The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-25 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS PAY.

CHRONICLE.--The proceedings in the House of Com-
mons last night were of the greatest importance. About the
-ime when the more important business usually commences,
sir Robert Peel rose, and thus addressed the House :—" I rise
o give notice that I shall on Thursday next move a resolution
.o the following effect :—.That her Majesty's Ministers do not
ufficiently possess the confidence of the House of Commons to
,nable them to carry through that House measures which they
leem of essential importance to the public welfare, and that
their continuance in office under such circumstances is at ca
rious with the spirit of the Constitution." And why do
hey not sufficiently possess the confidence of the House of
c..,ommons? What has happened in the interval between the
)prming of the session and the 24th of May 1 Lord John
Russell gave notice, on the night of the budget, that he in-
-ended to attack the Corn-law. On the same night the sugar
and timber monopolies were denounced. The corn, the sugar,
gad the timber monopolists constitute a majority in the present
House of Commons, and their confidence was lost the moment

ihat their interests were threatened. Ministers lost the confi-
:lence of the House of Commons, because they proved them-
selves deserving of the confidence of the people. In the ho-
lest and conscientious discharge of their duty to their Royal
Mistress and to her subjects, they felt that the time
was come when to keep terms any longer with mo-
nop ,ly would be attended with the most ruinous
consequences to the country ; and, aware of the pre-
ponderance of the monopolists in the House of Commons,
they yet did not hesitate to propose measures which they knew
must deprive them of their confidence. They said to them-
selves, We owe it to the Queen, not of the monopolists merely,
hut of the whole people of these kingdoms, to propose such
measures as we conceive necessary for the general welfare,
and as these measures will be opposed by a majority in the
House of Commons, to afford the people an opportunity of
returning to a future House of Commons representatives
disposed to support us in our well-meant endeavours.
From the moment that Lord John Russell proposed to
invade the corn monopoly, every man of the least
political discernment knew that old party connec-
sions were dissolved—that the representatives of agricultural
'constituencies would instantly desert Ministers. The proceed-
ings which have since taken place in the House must have been
anticipated by Ministers as they were anticipated by all others.
They are all so many steps towards what from the first was in-
‘vitable, namely, a dissolution. The notice given by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer on Wednesday last, that on next
Monday (yesterday) he should move, in a Committee of the
House, the renewal of the sugar ditties ; and the brief answer
of Lord John Russell to the question of Lord Dar-
lington, that on the 4th of June he should proceed with his
.notion on the Corn-laws, annihilated the hope with which
some of the monopolists had flattered themselves that Minis-
ters would be silly enough to betray the cause of the people,
and resign into their hands the Government, without allowing
the people an opportunity to fight their own battles. What
took place on Wednesday night was a sufficient announcement
of the dissolution, and as such the monopolists understood it.
But we confess, though we wished, we hardly dared to hope,
that Sir Robert Peel would, by such a resolution as that
which he gave notice last night, afford Ministers any
opportunity which could be avoided of advocating the cause
of truth and justice. and denouncing the iniquitous preten-
sions of the monopolists. The Right Honourable Baronet is
himself too much impressed with the rottenness of that cause,
of which the defence has been imposed on him by the evil ge-
nius that has doomed him to abandon every opinion he ever
professed, to have voluntarily given notice of such a resolution.
He must have been impelled by the Buckinghams, the Knatch-
nulls, and other zealots of his party, to afford an occasion that
night have been withheld, to Ministers and the supporters of
the good cause in the House of Commons, for exhibiting to the
country, in all their hideousness, the parties who are leagued
together to trample on the rights of the people, and to sacrifice
their best interests to a blind selfishness. We thank Sir Robert
Peel for the favour which, however reluctantly, he has confer-
red on the people. The vote on Thursday will be of no value
whatever as a mere trial of party strength, for the strength of
Ministers is not in the House of Commons, but in the nation ;
but the debate will be of infinite value as a means of enabling
the people to know their friends from their enemies, and to
appreciate the character and vieves of the men who are seeking
'o possess themselves of power, in order to promote their own
class interests at the expense of the welfare of the country.
We therefore trust that all Members who wish to stand well
with the people will avail themselves of the occasion which
Sir Robert Peel has afforded them, and show by their pre-
sence and their vote, that in the approaching crisis they
are entitled to the confidence of their countrymen. The people
will carefully watch the proceedings to which Sir Robert's mo-
tion will give rise.
ADVERTISER.—WANT OF CONFIDENCE IN MINIS-
TEES.—SO, Sir Robert Peel has signified that it is the pleasure
of his party to move a vote of want of confidence in the Ali-
nistry on Thursday. If he succeed, which is by no means
certain, what then ? He will but pronounce more clearly and
decisively what was very well known, but not said, before, that
the House of Commons, being for the most part. composed of
class interests, is a very unfit body to determine upon the me-
rits of a Ministry whose measures are designed for national,
and not for class objects. He will but hasten the appeal to the
arbiter of the respective claims of parties—the people. But
for the disadvantage of not having the Corn-laws well and tho-
roughly discussed before a dissolution, and thus having too the
whole case opened, the motion of Sir Robert Peel would be
to us,-and, we believe to the party generally, a welcome, nay,
a highly acceptable proceeding. For what does it do? It
puts the Whigs, indeed, upon their trial, but do the Tories
escape? And how will the two parties stand in the compari-
son Let the ten years of the Whig reign be put in parallel
with the ten years last preceding of the Tory reign. Compare
the period of 1820 to 1830 with the period of 1830 to 1841—
the former period one of excellent counsel and urgency and
support on the part of the Whigs to good measures, though
introduced by Tories ; the latter period one of dogged resist-
ance, on the part of the Tories, to good measures, because be-
neficial to the people, or, worse, because introduced by the
Whigs. We do trust that the Liberals will not be sparing—
that they will at once and boldly carry the war into the enemy's
territory ; and fearlessly demand of the country its judgment,
Peel or Russell, Tory or Whig—restriction and monopoly, or
free trade and the fair interests of all. Taking this view, we
are not sure that even it may not be fit to glance somewhat
distinctly at the Corn-laws; for as the Tories regard the pro-
posed measure as one calculated to detach some of the sup-
porters of the Whigs, they are not likely to leave it out of
their budget of charges against the Government. Our party
must take care not to suffer Sir Robert Peel to play the same
trick upon them, which he did on the closing night of the
sugar duties debate. It was then his forte to plead his right to
a patient hearing on account of having been so markedly chal-
lenged by the opposite side. Accordingly, when the Liberals
seemed inclined to point by a cheer some of his most glaring
plausibilities, he stopped and looked a look of surprise, as if a
compact had been broken ; while all the time his own party
cheered most vociferously every one of his noodleisms, with ad-
ditional courage and force too, because their antagonists were
silent. We watched with some interest, not altogether of a
pleasant kind, the success of this tactic, to which we believe
Sir Robert Peel owed much of his temporary triumph, for if ,1
the irony which must have been provoked, had found its
vent in cheers, it would have staggered the sophist,
and most probably defeated his attempt. The peculiarity
was more marked, as the Tory party by no means
treated Lord Palmerston, who followed, with the
same forbearance. Now, this practical lesson should not be
lost on the Liberals during the coming discussions. Let it be
plainly shown that the measures of the Government, with all
their short-comings at times, have always tended to improve
the condition of the people, to extend their liberties, civil and
religious ; and that if they have sometimes given occasion for
censure, it has been partly owing to the strength and invete-
racy of the Tories, and to their own weakness, compared with
that of the advocates of monopoly and class-interests, who have
since the Reform Act exerted themselves perseveringly in the
pursuit of the same objects, which they so scandalously ac-
complished, at the nation's expense, by the instrumentality of
the boroughmongering Parliaments. It is true they have
sometimes held a wolfish tone of regard for the people, but only
for the purpose of covering their had designs.
POST.—Our anticipations of yesterday morning were con-
firmed at the commencement of public business in the House of
Commons in the evening. As soon as notices of motions were
called on, Sir Robert Peel rose, and amid the breathless atten-
tion of a very crowded House, gave notice that on Thursday
next. he would move a resolution of the House, " That her Ma-
jesty's Ministers do not sufficiently possess the confidence of
the House of Commons to enable them to carry through
the House measures which they deem of essential importance
to the public welfare, and that their continuance in office under
' such circumstances is at variance with the spirit of the Con-
' stitution." This notice of motion was received with tre-
mendous cheering by the Opposition side of the House,
which continued for some time. The Right Honourable
Baronet has evidently given great satisfaction to his
party by this constitutional, bold, and explicit course, and we
feel perfectly confident that it will give equal satisfaction to the
country at large. Intelligent men of all ranks and conditions
will not fail to contrast this honest and manly decision of con-
, duct with the sneaking ambiguity of Ministerial meanness,
' which knew not how either to proceed with courage ur to re-
tire with dignity. It may be asked, " What but this were the
Conservatives to do ?" They might have done, as their oppo-
nents probably would have done under similar clrcurnstances—
they might have interfered to prevent the Government ob-
taining the ordinary sugar duties. Her Majesty's Ministers
attempted a course of policy at variance with that of the
ordinary sugar duties, and were beaten by the Opposi-
tion in the House of Commons. Instead of resigning,
they then propose the very duties which they had tried
'to alter, and failed in altering. Had the opposition been a
" factious opposition," it might have said that the Govern-
ment hasi no right to avail itself of duties on sugar, the policy
of which it had disputed. But so far from doing this, Sir Rn-
beet Peel himself seconded the motion of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer for going into Committee to agree to a resolution
continuing the ordinary sugar duties, and took the opportunity
to state that he would not embarrass the Government
either by opposing the duties, or moving that they
should be taken for a more limited period than usual.
The Government has not been met by any tortu-
ous or vexatious proceeding, such as would have
been adopted had Whig example been followed ; but it has
been met, as we said it would be, by manly, vigorous, straight-
forward, and constitutional opposition. But the resolution of
which Sir Robert Peel has given notice is as cautious as it is
bold. It is admirably worded. What can Ministerialists say
against it? Surely it is undeniable that the measures which
Minist'rs have lately proposed to the House of Commons are
deemed by them of essential importance to the public welfare.
This proposition we do not think any amount of effrontery can
deny ; and it is equally beyond controversy that Ministers do
not sufficiently possess the confidence of the House to enable
them to carry these measures.
HERALD.—The sword is drawn for the cause of Conser-
vative principles !
.The scabbard was thrown away, at an
early hour last evening, by Sir Robert Peel, with this memo-
rable denunciation of Whig incapacity and presumption :
,6 upon Thursday next I shall move a resolution to the follow-
ing effect That it is the opinion of this House that her
Majesty's Government does not sufficiently-possess the confi-
dence of the House of Commons to enable them to carry mea-
sures which they deem of essential benefit to the public welfare,
and that their continuance in office under such circumstaneo
is at variance with the spirit of the Constitution.' " Thus,
then, it appears that the measure of failure and of imbecility,
on the part of Lord Melbourne's Government, is full. Even
the unexampled moderation and forbearance of the most nume-
rous, the best organised, and by far the most triumphant
of any among the " oppositions, ' which have acted in the
House of Commoni during the last century—an oppo-
sition flushed with repeated victories, and which, with
a noble disinterestedness, and the most honourable considera-
' tion for the public welfare, has repeatedly replaced in their po-
' sitions the antagonists which it. had dislodged front them ; and
supported, in all measures which had an undisputed connection
with the essentisl interests and service of the public, their more