The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-04 00:00:00

LONDON,
WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 4, 1385.

The Ministerial explanations, as offered by Sir
ROBERT PEEL, were doubtless satisfactory to those
who would be satisfied with any thing proceeding from
the Premier's lips ; but neither in matter nor in manner
were they convincing to the opposition, within or
without. the walls of the House of Commons. It
would be discourteous and uncharitable to believe that
the declarations of the Right Hon. Bart., were not made
under the sincere conviction of his mind; but singularly
obtuse must be the judgment of that man who could
not bring himself to believe that the majority on the
amendment meant to imply an opinion that the vote
was tantamount to a vote for the removal of his Ma-
jesty's Ministers, or significant of an opinion that it
was his (Sir ROBERT'S) duty to retire from the post
to which his MAJESTY had called him. Throughout
the whole of his explanatory addresses to those impe-
tuous spirits who are supposed to constitute the
captious Opposition, it is difficult to discover any
thing of the spirit which animates the open -dealing of
ordinary life. His assertions are sweeping and round-
about, his moral courage is rash daring, his frankness
jesuitical, his replies unintelligible, and his inferences
perverted. There is nothing of the prompt aye-or-no
brevity about him that marks the matter-of-fact tran-
sactions of undisguised sincerity. He clothes his an-
swer to -a plain and simple question in a cloud of words
which mean anything or nothing, according to the bias
of the hearer ; - and to conclusions which most people
would at once jump at, he is unable to make up hi!,:
mind without long and grave consideration. When
he is asked whether it be the intention to dissolve
Parliament again, he declare!s that he does not
think it becoming in Ministers to discuss hypotheti-
cally, and in reference to some future possible contin-
gency, the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown.
When the question of Supplies is brought to his
mind, he decides that if the majority refuse them it
will then be for him to think what course he
shall adopt. He cannot for the life of him discover
that the decision on the amendment was anything more
than a decision on the amendment ; nor, what all the
world in common sense so understood, was significant
of an opinion that it was his duty to retire ! All this
may be very parliamentary logic, but it is marvellously
unlike the common process of reasoning out of Parlia-
ment.

Can any man, after an attentive perusal of Sir Ro-
BERT'S ministerial explanations of Monday evening,
misunderstand his frankness or intentions ? The Mi-
nister courted the responsibility of advising the late
dissolution : let us concede the boon and follow it up
by an inquiry. He counsels the KING to appeal to
his people for the purpose of correctly ascertaining
their opinions. Now what is the object of the appeal?
It is to influence his MAJESTY in shaping his course
in accordance to the wishes of the nation, or it is not.
If the expression of its sentiments (we have
nothing to do with nufjorities, the majority sup-
poses the whole House, whether it be one or six hun-
dred and fifty-seven, just as a county Member is
supposed to represent its whole constituency, and not
a fractional part only), is to be disregarded, then is the
appeal a farce and a nullity. But if, on the other
hand, its counsels are to determine the Royal mind
on occasions of emergency, the Crown is bound in
courtesy, and, what is of far greater importance, in
justice, to accept them. 'Well, the appeal is made,
and the people re-frame a new House ; the Govern-