The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-10 00:00:00

CHRONICLE.—Sir Robert Peel expresses no opinion 01
the approaching dissolution ; he leaves Ministers to their re•
sponsibility, and himself to the freedom of praising or im-
peaching it hereafter, as party convenience may dictate.
Very clever, no doubt; but is it statesmaelike? Is it patri-
otic? Is it honest? If the dissolution be right ,and good,
why not have the manliness to recognise It as such, and do
jus: ice to his opponents, credit to himself, and serve his coun •
try by such sanction on his part 7 And if it be the contrary,
why not expose the evil tendency ? Why notdeferid the na-
tion from the infliction of wroni? The abstinence from com-
mitting himself is as cowardly as it is tricky. But there is
a subordinate point, to which the pitiful expediency. of this
evasion does not extend. We mean the time of
re-assembling Parliament. On that inferior topic, Sir Ro-
bert gives vent to a strong opinion—he dOes not leave
Ministers to their responsibility there; lie threatens even to
enforce his opinion by the extreme measure of: interfering with
the supplies necessary for the interval. Tile responsibility 'of
Ministers, delicacy towards the prerogative, and, in short,
every conceivable ground for the pi evious.reserve, is cut away
by this subsequent decisiveness on the minor point. All is'
shown to be sheer affectation. The great question is kept
open, and the little question imperatively concluded,•jus,t to
secure a trumpery party convenience. 0 this " thing of
shreds and patches !" Is this a being for the people of Eng-
land to force upon their generous and high-minded Sovereign ;
and to entrust with their own vital interests, the rights which
he will undermine, the commerce with which he will tamper,
and the bread which he will not .untax ? They must bestir
themselves to answer that question at the poll about to be
taken between monopoly and anti-monopoly.
TIMES.—That the Whigs, after having been virtually ex-
pelled from power by a solemn vote of Parliament, should still
attempt to conduct the business of legislation, even on a small
scale, involves a new political anomaly which ought to be re-
sisted to the teeth. It is to do purpose thee the measures so
proposed are unexceptionable in thernsel the precedent, as
sanctioning an unconstitutioneprocedure on the part of a Go-
vernment not possessing the confidence of the House of Vont-
mons, is clearly a pernicious one,. which may afterwards be
pleaded in favour of more extensive innovations. if Lord
J. Russell, after having declared that the unequivocal sen-
tence recently pronounced upon the Ministry would deter
him from proceeding with any other business than merely
voting the necessary supplies, shall nevertheless be permit-
ted to prosecute such an important measure as " the Bribery-
at Elections Bill," we see no reason why his Lordship
might not be allowed, with equal propriety, to insist en
a still further extension of forbearance to enable him to
carry forward his vat ieus registration Bills and other similar
projects. It is true that the prevention of bribery at electiois
is a highly desirable thing ; and we are quite aware that Sir
Robert Peel gave a cordial promise to facilitate that object to
the utmost of his power. But the primary question, and a
most important one it is—the right of a condemned Govern-
ment to continue to lead the Legislative business of Parlia-
ment—is not affected by either of those considerations. The
House of Commons has emphatically declared that the
disreputable Ministry who now continue in office only by their
own base perversion oT Royal prerogative, are unworthy of
their confidence. Moreover, Lord John Russell pledged his
noble honour that if the House would only deign to trust the
dissolving Cabinet with such supplies as might enable them to
prolong their incumbency for another quarter, all general bu-
siness would immediately be postponed, and the Session brought
to a close. Yet, in spite of these circumstances, his Lordship
cunningly assuming that Sir R. Peel's avowed anxiety to
extirpate bribery might furnish a plausible plea for
temporarily deferring the dreaded dissolution, proposes to pro-
ceed with a Bill upon that subject, just as if the Ministry were
still the leaders of Parliament. This, we say, ought not to be
endured. Undoubtedly the necessity of getting rid of bribery
is quite as urgent as the necessity of purifying the registration
rolls, or of providing for the deficiencies of the revenue. But
there is nothing—no, not even in the prospect of a general
election—to justify a disgraced Government being entrusted
with the former of these objects, that might not equally entitle
them to superintend the consummation of the latter.
POST.—Even among those who highly disapprove of the po-
litics of Lord John Russell a considerable number may be found
who are not unwilling to award him the praise of what they call
determination and perseverance. They find something to ad-
mire in his " desperate fidelity" to his place and his party.
.o but he, say they, would have borne with such
disappointments, such annoyances, such disgraces, and yet still
have held on—still have kept for his party the advantages of
place and patronage? Look at him even now, they continue—
look at him under the direct censure of the House of Com-
mons, and, well knowing that the position of the Government
is no better in the House of Lords, how he still keeps up the
game, and braves a dissolution of Parliament, in the hope that
something may turn up to enable his party still to hold office.
Any other man but himself would have given way, but it
seems as if nothing would shake him from his grasp of Down-
ing-street. It is a curious exemplification of the 'English
character that people should be found bestowing a sort of re-
luctant admiration upon this particular kind of perseverance.
So deeply is the love of steadfastness and determination infixed
in the English character that, even when the object adhered
to is mean and unworthy, the mere fact of determined
adherence to it under circumstances of difficulty and
discouragement is beked upon with favour, and men-
tioned with applause. We must say, however, that we think
it is rather an abuse of the term to call Lord John Russell's
adhesion to office " perseverance." We think that justice and
a fair discrimination of language would rather distinguish it by
the name of pertinacity. The noble quality of perseverance
ought not to be degraded by association with an obstinate and
shameless tenacity of office, whether for self-advantage, or the
advantage of party. The determined pursuit of high national
objects in spite of formidable obstructions, and of difficulties
which would overwhelm ordinary men, is indeed a noble and
elevating spectacle of human exertion, and happily our country
has afforded bright examples of such struggles. But surely we
are not similarly to regard, or with anything like the same
feelings, a tenacity like that of the leech to the creature from
which it seeks its sustenance, or even that of the fierce diminu-
tive bull-dog to his hold upon the throat of his more powerful
antagonist ?
HERALD.—Many persons are utterly at a loss to account
for the alteration observable in Lord John Russell's tone re-
specting the Corn-law agitation on Monday night. It would
seem as if the sudden change of the weather, after the close of
the debate on Saturday morning, had produced a congenial
effect on his Lordship's temperament. Previous to Saturday
morning he had been factious up to blood heat ; ere Monday
evening he sank into something like the propriety of con-
stitutional conduct. However, we need not look to atmo-
spheric influences for the cause of this remarkable change.
There is a thermometer, more delicate than Fahrenheit's or
Reaumur's, by which ,Lord John is wont to regulate his tone
—and that is expediency. Yes ; the expediency of the
course which he had threatened to pursue had become
doubtful; for circumstances had transpired to cool his ardour
for agitation in exact proportion as they lessened the chances of
its success 1 "It was not until after the determination of the
House on Saturday morning, that he again stated the ques-
tion to the Cabinet, anti he found that his colleagoes concurred
in his opinion, and thought that he should not bring the mo-
tion respecting the Corn-laws before the House." His Lords
ship gave as a reason for this opinion, that his bringing the
motion forward for discussion " would not be respectful to the
House !" What unbounded respect the Ministry are disposed
to show the House, when their places are at stake,
is pretty plain from their persisting to retain them
after the House had pronounced that it would be "at variance
with the spirit of the Constitution " for them to do so. But
however small the respect they might have for the House, they
could not but have some consideration for those Members who
had already forfeited the favour of their constituents to a ha-
zardous degree for the sake of keeping them in office ; and it
is no secret—for people never keep a secret when they have
got themselves into trouble; it is sure to "ooze out"—that pres-
sing remonstrances were made that many Corn-law Whigs, who
had proved their devotedness to the Ministry by stultifying them-
selves and abandoning their principles, would lose their seats
as well as their characters if the Ministry compromised
them still more by carrying their Anti-Corn-law agita-
tion any further. Something was due to these Garai
of the camp, to prevent the gull into which they plunged to
save the Ministry from closing over them for ever. Besides,
their loss would, in the ensuing Parliament, be a positive loss
to the Ministry itself; and where could it look for the coun-
tervailing gain? The agitation had nowhere made any very
promising progress. No, no, Lord John ; the discussion of
the question in Parliament, as an incentive to its agitation in
the country, was not abandoned out of any " respect to the
House "—for you well knew that a vast majority of the House
was adverse to your scheme—it was merely abandoned as,
what Joseph Hume would call, " a bad spec.," by which much
must be risked, and from which little could be hoped for
GLOBE.—The Journal des J)ebats requites Sir Robert
Peel's vague and cheap civilities to our French allies—by
discovering that the Right Honourable Baronet should
be Minister. The arguments which the Journal des
Debuts brings to back this discovery are a mere repeti-
tion of those which the Right Hon. Baronet himself has
already rut, in every possible form of elaborate candour.
We attach some importance to showing that this whole
fabric of pretension is baseless ; that the leader of the
present Opposition has no title whatever to vaunt it as
an Opposition peculiarly free from factious proceedings,
and entitled to govern in its own name, because it has for
a long period been governing, in reality, in the name of
the party now in rower. All this disinterestedness—all
this exemption from faction—we deny utterly. We deny
that the Opposition has scrupled any possible means of
annoyance ; or that Sir Robert Teel has shown the
slightest forbearance to Government, on any occasion on
which they could be damaged with safety and plausibility.
We grant that Sir Robert Peel has often preferred Isis
character to his party ; which is not surprising, as his
character only prevents them from throwing him Over-
board. Of come a Tory Opposition has not voted against
Ministers for Ballot, or Extension of Suffrage, or aboli-
tion of Church-rates, or Repeal of the New Poor-law.
The Journal des Debate makes a morit to Sir Robert Peel
of supporting this latter law, " in spite of the very violent
murmurs of his own party. Poor innocent ! The .De-
bats takes Mr. Oastler and Mr. Walter for Organs of the
Tory party. It is altogether ignorant that the " great
national party" has one language for Parliament, and
another for the hustings and pothouse ; and that the
"murmurs," not loud, perhaps, but deep, of Sir IL Peel's
"own party" would have reached him, it' he had taken up
their out-of-dcors tone on the Poor-law. It is his cue,
as their leader, to defend that law, which the party are
resolute to maintain—it is theirs to disclaini his senti-
ments through their organs, and talk against them to the
populace. We do not mean to deny Sir R. Peel credit
for his sincerity ; but though, in this instance, it stands
in contrast with the duplicity of others of his party; the
Debuts is mistaken in supposing that it thwarts their
feelings or interests. The Tores, as a party in the coun-
try, play a double game on the Poor-law. Sir R. Peel
defends that law, as an organ of their intentions in Par-
lament.
COURIER.—The Chronicle affects much exultation
first about some correction of a trifling inaccuracy of
Lord Stanley's in a matter of date when inflicting a
merited castigation on Mr. Handley, the defence of whose
consistency, by the bye, it chivalrously undertakes. But
whilst recording certain trivial votes of his against
that administration of Lord Liverpool of which he was
generally, the obsequious servitor, the journalist cau-
tiously omits explanation or illustration of Mr. Hand-
ley's more memorable opposition to the great mea-
sures of Catholic Emancipation and the Reform Bill ;
measures which really involved such vital principles as,
it may be taken for granted, should be the test of

~... ~ •ky~~~