The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-03 00:00:00

TUE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1835.

satisfactory to the nation at large, because they were
strictly in unison with the spirit of the Constitution,
and 'dictated, indeed, by the plainest rules of pru-
dence. It 'was displeasing' to. the factions opposed
to the King's Government, because these factions are
equally regardless of the dictates of prudence and
the principles of the Constitution when either present
an obstruction to their efforts to force themselves once
more into power. Why should Lord John Russell
and Mr. Hums have expected that Sir Robert Peel
would compromise the King's prerogative, by any de-
claration as to what he would or would not advise on
an emergency which may never arise? We go fur-
ther even than this, and ask why the present Admi-
nistration, if they are assailed or interrupted in their
Ministerial duty by a factious Opposition, in the
House of Commons, should not meet that Opposi-
tion in the manner in which a factious Opposition
in the House of Commons has generally been
met ? The Premier, we rejoice to _ say, resolutely
and perseveringly refused to give any pledge whatever
as to the advice he would give to the Sovereign, or
would withhold, in the event of the Opposition conti-
nuing to obstruct the important business of the nation
in the HOuse of Commons, and to oppose a factious
resistance to the King's Government. The tongue of
Sir Robert Peel was tied ; it is competent, however, to
us to express an opinion on the subject upon which he
prudently refused to express any. We say boldly, and
without hesitation, that it will be the duty of the
King's Government to dissolve the present Parliament
at the very first moment in which it shall show a de-
termination to obstruct and embarrass the King's Mi-
nisters upon any subject whatever. It is in vain
that Lord John Russell and Mr. Hume, adopting
the very absurd and inapplicable argument of
the Morning Chronicle, deprecate such an exer-
cise of the Royal prerogative, insisting that his
Majesty's Ministers ought to be concluded by the last
general election, and are bound to acquiesce, without
appeal, in the decisions, be they what they may, of the
present House of Commons. His Majesty's Minis-
ters 'cannot, as rational men, or as faithful and zealous
servants of the Crown and of the country, surrender
political power to the hands of their opponents without
having first laid before Parliament some of the measures
of improvement which they intend to propose as an
earnest of the policy they have determined to adopt, and
without, in, the second place, taking the sense of the
nation as to the value and efficiency of these measures,
and the confidence and support to which their authors
are entitled. Every circumstance in the situation of
the country concurs to impress upon Ministers the duty
of clinging to the helm, which their Sovereign has en-
trusted to them, to the last possible moment, in manly
and resolute defiance of all the efforts of faction to
dispossess them. When they accepted office, they
pledged themselves to their Sovereign and their coun-
try, by the clearest implication, to fulfil his duty to time
utmost of their power. And it is evident that this
duty would be left incomplete by Ministers if they-were
to retire from office without. a final appeal to the na-
tion, after the nation is made fully acquainted with the
principles by which they have determined to regulate
their official conduct. The last appeal to the people
was necessary, because there was no reasonable expec-
tation that the House of Commons then in existence
would afford to the Ministers of the Crown any trial
whatever. The next dissolution will be equally ne-
cessary, should the present House of Commons evince
a determination to give to the Ministers of the Crown
no other than a mock trial.—Morning Post.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 9.

The Earl of SUAFTESBURY sat as Deputy Speaker.
The Duke of RICHMOND said he was directed by the
Library Committee to report that the Gentleman Usher of the
Black Rod had communicated to thetn that there was a great
want of room for the officers of the house, and they had come
to the determination of recommending that the House in which
Mr. O'Hanlon resided should be taken for that purpose.
On the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, it was
ordered that no petition should be received for a private bill
after the 6th of April—nor any report from the Judges on a
private bill after the 12th of May. "
Lord ELLENBORO UGH brought in a bill of indemnity
for the Governor-General and other officers of the East India
which was read a first time.

The Earl of ROSSLYN presented a petition from the
Presbytery of Stirling, complaining of the want of accommo-
dation in the churches of the Establishment in Scotland.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from Jos.
Sparrow, praying for the appointment of a Committee to in-
quire into the government of public and private mad-houses.
Lord TEYN HAM presented a petition from a parish in
Kent, complaining of agricultural distress, and praying for a
Committee to enquire into the same.
The Earl of SH A FTE SB UR Y presented a petition from
a parish in Stirlingshire, in favour of the Church Establish-
ment.

A number of papers were presented from the Tax-office.
The Duke of RICHMOND had a petition to present, to
which he wished particularly to call the attention of the Go-
vernment, and rnore particularly that of the noble Lord ( Witarn-
eliffe). It was from the Clerk of the Peace of the county of
Sussex, complaining that that House had called for a return
which cost him 701. to make out ; that he had charged it in his
bill against the county, but the Magistrates had unanimously
agreed that it should be expunged, which was accordingly done;
and he said he was afraid to refuse compliance with such an
order, in case of being called before the House and sent to
Netvgate. They then referred him to the Secretary for
the Home Department, who told him that there was no fund
from which they could pay him, so that the whole expense
fell upon the unfortunate officer. He did not think that that
was proper, and hoped that his Noble Friend ( Whaincliffe)
•
would take some step to alter the law upon the subject.
Lord BROUGHAM said he perfectly agreed in all that had
fallen from his Noble Friend. The expense of returns called
for and made for the public good, ought to be paid from
the public funds ; but he was obliged to say that such an appli-
cation should not be made to the House of Lords. He bad
never heard of such an application made to that House.
To be sure we lived in very strange times, when the Govern-
ment were prepared to carry on the government, not with the
confidence of the House of Commons but against it, and en-
tirely by the House of Lords—still it was rather too much to
say, even yet, that the House of Lords was to be petitioned for
payment of expenses to any individual, and the Commons to
be passed over. _ .

Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that there was no authority
for placing the charge upon the county rate. He could assure
the House that there was no wish on the part of his Ma-
jesty's present Ministers to usurp any of the privileges of
the House of Commons, and that they were perfectly ready to
leave the whole subject to its consideration. He trusted the
Noble Lord would not object to the subject being referred to
a select committee.

Lord BROUGHAM said, that the House had no funds
at its disposal, unless a subscription was entered into.
After a few observations from Lord ROSSLYN the petition
was withdrawn.