The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-30 00:00:00

of its predecessors. Such is the cant of the hour
and the jargon of party—a cant rising not unfre-
„quently into claptrap and a jargon expanding into
fanfarronade. Howbeit at the present juncture it is
admitted upon all sides that the struggle about
to commence is one upon the result of which
the destinies of the entire empire are in a very pe-
culiar degree dependent. Hitherto, since the altera-
tions of the tariff, but more particularly since that
abolition of the imposts upon corn which incorporated
the principles of free trade among the chief of the
fundamental principles of the Constitution, the con-
dition of parties in the Lower House of Parliament
has been such that the ordinary operations of
the Government of this country have been very
materially interrupted. Confusion has reigned where
formerly order was invariable. There has been none
of that nice balance of power which tended, it must
be allowed, to secure the tranquil facilitation of the
labours of Parliament. There was at first a sudden
disruption of Conservatism, followed more gradually
than might have been expected under the circum-
stances, but nooe the lass securely, by a political pro-
cess almost identical with that of decompoeVion.
As PorE said of the pack of cards at the whist-table,
Clabs, diamonds, hearts, in wild disorder seen,
With
•
throngs promiscuous strewed the level green,"
" thhs'
so might we say of contemporary politicians on the
flaor of the House of Commons, that there was per-
ceptible an equivalent confusion among the Whigs
and Tories, the Radicals and Conservatives. Mem-
bers knew not exactly where to sit. They were un-
certain whether to establish themselves on the cross
benches, below the gangway, behind the benches of
the Treasury, or on those of the Opposition.
Thus it was that the enterprise deemed
until that moment altogether impracticable
was achieved by the gallantry of Lord
GEORGE BENTINCK. A " third" party was created
out of the ruins of Corservatism. There was the party
led by Sir ROBERT FEEL. There was the party led
by Lord JOHN RUSSELL. There was the party led by
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK. Besides these mighthave
been enumerated afterwards the lesser parlies (nu-
merically inferior, but intrinsically formidable), such
as the Manchester party represented by COBDEN,
and the Radical Reformers represented by the
veteran Hume, and ultimately the select,
but influential supporters of Lord PALMERSTON,
men like Mr. MILNES and Colpnel FREESTUN. Added
to all which divisions was yet another, that of " free
lances," fighting under no leadership—thoroughly
independent Members, such as RALPH BERNAL OS-
BORNE and JOHN ARTHUR ROEBUCK. Even the
before-mentioned state of things in the House of
Commons did not appear to be sufficiently confused
to be altogether satisfactory. The Protectionists,
for whose interests he had fought so gallantly,
inspired as he was with a sort of heroic desperation,
grew restive under the command of Lord GEORGE
BENTINCK, and drove him unceremoniously to
resign the authority he had only consented to assume
at their earnest and importunate entreaties. Parlia-
ment met again, and the man who was still virtually
the leader of the Opposition was—strange to behold—
seated on the cross benches. His energetic associate,
Mr. DISRAELI, looked disconsolate in his position im-
mediately confronting the leaders of the PEEL Go-
vernment. Shortly afterwards came the death-
struggle on the Coercion Bill for Ireland, the resig-
nation of Sir ROBERT, and the instalment of
the RUSSELL Administration. Free-traders
and Monopolists were then jumbled together
on the same side of the House. Confusion became
'worse confounded. The Whigs existed as a Cabinet
upon a species of agonizing sufferance. The Parlia-
ment of 1841 was tortured by the throes of dissolu-
tion. Ministers survived even then with a House of

Commons consisting of a majority of antagonists—
their survival being attributable not to their own
strengtb, but to the weakness of the Opposition, a
weakness brought about by divisions and ani-
mosities. At length the situation became
intolerable. The Parliament of 1841 was

dissolved in 1847, and after a general election,
which provoked throughout the country extra-
ordinary excitement, the new House of Com-
mons was assembled on the 18th of November at
Westminster. Unluckily for the people the con-
fusion of parties was still as remarkable as ever, and
their consequent jealousies being in several instances
peculiarly rancorous, anything like an amalgamation
was hopeless. In 1848 Lord GEORGE BENTINCK
died suddenly of disease of the heart, and in 1850
Sir ROD C ZIT PEEL ' died suddenly by an accident.
Relieved of their most formidable, antagonist
in the former instance, the Whigs were in the
latter deprived of their most notable supporter.
They languished at first with miserable majorities,
and ultimately with no majorities at all, until, from
sheer exhaustion and incapacity—after remaining in
power for five years, and ungratefully ridding them-
selves of their most popular and illustrious colleague
—Lord JOHN and his colleagues were compelled, last
February, to tender their resignation. The result
we are tolerably well acquainted with by this time—
en the acceptance of the resignation of the Whigs,
the Tories were called to power, the Earl of DERRY
being entrusted with the formation of the new
Government. Aided by the remarkable abilities
of Mr. DISRAELI in the House of Commons, the
new PRIME • MINISTER has contrived to carry on
the affairs of the country until July—a period
of upwards of four months—without a working
majority, and in spite of the extravagant blun-
ders of such men as the Earl of MALMESBURY.
Up to the present moment, therefore, the position
of party remains as involved as at the time of its
original disruption. The responsibility consequently
'lbw rests with the electors to terminate this anoma-
lous situation. The general election of 1852
must restore' the machinery of legislation,
and through it, of course, the machinery of adminis-
tration to something like a rational state of equi-
librium. Call them no matter what—Liberals or
Derbyites—the new House of Commons must
consist for the most part of either advocates of
Reform or advocats of Retrogression. Which of
these two great parties is to obtain the preponderance
is .the question now about to be submitted to the
country by the SOVEREIGN. With the possessors of
the franchise, therefore, rests the responsibility of
solving this problem, through the various candidates
aspiring to be representatives in the new Par-
liament.

We are on the eve of a general election. The most
strenuous exertions are making in every direction on
behalf of the several aspirants for senatorial honours ;
and it is more than probable that within lees than a
fortnight several Members will be returned to the
new Parliament. This, then, is the time for electors
impressing their wishes and desires on the anxious
candidates. Every statement will b 3 listened to with
respect and attention, and distinct answers returned
and solemn pledges given, when it is clearly and dis-
tinctly shown that there is no possibility of evading
the interrogatory, or returning a vague, unsatisfactory
response. Should the golden opportunity be neg-
lected or misapplied, many years may elapse before
the recurrence of one equally favourable. The same
zeal or energy can seldom be excited in the representa-
tive which may easily be awakened in the candidate.
tiVe tit, then, that the opponents of the unjust and
impolitic Act which forbids marriage with the sister
of a deceased wife may fully avail them-
selves of the occasion, that they will temperately,
but firmly,not
refuse their support to any person who
will
promise to use his utmost exertions to
remove the
unwise restriction, or the most sacred
privilege belonging to a human being, that of choosing
for himself the partner of his life, the participator in
his happiness, the soother and comforter in affliction.
It is impossible to conceive how any man, professing
himself to be the friend of civil and religious liberty,
can entertain any doubt or
difficulty on such a point.
If a man is to be allowed to judge for himself, and to
form his own opinions
on religious subjects without
--
should marriage
interference, or being subjected to any inquiry or
disability on account thereof, why
constitute the sole exception to the general rule ?
Why should the law unnecessarily interpose an
obstacle to the perfect and entire freedom of choice
which is essential to the happiness of the wedded
pair ? It is really the most wanton interference with
the liberty of the subject, the most glaring instance
of intolerance, that has been known since the removal
of the penal enactments when life and property might
be endangered in case of non-conformity. And there
is net the slightest pretext for stating that there