The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-20 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

When we yesterday addressed our readers] we had
not anticipated the election of Mr. Abercromby as
Speaker, by the defeat of Sir Charles M. Sutton. It
was our expectation that the latter gentleman would
have been chosen, though by a small majority, be-
cause he had the . whole body of Conservatives avow-
edly for his supporters, and because, if the' Whig
party had been either consistent with itself, or alive to
what will be the probable consequence of its own un-
natural confederacy with another class of persons, it
would also have voted for Sir Charles Sutton on this
occasion, as it praised, recommended, and joined in
electing him on the last. Sir Charles Sutton, how-
ever, after first being acquitted by the Opposition
leaders of every charge, whether of political delinquency,
party indiscretion, or even doubtful taste, between his
former election and the present motion to re-elect him—
charges which it had been the sole business of the Whig_
Radical journals to make or to insinuate for the last three
weeks—has been unceremoniously told that his Services and
reputation go for nothing,—that his conduct as Speaker,
or his fitness for the office, is not worth inquiring into,—
and that without examination, and without comparison
of any sort, another Speaker shall be preferred before him ;
thus convicting of gross hypocrisy or folly the whole mass
of pretences on which the Whig-Radicals first succeeded
in getting up an opposition to the former choice of the
House, and on•which various bodies of constituents had
been induced to exact promises from their Representatives
against Sir C. Sutton. We have said that the event of
yesterday has surprised us. It has done more—it has
deeply chagrined and pained us. And this we say, without
any reference to the personal pretensions of Mr. Aber-
cromby. But that is not the point. The people of Eng-
land will not confine their views upon the Parliamentary
proceedings of yesterday—to the merits of either of the
gentlemen who stood against each other for the Presidency
of the House of Commons. They will look to the mo-
tives through which the successful candidate was chosen, to
tl-.e power by which be was nominated, and to the further
operation of similar motives actuating the same power in
it:s losislative capacity upon the interests and well-being of
the State. The purpose of the opposition to Sir Charles
Sutton, as latterly avowed, after the earlier pretexts had
been abandoned, was to secure a Speaker whose political
sentiments should
.be in accordance with those of the
" majority" of the House of Commons. We have already
demanded under what description of members the " ma-
jority" of the. House is to be found ? and what answer, we
should like to know, can by possibility be returned to such
a question ? The proposition can never be dwelt upon too
forcibly, that mere, concurrence in a single vote, or assent,
however active, to any single measure cannot be considered
the binding test or constituting principle of a party. When
we ask what is the party of whom Mr. Abercromby has
been chosen as the representative, some people of course,
for want of a more specific phrase, may tell us the " Re-
form" party ; that is, when you come to cross-examine
them, the majority of Parliament which voted for the Re-
form Bill as contradistinguished from those who opposed
that measure ; but such a definition will soon, we suspect,
be dropped, on reminding gentlemen, as we observed some
days ago, that it would include many who no longer
form any portibn of the same or even of two contiguous
parties: It would embrace on one side, the anti-Englisb,
or O'Connell party—on the other, such persons as Mr.
Spring Rice, Mr. Grad, Sir James Graham—for they
were stanch supporters of the Reform Bill—nay, it
would absolutely make Mr. Abercromby represent, among
his other indoor constituents, -Lord Stanley (being a Re-
former), and Sir Francis Burdett (being a vetern Refor-
mer), both of whom voted, and the former of them spoke
against him ! This is marvellous. -It is even an awful,
prospect for the country. The tie, and the only ostensible
one, which unites the majority through whose co-operation
Mr. Abercromby was yesterday voted into the chair is, or
can be, no other than one solitary vote. We are some-
what sceptical as to the existence of any second question on
which they can act together as a party. On the address
it will be difficult, we should-think, to frame an amendment
on which all those Members can unite who yesterday voted
for the Speaker. Unless the whole business of the session
could be confined to the n:anufacturing of Speakers, there
must within the very first month be " twenty mortal
gashes" in this majority. It must split into unnumbered
pieces, leaving the only solid, incorporated, and extensive
party in the House, viz., the Conseivative, not represented
by the Speaker, nor having in the chair a suitable organ of
its sentiments. But the true motive and real bond of the
temporary confederacy by which Sir C. Sutton has been
rejected, is the effort to destroy the Administration. And
what then ? What next ? The question is so all im-
portant, that we must claim permission to repeat it. What
will the Whig-Radicals attempt when the King sends for
One of them to rocz;nstructi-the Government.? . Suppose hej
sends for Lord Melbourne, will Lord Melbourne sit in the
same Cabinet with an Irish Repealer, or an abettor of an-
nual Parliaments ? Will Lord Spencer, though more to-
lerant of such cattle, like to feed out of the same crib ?
The O'Connell section of the Speaker-spinning majority,
counting•with it the English Destructives, is numerically
stronger in the present Parliament than the old Whig
party. Can the latter, then, shoulder their masters
out of Downing-street ? If they cannot, there is
at once a Destructive Ministry. Will that do ?
If the Whigs do exclude the Destructives from
their partnership, and succeed in filling up the offi
cial places with persons of their own coterie, shutting out
every other, how much longer than a single week would be
the duration of such a government ? Why, their whole
army would not muster 150 votes ; with a determined and
exasperated ultra Radical Opposition on one de of about
170., and a Conservative on the other of som thing more
than 300 ; we put it, therefore, to the nation to look
searchingly into this entire question, to follow out the po-
litical premises to their conclusion, and see if it be not
inevitable, that failing Sir Robert Peel's Administration,
there must be either a mixed Government of Whigs and
Destructives, the major part being Destructives, whose
short tenure of office would nevertheless be equal to the
duration of the Monarchy: or a make-believe Government
of mere Whigs, which, like a: house of cards, the first
puff of opposition would blow down. These practical sug-
gestions upon the state of the country are not of a nature
to make themselves felt by a hot, and eager, and shortsighted
body of place-hunters. But they are such as it imports
the people of England, and the independent and unpledged
men in Parliament, to aet upon while it yet is in their
power. A party vote (we must not now say factious, or the
Liberals will be upon us)—a party vote for Speaker is an
evil, but a limited one. It need not drag any fatal conse-
quences after it, if it be not followed up by other mere
party votes, bearing directly upon the existence of the
Government. We would only entreat both Members and
their constituents to look out in time. With regard to the
debate of yesterday,. gentlemen seemed more anxious to
come to blows, than to parley long beforehand. The late
Speaker delivered a powerful vindication of his own con-
duct (hiving the recess, and knocked down like nine-pins
all the wretched attacks that i 144 peep tTIPPPP4 up against
him. Lord Stanley made a vigorous and indignant speech
in support of Sir Charles Sutton ; and was answered, though
feebly, by the new leader, Lord John Russell, who was
strangely unlucky in the illustrations of his historical research.
For egamplg, when quoting from a speech of Sir Harbottle
Grimstone (anno 108) (41 a W4Pstirill arising gut of the re-
jection of Mr. Seymour by the King, after being elected
Speaker by the House, we presume it was Lord John's intent
to frighten Ministers touching the late dissolution of Parlia-

•••
merit--; but in quoting a passage which he thought bore
upon the subject, his Lordship stated it thus :—" Who-
ever broke the last Parliament without the desire cf this
House will break this too, to the utter undoing of the na-
tion." But as we keep a sharp eye on politicians who
quote sentences for a particular object, we turned to
Grey's Parliamentary Debates, and found that Lord John,
in his anxiety doubtless to save the time of the House, had

woo how or other ountrive4 to distort the meaning of the
passage-,-" Whoever hroltc the last ParliaroPot without the
-insire of this House, or Me advice os the Privycouned, that
41qt broke that Parliament will break this too, to
man or men • - .1 •
nation This is what be
the utter undoing or tn,J
4.!)(1. ,
called sharp practice in an Opposition ..7.l.'ief•
after this, we cannot be surprised that the termination
of the dispute in Seymour's case appears to havo•oseaped
Lord John Russell's notice. The affair, however, ended in
the withdrawal of Mr. Seymour by the Commons, and the
proposal of Mr. Sergeant Gregory in his stead—and by
whom ? Why, by Lord Russell, who, in noininating.
the Sergeant, used these remarkable words :—" I hope the
occasion of the late unhappy differences about tho oboi(je
of our Speaker is removed by the prorogation. And I
hope now that no ill persons, by tricks, can create a
misunderstanding betwixt the King and his people, and
hinder the happy ejects of this Session," Again, his
Lordship had the modesty,—the compound modesty and
common sense,—to adduce, in justification of the vote
against Sir Charles Manners Sutton, the precedent
set by that virtuous Minister Lord North! which we
recalled yesterday to notice—viz., his expulsion of Sir
Fletcher Norton from the chair for being an honest
Speaker. His Lordship was, however, lucky in his prece-
dent, for Sir Fletcher Norton was cashiered orifidoo pre-
tences. Sir Robert Peel exposed the parallelism of this
egregious precedent in the most emphatic manner, and
dashed to pieces the somewhat elaborate fabric of the
,Noble Lord's harangue. Nor was his ridicule of Mr. De-
nison's beau ideal of impartiality in .a Speaker less
triumphant. In fact, it was the general observation both
in the body of the House and in the gallery that there was
an immense preponderance of reason and argument on the