The Sun.
London, England, 1852-07-27 00:00:00

PIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAT. .

TIMES.—Tne true C1,,11113 of public risen to public
honour are extremely C.:fee:tilt to certify. Even in re-
spect to the -eac charactere the last: there is
Hardly yet
were the &lenges of popular
pk Th tip an afire, roent o: ) rapid,
in the French reeolueen,
sentiment that the Convention was forces*, for mere
decency's sake, to decree that no citizen should be re-
warded with national acknowledgments till ten years
after his decease. The canonizetion of a Popish saint
has been defered, we believe, by Papal ordinances, for a
still longer period of historical probation; and it needs
very little
argument to show the propriety of the rule.
Yet, though barely two years have elapsed since the
death of Sir Robert Peel, we find hie memory already
honoured by the spontaneous tributes of a whole people,
and so uniform, indeed, has been the consent of admira-
tion, that the inauguration of the Tamworth statue,
which we reported on Ssturday, suggested no expression
but that of general satisfaction. It was too late to
descant on Sir R. Peel's public character. The eulogy
bad been already pronounced by the veice of the nation,
and symbolised try the visible prosperity of the country.
There still, however, remains a question for history to
solve—how far has this gratitude been truly merited?
When the legislation of 1846 is reviewed by writers who
will look upon Free-traders and Protectionists as mere ab-
stract symbols of an ancient feud, what will be the judgment
upon the statesman who, by his own private resolution,
changed the social and financial aspect of a mighty king-
dom? It is hazardous to anticipate such a verdict, but
speculations are free, and we may venture on the expe-
riment. As to the essential wisdom of Sir Robert's
policy there can be no longer any doubt. What he did
it has proved impossible for his most inveterate antago-
nists to undo. They have not been lacking either dispo.
sition or opportunities. A strong Parliamentary party
was formed and maintained upon the single principle of
reversing, modifying, or compensating the acts of 1846.
In the usual course of constitutional occurrences they
have come into power, and according to the ordinary
measure of such power they ought now to be competent
to realize their views. But never was the contrast between
party mechanism and public opinion more conspicuously
displayed. While protection was marshalling its comba-
tants in Parliament, Free Trade was doing its work out
of doors; and, before Mr. Disraeli could put the question
in " constitutional" form, it had been definitely settled
by the experience and acclamations of the people.
Protectionists were fain to go to the hustings with
the preliminary confession that protection was impos•
sible, and with solemn avowals that they entertained no
intentions of reverting to an exploded policy. Neither
can it be said that these feelings were partial, for, al-
though everybody might not have been satisfied, the
" contents" did clearly form so large a numerical majo-
rity of the people as to compel the recognition of states-
men. This, indeed, was the true point of Protectionist
weakness. Considering how powerful a party Mr.
Disraeli succeeded in maintaining, and how nearly he
could balance his adversaries in a Parliamentary divi-
sion, it was nothing less than the known convictions of
the unrepresented masses which could have restrained
his decision. There is no possibility of denying that
the legislation of 1846 has prodigiously improved the
finances of the kingdom, has been followed by a gene-
ral prosperity without example, and has hitherto so ap-
proved itself to the public mind as to be beyond roach
of reversal. To the argument that this prosperity and
satisfaction will soon have an end we can, of
course, make no reply, for prophecies are necessarily
unassailable ; but we do not see how the most
stubborn Protectionist can deny that the people, up to
this moment, are so thoroughly satisfied with free
trade as to render even Parliamentary strength
completely powerless before public opinion. The
legislation, therefore, of Sir Robert Peel was essentially
good—so good, indeed, that it would be difficulty to find
any single act of any legislator so wonderfully justified
by its results. But, considering Sir Robert's circum-
stances and obligations, was his private resolution
equally justifiable? The party of which he was the
head had been formed, it cannot be concealed, on the
general principle of protecting those laws and ordi-
nances which he boldly overthrew. Was he warranted
in thus " betraying" it? That the first duty of a
Minister is to his country and the second only to his
party, is what not even the most bigoted partisan would
venture to deny, and, if free trade is the blessing which
it appears to be, it becomes a direct conclusion that any
statesman would have been justified in securing such ad-
vantages to the country at any expense to his Parlia-
mentary followers. Parties, even in their most exalted
sense, can be nothing but mere instruments of Govern-
ment, and, if the ends of Government are to be
sacrificed to its instruments, it is hard to see what is
gained by any Government at all. Sir Robert Peel
sagaciously descried the practical necessity of the
time. He concluded that the corn-laws must be
repealed, and that his conclusion was eminently just
confienss spite,ions rather of
thanene-
has been now proved, not only by the experience of
millions, but by the involuntary
mien. He repealed them, therefore,
by the aid of his own party; but what becomes of a
party's boasted claims if it can do nothing more than
impede the exercise of superior wisdom? Is there any
man in the kingdom who, after the budgets of the last
six years—Mr. Disraeli's included—will say that Sir
Robert Peel ought to have withheld these blessings from
the country out of respect to party understandings? We
might safely leave the question in this form, but we con-
ceive the occasion suggests a rather broader generalize-
lion. In plain terms, we are much of opinion that all
measures of large popular benefit—all measures which
consult the advantages of the many at the expense of
the few—must necessarily be carried by some breach of
Parliamentary punctilio. It has been said that everything
should be done for the peeple, but nothing by them, and
there is some truth, as all history teaches us, in the as-
sumption that the masses are not always the best
judges oven of their own immediate interests. This
maxim of political science, therefore, would seem to
warrant the confinement of representative institutions

within narrower limits than pure theory would sug-
gest, bat it can only be carried out with practical
success when the administrators of Government recollect
their unseen obligations, and give due thought to the
interests which are unrepresented by votes. It is cer-
tain that the House of Lcrds did not approve the Re-
form Bill, and almost as notorious, perhaps, that Sir
Robert Peel's House of Commons did not really desire
the repeal of the corn-laws. In each case a measure of

real justice and incidental necessity was carried by the
impulse of Ministerial power after Ministers had been
impressed by the popular will. Of this impression the
few and responsible members of a Government are
naturally more susceptible than the numerous and irre-
sponsible members of a Parliamentary Legislature, and
they act accordingly. They are in advance of their
party, and they discern duties to which their followers
are blind. In the common course of events the machine
may work smoothly, but at conjunctures of periodical
recurrence even " great parties" must submit to bo told
that a still greater party demands the preferential atten-
tion of their leaders. Tho safety of our constitution lies
in these its self-contradictions. Parliament represents
the people not by arithmetical computation of votes, but
because, yielding to impulses from above or without, it
records occasional conclusions against its own views and
wishes. For one of the greatest of these state opera.
tions the country has to thank Sir Robert Peel; for
others it may possibly have to thank the bitterest critic
of Sir Robert Peel's measure.
THE PROTECTIONIST PARLIAMENT.
HERALD.—We are always pleased to have a little
amicable discussion with our opponents, on our mutual
and Opposingstatementpaper.The
prospects; and hence we readily reply to
the points made by our Whig friend in his last night's
hoebjaeausetimuneawaes,
in havtheetaort
article to to to
which
his
he replies, to be admitting certain thins which we un-
questionably did not admit. W g
said, more than once
or twice, that we were allowing •
talkers to state the ease is:mtgetihe Liberal writers and
even as so stated we did not see r own way; and that
how they could reach a
satisfactory result. The reply of our Whig friend is as
follows:

--i'lt is worth remarking, that the Ministerialosio mani-
festo,which we have above made
premises,
t
to
the sake of argument, it accepts ourour
r
conclusions. Conceding the fact of
notify, it denies that Ministers need therefore turn out.mi.
For, it says, if Lord John Russell were sent for, the
first question he must be asked by her Majesty would
be, how he proposed to govern now, with a majority of
twenty or thirty, when he could not govern last Feb-
ruary with a hundred?
" We take note that the Ministerial organ puts such
questions, as a significant indication of Ministerial pre-
sentiments. But, in the name of Cocker, if the Libe-
rals cannot resume power with a majority at their
back, how can the Derby-Disraelites retain it with a
minority?"
We " concede" no such fact, but we say, suppose that the
strength of parties shall prove to be as you state it, i. e.,
tnat the Government has only 300 or 303 votes in the
House of Commons—what follows? Lord John Russell
could not help resigning, when Mr. Disraeli had but 260
supporters; will ho now be able to resume oilico, and to
rfoertmainero2ffi6coe?, whTeonthissth
power opponent has 300 in lieu of his
hwriatehsersewjoitidaer is, " If the Liberals
cannot resume
can the Derbyites retain it with mai.jority at their back, how
minority?" Facts are
Now, The Liberals have a ma-
here hidden ander
Derby—we doubtjrlty
have a ourmajority for
difficulty was
for one vote—a
jvtohoritsiet:y—,Ssaoy,
against tthhLaetoyrtdaha
fact greatly—
but let it be assumed. Our next
this? To
is, what one
step can " the Liberals" take beyoncr
and dismiss a Ministry is one thing; eels? To outvote
except you can set up a newt it is !mgatory,
its room. Now, , how is this Ministry in
res end
?ton
And
Your " Liberal majority" is made up to
be done ?
`,
classes besides the pure Whigs and Radicals. of several
few Peelites conciliated? Is their place in tAhereeetheet
Whig Ministry allotted? Have Lord plm
Lord John Russell made up their difference
above all, have the minions of M Hale, Cullen,
Wiseman afire d to support a Russell Administration?
In the latest Irish election proceedings we meet with suil?
h
language as the following. At the Tipperary eernine.
tion a priest, called—
" The Very Rev. Dr. Burke, said, Ireland was always
treated in the Fame manner, whether the Government
Places were held by Whigs or Tories, by the renegade
t
Russell or scorpion Stanley.—(Deep and prolonged
groaning.)
But one Government after another have
e
felt the effect of the manner in which Ireland was
treated—one
u. feel that Government after another have been made
o
Ireland could not be so treated with impu-
ally:,—e(Lowi cheers.) Yes, and one Government utter
bey'''. r shall still be made to feel that Ireland cannot
unjust!
she is .31 treated wits impunity; but that so lung as
nutty
er
Eirlly treated she shall still be the great eiffi-
Russell has% nd.—(lmmente cheering.) The renegade
ing ) Russell,
outrage to the feelings, ~hall be inE,..le::n made to feel tbii; scorpion Stanley
. tied it in his turn.--(Vocif,.rous cheer-
the letter by which he offered
sought to eztinguittire. and after the Bill by which he
the religion of the Catholic ;pillions