The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-04 00:00:00

Thie

LONDON:
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1841.

We are not aware of the reason which the
Globe, has when it enters into a somewhat elabo-
rate criticism of our opinions, for refusing to name
the Sun. Such silence is hardly fair to other
journals, tbr it may perchance happen that other
Radical colleagues of the Globe may get the dis-
credit of saying those unpleasant truths of the
MELBOURNE Ministry which are found only in
the columns of The Sun.

In our journal of Tuesday last, in speaking of
the Whig Ministry, we endeavoured to distin-
guish between their conduct as Ministers of the
Crown and as chiefs of a party, and while we de-
fended them as we generally have defended their
conduct as Ministers of the Crown, we did not
and could not defend their conduct as chiefs of a
party continually struggling for ascendancy
against another great party of the State. While
we cheerfully admitted that as Ministers of the
Crown they had deserved, in comparison with
other Ministries, the public approbation, we
contended that as chiefs of a party they
had failed in their duty to that party.
We said that " they wanted an efficient, ambitious,
and vigorous party chief. Lord MELBOURNE'S
sincerity and good nature unfitted him for the
office." The Globe says Lord MELBOURNE will
receive this censure as a compliment. We
meant it neither as a censure nor as a compli-
ment, but the statement of a fact. Sincerity and
good-nature, says the Globe, are, after all,
not so entirely at a discount as to have lost all
application. But they require in a statesman
to be under the guidance of discretion.
Lord MELBOURNE was perfectly sincere--that
is, he expressed the opinion which he honestly
entertained at the moment when he denounced
those who wished all protection to be removed
from agriculture as madmen; but the mischief
which that unhappy, though sincere phrase, has
done to the party and the cause of which
Lord MELBOURNE was the leader, is in-
calculable. Lord MELBOURNE was perfectly
sincere, we have no doubt, when he praised
the purity of the Corn-law making Lords,
and emphatically disclaimed the opinions
of the anti-Corn-law press, and the Manchester
Conference ; but by so doing he gave an arm
into the hands of his opponents to wound his
own best supporters and friends. The Noble
Lord wanted, in these cases, and a hundred
others we might quote, discretion to guide his
sincerity ; and though he did the public ser-
vice no harm by his somewhat foolish outbreaks
of sincerity, he inflicted great injury on his party
Again, ".Lord JortN RUSSELL," says the Globe;
" has been unavoidably resolute, to say what he
thought on the great fundamental principles of
policy and of the Constitution." " Those who
have strong opinions," it is added " will utter
them." And we question whether their
utterance can hurt the good cause in
the long run. Of course not the cause
to which the opinions are favourable ; but
when Lord J. RUSSELL, being the leader of the
movement party in the House of Commons, ad-
vocates finality. he utters a strong opinion in
favour of Toryism, and separates, by a word,
nearly half the great party from him, which he
ought to have bound together by all politic
means, if he wished to preserve in his hands the
Governnmet of the country. So, in respect to
Mr. WAKLEY, the instance we quoted before.
Lord J. RUSSELL felt, no doubt, very strongly, a
sentiment of contempt for Mr. WAKLEY, when
he spoke of him as a metropolitan demagogue ;
but it is evident, from the last speech of the
Hon. Member for Finsbury, that he never for-
got nor forgave the sneer, and he retorted it,-
with tenfold interest, on the Noble Lord, mak-
ing both the Noble Lord and his measures look

contemptible in the eyes of the Radicals, whom
Mr. W ARLEY can influence, and who were
numbered amongst the supporters of the
Whigs. it might be very magnanimous in
Lord JOHN RUSSELL to despise the Hon. Mem-
ber for Finsbury, but to express that sentiment
was most injurious to the party of which Lord
JOHN RUSSELL was the head in the House of
Commons.

We are ready to repeat, therefore, calmly and
deliberately, our charge against the Whig Mi-
nisters, that as chiefs of a party they either mis-
understood or neglected their duty to that party.
The result is that the party has dwindled away,
and they are turned out. Never in the whole
course of his existence did Sir ROBERT PEEL
insult the meanest member of his party in the
way that Lord JOHN RUSSELL insulted Mr.
WAKLEY, and never did Sir ROBERT PEEL de-
nounce the opinions of his followers and sup-
porters, and praise those of his opponents, as did
Lord MELBOURNE. Such conduct on their part
is not inconsistent with the most righteous and
wise administration of public affairs, but it was
ruinous to the party of which they were at the
he ad.

The Globe thinks such sincere speaking will
not injure the good cause in the long run. We
know not what good cause it means. Is the Whig
cause not the good cause ? It has injured that
past immediate cure. We think progressive re-
form and the repeal of the Corn-laws the good
cause, and no person can doubt whether that
cause has been injured by the conduct and
language we have adverted to. If Lord MEL-
BOURNE and Lord JOHN RUSSELL were not sin-
cere, as the Globe implies, when they placed
themselves at the head of the movement
party—if they were always for finality, and no
further reform—we mitt affirm that their sincerity
in now and then uttering a strong opinion does
not equal their practical insincerity. They
placed themselves at the head of the movement
party, while in essential matters they were not
different from the Tories.

And now let us say a word to the Globe itself.
We believe with that journal that sincerity is
not at a discount in this country, and therefore
we believe that its occasional mode of mocking
at all great interests, particularly at the
working classes for their political aspirations,
has not served the Whigs. It has made the
working classes say again and again, what dif-
ference is there between this brutal persiflage
and that of the Tory journals, and what better,
therefore, are the Whigs, who tolerate and en-
courage it, than the Tories? After the avowed
aad determined neglect of party by the
Whigs, we know nothing that has injured them
with one class of the public more than the misdi-
rected wit of such journals as the Globe.

The advent of the Tories to office like, the ac-
cession of a new Sovereign, seems to fill nearly
all parties but their immediate opponents with
hope. Like every such change, its effects cannot
be known; at the same time great evils are suf-
fered, and therefore from it great good is ex-
pected. Even the grimmest of the grim Radi-
cals in the House of Commons, such as Messrs.
WOOD, WAKLEY, and ROEBUCK, look smilingly
on the new and portly Premier, and promise him
in the name of their universal suffrage-seeking,
bread-tax-abolition-demanding constituents, a
fair trial. A fair trial, not at the Old Bailey,
but for the exercise of their skill in the public
streets of a band of pickpockets. While this de-
lusion lasts, though we believe it will be very
short, it seems to -be in vain to say ought
against the Ministers. Daily do we incur re-
proaches for not joining somewhat in the
general joy, and expressing something like
adhesion to, and confidence in, the Tories. Some
Ministry, it is supposed, is indispensible ; the
Whigs deceived us, and therefore now let us
turn with hope and love to the Tories. We can-
not give in to that doctrine. We admit the ne-
cessity of a Ministry; but we cannot for one mo-
ment be contented with a Tory Ministry, nor
itg flint it can confer be-
Before we can hope anything from such a Go-
vernment we must forget the conduct of the
Tory faction for more than half a century. We
must forget, too, how they have now obtained
power, and for what purposes they hold it. We
must forget that the men who compose it--
KNATCHBULL, BUCKINGHAM, GOULBURN, HAR-
BINGE, PEEL, STANLEY, GRAHAM—are one and
all the representatives, not of men, but of prin
ciples, and they stand up before the community
the avowed advocates of hypocrisy, fraud, and
terror, as the means of governing mankind.
Because the Whigs have done wrong, have de-.
ceived our hypes, have fatally convinced us that
we erred in trusting them so much, are we at
once to worship the incarnation of all those
principles we condemn them for approaching?
If, indeed, the faults and offences of the Whigs
should have swept all respect for political
principles out of the public mind, as
if there were no right nor wrong but what is made
by Whig and Tories, their Administration will
turn out infinitely more calamitous for the coun-
try than could be supposed. But whatever may
be the feelings of gentlemen in Parliament we
are sure that such is not the case in the empire,
and whatever may be the momentary feeling a
sturdy love of honesty and rectitude, a sturdy.
love of principle, and a steady conviction of its
invincibility, will make the people hope nothing
from the Tories, and use all just and reasonable
means to throw off a Government which is esta-
blished to maintain an odious monopoly.
It is impossible to look at the list of the Tory
Ministry, composed of BUCKINGHAM, KNATCH-
BULL, and the renegades STANLEY and GRAHAM,
without instinctively concluding that such a
Ministry is intended to work mischief. They
are elderly men, hardened in the way of Tory-
ism, or young men who have expressed extreme
Tory opinions. Messrs. ROEBUCK and WARD
may hope for living birds from addled eggs, for
a healthy offspring from a worn out and withered
nymph of the streets; but let them not hope to
obtain public benefits from a Tory Government,
founded on an avowed and lawless desire to
plunder and oppress the people. We see no
reason whatever for giving such a Government
a fair trial, and we are astonished that the re-
presentatives of Sheffield and Bath can for one
moment think it possible that their constituents
will approve of their looking with the least de-
gree of favour on the Starvation Ministry.

The Gazette and the Court Circular both an-
nounce officially the formation of the new Mi-
nistry, and our readers will find them in another
part of The Sun. Several of the chiefs yesterday
transacted business at their offices and fairly
launched the Tory ship. Whither she is to steer
and what port she is destined to reach cannot yet
be known. Her pilot has not told us his inten-
tions; but it is customary tojudge of the probable
voyage of a vessel by her fittings and her crew.
We, therefore, have no manner of doubt as to
the buccaneering cruise for which the Tory ship
is prepared, but we apprehend her crew are likely
to quarrel amongst themselves, and that the trade
wind of public opinion will drive her out of her
intended course. In plain terms, the Ministry is
composed of anti-free-traders, and the demand
for free trade is so strong in the country, that Sir
ROBERT PEEL, however resolute he may be,
will palter in his career. Then the BUCKING-
HAMS and KNATCIIBULLS will forsake him, and
he must coalesce with the Whigs, or retire to
that private life which he will, we have no
doubt, so well become.

The article which we have copied from the
Times, relative to Lord COTTENHAM, is very cre-
ditable to that journal. What is said of the
Noble and Learned Lord is not one word more
favourable than he deserves. There never was
a Judge in the Court of Chancery who gave more
satisfaction to all Classes, or who more rigidly
and Unostentatiously performed his duty. If the
Tories do not regret the change, the suitors most
probably will, and all reasonable men will find