The Sun.
London, England, 1836-01-06 00:00:00

port of Mr. O'Connell and his tail ; while O'Connell
in return (to say nothing of the snug berths distri-
buted among his followers), sees his darling objects
of. Popish dominion and separation from Britith con-
nection, aided by all the weight and influence of his
new allies. But after all there is, we suspect, no
want of craft in this new denial and renunciation of a
coalition. One of the parties at least, there is good
reason to believe, has discovered that he has gone too
far. The day is very fast approaching when Minis-
ters will be shown•in the face of the country the very
words which Mr. O'Connell has uttered within the
last five months, and at sundry places, and they will
have to say whether they adopt them or not. Their
situation will be an awkward and embarrassing one we
admit ; and it may therefore be convenient that they
should prevail upon Mr. O'Connell to anticipate the
removal of the difficulty by disclaiming ant coalition
with them himself. But no art or trickery of this sort
will succeed with the country. The late election in
Northamptonshire showed pretty well what its feelings
are upon the subject. We know, too, how far-spread
and increasing that feeling is. It is not that the cause
of Reform is one jot less popular with the country
than it was ; but when the public see a Reform
Ministry uniting with, and lending itself to the views
of a revolutionary incendiary, and of one whose patrio-
tism lies wholly in his pocket, they naturally pause to
ask if, under such guidance, they can be safe ? The
person in question has evidently gone too far. Both
he and his Ministerial allies know it ; and they now
wish, to a certain extent, to disclaim each other. That
they may quarrel and part, is what few, we believe,
would regret ; but it is too great a tax upon our cre-
dulity, as well as too great a slur upon the credit of
the parties themselves, to endeavour to persuade us that
the sworn and inseparable friends of yesterday were
never friends at all.—Morning Herald.
The din_ of the Radical and Ministerial faction
about the municipal elections is still going on. There
are some people so amorous of sound, that they would
rather have the music of marrow-bones and cleavers
than no noise at all. The condition of the Whig-
Radical faction is, in its way, very similar to this.
Having no political triumph of a more respectable
nature to make a noise about, they are fain to take up
with such glory as is derived from the success of the
riff-raff of towns in electing persons to manage their
local affairs. Now, they are quite welcome to make
as much fuss about this as they please, provided they
do not tell lies ; but they do tell lies, and therefore we
beg leave to expostulate. Let it be granted that the
majority of the new " councillors" are theirs ; they
are not " councillors " for the nation. Let them
attend to their street-sweeping and lamp-lighting—
we trust they will do so with satisfaction to them-
'selves and to the small public by which they are
surrounded ; but surely they will not sweep Cons
servatism out of the world, or light Radicalism
through its dirty ways to supreme power. Let it
be granted that those dread personages, the new
Mayors of the new Municipalities, are chiefly Minis-
terialists, what, in the name of common sense, has
Conservatism to do with the rustling of their robes ?
Shall the Throne totter because the little potentates of
town-halls are in alliance with its enemies ? Let them
swear allegiance to Lord John Russell—and a proper
head he would be for their pigmy State--abut what is
that to us ? They may overcome dustmen with their
dignity, and lead the watch upon its nightly rounds
with an exceeding air of the Field Marshal ; but St.
James's Palace trembles not on its foundations—St.
Paul's Cathedral stands as firm as ever. We remain
as though the Mayors were not. But seriously—what
is the practical political gain to the Ministerial faction
by these elections ? Answer us that, gentlemen
boasters. That you make a mighty hubbub we ad
mit ; but about- what ? Describe your advantage—
give it a name—tell us what it does to affect the
atrangtlx. ycxux. factims inthe House of Commons. You
point indeed to a number of towns, and you tell us that,
because the municipal elections have gone so and so,
the Conservative Members who now represent those
towns will not represent them again. This is easily
said ; but your reasons, Gentlemen, your reasons. You
might diligently enumerate twice as, many towns, and
gravely assure us that by reason of the late thaw no
more Conservative Members would or could be re-
turned by them. The other assertion would appear
not less absurd if all the world were as well aware of
the real circumstances of municipal elections as the}
are of the political independence of the weather. II
the municipal elections show that Conservative Mem-
bers will not be in future returned by the towns, it
must be, either that these new municipal officers exer-
cise a power ;in returning Members of Parliament
which they did- not exercise before, or that the election
of these officers affords a proof that, when Members of
Parliament come to be elected, candidates of similar
politics to these local busy-bodies will be returned.
Now there is not a particle of authority for as-
suming either of these two things. The new mu-
nicipal officers have not a jot of privilege as electors
of Members of Parliament. Neither does any
member of the old corporations, who, as such, exer-
cised a right of voting for Members of Parliament,
lose that right. It was, indeed, attempted (and a
most flagrant attempt it was—an audacious attempt to
break faith, and'to alter the Reform Bill)—it was, we
:•ay, attempted to take away from the old freemen the
right of voting ; but that clause was struck out of the
Bill by the House of Lords, and, absurd as the Bill
was, and is, in many respects, it has not effected the
iniquity of altering the elective rights of the people in
respect to Parliamentary Representatives. There is
no particle of power, for or against, as regards the
election of Members of Parliament, which these Mu-
nicipal elections alters or interferes with. But, next,
as to the evidence they afford of the probable result
when elections of a more important nature comes on.
As to that point, they show nothing, or worse than no-
thing, for they lead astray. It is not the same consti-
tuency—God forbid it were—which elects these paltry
councillors and elects Members of Parliament. It would
be quite as reasonable to supposethat the show of hands
in front of the hustings at an election is a decisive
proof of the result there will be at the poll, as to sup-
pose that the voice of the promiscuous rabble which
elects Municipal Councillors will prevail in electing
Parliamentary Representatives. Take a case in point :
look at Devizes. The Radicals have prevailed there
in electing these new "councillors," but did they pre-
vail at the election of a Member of the House of Com-
mons a few weeks ago ? No—they were beaten. In
short they had votes in one case and not in the other.
The result of one was no criterion of the result of the
other, nor is there (if people would tell the truth) any
ground to say that, generally, the municipal elections
are to be taken as samples of what would happen in
Parliamentary elections. At all events we do not fear
the trial. If the Ministerialists think they can by a
new election get a House of Commons more favour.
able to them than the present, why don't they try ?
But they do not think so. They know that their re-
presentations upon the subject are altogether false ;
and they are content to go on, depending solely upon
the assistance of Mr. O'Connell and his thirty-five,
because they cannot help themselves.—Morning Post.
The Tory trumpets sound the reveille, and call their
scattered forses to the field with a blast so loud and
shrill, as to make the whole welkin ring with warlike
note of preparation. They seem determined to bring
Up their truly forlorn hope for a desperate effort on
the meeting of Parliament. It is highly amusing to
witness the mode in which each partisan endeavours
to shift the disgrace of recent defeats from his own
shoulders, and to raise his reputation at the expense
of his fellows. The Times, who never stops at trifles,
thunders forth its abuse against the wholy body of
Conservatives, for not giving more cordial and zealous
support to Sir Robert Peel. It accuses them of
being actuated by the most despicable feelings, a fact
which the people never 4uestioned, but of which the
Times has occasionally appeared rather tardy in the
recognition. After calling those Conservatives who
do not attend their duty in the House
of Commons,
" idle gentlemen, the most despised order ?fthe human
race," their desertion of Sir Robert Peel is attributed
to envy. " The sting which vexes them," says
the Times, " is the more severe by reason of the Right
lion. Baronet's possessing, in an eminent degree, the
great feature of that rival aristocracy, of which the
thing, called ' birth ' is naturally, but meanly and ab-
surdly jealous, viz., the aristocracy of wealth." It