The Sun.
London, England, 1829-02-12 00:00:00

SHRIT OF THE LONDON JOURNALS.

We. spoke yesterday with confidence of the
promptitude which the Duke of Wellington would
show, if any even of the subordinate persons of his
Adtreeistration truckled or faltered in the aid which
they -.vete bound to lend towards reeryine the pre-
tsent(rand measure which occupies all attention--;
end z so doing, we only recommended that tho,.e
p -rscee should, according to their several capacities
met 7sowera, and the means afforded by their re-
epree've offices, imitate their chief. Was this un-
reaseeable ? Tee Duke now is not in the situation
tut some Mitiieters, who, if they cannot carry a
queseon, are tentent to " rub on" in subserviency
sued r)scurity, and administer the fragment of power
whi&A is left in their hands according to the irre-
spon-ible will of others : his Grate has brought for-
ward the Catholic Question ender the imperious
laws of dety and necessity ; and " he will die by
it," :f we may use that metaphorical but strong
expresenete. Those who adhere to him, and serve
him, therefore, know the sincerity of the chief
they follow. He will not desert them : he
iecapable of it by his nature, and there-
tote he has a right to expect that they should
be, as we said yesterday, " heart and soul"
with him. If nor, let them walk into the
hostile :al kA, and he ;yid despise their opposition as
much as he now does their treachery or wavering
faith. But a word as to the new and open Oppo-
sition. What does it, or the members who compose
it, mean ? They profess the-greatest love for the
Duke; they admire his genius, and approve of his
policy, except upon this ene question. Do they
euppose, then, that if upon this one question they
roultl defeat him, he would or could subsequently
be content to administer the other affairs of the
teenntry according to their desires, and upon the
principles which are common to themselves and
hien? " The unruly child : we have corrected his
petnlence, and restrained his impetuosity in one
point; and now he is good again, n'e will take hien
up into our favour I" No, ye conceited foster-pa-
rents of fell-grown Statesmen, if you defeat the
mighty heir of your principles here, you lose
him for ever as your leader; and then what lu-
eortvel of rett? Whom will you find to set up
in Ws place? Yon broke Canning's too sen-
sitive heart—weakened as he had been by a
harassing illness—by your barbarous treachery;
hut you are assailing firmer nerves than those of
Canning row. But, calmly, who could or who
would date to take the reins of Government if the
Duke of Wellington were to lay them down ? We
frankly eonfese we know not. But this would be
the s'tuatien of one who should make the attempt :
The Duke of Wellington had no natural appetite
to bring, in the 13ill for Emancipation; he under-
took it as an net of necessity, from the conviction
that if and it alone could tranquillize the agitated
empire. The MCI, therefore, be he who he may,
that upon the Duke's supposed retirement should
step into his place without a Bill for Emancipation,
,indertakes to govern us upon the principle of no
tranytillity ; he opens a civil war as his condition
of office. Such a man should either be led to the
block, or transferred to Bedlem the next hour. It
is not only the Duke of Wellington, therefore, and
the Ministry of which he is chief, that are pledged
to Catholic Emancipation—it is the whole British
empire itself, as it values its own internal peace,
and deprecates the destruction of its children by the
hands of each other.—Tirnes.

We should hardly have thought it worth while to
evaste words on such a personage as Mi. Bankesein
any crdinary conjencture; but in the dearth of men
of e's n the rest ordinary abilities now left to fight
the be 'des of No-Popery, Mr. Bankcs is somebody.
He can collect his ideas, such as they are, which the
Duke of Newcastle is unable to do ; and he does
not rave and bellow like the Earl of Witichelsea.
At all events, his claims to lead the Opposition in
the House of Commons will hardly be questioned.
This consequential gentleman having taken it upon
him to read Mr. Peel, on Tuesday night, a moral
lessor to this effect, that " public men were public
propel:et, and it grieved him when the characters of
such erten were lowered in public estimation ; and
nothing, in his opinion, could more lower them
than t lose sudden conversions from fixed principles,
withtn t any adequate cause"—unfortunately for this
lover e f consisteecy, Mr. Peel was enabled to pro-
duce some awkward Memorials, which went to prove
that h s own Protestairtism had nor always been of
so unaecommodating a character as at present. "
beg leave (said Mr. Peel), iu turn, to ask him
how he reconciles his present with the following
Resolution, ire favour of which I find his name en-
rolled in the Votes ?—' That this House will, early
in the next Session of Parliament, take into its
most serious consideration the state of the laws
aTecti g his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in
Great Britain and Ireland (Hear, hear), with a
view to such a final arid conciliatory adjustment as
may be conducive to the peace and strength of the
Unit€ i Kingdom, to the stability of the Protestant
Estelle• ehment, and to the general satisfac ion and
concc;d of all claei-es of his Majesty's subjects:—
(Hee , hear.) Whet were the reasons which
duced my Honourable Friend to vote for that Re-
solution I find its his own speech. He hoped it
wouli never he a point of honour with any Govern-
ment 'o persevere in measure,e After they were con-
vince, of their impropriety:— (Cheers. ) These are
the vu ry words of my Honourable Friend himself,
and proceeds. thus Political expediency was
not a 7 all times the same; what at one time might
be cc isistent with sound policy would at another
be eempletely impolitic. (Hear, hear.) Thus
it We % with respect to the Roman Catholics.—
What changes had not taken place in the ques-
tion i'self, as well as in the minds of the House,
since it was last agitated.' " This was no
daub, an awkward reminiscence ; and poor Mr.
Bankes, in the very outset of his career, must hare
felt t severely, had he not been secured by nature
against any of the weaknesses connected with sus-
ceptihility. Up rose the Hon. Gentleman quite urt-
obits-Led, declaring, " I am perfectly aware cf the
circumstances under which I became a party to Cie
vote moved by Mr. Canning, at the end of the
Session of 1812. I was certainly desirous of seeing
the question settled, and I hoped that it might be
arranged to the satisfaction both of Catholics and
Protestants; but the moment it was communicated
to me that nothing short of concession of Seats in both
Houses would satisfy the Catholics, I strenuously
opposed the proposition I had advocated in the hope
of conciliation." It would have been better for the
Hon. Member for Corfe Castle to have held his
tongue,-and quietly borne the retort, than to have
committed himself still farther. Ile knew, when
he made this reply, that he was drawing on his in-
vention, to use no harsher term. In the brilliant
speech of Mr. Canning, introducing the motion
whict Mr. Bankes supported wit his argument and
his vote, Mr. Canning again and again urged the
expediency of admitting Catholics into both
Houses of Parliament. He was at pains to
show the inconsistency of giving them political
poiver in the elective franchise, without the corrective
of entrance into Parliament to render it innoxious.
'' What then is it," he said, " that you have done
towards reconciling the Protestants and Catholics ?
Reslving to introduce the Catholics partially at
least into the bosom of the Constitution, whom
,among them hare you chosen to associate in the
first instance with yourselves ? Those of them who
were peculiarly distinguished for rank, for property,
for talents ?—those who from their station and their
(+erecter are naturally looked up to as leaders of
the body ?—these with whom you are in the habit
of mixing in every other place, and whose admission
into House you would, therefore, hardly per-
ceive 'n
---those who, from thew property and their
rank, have a decided interest in the conservation of
the present frame and system ofsociety? No such thing.
An these you have rejected, and continue to reject;
while on the princple of Universal Seffrage, or
something very like ir, you have admitted to a per-
ticipation in the Constitution—to political power—
the great mass of the Catholic population, without