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

and principles of the Conservative Administration.
And certainly not least in importance was the emphatic
declaration made by Sir Robert Peel, first in answer
to Lord John Russell, and afterwards confirmed by
him in his dexterous and judicious notice of those
honourable questionists, Mr. Hume and Mr. Ewart,
that he saw no reason in the recent votes of the
House of Commons to abandon the helm which
has been committed to his trust. He will have
the courage to maintain his post, though the
weather be somewhat rough, and though the
winds do roar not a little about his bark ; for he
feels like all brave and honourable men, that such
is the time for more strenuous exertion and more con-
stancy of purpose. But let us, to do him justice,
quote his owl words :—" I have not felt it my duty,
in consequence of the vote of the other night, to ten-
der my resignation, and I do intend to persevere in
that course which I consider it my duty equally to the
King and to the public to pursue ; and, notwithstand-
ing that vote, to submit to the consideration of the
House those measures on which his Majesty's Go-
vernment have formed their opinion." This declara-
tion will fill his opponents with dismay, and his friends
with confidence ; and now, with the spirit of Reform
as his guide, it will be his own fault if he do not suc-
ceed in winning the sanction of Parliament, and the
approbation of the people.—Times.
We did not think it possible, even at the present
time, when two parties that cordially hate each other
have combined for the purpose of preventing the
King's Ministers from having a " fair trial," that the
virulence of faction should go to such an absurd length
as to presume that any Government in this country
would dare to maintain a standing army, contrary to
the Constitution, after the expiration of the Mutiny
Act. Under that Act alone is that code of military
law allowed which is absolutely essential to the discip-
line and subordination of an army, always excepting
its barbarous punishments by that degrading and cruel
instrument of military torture which we do not believe
to be at all necessary for the government of British sole
Biers. The answer given by Sir Robert Peel to Lord
John Russell last night, when asked by the latter
whether the rumour of maintaining a standing army

without the sanction of the Mutiny Act was true, was
such as might have been expected; Sir Robert Peel
stating that he never heard of it, until he heard it
from the lips of the Noble Lord himself that evening.
Nor do we believe any body else ever heard of it, or
that Lord John Russell regarded it as any thing more
than- such pure fiction as the Bishop of Exeter had
formerly exposed in the too memorable correspondence
with himself. Here we cannot but observe that when,
Under the Whig Administration, it was proposed, on
Moving the annual Mutiny Act, to reform that Act
so far as to abolish the disgusting practice of military
flogging, the Whig Ministers—ay, the reforming
Whigs, and Lord John Russell himself, the Pay-.
master of the Forces—opposed that reform, ansl
thereby left British subjects liable to more cruel
punishment than can be inflicted on negro apprenticed
slaves, or than can be inflicted on brute beasts, without
subjecting the flagellator of horse or donkey to the
penalties of Martin's Act. Perhaps now that the
Whigs are out of office, they may find their huma-
nity as well as their patriotism return upon them, and
so become reformers as to military punishment once
more !—Morning Herald.
Whatever may have been the impression produced
last night by the speech of Sir Robert Peel on the
House of Commons—whatever his determination to
" persevere" in what he deems to be his " duty," but
which others would justly deem to he his disgrace—
there arc other fiery trials awaiting him, which he will
have no small difficulty in getting over. Two very
important questions stand for discussion next week—
the one is the malt tax, and the other the Irish Church.
The Marquis of Chandos brings the first under the
consideration of the House, and .Mr. Ward the se-
cond. On both Ministers are again destined to be
defeated, provided none of those professing reform
principles play false. Our fears of treachery are
chiefly on the question of the Irish Church Some
sinister rumours on this subject have reached us.
We could mention the names of two or three sus-
pected " wolves in sheep's clothing ;" but as we
hope the suspicions are groundless we forbear at pre-
sent. If the members to whom we refer do in this
case betray their constituents and the country, their
greatest enemies could wish them no severer punish-
ment than to see their speeches on the hustings ap-
pended to their votes. Never was there a stronger
contrast than will be exhibited between their professions
and conduct. Even should there be two or three in-
stances of treachery, Ministers will be beaten ; and as
the Standard said, in reference to another contest,
" well beaten too." Still Sit Robert Peel will not,
according to his present resolves, resign. He is to go
on at all hazards until the question of the supplies is
settled. What may be his eventual determination we
know not, nor, indeed, does he himself ; but we vouch
for this fact, and it is of importance that the country
should know it, that his present intention is, in the
event of being refused the supplies, again to dissolve
parliament. And we are further assured, that he is
already armed with precedents to urge in justification of
the daring expedient.—Morning Advertiser.
The rumours of the defection of the Duke of Wel-
lington, Lord Aberdeen, and some other kindred
spirits. from the Peel Ministry, are not confirmed. As
there is no quarter from which aid sufficient to enable
Sir Robert to carry on the Government can be ob-
tained, it has not been thought worth while, we sup-
pose, to part company for the short period Ministers
can at farthest remain in office. The answer of Sir
Robert Peel to the questions put last night by Lord
John Russell, indicated a determination on the part of
Ministers to retain office as long as possible. " I
have not felt it my duty (said the Right Hon. Baronet),
in consequence of the vote of the other night, to ten-
der my resignation (a burst of cheers from all the Mi-
nisterial Benches), and I do intend to persevere
(cheers) in that which I consider I owe to his Ma-
jesty and to the public, notwithstanding that vote, by
submitting to the consideration of the House those
measures on which the members of the present Go-
vernment have formed their opinions, and which are
alluded to in the Speech from the Throne" (cheers).
The question is not properly what Ministers intend to
do, but what they will be able to do. The House of Com-
mons, by the Amendment to the Address, pronounced
the dissolution of the last Parliament an injurious inter-
_ ruption to the progress of Reform, and expressed, also,
dissatisfaction with the extent of the Reforms an-
nounced in the Speech from the Throne. "As far
(said Lord John Russell) as the opinion of the
House conveys a censure, it has fixed that censure
upon the dissolution of the last Parliament by Minis-
ters." The House of Commons can terminate, when
it pleases, the career of Ministers. Allusions have
often been made to the struggle between Mr. Pitt and
the House of Commons in 1784, but the cases of
1784 and 1835 are by no means parallel. There is
a river in Macedon and a river in Wales. We had a
House of Commons in 1784, and we have now a
House of Commons ; but in 1784 a majority of the
Commons was returned by boroughmongers ; but the
Reform Bill has transferred power from the borough-
mongers to the middle classes. When the Times,
therefore, tells us that " Mr. Pitt had to encounter
a far more decided majority, varying from 30 to 20
votes, in a much less numerous House, and with a
much thinner attendance, during a period moreover of
'above three months, and after, perhaps, a dozen divi-
sions ; yet that prudent as well as resolute Minister.
never thought of resigning, nor did he dissolve Parlia-
ment, until after he had put the Opposition so flag-
rantly in the wrong, that the country anticipated the
wishes of the Minister, and returned a majority in his
favour, which crushed for years all the hopes of adverse
faction"—our contemporary forgets that the opposition
to Mr. Pitt was not in the country, but in the indi-
vidual Members of a particular House of Commons.
The course which Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke had pur-
sued with regard to India, was exceedingly unpopular
in the country, as well as obnoxious to the King ; and
Mr. Pitt knew that an election would instantly give
him a large majority in the House of Commons.
Any one who chooses to consult Bishop Wat-
son s Memoirs, - and other publications which
throw light, on the spirit of that time, will
find that -the nation was strongly excited
in favour of Mrs Pitt. But -what is the