The Sun.
London, England, 1841-08-31 00:00:00

of it, or even disgusting their followers by preaching
the hateful doctrine of finality.
We must look at their conduct as men expected to
serve their party, and as .Ministers of the Crown
bound to promote the public benefit. In this latter
capacity, considering the diversity of views which
prevail as to legislation, those Ministers per-
haps best perform their duty who administer
the laws as they find them, without attempting altera-,
tions, except they be like the Corn-laws, glaringly and
palpably unjust. In the opinion, however, of most per-
sons, the Ministers have sinned against their duty to the
public by not promoting more extensive schemes of le-
gislative improvement.
Some excuse may be found for them in the youth of
the QUEEN. WiLmessi the Foment was a mature, and
even an aged man, when he gave Parliamentary Reform.
The QUEEN is yet too young to 'save very clear and de-
cided opinions on such subjects, and her tutor might
find in that circumstance an obligation to effect as few
changes as possible till her MazesTy was able to judge
for herself. Considering this circumstance, the strong
force opposed to them, and, still more, considering that
Lord JOUN RUSSELL has declared it was their conscien-
tious opinions that further organic reforms should not
be granted, we are inclined to :oppose that, as Ministers
of the Crown, they conceived :hat they did their duty
by not urging forward large legislative improvements.
They have failed, in our opinion, much more as chiefs
of one of the great parties of the State, than as Ministers
of the Crown. Behold Sir R. PEEL. He cares not an
atom either for the Crown or the public, except as caring
for both serves the purposes of his party. He takes
no step, he utters no sentence, without having the suc-
cess of his party in view. To build up that, to add to it
additional buttresses, to lop off over-hanging excre-
cencies, to moderate the ardour of some, to stimulate the
exertions of others, to form a homogeneous corps of well-
trained troops, each man, both in the House and the
country being disciplined almost like a body of Jesuits,
to promote the success of the Tories, has been the great
object of his study from Me moment that he told his
friends to watch the registration till he kissed her
MAJESTY'S hand on accepting office yesterday.
The Whigs have not pursued a similar course. They
have taken no pains whatever to build up their
party. They have not even disposed of their patro-
nage judiciously for that end. They have attended
neither to discipline within doors, nor to in-
fluence without. They have given registration to the
winds. They have, in fact, had no head, and each de-
partment has been administered rather to serve the pri-
vate friends of the Ministers than form and strengthen
a homogeneous party of Whigs.
A strong-minded chief, keeping in check the crotchets
of some, and stimulating the indolence of others, would
never have had his ranks forsaken by one man of talent,
but crowds of aspirants would have been anxieus to
enter them. The reverse has been the case with Lord
MELBOURNE ; and if the Ministers have neglected their
duty to .the public, they have altogether forgotten their
duty to their party.
They wanted an efficient, ambitious, and vigorous
party chief. Lord MELBOURNE never was, and, by na-
ture, never could be, fit for such a post. His sincerity
and good nature unfitted him for the office. This made
him yield to his oppponents— that made him affront those
whom it was incumbent on him to please and gain.
Nor is Lord J. RUSSELL different. Had he kept the
good of his party in view he would never have
affronted Mr. WAKLEY by an ill-timed sarcasm, m r
would Lord MELBOURNE have been forward to disclaim
all the support the Manchester Conference was calcu-
lated, if judicionaly dwelt upon, to give to the Whigs,
and the measures they had brought forward. The Whigs,
then, we conclude, have lost their power rather from in-
judicious party management than from improperly admi-
nistering public affairs.
The new Government is now to be formed, and gentle-
men regard this as a great event. They speak of it in
a solemn undertaker kind of tone, with affected gravity,
as if some dear friend or parent had departed this world
for ever, whom they were to know no more, but by his
heritage. A sense of great responsibility appears all at
once to overwhelm them, and they seem willing to forego
the possession of the estate, could they restore the de-
parted to life. But what seems so awful to them is for
the public at large .a matter ahnost.of indifference—one
set of gentlemen are shoved into the places of another.
It is a change merely of names, not of things. No prin•
ciple •is altered, no new measures are proposed. The
Whigs cross hands with the Tories ; Lord J. RUSSELL
compliments them for their gentlemanly opposition ;
Lord STANLEY compliments Lord JOHN for his great
talents and great perseverance, which are admired by all,
and the people stare with astonishment to see the men
they were told were fighting to the death for some great
principle, involving the fate of the country, only differ-
ing as to where they shall sit in the I-louse of Commons;
when that is determined, they are the best friends pos-
sible. They seem to laugh at the people as dupes. .They
have called them to take part in their mighty contest
only apparently to tell them in the end that they have
been making fools of the public.
But are the Whigs and Tories quite so sure that the
people will be made fools of ? The parties may have
degraded the bread-tax conflict to a dispute whether
there shall be a fixed tax or a sliding scale ; but the
people will not take that view of the question. With
them it is bread-tax or no bread-tae, free trade or re-
striction; and notwithstanding the temporary success of
the mondpolists—notwithstanding the defeat of the
Whigs—the cause of the people has made, by these
party disputes, prodigious progress. The bulk of the
aristocracy, and the bulk of the priesthood, were against
us ; the party dispute has enlisted a large part of the
former on our side. That itself is a prelude tti
The Whigs, free from the trammels of office, will b 8•
come bolder politician& They must throw themselves
more on the people ; they must form more decided prim
ciples of Government; and:more comprehensive schemes
of policy. They have come into the school of adversity
to learn, and we look on their defeat. tt the forerunner
of the complete success of free trade.

it twist he Oitiiniely geatitying to the AntidireadxidA
tkittgue, to observe that their new champion in the House
of Commons, Mr. COBDEN, has at once earned for himself
the notice and abuse of the Tory journals. The Post of
Friday, which rates other journals for their vulgarity,
being itself a most courteous gentlewoman, implies that
he is an idiot for asserting that the family of a man of
two hundred thousand per year expends no more for
bread than the family of the common labourer. The
Post should examine if the assertion be correct before
it abuses the gentleman who, the Post asserts, makes it.
Of course neither Mr. ConDEN, nor any one else,
meant to assert, or, in fact, did assert—for the phrase
criticised by the Post is not found in other papers, and
seems to be a mistake of its own Reporter—that a la-
bourer, whose family consists of seven persons, himself,
his wife, and five children, expends as much on bread
as is expended to supply bread for a nobleman's house-
hold, consisting of himself, his lady, five children, and
at his different mansions two hundred servants and re-
tainers. These are expressly excluded from considers-
tionl because being luxuries which the nobleman might
dispense With, if they were included, his horses and
doo who consume a portion of agricultural peoditaZi.,
nil the tradesmen he employs, who do the like, and oh
whom a portion of his income is expended, should itho

c.thz ziaesilon is 1:o't 3idry a noblertun of hOw a la-
-letiliiiliS hit intes3iiir„ blit What bdititifi thb
ii6dieinan and by the labourer;
his own and on his fathiliei:=::his Wife afitt
—indispensibte*COngitiiPtikin'.
.theie is tfl3 hirtitEi;
can atVtike U:PM% in atsertir.g that the labourer pays
nidie; df the bread.-tat; in this sense; than
the nableetnati. 1116 latter 'ebiistimea cdttiPtiiatif,6l littt
M'CiA; and big Lily diela
variety of articles, such as chocolate; maecafortii wine,
preserved fruits, &c.; Whieh fOr
his use. Thelbilikeit dri
bad and potatoes; and if ho and his
°Family do n'Ot 'consul:de more bf these than are
consumed by the itOhlentiti's farailyt df •ftrhilSe
aeLA.ie Itte.Y fohn if pit a, let the kill ~Midge it9,o
Wretchedly the labourer and his family must be fed-. From
our knowledge of the mode of living of the tIYQ
we believe more bread is consumed by the tAtiottiti,' fa:
rnik'y than by that Of~ tWe ikoblenlkt.k
the tik .oil flit 4ia40,14.:?.,a15y of life, it is quite correct, and
hounds, to say, that,the labourer pays as much,
or snore, than the mart with two hundred tlinlishnd a-
year. One of the worst effects of the tat is the severity
with which it falls on those; like day,labetifefS4 *hose
subsistence consists chiefly, or almost exclusively, of
bread.

The nines, with somewhat mare eourtt,sy than the
Post, condpscends to examine some of Mr. COBDEN'S
arguments. It admits their plausibility; anti only essays
to refute them by ascribing to Mr. COBDEN what he
did not say. "We do,now compete with foreigners in
the neutral market," said Mr. COBDEN, but that does not
" throw overboard the danger to our tratio from foreign
competition." The competition of foreigners is daily
becoming more dangerous, and from its great progress
the greatest danger is apprehended in future. The
Times infers from the fact, that we have hitherto been
able to compete with foreigners; that the distress of our
people arises from over-trading. We are sorry to see
that once-enlightened Journal on economical subjects
adopt this prejudia.,.. Our. merchants might fail frm
over-trading, as in 1837, but their over-trading is exias
work for the people, and should, at le.ast while it