nary and unjustifiable manner.
We have the same right to reject his Government, that he had to
turn out ours; if there is embarrassment, it is none of our
creating, the King and the Tories must be responsible for it. We
care not what are the principles now avowed by them. If they are
not Reformers, they cannot govern this country, and are not to be
tolerated at the head of affairs. If they are, it is not to be
endured that they should usurp our places, and then in defiance
of all their principles, and in opposition to all their previous
conduct, carry into effect the measures which we should, with
perfect consistency, have brought forward. We will listen
therefore to nothing. Out they shall go, and till we have got
them out, we will never rest, nor desist from our attacks.' 'Quid
sit futurum cras, fuge quaerere,' such is the manner of their
reasoning. Their intention seems to be to avoid doing anything
very desperate, but to keep beating the Government, constantly
exhibiting their own power and the helpless state of their
adversaries to the world. Some of them affect to deny their union
with O'Connell, but they say whatever suits their present
purpose. In the case of Manners Sutton, they took care to have
the charges against him disseminated through the country, and did
their best to have them believed. The constituencies believed
them, and instructed their representatives accordingly; and when,
by these means, they had secured a majority, they came down at
the last moment to the House of Commons and owned that there was
not one word of truth in the allegations against him. John
Russell had written a letter (perhaps more than one) in which he
urged opposition to Sutton, on the ground of his having advised
the dissolution of the last Parliament. Goulburn got possession
of this letter, which was handed to him during the debate, he
does not know by whom. (Goulburn told me this himself.) He gave
it to Peel while he was speaking, or just before. Peel asked John
Russell if he had ever said so, and John Russell denied it. Peel
did not produce the letter as he might have done, but the story
was told in the 'Times' the next day. So in the case of the
Bishop of Exeter, and Lord John's controversy with him. He told
an untruth, undoubtedly without knowing it, but he might have
known it; the lie did its business--

In public spoke, it fell with greater force,
And, heard by hundreds, was believed, of course;

a