The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-12 00:00:00

METROPOLITAN POLITICAL

SUMMARY.

The Courier of last evening makes the following com-
ments on Mr. Gisborne's just published letter to the elec-
tors of Derbyshire:_," The views professed by Mr. Gis-
borne in this address to his former constituents, and the
ability witla which he explains and enfsrcea them, render it
a matter of regret that his resumptian of his duties as a
representative of the people should be protracted for a
single day. We find one or two points noticed here, in
eoanection with the resignation -and return of the Mel-
bourne Cabinet, upon which little or no attention has
alert° been bestowed. Mr. Gisborne examines the grounds
on which Ministers resigned, acid strongly condemns their
momentary abandonineot of their posts ; he contents that
they had no right to resign; that they ought not to have
staked the existence of the Government on the Jamaica
Bill ; that no principle on which they took office was in-
volved in that Bill, and that they sacrificed the great cause
—f.or such we hold it to be—of good Executive Go-
vernment' in England and Scotland and Ireland, in a
pet at the impracticable conduct of half-a-score Reformers.'
Both ponies, he thinks, acted with equal absurdity."
The Globe thus speaks of Sir E. Sugden's speech last
night in the House of Commons:—" Sir E. Sugdeo last
night put the patience of her Majesty's faithful Commons
to a severe test. In a long, dull, dry speech, which par-
took more of the character of a legal disquisition than of
an address to a popular assembly, and ta hich was heard
with manifest impatience,
the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman endeavoured to prevail on the House of
Commons to reject the first clause of the Bill for
the better government of Jamaica. The object of
the motion was—in the event of the continued re-
fusal or cessation of the House of Assembly to
exercise its legislative functions, to limit the
power conferred on the Governor and Council by the Bill
to the revival or re-enactment of those laws which being
passed annually had expired. The effect of this curtail-
ment of the Bill would be to leave the colony, under the
exigent circumstances in which it is placed by the changed
relations of the inhabitants, without laws or regulations for
the regulation of contracts for hired service in agriculture
or manufactures, the prevention of vagrancy, and the pre-
vention of the !Hegel occupation of lands,' and other laws
which the peculiar situation of the colony renders essential."
The Standard contains the following rumour, or lie of
the day:—" We give the following as the communication
of a well-informed correspondent. We are disposed our.
selves to believe the statements to be well founded, but we
do not vouch for its certainty. The truth is, that Ministers
not know what they arc doing, or what they will do an hour
hence. This afternoon the current report is, that Lords
Melbourne, John Russell, and Palmerston, and Mr. Spring
Rice, will resign, and a dissolution of Parliament im-
mediately follow; on Thursday, it is expected, the Lords
r will receive the intimation from the Premier, and the
Commons from Lord J. Russell. It is not exactly known
who are to be their successors, but Lord Melbourne hav-
ing bad several audiences of an Illustrious Personage since
Friday, and an extremely long one on Saturday, it is con-
jectured that a more Liberal Ministry will succeed them."
The Times of this morning, recurring to the stale sub-
ject of the New Poor-law, says—" To talk of popular
control as being in any one respect identified with the pre.
sent system is an intolerable affront to the common sense
of the country. The real controllers are at Somerset-
'house, and nowhere else. In seven cases out of ten your
Boards of Guardians are mere boards of tools—a motley
assortment of saws, gimlets, screw-drivers, brads, hammers,
pincers, and glue, to dissever, bore, nail, clinch, tear, cr
cement, according to the job required. In many places, it
is true, a disposition to demand a real-popular control has
been unequivocally evinced. In parishes which possess
peculiar rights, or where Gilbert's Act happens to be in
force, a good deal of restiveness has shown itself. Indeed,
the public generally have manifested as great a dissatisfac-
tion with the new Poor-law, es, under the pressure of a
powerful antagonistic influence, could reasonably be
expected. The disaffection in question is advanciag
rapidly."
The Morning Post observes, in reference to Sir Robert
Peel's recent reply to Mr. Warburton in the House of
Commons : —" Sir Robert Peel admits that promises of
reform from the Government would enable the Liberal'
party to appear better upon the hustings—that is to say,
such promises would be agreeable to the minority of con-
stituencies in England which " the Liberal party" repre-
sent. This the Ministerial Radicals are pleased to con-
strue as an admision that promises of further change in the
representative constitutions of the country would be popular
with the electors of England I Can any thing be more
impudently preposterous ? The Ministerial Radicals know
very well, and to their deep mortification they know it,
that the electors of England two years ago, in spite of all
the wicked arts which were used to prejudice them, returned
to Parliament a large majority of Members opposed to any
further changes in the principles of the representative
constitution."

The Morning Advertiser makes the following remarks
on Mr. Wakley's withdrawal of a motion, of which he gave
notice last week in the Commons:—" Mr. Wakley has, to
all appearance, and most jndiciously, withdrawn his motion
for the production of the correspondence with reference to
Sir R. Peel's negotiations ; and after all that has been
said and written on the subject, we think the House might
employ themselves more usefully for the public than in the
altercations to which such a motion would have given rise,
for we are afraid that neither party are yet sufficiently cool
to argue the question on constitutional grounds alone."
The Morning Herald thus speaks of the Beer Bill for
1330:—" It is the melancholy characteristic of vicious le-
gislation, that the mere repeal of bad enactments never can
remove all the evils to which such enactments may have
given rise I The Beer Bill of 1830 was essentially a most
mischievous measure; and in its operation, that Bill has
fully justified the apprehensions which those who. then
carefully considered the nature of the principles on Which
it was based, entertained and expressed. Yet it is im-
possible to deny, that the repeal even of such an act
may give rise to misery and to forfeiture of capital ;
whilst equally impossible is it to refuse assent to Lord
Stanhope'sproposition that Parliament ought to inflict no as-
certainable injury without awarding suitable compensation."
The Morning Chronicle, commenting on the question
of the privileges of the House of Commons, says :—" But
we warn the House of its danger if it hesitates one moment
to vindicate its authority. It has often been said that the
interval between the dethronement of a King and his death
is a brief one. The interval between the acquiescence of
the House in the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench,
and the open contempt which will be manifested for it, will
be brief indeed. And we entreat the public to reflect on
the immense importance of the issue. If the people are
prepared to see the House of Commons become a common
jest, then let them applaud the judgments of the Court of
Queen's Bench. We have had some experience of man-
kind, and we never saw any good result from timid resolves.
The House of Commons ought not for one moment to
suffer its resolutions to be questioned."