The Sun.
London, England, 1837-06-29 00:00:00

pc:,ecutors of his memory were suppliants for nlercy.ll
not insolent monopolists, and depraved perverters of
power ; when we see such things before nut cyn,
hear of them, is it not manifest that the late lain
William, being a man of truth and probity, was looked
upon by the Irish revolutionists as the grand ohstacle
in the way of those encroachments tip'an rrotestant
right and freedom, of which tilt grand abettors and in-
stigators were his Ministers—the present Ministers—
the Ministers or Queen Victoria, who is already made
a saint of by the Romish priests of Ireland, and in-
stead of " following in the footsteps of her lamented,
uncle," by CC:it:hat:iv protecting the Protestant Church
and State, is considered by the rt.‘viollitionary Papists
of that island to be an engine under the guidance of
Lord McPlcurne and his colleagues for the overthrow
of those very institutions of NO MI they curse the
name and memory of King William, because he was
the defender ? But the overthrow of that ?
Why, or nothing less than the Prolestant Throne of
England, based and founded as it has hem for 149
years on Protestant ASCENDANCY in both islands !
And who sits on the Throne of England ? WHOSE
Throne is it ? The Throne of Victoria, that inno-
cent and unsuspecting Princess of 18, who has dele-
gatcd patronage, prerogative, influence—al to Lord
Melbourne, who has placed unbounded confidence in
his honour, who lips reposed upon his integrity and
his patriotism the fortunes of England, and her own
fate. We ask Lord Melbourne, therefore, not in an-
ger, but in the spirit in which we should have put
such a question twenty years ago to William Lamb,
the Conservative—the inan who, though weak in
judgment, was sound in honour, who then had, and
still of course wishes to have, a fair reputation with
the great body of his countrymen—can he, dares he,
betray a trust so sacred ? We tell Lord Melbourne
that by :he death of William his own position is en-
tirely chan7ed. He is no longer the servant of a
Prince of mature age—watching—reprehending—
sometimes controlling his official councillors, and
capable of guarding his own prerogatives from as-
sault. Lord Melbourne has now—not in law, but
substance—an innocent and inexperienced child for
his Sovereign. He is the guardian of her who—in
her extreme youth—can have no power of intel-
lectual or moral control over his actions. He is her
trustee : he is, as it were—and meaning no irreverence
towards our common Queen—in loco parentis to Vic-
toria. We say, then, that his responsibility is in-
creased a thousandfold : that, however he may in King
William's time have played with Liberals and coquetted
with democracy, he is now—he must now be—a pre-
rogative Minister—a Protestant Minister—a Church-
and-King Minister—to his unprotected Sovereign ;
or a man so lost, that this generation, and posterity to
all ages, will consign his name and memory to di--
honour. And what does he fear as the consequence
of such a course ? The abuse of the Radical faction,
perhaps their separation from him. Very well. But
he will insure by it the strenuous and unvarying sup-
port of the Conservatives in and out of Parliament,
with the respect, esteem, and confidence of all honest
subjects of the Imperial Crown. It would at once
grieve and shock us to irraoine that an English noble-
man or gentleman so situated could falter with such a
choice before him. The question Victoria—or Mr.
Daniel O'Connell. Both Lord Melbourne cannot
serve, and the constituency of the empire must also
choose between them.—Times.

We look upon it as an affront to the common sense
of the people of this country, that the persons who
seek their confidence, as the advocates of liberal senti-
ments in politics, arc continually talking of the influ-
ence of certain political men, instead of the efficacy of
certain political principles. This mode of proceeding
may do very well for hot-headed partisans, or for per-
sons whose object is merely confined to the keeping of
place, or to the acquisition of it ; but such mere party
advocacy is not fit for honest men to use, or men of
independence and understanding to listen to. A Mi-
nisterial authority, for example, announces, with all
the pomp of one who communicates very great and im-
portant intelligence, that Lord Melbourne has the
most unbounded confidence of his Sovereign, and
thence infers, without more ado, that all who have at
heart the improvement of existing institutions must not
only be quite satisfied, but quite delighted. Now, this
is the inference either of a foolish, inconsiderate zealot,
or of a venal advocate. If Lord Melbourne have been
entrusted with all the power which some people attri-
bute to him, he has been entrusted with much more
power than any Sovereign ought to give to any sub-
ject. We do not believe, however, that there is a par-
ticle of truth in what has been stated in Ministerial
quarters on this subject. Our respect for her Majesty's
understanding is far too great to allow us to believe
the tales which the flatterers of Ministers have in-
vented in honour of their patrons. Lord Melbourne,
we are very well satisfied, ha§ no more power in his
hands now than he has had for the last two years, nor
do we think he is at all likely to have more. Cir-
cumstances rather tend, we believe the other way ;
though we have no doubt that so long as his So-
vereign continues to afford him her confidence as
Prime Minister, she will not withhold from him such
power as is necessary for carrying on the public busi-
ness in the way in which he is content to carry it on.
But suppose be had all the. power which his flatterers
attribute to him, why should that make sincere con-
stitutional reformers satisfied or delighted ? What is
Lord Melbourne that we should place our political
fate in his hands ? We went no dictator, whether Radi-
cal or Conservative, Whig or Tory. What is the
name of Lord Melbourne to us, except as the advo-
cate and promoter of certain political principles ? The
honest Reformers of Great Britain have no reason to
believe that their principles will meet a firm and effec-
tive supporter in the person of Lord Melbourne. But
wliether that be so or not, he is not the keeper of the
political consciences of British reformers. His name is
no guarantee of anything which Englishmen can regard
as respectable. Hitherto he has been only distin-
guished as a Minister who seemed willing to do a great
deal of harm, but who happily was not powerful enough
to do anything at all. If a change have come over him
in one respect, a change may have also, for ought we
know, have come over him m another ; but his name
we repeat, is a guarantee fur nothing, and we regard
the attempt to thrust him forward as an absolute king
over the reformers with utter contempt. Let him
declare his principles—let him say what his new course
will be, and then we and the reasonable reformers of
Great Britain will be able to judge whether he is
or is not deserving of support. We are disgusted,
and, unless we are greatly misinformed, the country in
general is disgusted with the attempts of persons in the
Ministry, and connected with the Ministry, to make a
trade of the stock of liberality which they consider them-
selves to have on hand. Certain people seem to think-
they have a patent monopoly for governing this country,
because they profess an extravagant liberality which, on
account of its extravagance, produces no practical effect.
We would beg of those who assure us that reformers
ought to be quite satisfied because Lord Melbourne
is to have all the power which his Sovereign can rive
loin, to tell us what reformers have gained by Lord
Melbourne's administration in the last too years. Do
they mean to say that during all that time he was
thwarted by his Sovereign, and could not do what be
thought was right ? If that were the case it says but
little for the public integrity, or the personal spirit of
the Minister. If, on the other hand, the power which
every Prime Minister ought to have wera not withheld
from him, how are we to expect now, what hitherto
we have not received ? The country, we trust, and
are persuaded, will look for something else from the
candidates at the ensuing election than a declaration
that they will vote with this Minister or with that
Oppositionist. They will have to state what their
principles are, and whether they are willing to main-
tain England and the Constitution against the impious
and extravagant views of men who are hostile to Eng-
lish principles, and strangers to English feeling. The
Reformers of Great Britain arc not dead to the senti-
ments of British patriotism. They can be loyal to
their youthful Queen, without being disloyal to their
ancient Constitution.—Morning Herald.
The discomfiture which some days ago we predicted
for Radicalism in the approaching elections is likely,
from all we can learn, to be even more signal and de-
cisive than we could venture to anticipate. Organic
change is going out of fashion. The ballot makes
us laugh, and the voluntary principle makes us yawn :
there are no shouts for triennial Parliaments, and no