The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-21 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The mace we reflect upon the treatment experienced by
Sir Charles Sutton from the piebald majority of 316 votes
on Thursday, the more we find in that proceeding to make
us deplore the excesses into which party violence may lead
individuals, in all the respects of private and social life un-
exceptionable for honour and discretion. There never were
exhibited in any one Parliamentary debate, and professedly
in support of a single motion, so many arguments, allega-
tions, and suggestions so fatal to each other, or so damna-
tory of those who employed them. There never were
made palpable, through the mere progress of discussion,
so many pompous littlenesses, or so many rancorous mo-
tives, thinly veiled at first by pretences, which, even had
they been real grounds of conduct instead of feigned ones,
would have been most inconsistent and absurd. The first
excuse put forth by the factious organs of the Whig-Radi-
cals for affixing this unfair stigma upon Sir C. M. Sutton,
was his having intrigued against the late Ministry, and in-
termeddled unbecomingly in advising the dissolution of
Parliament. As these calumnies against the Right Hon.
Gentleman spread into more active circulation, it also got
wind that they would meet the most public, complete, and
satisfactory answer from Sir C. M. Sutton. This was a pros-
pect too alarming to be directly faced. So the tactics of his
enemies were changed at once. It was announced that all
charges against the Right Hon. Gentleman for intrigues and
partisanship were to he waved, as wholly " beside the ques-
tion"—(not a word was whispered about their being ridi-
culously false.) It was intimated as the only reason for -re-
jecting Sir C. M. Sutton, that the house had the r:_ght, and
ought to exercise it, of electing a Speaker v-,nose politics
spoke " the sense of the majority." This, indeed, was
plunging from bad to worse. For so:de days previously we
had ourselves been endeavouring to show that no such
Speaker could be found as one who should speak the sense
of the majority. But it was left for Lord Stanley to open
a cross fire against tl-.ls same "great principle." He showed
pretty clearly that it was one which the Whig Ministers
themselves on tile two last occasions had not merely failed
to recognize, but had, when it was proposed to them, ac-
tually and expressly condemned, declaring that "it was
not a principle which ought to determine the election of a
Speaker." Accordingly, in 1831 and 1833 the Whigs
preferred Sir C. M. Sutton to the "great principle ;"
wl-Jereas, now, " tirnabout being fair play," they extol the
"principle," and sacrifice the object of their former re-
peated choice. But, Lord Stanley went a little further.
Addressing himFAf to certain gentlemen among the majority
which had thus been packed for the rejection of Sir C. M.
Sutton, and of the principle on which the Whigs, as Mi-
nisters, had already acted, he tried the validity, or at least
the good faith, of Mr. Abercromby's election, by the same
test, and put to the gentlemen who flattered their own
consciences that they were voting for a principle and not
for a faction, and who justified their choice by the asser-
tion that they would elect a Speaker whose opinions should
agree with theirs, whether they were prepared to avow
" that Mr. Abercromby's principles were theirs"—that
" his politics were theirs." Why even the Hon. Member
for Surrey (Mr. Denison) could not say so. He could
not say that Mr. Abercromby, whom he proposed as con-
curring in the sentiments of that majority of which Mr.
Denison made one, did speak Mr. Denison's own senti-
ments, which were those of the old constitutional, not the
speculative, Whigs. -Mr. Abercromby supported triennial
Parliaments and the ballot, and had left it doubtful whe-
ther he did not prefer the " voluntary principle" in reli-
gion (that is, the exclusion of the poor from public wor-
ship) to a Church Establishment. Were these either
positive or negative opinions, to which the real Whig Mem-
bers of the majority would bind themselves, as they must
do in common consistency by their vote for Mr. Aber-
cromby ? Thus we find that the " great principle"
was one which in the case of Sir C. M. Sutton, the
Whigs had twice, bj electing him as Speaker, con-
demned ; and one which in the case of Mr. Aber-
cromby they would not dare to abide by. But there
was another ground of objection to Sir Charles Man-
ners Sutton : he was a person, forsooth, of too de-
cided politics. He could not be an "impartial" Speaker.
Then how did they relieve themselves from such
. a difficulty ? By the choice of Mr. -Abercromby, as was
triumphantly stated by Sir Robert Peel, "a member of the
late Government, whose removal from office was to be
speedily brought under the consideration of the House "
a party concerned in e-.le of the most "important discussions
about to occupy the House of Commons ; " and this was
the " impartial" :_ipeaker of the Whigs ! But it seems Lord
John Russell could not keep his word. He could not rest
contented with his principle, or keep his nails off Sir C.
M. Sutton's character, which he and his compeers had an-
nounced ostentatiously to be a subject " altogether beside
the question," and which, in the outset of his speech he
declared to be a the effect of discussing which
might be to leave the House without " an option " in
the choice of a Speaker. Notwithstanding this, a large
portion of the latter end of the Noble Lord's speech
(which we regret to say appears to us to be feeble
in intellect and mean in spirit) was a direct attack
upon the pretended partisanship of Sir C. M. Sutton,
by his advice in Council and otherwise, in the teeth of the
Right Hon. Gentleman's victorious defence, as it was of his
Lordship's own preliminary declarations. Indeed, the me-
mory of the Noble Lord seems to possess a most accom-
modating imperfeaion. As he had made such use of his
forgetfulness in the correspondence of a Right Rev. Bishop ;
so he would with Sir Robert Peel's permission have turned
the same faculty to no worse account in relation to Sir C.
M. Sutton, denying that he had ever imputed to that right
hon. gentleman an active part in advising the dissolution of
Parliament, while we fear there is on record a certain writ-
ten address of the Noble Lord to Members of Parliament,
declaring " his conviction that Sir C. M. Sutton had dis-
qualified himself for the chair by his attendance at the
Council which advised the dissolution." We quote below
a passage from the speech of Sir C. M. „Sutton in self-de-
fence, to show the utter fallacy and malignity of those
charges respecting his supposed advice to change the
nistry, on which Lord John Russell thought it not unbe-
coming to dwell, after he and his party had taken advantage
of the professed intention to abandon them. Their
idol "principle" gaped for a human sacrifice, and they offered
up Sir C. M. Sutton. But the nation is used more barba-
rously than the P..ight Hon. Gentleman. The passage to
which we allude, as reported in this journal yesterday, stood
as follows :—" Now, as to the charge against him with re-
spect to the formation of the present Government, he
would boldly and at once say, that with the exception of
his knowledge, in common with the public, of the appoint-
ment of his Right Hon. friend Sir Robert Peel, the Lord
Chancellor, and the Duke of Wellington, he had never
advised, he had never suggested, he never was in any way
consulted, and he never knew of the appointment of any
one individual till after it had taken place. So much with
regard to that charge." Now this, though accurate in its
general expression and meaning, may be liable to miscon-
struction by low and factious minds, which are to be found
even more in high than in humble station. To prevent,
therefore, the possibility of misunderstanding, we have pro-
cured a precise statement of the language of the Right
Hon. Gentleman. He stated, that "although he knew, in
common with the public, of the intended appointments of
Sir Robert Peel, the Lord Chancellor, and the Duke of
Wellington, before those appointments had actually taken
place, he never advised, or was consulted, or in any way in-
terfered about them ; and of all the subsequent appoint-
ments he was entirely ignorant till after each had been
completed."—A more complete vindication never was ut-
tered.—Tinges.

It is the advantage of arguing public questions upon
principle, without any regard to party feelings or temporary
purposes, that whether a cause so supported be successful
or not its advocate has nothing to retract. Thus it is with
reference to our support of Sir C. Manners Sutton, as the
man the most fit and qualified of all men for the Chair of
the new House of Commons. The success of his inex-
perienced opponent, in consequence of an artfully-excited
party feeling, carried into effect by a coalition of Whigs and
Radicals, makes no change in our opinions. We have
nothing in that respect to alter or retract. Our opinion of
the relative merits of the two competitors for the Speaker's
Chair stands the same as it did. Nor can we abate a par-
ticle of the disgust which we before expressed for the con-
duct of those partisans of faction, who invented a mass of
calumnies to serve the purpose of the election, and with-
drew them to prevent the accused from meeting responsible
accusers face to face, and covering them with shame and
confusion. The errors, and even the prejudices of ho-
nourable adversaries we can respect. But malignant and
conscious falsehood is no more a legitimate weapon of
political conflict than the poisoned arrow is of civilized
warfare. The false charges against Sir C. Manners
Sutton were repeatedly put forward, as being not only Ca-
pable of proof, but being intended to be substantiated in
the House of Commons. The poison having wrought its
effects on the public mind, before an antidote could be ad-
ministered, the partisans, who were Members of the House,
but, not being in the secret, believed those calumnies, were
requested on the day before the election not to make any
charges against the late Speaker, lest he might be thereby
afforded an opportunity of refuting them. We ask the late
Whig Attorney-General whether this be British justice ?
We ask his Radical ally, Mr. Gully, once champion of the
prize ring, whether this be British fair play? Indepen-
dently of the superior claims of the late Speaker to the
Chair of the House of Commons, over every other person, we
supported him upon the ground of obtaining for the King's
Ministers a "fair trial." It is not true, as Mr. Denison
stated, that the Melbourne Ministry was not tried. It was
tried upon great measures ; the question of Irish tithe and
the Coercion Bill. Upon both those questions it confesssed
its own want of principle and capacity by placing itself in
the hands of Mr. O'Connell, having allowed him to substi-

tute his own iniquitous Tithe Bill for the Ministerial one, '
and to expunge the clauses in the Coercion Bill directed
against the political agitators of Ireland, while the severity
of the law was allowed to remain in all its force for the
chastisement of their dupes and victims, the ignorant and
misguided peasantry. This, we think, was trial enough. If
the present Ministers were to act with the same confessed
weakness, want of principle, self-humiliation, and incapacity,
upon the same questions, we should think that the sooner
the Kin.- dismissed them from his councils the better.
Such conduct was calculated, in its effects, to degrade the
Crown, to undermine the Constitution, and to bring the
integrity of the empire into danger. Though we wished
the success of Sir C. Manners Sutton, for the reasons
which we have stated, we stated no grounds of anticipated
success upon any numerical data. We expressed our trust
and confidence in the sense of justice and propriety of the
House of Commons ; and if we thought too highly of the
character of the present House of Commons, it was a ge-
nerous error, which the vote of Thursday evening dispelled.
Our mistake was a complimentary one to the supposed good
feeling and good sense of the newly-elected. Representatives
of the people. We had not forgotten the charact^-,hfcc
the Whig Ministers had given the late " ---ke; for all
.-aapea
those talents and virtues that con'
Chair. We had, it is true., • , • ,
...-ctignify and adorn the
netnin the last four years, seen
many instances of Wtg, inconsistency—some of them very
gross—but we
present -aonfess we did not think so poorly of the
--Pouse of Commons as to allow ourselves to be-
lieve that, in the face of the recorded and recent testi-
monies which the Whigs bad borne to the unrivalled
merits of the Right Honourable Gentleman, they could, by
any act of shameless inconsistency, without daring to state
that he had done any thing to forfeit the high character
which they then gave him, induce a majority of the repre-
sentatives of the people to set him aside, after a service of
eighteen years, for an untried and inexperienced man. This
we did not anticipate. Our adversaries accuse us of that
which is equivalent to having had too easy a faith in the
supposed high-mindedness and public virtue of the people's
Representatives, a mistake which we hope they will forgive
us. With respect to a large portion of that assembly, we
are not likely soon to fall into a similar error again. We
can now better understand what they mean by " public
principle" than we did. If they carry the
.same public
principle into all other public questions, the nation is doomed
to see its real business again neglected for the selfish con-
tentions and ambitious struggles of party. The alleged
" principle" of having a Speaker whose political sentiments
were in accordance with those ofthe majority was so ably dis-
posed of by Lord Stanley that not much can be added to
strengthen his argument. If the Whigs were the majority of
the present House, which they are not—if the Radicals
were the majority, which they are not—in the former
case, according to the " principle" laid down, a Whig
should be in the Chair ; in the latter a Radical. Whigs
and Radicals differ rather more widely in their principles
than Whigs and Conservatives. Of which of those two
parties, then, is the present Speaker the representative as
to political opinion ? Whether lie be a Whig or a Ra-
dical, he represents only a minority of the House. If Mr.
Wakley speaks the sentiments of the Radicals, the ma-
jority produced by the union of the two parties is not a
union orpolitical sympathy. In the very moment that
self-interest binds them together in one common object,
mutual hatred and jealousy threaten some violent disruption
of the unholy alliance. As to the pernicious effects of
party feeling upon the choice of public men for offices of
great trust and responsibility, we will here quote the words
of Lord Brougham in the year 1828, relative to the un-
happy consequences of that party feeling, or intolerance, as
we should call it, in depriving the country of the services of
men the best qualified for eminent and arduous situations.
On that occasion he spoke of judicial situations ; but the
same principle is applicable to others. "If at the present
moment," said Mr. (now Lord) Brougham, " the whole of
Westminster Hall were to be called upon, in the event of
any vacaney unfortunately occurring among the Chief Jus-
tices, to name the best man to fill it—to point out the indi-
vidual whose talents and integrity best deserved the situa-
tion—whose judicial exertions were the most likely to shed
blessings on his country, can any one doubt for a moment
whose name would be echoed on every,ride ? No ; there
could be no question as to the individual to whom would
point the common consent of those most competent to
judge—but then he is known as a party man, and all his
merits, were they even greater than they are, would be in
vain extolled by his profeszion, and desiderated by his
country. I reprobate this mischievous system, by which
the empire loses the services of some
_of the ablest, the
most learned, and the most honest men within its bounds."
We reprobate the same system, and for the same reasons
which in the above passage are so forcibly expressed. The
House of Commons exhibited, on Thursday, a striking
example of the effects of that mischievous system which
Lord Brougham described as preventing the merited eleva-
tion of Lord Abinger to the highest judicial situation in his
own Court many years ago. Such arc the injurious conse-
quences to the publice service, of that party-favouritism
which undervalues the highest qualification for office, in
comparison with the party merit of an " accordance in po-
litical sentiment."—Morning Herald.
We have great satisfaction in being enabled confidently
to state that the vote of the House of Commons on the
election of its Speaker will not affect in the slightest degree
the course which his Majesty's Government had determined
to pursue. The present Ministers assumed the reins of Go-
vernment in the determination to propose such measures of
reform and improvement in the civil and ecclesstinal insti-
tutions of the State, as will, in their jude.;,,eni, conduce to
the public welfare. Those measure; -his Majesty's Minis-
ters will still propose, in the fi!:,n -reliance, a reliance in no
degree diminished or imp::,r6a by anything that has taken
place, that they wilt- 'tie found worthy of the approbation
and support of t'ie Legislature and of the country. They
will not antLeipate any factious obstruction to the steady
march a patriotic Administration, calmly and zea-
lously pursuing such measures as we have described ;
but should such obstructions be interposed to their
progress, they will be found prepared, neverthe-
less, resolutely to encounter, and triumphantly to
surmount them. What the nation requires is a
Government liberal and energetic, firm, skilful, and con-
scientious ; and the present Administration is determined
to show that it can be everything that the nation requires.
Against such a Government the arts of faction must be
practised in vain, or with no other effect than that of ren-
dering faction at once odious and weak—the antagonist of
a beneficent Government, the enemy of a rational and en-
lightened people. The above general intimation of the de-
termination of his Majesty's Government may suffice to
dissipate any momentary apprehensions which the unex-
pected vote of the House of Commons on the election of
its Speaker may have occasioned. We have no desire
to enter into the speculations in which some of our
contemporaries have indulged, as to the course to be
adopted in certain contingencies, which are, we hope
and believe, in the highest degree improbable. It is
manifestly premature to speak at present of a new
appeal to the people, because there is at present no
reason to believe that the existing House of Commons,
by a factious resistance to measures of a popular and
beneficial character, or a factious opposition to the Minis-
ters by whom such measures have been introduced, will
incur the hazard of being thrown back upon a constituent
body whose disapprobation they must have incurred, and
whose confidence they must have forfeited, by a line of con-
duct at once so wicked and so absurd. The Government
will.be.strong in proportion as the measures it may have to
propose shall be found entitled to the approbation of the
nation ; and in this strength it may set all the arts and all
the violence of the most cunning and powerful faction at
defiance, should that faction comprehend even a numerical
majority .of the existing House of Commons. Some gra-
tuitous wrath has, we perceive, been expended by certain
journals in the interest of the Destructives upon an idea of
their own conception, that the present House of Commons
will be short-lived. The idea is, we hope, entirely erro-
neous ; for we will not abandon our expectation that the
new House of Commons will so conduct itself, upon the
whole, that its longevity may be universally regarded as a
public interest of much importance. It is only thus that a
Representative Assembly can entitle itself to length of
days. There is something remarkably inconsistent in-
deed in the trembling anxiety expressed by some of our
Whig-Radical contemporaries for the existence of the new
House of Commons, when considered in conjunction with
their undisguised and laborious efforts to displace the pee-
sent Ministers of the Crown, since it must be evident to the
most careless and superficial observer, that the very first
step of any Administration by which the present Govern-
ment could possibly be succeeded, must of necessity be a
dissolution of Parliament. Nobody can surely be so fool-
ish as to imagine that the Melbourne Ministry, if reinstated
to-morrow, or that an O'Connell, Hume, and Wakley
Ministry, or that a Ministry constituted of any conceivable
combination of these two parties, could go on with the
present House of Commons for the space of a week. Why,
then, this silly affectation of horror and resentment at
the bare idea of the present Parliament being brought
to an early end, when the accomplishment of the single
object for which those who exhibit this ridiculous affecta-
tion toil incessantly, night and day, must of necessity pro-
duce, as one of its first effects, the very result at which they
manifest so much dread ? The present House of Commons
enjoys its existence by the same tenure as every former
House of Commons. rlt will live just so long as the
Sovereign, with the advice of his Majesty's responsible ser-
vants, shall judge its protracted existence to be conducive
to the national welfare. Longer than this it ought not to
live. Those who express so much groundless apprehension
lest the new House of Commons should fall in early youth
would, however, do well to recollect that if the present Ad-
ministration may dissolve it whenever they think such a
measure essential to the welfare of the State, any other I