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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1€33.

they succeeded in thrusting Sir C. M. SUTTON into
the Chair, they would of course have adhered closely
to the letter of the Tamworth Manifesto. But now
they will change their policy, and departing
from the letter, stick to, what they call, the spirit,
of that facetious production. But the manoeuvre will
never answer. It is a rank, unprincipled juggle, and
will be laughed to scorn by every man who has two
ideas in his head.

The next week will, we suspect, decide, and for
ever, the destiny of the Tories. They have already
proposed their bill of fare to the people, and the people
have already replied, " it is not to our taste, we will
be supplied by abler caterers." In this instance, John
Bull's firmness may he relied on. He has no relish
for kickshaws ; but holds with MASSINGER'S Justice,
that the " substantials" are best for a hungry stomach.
Down then with the Tories, and up with the flag
of Reform I Let this be our watch-word—this our
war-cry, for never will it be well for the country, until
the very phrase " Tory" is expunged from the political
calendar. The faction has been our ruin ; let us,
then, in justice to ourselves—in justice to our chil-
dren--in justice to our country—in justice to our
claims as men, and privileges as citizens—bear in
mind, that the hour of retribution has arrived. One
more struggle, and the last link of the Tory chain
will have dropped from our limbs for ever.

The defence made by Si;CIIA RUES SUTTON before

the House of Conr.nons on its first meeting, may 0:
may not be deemed exculpatory, according
170 the men-
tal bias of his political friends 07 opponents ; it has
'now become a matter of perfect indifference to the
public. Assuming, Iowever, that the accusations turn
out to be erroneous, his best friends must in their
cooler moments allow, that they were at least justified
by circumstances. There is such a thing as construc-
tive guilt, and every Court of Justice acknowledges
the weight of presumptive evidence. Sir CHAIMEs
has not denied his closeting with the KING, and with
the KING'S preliminary Ministers : his attendance was
a fact publicly known, and the public drew from that
fact a conclusion which, though by possibility incor-
rect, was nevertheless in strict accordance with corn-
mon sense and fair construction.

It is not surprizing that the Torics were violently
exasperated when they found that no specific charge
was intended to be made against Sir CHARLES.
Strong in their reliance on the denial by the Right
Hon. Gentleman of any political criminality, they ex-
pected that the support of the moderates and waverers
would become, in consequence, thoroughly secured and
strengthened in numerical force. But when they
found that the main ground of their hopes had slipped
from under them, they at once saw the powerlessness
of any declaration of innocence which Sir CHARLES
or his fiiends could make ; and the value of " public
principle" became manifested to their vision in the test
of the strength of party about to be made.

We confess, we are unable to see the force of
Lord STANLEY'S argument, that if it were really the
intention to try the strength of parties, that the ques-
tion " ought manfully to be brought to issue upon an
address for the removal of the Ministers ;" because if
the Opposition had sufficient grounds of belief (as the
event has proved they had,) that they constituted a
majority in the House, they were not bound, in justice
or in courtesy, to saddle their elves with a Speaker
whose sentiments were directly adverse to their own,
and who, if rumour was to be creditedwould havc
been associated with the preseitt--:--Gov4nment;''as
Minister of the Crown, had not his appointment to the
Chair been considered more profitable to the interests
of his party.

The deprecatory observations with which Sir
CHARLES thought proper to interlard his speech,
were anything but consistent with that dignity of mind
for which he has been so much vaunted, and his
gratuitous assumption that his rival " would feel great
difficulties in filling the Chair of that House," was, if
not invidious, at least most unseemly, as proceeding
from one candidate in reference to the other.

We have received the whole of the Paris Papers of
Thursday. They contain no authentic intelligence of
any political importance ; being almost wholly taken
up with rumours, and discussions on rumours respect-
ing new changes in the French Cabinet. The Ga•
zette de France, the Courrier Francais, the Temps,
the Constitutionnel, the Nationnel, and the Mes-
sager, all speak of an immediate change IP.
the Cabinet, as an event which may 1)". 'hourly
expected. The Nationnel affirtlP that immedi-
ately after the division in tl'`,! Chamber on Mon-
day, by which the rr.otion to appoint a Com-
mittee to inquire int", the Tobacco monopoly was carried,
DucHAT•:ar., insisted upon retiring, but was pre-
vailed u-eon by his more sanguine colleagues to remain
in office a little longer. The same Journal further
states that it was resolved at a Cabinet Council,
attended only by MM. THIERS, GUIZOT, and the
CITIZEN-KING, that after the American question of
claims has been disposed of, M. TrriEns shall take
upon himself the Foreign Department, in the room of
Admiral DE RIGNY; the Duke DE BROGLIE be
appointed to the Presidency of the Council, without
holding any other office ; General GUILLEMINOT
have a seat in the Cabinet provided for him ; and
MINI. DE RIGNY, MORTIER, DUPER RE, and PERSIL
be succeeded by persons either better disposed or better
qualified to fill the offices now entrusted to them.
Although the Nationnel does not attach the same con-
fidence in the truth of this statement, that it does in
that which immediately precedes it, our opinion is that
both are equally groundless. We come to this opi-
nion from no private intelligence on the subject, but
simply from a review of the conduct of the Ministry
itself, on the question of the tobacco monopoly com-
mittee. Had the division on that question involved
the existence of the Cabinet, even in a remote degree,
how could it be supposed possible that every Member
of the Government would have abstained from voting
upon it ? The Ministers were present during the
whole of the debate on Monday. Had they taken
a part in it, . their influence must have been very
considerable ; and, had they voted on one side, many
who voted on the other would have abstained from
voting, from a wish to free them from embarrassment ;
so that triumphant as was the majority in favour of the
committee of inquiry, it is questionable whether the
Cabinet, by exerting all its secret influence and its open
opposition, might not have succeeded in baffling the
designs of the Opposition. Neither is it to be sup-
posed, that the Government of Lours PHILIPPE is
composed of men so exceedingly bashful and diffident
in their own resources, as to leave a question, vitally
affecting their own existence as a Cabinet, to be disposed
of according to the mere motion of the Chamber of De-
puties. M. THEIRS and his colleagues are not the per.