The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-06 00:00:00

THE DIVISION.

List of Pairs on Sir Hcsk
Tuesda

.eth Fleetwood's Motion on
y night.
AG•TNST.
Lowther, J. H.
Broadwood, H.
St. Pa 1, Horace
Manners, Lord C.
Parke, C. W.
Ossulston, Lord
Seale, Colonel
Planta, J.
Lockhart, A. M.
Trench, Sir F.
Foley, E. T.
Hawkes, T.
Adare, Lord
Bradshaw, James
Cartwright, W. L.
Young, Sir L. W.
Grimston, Lord
Powell, Colonel
Knight, Henry Gaily
Duncombe, A.
Patten, John Wilson
Jackson, J. D.
ff in favour of the motion.

•
FOR.
Power, John
Hayter, G. W.
Fenton, Jehn
Cave, Otway
Easthope, John
Hoskins, K.
James, Sir W.
Hill, Lord A. M. C.
Dundas, J. C.
Dundas, Sir R.
Dundas, W. D.
Morris, David
Barron, W. H.
Roche. Sir 1).
Reddimgton, T. N.
Rice, Edward
Villiers,' Charles 13.
O'Connell, Morgan
O'Connell, M. J.
Lister, E C.
Wyse, Thomas
Beamish, F. B.
A. Speirs, Esq., paired o:

SHREWSBURY.-I.OYAL DE4,144-

RATION.

We, the undersigned inhabitants of Shrewsbury, hereby
declare that we are restrained by dutiful re,pect to the
Crown from entering upon the public discussion of trans.
actions in which the Sovereign 1);,s been personally eu.
gaged. We should have been wholly silent respecting
the late Ministerial overtures, which have ended in the
temporary disappointment of her Maje,ty's faithful sub-
jects, were it not for the eager effort of a few partisans
in this borough to revive their decaying influence by
a dexterous but dishonest use of the present conjuncture.
We cannot allow them, unreproved, to assume for the first
time the virtue of loyalty, nor, uncontradicted, to carry to
the foot of the throne their own dangerous opinions, as
possesing the general sympathy of their townsmen. We
therefore owe it to ourselves and to the town of Shrews-
bury to declare that we regard with strong indignation, but
with still stronger contempt, the false and calumnious as•
sertions by which it is sought, for factious ends, to fix the
charge of disloyal insolence on those statesmen who are,
under a gracious Providence, the mainstay of the monarchy,
and, as we humbly trust, will yet become its preservers.
We assert, on the contrary, that the conduct of the Duke
of Wellington and Sir R. Peel in the late negociations
was eminently distinguished by constitutional principle,
disinterested honesty, and genuine loyalty ; and we shall be
prepared to unite with those illustrious men in defending
the just honour and dignity of the Crown And the integrity
of our constitution in Church and State.
May 20.

Whitehall, June 4.
GENTLEMEN—You could not have transmitted the de-
claration which I have this day received from Sir Richard
Jenkins through any channel more acceptable to me than
the hands of a gentleman, your representative in Parlia-
ment, who has recommended himself to the favour of his
Sovereign by his conduct in public trusts of great import-
ance, and has received the distinction specially appropriated
to the reward of civil service.
I have a strong conviction that in expressing your opi-
nion that my conduct in the recent transactions to which
your declaration refers has been in conformity with consti-
tutional principles, you are anticipating the judgment which
after the lapse of a very short period will be pronounced
by a very large majority of that portion of the community
whose deliberate sentiments ultimately prevail over misre-
presentation and calumny, and constitute public opinion in
this country.
Be this, however, as it may, you may depend upon it that
I shall steadily adhere to the principles of which you have
approved, and that I shall never accept office upon any con-
dition or understanding which may appear to me incom-
patible with the constitutional authority of a Minister of
the Crown, or which would restrain me from advising
such an exercise of that authority as I might deem neces-
sary for the efficient performance of the great public trust
for which a Minister is responsible.
I am firmly persuaded that the Constitution of this coun-
try does not recognize any distinctions in respect to public
appointments prodded fur by Act of Parliament, and in-
stituted for purposes of state, on account of the six of the

parties holding '
them, and that no .Minister would be justi-
fied in divesting himself of all control or responsibility in
respect to a particular class of such appointments.
If I deemed certain changes in that class necessary for
public purposes, it was as clearly my duty to advise them
as it was the duty of Lord Grey and Lord Grenville, in
1812, to require " that the connection of the great officers
of the Court with the political Administration should be
clearly established in its first arrangements."
They claimed for themselves the credit, which I claim,
of having acted on public grounds; and they assigned as
the justification of their conduct the very same ground
which is the justification of mine—namely, their firm con-
viction " that it was necessary to give a new Government
that character of efficiency and stability', and those marks
of the constitutional support of the Crown, which were
required to enable it to act usefully for the public service."
If the Constitution does recognise a distinction Letween
public appointments on account of the sex of the parties
holding them, the example of Lord Grey and Lord Gren.
ville in 1812 is certainly no authority. If the constitution
does not recognise such distinction, there is no difference
between the principle for which I contended and that upon
which Lord Grey and Lord Grenville acted.
At the same time no one can feel more deeply, nor admit
more fully, than I do, that the constitutional right to advise
changes in the Household is a perfectly different question
from the exercise of that right, and that the exercise of it,
particularly in respect to those appointments in the House.
hold which formed the chief subject of recent discussion,
should be restrained by every possible deference to the
wishes and every possible consideration for the feelings of
the Sovereign.
But I must contend, that if I deemed it necessary to
advise any changes in those appointments, I am much less
responsible for the necessity than those Ministers who bad
not merely given to this department of the Household a
political character, but who had established its immediate
connection with the Administration, by permitting their
nearest female relatives to occupy the chief appointments.
With respect to the various calumnies at which you ex-
press your indignation, I have a perfect assurance that they
will ultimately recoil upon the authors of them, and that the
course I have pursued in public life for the period of thirty
years will effectually protect me from the imputation of hav-
ing acted with " disloyal insolence" towards my Sovereign.
I have the honour to be, Gentlemen,
Your most faithful and obedient servant,
ROBERT PEEL.

SOUTHAMPTON-WEDNESDAY

(FROM A CORRESPONDENT.)
EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF FORGERY.—A circumstance
has occurred here which, from the respectable station in
society occupied by the parties implicated, has excited in-
tense and universal interest. The facts of the case, as
detailed at the examination of the accused individual, are
shortly these :—Mr. John Spencer, a farmer, of North
Stoneham, was charged by Mr. Mott, a person of inde-
pendent property, with having uttered a bill for 4.51., know-
ing it to be a forgery. The prosecutor stated that in De-
cember last be was solicited by the prisoner to advance the
money to take up the bill in question, which had been
protested. He did so, and obtained possession of it, and
subsequently discovered that the name of the acceptor, John
Spencer, a brother of the prisoner, was forged. In a se-
vere cross-examination of the prosecutor, sufficient was
extracted to justify a strong supposition that he knew per.
fectly well that the acceptance was forged when he took
it up ; but having since quarrelled with the prisoner, he
now prefers this serious charge. Yesterday the case was
finally gone into, Mr. Missing appearing for the prosecu
tur, and Mr. Moody for the prisoner. The former gen-
tleman argued, that supposing Mr. Mott was aware of the
forgery (which he denied), still the offence had been com-
pleted when the bill was first uttered. Mr. Moody made
A powerful appeal for the prisoner, and justly maintained
that the proceeding originated in sheer malice on the part
of the prosecutor, in consequence of his quarrel with the
prisoner, but for which it would never have been heard of.
The prisoner was fully committed for trial at the next Hants
Midsummer Assizes.

OPENING OF THE LONDON AND SOUTIIAMPTON RAIL-
-ITAY.—This " great event," which involves so large a
degree of the interests of this town and neighbourhood,
will certainly " come off" on Monday next ; and it is
gratifying to find that the respectable portion of the com-
munity here have, led on by the well.known zeal of one
of our most disinterested and sincere Reformers, Henry
Cunliffe, Esq. (now more widely known as the best
brewer in Hampshire), de/ermined upon giving a public
dinner, on a scale of magnificence heretofore unknown in
this town, to the Directors of the great undertaking to
' which the heading of this notice especially refers. As
such a company will on this occasion congregate as will,
no doubt, constitute a faithful exhibition of the state and
prospects of this undertaking, the attention of those in-
terested in the question is invited to The Sun of the fol-
lowing day, which will contain a full Report of the pro-
ceedings.

(FROM A CORRESPONDENT.)
The Division of Monday night is perhaps one of the
most curious in the annals of the Whig Ministry, and
ought to be received by the Ministers as a hint they
should profit by forthwith. The House was quite
crowded when Lord John Russell made his statement
on Sir H. Fleetwood's Bill, and that declaration Was so
repugnant to the feelings of his Lordships's usual sup-
porters, and altogether so indef.( rtsible, that all the Libe-
rals left the House, before the Division, except 122,
and of these 83 voted for the Bill, and against Lord
John Russell, and only 39, (tellers, and his Lordship,
included), voted with the Tories, who were 169 in
number. The majority, therefore, was composed of
169 Tories and 39 Whigs, including 11 Ministers and
office-holders); whilst the minority contains the most
zealous of the supporters of Ministers! Do you call
this backing or supporting the Queen ?
The following 39, usually voting as Liberals, voted
with Lord John Russell, and the Tories against the
motion, of whom 11 are placemen.t
Alston, Rowland—Hertfordshire Lennox, Lord A.—Chichester
t Baring, F.T.—Portsmouth Moreton, A IL—Gloucestershire
ilowes, John—South Durham I Morpeth, Lord—Yorkshire
Briscoe, J. I.—Wes:bury Pendarves, E. W.—W. Cornwall
Busfield, W.—Bradford t Rolfe, r•ir R. M.—Penryn
Cavendish, [lon. C. C.—E. Sussex Rumbold, C. E.—Yarmouth
Cavendish, Hon. 3. H.—N. Derby t Russell, Lord John—Stroud
Cayley, E. S-4. Yorkshire sRutherford, Rt. Hon. A.—Leith
Chetwynd, Major W.--Stafford Smith Benjamin—Norwich
Crawley, Samuel— Bedford Stansfi,ld,W R C. Huddersfield
Erle, Win.—. ,xford Stewart, John—Lymington
Ferguson,Sir R. A.—Londonderry Stuart, Villiers—Waterford Co
Harland, William C.—Durham Tapered, H. W.—Banbury
Heathcote, Sir %V.—Hampshire frroubridge, Sir T. E —Sandwich
Heathcote, G. J.—Lineonishire Vivian, John Ennis—Truro
Hebhouse, Right Hon. Sir J. C. tVivian, Sir R. H.—East Cornwall
Nottingham tWood, Charles—Halifax
t tiowick, Vi, c.—Northumberland Worsley, Lord—Lincolnshire
Labouchere, Right Hon. Henry And Two Tellers.
Taunton ',Toward. P. H.—Carlisle
Lemon, Sir Chas.—W. Cornwall Slaney, R. A.—Shrewsbury