The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-10 00:00:00

formers, and swells the Tory ranks, is assuredly not a
Reformer ; though, if he be not a Tory, it may be dif-
ficult to decide whether he be a knave or a fool. The
question of the necessity for choosing a Speaker whose
opinions are in accordance with those of the majority,
has been discussed by Swift with his usual vigour of
understanding. In his Letter to a Member of Par-
liament in Ireland, on choosing a new Speaker there,
, in 1708, vol. 5, Scott's edition, p. 264, he says—

" Cana body, whose mouth and heart must go so contrari-
wise, ever act with sincerity or hardly with consistency ?
Such a man is no proper vehicle to retain or convey the sense
of the House, which in so many yoints of the greatest moment
will be directly contrary to his. * * * •
Perhaps you will tell me, as some have already had the weak-
ness, that it is of little importance to either party to have a
Speaker of their side, his business being only to take the
sense of the House, and report it ; that you often, at com-
mittees, put an able Speaker into the chair on purpose to pre-
vent him from stopping a bill. Why, if it were no more than
this, I believe I should hardly choose, even among my foot-
men, such a one to deliver a message, whose interest and opi-
nion led him to wish it might miscarry, But I remember to have
heard Col. Birch, of Herefordshire, say, ' That he was a very
sorry Speaker whose single vote was not better than 50 com-
mon ones.' I am sure it is reckoned in England the first great
test of the prevalency of either party in the House. Sir
T. Littleton thought that a House of Commons, with a
stinking breath (supposing the Speaker to be the mouth),
would go near to infect every thing within the walls, and a
great deal without. It is the smallest part of an able Speaker's
business Is hat he performs in the House ; at least, if he be in
with the Court, when it is hard to say how many converts
may be made in a circle of dinners or private cabals. And you
and I easily call to mind a gentleman in that station in Eng-
land, who, by his own acts and personal credit, was able to
draw over a majority, and change the whole power of a pre-
vailing side in a nice juncture of affairs, and make a Parlia-
ment expire in one party who had lived in another.
" I am far from an inclination to multiply party causes ;
but surely the best of us can with very ill grace make that an
objection who has not been so nice in matters of much less im-
portance. Yet I have heard some persons of both sides
gravely deliver themselves in this manner—' Why should we
make the choosing of a Speaker a party cause ? Let us fix
upon one who is well versed in the practices and methods of
Parliament.'

But suppose the principles of the most artful Speaker
would have no influence, either to obtain or obstruct any
point in Parliament ; who can answer what effects such a
choice may produce without doors ?
• •
" I confess, if it were a thing possible to be compassed, it
would seem most reasonable to fill the chair with some person
who would be entirely devoted to neither party ; but since
there are so few of that character, and those either unqualified
or unfriended, I cannot see how a majority will answer it to
their reputation, to be so ill provided of able persons, that they
must have recourse to their adversaries for a leader—a pro-
ceeding of which I never met with above one example, and
even that succeeded but ill, though it was recommended by an
oracle, which advised some city in Greece to beg a general
from their enemies, w ho, in scorn, sent them either a fiddler
or a poet, I have forgotten which ; and so much I remember,
that his conduct was such, that they soon grew weary of him."
So much for Swift and the common-sense view of
the question. It will be observed that we do not ad-
di ess our arguments to Tories. If they can be con-
vinced by our arguments to become Reformers in
good earnest, and abandon the Peel Administration,
well and good. But so long as they remain Tories,
we do not suppose they will be guided by our counsel.
In this respect we are more modest than the Times.
We hope only to influence Reformers. Our benevo-
lence does not extend to the Tories. We honestly
avow that we are so destructively inclined, that if we
could destroy them as a party, we would. The Tories
we know will not trust us. But the Times must
either conceive itself very cunning, or the Whigs very
gullible, when it tries to persuade them that it has
their good at heart, while it is all the while fighting
for the Duke.—Morning Chronicle.

The entertaining correspondence between Lord John
Russell and Mr. Abercromby has been some time be-
fore the public, and yet neither the Opposition nor
their advocates appear to have agreed upon any pre-
cise definition of that " public principle," the very
name of which operated with the magical effect of an
" open sesame" upon the obduracy of Mr. Abercromby,
and at once determined him to become a candidate for
the Speakership, on the nomination of the Noble
Lord. Perhaps it may be superfluous to enter for a
moment upon any reasoning which assumes that there
is any public principle in the case ; and it is the less
desirable to do so, as, in order to make any application
of such a principle, we must, for arguments sake,
admit the existence of certain facts which have
been made matter of accusation against the late
Speaker, and which have been given out appa-
rently upon mere surmise, have been credited
without even the show of proof, and, indeed,
as we have already repeatedly asserted, have no
real existence. But supposing it were true that Sir
Charles Manners Sutton did, in the exercise of his
functions as a Privy Councillor, concur in recommend-
ing to the King those measures which ensued upon
the dismissal of the late Ministry—supposing even it
were true that he had been an adviser of that pro-
_ _

ceeding—what " public principle" forbids his re-elec-
tion as Speaker of the House of Commons ? No one
pretends that he has been guilty of any misconduct,
unless it be in his office of Speaker. The King has
a right to require the deliberate and conscientious ad-
vice of his sworn Councillors upon any question of Go-
vernment. It was the Speaker's duty as a Councillor
and a subject to render that advice. If anv conflicting
duty has been violated, it must be one which the Heuse
of Commons, as a distinct body of the Legislature, is
entitled to exact from its officer. The accusation,
therefore, must be that Sir Charles Manners Sutton,
in his discharge of duty as a Privy Councillor,
has infringed or betrayed the peculiar rights and
privileges of the Commons' House of Parliament.
The public principle, then, upon which the
late Speaker is to be condemned must take this form :
that it is a right and privilege of the Commons' House
of Parliament, even during its recess, to controul and
direct the King in his appointment of Ministers ; and
that the Speaker, during a recess, is bound, at least if
the opportunity be afforded him, to protest against any
step taken with reference to a change of Ministry
which, in his judgment, would have been disagreeable
to the majority of the House at the time of its last sit-
ting. The condemnation of the Speaker must imply
heavy censure 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 servants of the
Representatives of the people. It is scarcely ne-
cessary to observe that the " principle" also applies iu
full force to any dissolution of the House at a time
when it may be presumed that a majority would not
have consented to it. Assuming, therefore, that the
facts charged against Sir Charles Manners Sutton are
true, those Members who think that the House of
Commons, even while prorogued, ought not only to
exercise an absolute authority over the whole political
conduct of its Speaker, but also to have the privilege
of a direct veto on Ministerial appointments, and,
moreover, that the House ought never to be dissolved
without its own sanction, will find no difficulty in voting
for Mr. Abercromby upon " principle. The " prin-
ciple" (if there is really one in view) belongs to
the worst days of the Long Parliament, when
the leaders of that body had advanced from Re-
form to usurpation, and were grasping at all the
legislative and executive powers. If Sir Charles
Manners Sutton were now to be stigmatized by the
decision of the House of Commons, what counsel-
lor would on any future emergency be bold enough
to give his Sovereign advice in opposition to the inte-
rests of a party in power, if it were probable (in the
present instance, happily, it is not so) that that party
would on some future day have influence enough to
condemn him by a majority of votes for his counsel,
however honestly and faithfully delivered ? Demo-
cratic agitation against individuals is one of the most
fatal instruments of revolutionary policy, and Ireland
sends us heads and hearts capable of wielding it with
a mingled fraud and ferocity unknown in the later
ages of English history. The feeble hands of those
who now think that they give the engine its main im-
pulse and direction would in vain be stretched to arres
its progress. The same power which is now exerted
for the degradation of an eminent and accomplished
man may, if reinforced by success, be put forth with
equal effect to deprive some other alleged delinquent
Of fortune, liberty, or country. The Vestry Com-
mittees of Marylebone and Finsbury may be soon
taught to clamour for more awful sacrifices. To.day