The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-11 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

as may drive the King's Ministers from office, without
allowing Sir Robert Peel the opportunity of proving,
by the measures to be submitted to the House, that
the " Address to the Electors of Tamworth " was
written in good faith, and that the reforms which it
promised the nation were really meant to be carried
into execution. If, indeed, the contest was as to the
ablest and best qualified person that can be selected to
fill the Chair, if the personal and mental requisites,
the judgment and tact, the knowledge and experience
essential to that high and responsible station, added
to a character for strict and undeviating impartiality in
office, were the only matters taken into consideration
in making choice of a Speaker, no person would have
the presumption, not even a pensioned sinecurist from
the other side of the Tweed, to put his claims in compe-
tition with those of the Right Hon. Gentleman, who for
16 or 18 years has occupied the Chair with the
highest approbation of all parties. If any such per-
son were vain enough to announce himself as a rival of
Sir C. Manners Sutton, he would find no supporters.
It is only in consequence of the election being made a
party question by the Whig-Radicals that Mr. Aber-
cromby can hope for any votes. The Speaker of the
tirst reformed House of Commons, to whose unequalled
merits the Whig Ministers, with Lord Althorp at
their head, bore testimony in the strongest language of
eulogium—the Speaker, whom after 16 years of ser-
vice, mostly during the Tory Government, Lord
Ebrington, Lord Morpeth, Sir Francis Burdett, Mr.
Tennyson, Mr. Warburton, and even Mr. Hume,
spoke of in terms of panegyric, could have encoun-
tered no opposition on the present occasion, if it were
not that the Whig Radicals had resolved to try if they
could oust the Ministry, by showing that they were
strong enough to put any one whom they pleased into
the chair, to serve the ends of faction, without any re-
gard whatever to the national interests. Never was
there a time when a new Parliament more required a
Speaker of great experience, knowledge, and judg-
ment. Lamentable would be the consequences to
public business in the ensuing Session, if any man
should be placed in the glair of the House of Com-
mons who is a novice to its duties, and who has yet to
learn that Parliamentary law and usage which
the House ought to learn from him. But Mr. Aber-
cromby professes to come forward " wholly on public
principle." It is then on " public principle alone"
that he is willing to exchange a pension of 2,0001.
a-year for a place of 5,000/. What patriotism ! what
disinterestedness ! Mr. Abercromby is truly an in-
stance of the most exemplary self-denial. He ac-
cepted a sinecure office of 4,0001. a-year formerly from
the Duke of Wellington, no doubt upon " public prin-
ciple" also. It was upon " public principle" that he
accepted a pension of 2,0001. a-year as a consideration
for resigning that sinecure office, after holding it for
about two years ! Thus it was " public principle"
that induced Mr. Abercromby to take 4,000/. a-year
under a patronage of Wellington and Peel a few years
ago, and the same " public principle" now impels him
to try to obtain a place of 5,000/. a-year to turn Peel
and Wellington out ! But then. say Mr. Abercrom-
by's supporters, " it is true the place which he ac-
cepted was a sinecure—a judicial sinecure—a Chief-
Justiceship without twelve defended causes to try
in the year,—but still he might have kept the
place and the 4,0001. a-year if he pleased—but he
chose to accept 2,000/. or half the sum, for giving it
up." •This is a strange defence to make for one who
pretends to be a high-minded patriot—an enemy of
jobbing—an opponent of the rank and bloated Pension-
List—a real Reformer. But what does the defence
in reality amount to ? It is as much as to say it is
greatly to a man's credit if, having it in his power to
plunder the country of an unearned 4,000/. a-year,
his conscience, or the dread of detection, interposes,
and he resolves to plunder it in future of only half that
annual sum. A , commercial correspondent suggests
the following illustration :—" If I saw," he says, " a
merchant on the Royal Exchange drop, unwittingly,
two 1,000/. notes, what would be said of me if I. re-
presented to him that it would have been quite easy
for me to have instantly turned them into gold at the
Bank, so that he should never have seen them again,
and should gravely propose to him, as an act of
great honesty on my part, that I would keep only one
of them myself, and restore him the other ?" The
answer of the indignant merchant may be easily ima-
gined—he would say, " If you have a right to keep
one of the notes, you have a right to keep both ; but
if you keep either you must not talk of your honesty."
So Mr. Abercrombie might have kept the sinecure
office of 4,000/. a year, if Parliament did not do its
duty in abolishing it—but the unearned salary of that
judicial sinecure was nothing else than plunder out of
the public taxes; yet Mr. Abercromby takes credit to
himself for consenting to receive half the salary of a
place, which, as a patriot—as an honest politician—
as a Reformer—he ought never to have accepted. If
this job had not been made a subject of commentary
in the Whig-Radical Journals, as highly creditable to
the " disinterested patriotism " of Mr. Abercromby,
we should probably have said less about it ; but it is
rather " too bad ' to ask us to applaud that sordid
grasping of pelf by a Whig which would be most
vehemently condemned in a Tory. As we are not
accustomed to vote " black is white for any party,
we must only speak of the public actions of men as
we find them. The job of accepting a sinecure office
merely to melt it down into a good substantial pension
is a job all the world over, whether a Tory, a Whig, or a
Radical derives from it the profits, which, without value
received, were taken out of the pockets of the people.
In the forthcoming contest we have no doubt that the
Whig-Radical opponents of the public jobs and unme-
rited pensions will, with admirable consistency of prin-
ciple, vote for Mr. Abercromby. The Destructives
will do so to a man ; he has the special patronage of
Mr. O'Connell, who announces his coming over in
time to organise the plan of opposition to Sir C. Man-
ners Sutton, we presume. upon the skull-and-cross-
bones system of intimidation. If he could bring over
a ship-load of Kerry priests, and establish the system
of ‘g exclusive dealing," besides hurling the thunders
of the Vatican at the heads of the opponents of Mr.
Abercromby, a great triumph on the part of those
who struggle for the dismemberment of the empire
might be anticipated. It was to please the Repeal
Agitator that Mr. Spring Rice was set aside, after a
canvass had been commenced for him. But what will
the moderate Reformers, like Lord Stanley, Sir James
Graham, and many others, say to having Mr. O'Con-
nell's nominee for Speaker of the new House of Com-
mons ? Happily the country will be spared that por-
tentous exhibition—the Whig-Radicals know elec-
tioneering tactics too well, not to assume a louder tone
of boastful confidence, in proportion as they become
conscious of their weakness—from all we can learn,
of having an inexperienced and utterly unqualified
Speaker thrust into the Chair of the new House of
Commons.—Morning Herald.

Not an hour has passed since the first concoction of
the scheme of setting, up an opposition Speaker, at
which we have entertained the slightest doubt that it
-would end in a signal failure. Not only has our judg-
ment respecting the success of Sir Charles M. Sutton
been altogether unchanged from the beginning, but
likewise our impression as to the nature and character
of that party emergency which compelled the Whig
leaders to vary their method of attack upon the Minis-
ters, and relinquishing all hope of victory through an
amendment to the Address, direct their onset against
the individual Conservative whom they had themselves
son the last, and that a recent, opportunity, recom-
mended as the most eligible Speaker. The answer
to the charge of gross and factious inconsistency,
which has naturally arisen out of such conduct on the
part of the Whigs, is neither more nor less than, Ist,
a falsehood, and 2d, if it were true (which it is not),
an illogical and silly excuse. The Radical impostors
persist in asseverating, that Sir Charles Manners
Sutton, since his re-election two years ago to the chair,
has forfeited all claim to the renewal of such an honour
try his Court-intrigues against the late Ministry. We
have several times demonstrated the folly of this chi-
merical accusation. There were no intrigues for the
dismissal of the late Ministry—an event of which the
groundwork had been securely laid by Lord Grey's
resignation some months before, and for which the
parties destined to profit by it were absolutely and to-
tally unprepared—scattering themselves to all parts of
the United Kingdom and of Europe. Nor was there,
nor could there be, so far as the Speaker was con-
cerned, any partnership by Sir C. M. Sutton in those
counsels which directed the dissolution of the late Par-
liament—a second count in the bill of indictment
against him. We do not, indeed, insinuate nor ac-
knowledge that as a mere Privy Counsellor Sir C.
M. Sutton might not conscientiously, and without
the slightest impeachment of his honour or wis-
dom, have advised the Sovereign to dissolve any
Parliament ; but the fact and practice are at open
variance with every such surmise. The disso-
lution of a Parliament is always a Cabinet mea-
sure. The privilege of determining that it shall take
place, or that it shall not, is always, we may ven-
ture to say, without exception, coined to the King's
" confidential servants, who alone are amenable to
the coming Parliament for that or any other act of
high state policy. Sir C. M. Sutton was no member
of the Cabinet ; and when the question comes to be
investigated, we doubt not that his guilt in sending
back the old House of Commons to its constituents
was precisely on a par with that of his sending the
late Ministers to grass. The whole plot about the
Speakership was hatched in pure desperation. It was
apprehended that the King's speech would open so
good a case to the country, that with a respect for
public opinion before their eyes, the better class of
public opinion before their eyes, the better class of
Whig and Liberal members would not dare to support
an amendment hostile to Ministers. The question
raised upon the Speakership became, therefore, the pis
aller of the Opposition ; and even should Mr. Aber-
cromby be chosen Speaker (now this is no admission
of the remotest probability of such an event, which we
deem to be all but physically impossible)—but should
Mr. Abercromby succeed to the chair, what do the
Whigs expect would come after. Do they believe that
the Ministers would resign ? Those who do are shal-
low greenhorns. The Duke of Wellington did not
accept the seals of office, nor did Sir It. Peel return
posthaste from Italy, to be sent to the wall by any
factious vote—no, nor by a dozen such votes. They
know what is at stake, and will stand the hazard.
If a peevish address even were to be sent up to the
Crown, his Majesty would not be pushed from his
stool by such an apparition. Nothing but their delin-
quency would induce the Sovereign to dismiss expe-
rienced servants, in submission to a capricious or a
selfish vote, dictated by those whose exclusive purpose
was to trip up the heels of the Ministers whom they
threatened, and to occupy their vacant places. But
there are reasons of a specific and personal nature why
Mr. .Abercromby should not be elected by the House.
The Right Hon. Gentleman is close upon 60 years of
age—that age at which, by reason of the average infir
mity of those who have attained it, members of the
House of Commons are exempt from being ballotted
for election committees. Would it not be pre-
posterous, therefore, to select for the most
incessantly laborious and overpowering office con-
nected with the House of Commons, a gewleman
whose age is presumed to disqualify him for the easier
and transient duties of an election committee, which
seldom lasts for more than five or six days ? Mr.
Abercromby, again, may, on the same score of ad-
vanced years and impaired health, be looked upon as
soon likely to throw up the Speaker's office and retire ;
but is there any precedent in modern times for a Speaker
to be released without a retiring pension ? We believe
not ; so that Mr. Abercromby's bargain in respect of
the Scotch Exchequer would be improved upon by his
contract for the Speakership. In the former case he
got 2,0001. per annum for 27 months of idleness in a
wig and gown, while here, as a recompense for half the
term of duties imperfectly discharged, he would pocket
4,0001. per year during his whole existence. Why
should not Sir Charles Manners Sutton be made use
of by the House of Commons, while in the vigour of
life, and while a large pension would be saved by it ?
We repeat again, that the whole business is a low and
vile job, calculated to revolt and disgust all indepen-
dent minds in England.—Times.
Mr. Abercromby is likely to be added to the list of
the victims of ignorant or injudicious friendship. His
friends, instead of founding his pretensions on the basis
of general respectability of talents and acquirements,
persist in holding him up " as a mirror of ancient
faith." With obstinate perversity, they appeal to the
great (perhaps the only) blot in his public character
as a sample of unparalleled public and private virtue.
Now, what is the short history of the case, stripped of
all varnish ? Mr. Abercromby, from his first sitting
in Parliament, was a steady, and occasionally an ac-
tive, coadjutor of the Whigs. For many years one
of the favourite and just objects of attack by that party
was the Court of Exchequer in Scotland. It was re-
peatedly denounced as a board of sinecurists—a mere
monument of the shameful waste of public money. In
process of time the chief of this board of faineants, per-
haps frightened by the vehemence of the Whig opposi-
tion, resigns his appointment, and is succeeded—by
whom?—by one of the band of declaimers against the
sinecure. Oh ! but, it is said (and here mark the
soundness of these logicians), he accepted the
office from the Duke of Wellington's Government ;
as if this was not an aggravation of his offence. If
his friends had come into power, it is just possible that
they might have pretended to have arrived at a sincere
conviction that the office was not a sinecure, and he
might have yielded to their conviction : but no, the
Whigs never changed or modified—they never even
pretended to have changed or modified—their view of
the utter uselessness of the appointment, and evinced
their sincerity by abolishing it as soon as they had the
power to execute their purpose. By what process of
reasoning, then, did Mr. Abercromby jump to a con-
clusion directly opposed to that of all his friends ?
What was the form of that logic, what the quality of
that eloquence, which drove or seduced his mind out
of its long-cherished opinions ? Mr. Abercromby
alone can answer this question. Certain it is that he
consented to receive 4,0001. a year for the " sinecure"
office ; that he continued to draw the full income for
twenty-seven months ; and when at last, at the bid-
ding of his old friends, even the name of the office
vanished into air, the ex-sinecurist consented to be-
come a pensioner for ever, to the amount of 2,0001.
a year ! And this is the exemplar of disinterested-
ness !—this the paragon of political integrity !—this
is the idol which O'Connell and his Whig associates
have set up, and which they command all the repre-
sentatives of this great empire to fall down and wor-
ship, on pain of " the fiery furnace" of furious invec-
tive and political infamy !—Times.
The factious purposes of the supporters of the in-
experienced and unqualified Mr. Abercromby for the
Speaker's Chair, in opposition to Sir Charles Manners
Sutton, become every day more evident. Indeed, the
Whig-Radicals no longer conceal their object to be
not the election of an accomplished and efficient
Speaker to preside over the new House of Commons,
but the making such a " demonstration " of strength

The name of " public principle" has never, perhaps,
been so shamelessly prostituted by any party in Great
Britain as it has been within the last few weeks by
that disreputable, mercenary, and factious portion of
the Whig-Radical junta of which Lord John Russell
has placed himself at the head, and of which Mr.
Abercromby, although with manifest and avowed re-
luctance, has consented to become the tool. Up to
this moment the organs of the party have not been
able to agree upon any intelligible definition or expla-
nation of the " public principle" said to be involved
in the selection by the House of Commons of a worse
when they have the offer of a better Speaker. The
choice of the best man for any important office in the
State, of the man who is known to possess in the
highest degree the qualifications necessary to the bene-
ficial and satisfactory discharge of its duties, is an in-
telligible " public principle." But the " public prin-
ciple" of the Whig-Radicals is some incomprehensible
thing, not merely different from, but totally opposed
to, this. Sir Charles Manners Sutton, as every-
body knows, was two years ago, in the estimation of
the very men who are now prepared to oppose his re-
election, better qualified for the office of Speaker than
Mr. Abercromby. Nobody can say that in the inter-
val either Sir Charles 'or his competitor has undergone
the least change ; that either of the two has acquired
or displayed qualifications or disqualifications for the
office which was not then known to appertain to him.
If Sir Charles was the better and Mr. Abercromby
the worse man in 1833, as the Whigs unanimously
proclaimed by their language and conduct, these two

THE 811 N, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1835.

gentlemen must still be in the same relative position
of superiority and inferiority. What, then, is the
" public principle" of which we first heard in the
correspondence between Lord John Russell and Mr.
Abercromby, and of which we have since heard so
much through the Whig-Radical organs of the press?
Why is it that we have yet to seek an intelligible expla-
nation of a " public principle" which has been talked of
and written about for the greater part of a month ?
Is it a " public principle" which the Whigs and Ra-
dicals are ashamed or afraid to avow ? Is it the
" public principle" of giving a preference to admitted
inferiority ? Is it the " public principle" of rewarding
and fostering inferior merit merely because it is infe-
rior? Why do not the Whig Radicals speak out ?
The principle above alluded to, whatever it may be for
the country, is a good one for them. It is the only
principle upon'which, however they may shrink from
its open avowal, they can hope to enjoy political power.
This principle of meritorious inferiority the Whig Ra-
dicals at once disclaim and cherish. They justly con-
sider Mr. Abercromby as its personification ; and no-
thing will satisfy them short of beholding it, in his per-
son, clothed in robes of state, preceded by a mace, and
elevated to the honour of presiding over the House of
Commons. We do not expect, however, that this Whig
Radical instinct will meet with any correspondent feel-
ing in the House of Commons or in the country.
That the " public principle" adverted to in terms so
vague and unintelligible in the correspondence between
Lord John Russell and Mr. Abercromby is something,
repugnant to the common sense and feelings of man-
kind, may be very safely inferred from the want of dis-
tinctness in its enunciation, and from the ignorance in
which the world has been permitted to remain up to
this moment as to its true meaning. But there is a
stronger ground for the same inference than even this.
Mr. Abercromby, as we learn by his own letter, re-
mained ignorant for some days, or even weeks, after the
project of setting him up for the Chair of the House
of Commons had been propounded to him, or thought
it prudent to affect ignorance, that any " public prin-
ciple" whatever was concerned in the matter. Now
we put it to the common sense of mankind whether
it be possible to suppose that a Whig lawyer,
already steeped in jobs, one who from his first en-
trance into public life has been eagerly looking out
for the means of advancing his own fortunes, would
have been so slow to discover, or so reluctant to pro-
claim, a " public principle" tending to his elevation to
the Chair of the House of Commons, to his enjoy-,
meat of 5,0001. a year in possession, and of a retiring
pension of 4,0001. a year in probable expectancy, as
Mr. Abercromby showed himself upon this occasion,
had the " public principle" been such as the most
clear-sighted politician could discover, or any but the
most unscrupulous and profligate politician could ad-
vance ? Had the " public principle" been clear and
honest is it probable, we ask, that a gentleman of the
character and in the position of Mr. Abercromby would
have needed to be reminded of it by Lord John Rus-
sell ; and when so reminded, have spoken of it in
terms so general as to show that he did not yet
understand it, or, understanding, dreaded nothing
so much as to present it clearly to the world ? The
fact is certain, however, whatever may be its proper
explanation, that we are still left to unassisted con-
jecture as to what the public principle really is upon
which Mr. Abercromby is to be set up in opposition
to Sir Charles Manners Sutton. It may be, and pro-
bably is, as we have already supposed, that interest
which the Whig Radical party, as a party, unques-
tionably have in claiming preferment as the due ineed
and suitable recompence of inferiority as inferiority.
But since the party are bound to deny this, let us see
what else the "public principle" of which we have
heard so much can possibly mean. Credit might be
given to the party for an object less manifestly absurd,
although equally unjustifiable, that, namely, of forcing
the present Minesters of the Crown to relinquish office
in their own favour by means of an adverse division of
the House of Comnions, were it not certain that no
such effect can possibly be produced by the division
on this particular question, be it what it may. If
the " public principle" of Lord John Russell and
Mr. Abercromby be that any means are legitimate
by which they can dispossess their political rivals and
possess themselves of office, and if it be in pursuance
of this principle that they seek to instal inferiority in
the Chair of the House of Commons, we tell them at
once that their principle, and the means by which they
are striving to give it effect, have no relation to, or
connection with, each other. Even in the event of a
majority of the House of Commons following in their
train, an event which we believe to be impossible, the
result aimed at would certainly not be produeed. The
judgment of the House of Commons would be discre-
dited, its dignity impaired, the order and decorum of
its future proceedings less effectually preserved, and
the course of public business be rendered more liable
to interruption and impediment. These great and ma-
nifest evils would undoubtedly accrue : but the desired
consummation, which the Whig-Radical faction deem
so great a good as to countervail these or any other
imaginable evils, would be as distant as ever. Sir
Robert Peel would still produce the measures by
which he expects to affiard general satisfaction to the
country ; and the Whig-Radical faction would still
have to encounter the mortification and calamity of
witnessing the manifestations of national gratitude and
joy, in the possession of an Administration of talent
and honesty, enough to bring forward and to effect
sober, rational, and practicable improvements. When
the question is thus considered it becomes evident that
the " public principle " of the Whig Radical faction
cannot upon this occasion be that of dissolving the
Government, in the expectation that they may be per-
mitted to replace it. But if a Ministry cannot be dis-
placed by such means as the Whig-Radicals are
now resorting to, it may be at least considerably
annoyed and perplexed. In whatever degree the
proceedings of the House of Common's are em-
barrassed and impeded, in consequence of having placed
in its Chair a man inferior to the best, this will be
so much additional vexation and trouble to the Mi-
nistry, so mu:11 of hindrance to the pregress of the
beneficial measures they may introduce, so much of
reduction to their power of establishing, upon a
solid basis, their claims to the gratitude, esteem,
and confidence of the country. This view of the sub-
ject opens to us a new " public principle;" which may
possibly be that of Lord John Russell and Mr. Aber-
cromby ; the principle, to wit, that to degrade the cha-
racter, abate the dignity, and frustrate the deliberations
of the Legislature, in order to discredit and enfeeble
the King's Government, is a very legitimate and pa-
triotic course of proceeding. Assuming this to be the
public principle" in deference to which Mr. Aber-
cromby is to be proposed to the House of Commos for
their Speaker, it would follow that in case of his election
he cannot possibly exhibit too much negligence,
too much ignorance, or too much partiality, in the
execution of his duties ; that to be learned or acute,
courteous or dignified, assiduous or impartial, will
be in effect to spurn at the very principle to which he
owes his elevation ; that, in short, he cannot be a
tolerable Speaker without being an inconsistent man.
Mr. Aborcromby's consistency will not, however, be
exposed to this test. He will escape so painful an
alternative as that of being wilfully false to his party,
or of wilfully abusing the power of the Chair of the
House of Commons. The nation ought not longer to
be left to guess at the " public principle" by which
the principal actors in this affair profess to be actuated.
if it be a principle which will bear the light of day,
why is it so cautiously kept out of view ? From all
that has yet appeared, the public must, indeed, con-
clude that party malice or sordid self-interest, rather
than " public principle" of any kind, is at the bottom
cf the whole proceeding.—Morning Post.

or unfitness—but that the country cares greatly
for the result, and cares for it precisely because
it is not a question of men, but a question of
measures—of honesty or of dishonesty—of whether
the country shall have an Administration which op-
posed the Reform Bill, and invariably proved itself an
enemy to the people—or whether it shall have the
fruits of Reform from the authors and promoters of
the Reform Act, and the friends of the peeple during
the last seventy years ? Of the result we have no
doubt. The people have to a great extent been true
to themselves--and their Representatives must be true
to them. We again repeat—but it is almost useless
to do so—that the man who votes for Sir C. M. Sut-
ton, or for the address, whatever it may be, is a traitor
to his constituents—to his country—to the cause of
Reform—and a DESTRUCTIVE in every sense of
the word. The galamatia of the Tory and renegade
Whig press, on this subject, is beneath our notice.—
Morning Advertiser.
Two dinners are appointed to take place on Mon-
day next in honour of the return of Members for the
Metropolitan districts. The one is to Dr. Lushington
and Mr. Clay, the well-deserving Representatives of
the Tower Hamlets, to be held, we believe, at the
London Tavern. Our friends in the East will, we
doubt not, gather strong to the feast. The other is
given at the Horns Tavern, Kennington, to the Right
Hon. C. Tennyson, M.P., by his friends and consti-
tuents of Lambeth.. The attendance will, we have
reason to know, be as numerous as it. ought to be ;
for never was Member better entitled to it on the score
of zealous and consistent service. The Licensed Vic-
tuallers are bound in an especial manner to mark their
sense of his endeavours in their cause. He was in the
last Parliament the only man who stood forward for
them, and most perseveringly defended their interests
against further attempted encroachments on their rights
and property. If they do not muster strongly, we need
scarcely state that, however true Mr. Tennyson may
prove to their cause, the effect upon other Members
will be any thing but beneficial to their interests.—
Morning Advertiser.
The election of Mr. Abercromby is safe. The ac-
counts received yesterday place the question beyond
all doubt. We only trust that the Irish and Scotch
Members will not leave any thing to accident, but be
at their post in good time. At this season of the
year, Members who are at a distance from the metro-
polis ought to make assurance doubly sure, by being in
town a day or two at least before the meeting of Par-
liament. Betting yesterday was two to one in favour
of Mr. Abercromby ; but the Tories would seem to
indicate that Sir Charles will bolt, for they will only
bet on the condition of an actual contest. The cases
of doubtful voting among those who call themselves
Reformers are few indeed. They are not even worth
naming now, and it is certain that they never will be
named hereafter as Reformers. One individual, once
the hope of the people, reminds as of Johnson's lines—
" From Marlborough's eyes the streams of dotage flow,
And Swift expires a driveller and a show."
We are unwilling to exhaust the patience of our rea-
ders by continuing a discussion in which nothing new
can be urged. The Times continues to speak des-
pairingly of the chance of Sir Charles Sutton. Our
Contemporary is inexhaustible in surmises with regard
to the motives for trying the strength of parties on the
question of who shall be Speaker. It admits the wis-
dom of the Reformers, by its anxiety to prove that on
no other question could they hope to obtain so many
votes. A splash must be made (says our Contem-
porary) that's flat ; The humbug must be spread
abroad that the Ministers are in a dead minority—a
panic is hoped for, and (by the mark) a resignation ;
Or else what happens ? Why, the game of the
Confederation is up." 'Well, then, a splash be it.
It is quite clear, from the showing of the Times,
that the Reformers have chosen their ground well.
We will not anticipate the possibility of failure.
We are not now under the necessity of demon-
strating what the Reformers could do were they to
allow the Tories to walk over the course in the contest
for the Speakership. We will assume, with the Times,
that it is wise in the Reformers to endeavour to carry
Mr. Abercromby. When that point is gained, it will
be time enough to apply ourselves to the question next
in order. The tone of the Standard is blustering, but
evidently dictated by anything rather than a confident
belief in the assertions so loudly made. Our evening
contemporary is exceedingly anxious to prove that the
Reformers cannot long hold together. That question
does not press at present. The question which
now presses is, how the Tories can be ousted ? The
Standard may kill the Reformers by raison demon-
strative; it is enough for us to be able to give a
practical refutation. The Morning Post is most
amusing. It fairly meets the Reformers by arguing
on the assumption, that Sir Charles Manners Sutton
did take an active part in the intrigues which led to
the dismissal of the Melbourne Ministry and the dis-
solution of the late Parliament, and contends that
" The condemnation of the Speaker must imply heavy cen-
sure upon the King ; and the ' principle,' if carried to its full
extent, arrives at this point, that the King infringes the rights
of the House of Commons if he dismisses his Ministry during
a prorogation, or at any time while they have, or might have
been expected to have, a majority of votes in that House ; and
that those who advise him to do so are enemies or unfaithful ser-
vants of the representatives of the people. It is scarcely ne-
cessary to observe that the principle' also applies in full force
to any dissolution of the House at a time when it may be pre-
sumed that a majority would not have consented to it."
This may be well calculated to recommend Sir Clias.
Sutton to the Tories ; but they must be strange Re-
formers indeed who would make choice of a Speaker
who, if they were to give effect to their views, would
seize the first opportunity afforded during the recess
for endeavouring to defeat their labours through a dis-
solution. We say nothing with regard to the prero-
gative : it remains to be ascertained by Parliament
whether it was rightly exercised or not. But assuming
that it was not rightly exercised, it will be prudent to
deprive Sir Charles of an opportunity to do wrong a
second time. No, no ; we must have no back-stairs
Speaker. Sir Charles may take his reward in a
peerage : on a Reformed House of Commons he has
assuredly no clahn.—Morning Chronicle.
So Sir George Murray is no longer a member of the
Cabinet. Honour to the virtuous electors of Perth-
shire for this great moral lesson I Sir George has
now found to his cost, that if a statesman owes some-
thing to his party, he owes something also to himself.
By throwing away his character for truth, he has
lowered himself in the estimation of his own
associates, who point to the verdict of the
Perthshire electors, and say,—You are no longer
of the same value in our eyes. We trust this lesson
will not be lost on public men. Differences of opi-
nion on public questions have always existed, and will
always exist ; but there can be but one opinion with
respect to the necessity for adhering to engagements.
Let the fate of Sir George Murray be a warning to
all politicians. They who profit by violations of
pledges and declarations will be the first tb turn their
backs on the faithless tools who thus evince so little
regard for the good opinion of the public. We pity
Sir George Murray ; but he has himself alone to
blame for what has happened.—Morning Chronicle.

The question of the Speakership hangs heavily on
the souls of the Tories ; and in imitation of, if not
from the same motive as, those who know that their
doom is fixed, they cry out, " We are innocent—we
are innocent !" We take them at their word. We
also fear not the result ; but when they talk of the
question of the Speakership being a mere personal
question, we are bound to inform them that there is no
personality in the matter— that it is the principles of
the Speaker which are in question, and not the late
Speaker himself—that the country cares not much
whether Sir C. M. Sutton or Mr. Abercromby
be, or be not, Speaker, so far as they are per-
sonally concerned—that it is no question of fitness

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

WEBB V. WEEDON.

The hearing of this cause was resumed this morning,
and on its basing been intimated that it would not close
to-day, and perhaps not to-morrow, several other cases
were posponed till the next sitting, and the Juries dismissed.
After hearing other witnesses fer the plaintiff, the case
on his behalf was closed.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL then addressed the Jury for the
defendant. The Learned Gentleman spoke from ten o'clock
till two, and then called witnesses.
The further hearing of the case was adjourned rt seven
o'clock, till to-morrow (this day).

EXCHEQUER COURT.

SCHAFFER V. LE PFTIT.

This was an action for compensation in damages for the
seduction of the plaintiff's daughter, Julia Maria Schaffer,
by the defendant. The plaintiff is a clock and watch dial-
face finisher, residing in Spencer-street, Gosvvell-street ;
and the defendant an engraver.
Mr. THESSIGER stated the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS objected in the course of the
examination of a witness, to make her contradict what she
had first advanced.

Mr. THESSIGER defending this course, to which Mr.
Baron ALDERSON objected, the Learned Counsel addressed
some observations to the Jury, on which—
Mr. Baron ALDERSON warmly remonstrated with him
for appealing from the Judge to the Jury, and saying that
it was irregular, and would not benefit his case.
Mr. THESSIGER said his Lordship's impression was erro-
neous, and he (lid not consider such observations correct.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON-Mr. Thessiger, you are not to
school me.

Mr. THESSIGER—I am not schooling your Lordship,
but I saw an impression hastily taken up, which I endea-
voured to remove.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON—If it was so, that was not the way.
After some further remarks the examination of the wit-
ness was resumed.

Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON summed up.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 135/.

SHERIFFS COURT..