The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-13 00:00:00

fit teknillil 211- t

LONDON, FRIDAY,-JULY 13, 1849.

The dilatory progress of Reform may pass into a
proverb. " The course of true love never did run
smooth," says the poet, and assuredly the difficulties,
the delays, and the disappointments which check the
advancernent of Reform, outrival the uneven course
of any true love upon record. Notwithstanding the
liberal spirit which predominates throughout the
country (of which predominance the hearty response
to our. appeal for the Hungarians is a satisfactory
and conclusive evidence), notwithstanding the liberal
feeling of the country, and notwithstanding the fact
that a Liberal Ministry rules in Downing-street, the
proposal for shortening the duration of Parliament,
was onXednesday rejected by a majority of 132 to 57!
This result will excite a little surprise (only a little,
for experience has made us wise), some sorrow, and
very much indignation. The sentiments so eloquently
and heartily uttered in the House on Wednes-
day by the truly Liberal Representatives of Lam-
beth, Lualow, Manchester, Marylebone, and Montrose
are the .sentiments of the majority of the Liberals of
the United Kingdom. The people of this country
have an idea—it may be a somewhat extravagant one,
in some quarters perhaps it may be found an incon-
venient one—the people of this country have an
idea that names should represent things. Our matter-
of-fact " nation of shopkeepers" are not gifted with
that happy power of imagination, more marvellous
than the :philosopher's stone, by which sorrow and
sin and suffering, are converted into glory, and fine
words are valued above fine acts ; and the names of
truth, and honour, and philanthropy, supersede the
realities themselves. This happy faculty, which in old
times made a wreath of parsley more precious than
life itself, is hardly known in our foggy atmosphere.
J°llll Bind. requires substantial evidence before he
will part with his admiration or his money.
Those who are acquainted with this national weakness
(which unhappily Lord J. RUSSELL, Sir G. GREY, and
their colleagues are not) will, therefore, not be sur-
prised that an opinion is prevalent that a Liberal
Miniatry,should be liberal de facto as well as de jure.
Whether or not they are so the debate of Wednesday
may demonstrate. We commend that debate to the
attentive perucal of those who have not made up their
minds upon the above-mentioned point, or upon the
advisability of shortening the duration of Parliament.
The most cogent reason adduced in favour of
the alteration is to be found in Mr. IYEYNCOURT'S
remark, that " practically we have of late had short
Parliaments; and we have thus had all the evils and
none or the advantages of the system." Without
doubt Sir.G. GREY supposed that he was strengthen-
ing his cause when he reminded the House that "the
average duration of no lessthan six Parliaments, from
1826 to 1841, was only two years and a half," but so
far from-strengthening the Septennial cause, that ad-
mission gives it a death-hlow. We have, by this

' showing, already had short Parliaments in practice.
but not in theory, and thus, as Mr. D'ETNCOURT
truthfully observed, we have had all the evils and
none of the good of the system. We have had the
evils, if evils there be in the frequent re-formation (if
not reformation) of the House, but we have not had
the more than equivalent advantages of brief Parlia-
ments, because that brevity of duration was a matter
of chance, and moreover was not anticipated at the
time of the election. Hence, in the first place, that
too prevalent but most reprehensible system of
bribery and corruption which characterises
the election of Members of the House of Commons
has been in no wise diminished by the fact, that a
Parliament has only lasted for two or three years,
because that fact was not expected, and a seven years'
price had been paid. In the second place, the chief
advantage of a short Parliament—namely, theconstant
sense of responsibility whieh his brief tenure of
power imposes upon each individual Member, is lost
when that tenure is theoretically of long duration.
With seven years in prospect, he can afford to turn,
a deaf ear to the once "sweet voices " of his consti-

tuents. No matter if the pages of HANSARD falsify
the promises of the hustings, the day of reckoning is
far off, and the representative may misrepresent with
impunity. Those Legislators who truly redeem
the promises of their canvas, who worthily acquit
themselves of the trust reposed in them, can (it might
reasonably be supposed) have not the slightest objec-
tion to give a frequent account of their stewardship.
How, then, shall we account for the largeness of the
number of those who on Wednesday declared in favour
of the Septennial Act ? We should be unwilling,
indeed, to account for that majority by the inference
which so naturally suggests itself ; nevertheless, we
are somewhat disappointed to find in the list of the
anti-Reformers many names whose past associations
render that position most anomalous.

In the current number of the Edinburgh Review,
ust published,' appears a clever historical narrative
of the rights of the Magyars, rights which be-
longing to that great race during many pre-
ceding centuries, have been acknowledged by
the dynasty of Hapsburg during the last three
hundred years, namely, ever since that memor-
able battle of Mohacs which annihilated the
Royal line of Jagellon. So far from being a mere
nhas
fretn th
been recognisede
anas date
province
independentof Austn" a,
Hungary has
of 1526, when, although the Crowns became
blent together, the realms still continued
separate. This independence, indeed, was not only
an imprescriptable right enjoyed by many successive
generations, but it was expressly confirmed by the
voices of numerous monarchs, and by the writ ten
declaration of various public documents. Speaking
of the Hungarians, the Reviewer remarks very
felicitously, that " the pedigrees of their immunities
during the long space of three centuries (1526-1848)
continued unimpaired." By the coronation oath
solemnly pronounced at Presburg by fourteen Ger-
man successors to the Crown of St. Stephen, it was
proclaimed that Hungary enjoyed a dis-
tinct and independent nationality. That oath
had, been formally renewed in 1687, on the occasion
of the "elective" crown being " entailed" on the
I descendants of RUDOLPH. Its stipulation was for-
mally avowed, in 1723, by the words of the Prag-
matic Sanction. In 1790, when a comprehensive
compact was concluded between the Magyars and
LEOPOLD, it was explicitly recognised by the tenth
article of the treaty, that this right of independent
nationality could never be assailed without a direct
violation of the constitutional privileges of the
people. Beyond which, as a kind of supplementary
confirmation of all those formal and reiterated
assurances that the laws and liberties of
Hungary were in no degree subservient to those
enjoyed by the Austrians, it was guaranteed on the
I 1 th of April, 1848, by the ex-Emperor FEIV.
DINAND, in his character of King of HUNGARY,
that the people of that country should pos-
sess an independent Ministry responsible to the
Diet alone, and that the Palatine should hence-
forth retain the title, the pomp, and the authority of
a Viceroy.
So much for the immemorial rights of the Hun-
garians. So much for those rights which have been
asserted generation after generation after the union
of the imperial crown of RUDOLPH with the royal
diadem of St. Stephen. So much for those " con-
cessions," as they are styled by the camarilla at
Vienna, but as the Edinburgh Reviewer declares them
to be more correctly designated " the statutes (old
and new) of that kingdom." So much for those rights
which have been sworn to by fourteen Emperor-
Kings, and which are now assailed by fire and sword,
by pillage and incendiarism, by the cannon and the
gibbet, by cruelty and despotism. Those rights ex-
press themselves in the one fact, the constitutional
independence of Hungary, and upon this point thus
speaks the Edinburgh Review—" There can be no
clearer fact in the history of Europe than the consti-
tutional independence of Hungary." Further on the
same distinguished organ observes that the present
claims of the Hungarians " neither rest upon
doubtful traditions, nor are buried in obscure and
obsolete documents—Hungarian institutions are not
merely title-deeds, as old as the connexion of
Hungary and Austria; but both in their spirit and
their letter they have been solemnly recognised and
renewed at every election or accession to the
throne." And yet it is because the Magyars, under
KOSSUTH, are defending their ancient institutions
that they are stigmatized as rebels by my Lord JOHN
RUSSELL; and it is because their Liberator is
endeavouring to compass the glorious aims
of patriotism by all heroic achievements,
that he is slandered by every anonymous
bully paid to do the dirty work of reaction. While
the English Government and the Conservative press
are either by flagrant diatribes or by ambiguous com-
mentaries, striving to cast odium upon the Hunga-
rians, it behoves the English people to pronounce
themselves in the boldest language as a race which
sympathises with those illustrious soldiers of liberty.
This many of our countrymen have already done
Let others emulate their enthusiasm for freedom and
justice, by aiding the cause of Hungary, through the
medium of the Testimonial.