The Sun.
London, England, 1841-08-25 00:00:00

PUBLIC OPINION.

The Morning Post thus expresses itself on the subject of the
Queen's Speech :—" The authors of this Speech manifest an equal
deg', e of respect to the Sovereign and to the country. They adopt,
as the dernier resort of their desperation, a theoretic policy, which
they had rejected so long as their circumstances were not desperate,
and employ their Sovereign as the organ of an advocacy, almost of
a supplication—of an advocacy and a supplication which they know
must be unsuccessful in its behalf." Had the Queen's Speech can.
tained no allusion to the Corn-laws and Free Trade, then Ministers
would have been accused of a cowardly desertion of their principles;
but because they are firm and consistent to the last, their firmness,
forsooth, is the dernier resort of desperation! Such is the candour
of Tory reasoning.

The Times is horror-struck at the language adopted in the
Queen's Speech, and states that it is not only " a desperate attempt
to compromise the Royal authority," but that it is also "a gross
breach of the most unquestionable privilege which the House of
Commons possesses;" adding—" No wonder that her Majesty, with
the innate sense of propriety for which she is so remarkable, de-
clined the odium of Mk+. ing from her own mouth such a speech
as this, and stated that if it was necessary (as her responsible ad-
visers said it was) that such words should be spoken in her name, it
must be do by those who indited the composition and would have
to answer for it, and not by herself." The advice given by Dr.
Locock, her Majesty's medical attendant, not to opt n Parliament in
person, is quite a sufficient answer to tnis malignant intinu ition of
our Coo t emporary.

The Times of this morning also makes the following remarks on
the creation of the new Baronets :—" The outgoing Ministry have
imposed upon their Royal and indulgent mistress the task of mak-
ing a batch of Baronets. The public will care nothing about this.
It is a trumpery honour at the best! Yet something ought to be
done or suffered by those who obtain it ; and what have the objects
of this new creation done or suffered ? There is a Roman Catholic
or two, weobserve. A Jew also; what would Old Moses say, if he
saw one of his race thus disguised ? John Easthope, Esq., of Fir.
grove, in the county of Surrey; and though last, not least,
there comes, with thundering sound, George Gerard de
Hochpied Lit pent, of Roehampton, also in the county
of Surrey. We recollect a story of a Spanish grandee having lost
his way in a stormy night, and requiring admission into a mice.
cable cottage, sang nut that his name and title were Don Juan
Fernandez de Mendoza y Marialva y Pampe— " I have not
room for half of you," exclaimed the terrified peasant, and bolted
the door. However, the baronetcy must make room for Sir George
Gerard de Hochepied Larpent, of Roehampton. Then there is
William Clay, Esq., the Parliament man for the Tower Hamlets!
Into such clay as this " old Robin Gray " would not like " to be
turned." We wonder rather that Dents le Marchant has chosen
to accept such an honour. Henry Dymoke, also of Scrivelsby
Court—he, we suppose, is the Champion of England. Why not
John Gully, Esquire, late Member for Pontefract, the Champion
for all England, except Tom Crib ? How poor George 111.
would have stared at such a list being presented to him
The Herald states that the object of the Queen's Speech " is to
connect the Royal name and associate the Royal feelings with
Whiggery, and to erect a principle of antatonism between Royalty
and Conservative Government. It is more properly an elect►oneer-
ing appeal than a Royal Speech." An " electioneering appeal"
alter the elections are decided ! The Herald must have been hard
pressed for argument when it ventured on a remark like this,
whose absurdity must be obvious to the most superficial reader. It
is ii.deed the forlorn hope of a sophist.

The Chronicle is of opinion that the cloven foot of oligarchy
peeps out of the Tory amendment to the address. The following
are our Contemporary's remarks on this subject :—" The Ministers
in expectancy seem to think that they are entitled to take their
Queen prisoner, that it is enough for them to say, we are the majo-
rity, we insist on being installed in office as a matter of course, and,
if our demand is not complied with, the business of the country shall
stand still, and public affairs shall be thrown into confusion. In all
former instances at all parallel to the present, the party seeking
office hwe boldly stated the grounds on which they differed from
the men in possession of office, and, in the face of the Sovereig❑
and this nation, joined issue on certain tangible principles. Both
Sovereign and country are entitled to demand this, the former that
her decision may be governed by sound reascn.s, and the other, that,
should the Sovereign differ from the majority, they may know how
to answer the appeal made to them. The present is showing the
cloven foot of oligarchy without disguise. It makes a Parlia-
mentary majority everything, and the Sovereign a mere pageant."
The Cambridge Advertiser is of opinion that " the Tories must
rule as Liberals, if they would retain their power longer than a week
or two !"

The Brighton Guardian remarks, in reference to the late Man-
chester Conference, " against the distress of the people, and the de-
monstrations of service, the starvation.laws have stood their
ground ; whether they will be able to resist the denunciations of
Christianity, which have been sufficient to abolish slavery, and
almost put an end to hanging, time alone C3ll show."

The 'Tyne Mercury says that though the Tories boast of a ma.
Joritrof eighty. zct that -a maalalLy.of eiglity on an election may
turn out a most materially different affair when particular measures
come before the House."