The Sun. — 1841-05-28 (London, England)

TIM E S.—Among the falsehoods and misrepresentations with which the Government prints attempt to disguise the wickedness of the coup d'etat which Ministers are endeavouring to perpetrate, none is more barefaced than the assertion that they are acting in a manner warranted by constitutional precedents. The period of history to which they have the boldness to appeal is the year 1783 ; and the person in whose steps the disciples of Fox and Erskine now pretend to be treading is William Pitt. We might pause, if we were so disposed, to admire the singularity of this very novel situation • we might quote from the speeches of the great oracle of the Whig party, delivered during the progress of that remarkable struggle to which reference is made. expressions far transcending in severity any censure to which we have given utterance against Lord Melbourne's conduct. Mr. Fox denounced the course then pursued by Mr. Pitt as subversive of liberty, as rash, desperate, and dangerous ; and even went so far as openly to threaten him with impeachment. If, therefore, the present Ministers were really following the example of their illustrious 'fory predecessor, they would be doing what their party have never hesitated to condemn in others, and what upon their own principles it would be impos' sible to defend. But we waive all ad hominy)+, arguments ;we are as little disposed under existing circumstances, to press the point of inconsistency or mere poli.isal dishonour against Lord John Russell and his colleagues, as we should be to urge a charge of petty larceny against a convicted murderer. We are contented to give them the full benefit of Mr. Pitt's precedents, as much as if they had never protested against them ; we are perfectly prepared to acquit them of doing violence to the Constitution now, if they can prove that the events of 1783 furnish any parallel to their conduct. In 1783, upon the defeat of Mr. Fox's India Bill in the House of Lords, the King dismissed the Coalition Ministry of fur. Fox and Lord North, and called Mr. Pitt to his councils. The House of Commons then sitting, which supported the coalition by a decisive majority, had been elected in 1780, while Lord North was Minister, and from the first declared against Mr. Pitt, without giving him a trial, or having had any experience of his policy. Here, then, is at the outset a broad distinction between the two eases. The pretent House of Commons was called together by Lord Melbourne's own Government, and after supporting him for the space of four years, has at length been moved by the accumulated mis• deeds of his Administration to pronounce it unworthy of any flu ther confidence. Mr. Pitt came into office tinder circumstances which made a dissolution of the Parliament, known to be unfriendly to him, an absolute sine qua non; and accordingly he dissolved it, calculating upon a decisive majority in his favour in the new House of Commons, and having no object in view except to carry on the King's Government conformably to the principles of the Constitution. The event proved the accuracy of his calculation ; and the people by an immense majcrity of their representatives ratified the choice of the. Crown. Lord Mslbourne, like Mr. Pitt, is placed in a position in which it is necessary for him either to resign or to dissolve ; but if he di solvs, it will not be fur the purpose of enabling him to carry on the Government of the country, or with the slightest expectation of such a result, but with a design of unpara:leled audacity and wickedness—that of embarrassing his successors, and converting the Queen's prerogative into an instrument of opposition to her Government. There is not a man in England who sloes not know that a general election will diminish, instead of increasing, the number of the supporters of the present Ministers in Parliament.