The Sun.
London, England, 1839-05-24 00:00:00

of the Minister. Her MAJESTY'S construction of
this insolent proposition is described as an " erro-
neous impression ;" but it requires a very brief ex-
planation to show that her MAJESTY made no
mistake whatever in the matter, penetrating, on the
contrary, the tricky subterfuge with prompt and
consummate sagacity.
Sir ROZERT PEEL required the dismissal of cer-
tain Ladies as a sine gua non. That fact is indis-
putable. Upon what ground did he make this de-
mand ? Upon the ground that he wished to
appoint Ladies of his own selection in their place.
This is the general ground, for as the particular
objections to the individuals have been vari-
ously stated, we cannot accept any of them
as authentic. Besides, whatever the special
reasons may have been, the real point
at issue remains the same—the right of Sir Ro-
ZERT PEEL to controul the female Household of
the QUEEN. To exclude the chance of this point
being misunderstood, the Duke of WELLINGTON
placed it beyond all controversy in the following
explicit declaration in his speech in the House of
Lords :—" I confess," said his Grace, " that it
appears to me to be impossible that any set of men
should take the charge of her MAJESTY'S Govern-
ment without having the UNIVERSAL ilfluence
and controul over the establishment of the Royal
Household." This is frank and honest, and leaves
no room for doubt. Suppose, then, her MAJESTY
had conceded this point, and allowed Sir ROBERT
PEEL to dismiss the Ladies whose presence was
disagreeable to him, would he not virtually have
possessed himself of that very prerogative, the mere
claim to which would have exposed him, in the
language of the Times, to the charge of " having
negotiated in the tone of a conqueror rather than
of a loyal subject ?" Is it not as obvious as the
light, that if he were permitted to dismiss any
number of Ladies because he did not like
them, he might, from time to time, dismiss all
the rest upon the self-same plea ? Where
was this innovation to stop ? Where was
the line to be drawn ? By what course of reasoning
could the QUEEN be hereafter protected in the en-
joyment of her domestic circle if she had allowed
this " principle" of dismemberment by fragments to,
be once acted upon? Is it not manifest, therefore, that
the whole proceeding on the part of the SURFACE
clique was a marked design to subvert the personal
freedom of her MAJESTY, a conspiracy to seize
upon the Throne, and make a close borough of the
Palace ?
The Tories are the last men in the country who,
with any show of consistency, can deny the force of
the argument, for it is precisely the same they have
themselves applied, over and over again, to every
measure of reform that has been introduced into
Parliament. Their perpetual cry is, "If we admit
this, we must admit more ;" and hence they have
resisted all changes. Such was the language they
used, year after year, in reference to Catholic
Emancipation ; such was the language they used
in reference to the corruptions of the electoral
system ; such has been their language upon
all occasions when antiquated abuses and vested
iniquities were assailed by public opinion work-
ing through the legitimate channels of re-
presentation. They know well the irresistible
tendency of the spirit of encroachment, and all
they wanted was the first instalment of a new House-
hold, to ensure the complete overthrow of the whole
of the QUEEN'S establishment. Oh I no ; there
was no " erroneous impression" in the case. Her
MAJESTY detected the intrigue, and crushed it in
the shell. We suspect, however, that by this time
Sir JOSEPH SURFACE has discovered that he la-
boured under a very " erroneous impression," in
supposing that lie could deceive the ♦igilance
of his Sovereign.
But mark the miserable shifts to which the party
have descended, since they have been turned out of
the Palace. One Tory organ says that the objec-
tion to the proscribed Ladies was on the score of
morality—another, on the score of politics, display-
ing at the same time the utmost respect for the cha-
racters of the distinguished persons calumniated by
his slandering ally. One says that the whole House-
hold is filled by partisans of the MELBOURNE
Administration—another says that there are only
three or four " party ladies in her MAJESTY'S
train." All these assertions cannot be true; some of
them at least must be gratuitous, wilful falsehoods ;
but if, as the Times says, only three or four Ladies are
obnoxious to the genius of Toryism, then the ac-
cusation against Ministers, of crowding the Palace
with their adherents is a pure, naked, and gross
fabrication, hardly got up to suit one purpose than
it is recanted to suit another. We leave them to
the choice of their lies, perfectly indifferent as to
which they settle upon in the end as the best lie for
the next general election.

The whole affair, and the splutter they have made
about it, afford tolerably conclusive evidence of the
wretched strait in which they are placed. Cast
into the kennel, they raise such a fearful storm I If
their projected Administration had been foiled upon
a question of magnitude, or upon any public prin-
ciple, there might be some hope for them by-and-
bye. But they have fallen to pieces, like a rotten
cask, by a single touch—by the wave of a feather
—the breath of a fan. They have no moral power
to sustain them--no exterior force to appeal to.
They have been shipwrecked on a floating reed in
sight of land. The dignity of old Toryism is de-
molished for ever. They are abandoned to the
fish-fag comfort of abuse : they have no resource left
but to vilify the QUEEN, which they all do—all to
a man. Only give them rope enough, and rest
satisfied they will make a salutary use of it.

When we are told that the Orangemen and their
female connections would on no account harm our
admirable QUEEN, if they had the opportunity,
we beg lea►e to answer, that it will not be
from any respect which they have for human life,
but out of respect to some conventional and class
morality. Dog, it is said, will not eat dog; and if
the Orange aristocracy have some regard for the lives
of the aristocracy, they have none for those of
the poor. They have cleared their estates of the
Catholics, they ha►e pulled down the cottages of
the poor, and have cast out the aged and the bed-
ridden to die by the way side and in the ditches.
Are the priests better than the Orange aristocracy ?
They have slaughtered, or caused to be slaugh-
tered, those who refuse to pay tithes. Other
debts, when contracted for services, or volun-
tarily incurred, are recovered by civil pro-
cess ; the parson's dues have been levied at the
point of the bayonet ; and as at Ratheormac, mur-
der is the means of enforcing payment. Now,
when those who teach poverty are guilty of such
enormous crimes to seise what, according to the
laws of Nature and the laws of GOD does not be-
long to them, who can possibly trust them. We
cannot trust those whom they teach, and who
imbibe their doctrines, with the custody of Her
whom they treat with all kinds of ribaldry and
consider as the chief obstacle to their com-
plete triumph. The habitual commission of great
crimes to attain their ends, like that of slaughtering

the peasantry at Rathcormac, and like that of
turning them out of their homes to die like rotten
sheep, of which we hear every day, would make us
shudder to place the life a cat in the care of those
who have embraced the religion of the Orangemen,
much more should we dread placing at their
mercy the most valuable life in the empire, which
stands between them and their success.

According to the Brighton Gazette, the
Chartists are sufficiently numerous and sufficiently
respectable in that Aristocratic and Royal residence
to meet in the Town-hall. On Wednesday they