The Sun.
London, England, 1823-05-02 00:00:00

[THE TIMES.]

A division of the House upon a vital question,
in which division Ministers and Opposition voted
on the same side, is so remarkable an incident
that it deserves some notice. When the Oppo-
sition perceived that. every Member of Admi-
nistration spoke with, the same abhorrence as
themselves of the conduct of the Bourbons in

the aggression upon Spain, the object of the
original motion no longer existed ; and those
who made and supported it, proposed to with-
draw it. " But, no," said Ministers and Mr.
Canning, " you shall not withdraw it till
we have taken and well banged this fine
" motion of yours." " Very well," quoth the
Opposition, " take it, and bang it as long as you
44 please. It has effected its purpose in making
" you decry, as strong'y as we have done, the
" infamous proceedings of the Bourbons, and we
" want nothing farther from it." To it, there-
fore, Ministers went, " tooth and nail," as the
homely phrase is, and negatived—what was not
affirmatived by any one—the spent motion. This
conduct of Ministers resembled the blind rage of
the Pantaloon and clown in the pantomime,
who beat the man's jacket after the body is
withdrawn, and quietly standing by them to
join in their next enterprise. The next en-
terprise in the present case was the pursuit
of the Amendment—the Amendment of Mr.
Stuart Wortley, a Gentleman who spoke with
as much seyerity as Mr. Brougham of the
Bourbon proceedings, and in the support of
whose amendment, therefore,. Opposition joined
as cordially as Ministers. The House was thought
Unanimous for the amendment, when Mr. Holmes,
a Government Member, called out against it, and
so produced the unexpected and needless divi-
sion, himself actually voting against both Ministers
and Opposition, in condemnation of the amend-
ment. By the way, we suspect Mr. Holmes is of
the sister country ! IVe recollect though, Mr.
Swan, an English gentleman, and a man of
the law, too, performing exactly the same feat
in the time of Mr. Perceval, but with so much
more success than Mr. Holmes, the lobby being
large enough, in that instance, to contain all the
Members for the affirmative, that he (Mr. Swan)
had the pride of standing alone—an honour that
would probably have attended the unit of oppo-
sition on 'Wednesday night, had the lobby
afforded continent enough for his advesaries.—
There are many points in the debate upon which
we might comment did our time and room allow of
farther remarks upon a question already so amply
discussed. One or two observations we shall ha-
zard, which we think of a very decisive nature.
Mr. Canning asserted that our celebrated prema-
ture declaration of neutrality (" come what, come
" might," &c.) had broken asunder the corporate
capacity of the Sovereigns at Vienna. The direct
contrary of this is so clearly the fact, that in the

very first sentence of each of their three notes
recalling their Ambassadors from. Spain, the se-
veral Sovereigns of Russia, Prussia, and Austria,
assume the proceedings at Verona as the ground
of the unfriendly measure ; they act in unifor-
mity, and they derive their motive of action from
a common source. " The Sovereigns assembled
" at Verona were led frbm the first moment of
" their assembling to direct their attention to an
" ancient Monarchy," says Nesselrode. " The
" situation in which the Spanish Monarchy finds
" itself, was an object of too paramount import-
" ance not to have seriously occupied the atten-
tion of the Cabinets assembled at Verona."—
Metternich. ." Among the objects which fix the
" attention and demand the solicitude of the So-
" vereigns and Cabinets assembled at Verona."
—Bernstorff. These notes are dated all nearly
at the same time, in November, or December.—
Our declaration of neutrality was made on the
27th of September. We leave it to the world
and to posterity, to judge whether that declara-
tion broke the concert of the Sovereigns

INEW TIMES.]
Parturient Mantes, nascitur ridiculus Mus.
This ancient prophecy appears to have found
its entire and absolute accomplishment about
Five, A.M., May 1, 1823. If Queen Hecuba had
been alive, she would have once more a laughed
till her eyes ran o'er" at the droll result of three
nights' Debate. We speak of course from the
information of The Morning Chronicle, which
tells us, that the business ended with 46 the
appearance of a Division, where, in fact, there
was none." 46 0 ! 'tis the sport," says Hamlet,
4 6 to have the engineer hois'd with his own
petard !" The, whole Opposition—" Pioneers
and all," marched on to the assault, confi-
dent and rejoicing in the certain effect of the
44 Bumble Address," which IVil3 to wrest the
seals from the imbecile hands of Mr. Canning, to
shake his associates from their seats, and to shew
by its result a disjointed Cabinet, in whom the
House of Commons could not, put their confi-
dence. Such was the project, and how has
it been effected ? Turn we once more to the
official Journal of the party—" For the amend-
ment, 3728—Against it, 20."—" Almost the
whole Opposition voted with Ministers! ! !"
True it is that The Chronicle suggests a curious
solution of this odd phenomenon. Mr. Macdonald,
it seems, (kind Gentleman !) had no evil de-
signs against the British Administration—he
merely wanted a unanimous vote against France!
Now, really, this reminds us of the large bugs,
which a certain traveller once described, and
which turned out to be humbugs. Does not
The Chronicle know—if he does not we can
inform him—that bets were laid on a change
of Ministry to be effected by this very motion,
and that the Foreign Secretary was signifi.
cantly told to beware the Ides of March ? Unfor-
tunately Mrs. Canning was not forewarned
in a dream to dissuade her illustrious husbad from
going to the Senate. lie therefore went thither,
and in a speech, such us has been seldom heard,
even from his lips, flashed entire conviction on
the minds of his adversaries. Those who went to
scoff remained to praise—i-and now that the dart,
warded off by the shield of truth, has fallen
harmless at his feet, they, from whose hands it
came, are eager to disown it, as a-
- 'Alum inthelle sin tctu.
—We cannot dismiss this ludicrous subject
without one serious remark on the manly and
honourable manner in which Mr. Canning came
forward to render justice to the personal charac-
ter of M: de Chateaubriand, who justly ranks ns
high for talents, integrity and honour, in France,
as the Right Honourable Gentleman himself does
in England. Whatever difference may at any
time arise between the two countries, on ques-
tions of national policy, we trust that our States-
men will never degrade themselves by a con-
temptible endeavour to depreciate the reputation
of jhe eminent foreigners to whom they may be
opposed.