The Sun.
London, England, 1865-07-11 00:00:00

and protection were to be maintained for the simple
reason that they existed. When rotten boroughs
were abolished, still the constitution was to be main-
tained as it was. When the corn laws were repealed
the constitution thus modified was to be accepted,
and no other improvements were to take place. The
constitution is the constitution, and her Majesty's
Opposition, though they oppose every improvement,
still profess themselves ready to take it with all its
improvements just as it has been altered for the
better by their political opponents. Her Majesty's
Opposition take credit to themselves for this nega-
tive and certainly not consistent line of policy.
They would prevent any improvement from taking
place, but, when it is once made, they are glad
enough to accept it, and even to make what political
capital they can out of it. Their creed seems to be
—improvements must needs come, and woe be to
those by whom they come ; woe be to the improve-
ments themselves, if we can only prevent or mar
them ; but, when once they are accomplished, be
ours the task to make the most of them, and,
if necessary, to assert boldly that they are
part and parcel of our political faith. This is
easily enough demonstrated, as has been indicated
above. We, they say, are for maintaining the con-
stitution as it is : these improvements are part of
the constitution, therefore we are for maintaining
them, although we would have defeated and pre-
vented every one of them if we had been able, and
we look upon it as a great misfortune for ourselves
and the country that we %ere not able. Now, it is
obvious that a party whose policy is what we have
described could not attain to power, and hold
power, without using it to undo as many of those
obnoxious improvements as possible. Such a party,
while in opposition, can do no more than seek to
prevent improvements from being carried. It has
no alternative but to accept these improvements
when they assume the form of accomplished facts.
To continue decrying an improvement after its
merits have been demonstrated, and after the coun-
try have proved its excellence, would be a sort of
self-stultification which her Majesty's Opposition
are too wise in their generation to venture upon.
But that which it is impossible to do while in oppo-
sition would be a necessity to attempt if in power.
It would be impossible for her Majesty's Opposi-
tion, if in power, to keep things just as they are.
To go forward or to go backward would be a neces-
sity under such circumstances. To keep things
just as they are would be to do nothing, to ini-
tiate nothing, to abdicate the primary functions of
government. No Ministry could hold office on
such a tenure as this. A Government must go
forward or backward. But the Opposition, by -
opposing every improvement that has taken place,
is not only pledged not to go forward really and
virtually, but it is pledged to go backward. HOW
could her Majesty's Opposition, if once in power,
abstain from undergoing those measures which they
strained every effort to prevent from being carried
when they were introduced ? We will take as illus-
trations the two measures already alluded to—the
Reform Bill and Free Trade. To both of these mea-
sures the Opposition offered the most determined
resistance. To every other great improvement they
have also offered resistance. Would it be possible,
under these circumstances, not to seek to carry out
in the present those principles and professions which
formed their distinguishing characteristics in the
past ? If the principles of the Opposition are right
and true, the Reform Act and Free Trade, and
every other good measure introduced by their oppo-
nents, and which they have so strenuously opposed,
must be as bad now as they were before. Her Ma-
jesty's Opposition, by their resistance to all improve-
ments in the past, are pledged not to introduce any
improvements in the future. They are, by the same
guarantee, equally pledged to undo, if they can, all
the improvements they formerly opposed, but could
not prevent from being carried. This is the policy
to which they are pledged. It is a policy of nega-
tion, and something more. It is a negative
policy as regards the resistance to all improve-
ments—it is a highly positive one as regards
the accomplishment of legislation, which is the
reverse of whatever constitutes improvement.
The country should therefore fully understand
what it was to expect from an anti-Liberal majority 1,
being—if that were possible—returned to Parlia-
ment.
If they had the power they must of necessity
undo the improvements of the past. But as this is
out of the question they must content themselves
with doing nothing. Let the country ask itself,
what good measure—not borrowed from their op-
ponents—her Majesty's Opposition have ever intro-
duced, whether they were in power or not ? They
have been tried again and again and have been
found wanting ; and to what purpose would it be
to try them at the present election ? The country
will continue to trust those who have served it se
well and so long at home and abroad ; not those who
would have prevented all improvements at home,
and who would have embroiled us for party pur-
poses, in foreign wars with which we had no
concern.

COTJN TRY MARKETS

COLCHESTER,-JULY 8.

The supply of wheat very fair, but a slow demand at
barely last week's prices. Spring corn at late terms.

-
Wheat, white 42s 468 BeanP, 3g2
red 3is 42s Middle and mu11...35s 403
Barley ...
Oat ...20s 25s grey ...36s 383

GRANTHAM-JULY 8.

Old white wheat, 41s to 465; old red, 37s to 42s ; new
white, 44s to 478 ; new red, 37s to 40s per 36 stone. Bar-
ley for malting, 29s to 33s per qr. ; grinding, 24s to 26s per
30 stone. Oats, old, 25s to 27s ; new, 22s to 24s per 24
stone. Beans, old, 39s to 41s; new, 36s to 38s per 38 stone.
Peas, 34s to 36s per 36 stone.