The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-24 00:00:00

("'""ciEf) +

LONDON.
TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 34, 1833.

As the situation of his Majesty's Ministers becomes
daily more and more embarrassing, the internal dis-
order, as in other cases, manifests itself by sympto-
matic appearances. Lord LONDONDERRY, in de-
ference to the opinion of the HoUse of Commons, has
been compelled to resign his darling Embassy to the
Court of the Russian Autocrat ; while Lord CANTER-
BURY, seeing the damage which the Administration has
sustained from this and other causes, and takinz
into his serious consideration the increasing slipperi-
ness of the tenure by which his friends hold their
places, has very quietly and judiciously backed out of
the Canadian Mission. We are by no means sur-
prised at the want of confidence in the stability of the
present Government which so generally prevails, in
consequence of what may be called the insu-
perable difficulties of their position. A body of
men may issue a manifesto so artfully drawn up as
to be susceptible of opposite meanings, and may thus
for a time conceal the basest dereliction of principle
under the cloak of on ambiguous phraseology ; ht;
when they come to the practical part of their work,
they must quit their convenient generalities, and des-
cend to particulars, when . they are sure to be
caught in the trap of inconsistency. In the debate
of last night in the House of Commons, our reader.:
will perceive more than one illustration of this remark.
We allude particularly to a declaration of Sir R.
PEEL, uttered only last Session, to the effect that
it was uniurt to the Irish landlords to fix the tithes
on them until the law was vindicated—the very
injustice which he is now perpetrating ! Another instance
of the same thing may be found in the conduct of
the ministers with regard to the Orange Lodges.
The Secretary for the Home Department—H.
GOULBURN, ESQ., bless the mark—has, in the
KING'S name, graciously received, and graciously an-
swered addresses from these pestilent societies, which
have done more to disturb the peace of Ireland than
tongue can tell, or pen describe ; yet when the late Go-
vermnent sanctioned time presentation of addresses from
the Political Unions of England, what torrents of
wrath and vituperation did the people now in office
pour forth against such a prostration of the Royal
dignity But the Pol;:ical Unions prayed for Par-
liamentary reform. The cry of the Orange Lodges is
" PROTESTANT ASCENDANCY, AND DOWN WITH
TILE PAPISTS !"

We have so frequently expressed our concurrence in
the principles respecting the stamp duty on news-
papers, which Lord BROUGHAM expounded last night
at great length in the House of Lords, that we need
now only refer cur readers to the able and interesting
observations of his Lordship. A tax of nearly 150
per cent. upon the most effective, because the most
attractive and'amusing, mode of ccnveyinggeneral know-
ledge and information to the whole community, must
certainly.be considered as impolitic as unjust. Had
the Whig Ministers remained in office, the nation
would undoubtedly have been relieved from this op-
pressive duty ; but it is the last act which we should
expect from the present Administration. After what
we have lately seen, however, of the latter, no change
of opinion, or dereliction of former principles which
they could exhibit, would surprise us.

An extraordinary scene took place last night in the
House of Commons. In a discussion on the Irish
Tithe Bill, Mr. BARRON, after commenting on the
flagrant inconsistencies which Ministers had shown on
that subject, concluded by observing that he was at a
loss to discover, what other motive could have actuated
them, than " a base love of office." This roused the
virtuous choler of Sir HENRY HARDINGE, who
talked of the " vulgar insolence" of the Hon. Member,
in so a minaceous a tone, as to induce him to heighten
his vulgarity, by a repetition of the obnoxious hypo-
thesis. A very pretty quarrel, as Sir Lucius
O'TRIGGER would phrase it, was thus got up. Lord
JOHN RUSSELL expostulated ; Mr. BARRON stuck
closer to his text ; Sir H. HARDINGE raged like a

hurricane—deeming himself bound, we suppose, by
virtue of his Irish Secretaryship, to be more than ordi-
narily pugnacious—till at length the SPEAKER inter-
posed, and peace, or something like it, was, for a time,
restored. Then came a speech from Colonel EVANS,.
by way of rider, or supplement, or appendix, to that of
Mr. BARRON. The Gallant Colonel said, " Several
occurrences had taken place in the House lately,
which induced him to think that it absolutely behoved
those who, with him, were in the habit of viewing
the conduct of Ministers as highly discreditable
.to

them, not to shrink, on the present occasion,
from the frank avowal of their opinion." This was
well and seasonably put. The Tories, it is clear,
are impreSsed with a notion—and under the circum
stances not an unnatural one—that they are far more
likely to work miracles in their favour by the pistol
than by argument, and it is fit they should be taught
that such a notion is an erroneous one. The pistol
is a bad logician. It may diminish the number of a
statesman's opponents, but it will never make. one
sound convert to his system. The Tories, however,

think differently. With them, the pistol has always
been considered as an excellent succedaneum for argu-
ment. They are as partial, as MJIIKE and HARE,
to a " shot." Hence, when the Duke of WEL-
LINGTON wished to bring round the Earl of WIN-
CIIILSEA to his own way of thinking, he could adopt
no more convincing argument, than that which speaks,
in noisy but explicit terms, by the mouth of a
pistol. When Sir R. PEEL desired to make a similar
imression on Dr.- LUSHINGTON, he too proposed

he adoption of the same obstreporous logic. Now, it

is fit Ministers should be told that this is the wry
worst course, of argument they can pursue. None are;
so ready to pick a quarrel, as those who fed couscous
that they are in the wrong. Men in the right rely on the
justice of their cau.ie, and are peaceful. Why, if the phrase
" base love of office" does not apply to Ministers, are

they so touchy about it ? Surely, there, must be some-
thing singularly appropriate in the phrase, or they
would laugh at it as an absurdity. When Ito wI, AND
HILL said, " I see a bad woman in my chapel," all
the conscience-stricken ones quitted it, but the rest re-

mained. 'We throw out this as a useful hint for the futu►•e

guidance of Minsters. They may rely on it, the
Opposition Members will not allow themselves to be
bullied into submission. The days of Bobatbdism