The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-21 00:00:00

discharge of his Parliamentary duties, but in this instance
he will not only have been instrumental in creating a false im-
pression out of doors, but he has, to a certain extent, da-
maged the three subjects to which his separate amendments
referred. The numbers on a division were 509 to only 20 ;
but of course it is to be recollected that very many Members
who would have supported Mr. Wakley on any other occasion,
had the Vote by Ballot, extension of Suffrage, or the shorten-
ing of Parliaments been deliberately introduced and regularly
debated, refused to join him when he brought them forward so
inopportunely and inconsiderately. Previously to the divi-
sion, and after the question had been put from the Chair, the
cry of " Divide, divide !" was heard from the Opposition
benches, the occupants of them being obviously afraid that
Mr. Wakley would come to his senses even before his "firm
and faithful few" bad mustered round him in the lobby. The
speech of the noble mover of the Address, Lord Leveson,
was remarkable for the gentlemanly and unpretending
ease with which it was delivered, as well as for the
judicious manner in which the various topics were han-
dled. When he adverted to the improved prospects and
tranquil state of Ireland, the Honourable and Gallant
Member for Sligo, " sent up a shout" which the Irish Tory
Members repeated in full chorus, and which was quite as vi-
gorously answered from the opposite side of the House. We
regret to say that little or nothing that fell from Mr. Gibson
Craig, the seconder, was audible. Then followed Mr. Wak-
ley with his three amendments, and his commencement was
loudly cheered by the Tories, though, as he warned them,
they had reason before long to repent their encouragement,
for the latter part of what the Hon. Member said was as much
in favour of Ministers as the opening had been against them.
He was happy in his ridicule of his "political sire," Sir F.
Burdett, who_had reared his political character in Middlesex,
slain it in Westminster, and buried it in Wiltshire. Sir W.
Molesworth asserted that wherever Radicals bad presented

......_ -
themselves to constituencies at the last election they had sue_
- - - - - •

cceded, excepting in cases of notorious intimidation and cor-
ruption, which of course produced a vociferous contradiction
from the Tories. These indications of dissent were even louder
when Mr. Hume maintained that the reduced majority of Mi-
nisters was owing to the defects in the Reform Bill. He denied
that it was final, and called upon the Government to adopt such
measures as, by securing popular support, would for ever ex-
clude the Tories from office. Mr. Grote earnestly joined Mr.
Hume in recommending Mr. Wakley to withdraw his amend-
ments, and happily described the Conservative principle as
the negation of all substantial reform. Mr. Liddell led the
Tory van, and, as if resolved to prove his " grasp of mind,"
more than doubted by Lord Durham in his late speech, seized,
as it were, all the points of the Royal Speech at once. He
invoked Ministers to preserve the Established Church, and by
a bold poetical figure called Mr. O'Connell a " political Cer-
berus, who held the keys of office in his hand." This was
about upon a par with Moore's " Crocodile with his hands in
his breeches pockets." Colonel Perceval took the opportunity
of denying strenuously that Ireland was tranquil, and in-
stanced the present condition of the county of Sligo, which
would disgrace any civilized country. Lord John Russell
in a very manly way met the objection that the Speech
from the Throne was vague and indefinite. In open-
ing the first Parliament of Queen Victoria it was
wished by Ministers to avoid all topics likely to pro-
duce angry discussion :—" If this be a crime (said his
Lordship) we avow our guilt," and he was cheered by nearly
the whole House. He admitted the defects of the registration
law, stated his readiness to remove them, and lamented the
extent to which intimidation and corruption bad been carried
during the last election. This circumstance induces us, as
sincere friends of the Government, to regret the more that his
Lordship did not rather resist the temptation afforded him by
Mr. Wakley of entering on the question of the Ballot, at a
time, too, when it was so evident that the great body of Re-
formers around him regretted its introduction by the Hon.
Member for Finsbury, and that he should have pronounced as
he did so decided an opinion against a mode of protecting
voters, which, it cannot be forgotten, his Lordship expressly
deferred, as a subject for the future consideration of the Legis-
lature, when he originally introduced the Reform Bill. He
likewise declared, that if the existing law, amending the
representative system, were hereafter thought unfit to be
preserved, he would be no party, either in Parliament
or in the Cabinet, to its repeal, or to the re-enactment
of a new and more efficient measure. Sir Robert Peel did
not fail upon these topics to display his usual dexterity in de-
bate. He denied with a bold front that the reduction of the
Ministerial majority from 1.50 to 30 or 40 was produced by
intimidation or corruption, and accounted for it in the usual
mode by maintaining that the sentiments of the great body of
the people had altered, and that they were resolved to resist
farther democratic changes. This assertion was directly con-
tradicted by Mr. Ward, who was the last speaker before the
division, and who deeply regretted that the course taken by
Lord John Russell compelled him to join the mover of the
amendments, should be think fit to press them to a division ;
but he also urged strongly the impolicy of such a proceeding.
Mr. Wakley persisted in his determination, and the result was
what we have already stated. Mr. Harvey afterwards brought
forward his amendments relating to the duchies of Lancaster
and Cornwall, and to the revision of the Pension List. The
Hon. Gentleman dwelt on the propriety of putting the public
in possession of the actual income of these duchies at
a time when a new arrangement was about to be entered
into regarding the Civil List. There was, he said, perhaps
no species of property of which the Crown was in the receipt
respecting the value of which the public was so completely in
the dark. It was obvious that if this property was with any
thing like effect brought in aid of the Civil List, Parliament
was bound and had a right to know its exact value. Lord
John Russell assured the Hon. Gentleman that when his Right
Ilon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to take up
the matter in detail, it would be found that the Government
proposition would do away with all his objections as to
mystery, either in the amount or application of the re-
venues; and in moving for the Committee it would be
stated and shown from documents what were the usual
and average receipts arising from these sources. He
observed also, that while the revenues arising from
the Duchy of Lancaster were absolutely vested in the
Crown, those of the Duchy of Cornwall were only
held by the Crown in the absence of an Heir
Apparent, and ceased to appertain to it as soon
as an Heir Apparent came into existence ; and of
course this distinction rendered it impossible to adopt,
at the commencement of a reign, any permanent
arrangement embracing both duchies. Whet the
public dislike in these cases is mystery, and the publication
of the accounts of the revenues of the duchies will meet the
chief objections to the withholding any branches of revenue
from the arrangement at the commencement of a new reign.
There is no wish on the part of the people that the Civil List
should not be amply sufficient for the wants of the Sovereign ;
but they naturally wish to know how these wants are provided
for. At the commencement of the last reign the mystery ob-
served with regard to the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall
produced an unfavourable impression on the public. From
having understood that publicity would be given to the ac-
counts of all the hereditary revenues, we were led to infer
that, as the arrangement in that case substantially transferred
all the hereditary revenues to the public, the Speech from the
Throne would notice this distinction between the proceedings
at the commencement of this and those of former reigns. Mr.
Harvey appeared to be quite satisfied with the explanation
given to him by Lord J. Russell.—Morning Chronicle.
The address to the Throne gave rise to no debate in the
House of Lords last night. And no wonder ;it was the fun
damental maxim of the philosophical infidel, in his great poe
tical work,

" Ex nibilo nil fit divinitus unquam ;"
which, in homely phraseology, may be translated, " of a sow's
ear not even a Prince can make a silken purse." The Speech
contained nothing ; what, then, could the commentary be
worth? Yet was there a kind of dextrous allusion in the
Duke of Sussex's moving of the Address, to the part which
the Duke of Wellington had taken in the new Poor Law Bill
calculated to do the immortal warrior no great good in the
public estimation at present. Had the Duke of Wellington
adopted a popular course in regard to that severe measure,
the Duke of Sussex, or rather his party, would never have
paid his Grace a compliment on the occasion. He has helped
the Ministry and Lord John in passing their Whig measure ;
the people are grieved at it ; and to increase their chagrin,
the Duke is not to be suffered to rest in quiet for what he has
done ; he is to be drawn forth and complimented as a public
benefactor; he is to be made a conspicuous personage—he, who
has many really measureless claims to honour—for his approba-
tion of the Poor Law Bill ! Lord John complimented him for
the same at Stroud ; and it is deserving observation, be the
merits or the demerits of this Bill what they may, that the.
most marked thing that its authors can say in its defence is,
that it has (as we and others think, most unhappily) obtained
the approbation of those who should have been its adversaries
—of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel. A speech
on the accession of a new Sovereign, and that new Sove-
reign a female, youthful, innocent, and amiable, is, from the
character and situation of the person addressed, entitled to
the kindest consideration of those who hear it. We should
have been sorry if there had been any opposition to the Ad-
dress in either House on the part of the Conservatives. Still
one portion of the nothing-saying document, if it have any
meaning, is a queer one. Her Majesty is made to say—" That
she rejoices in the prospect that she shall be able to procure
the best interests of her subjects by securing to them the
ad-
vantages of peace." Surely this clause must have crept in
from some preceding speech towards the close of a great war
—probably just before the negotiations of Utrecht were
opened ; or does it mean, that as the heroic leader of the Spa-
nish expedition is now at home, his deserted troops are speed-
ily to be recalled ? This is the only prospect of peace of which.
we have any notion at present.—Times.

. •
The debate of last night in the House of Commons upon
the Address, though it involved no division of a nature to try
the strength of the great parties, had yet that interest which
is connected with curiosity. There was much solicitude to
see on this, the first meeting of the young Queen with her
Parliament, what colour would be taken by the chamelion
Ministry of the hour. The speech, indeed, which they had
put into their fair mistress's mouth was meagre enough. It
might have been written by any indifferent author, Whig or