The Sun.
London, England, 1833-01-24 00:00:00

anomaly. It was not thought that there ought
to be towns of two and four thousand person
with the right of returning Members to Parlia-
ment ; btit it was found impossible, without
exciting an opposition that would have proved
fatal to the Bill, to disfranchise wholly or partially
a greater number of towns than those contained
in Schedules A. and B. It Was not thought
that it was good to perpetuate the influence of
powerful individuals in these boroughs; but it
was found impossible to destroy it.
2d. " The Ballot would he destructive of our Consti-
tution of King, Lords, and Commons, which cannot exist
xcept by the influence which the several orders of the
State exercise over one another."

But if the ballot do not destroy that influence,
it cannot destroy the Constitution of _King,
Lords, and Commons.

3d. " The cases where influence is most exercised, is
where men, struggling to supply their daily wants, and
having no opinion, or strong opinion, follow in ordinary
tiins-s the opinions of those superior to them in station.
It is shaken off (says our contemporary), whenever the
feelings of the nation are excited on any great question
which becomes palpable to the understanding of the
voters; and in ordinary times it is quite as well that men
who-may be so easily led, should be somewhat biassed in
fivour of the estahli-heil Constitution (which may be ex
pected to have a greater number of adherents among the
rich than the poor), as that they should vent any momen-
tary and ill-considered animosity in the balloting-box•"
Here again the whole question is begged. In
ordinary times, it is understood the rich may be
expected to bias the poor, but not in times of
great excitement. But why should i be pre-
sumed that these men will vent any momentary
and ill-considered animosity in the balloting-box
in ordinary times ? Why should it be pre-
sumed that the more humble voters are less
biassed in favour of the Constitution than
the rich ? There is no analogy between
the House of Peers shrouding itself in se-
crecy, and the voters sheltering themselves
from persecution in secrecy. The House
of Peers, as part of the Legislature, owe a re-
sponsibility to the nation; the voters are the
nation it elf—responsible to no other body for
the exercise of the franchise. The anomalies of
the limited constituencies do not destroy the
rule. They are imperfections which are tole-
rated, only because the improvements introduced
will render them harmless. Throughout the
whole of the above article there is a continual
begging of the question—that the influence of
rich and educated individuals would be de-
stroyed by depriving them of the power of corn-
pulsion.—Morning Chronicle.
We commented yesterday upon the importance
which the circumstances of the times attach to
the intentions of the King's Ministers. We
said that from some of them we predicted no-
thing but a continued obedience to those clubs
and committees whose members may be less in-
structed but cannot be more dishonest than
themselves. We said that to others we looked
with an anticipation of graver wisdom and severer
virtue. We return to this theme to-day. We
remarked that there was one individual whom
above all others we watched with anxious in-
terest. We alluded, our readers felt that we
alluded, to Mr. Stanley. Of the names on
wrich the transactions of the past year have
stamped distinction there is not one which
honest and honourable men contemplate at
this , moment with so much of hope, or
wilt so much of fear. It is not because he
posses-es great abilities—there are men in
the Administration of older exeerience,
of more extensive knowledge, of more
commanding eloquence ; it is not because he holds
high office—there are men in the Administration
who receive a larger pay, and dispose of a more
valuable patronage. It is because he unites in a
remarkab:e degree incidental with personal qua-
lification ; it is because he combines a conside-
ration based upon hereditary rank and official posi-
tion with the more gratifying respect which is
founded upon recognised intellectual strength
and imputed moral integrity. We do not express
our own opinion of Mr. Stanley ; we record rather
what is said of him by the more temperate
adherents of either party, and by those yet more
impartial observers who keep themselves aloof
from all. Yet let us at once admit that there are
many recollections which lead us to sympathize
in some measure with his admirers, and to echo
much of their praise. The Mr. Stanley
of 1830 was not the Mr.\ Stanley of 1833.
He was younger in years ; he was less
powerful in talents, or less conscious of his
power ; above all, he was far less sure of
public confidence and esteem. By the Admi-
nistration of which be was a Member, after a
series of blunders which had proved their inca-
pacity, of defeats which had shown their weakness,
an extensive measure of Parliamentary Reform
was introduced. It has been asserted, whether
truly or erroneously will be for ever a matter
of dispute, that he regarded the changes medi-
tated by that measure with doubt and alarm.
But the schism of a disciple from the teachers
in whose school he has studied requires no
ordinary strength of mind, and the secession
of a young placeinan from a tottering Ministry
incurs no enviable severity of interpretation.
Mr. Stanley supported Lord. John Russell's
bill not only with an unflinching energy, not
only with an unexpected eloquence, but fre-
quently, from the circumstances of his connection
with the Government of Ireland, with a sacri-
fice of personal feeling and an apparent forgetful-
ness of self-respect, which we have often sorrow-
fully condemned, and which he must sometimes I
have bitterl regretted. Let us not be misun-
derstood. Of the measure to the success of
which he thus contributed we shall never speak
but in language of the deepest reprobation. The
Reform Act has, in our belief, substituted the do-
minion
of many lin the dominion of the educated ;
it has set up worse government in the place of
better ; it has endangered the stability of
our throne, and shaken the foundations of our
altar. But if we call Mr. Stanley enemy we can-
not deem him traitor. He had not been the
proud pupil of the Statesman whose most cite
rished doctrines lie attacked. He had not writ-
ten elaborate essays in defence of the institutions
whose antiquity lie derided, and whose utility
he denied. He was contented the!' to follow
the opinions of others; it mu t not be assumed
that he is now unable to aet upon his own. He
has hitherto been not fully tr ed ; he cannot yet
be fairly doubted. The Mr. Stanley of 1833
is not the Mr. Stanley of 1830. He has had
in two years an experience winch, in ordinary
dines is not compressed into twenty. He is
stronger, and more aware of his strength. He
is regarded by his country wi h an esteem
which, if he has but barely earned, he should
not be hasty to cast aside. A feeble Ad-
ministration, divided against itself, and strug-
gling with almost triumphant adversaries, he
might be ashamed to desert. A powerful faction,
before which all opposition seems for the present
silenced, it may be rash, but it cannot be base,
to withstand. Moreover, although he relin-
quished no principle in going thus far, he must
resign all principle before he can go much far-