caused Loyd Prey' Ministry to support his claims to the Speakership of the 'first THE SUN, LONDON, SAI"U-itnAY, JANITARY 31, 1835. drowned in the roar from without of the thunders that will utter their voices responsively. If the Reform Members of the House of Commons will take their stand on such ground as this, they will do more for their country than has ever before been accomplished, even by the noblest patriots of the most trying periods; more than by the Parliamentarians of 1641, for they will head the people in the warfare, not of brute force, but of enlightened opinion ; more than by the re volutionists of 1688, for they will establish, not the ' reign of influence' but that of representation." Morning Advertiser. We yesterday announced that Mr. Abercromby had consented to be put in nomination for the office of Speaker of the House of Commons. We now lay be fore (P. a. readers a correspondence between Lord John Russell and Mr. Abercromby on the subject ; from which they will perceive that the latter was only in duced to allow himself to be put in nomination, when he found that those with whom he had been connected in public life viewed the present election of a Speaker as a question, not merely of individual preference, but of public principle. " Woburn Abbey, Jan. 27, 1835. My Dear Abercromby, was very sorry to find from the different communica- Lons which I have had with you, that you were so unwilling ,o comply with the desire of many Members of the House of Commons, that you should be proposed for the Chair at the meeting of the new Parliament. " After you had declined, however, I should have been myself reluctant to press on you a proposition which I found personally unacceptable ; but when I tell you that I have been urged from various quarters, and in the strongest terms, to place before you the earnest wishes and general concurrence of those with whom you have been connected in public life, that you should allow your self to be put in nomination for the Chair, I trust you will re-consider your decision. Above all, I think you will be influenced by the argument I have to state— that they view the present election of a Speaker as a question not solely of individual preference, but of public principle ; and they are convinced, that in order to try this question with the utmost advantage, it is of great import ance that you should not decline this high honour, if the House should be willing to confer it upon you. " I remain, ever your's, most faithfully, "J. RUSSELL. The Right Hon. I'Abercromby.” " Fenton's Hotel, Jan. 29, 1835. " My Dear Lord John, " My earnest desire to decline the honour of being pro posed as a candidate for the Chair on the meeting of the new Parliament, has been so often and so strongly ex- pressed to you and to others, that I was in hopes that it would have been acquiesced in. " However painful it would have been to me to maintain my own opinion in opposition to that of so many of my friends, I should have adhered to it, if the approaching contest had invorVefl only a question of personal preference. " As I aqi now aware that the governing motive of those who wish ma to alter my decision, is a desire to vindicate a public principle, which they think it their duty as Members of the House of Commons to maintain, I feel that the indulgence of my own wishes, would subject me to the charge of obstinacy, or of selfishness ; and therefore, if the choice should fall on me, I shall be ready to perform the duties of the office, to the best of my ability. " I remain, yours, very truly and faithfully, " J. ABERCROMBY. " To the Right Hon. Lord John Russell." Hitherto we could only express the opinion enter tained by all Reformers, that Sir Charles Manners Sutton ought not to be the Speaker of the new House of Commons. We knew that many of its members were better qualified for the office than that gentleman, but we also knew that Mr. Abercromby would be the most acceptable to the House. All our fear was tha , Mr. Abercromby might not see the question as in volving an important public principle. Now that his reluctance has been overcome, all difficulty on the sub ject is at an end. Every Reformer in the United Kingdom must at once see that he can only vindicate hi§ own title to the confidence of the country, by vo ting in favour of Mr. Abercromby against an in triguing Ultra-Tory, who exerted himself to destroy the late Ministry, and who is only not a member of the pre sent, because it was conceived that he might be able to injure the Reformers more effectually by filling the Chair of the House of Commons. The people of Scotland very generally exacted a pledge from candi dates, that they would vote against the late Speaker. General Sharpe, Member for the Dumfries district of Burghs, at a dinner given to him by his constituents, declared, " Some of the Members of the late Parlia- ment with whom I have had the honour to act, ma. not consider it judicious to make a stand on the elec tion of Speaker ; but here I must leave them. lam compelled and pledged to vote against him." When the pledge was exacted and given it was not known that Mr. Abercromby would consent to be nominated as a candidate ; but it was not once doubted on that account that the last man who ought to preside over the new House of Commons was the Speaker of the last, who so signally abused the confidence reposed in him by Reformers, as to intrigue for the dismissal of the Melbourne Ministry, and the formation of the present, with a view to deprive the country of the Reforms in Church and State which were known to be in progress. But the consent given by Mr. Abercromby leaves no ground for hesitation to the most irresolute. The election of a Speaker is truly, as is observed by Lord John Russell, " not a question solely of individual preference, but of public prin ciple ;" and this he tells Mr. Abercromby is the ge neral opinion of those with whom he has been con nected in public life. The question, therefore, is not one respecting which Members can be allowed to indulge individual partialities. Whoever votes in favour of Sir Charles Sutton inflicts a blow on. Re form ; and it ought, therefore, to be distinctly under stood, that to support the late Speaker is to support the Peel Ministry. The question being one of prin ciple, will be a trial of strength between the Tories and Reformers ; and we should as soon expect to find Tories voting for Mr. Abercromby, as Reform ers for Sir Charles Sutton. In all such cases the rule is, Whoever is not with us is against us. The vote, whatever it may be, will have impor tant consequences. The waiters on Providence, the waverers, will look carefully through the lists ; and if they should unfortunately find that Mr. Abercromby is not adequately supported, they will take their mea sures accordingly. Let no man, therefore, indulge in the delusion that his individual vote may be of little consequence. Every vote is of infinite consequence. Members should consider that if they are returned to Parliament to support Reform principles, they are n ot at liberty to give a vote which may not only be de structive of their own characters, but injurious to the cause they profess to have at heart. Mr. Abereromby, as we have already stated, is admirably qualified to fill the Spolier's chair. He possesses a sour.a under standing ; and no debater in the H.c4Vtae of Commons is less chargeable with want of fairness in stating hi s own views, Of combating those of his oppo nents. We remember s upwards of twenty years ago, sfame controversy arising respecting a dis cussion of a somewhat personal nature on a pre ceding evening in tilt.? Homo, the affirmation of •Abercroliiby was held to be conclusive, as his conscientiousness In all his statements was proverbial. Th o ugh sufficiently decided in his principles, ho is the last man to seek to give effect to them by unfair means. The speaker of the House of Commons ought to command the confidence of all parties, not merely from his knowledge of the rules of the House, but his can dour and impartiality. •It would be difficult to select a man llottff acquainted with the proceedings of the House than ,Mr. Abercromby ; and we are sure that his strict honour and fairness of disposition will be willingly admitted by the most determined of his oppo nents. The Rutland family, from their borough pro perty; were enabled to male Dishop and Judges, sometimes without the suitable qualifications. A late Irish Chweilor had no small reason to be thankful for Iris I,lMily name of Manners. Sir Charles Manners Sut ton is a gentleman possessed of much good nature, and cautious in his behaviour. But more than this cannot by said of him. As a S,veillc4, 'ire may. succeed in allaying irritation, but lie - alsO not unfrequently fails to discern the proper moment of interference, in order to prevent un necessary irregularities. He never uttered in his life a sentence which any one would wish to rem e tln wiwo byirrAe' Me rs, are dis tinguished only for pompous inanity. His qualifica tions for the Chair are all of a negative description. Before pronouncing as to his knowledge of forms and precedents, it would be well first to ascertain how much he is beholden to the to,rqs I,eY; . • r. Abercromby is not like Sir Charles Sutton, indebted merely to family connection for his elevation. The name of his illustrious father might, no doubt, at first be a recommendation to him; but he owes his reputa: tion to the prominent part he took for a number of years in the debates of the House. He was called to the Bench before the accession of his political friends to power; so that his merit was admitted by the Tories themselves. Nu one would think of placing the qua lifications of Sir Charles Sutton on a level with those of Mr. Abercromby. It may be thought by some that we have dwelt too much on the necessity for affording adequate support to Mr. Abercromby, as no Reformer can re quire prompting to induce him to discharge so essen tial a duty as vindicating an important publie principle. At the hazard, however, of being charged with pro lixity, we have chosen to impress on Members the in jury which they may do to the cause of Reform, by the indulgence of wayward preferences of a personal nature, at a crisis like the present. It ought not to be a motive with any Reform Member for supporting Sir Charles Sutton, that he has partaken of his hospitali ties. The simple question is,—Ought a Reformed Parliament to place in the Chair the man who contri buted so much, by intrigue and otherwise, to displace a Reform Administration, and elevate the enemies of Reform to power ? With a candidate of Mr. Aber cromby's high character, to vote for Sir Charles Sutton would be worse than folly—it would be treachery to the cause of Reform.—Morning Chronicle. COURT OF CHANCERY. HULBERT V. LAMPREY. This was an appeal from a decision of the Vice-Chancel lor. The question was whether a testator who bequeathed his wife an annuity of 2,000/. a year for her life, had in tended to include in that sum the income derived from a sum of 15,000/. to which the wife was entitled under her marriage settlement. Mr. Jacob argued the matter at some length, on the part of the appellant. The Lord Chancellor (who had several times expresied his feeling that the construction put on the will by the Vice-Chancellor was a correct one) said that, after having heard the Learned Counsel to a conclusion, he was still of the same opinion. The decree of his Honour must, there fore, be affirmed. Mr. Jacob thought that his Lordship would not be of that opinion if he took twenty-four hours to consider the point. His Lordship said that if in twenty:four hours he altered his view of the construction of the passage in question he should not fail to make that alteration known. At present the appeal must be dismissed. Mr. Knight, on the other side observed that the usual course would be to have such an appeal dismissed with costs. He was content to have the costs out of the resi duary estate. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. REX V. THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER AND OTHERS. Mr. THESSIGER showed cause against a rule calling upon the defendants to show cause why the trial of this cause should not,be removed into the county of Middlesex from the county of Surrey. He understood that Sir J. Camp bell, in moving this rule, had stated that it was an indict ment against the defendants for having forcibly ejected the prosecutor, the Rev. Mr. Griffin, from a chapel of which he was the pastor. Such was not the fact. A meeting of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts was held at Epsom, at which the Bishop of Win chester presided. The prosecutor was requested to with draw ; and, not doing so, he was quietly put out. The affidavit of the prosecutor stated that there was a feeling against him, in consequence of his having petitioned both Houses of Parliament not to give 16,0001., to the Society, Sir J. CAMPBELL was heard in support of the rule. Lord DENMAN thought that no ground was 'made out for changing the venue. The other Judges concurred, and tbo 'rule was discharged, but with costs. 14 RE THE LONDON ANU tREENWICH RAILWAY COM- PANY. In this case a vile had been obtained for a mandamus to be directed, to the Sheriff of Kent, directing him to sum mon a second Jury to assess compensation to a person.named Keating for his interest in some premises which the Coin pan_y required for the purpose of the railway, and also for thoodwill of his business. The objection to the former verdict was, that it had given a gross sum of 15,0001. for the daniages, without distinguishing between the sum ap portioned for the premises, themselves and that which was awarded for the goodwill. In conseqnence of this circum stance it was alleged to be impossible to ascertain the pro per stamp to be put on the deed of conveyance, which the owner of the premises was to execute to the Company. Mr. THESSIGER showed cause against the rule, and the SOLICITOR-GENERAL was heard in support of it. The rule was ultimately discharged, upon Mr. Keating undertaking to pay the ad valorem duty on the conveyance. The duty was estimated to amount to the sum of 1701. THE KING V. WEBBER. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated that this was a prose cution instituted by Mr. Edward Carter, a Magistrate of Portsmouth, against the defendant for an assault upon him while be was in the performance of his magisterial duties. There was a disturbance in the town in the course of last summer ; Mr. Carter had gone out to suppress it, when he was assaulted by the defendant. The other Magistrates had thought it necessary that a prosecution should be in stituted, and the defendant had allowed judgment to go by default, and now was ready to declare that when he com mitted the assault he had not any idea that Mr. Carter was at that time acting in his Magisterial capacity. U n d er these circumstances the Court would not be surprised that the prosecutors did not press for any judgment against him. The COURT ordered the defendant to be discharged on entering into his own recognizances, IN RE PALMER. This 'Was a motion to strike Mr. Palmer off the rolls of attorneys of this Court. The Master having read his report, Mr. HILL showed cause against the rule. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, with whom was Mr. WISATELY, argued in support of the rule. Lord DENMAN said that when the case was before this Court on the former occasion, the affidavits showed a great intimacy, and something like a partnership between these parties. The question then referred to the Master was, whether the business which Palmer had permitted Ed monds to carry on, was business of this Court, and some difficulty was then felt as to the jurisdiction of the Court under the 22d of Geo. 11. The case was sent to the Mas ter, who had now made his report. The object of sending the case to him, was to know whether this Act could be put in force, and the ease had not been sent on the general power of the Court. After having confined the Master to this single question, the Court would not put the case on another ground. Two particular cases of business tone in this Court had been stated by the Niaster, and. on them he was afraid that the Court could have n' doubt as to the course that ought to be pursued. T did seem impossible not to Milo to the conclusio7. that Edmonds was employed in business issuin7 tut of the Court, and in the course of that businos' 'used the name of Palmer, and did so with PAlinfi 7 s concurrence. The case was, therefore, distinctly s orought within the 11th section of the Statute ; and, con sequently, with respect to Palmer, against whom the appli cation was made, the Court had no option as to the exer ch,e of the authority it possessed, namely, to strike him off the rolls of the attorneys of the Court.—Rule absolute. Tile Court rose at eight o'clock. BAIL COURT. Mr. Justice PATTESON sat in this Court, for the pur pose of hearing motions. Mr. WHITE applied to the Court for an attachment against a gentleman residing in Park-lane, for not attend ing to give evidence at the late Middlesex Sessions, in obe dience to a writ of subpwna that had been served upon. him. The name of the party or the nature of the case did not transpire. The learned Counsel who made the application carefully avoided stating either. In reading the affidavit on which the motion was founded, he merely stated that Mr. So-and-So had been served with a subpcena, &c. The COURT granted the writ. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL showed cause against a rule obtained by Mr. Armstrong for leave to take 471. out of Court and 10/. for costs, in the whole 57i., which had been paid in by a Mr. Hartley, under the following circumstances. Hartley had been arrested by Phineas Davies, a Sheriff's officer, at the suit of Rosez, a native of Vevay, in Switzerland, on the oath of W. Edward Duffy, on the 9th of January, and he continued in the lock-up-house until the 13th, when, not been able to obtain a discharge, he, alleging that he had been arrested in a wrong name, deposited with the Sheriff's ppy Allo amount of the debt, and 101. to cover costs, and thus obtained his liberation. This money was paid over, upon the understanding that it was done without prejudice to the trial of an action which Mr. Hartley had brought against the Sheriff fox false imprisonment. He having been c9 l lV . Aieci in the name of William Saville ViAr&y, I:vtereas he swears his name is Winchcombe Henry Saville Hartley. On this ground, and also that he had been arrested on the oath of Duffy, who had not scribed himself the agent to Itesez. Sir jc,ll cAmpbell contended that the parties were umtr Milled to take- the at money out of Cotyf v , ought to abide the of I t h., Wlikvil 4kr irepasii and false impriseripen dis charged with costs. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. HUMPHREY V. WODEHOUSE AND OTHERS. This was an action brought to recover damages for an assault and false imprisonment. Two of the defendants were policemen, and were acquitted at the trial before the Lord Chief Justice, at the Sittings in Middlesex after the last Term. The plaintiff's Counsel applied to the Lord Chief Justice, to certify to deprive the two defendants who had been acquitted of their full costs, and his Lord ship accordingly did so. Early in the term Mr. Busby applied to the Court for a rule calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the defendants should not be allowed their full costs, notwithstanding his Lordship's certificate at nisi Arius. The ground of this application was that the 3d and 4th of William IV. was not intended to controul the Metropolitan Police Act, but simply to enlarge the powers given to Judges, in the first section of the Bth and 9th of William 111., cap.!!. Mr. Sergeant WILDE and Mr. HUMFREY now showed cause against the rule. Mr. BUSBY argued in support of the rule. The rule was made absolute. EXCHEQUER COURT. DICAS V. LAWSON. Mr. LrE having on a preceding day obtained a rule to show cause why an attachment should not be issued against a witness in this cause, who had neglected to attend on his subpmna, Sir JOHN CAMPBELL now stated th•tt his Learned Friend had consented to the discharge of the rule. Mr. LEE confirmed this, and Sir JOHN CAMPBELL added that he was willing to the rule being discharged without costs, and to a stet processus. Mr. Baron PARKE was glad this amicable arrangement had been come to, and directed the rule to be discharged, and a stet processus to be entered. ADMIRALTY COURT. THE ELIZA—BOTTOMRY. To the shipping and mercantile interests this was a ques tion of some importance, as it involved a point which might often be urged in order to invalidate bottomry bonds. The principal points in the present case are these :—The Eliza left this country in March, 1832, with convicts for New South \Vales, and after having landed her cargo and pas sengers proceeded to Singapore, where she arrived on the sth of January, 1833. From Singapore she went to St. Helena after a very protracted and dangerous voyage of one hundred and thirty-two days' continuance. Tho captain died on the passage out, and was succeeded by the chief mate in the command of the vessel. On the 4th of October the vessel arrived at St. Helena in great distress, and an immediate supply of stores became necessary for the passengers and crew. The firm of Solomons and Co. were the first as pleaded in support of the Board to apply to the captain (Marshall) to supply the stores, and the offer being accepted they sent in the supplies and repaired the ship, the expenses of which were large. Captain Marshall gave a bottomry bond on the vessel for 520/., the validity of which was opposed on be half of the owners, who alleged that they had an agent at St. Helena, who would have provided the necessary stores, and have drawn bills on the owners without hypothecating the ship, and rendering the owners liable to maritime inte rest. It was also pleaded that the stores supplied Were bf an inferior character, which would also tend to render the bottomry bond invalid. The bond had been transferred to the present holders for a valuable consideration. Dr. ADDAMS, on behalf of the owners, opposed the bond in question. The KING'S ADVOCATE, on the part of the holders of the bond, contended that the vessel was legally hypothe cated and the bond valid. Sir JOHN NlcrioL gave judgment. The suit was brought on a board'of oottomry given by the master of the Eliza for supplies furnished at St. Helena, on her arrival there from Sin - a pore. The bond was dated on the 28th of October, .1833, and was for 5201. Bs. 6d. The maritime interest charged upon the bond was 71 per cent., and the bond was payable thirty days after the arrival of the vessel in her port of destination. There was one objection to the form of the bond, and proceedings upon it had been mutually suspended in order to obtain affidavits and facts in support and in opposition to it from St. Helena. The masters and owners bad made affidavits here, to which the Court must look with the more care, as answers could not be given to them. The Learned Counsel had cited cases in support and against the bond. The Court had looked into these and a variety of others, and one general principle appeared to be esta blished in all of them, viz., that the Court had always been most anxious to sustain the credit and force of these bot tomry bonds when fairly given, and where no fraudulent transactions were proved between the parties. If the case was bona fide, the Court was ready to give force and e ffect to these bonds. It was highly to the general interests of commerce that the Court should uphold those bonds, unless fraud was clearly established. The Court pronounced for the bond, and with costs. , AN AGREEABLE ANTAGONIST.--We are nev er so well pleased with an antagonist, as when he makes an objection, to which we are provided with a good answer.-- - Table T alk. THE LATEST INFORMA ITION.—A certain news monger was relating with gro a t confidence a political occur rence, which he had from Ine first authority. , 4 That cannot be," said a gentleman 'present, " for I have a letter dated th o 31st, which says tie contrary." " Ah," replied the narrator , " but mine is b the 32d." LIG;IT AND DARKNESS.-4 plant, which is not uncfnnmon in India, (the cotyledon calycina) changes its pro ;7erties very remarkably according to the period of the day and night. The plant may be said to possess an herbaceous taste; but in the morning it is as much, if not more acid, than sorrel, probably from its imbibing oxygen during the night. DRY FOOD AND STRICT NEUTRALITY.-"" Among the grievances suffered by the inhabitants of Oporto during the siege, was the following related to me by aPortugueso officer : "You must know, well," he said to me, "that our people, don't like dry food ; in the spring of last year our oil was el: expended, and we could swallow with difficulty our rice. was acquainted with the Captain of one of your men-of-tver lying in the Douro, and I said to him one day, I want to make a bargain with you ; we are choked witty our dry rice: and if you will get me (which you can easily do) one bottle 0 1 oil for myself and messmates, I'll give you a dozen of the best Port that is to be found here.' The captain said he would ; accordingly next day I got the wine, and went O f the oil. The captain said Call again to-morrow.' I did em, when he told me, In a week I'll be able to get you the oil at the end of which time, when he was making more excases• I esked him if he meant to give me the oil or not, for the wine was all ready for him, 'To tell you the truth,' said be , I must not give you arty oil, not even a bottle of it; w e must, you know, preKrve a strict neutrality.' Mil diabolos (e thousand devils) take his neutrality ! I never spoke to iii° l afterwards..-_A/exander's Sketches in Portugal. BIRTHS. On the 30th inst., in Guildford-street, Russell-square, the Wi fe of Thomas Michael Cormack, Esq., of a son, still-born. On the 28th inst., in Portlantl-place, the lady of James Rudde ll Todd, Esq., of a son. - On the 29th inst., the lady of Dr. Holland, of 'Lower Broot* street, of a (laughter. On the 30th inst., in Cornwall-terrace, Regent's-park, the W I / of William Poynter, Esq., of a daughter. On the 28th inst., at Woodcote, near Epsom, the lady of E. l l ' Northey, Esq., of a son. On the 25th inst., at Forres House, Forres (N. 8.), the re dente of F. W. Russell, Esq., the lady of Captain H. C. Cotton' the Madras Engineers, of a daughter. On the 28th inst., in Brunswick-square, Mrs. Ching, of & son' On the 28th inst., at Tooting, Mrs. R. Obbard, of a son. _,,, On the 29th inst., at Grange-walk, Hoxton, Mr s . Joseph Rattui" of a daughter. On the 27th inst., at Kensington, the lady of Francis Bade Esq., of a son. MARRIED, On the 26th inst., at St. Mary's, Lambeth, Mr. Thomas mer, of Kennington, to Franci*, Jane, eldest daughter of Geort, Beard, Esq., of Cannon-steet, City, and Kennington-comO u ' Surrey. On the 27th inst., a t Ll an b e d r , C r i c khowel, Wm. James, 0 1 $: surgeon, of ISklton-street, Euston-square, to Anne Trevor, ° ti t, daughte' of the Rev. Edward Lewis, late rector of Newtown, in ° gorseryshire. , C On the 28th inst., the Rev. Gerard Edwards Smith, 13—cw,fr F' East. Marden, Sussex, to Isabella, second daughter of Mr. - Clark, of Mincing-lane. .1 01° On the 9 7th inst., at Lewisham, Edward Pickering, son of 4 4 Parkinson, Esq. of Acton, to Selina, eldest daughter e: Ric" Preston Richard, Esq., of Sydenhem, Kent. of Feild, M. F. ' On the 15th inst., William Henry .c'eilden, Esq., - Feniscowles, Lancashire, to Mary Elizabeth, daughter o f the Colonel Wemyss, of Wemyss-hall, Fifeshire. god On the 26th inst., at St. Michael's, St. Alban's, Charles Bloxam, Esq., of Abingdon-street, Westminster, to Elie& ISIO' e of Chapel-place, Oxford-street. ep t On the 24th inst., at West Hackney Church, Mr. Cleo Uzielli, of the Prerogative-office, Doctors'commons, to 9 second daughter of Edward Loader, Esq., of Stoke Newine...," _ London: Printed and Published by MURDO at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand. TH t( And eop r repair s a bust -hi India Tr large car , stores, an the mrea ir — Wf t r e a bust -he whi c h e deuce rr of znatr_Tials cla s3 , iI 'The e go attle des, araperintei zurposes. egent'sfor . inN _____. '-11 ~~ ti4~~ . t han the i; co ntract a the Hon°, f ormed t e; patent felt wheth er Or c a p acit rn ' n the usu . t of g and dumb quirin g a ' fo r any F, C ommand aod furthe , . .. AT 1 r 11 111 re 'fastened conditiot; car ifo fro m _ UWE ~,,,or ' '4A RLI AT PlT (l'n }IF, 64 eath e d" Feat ca , 1., tunnel' t'ra( MPOr i nrc essrs. 1% DIED. On the 23th inst., in Welbeck-street, Mrs. Browning,g e foils relict of the Rev. Frederic Browning, rector of Titchwell, or and Prebendary of Salisbury. On the 26th inst., at Southampton, in her 84th year, Mr s *. tu rtis bly, widow of the Rev. Thomas Hambly, of Mardock-bousel Rector of Bermondsey. On the 29th inst., in Cadogan-place, Mrs. Bryan, aged 7, 24 2 ' tir On the 22d inst., at Pentonville, Sarah, wife of Mr.. C. neg . well, of the Hon. East India Company's Service, its 'her 3 49 ' ',if' On the 26th inst., in Lower James-street, GPArlen-squa re ;r George Strongi'th'arni, of the firm of EtrongilVarm and PI tie On the 11th of November last, at Ocotal, Clear the 11 .. e Monte, Melleo, Robert Ttaal, Esq., M.D., in his 44thje! .. 00 ) ths the 23th o/t.. 'ailliddenden, Kent, James Lomas, ears of Devoe:, ' y 'sire-street, Queen-square. n $e 9a 11 "., 23d ult., in Upper Norton - street , Captain Jon the Indian Navy.