The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-30 00:00:00

will be many differences of opinion, though the
theory would not be worth discussing if the prac-
tice were known and fixed. But the practice Is
loose and wavering, and no theory has been esta-
blished to guide the now wandering and lost men
of routine.

The ordinary business of every-day government
requires a close attention to circumstances. Prece-
dents are not always to be found, and, when found,
very seldom are strictly applicable. If by legisla-
tion this ordinary business is to be conducted, the
character of legislation will be wholly changed from
permanent rules, guiding and forming society, to
rules varying by circumstances of the moment. The
business of the Legislature is to lay down general
rules, within which men of discretion, seizing the
expediency of the moment, direct the public affairs.
Our Contemporary would deprive it of its perma-
nent character, and make it at all times the judge
of the expediency of the moment. What the
community desiderates in laws is stability. They
should only change as society changes. The
people require that the rules of conduct
should be fixed ; the laws of nature, the inte-
rests of society are so ; at least they alter so
slowly, that we do not see the movement, and must
continually take the bearings of surrounding ob-
jects to be convinced of the progress. The people
who are already in doubt as to what is and what is
not law, would be alarmed at seeing the Legislature
assume the characteristics of the Executive, and
become the efficient means of conducting the busi-
ness of the country.
It must be admitted that at present our legisla-
tion and the condition of society are not in har-
mony ; and that a great deal is requisite to adjust
them. On this temporary discrepancy, however, a
general system cannot be founded. Nor are the
Ministers the persons to whom the people can
properly look to make the laws and the condition of
society square one with another. They swear to up-
hold the law and the Constitution ; that is their chief
duty.Theyare to carry on the QUEEN'S Government,
preserve the QUEEN'S power, and can only seek to
obtain a control over the Legislature in order to
destroy the proper check on their own conduct. To
bring the laws of the country into harmony with
the condition of society, all classes and con-
ditions must be represented. How that is to be
accomplished we cannot possibly tell. In a proper
representation of the people, however, .the idea of
making the Ministers responsible for the conduct
of the Legislature would at once be scouted as form-
ing a representation of a class, and sacrificing the
general independence.
We believe that this subject will be yet much
discussed ; we are quite sure it is not exhausted,
and we only throw out these few observations rather
to stimulate than to satisfy the spirit of inquiry.

Some of the Tory Journals are very wrathful at
the few changes that have been made in the Mi-
nistry. We wish there was any good cause fot
their wrath, but we can see in those changes no
accession of strength, and no increase of popularity.
Mr. LABOUCHERE may be a little more indus-
trious than Mr. P. THOMsON, but we doubt whe-
ther he be more liberal. So far as his opinions go
he may give more effect to them than the late
President, but they do not go farther. We shall
be pleased to find ourselves deceived, but at present
we cannot suppose that the Board of Trade will be
strengthened by the appointment of Mr. SHIEL.
He has long been connected with the Ministry, has
held an appointment under it, and his present ac-
ceptance of office is rather an indication that he
adheres to Lord MELBOURNE than that Lord
MELBOURNE has embraced the Liberal opinions
once espoused 'by Mr. SHIEL. Mr. \SYsE,
we are afraid, is more likely to embarrass
than strengthen his friends. On one point,
that of education, he is an enthusiast ; but his en-
thusir.sm has never yet been responded to by the
people. That these gentlemen have accepted office
uoder Lord MELBOURNE, is however a sign that
they are not prepared to carry, as some of the
Tory papers seem to imagine, their principles to
any inconvenient lengths. What Lord MEL-
BOURNE may perform in future we cannot say, but
he is in reality, as well as nominally, the chief of the
Ministry, and unless his opinions and projects be
changed, a little sliding about amongst the unin-
fluential subalterns can make no difference in its
character. The Liberal party continues to look to
him with hope ; but the more effectual way to suc-
ceed will be to unite amongst themselves, and make
themselves respectable for their strength.
From all that we can see and hear, we know of
no one pursuit which is so likely to form a bond of
union for the Liberal party as the abolition of the
Corn-laws. On that point they would now carry
with them the bulk of the people. It is a practical
measure, involving no constitutional or organic
changes, while it would lead to the most important
reforms. By augmenting the number of the people
and increasing their opulence, it would tend to in-
crease the number of voters. It would extend
the basis of our whole political system, and
increase far more than any organic reform
the power of the people. Without some
pressure on the MELBOURNE Ministry we are
afraid that they are not likely to become the
advocates of the abolition. The new CHANCEL-
LOR of the EXCHEQUER, going no further than
any of his colleagues, has declared himself for a
fixed duty. He does not comprehend the move-
ment on this subject, nor the feelings of the
people. Throughout the manufacturing districts, the
demand has been for the abolition of all the taxes
and duties on food. It is no longer an economi-
cal, it has become a great moral question. The
advocates of the Corn-laws have accused the abolitio-
nists of wishing to plunder the landlords ; the aboli-
tionists have loudly accused the landlords of actu-
ally plundering the people. Long ago we declared
against a fixed duty, as worse than the present scale,
and our opinion coincided, we remember, with
the more enlightened and influential Journals
published in the manufacturing districts. A
fixed duty would satisfy nobody. It would
leave the badge of slavery on the people ;
it would still plunder them to benefit the landlords,
and would rather irritate than soothe the public
discontent. Men do not tolerate half a felony nor
a partial assassination ; neither will they tolerate a
robbery merely because a change is made in the
mode of effecting it. The fixed duty will not
satisfy either the economical or moral view of this
important question, and we can but regret to see
the new CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER be-
ginning his career with a statement that he is for a
fixed tax on the poor man's loaf to put pelf into the
landowner's pocket.