The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-12 00:00:00

Lkirililta

LONDON, THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1851

It is reported of GEORGE the THIRD that, when
,hreatened with a Ministerial resignation en masse,
accompanied by gentle hints as to the impossibility of
any other party being capable of carrying on the go-
vernment of the country under the peculiar circum-
stances of the case, the MONARCH boldly declared
that he would go down to Charing-cross and call on
the first twelve honest men he met to form a Cabinet.
The unexpected determination thus exhibited as-
tonished the PREMIER. He found that he could
not reduce his SOVEREIGN to a mere cypher,
and that " the traditions of office" should be
dispensed with when vigorously and firmly resisted.
This salutary lesson was taught to a First Lord of
the Treasury, even in the " good old times," when
rotten boroughs flourished and the prices of seats in
the Legislature were as freely quoted in the market
as Consols, Bank Stock, or rail way shares are at the
present day. There was then, as there is at this
moment, a public spirit that would have resisted,
and successfully, every attempt at coercion or domi-
nation by any Parliamentary clique, however influen-
tial. If then, WILLIAM PITT in the heyday of power
and vigour of intellect; could not control " opinion,"
or carry his own views into execution, despite the
popular will, how can it be supposed that his suc-
cessors, men of very inferior abilities, could, under
much less favourable circumstances, overcome diffi-
culties that foiled their great predecessor ? " The
people" will not now consent to be bound or to sur-
render their judgments to any persons whatsoever,
whether the present or quondam possessors of office.
It would seem, however, as if Sir CHARLES WOOD
supposed that the calm and deliberate decision of the
popular branch of the Legislature, sanctioned and
confirmed by the approbation of the community in
general, could be controlled and set aside through the
unreasonable and improper refusal of some parties
to serve on the Committee of Inquiry into the
mode of assessing and collecting the Property,
and Income-tax. The vast experience, the won-
derful acquirements of the " Nestor of Fi
nance" have suddenly acquired almost miraculous
authority in the eyes of the Right Honourable
Baronet. 'Without the help, aid, and assistance of
Mr. HERRIES and the recusant Peelites, he (Sir
CHARLES) could not possibly enter upon the investi-
gation. With the becoming modesty for which he
is so celebrated he declared that " if he were to serve
on the Committee he would find himself in a difficult
position, being the only person having experience in
financial matters on the Committee," and that " it
would be impossible for him to do his duty to the
public creditor unless adequately supported." If the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford
be really of such pre-eminent powers that nothing
could be accomplished without his intervention, why
is not the Government of the country surrendered
into his hands and those of his colleagues ? The
present Ministers have not only deeply felt, but they
have acknowledged their weakness—openly and can-
didly avowed it to their SOVEREIGN, to both Houses
of Parliament, and to the country. Nothing can
he done, crede Sir CHARLES WooD, on the most im-
portant question that could be brought under the
legislative notice, if Mr. HeartrEs refuses his assis

ance. How easy then must it be for the Right Hon
Gentleman to overthrow any Government ! It re.

quires no actual defeat--no motion as to a want 01
._ _

confidence or other direct proceeding—sufficient if
the Member for Stamford abstain from taking an
active part in the public business of the country.
whether his absence be occasioned by a timely
fit of the gout, or the " pressure of his public and
private engagements," or, what is, perhaps, just as
probable, a desire that he should have the matter
altogether in his own hands when he can grasp
the seals of office, without being fettered or re-
strained by any report of a Committee, particularly
of one of which he himself had been a member.
The Protectionists desire to abolish the property-
tax, because they believe that if that be abrogated
the exigencies of the Exchequer will re-
quire the imposition of duties on articles of

primary necessity, and amongst them the resuscitaT
. . . . . . _

:ion of their much loved " bread tax." According to
,heir views, anything in the shape of direct taxation

[s to be eschewed ; and therefore the more

objecticnable and the more inequitable the

mode of assessing and levying the charge
the better, as it is the more likely to excite the dis-

gust and indignation of the people, and to be con-
demned by their representatives. On the other hand,
Sir CHARLES WOOD wishes to retain the charge,
but he loves it for its very imperfections, and
if materially improved it would lose favour in his
sight. He has therefore given an exaggerated notion
of the evil to be occasioned by the refusal of
Mr. HERRIES and the Peelites to serve on

the Committee, desirous of evading the v pro-
mised inquiry, but not seeing that he is
thus playing the game of his opponents. 'We believe,
however, that the country would greatly prefer such
an inquiry being carried on before men of
sound common sense, than before a body of
practised red-tapists, whose intellects were tied
down by specified rules, which they regarded with
superstitious reverence, and which prevented them
from taking enlarged and comprehensive views on any
subject. The CuaNcELLog of the EXCIIEQUER him-
self will be a sufficient obstacle to any great
improvement, and it will be a consummation devoutly
to be wished for, if he should indeed be " the only
person having (official) experience on financial mat-
ters serving upon the Committee."

Nothing new under the sun, is one among those
coxcomical aphorisms which, considered according
to their popularly regarded signification,
arc being
almost every day disproved, now by some enter
prizing speculator, now by some scientific experi-
mentalist. It is of course true enough, and obvious
enough into the bargain, that the laws of Nature,
being immutable in themselves, are the same now
that they were at the first instant of creation, and
that consequently nothing can therefore be termed
mineaning
new according to the more recondite acceptation.
But to say that there is nothing new in the vulgar
Tdiscoveries
of the phrase, is little less then an absurdity
anage
sufficient
tonit
etur remarkablee for so many marvellous
and
b electric telegraph
alone would be a
illustration that marvels hitherto
have started into life in the pre- I