The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-02 00:00:00

foe of the Chancellorship makes him readily
lend his aid to the starvation Ministry.
__To____pranounce __the_ name- of the- -Duke-- of
BUCKlNGHAnis'exiotigiti His '
.presence in the
Ministry stamps its character. Not one jot of
the sliding scale will he. give up. The Govern-
ment of which he is a Member must be for the
bread-tax, the whole bread-tax, and nothing but
the bread-tax. _

Mr. GOULBURN is the embodyment of the
planter monopoly and of financial juggle. his
accession to the Exchequer is the signal to revive
all the exploded mysteries of enriching the na-
tion by-extorting its money.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE and Lord STANLEY we
place together, because both have signalized
themselves as advocates of coercion to Ireland.
Force properly follows financial chicanery, for
it must provoke hostility, and may need pro-

tection.
With all deference to the Earl of ABERDEEN,
neither his foreign diplomacy nor his attempts
to legislate for the Scotch Church has made him
so well known to the people that they do not
ask why should he be Foreign Minister? We
cannot answer the question. Judging by his
outward man he is not an unworthy Member of

the starvation Ministry.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM is too well known to the
public for his desertion of friends and principles ;
but it is an ominous sign that he, who has avowed
a more than ordinary hatred of Mr. O'CONNELL,
and a more than ordinary attachment to
the State Church, should be placed at the
head of the Home Department, and have
Ireland under him. As an administrator, he
was successful at the Admiralty, but instead of
sending him back thither, Lord MINTo is to be
succeeded by the Earl of HADDINGTON. It
would seem by such appointment as if both par-
ties were anxious to convince the public that the
smallest possible quantity of previous statesman-
ship suffices to govern the navy. What will Sir
CHARLES NAPIER bay to Lord BINNING that
was, being First Lord of the Admiralty? If the
starvation Ministry had wished to place a more
insignificant Peer than Lord MINTO at the head
of the Admiralty, they have succeeded.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH, renowned for curls and
sensible speeches; the Earl of RIPON, once Prime
Minister, and then called by no flattering name,
now a Lord of Trade and plantations ; with Sir
E. KNATCHBULL, another staunch Corn-law Ad-
vocate.

Ireland is to be governed by Lord DE GREY,
best known as the brother of ithe Earl
of RIPON, and as having some taste in the fine
arts, while his Secretary is to be Lord ELLIOT,
best remembered as willing to lend himself, for
reputation sake, to those who have New Zealand
jobs to promote. (See the Times of last year.)
In order to show their love for the slaves, for
whose sake the monopolists would not untax the
people's sugar, they have placed the son of a ci-
devant slave-holder, and the great promoter of
the new slave-trade in Hill Coolies, in the Board
of Trade. From first to last the bread-taxing
Ministry seems to consist of persons well adapted
to carry its principles into execution. Force,
fraud, and hypocrisy are typified, and have their
appropriate representatives.
Looking at the Ministry as a whole, it is de-
cidedly aristocratic. There is no one Member of
it who is a representative of a populous place.
Eight Members of the Cabinet are Peers, and
four or five only Commoners. Sir R. PEEL re-
presents his pocket-borough of Tamworth. Mr.
GOULBURN sits for Cambridge University, and is
sent to Parliament by the parsons. Sir JAMES
GRAHAM is sent to Parliament by Dorchester,
and represents, in fact, the Nobleman who com-
mands the borough. Lord STANLEY, who is,
by-the-bye, more one of the Peerage than a
Commoner, represents the tenants-at-will and the
squires and factory owners of Lancashire. To
show accurately how little the starvation Mi-
nistry regards the people, Sir GEORGE MURRAY,
who has been rejected by them, is to have a
place of honour and distinction. Behold, then,
the revival of the Government of the aristocracy
and the boroughmorigers.
A Ministry so constituted, forced into power
by such means, and In-tended to accomplish such
purposes, naturally gives rise to much specula-
tion and to some curious thoughts. We are
taught, it is said, to obey the QUEEN, but not to
obey the monopolists. Though her MAJESTY,
by the Constitution, may be obliged to accept
them as her Masters, the people, the source
of all power, are under no such obligalion.
They trace the origin of the Ministry to its
source in the most selfish desires and the vilest
fraud, and they ask themselves very solemnly,
can it be good—is it right for us to obey such a
Ministry ? Do we not, by submitting to those
who avow a resolution to plunder arid coerce us
by measures of Parliament and the law, render
ourselves accessories to their offences, and court
the slavery they are resolved to inflict on us?
These are very important questions, and they
are asked through a widening circle.
The theory of the Constitution is, that the
minority must obey the majority--in this case
the majority is required to obey the minority.
The whole electoral body constitute a minority
of the people, and of that body, were it polled
man for man, it is doubtful whether the mono-
polists would be in a majority, while the bulk of
the non-electors are against them. Neither is
property on their side, for their possessions are not
property. Their income is derived from taxation.
Rent now springs from the bread-tax. Their
right to levy the tax is questioned, and they decide
for themselves that the right is in them, and
they will exercise it. Their power to do so, how-
ever, depends on other men, and is only by
the submission of the communiV that they can
retain in their hands the means of oppressing it.
To doubt their authority is to weaken—to resist is
to destroy it. Sir R. PEEL and the Duke of
WELLINGTON, by associating with the Duke of
BUCKINGHAM, and constituting a starvation Mi-
nistry, may not mean to being things to extremes,
but they have formed an extreme Ministry, and
rather than submit to starvation, men will ques-
tion their power.

Sir R. PEEL, on i,riday evening, was ex-
tremely anxious to snake the House believe that
he is attar'
He d to the principles of free trade.
—gain boasted of the assistance he had given
to Mr. HusKtssox, and of the assurances he had
received from Mr. Husiussox that from no
Member of the Government did he receive a
more cordial support than from Sir R. PEEL.
The Right Hon. Baronet also quoted two para-
graphs of a Royal Speech, drawn up by himself
in 182,5, in which the extension of commerce,
by removing inconvenient restrictions, was
strongly recommended. Some of the followers
of the Right Hon. Baronet have taken the same
course, and have claimed a great deal of credit
fur themselves, fur being disciples of Mr. Hus-
KISSON.

These declarations were issued a week or a
fortnight too late. Had they appeared ten days
ago, one of the leading Journals of the party
might have suppressed, at least for the present,
its attack on Mr. HUSKIBSON'S policy.
" The reciprocity and free-trade system," says Mch-
wood, " introduced by Mr. Huskisson in 1823, and
which for the nextten years was so perseveringly carried
out by every subsequent Administration, introduced at the
same time unparalleled success in the shipping interest of
Britain, and beyond all question had the effect of re-
ducing one-half the value of all the property'held in that
tbrin by the British merchants."
There is more of the same sort in the same
Magazine, intimating pretty plainly that this
leading journal of the Tories regards Sir R. PEtc
as a great fool for priding himself on having
supported Mr. HUSKISSON, and having trodden
in his steps. Though Sir ROBERT will not speak
out, and will endeavour to delude and beguile
us by assuming an air of liberality, his fol-
lowers have a thorough disdain of such
hypocrisy. Blackwood declares that the "con-
test now going on is between the powers of Hell
and those of Heaven ;" " Conservative Govern.-
ment must be based upon religion as revolu-
tionary Government must be base upon worldly
knowledge." "There .can be no dallying, no