The Sun.
London, England, 1834-12-01 00:00:00

,PIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS

The Duke of Wellington, in order to damage the
late Ministers, has, we have no doubt, given his ver-
sion of the closet conversation between his Majesty
And Lord Melbourne ; and a proper regard for their
awn honour, as well as for the public interests, re-
quires that Lord Melbourne and his friends should give
theirs. The indecency of the disclosure must be at
the door of the assailant, not of the defendants. It
would, indeed, be a little too much to expect that one
side should have all the benefit of misrepresentation,
and the other be denied the privilege of speaking the
truth. We have no doubt whatever that the narrative
in the Quarterly Review was an authorised state-
ment. We have no doubt whatever, that it was
supplied by persons who had it directly from the
Duke of Wellington. We had heard of the pre-
tended facts therein stated, before they appeared
in print. We had also heard of a certain letter,
written by Lord Melbourne to his Majesty, and now
in possession of the Duke of Wellington, which letter
has, by a most unconstitutional act of the Duke, been
seen by other eyes than his own, and is represented as
furnishing proofs of the disunion and inextricable em-
barrassments of the late Cabinet : nevertheless, we did
not hesitate to say, that the narrative in the Quarterly
Review was, in every essential particular, totally false
and unfounded. We say so again, without the slightest
fear of contradiction. We have given an equally po-
sitive denial to a still more gross fabrication, which
appeared in the Standard; and with the same perfect
confidence that we know, and are speaking the truth,
we will now give a reply to certain questions which ap-
peared in the Times of Saturday. We have no doubt
those questions were suggested by some person who had
the materials for them from the Duke of Wellington.
We might protest against this mode of arguing by
interrogatory, as being manifestly unfair—we might
answer these questions by putting others ; nut we pre-
fer answering the calls of the Times in the spirit
which the Times requires of us. That journalist says
" his interrogatories require to be answered otherwise
than by fraudulent evasion or paltry abuse." He shall
have no fraudulent evasion nor paltry abuse from us.
We proceed at once to his queries. 1. " Did or did
not Lord Melbourne acknowledge to the King, that
with reference to two cases which he described as con-
stituting an unavoidable alternative, in one of them he
must lose the support of at least Lord Lansdowne
and Mr. Spring Rice, and in the other he must for-
feit that of Lord John Russell, Sir John Hob-
house, Mr. Abercromby, and Mr. Ellice ?" An-
swer. Lord Melbourne did not. He could not,
for the best of all reasons ; the members of the
Cabinet here mentioned had no difference of opinion
upon any subject which was the topic of con-
versation between Lord Melbourne and his Ma-
jesty. 2. " Did or did not Lord Melbourne acknow-
ledge, when the question was put to him, that to re-
place such losses, and to fill up such vacancies, he
must draw his substitutes from the camp of the ex-
treme Radicals ? " Answer. Lord Melbourne did
not. Not a word was said about " losses" or " vacan-
cies in the Cabinet," except with reference to the re-
tirement of Lord Althorp ; nor. did Lord Melbourne
make any acknowledgment of the probability of such
vacancies being made by any of his colleagues in con-
sequence of disunion amongst themselves, for we re-
peat most solemnly, such disunion did not exist.
3. " Was it, or was it not more than hinted
on one side, and acquiesced in on the other, that
it had become no longer possible to go on with Lord
Brougham, who had crowned his other perform-
ances by a flat refusal to affix the Great Seal to
the commission for proroguing Parliament ?" An-
swer. No such expression as the Times had underlined
was used with reference to Lord Brougham. His
Majesty did give an opinion, which was not acquiesced
in ; but respectfully controverted,, We do riot under-
stand whether or not what is said about the Great
Seal is meant as having been part of the conversation ;
if it is, we must contradict it flatly. 4." Was it not then a
combined question of time and convenience whether
the Ministers should go out at once, or after
the disgrace and ruin of another rupture in the
face of the assembled Parliament ? " Answer.
If the preceding queries had been answered in
the affirmative, this question must, of course,
have received the same reply. But we have
given a positive negative to all of them : we
again most solemnly affirm that, as there were no dis-
sentions in the Cabinet, so that pretext was not the
alleged cause of the dismissal of Ministers ; and we
therefore, it is needless to say, dissent totally from the
inference meant to be drawn from the last interrogatory.
We know very well the origin of the mis-statement re-
specting Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Spring Rice. We
know how the other names of certain of their colleagues,
as opposed to them, happened to be mentioned in the
Times. The difference alluded to is supposed to have
existed respecting the Irish Church Reform Bill then
in preparation. But we declare positively, that no such
difference did exist, or was talked of by the
King and Lord Melbourne ; and the names of
other Cabinet Ministers with reference to that
subject, were only mentioned in answer to a
question as to who composed the Committee of Cabi-
net employed to draw up the Irish Church Bill--and
those names are given wrong in the Times. One word
as to Lord Melbourne declaring to his neighbours in
Derbyshire that he did not consider himself personally
aggrieved by his dismissal. There is something humi-
liatory in the confession of having suffered personal ill-
treatment, from which a man like Lord Melbourne
would naturally shrink ; nor would such a man be
likely to say publicly anything to the disparagement of
his Sovereign and master ; but we utterly deny that
that phrase can be interpreted to mean that Lord Mel-
bourne or any one of his colleagues admits that there
was any just cause of complaint against them, or even
any decent pretext for their abrupt dismissal. So far
from any such acquiescence on the part of his Lord-
ship, Lord Melbourne would not quit the Pavilion
without giving his Majesty time to reconsider his deci-
sion—nor without representing, respectfully but firmly,
the inevitable consequences of so unusual and perilous
a proceeding. How, indeed, could it be otherwise,
when Lord Melbourne had repeatedly and earnestly
assured the King, not only of his resolution not to
abandon his Majesty, but of his conviction that he and
his colleagues could carry on the Government wit
success ?—Morning Chronicle.

The John Bull of yesterday has a statement res-
pecting Sir Robert Peel's declared intention to take
office, which throws an important light upon the ques-
tion, so interesting to the people of this country, whe-
ther the late abrupt dismissal of the Ministry was the
result of pre-concert among the enemies of reform, or,
as pretended, the spontaneous unpremeditated act of
the Sovereign upon his view of the difficulties candidly
submitted to his consideration by his chief Minister.
John Bull says----" Some people affect to doubt whe-
ther Sir Robert Peel will accept the Premiership which
is offered him : we have no doubt whatever on the sub-
ject. Sir Robert Peel, before his departure for Italy,
not only privately, but publicly, avowed his readiness
to put himself at the head of the Ministry whenever
his Majesty should see fit to command his services."
Of the truth of this statement there is no doubt :

and the question which arises upon the fact—is
this—Upon what occasion did Sir Robert Peel

thus " privately avow his readiness to put himself at
the head of the Ministry" ? The answer is obvious.
It could only have been upon some one of the nume-
rous occasions in which the fate of the Melbourne

Cabinet was discussed, and its doom fixed. As -S-171 ak

speare says, the phrase " denotes a foregone conclu-
sion." It must have had reference to some definite

point of time or purpose. Sir Robert was not ready
in 1832. His readiness must have grown upon him
since. When and under what spell was the change
wrought ? Was it under the influence of the Con-
servative dream of re-action ? If so, it is very clear
what are to be the principles of his policy ; and as he
is to be " the head of the Ministry," it is equally clear
that the Ministry is to be exclusively Conservative in
Its composition. What, then, becomes of all the in-
nocent tales we have heard from the lying organs of
the party. about his Majesty's unpremeditated decision
for the dismissal of his Cabinet ; about the recom-
mendation of Lord Melbourne to send for the
Duke of Wellington afterwards modified into his
Lordship's ig candid admissions " of differences and
difficulties, leading necessarily to that result ; and

all such farrago of direct falsehood and false inuendo
with which the town has been visited during the last
fortnight ? The Times may now give up its whine
over the pretended uncertainty of affairs until the re-
turn of the Italian tourist. The Post and Standard
may give up their daily attempts to bolster up the lie
any longer. John Bull has let the cat out of the bag,
and the truth stands confessed in all its naked defor-
mity : the late breaking up of the. Cabinet was a
planned affair. Nothing here said is meant to militate
against the constitutional right of the Sovereign to
exercise his royal prerogative, in such manner and at
such time as to him shall seem meet and proper. The
mind of the country, although alive to the importance
and danger of the crisis, is not yet fully awake to the
authors of its intended wrongs. When it shall come
to know the full extent and depth of the plot which
has accomplished the late change, and by what means
the manly and confiding nature of his Majesty has
been practised upon, their indignation against the
conspirators will keep no bounds.—Morning Chronicle.
We hope and trust that what we are about to state
will be received by our readers with quite as many
grains of allowance as they may think proper to con-
cede—and assuredly with as many more as our ene-
mies, or rather the enemies of our cause, may deem it
proper, in pursuance of their malignity, to suggest ;
but we believe that we state, on a most respectable, as
well as a most discreet, authority, a very broad and a
very undeniable fact—and that is, that the Duke or
Wellington has not only declared that he will not ac-
cept the office of Premier in the embryo Cabinet,
should it ever reach the period of infancy, but
that he will not even accept an office in it.
This, it will be said, is a death-blow to the inci-
pient government ; but pray, Reformers of all grades,
do not give in too easily to the belief, that although
the Duke of Wellington sees good reason not to put
himself in the van of the battle, the victory has in con-
sequence been won. No such thing. The Duke is a
good General, and means to lie in ambush at the Horse
Guards, apparently Commander-in-chief of the army
only, but, in truth, Commander of the Cabinet also. Its
measures will be his measures, whatever they may be—
and no mistake,—whatever veil may cover the face of
the prophet. But this is not all. The moderate
Tories have at length found out, as well as his
Grace of Wellington, that their time is not yet come
—that the country is too hot for them—and that with-
out an admixture of quasi Whigs they can neither face
the present Parliament, nor venture upon a dissolu-
tion, which, as they are well aware, would introduce
a Parliament more adverse to them than the present ;
and what have they in consequence done ? Why,
they have beaten up the quarters of the professed
Whigs, but, in truth, renegade Tories, and, we
hear, with success—that is to say, that they have
all but succeeded, and feel certain of succeeding, in
the concoction of a Cabinet, of which Peel or
Stanley will be the head, and which will include
the Duke of Richmond, Sir James Graham, Lord
Goderich, and all other seceders from the Reforming
Cabinet of Lord Grey ! We would not mention this
matter—so disgraceful is it, in every respect, to the
parties concerned, were it not that the communication
is duly authorised, and that we might refer to a very
high (we will not say the highest) legal authority in
proof its accuracy. To the effect of this information
on the public mind we attach no importance. The same
measures which Peel might honestly propound with re-
gard to the Church, Stanley and Sir James Graham
might very conscientiously support ; for they are all
Tories of different denominations and grades—all sworn
against Reform—all determined that the Reform Act
shall not avail to the uprooting of abuses, and the
improvement of the condition of the people. In case
of such a Cabinet being formed, therefore, there can
be no change in the opinion of the people. If any, it
should be that their fire against Toryism should be re-
doubled,. instead of being slackened—their exertions,
instead of being intermittent, should be continued—
and that the enemy being determined to give battle,
they should be constantly on their guard. It is given
out, but from the same suspicious quarter, that there
will be no dissolution :—our advice is--believe it not.—
Morning Advertiser
We trust that one of the first measures adopted by
Sir Robert Peel on his assumption of office will be
the annihilation of all those absurd Commissions
which, in order to put money into the pockets of brief-
less Whig Barristers, half-pay Radicals, and needy de-
pendants of the " Ministry which governed withozit
patronage," have been saddled upon the country. We
are not at present going to enter into details which we
are satisfied would most perfectly justify our anxiety
upon this point, but the day is not far distant when we
shall take leave to lay before our readers the number
of such Commissioners—their names, their services,
and their salaries—and then leave the admirers of
Whig independence, disinterestedness, and economy to
draw their own conclusions.—Morning Post.
Meetings have taken place in some of the great
towns of England to declare the sentiments of those
who attend them upon the late change of Ministry.
At Birmingham and Manchester the same spirit shows
itself as had appeared at Edinburgh and Glasgow.
The Birmingham meeting is described as one of " the
electors," and had for its object to express " their re-
gret at the recent dismissal of his Majesty's late ad-
visers," and to appoint a committee to promote " the
return of reforming members for the borough and
North Warwickshire." The latter purpose of the
meeting assuredly is one which all honest men will do
their utmost to encourage. If a majority of reformers
be not secured in the House of Commons, we have
long ago stated that there will be no healthful pressure
upon the Government, whether Whig or Conservative,
to induce it—if the former, to expedite and complete or
accommodate to the public feeling its own plans of
political amelioration—if the latter, to prevent the revival
of its ancient policy, should any of that nature be con.
templated, or to enforce the introduction of any mea-
sures, approved of by the nation generally, to which
habit, prejudice, or imagined interest, might render a
Tory Statesman repugnant. The thing contended for
by us and those who think with us has been on all
occasions, that the Reform Bill, if worked with skill
and energy, furnishes ample means of self government
to the people of England, including the means of con-
stitutional resistance to, and control over, every con-
ceivable Administration which might be selected by
the Sovereign : but no one has contended, or can ra

tionally affirm , that if the Reform Bill be not put into
active operation by the people—that if they abdicate
the powers with which it so abundantly invests them,
and if they do not stir themselves to secure the election
of Members of Parliament who really do represent
their wishes, enjoy their confidence, and sympathize
with their attachment to Reform--they can hope, under
such an entire neglect of their own political duties, to
draw from the Reform Bill those benefits which it was
intended and is qualified to yield them. The natural
state of England after a Reform of Parliament should

be one of perfect security, as to the full enjoyment of
all its derivative blessings---of entire repose in the
guardianship of a legislative body, the great bulk of
whose members, or at least a numerous and effective
majority of them, had been chosen to Parliament for
their devotion to the cause of good government—that
is, to the rights and well-understood interests of those
who sent them thither. But if the people will not so
exercise their choice—if they will not take the trouble
of doing that to which the Reform Bill invites them
—if they assume that the law is to execute itself, not
figuratively but literally, without the help of human
diligence—,all we can say is, that they forfeit their own
security, that freedom and power have been vainly
wasted upon such triflers, and that they deserve no-
thing better than the old borough Parliament, from
which, or any other evil, the wisdom of archangels
could not rescue them without their own active co-
operation. Let this consciousness, no matter who
may be Minister, remain uppermost in the minds of
the constituent body at the approaching and every
future election—it is the only safeguard of enlightened
government and of progressive justice. To the latter
part of the first resolution therefore passed by the
meeting, conformable as it was to the spirit of the
requisition, we see not what fair objection can be
•

made. Nor is the first part of the same resolution
censurable, in so far as it merely expresses regret
for the dismissal of Lord Melbourne's Ministry.
But it appears from the eontext of the speeches,
and of the whole proceedings, that the term " regret"

implied also a reflection upon the King, as if his Ma-
jesty had been eager to pronounce that dismissal, and
had no reasonable or fair inducement, either in the po-
sition of the Cabinet collectively, or in the personal
conduct of Lord Brougham, whom there unfortunately
was not resolution sufficient in any quarter but the
King himself to displace, and whom, we repeat, in the
most unequivocal terms, it had become impossible to go
on with. Upon each of these points it is necessary to
say a word or two, because of the misconception under
which some persons appear to labour with regard to
them. 1. It might be true that Ministers were agreed
as to the measure respecting " the reform of the Irish
Church which they intended to submit to Parliament,"
and yet it might be altogether indisputable that there
are most important questions not comprehended under
the term " Reform" of the Irish Church upon which
their opinions differed. There were, for instance,
questions affecting the appropriation of those revenues
for which tithe is to be commuted, on which it is known
that the Cabinet was by no means unanimous. 2. It
may be true that the Cabinet had agreed upon what
measure they would as a Cabinet submit to Parlia-
ment ; yet as members might be anything but of one
mind as to the manner in which they would respec-
tively vote in case of certain measures affecting the
temporalities f the church, being brought in by per-
sons not of the Cabinet, no matter on what side of the
House. 3. We have been well informed, and are fully
convinced, that Lord Melbourne, on being pressed to
state how certain contingent vacancies in his Govern-
ment could be filled up, did admit that he had no re-
source but in the extreme Radical party. 4. With re-
spect to Lord Brougham, it is true that his formal
refusal to affix the Great Seal to the Commission for
proroguing Parliament was not given until after
the dissolution of the Ministry, that is, until after
the King had come to town, because the formal
requisition to do so was not made at any earlier
opportunity. Yet his intention to withhold the Great
Seal was declared, and, we have reason to believe,
communicated to his Majesty, before the dismissal
of Lord Melbourne, at Brighton ; so that the Cou-
rier has drawn a faultv inference in asserting that the
refractory conduct of the learned Lord " had nothing
whatever to do with the Ministerial dissolution." Had
Lord Melbourne taken Mr. Pitt for his model, and
dealt with the late Chancellor as Lord Thuriow, a far
greater lawyer, and on far less provocation, was dis-
posed of by the Prime Minister of that day, he might •
have protracted for three or four months the existence
of his Administration. The Manchester meeting ex-
hibited a trial of strength between the Liberals more
immediately connected with the late Government and
the ultra-Radicals, at the head of whom was Mr.
Fieldcn, M.P., for Oldham, the result of which was,
that the latter party carried a resolution damnatory of
the Whig Cabinet, for sundry sins of omission and
Commission. As a set-off against, and to avoid mis-
construction, Mr. Prentice moved and carried another
resolution, to the effect that if the Whigs were bad,
the Wellingtons were worse, and after a cartload of
abuse upon the Whigs, the assemblage broke up, and
went quietly about their business.— Times.

DILEMMA OF THE DUKE.

( From the Examiner.)

When the Devil was sick,
The Devil a Saint would be ;

But when the Devil got wel.
The Devil a Saint was he

The best that the Duke of Wellington's. friends can say
of him is, that he has the wisdom to obey a necessity ; now,
then, is the time for him to prove the justice of this unique
recommendation—let him obey the necessity which the
voice of the country imposes, and abandon his attempt to
govern. In knowing what he cannot do, the Duke will
know a very vast volume, and in the first page of it is writ-
ten : " Thou can'st not dupe the people of Egland." The
short of the matter is, that the country will not have him.
It says, plainly enough, " We quarrelled with you as an
honest Tory, and we will not shake hands with you an
apostate." This may appear excessively unreasonable to
the Duke—we may all appear stark mad, in his eyes, to
refuse so excellent an offer ; but the resolution, he must per-
ceive, creates one of those necessities, in obeying which his
wisdom is said to shine. Under compulsion, it is surely as
easy to turn out as to turn coat, when it is clear that he will
turn coat to no purpose, and be turned out after all. But
what is the Duke to say to the King—the case is certainly
an awkward one, for what has become of the long-boasted
reaction to Toryism ? The charlatan who engaged to raise
Use dead, being, in the midst of one of his flourishes, invited
to prove his skill on a subject passing to the tomb, and
having, accordingly, performed his conjurations till the spec-
tators were weary, flew into a violent passion, saying,
" Never before did I meet with so obstinate a dead body."
And, as for cajoling the Reformers, he must inform his
Majesty that so unreasonably fastidious are his loving sub-
jects, that they insist on being served by men with clean
hands. They close with the argument, that Government,
no matter how composed, must grant Reform, by saying,
then let us have the Government of the friends and pro-
moters of the principle. If none but a Reform Ministry can
exist, why not a sincere instead of a counterfeit Reform
Ministry ? Why trust the advancing steps of Reform to
the guidance of the hand that would have strangled it in the
cradle ? If the Tories are sincerely convinced of their
error, what is the obstacle to a Government of Reformers
who have the confidence of the country ? Supposing the
mutineers to be penitent, is it wise to give them the watch,
and turn down the true hands ?
If the Duke of Wellington designs the adoption of those
principles which he has combated as inevitably ruinous to
the country, we ask, to what miracle his conversion is re-
ferable ? Only to the miracle of the loaves and fishes can
it be attributed. Does he pretend to bow to the spirit of the
country—that spirit now spurns him, and forbids him to
put his hands to the work he would have destroyed. He
described Reform as the Upas of the land, and now he
asks, " Let me help you to the fruit ?"—and promises
liberal measures—of what ?—of poison, by his own showing.
What is to be thought of his wisdom, if he was sincere in
his first and often-repeated judgment ?—if he was not,
what is to be thought of his truth and trust-worthiness ?
No man was ever cramped in so close a dilemma. Again
we ask, what prodigy has converted him ?—what thunder
from a serene sky ?—what warning spirit ?—it needs no
ghost to tell it was a vision of office.
We are reminded that the Duke has turned before, and
to some good purpose ; but it is also to be remembered
that he turned back again, and threw the whole county into
commotion. It is true that he saw the necessity of sett-
ling the Catholic question, but did he see the necessity for
yielding Parliamentary Reform ? If the perception of the
first expediency is to be carried to the credit of his saga-
city, how much must be detracted from it for his blindness
in the second instance, so incomparably more important ?
Are we to trust ourselves to the guidance of a man who
deliberately walked over the edge of a precipice because,
forsooth, he once avoided knocking his head against a wall ?
He went right once, but how often has he gone wrong ?
and he now offers to forward us on the' road which, ac-
cording to the finger-post he has set up, leads, as straight
as an arrow, to destruction. Good man ! obliging crea-
ture ! His advertisement is—Cheap and expeditious tra-
velling to ruin. He says to the people--
" My dear fellow-countrymen, I have, over and over
again, told you that you are hurrying on to destruction, but,
if you insist on going to the deVil, for the love of heaven let
me drive you, for I may as well have the half-crown as
another ; and I pledge myself to carry you on towards the
bottomless pit at as good a pace as any other driver can
promise you, taking care not to delay you by an upset in a
journey to such a hopeful end."
This is being what is commonly called " too good." The
King, too, has been assured, by the same conductor, that
he must inevitably crack his crown on the same road. Such
an Undertaker of reforms should appropriately drive a
hearse as the national omnibus. But who will travel by
him ?—those who like the road (knowing the falseness of
his character of it) don't like his driving, nor believe that he
will go to what he absurdly believes to be perdition ; and
those, on the other hand, who like his driving, think with
him, that the road leads to ruin, and therefore will refuse to
take the journey. The Tories abhor the direction, and the
Reformers revolt against the whip.
Certainly, except in the funeral sense of the word, we
cannot conceive how the Duke can become an undertaker
of reforms. Where, but to their tomb, can he be disposed
to forward them ? Since what time has he had a call to
reform ? There were no signs of grace at the close of the
session, and his is not an age for new lights.

Some years ago an old woman, Joanna Southcote, per-
suaded some good folks that she was pregnant with the re-
generation of the world. While her followers were living
in hopes of a Shiloah, however, she died of the dropsy.
The Duke of Wellington is the Joanna Southcote of the
present day—big with disorder, the old crone gives out
that it is Reform. To borrow a Homeric figure, we will
believe him when olive-branches sprout from his marshal's
baton—but not till then.

The Duke's friends complain that he is refused a fair
trial—why, how many trials would he have, or to how many
trials would ho put the country?—he has been tried once,
and cast. But this plea is not original. When Barring-
ton was tried, he turned his defence on the badness of his
character, he told the Judge and Jury that it was impossible