The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-18 00:00:00

PIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS

It has become a favourite maxim of the last six
weeks that the Speaker should be of the same, political
sentiments aS the majority of the House of Commons.
Good. Suppose, however, it was impossible to obtain
a majority of the House of Commons, we will not say
agreeing exactly in opinion upon all subjects (that it
would ,be folly to require), but even concurring as to
the expediency or necessity of any three or four specific
measures disputed by any considerable minority of the
whole Parliament; what, in such a contingency, does
common .sense prescribe ? An Established Church,
as we are told even by its enemies, ought, if its tenets
or discipline he compatible with the safety of any
political state, to be the Church of the majority of a
nation, But how, if, as some wild arithmeticians
among the Dissenters assure us, the Church of Eng-
land, for example, be not that of the absolute majority
of the nation, will you overthrow it and have no Esta-
blished. Church ? Not so, we answer ; for admit-
ting (which we do not admit) the fact alleged by such
Dissenters, that the members of the Church of England
fall short of a numerical majority of the entire people,
the nearest approximation to the principle contended
for is undoubtedly the establishment of that Church
whose doctrines are subscribed to by the largest
single sect of Christians in the country, which is be-
yond all question that of those who subscribe to the
doctrine of the establishment. So with regard-to a
Speaker of the House of Commons. He ought to
represent, say they, the majority of the House. But
we ask what single political sect or party can be al-
leged to constitute a positive majority of the House of
Commons ? Literally none. The joke, we take for
granted, is too stale a one, to count Mr. Spring Rice
or Lord. Ebrington, who may fairly be considered as
organs of the most respectable class of Whigs, among
the same party with Messrs. Hume, O'Connell,
and their adherents, who scarcely 'agree with the two-
first-named individuals in any common principle or
measure. There was no concord, we repeat, much less
identity of action, in the political schemes of The Whig
Ministry, and of the Destructive Opposition during the
last two years. To be sure, the Ministry was dragged one
day, and pushed in the next in an opposite direction, and
either incessantly disturbed in its repose, or paralyzed
in its movement, by the barbarous irregularity of its so
called friends, the ultra Radicals. But what was
there, we ask, to justify the designation of these two
bodies as one party or one power ? Was there not
every reason by which a judgment in such cases ought
to be determined, for classing the Whigs and Radicals
separately, even, more widely asunder, quoad principles,
than the Conservatives and the old Whigs themselves
—who seem' to us to be divided much more by ancient
prepossessions and personal rivalries, than by any
striking disparity of political opinion, since the Reform
Bill has passed ? Why, then, we say, that if the
Whigs and Radicals, and outlyers of all descriptions,
do form a grciss majority of the House of Commons,
although they may, for a particular purpose, and for
twenty-four hours, bury their vital differences, and
coalesce in one specific vote ; yet cannot one Speaker,
as isishrewdly remarked by a correspondent, be equally
the representative of each of them ? If a Whig
like Mr. Abercromby, he will no more act or
think or muster with the Radicals than would
Sir C. Sutton. If a Radical, he will mis-represent
the Whigs even more than Sir C. Sutton would
do. Again, if a Whig Speaker, such as Mr. Aber-
cromby, be chosen, he will not only fail to represent
the absolute majority of the House, but he will actually
represent the smallest and weakest of the three parties
now composing that assembly. The Radicals, being
considerably more numerous than the Whigs, might pos-
sibly prefer to have their own Speaker--Joseph Hume
perhaps, or Mr. Fitzsimon, or Mr. Ruthven ; but still
little more than one-fourth of the House of Commons
would be then represented. So that, according to the
chosen doctrine of their day, neither Whig nor Radical
could correctly fill the Chair. We come next to look
into the pretensions' of the Conservatives to furnish
the chief officer of the House of Commons. It is
true that the Ministerial Conservatives, amongst whom
we include not Mr. Stanley, Sir Francis Burdett,
or any other such, but the regularly banded and
organized adherents of the Miiiister, through good
and evil report. It is true that this phalanx of
Conservatives, does not amount to a moiety of
the entire House of Commons ; but it does ex-
'seed 296 Members—that is to say, it exceeds by 14,
three sevenths of the gross muster-roll of Parlia-
ment, and its parts are all in perfect harmony, and
under one command. Then, if not the absolute majo-
rity of the House, which could not be found perma-
nently under the same banner, we aver that Sir
Charles Sutton would, as Speaker, represent by far the
largest party in the House,—a party outnumbering
the Radicals by almost 140, and the Whigs by at least
150 members ; nor, unless there be three Speakers
elected, does it appear to us that the claims of all the
Parliamentary sections can be otherwise satisfied, on
any fair principle of representation, than by the re-
election of the Speaker, since his constituents will beat
the immediate and proper friends of Mr. Abercromby
in as near- as possible the proportion of 2to 1. It is
many weeks since ye exposed, and to judge by conse-
quences, not unsuccessfully, the delusive attempt to
shake up all the elements constituting this heteroge-
neous' opposition in the same bag, and then to fancy
that all was done, when the mass was denominated the
" Reform party." No number of men can be truly
called a party who have not one common binding
i prin-
ciple to hold them in cohesion. What, then, s the
.bond of union between the Whigs and Radicals ? It
was (in a certain transitory sense) the Reform Bill.
But what is it now ? The " reform" of the Church
But how many different, dissonant, conflicting schemes
of Church reform, were the question put to the several
subdivisions of the army which fights to-morrow for
Mr. Abercromby, should we have forced upon the
country ? How many are there who would insist on
an abolition of the Church of Ireland ? How many
on the mere extinction of her bishoprics ? How many
on the substitution of Popery as the State religion of
the Sister Island ? How many on the voluntary prin-
ciple in all parts of the empire? But, finally, would
the bond of party alliance be found in the Repeal of
the Union ? It is altogether a perplexing difficulty for
those who affect to reconcile the common sense of the
crisis with their own selfish or factious views. For
the man whose horizon extends beyond his coterie—
beyond the petty oligarchy, alike vulgar, whether high
born or plebeian, of the current minute, the view is
encouraging, and his course clear. A steady, tempe-
rate, decided, unflurried Ministry, is what the nation
-wants—and that without which there will soon be an
end of all good government, under any aspect, in this
country. Place, then, no premature reliance upon any
man. But "be not passion's slave"—hear what each
candidate for favour has to advance for himself ; and,
whether Speaker or Prime Minister, treat him as his
acts deserve—not as prejudiced anticipation or angry
recollection may whisper.—Times.
Looking at the question of the election of Speaker,
in the light in which it ought to be looked at by a
journal independent both of the Government and the
political party opposed to them, we never could for a
moment hesitate to prefer the claims of the tried, ex-,
perienced, eminently qualified and strictly impartial Sir
C. Manners Sutton, to those of the untried, inexpe-
rienced, and unqualified Whig-Radical partizan, Mr.
Abercromby ; who, if chosen, of which there is hap-
pily no chance, would have to commence his noviciate
in the Chair of the new House of Commons, at a time
when the solemn incapacity of ignorance dressed out
in a Speaker's wig, would be more than at any other
period prejudicial to the interests of the country. Great
and heavy are the arrears of important business which
have accumulated in consequence of the shuffling, irre-
solute, " do little" policy pursued by the Whig Minis-
ters during the former Session. Hence the greater
:necessity that during the ensuing session the House
should have the advantage of the presiding judgment
of a Speaker possessed of the most experienced ta-
lent, and the most intimate knowledge of Parliamen-
tary law and usage, to give order to its debates—regu-
larity to its proceedings, and to facilitate the despatch
of btisiness, which has been too long sacrificed in
Parliament to Ministerial indolence and to the passion
for interminable loquacity. If Mr. Abercromby were
placed in the Chair of the House of Commons, we
rahortld see, not a "juvenile Whig," but one whose
year are ratherr venerable, beginning to learn the ,
.)ft•4.,

0