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

case now ? The Opposition, so far from outrunning
the wishes of the nation, is far from keeping pace with
it. This is so notorious, that the journals which
support Ministers are constantly complaining of the
control exercised by the constituencies over their re-
presentatives. In the case of the Speakersbip, no-
thing but the certain knowledge that their constituents
would never forgive either a vote in favour of Sir
Charles Sutton, or the declining to vote, could coun-
teract the great personal influence of the former Speaker.
The present Ministers are stronger in Parliament than
they arc anywhere else. The Tories were driven from
all places where corruption and intimidation could not
be brought into play. Their representatives are not
the representatives of the people, but of Tory land-
lords, and corrupt Corporations. -The only large
towns in which they have been successful, are
Liverpool, Bristol, and Norwich—places in which the
independent voters are swamped by necessitous and
corrupt freemen. No comparison can, therefore, be
more misplaced ,than that between 1784 and 1835.
The dissolution of 1784 was hailed by the nation ; a
dissolution now would irritate the nation, and add
greatly to the numbers of the Reformers in the
House of Commons. Ministers and their sup-
porters ought not to blow hot and cold in the
same breath. They complain of the subjection
under which Members are kept by their constitu-
ents, and yet they talk of reaction. If there be
a reaction, it is not assuredly in favour of Ministers,
but against them. But their reaction is of a piece
with all the rest of their conduct, false and fraudulent.
Mr. Hume last night observed, with reference to the
case of Mr. Pitt,-that he " indeed had a considerable
majority against him and persevered, but then the
people were with him. That, give me leave to say, is
not the case now. No doubt the Honourable Mem-
bers on the other side are under a delusion upon this
point, but as regards my constituents, I will venture
without hesitation to say, that three out of four arc op-
posed to the present Ministers." Lord John Russell
did not ask the direct question he had proposed to put
to Sir Robert Peel with regard to dissolution, as he
inferred from the King's Answer to the Address that it
was not the intention of Ministers to interrupt the
course of the House ; but he observed, " I do think
that we should not go far with the concession of sup-
plies, or coin:nit ourselves incautiously by placing the
public money in the hands of Ministers, before we
have an explanation from them, after the adoption of
the late Amendment, of the course it is their intention
to pursue." Sir Robert professed that he had never
diiectly or indirectly countenanced the rumours of a
dissolution, and never even discussed the case hypo-
thetically. If a Ministry can retain office, in spite of
a majority of the House of Commons, it is absurd to
speak of constitutional right ? Ministers may intend
what they please, but, thank God, the decision of the
question how long they shall remain in office is not
with them, but with the House of, Commons. The.
House will, no doubt, assert its dignity by stopping
supplies, and refusing to pass a certain measure ne-
cessary to their existence. George 111., in 1784,
threatened abdication and retreat to Hanover. The ques-
tion, however, was not between the King and the na-
tion, but between the King, with one section of the
Aristocracy, and with the nation, and another sec-
tion of the Aristocracy. The course was then ob-
vious and easy—a dissolution. But a dissolution has
already been tried by the present Ministry, and
the returns to the Parliament give a majority against
them. We really cannot understand in what consti-
tutional way they can protract their existence beyond
the period when the House of Commons chooses to
terminate it. But rumours of measures that never en-
tered the head of either George 111. or Mr. Pitt are
now afloat. An allusion to them was made by
Lord John Russell. After alluding to the ru-
mours of an intention of Ministers to endeavour to
wear out and vex the country by repeated dissolutions,
his Lordship added, " There have been rumours
even of a more extraordinary nature—that should
Ministers think it advisable to recommend his
Majesty to dissolve this Parliament before the Mutiny.
Act shall have been passed, they would consider them-
selves authorized to maintain a standing army in tune
of peace, contrary to .the known Constitution of the
country, and without the consent of Parliament." Sir
Robert Peel professed that he had heard of this rumour
for the first time from the lips of the Noble Lord. The
rumour, for all that, has been very confidently circu-
lated, with the view, no doubt, of trying the effect of
it. We do not believe that Sir Robert Peel would be
a party to any such daring violation of the Constitu-
tion. But Sir Robert Peel has some associates on
whom we could not calculate with• the same confidence.
The Government was conducted for three weeks
without the Right Honourable Baronet ; and when
deviations from the Constitution are contemplated, he
may have leave given him to complete his survey of
Italy. We are certain that the Tories never will consent
either to an effective Municipal Reform, or to such
an Ecclesiastical Reform as would be acceptable to
the nation ; but this is all of which we are certain:
Some of the more daring spirits among them may che-
rish the intention of governing by means utterly at
variance with the Constitution, rather than part with
power. However, all this will soon be ascertained.
Govern Ministers cannot, with a majority of the Com-
mons against them. Dissolve they cannot, because
the majority would still be greater. They can expect
no defection from the Opposition, because the con-
stituencies are not, like the old Oligarchs and their
nominees, to be gained by intrigue. The House of
'Commons will, therefore, fulfil the expectations of the
nation, and assert its dignity by bringing matters to
an issue which will place Ministers under the neces-
sity of either resigning or retaining office unconstitu-
tionally. If they venture on unconstitutional courses,
there is spirit enough in the nation to bring the proudest
of them to their senses. We are not afraid of the
result.—Morning Chronicle.
The questions put last night to the Prime Minister
by Lord John Russell in the House of Commons, and
the answers they received, have considerably disap- j
pointed the hopes which the factions opposed to his
Majesty's Government had confidently cherished, and

somewhat prematurely expressed. The morning organs
of the factions summoned with infinite emphasis and
pomp a full attendance of their Members, as if some
great enterprise was to be achieved, some blow to be
struck, deeply injurious to the character and authority
of the Government, if not entirely fatal to its existence.
But never, certainly, did factions in any State ex-
perience a more mortifying disappointment. The
Opposition mountain heaved and groaned, and la-
boured, and its throes were consummated and re-

warded by a production at once the most diminu-
tive and unsightly that can be imagined. But this
was not the great disaster of the night to the Op-
position party. It is a party which has often, be-
fore to-day, made a prodigious noise and done nothing;
so that mere failure is too habitual to it to be alto-
gether intolerable. The disaster of the night to the
Opposition was the ease, and grace, and promptitude,
and firmness with which the Minister of the King dis-
posed of its factious questions, and, without any
effort or contrivance, by the simple and manly dis-
charge of his pooper duty, presented to the country an
exposition of the views and intentions of the Govern-
ment, a development of its confidence and strength
which placed the pigmy proceeding of the Opposition
in a light at once the most offensive and the most
ridiculous. The main question—by the Opposition it
is felt to be a vital one—which his Lordship thought
it proper to ask was, whether the King's Government
had sanctioned certain rumours said to have been cur-
rent as to an intended dissolution of Parliament ?
The reply to this was given with singular force and
propriety in the very words which Earl Grey, then
the chief of a Ministry of which Lord John Russell
was a subordinate member, employed on a somewhat
similar occasion ; and it was a distinct and positive
refusal to supply any explanation as to the intentions
of the King's Government with respeet to a contin-
gent exercise of the Royal prerogative ;
however, at the same time, all responsibility for the
alleged rumour. Lord John Russell's questions, and
the more persevering but not more stringent questions
of Mr. Hume to the same end, were answered in a
manner which we have no doubt will prove eminently
satisfactory to the nation at large, although it was evi-
dently displeasing to the querists and the party with
whom and for whom they act. The answers will be