The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-21 00:00:00

punLic OPINION.

The Morning Post treats wi:h great contempt the idea
that the country is dissatisfied with the present Minis-
try, observing Even the opponents of the present
Government—such of them at least as have any preten-
sion to reasonableness—allow that time for considera-
tion is necessary, and that a Ministry which has just
come in ought not, in justice or in prudence, to offer to
the public permanent measures of great importance to
various rival interests. The " motion " of the who!e
country is merely an imaginary motion, and all the ho-
nours which belong to it are likely to be engrossed by such
interesting localities as New Brentford and Whitechapel."
The Advertiser thus refers to Sir Robert Peel's first
Ministerial declarations in Parliament :—" The speech
and the moment, in themselves, constitute a portraiture
of the times. The pen of Tacitus might, in vain, labour
to reduce within a circle of more compressed limits the
picture of events : that speech, and that moment—they
live in mutual relief, exposing the insolence of the Mi-
nister, and that temporary exhaustion of power, under
which a series of unconstitutional procedures had mo-
mentarily placed the people."—lt is not so much from
" exhaustion" or indifference that the country is now
apparently quiescent, as from that love of fair play for
which it has ever been, and we trust will ever be, remark-
able. It is unwilling to stir, except from a deep-seated
conviction that nothing is to be hoped for but from
strenuous agitation; and the late Tory declarations will
tend in no slight degree to produce this conviction.
The Chronicle remarks, in allusion to Sir Robert
Peel's want of decision and straightforwardness on the
Corn-law question In his present position, Sir Ito
bert Peel can only play Mrs. Candour at the expense of
his own character. If he will not allow us to consider
that the election of a landlord's majority has ascertained
' what is to be the state of the law affecting,the importa-
tion of corn,' he is bound by his own previous profession,
in June last, to tell the public what he means the state of
that law to be ; and if it is, as his conduct intimates,
open to alterations, what he intends those alterations
to be. Of course we mean, not in subordinate and
unimportant details, but what they will be substan-
tially, and in their bearing upon persons engaged
in commercial speculations.' If unprepared to do
this, he should have cast no uncertainty over the subject.
He should have quietly left it where it had been placed
by the fact of his monopolist majority. He should not
have destroyed an immense advantage' for the sake of
cajoling the people into an expectancy which he has no
mason for believing he can ever satisfy. He is practising
a delusion now, as he did before."—To expect boldness
and decision from Sir Robert Peel on the Corn• law
question, is as ridiculous as to expect eloquence from a
Sibthorp, or statesmanlike sagacity from a D'lsraeli.
With such a colleague at his elbow as the Duke of Buck-
ingham, and such a monopolist majority, to keep a wary
eye on his movements, as the Ninety-One, the Right
Hon. Baronet cannot be deCided, even if his turn of mind
allowed him to be so.

sloau Our re,
perfectcfhoaorHeraldnhbegear is of o
hybo
eerteaohnr
:didoeaxnpcpop whattini
euhasi
appears to
that
exclusively
oay pleases
forget
allat the
rng e
etoto t
df:Tory
vtt
with
the
Premier
hit
gheeßight
fabrication.
rwhhect is at
Poo-
law, mea-
sure annr
Baronet was one of the chief supporters of this law, and
that it could not have passed without his concurrence :
" It is false to assert that Sir Robert Peel is bound to
the present Poor-law ; he is no more bound to its vices
and errors-than he is not to alter the timber duties or
improve the corn duties. Sir Robert Peel was content
to give the Whig Poor-law, what the Whigs refuse to
give him—a fair trial ; but for having done so, his
course in office is not to be embarrassed by all its defects,
its cruel administration, and its heartless officials. The
Whigs alone are responsible for the present Poor-law ;
and for it, so long as memory lasts in England, their
party will be handed down to execration from age to
age. as the poor man's enemies."
The Times is exceedingly displeased that. Lord Mar-
peth should have accepted a public dinner from the Irish
Reformers, and condescends to read his Lordship a lee.
ture on the subject in these terms:=" A high-minded
officer, more concerned about public interests than about
personal vanity, would, under all the circumstances,
have peremptorily declined such a dinner. Lord Mor-
peth, kne., perfectly well the Repeal yrinciples of the
great majority of those who meant to dine him.
Equally cognizant of the fact, that how sincerely soever
he himself may be attached to British connexion, the
treat was really given to him by a disaffected party from
a conviction sub rosy that their guest had essentially pro-
moted their objects by his official influence, his Lordship
was bound to have repudiated in the most emphatic
manner the very discreditable compliment which they
wished to pay him."
The Ipswich Express makes the following comments
on what it calls the " first act of a Tory Ministry :"
" Sir Robert Peel has spoken as Prime Minister of the
Restoration, and has plainly told a suffering people that
to relieve their distress he will do nothing. The esti-

mates of his predecessors are to be taken without altera-
tion, and the deficiency of the revenue is to be met by a
vote of credit ! And then the Legislature is to adjourn
until February ! There can be but one cause for this
impolitic proceeding—namely, Sir Robert Peel's utter
inability to manage his high-flying, aristocratic Cabinet."
The BcPon Free Press observes :—" Let the reader
peruse our brief notice of Sir R. Peel's evasive speech
in .the House on Thursday evening, and, in connection
with it, our report of the great meeting held at Man.
chester on the same day, and ask himself if our shuffling
Premier is not paving the way for a violent revolution.
Quern Deus vult perdere prius dementit. Had a speech
like that which we find set down for Sir R. Peel in yes-
terday's papers been published in waggery, by anticipa-
tion, it might well have been pronounced a burlesque."
The • Cambridge Independent remarks as follows c n Sir
James Graham's recent speech at Dorchester Sir
James Graham's speech was altogether a miserable
failure. After a deal of abuse bestowed upon the late
Whig Administration, the Right Hon. Baronet did not
tell his audience a syllable as to the measures which the
Tory Government intended to introduce. Indeed,
wherever we look through the speeches delivered by
members of the Administration, at the recent re-elec-
tions, for anything tangible or itraightforward as to Sir
Robert Peel's course, it is all labour lost. Our political
future is still a secret."