The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-28 00:00:00

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

J. and C. J. Cantellow, plasterers, Brownlow-street, High
Holborn—N. Cobb and J. Ellisdon, cabinet-makers, Colchester—
P. J. Luntley and S. P. Rolls, refiners of castor-oil, Bread-street-
hill—L. Mentse and J. Heap, wine-merchants, Makhester—R.
Owst and J. C. Crespin, merchants, Newbald's-wharf, Btrmond-
sey-wall—H. K. Cox and A. M. Owen, linendrapers, Crown-row,
Newington—W. Burridge and Co., coal-merchant, Milbank-stieet
--T. and J. Keary,,cheesemongers, Strutton-ground— T. Watkins

.-~,

and F. J. Delafosse, tea-brokers, London-street, Fenehurch-strett
—R C. Mullett and T. Edwards, auctioneers, Old K ent-road—
M. E. Howard and H. Brown, dressmakers, Theberton-street,
Islington—G. Robinson and J. Henry, mercers, Carlisle—H.Wal-
ler and M. A. Johns, milliners, Park-place, Clifton—E. Fearnley
and T. Salter, worsted-spinners, Shipley, Yorkshire—P. Cohen
and N. Hart, goldsmiths, Liverpool—S. Sholl and J. Barritt,
bakers, Bishopsgate Without—W. Ellis and E. Farndon, brewers,
Walberton, Arundel—R. Goose
Sand J. Norman, bricklayers, Ta-
verham and Attlebridge, Norfolk—J. Pulman and H. Pulman,
gun-manufacturers, Dorchester—T. and W. Lightbound, flour-
dealers, Liverpool—T. Ward and T. Johnson, calico-printers' en-
gravers, Manchester—R. Walker and Co., Bury, Lancashire, (so
far as regards 0. 0. Walker)—J. W. Timmins and Co., factors.
Birmingham (so far as regards J. W. Timmins)—J. Jesper and J.
Marriage, farmers, Little Chalvedon-hall, Essex—P. Gondry, sen.
and Co., grocers, Melksham, Wiltshire—E. Bartlett and J. Chil-
cott, nurserymen, Bath—C. Cooper and C. Green coal-merchants,
Great St. Helen's, Bishopsgate-street--T. Ullock and Co., Cross-
lane, wine-merchants, St. Mary-at-Hill (so far as regards F.
G. Francis and W. Thomson —J. Crowley and Co., carriers, Li-
verpool (so far as regards G. Wright)—J. Leak and J. Rigg, wine
dealers, Preston—R. Baldwin and J. Garstang, surgeons, Lanea-
shire—W. J. Taylor and J. Marr, jun., chemists, Tynemouth,
Northumberland—J. B. Bindloss and R. Stubbs, silk manufac-
turers, Macclesfield—E. Jones and G. Harris, medical labellers,
Camomile-streetL-G. M. Boyes and F. A. Lloyd, auctioneers,
Abchurch-lane--J. Rushton and W. Booth, coal merchants.
Langthorp, Yorkshire—T: and J. Giles, packers, Manchester-ST.
and W. L Le Plastrier, watch-makers, Ludgate Hill—Colley and
Co, Sheffield—J. and B. Godlee, merchants, Cliffe, near Lewes--
S. Parlour and Co., linen-drapers, Waterloo-road—J. Walker and
W..D. J. Bridgman, schoolmasters, Tavistock-square—C. Dean
and T. Greenfield, brass founders, Aston, near Birmingham—H.
Pring and F. Gummer, painters, Bristol—D. Kinnear and G.
Smith, bank agents, Lothbury—J. Hepworth and J. Davis, buil-
ders, Birmingham—S. and S. M. Brigs, plumbers, Dean-street,
Soho—H. T. and J. Boden, brush makers, Walsall, Staffordshire
—W. Swann and Co, oil merchants, Birmingham—L. Isaacs and
T. Ponder, army clothiers, Chatham—J. Burrows, sea., and J.
Burrows, jun., Manchester—M. Palmer and A. Hardwick, mil-
liners, Bristol—W. Wilks and Co., stuff merchants, Leeds, (so tar
as regards J. H. Morewood).

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS

The common-sense view of the question at present under
controversy between Sir R. Peel's Government and those
who, after showing themselves for years the bitter enemies of
the twopreceding Administrations, have now (for certain rea-
sons not difficult to comprehend) become the clamorous par-
tisans of that which was dismissed in November—the common
sense view, we repeat, of that question has, within this week
past, both in Parliament and among the public, gained prodi-
gious ground. The question for the Whig party is—" How
shall we most speedily expel the Conservatives from office, and
succeed them ?" The question for the country is—" What
would be the consequences of such a change ?" This plain
view of the only important branch of the subject in dispute
was vigorously treated by Serjeant Goulburn in his blunt and
homespun speech on Thursday evening, and we must repeat,
that, if gravely, it was at the same time rather eccentrically an-
swered by the Hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. Gis_
borne), who announced, as the probable and most de-
sirable consequence of the overthrow of the Peel Mi-
nistry, that it would bring Messrs. Grote and War-
burton iuto office I I If there be one quality which more
than another distinguishes man from the beasts " without dis-
course of reason," it is the faculty of looking beyond the mo-
ment to the fruits of his own actions : of that quality we have
not been a little grieved to observe a total absence, apparently
at least, in the proceedings of the Whig Opposition, during
the last three or four weeks. They have contemplated their
own return to office, and nothing else : there is nothing in
their actions or declarations whence a calm observer could de-
duce on their part the slightest glimmering of reflection as to
the means of retaining power, or employing it, as their own
jndgment might direct; for the welfare of the country. To-day
has been their sole object—to-morrow they leave to chance, or
rather to a certainty of evil. Lord Stanley, however, saw mat-
ters in a different light. He penetrated the mist, and gave
forebodi'igs of the tempest threatening from beyond it. His
Lordship's apprehension of the national effects to be feared
from the party transaction to which he was invited must
have been serious indeed, when they deterred him from
marking by his vote the attachment which he acknowledged
for his old friends, and the distrust which he announced to-
wards the present Ministers. He avowed that the overthrow
of the Conservative Government would be, in his mind,
disastrous for the country, and therefore voted in such a way
as he thought most likely to continue them for the present in
office. It was the same with Sir James Graham. He could
not unite with such a Babel" Opposition, nor help to the
formation of a Ministry out of such materials. Lord Howick
though he gave an opposite vote, acknowledged similar views
and principles to those on which Lord Stanley and Sir James
Graham had acted ; announcing broadly that he differed much
less from Sir R. Peel than from some of those persons with
whom he now found himself in company; and that although
he voted for the amendment because it embodied some of his
own political opinions, he would have hesitated about such a
vote, had he believed that it would have a tendency to overthrow
the existing Government, and to introduce into that which
might succeed it individuals whose politics were in " ex-
tremes." To us these sentiments falling from men of
station and character, and of principles known to be li-
beral and independent, afford evidence the most indisputable
that the majority in favour of the Opposition within the last
eight days does not express the actual, above all, not the
growing, sense of the House of Commons upon the compa-
rative advantages to the couutry, of a Conservative Govern-
ment like that of Sir Robert Peel, or such a Whig or Whig-
Radical Government as it would be- possible to construct
under our present circumstances. In truth, with the ex-
ception of that unlucky escapade of Mr. Gisborne, there has
not been the shadow of an attempt in any quarter to answer
the argument which we have so often dwelt upon, or to ex-
plain how the difficulty of forming a 'Whig Government is
now in any manner to be removed. Our firm persuasion is,
that after a little time for reflection, the case will appear to
the Whig leaders themselves one of such inextricable embar-
rassment, or of such appalling danger, as to ensure their tem-
porary acquiescence in the state of things as it now exists ; at
least until some new combinations of actors and events shall
have cleared their path, and given more freedom to their
movements. We direct attention to a conversation between
Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell yesterday evening,
for an earnest of steady resolution on the part of the Ministers,
and something like a symptom of greater calmness and com-
posure in the policy of the Opposition.—Times.
The struggle of party upon the amendment to the Address
having terminated last night without any fisrther division, we
now hope the real business of the country will be allowed to
proceed. There are already notices of motions on the Paper
sufficient to occupy the whole time of a long Session. Genuine
patriotism would dictate to the representatives of the people
that the interests of the country ought to have prior claims on
their attention to the indulgence of their own selfish feelings
and party animosities. Taking together the contest for the
office of Speaker, and the debate on the amendment to the
Address, a whole week has now been wasted upon other matter
than ins business of the country. The result of she former
contest has been to place an inexperienced gentleman in the
Chair, instead of one of the ablest and most experienced by
whom it had ever been filled. The result of the other contest
has been to carry, by a majority of seven, one of the most vague
and milk-and-water amendments that we ever know to have been
moved in the House of Commons. Even the Glolie described
this amendment as only asking the assent of the House to " a fe%.i;
plain propositions most inoffensively stated." We admit the
"inoffensiveness," for the amendment neither states nor im-
plies that Ministers are unworthy the confidence of the c.un-
try ; nor does it at all resemble that vote of censure which was
threatened to be moved upon Sir Robert Peel's Administration
for accepting the offices of the displaced Whigs. But why
was so " inoffensive" an Amendment moved, after the many
boasts which the Whig-Radical Press had made of the Oppo-
sition being able to command a largo majority to carry a really
" offensive" Amendment—an Amendment expressive of a
want of confidence in Ministers. Such an Amendment would
have been intelligible, and its object would have been intel-
ligible also. It would go directly to the point of turning out
Ministers ; but we cannot conceive what rational object—sr
even what definite party object was to be served by the insipid,
unmeaning. Amendment that was moved. The reason of
allowing the " fire" of the original intention to go off in the
" smoke" of such a performance was let out by Mr. Hume in
his speech last night, when he observed that " he had no hesi-
tation in admitting, in accordance with what had fallen from
Honourable Members on the other side of the House, that
there was a great difference of opinion among Honourable
Members on his (Mr. Hume's) silo of the House on many
points." We hardly required Mr. Hanle's authority for
the fact. Wide indeed on many questions is the gulf
that separates the political principles of Lord Howick
and others of his party from those of Messrs. O'Connell
and Hume. If the latter had not had reason to know that
they would have been left in a minority, in case they had gone
the length of moving so strong an amendment as the Whig_
Radical press threatened, they would have moved such an
amendment. Their not having done so is a confession of
weakness and a virtual defeat. When that strong amendment
which was to turn out the Ministry, without giving them a
" fair trial," was threatened immediately after the election for
Speaker by the Whig-Radical press, it was stated that it would
be supported by 30 or 40 members more than voted with the
majority on that election, there being about that number, as
we were assured, on the same authority, who voted for the late
Speaker from personal friendship alone. When it came
to the point, however, it was found to be imprudent to
move such an amendment at all, as it could riot be carried,
and even the " inoffensive " amendment that was substi-
tuted for it was carried by a smaller majority than the
election of Mr. Abercromby. We want to see the mea-
sures of the Ministry, as we have all along maintained it is
only by their measures they can be fairly tried. The Whigs
admitted, by the mouth of their Lord Chancellor, that they
had "done little last Session, and would do less the next."
When they fell the choice was either the present Ministers or
the Destructives. We never supported the principles of the
latter, and trust we never shall. What then remained but to '
see what sort of measures the present Ministers would propose,
feeling as they must, and as they acknowledge they do, the
necessity of governing in the spirit of the Reform Act. For
these reasons we resolved, as far as lay in our power, to ob-
tain for the Ministers a "fair trial." Lord Sterile) and his
political -friends, whose patriotic principles, and whose attach-
ment to the cause of Reform no reasonable man can doubt, act
upon the same principle. The elections in the provinces
throughout England showed what the AMP of the country
was on that snbject. Reason and true patriotism dictate that,
if the measures of the Ministry are good, they should be sup.-
ported ; if not, they should be opposed; but the battles of mere
party spirit are not the battles of reason or patriotism.—
Morning Herald.

" What are the Tories to do now ?"—after having sustained
two, we ought to say three, of the most signal defeats to

7 "1"'

THE SUN, LONDON, SATITIMAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1835.

which we believe the Administration ef any country, under
any representative form of gowerniiVkt, and in constitutional
times, ever was exposed—is the question universally asked,
but which it is not in our power to answer. They called for
a fair trial at the bar of their country, after they have been
tried, condemned, and ejected from the confidence of the
people of England—and that trial they have had most fairly,
most filly, and most impartially ; nay, by an assembly of
men called into court by. themselves, many of them pre-
viously pledged to an acquitt►il=and- yet they have been
condemned, after two separate and distinct pleadings,
either one of which ought to have been sufficient to
have saved a second appeal. Yet they have not re-
signed —as Englishmen, endued with English feelings,
would have done, and always have done, under similar
circumstances—and what they are to attempt next—whether
what we deem an impossible dissolution, though every Eng-
lishman
ought to be prepared tbr such a proceeding—or what
we deem to be equally impossible, the retention of the reins of
Government in spite of the voice of the people of England, as
indicated by their representatives in Parliament—is a mystery
which time only can unfold. If we turn for information to the
special organs of the anti-national party, we find nothing in
them to aid us in our searches and inquiries. Nay—not only
to our astonishment—but, we believe, to the admiration of all
isho ever saw any thing to admire, in the indecency of Tory
' proceedings—an actual congratulation of theirpatrons and sup-
porters upon their defeat. " Sir R Peel has not been with the
Ring at all this day," says the Standard, " and there may end
the hopes of the Whig-Radicals. For the rest, Sir Robert roust
look upon the result of the debate on the Address as a real vic-
-tory, as all his friends do." We really do not understand upon
what grounds Sir Robert Peel or his friends. can be satisfied
with what others would have considered a calamity ; but a few'
more such defeats, there will be grounds " for weeping and
gnashing of teeth." The most important communication comes
next, and it is this—that " if we (the Tories) could view the
result in a different light, he has too much courage, honour,
and loyalty, to take the course which his and the country's
enemies would dictate." Are we to infer from this that

Peel is to attempt to beard the representatives of the people
still longer—that he deems it . a matter of " honour"
to despise their voice—that he prefers loyalty," that
is, blind obedience to the wishes of the. King, to submis-
sion to the dictates of a great state necessity? Au equally
admirable point of surprise is to be found in the follow-
ing very daring announcement—that the two questions
submitted to the House of Commons have been altogether ab-
stracted from practical politics !" Good heavens! what was
the meaning of the vote on the Speakership ? Was not that
a practical question ? What was the inference from the vote
on the Address? Was not that a practical question? If it
be declared that a vote of " no cenfidence" be not a practical
question, then we must learn nest that Peel was the author of
the Reform Bill, and that. the " People's opposition" are guilty
of a great political crime, in opposing
.the liberal schemes of
so immaculate, so pure, and so consistent a personage.—
Advertiser.

The anticipated division on the bringing up the report of
the amended address did not take place. No man knows
better when it will be advantageous to appear candid, than
Sir Robert Peel. He explained last night why he could not
make up his mind to answer the question put to him by Lord
John Russell. He did not wish to act under the momentary
influence of temper and disappointment. It would appear
from this that the Right Hon. Baronet had somewhat over-
rated the power of the tail or section. Ile admitted, that

right honourable Gentle,ran—his private virtues and public interrity—
rega:ded him with very different sentiments from those which be en-
tert,!ined towards the individua's with whom he was acting He
would state fearlessly., that the feelings he entertained towards
a large portion of those who were not of •the most favourable de-
icription."

We cannot say that we admire the conelusion at which the
Right Honourable Baronet arrives from these premises. Ad-
mitting that Sir Robert Peel has some character, while his
colleagues have none, he ought to have said to himself, there
is more chance of Sir Robert's virtue being lost•in such com-
pany, than that they will rid themselves of their vice. When
in ordinary life we see a man of a good . charac-
ter keeping , company with knaves we must naturally
infer that there is a strong chance of his soon
resembling them and prudent people no Jonger re-
pose any confidence in him. The Duke of Welling-
ton, Lord Aberdeen, and Co., did the mischief, and then pro-
fited by their wrong under the protection of the Right Hon.
Baronet's character. The Right Honourable Baronet took
upon himself the responsibility of the dismissal of the Melbourne
Ministry. But he ought to have done more—he ought to have
declared himself responsible for the factious and unprincipled
conduct of his colleagues, whirl', according to his
own. showing, led first to the secession of Lord Stanley,
and then to the resignation of Earl Grey. and finally
to the dismissal of Lord Melbourne's Ministry. We
say his own showing, for we believe that the Ministry
never were stronger in public confidence than when the dismis-
sal took place. And in truth, the Right Hon: Baronet, even if
he were desirous, will not be allowed to carry any reforms of
the slightest importance. The Tories did not place him where
he is to forward the cause of reform. "If," as was happily ob-
served by Mr. Gisborne, "the Right Hon. Gentleman were to
reform the Municipal Corporations, it would be worse than
suicide—it would be an absolute case of felo de se, not.
cyan to be accounted for on the ground of temporary insanity."
We arc in this dilemma with the Right. Hon. Baronet. With-
out the compulsion of a majority of Reformers, it is admitted
on all hands that we should have no reform whatever, as the
Tory nature hates reform. But then the Right Hon. Baronet
cannot conduct the Government with a majority against
him. ,On the other hand, if he were to propose an
affective Corporation Reform, lie would lose all that gives
strength to him. The Tories would be annihilated. , The
best way is the straight way. It will be much better to form a
ministry of Men inclined to conduct the Government agreeably to
the wishes of the nation, than to form one of Reformers in spite
of themselves, who will only run in the reform groove so
long as there is a sufficient force to keep them in it. Even
the Times, which at one time gave Ministers credit for all
manner of good intentions, appeared disposed to believe that
they would throw Corporation Reform overboard.—Morning
Chronicle.

•
as it appeared likely the debate might'continue a night or two
more, for a number of gentlemen had evinced a desire to speak
on the question who had not yet addressed the House, and
many, from accidental causes, had not had an opportunity of
voting, "he had in the first moment doubted whether the
opinion of the House had really been taken ; but from
the inquiry he had made, he was satisfied that the de-
cision of the previous night conveyed the sense of the
majority of the House, and he had, therefore, made up his
mind not to submit that decision to another division." This
is so far candid ; but Sir Robert might have carried his can.
dour a little further. His inquiry must have satisfied him,
that the gentlemen who, from accidental causes, had not had an
opportunity of voting, were most;y on the opposite side. The
truth is, that a declaration made by Mr. O'Connell, that he
would not speak after nine o'clock, but would reserve himself
for next night, led six Irish Members to leave the House.
Some other misunderstandings led to the absence of other
gentlemen of the Opposition. The right hon. Baronet might
have added, that the Stanley Section refused to repeat their
vote last night. Had there been a triumph, Lord Stanley
might have felt all the pride of a parent for his offspring, and
have willingly repeated it ; but his Lordship does not seem to
have any inclination to demonstrate once more to the world,
that even the aid of :the Section cannot save the Right
Honourable Baronet from being beaten. • " It was a great
satisfaction (said Mr. Hume last night, in an excellent speech,
in which many home truths were told) to have beaten both
the Tory and Stanley party—it was a double triumph --a tri-
umph of those who act upon some principle over those who act
upon no principle." Mr. Hume, is bearing testimony to the
discretion of Lord Stanley, might have borrowed.an illustra-
tion from the prudence of the elehant. When an Indian
army crosses a swamp, there is o'T course great difficulty in
dragging the guns along. When aa elephant exerts its force
ineffectually, it cannot be made to repeat the exertion till ano-
ther is brought to assist • both will then exert their force, but,
if unsuccessful, they will not repeat. the attempt till another
elephant is added. Lord Stanley is something like the Indian
elephant : he pulled with the Right flon. Baronet, in the hope
of pulling him through and receiving the credit of being his
saviour ; but he does not choose to repeat the exhibition of his
!inning to no purpose. •
" A more unnatural junction," Mr. Ilume further observed, " had
never been heard of; but at least it was some consolation to know, that
when the Ministry was expelled from office, as it speedily would be, the
tail would not be left behind, but must 5:103k out between the legs of the
party to which it was attached."—(Chess.)
Sir Robert Peel is the only producible gentleman in the
whole Cabinet • and it is but justice to the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet to admit that he has availed him Self, with some dexte-
rity, of his comparative respectability of character, as a shield
to his colleagues. He appealed, in the course of the debate,
to his refusal to join in any factious opposition to the Adminis-
trations of Lords Gray and Melbourne, 'and instanced the sup-
port which he had frequently given to theta in times of pres-
sure. The Duke did not send for Sir Robert from Italy for
nothing. His Grace, of course, knew that it would be impos-
sible to carry on the deception without having a nominal head
possessed of some character. The maker of the Cabinet and its
real head has not lived so long in the world without knowing
that were he to have put himself prominently forward as a new
Reformer, as an admirer of the popular control given by the
Reform Bill, the most bigoted Tories would have exclaimed
" This is too bad !" Lord Howick, on Thursday night, did
justice both to Sir Robert Peel and his colleagues :
" He acknowledged that there was far Ise difference between his
views and those of the right hon. baronet on the policy which ought to
be followed, and which best suited the sentiments of the country, than
there wag between him and many of those gentlemen in whose company
he now saw him."—(Hear, hear.)

And his Lordship proceeded to illustrate the difference :
" With regard (he said) to the two noblemen who were charged with
the care of our foreign relations, a.:d the management of our great
colonial empire, he would say that the conduct of these two individua's
was the very opposite towardi the late Government to that of the ri ht
lion. baronet.—(hear, hear.) As long as he (Lord Howick) had haa
the honour of holding an office under the late administration, he had
general.y the satisfaction of rec.iv.ng the support of the right hon.
baronet. But what was the case in the House of Lords ? Did any ore
think that, if the conduct of these made lords had been similar to that
of the rigA honourable baronet, the circumstances widen followed
would have happened ? The prottaaity was, that had their conduct
been diffsrent, the noble member for North Lancashire would have
still formed pat t of that A.:min.stra!ion.—( Loud cries of, " No,
no.") He heard an • expression of uissent ; but he maintaincst
that that which gradually altered the measures cf the late
Government, and at last led to a total change in them, vas
the embarrassment produced by the opposition offered to them by these
individuals; and that but for thee• eml;arrassments the measures
would have proceeded, as the Goveinmmt were anxious they should
do, in a straightforward course.—(Hear, hear.) Of the opposition to
the late Government in the House of Lords, :he Duke of Wellington
and the Earl of Aberdeen were the toot active.—( Hear, hear) These
noblemen lost no opportunity of thwarting their measures. Let the
house look to the pains taken to fan the dying embers of bigotry and
prejudice in this country, and to rouse one flirty in Ireland against
another--(Hear, hear)—and still the e were the men who were to brills'
forward a series of liberal measures —(Cheers.) In foreign policy they
went to a length which was never before ventured upon in this country.
They considered it their duty to give every encouragement to foreign
Powers—to Holland and to the usurper of Portugal—to resist the po.
licy pursued by the responsible-advisers of the Crown.—(Hear, hear.)
This factious opposition showed thens_to be the: most unfit persons who
e.suld be chosen to take the charge of the momentous interests which
had been placed in their hands.—(Cheers )"

. ,
Sir Robert Peel is too crafty a tactician not to be aware of
the prudence of the maxim of Jonathan Wild, " Never to do
more mischief than necessary, for mischief is too precious a
thing to be thrown away." In the House of Lords mischief
was profitable, and-aceordingly mischief was expended with a
liberal hand by the Duke of Wellington. and Castlereagh's
admirers. In the House of Commons mischief would merely
have damaged Sir Robert Peel to no purpose, and thereby
impaired his power of doing mischief when it might answer his
purpose. We can easily conceive that some such observatiJns
might be made by the Duke of Wellington, Lord Aberdeen,
and the other worthies of the party in the House of Peers :
"We do not want Peel at present. Let us embarrass,
by our opposition in this House, the Whig Ministry. Let
us place them between two fires. If we, by opposing
every measure that promises to benefit the country,
can fill the Reformers generally with the idea that
the Peers are hostile to all improvement, we shall suc-
ceed in setting the Times on Ministers. That unprin..
cipal journal will badger them fur their. forbearance towards
the Peers, and call for strong measures, which we know they
will not. be allowed, even if inclined, to carry. The country
will become dissatisfied with them for not doing enough; and
when we have succeeded by our factious manoeuvring in da-
maging them sufficiently, we can put Peel forward as a re-
former, at the head of a Tory Ministry. Pell had better,
therefore, play the quasi-liberal for the present. He has al-
ready some reputation for his judicial , reforms. There is no
Use, therefore, in calling on him to play a fruitless game of
faction in the Commons, whirl) wonlil only serve to inerecse
the Ministerial majorities." Stanley section are well
aware that the disreputable, we might say dishonest, part taken
by the Duke, and the other Noble Members of the Cabinet in
the House of Lords, would contaminate all who became con-
nected with them ' • and hence, though they are anxious for ex-
cuses to support Sir Robert Peel, they are obliged to throw
the Duke overboard with very little ceremony.
. .

" The noble Lord the member for Northumberland (said Sir J.
Grghgmj haft Fle9!ged that in the head of the Government he had much
greater {confidence dip jn my of tli, rApciz. mvners composing
quite agreed with the noble Lord that the.'eotuluet of the right honourable
Gentleman, during the period whm he serval under his noble Father,
and was a part of the Whig Goveroiwn,t, did afford an advantageous
contrast to the conduct of some of hi, colleagues in the House of Com-
mons of that time. He would repeat, t-,at considering the talents of the