The Sun.
London, England, 1835-01-31 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The first adventure of the ex-Ministers is to be an
attempt upon the Speaker's chair. A correspondence
will be found in this day's paper between Lord John
Russell and Mr. Abercromby, the former of whom
presses upon the right hon. gentleman the urgent en-
treaties which he has received " from many quarters,
and in the strongest terms, to place before him the ear-
nest wishes and general concurrence of those with
whom he (Mr. Abercromby) had been connected in
public life, that he should allow himself to 'be put in
nomination for the chair." Lord John adds as an ir-
resistible argument in furtherance of this object, that
the suitors to, or backers of, Mr. Abercromby, view
the present election of a Speaker as a question not '
solely of individual preference, but of public prsuciple.
Mr. Abercromby, deaf, as it appears, he had been, to
all previous applications on the same subject, however
earnestly couched, suffers himself to be prevailed upon
by the new motives suggested to him, of " vindicat-,
ing a public principle," and becomes a candidate for
the succession to Sir C. M. Sutton. It might sound
harsh to the ears of Whiggisin were we to call this
proposition, so acceded to by Mr. Abercromby, a
" factious " proceeding of the Whigs. Former Whig
parties, perhaps all Opposition parties, who felt them-
selves strong enough for such an encounter, have
shown a desire to measure their strength with the Go-
vernment, and to force a Speaker of their own selec-
tion. With the mere act of opposing the Ministerial
candidate, there may be no cause for any but a strict
adherent of the Ministry, or a personal friend of Sir
M. Sutton to quarrel ; but with the alleged grounds of
the transaction, much. Among those grounds we do
not reckon that which Lord John has professed to
bring forward, because in truth his Lordship has
not enabled us to comprehend it. His Lordship
calls the question of Speaker one of " pub-
lic principle," without attempting to offer us
the shadow of an
_explanation as to what " public
" principle" it involves. Mr. Abercromby, however,
seems more versed than We are in the hieroglyphics or
Freetnaosnry of his late noble colleague's communica-
tioh, for the right hon. gentleman at the first glance
declares his perfect satisfaction at the phrase, though
presented to him in all its mysterious abstraction ; and
being aware, no doubts that " a" public principle means
some principle the vindication of which will indemnify
him for the surrender of his own love of ease and inde-
pendence, he consents to the sacrifice, and becomes the
rallying point for politicians of as many colours as
there are candles in the house. Far be it from us, who
have more than once borne willing respectful testimony
to the talents and political character of Mr. Aber-
cromby, to make our disapproval of the measure to
which he has now lent himself an inducement for need-
lessly disparaging or condemning his motives. It is,
however, impossible to refrain from stating that the only
clear construction which can be put upon the word
" principle," as employed by Lord John Russell and
accepted by him, is, that they mean by it a " party "
principle, like any other war cry, to battle. But there
is something worse than common party bitterness in
this manoeuvre, when we consider against what indivi-
dual it happens to be directed. Why was Sir Charles
Manners Sutton proposed Speaker of the House of
Commons by Lord Grey's Government ? The curs
of the clique are now snarling at the late Speaker, for
his " sonorous sentences "—for the absence of epi-
grammatic point in his observations—nay, for his want
of definite meaning—and, astounding as it may seem,
for his actual ignorance of Parliamentary law and
precedent, as compared with the proficiency on these
points of other members of the House of Commons !
The common-sense question to ask therefore is
—did not Lord Grey's Government know all such
matters just as well when they recommended Sir C.
M. Sutton for Speaker, as now when they strive
to get him rejected ? Has Si'i Charles become still
more awfully sonorous ?—has his language become
more devoid of meaning ?—has his igne7a.pee of Par-
liamentary law increased with his experience'? Has
his temper or patience, or courtesy, or indefatigal'le
diligence, or unvarying impartiality, or any other of
those attributes which have so long and eminently dis-
tinguished Sir C. M. Sutton—has any one of them,
vl'e ask, declined from its recent excellence, and left
nothing but the caput mortuum of the Right Hon.
Gentleman behind? If not, there is inconsistency—
there is caprice, or something worse than either, mere
faction, at the bottom of this Whig machination.
Again, Sir `Charles Manners Sutton was honoured
by the last House of Commons, and on the recom-
mendation of his Majesty's late Ministers, with a re-
tiring pension of 4,0001. per annum. Where has
Mr. Joseph Hume ensconced himself ?—of what capi-
tol is he now cackling the salvation ? Why was he
not of the ex-Cabinet at Brocket-hall, when the pro-
posal was broached and adopted, that instead of Sir C.
Al. Sutton being raised to the chair, and his retiring
pension of so many thousand pounds a-year being there-
by saved to the public, another gentleman should be
appointed Speaker, whereby pension and salary would
be simultaneously -drawn from the country and not.
only that, but an increased retiring pension* created in
the event of the new Speaker's resignation or dismissal;
and so on ad infinitum ! We repeat, where are you,
Joseph ? Will you patronize such abominable waste
as this ? You, at least, will not pretend that any
principle in polities is worth 4,000/. a year, and as you
boast of being an independent man, far less worth, in
your microscopic eye, is any party principle. What
is the justification of all this rage put forth by the mi-
serable scribblers of the faction
,against Sir C. M.
Sutton ? Why, that he conspired to turn out the last
Ministry We really thought That malice could be
shamed when it could not be softened, and that even
the most stupid slanderer might find out tfie unprofit-
ableness of reiterating a lie which had often been ex-
posed. But this is not the case which the hue aril
cry against Sir C. M. Sutton, although it is known
universally that he had and could have had no earthly
concern in the overthrow of the Melbourne Ministry,
although it is equally notorious that he could not have
restored them,—no, nor could the Duke of 'Wel-
lington, had he ever so much desired it. The purely
formal acts of the late Speaker, his attendances when
summoned to the Privy Council—nay, his purely social
ones—his dining where he was invited, have been tor-
tured into proofs of a conspiracy (in itself chimerical),
and laboured into arguments for setting up a rival to
the Chair. The public have a right to ask, what act
has Sir Charles Manners Sutton ever been guilty of,
as Speaker, which can be alleged as exhibiting the
slightest tinge of political partiality or unfairness ? He
is known to have certain opinions. Is that a crime ?
Entertaining strong opinions, if he represses them in
action, and maintains an unbiassed bearing in spite of
them, is it not a title to esteem and favour, more than
to the hostility of honourable men ? But reasoning
would be thrown away upon those whose blind ani-
mosity Sir C. M. Sutton Bs chiefly to provide against.
The policy of the proceeding has been already analyzed
in this journal. The ex-Cabinet have had cause to fear
that they will not carry an amendment to_the Address,
implying distrust of his Majesty's Ministers. But it
is essential to show a bold face to the country, and to
raise an opposition upon a point which may, according
to their apprehension, carry with it a less daring de-
fiance of all regard to fair dealing, as between the
House of Commons and the collective body of the
Government. They flatter themselves it may be easier
for them through this collateral question to give a side-
blow to the Government than to attack it successfully
in front,—we suspect they will be miserably disap-
pointed in both cases.—Times.
It is no longer doubtful that the Whig-Radical
party in the House of Commons have determined to
do all that they can towards placing in the Chair a
Speaker whose political principles and predilections
correspond with their own, or, in other words, so far
as it depends upon them, the new House of Commons
is destined not to have as good a Speaker as the last.
The correspondence between Lord John Russell and
.Mr. Abercromby, which we insert elsewhere, presents
niany topics calling for remark, to a few of the more
vronunent of which we must for the present confine
ourselves. In the first place, enlighten us although
much this corasre to s
the
pon-
deuce does not serve to
probable choice of a Speaker by the new House of
Commons, it gives us very distinctly to know by whom
Mr. Abercromby is already entitled to a pension of 2,000/.
cc. Chief Baron of Scotland.