The Sun.
London, England, 1833-01-22 00:00:00

SPMIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The report of the first meeting of the new
constituency of the city of London, which ap-
pears in our columns this day, will be read with
different impressions by different parties. The
Radicals will find it altogether to their taste—the
Conservatives or Tories will, perhaps, denounce
it as a revolutionary movement, but they will
secretly rejoice at it, as a bitter pill to the Whigs.
The Whigs will, of course, cry out against it,
as a blow aimed at their power; while that clan'
of Reformers who advocate reform for its own
sake, without reference to the Treasury Bench,
or the consideration of who shall occupy it,
will probably wish that the attention of the
meeting had been directed to objects of more im-
mediate and pressing interest than those whicl'
were selected by the requisitionists. But, what-
ever may be the different shades of opinion
amongst the community as to what the meeting
ought to have done, there existed in are
meeting itself a spirit so much resembling
unanimity as to leave very little doubt that
its example will produce a powerful influence in
other places. There is another conclusion to
be drawn from the same meeting, applicable to
the right which that and similar assemblages
claim of dictating to their representatives in
Parliament. That conclusion results from the
fact of stringing three such important questions
together as the repeal of the Septennial Act, the
adoption of the ballot, and the abolition of the
assessed taxes. Who will deny that any one
these questions is important enough to occup\
one debate of itself ? • The hnnping of then:
all three together is, therefore, but an awkwaro
compliment to the deliberative character of a hod
which professes to anticipate the decision co
Parliament by the right which it claims over the
'Members of that Parliament in directing how
they shall vote. It will be a curious, and, as s
conceive, not a very reasonable motive for any
representative to assign against voting one wa)
upon a question discussed for a whole night in the
House of Commons, that he was ordered to vote
another way, after a sort of partnership discus-
sion in another place, in which the same ques-
tion was despatched at the same time with two
or three of equal importance. But the consti-
tuency of London will have it that they can kill
three birds with one stone, and accordingly the)
have decided upon those three great points
almost in a breath, and certainly with very little
consideration. Their representatives, who, wit!
the exception of Mr. Waithmau, were all pre-
sent, subscribed on the instant to the instruc-

tions imposed on them, so that it is not impro-
bable but through their means those topics ma)
be forced upon the consideration of the Legis
lature, to the postponement of more practical
and imperative demands. The conduct of tht
Lotd Mayor, not only in convening the meet.
ing, but in presiding over it with a temper s(
conciliatory and a spirit so impartial, appears tt
have given, as it was calculated to give, verb
general satisfaction to all parties. It is gratify.

Trig to see the Chief Magistrate conforming it
the wishes of a large portion of his fellow-citi-
zens, even though the purpose they have in vievt
may not always be such as in his conscience he
can approve, or in his judgment he can consider
best adapted to the ends which they propose
themselves to realize.—Morning Herald.
The meeting of the constituency of the city
to petition Parliament on the subject of the as-
sessed taxes, repeal of the Septennial Act, and
vote by ballot, which was held yesterday, way
Tory numerously attended. A long letter from
Mr. Alderman Waithman was partly read before
the business of the meeting commenced. L.

this lettter, Mr. Alderman Waithman, withou'
stating that the Septennial Act and the assessed
taxes ought to be continued, and that the votin,!
by ballot was objectionable, expressed himself
against petitioning at this time, as Ministers hadl
shown such a disposition to do all they could
for the people, that they ought to receive credi
for the will to do all they possibly could ; andl
with respect to short Parliaments and vote lit
ballot, without underrating their importance, h.
thought that their consideration might be post-
poned without public injury or inconvenience.
whereas other questions of perilous moment andl
vital interest could not with safety be post-
polled. When Parliament meets, allowane(
will no doubt be made by the representative
of the nation for the exigencies of the crisi-.
But it strikes us that the course recommended
by Mr. Alderman Wait hman is one more suited
to the period which preceded the Reform Par-
liament than the present. The nation was thet
looking to Ministers for a representation ; i

now has a representation ; and having a repre
sentation, it is for the people to express, throng!
their representatives, their feelings and wishes
that Ministers may be guided thereby. Mi-
nisters will communicate to Parliament th.

knowledge their situation enables them to pos-
sess regarding the state of the country, and tin
representatives of the people will, no doubt,
show even disposition to attend to the sugges-
tions of Ministers. But, on the other hand,

,
it is for Ministers to be guided in en,

measures they propose by the sentiments o'
• the nation, as expressed through their represen-
tatives. Now, if the people feel themselves
particularly oppressed by some of the assessed
taxes, and if they feel also that open voting
strikes at the very root of freedom of election.
they are justified in calling on Parliament te
remedy the evil with as little delay as possible.
What renders the people somewhat more sensi-
tive on this subject than they would otherwise
. _

be, is the proof afforded to them that Ministers
have actually prejudged the question of ballot
and triennial Parliaments. They have decided
against the ballot ; and, in their view of the
question, it is not for the people or their repre-
v.nratives to question the decision. In the
Edinburgh Review for January, which made its
appearance in the metropolis yesterday, there is.
an article on the Reformed Parliament, and

more particularly the ballot, in which it is not
difficult to trace the style of one of the highest
authorities of the country, and in which the
author does not deprecate the agitation of the
question of the ballot at this time, but contends
that open voting is preferable. The argument
for the ballot may be said to be in a
nut-shell ; but the writer in the Edinburgh
Review has not met it. In fact, he has merely
gone over the ground travelled lately by the
Times. One of our contemporaries (the Globe)
took a bolder ground, for he did not scruple to
argue, that independent voting was an evil ; that
the people ought to vote as those on whom they
were dependent, in their relations of tenants and
customers, wished them to vote, and that there-
fore the ballot, in so far as it allowed the voter
to act on his own opinions, was objectionable.
The Edinburgh Reviewer, however, though his
motives were, no doubt, the same .at bottom—
namely, the wish,:tht elections shoUld be in
financed by persons of property—proceeds as if