The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-05 00:00:00

etteltil

LONDON, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5. 1843.

We yesterday left it to the Times to tell its own
startling tale of the final Cabinet resolve. It takes a
little time to recover breath after hearing of such party
tergiversation and political perfidy.
We are disposed to believe the announcement of the
Times, feeling that that journal would not risk its cha-
racter for correct information by the publication, in a
matter of such immense' importanoe and universal inte-
rest, of what it did not know to be true.

So the PEEL policy has prevailed once more. Once
more is the Conservative party betrayed by those whom
it has placed in power. Once more have Sir ROBERT

PEEL and the Duke of WELLINGTON kicked away from
under them the ladder by which they have risen to poli-
tical power. The game which they played on the Catholic
Emancipation question is to be played again on the
corn-laws.

So far as Sir ROBERT PEEL himself is concerned, we
are not surprised. We have believed all along, in ac-
cordance with the common rumour, that he was ready to
sacrifice the corn-law. There are those who have
imagined that he was trembling with ft ar of taunts of
inconsistency—that he had tke fear of Hansard before
his eyes. When did Sir ROBERT ever fear Hansard?
If that name was to him ever a name of terror, his life
of political versatility must have long since inured him
to Hansard.

But we are surprised at others. We have been ima-
gining that the Iron Duke was restraining Sir Plausible
from another sacrifice of political character, of a nature
to involve not only the honour of the Conservati,e
party, but the fair fame of English public men. We had
believed that the struggle in the Cabinet (for a
struggle there evidently was) of this sort—PEEL
anxious to propose corn-law repeal, the Duke inter-
posing with a " No," and urging that if they were at
last compelled to admit the necessity of repealing the
corn-laws, they were bound in honour to resign—that
the old friends of free trade might have the glory of the
victory, and themselves show their disinterestedness by
aiding their opponents to do the work. And this would
have been the honourable course. But the PEEL policy
has prevailed ; and the crisis is to be turned to account
for preserving the present Government in power, by re-
nouncing the opinions to which they owe their existence
as a Government.

What %ill the Duke of RICHMOND say ? He was to
turn the Government out, if they forgot protection. He
has hitherto been indulgent. Will he now be the more
unrelenting in consideration of past indulgence ? Will
Lord ARTHUR LENNOX stay at the Ordnance ? If he
does, will Chichester be still at his service ? What will
West Sussex say, when called upon, as it will be at the be-
ginning of the session, to choose a successor to Mr-
Commissioner DARBY ?

What will the Duke of BUCRINGUAM say ? Does he
now repent of having again allowed Sir THOMAS FRE-
MANTLE to sit for Buckingham ? Will Sir THOMAS
FREMANTLE resign ? If he do not, will he again sit
for Buckingham ?

What will Mr. SYDNEY }TENDERT do ? Does he re-
main in the Cabinet?— he who was put forward, as a
compliment of course to the strength of his protection
principles, to answer Mr. COBDEN in the last session,
and who began the provincial campaign of this vaca-