The Sun.
London, England, 1831-04-21 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

IR__The report. of the Ministerial declaration on the subject
of.SRA„nn, that the Government do not mean to insist for re-
duction of the Members of the Commons' House as a part of
the measure, has spread a general gloom over its well-wishers in
this quarter. After all the support which the country has
voluntecred—after the declarations of the Ministers, both in
Parliament and elsewhere, that " the Bill, the whole Bill, and
g but the Bill," should be the point on which they would
t
or fall, this new declaration has come like the shnoon's
stand idly" blast, to wither the hopes of the tree friends of th e country.
Radicals had been disarmed, universal suffrage was given up by
them, and entire satisfaction had been declared by all sects of re-
formers with the Bill as it had been ushered in. Universal joy
had been diffused throughout the land, for of the few Ultra.
Tories whose dissatisfaction at not being still fed from the
taxes, I take no account. And what is the case now ? Distrust,
doubts, and evil forebodings have entered into those minds
where, but yesterday, admiration and confidence held full sway.
Had the threat'of the immaculate Sir E. Sugden, that he would
not give his support to a Bill which diminished the number of
Members for England, while it added to the representatives of
Scotland and Ireland, any weight in inducing. the Ministers to
deviate from the original approved course ? And is it to be said
that at this day we are to hear of the distinctions of England,
Scotland, and Ireland ? Had the reformers in these two latter
divisions of the United Kingdom been as captious as this notable
Ex-official, could they not, and with some plausibility, have
asked upon the Bill being introduced, why, when a thorough
Reform is proposed, and when the principle of population is re-
cognised in the disfranchisement, why should the same principle
not operate in the enfranchisement ? Why should not Ireland
have half as many Members as England, and why should not Scot-
land have one-third or one-fourth as many ? But no—not a
word of complaint was heard ; all was satisfaction, and Ireland
with her 103, and Scotland with her 50 representatives properly
chosen, were contented that England should retain the larger
proportion of 445. But this arrangement is now to he abandoned,
and the cumbrous number of M.P.'s is to be retained, no one
knows why. It must surely be a popr consolation to Ministers to
think that they have disarmed a few of their opponents, at the
expense of unsettling the faith of their whole adherents and
supporters throughout the kingdom. Instead of making pro-
selytes from the ranks of their enemies, why not, if necessary,
recruit from those of their friends ? Why not dissolve, rather
than give the factious crew another opportnnity to twit them
with vacillation, and remind them of the budget. If the present
number of the House of Commons is to be retained, common
justice demands that a portion at least of the Members proposed
to have been dispensed with should be added to Scotland and
Ireland. But all conjecture on the subject here is at a stand—
confidence is shaken—doubts and apprehensions are afloat—lhe
hopes of the Ultras are reviving, and the radicals are reverting to
their former demands. I hope all may yet go well ; but I cannot
help partaking of the universal opinion here, that more injury
is likely to arise from departing, than could have arisen from
most rigidly adhering, even to the letter of the 13ill. I am,
Edinburgh, April 16. A SCOTCH REFORMER