The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-02 00:00:00

deCisive indication of what practical fruits it
was intended the people should derive from the
Reform Bill. To be sure there are instances of
individual virtue afforded by the discussion of
Tuesday night, which it is quite edifying to con-
template. Sir F. Burdett, the once-flaming pa-
triot, sacrifices his passion for economy and re-
trenchment to that comprehensive and disinte-
rested love of country which begins and ends in
upholding the power of the existing occupants
of the Treasury benches. Dr. Lushington,
with the same exalted motive, makes up his
mind to lay down his popularity. We hope he
does not spoil his chances of preferment by this
self-denial; and a severe act of self-denial it must
be, considering that it was only the other day he
moved a most vehement resolution against the
house and window tax at the meeting at the
Crown and Anchor ! As to Sir John Cam
Hobhouse, he has made a twofold sacrifice, and
has thereby given an example of purity which the
Government Papers tell us is actually without
parallel. We must confess that some suspicion
is thrown on the bona fide character of the pro-
ceeding by this inflated praise bestowed upon it
in the Ministerial Papers. We recollect that the
resignation of Sir Henry Parnell, into whose
shoes of office Sir John originally stepped, was
saoken of in a very different tone by those same
Ministerial journals. Sir Henry declined to
vote for the vile Russian-Dutch loan job, as Sir
John declined to vote for Lord Althorp's mo-
tion. Retirement from office was the conse-
quence ; and, because he had dared to prefer
his conscience to his place, the Ministerial
Papers described him as an insubordinate Mem-
ber of the Cabinet, who was very properly
cashiered. They said nothing of his purity or
his virtue. Now if Sir John Hohhouse had
resigned his seat in the Cabinet, without accept-
ing the Chiltern Hundreds also, what was to
prevent him voting as an independent Member
of Westminster in favour of the interests of his
constituents and against the assessed taxes ?
Having retired from the Cabinet he was free to
vote against the Ministry on Sir John Key's
motion, without being chargeable with insubor-
dination. We recollect that he had contrived
also to exchange office with Mr. Stanley just
before the last discussion on flogging in the
army was to come before the House. He was
thereby prevented from being . present on that
occasion, because his seat was of course vacated.
Was this public virtue, or was it manoeuvre ? As
-to the assessed taxes, we are quite sure the
people will not bear the "go by" which the re-
formed House of Commons has given to that
question patiently. The surcharges of late have
made them so wide awake that they are not
likely to fall asleep on that subject soon again.
We see that already circulars are issued, pre..
paratory to the re-election of Sir John Hob-
house. This he naturally calculated upon. If
Westminster be not reduced in spirit to the
condition of a nomination borough—if it be not
as politically rotten as Gatton or Old Sarum,
it will now put it to him whether he will try
the House of Commons again this session on
the subject of the assessed taxes: for if the Mi-
nisters can call upon the reformed House to re-
vise its decisions, so we think can the people.
Will Westminster also call upon Sir John to
say, whether, if he accept another office under
the Crown, he will stipulate for freedom of action
in supporting his principles as the' independent
Member of a great popular constituency? Let
us remind both him and the electors of
the sentiments of a virtuous Minister.
When Sully, the favourite Minister of
Henry IV. of France, was told by a high minion
of the Court that the King had a right to make
presents and places for his favourites and the
nobles, he answered, " Your Grace, this were
well enough if the King took the money from
his own purse; but it is against reason to take it
from the shopkeepers, artisans, and agricultural
labourers, since it is they who support the King
and all of us." If France always had such wise
and honest Ministers as Sully, she never would
have experienced the horrors of a revolution.
We fear that the conduct of Ministers and
the House of Commons will drive the people on
extreme doctrines. Such conduct will undoubt-
edly give strength to the advocates ofshort Par-
' liaments, the ballot, and a more extensive parti-
cipation of the elective franchise. Hence new
struggles and results upon which no man can
calculate.—illorning Herald.
It is an ungrateful task to blame for the diffe-
rence of a day, men who have won our con-
fidence by the sympathies of many years, and
we are are never willing to censure an error of
the conduct, where it is impossible to question
the integrity of the motive. We say, therefore,
nothing of the policy adopted on Tuesday by
the Conservatives, except that we are sorry to
see an opportunity lost of removing unfortunate
prejudices, of conciliating dangerous animosi-
ties, and of rallying about the only leaders in
whose hands we wish to see power reposed, the
only followers by whose support they can honour-
ably obtain power. The opinion we entertained
of the proposal of Lord Althorp was expressed
on Tuesday, without asperity we trust, but
certainly without reserve. What we did not
endeavour to dissemble, we have now no desire
to retract. We think the vote on Lord Al-
thorp's motion a most unhappy one. Our
horror of a property tax is not, we confess, so
strong as that which Sir R. Peel appears to
entertain for it; but if we hated a property
' tax as fiercely as Mr. Cobbett hates a Jew, or
Mr. Buxton a planter, we should have pre-
ferred the imposing of a property tax, to the
rescinding of the vote on the malt tax. The
decisions of Tuesday night have injured, in
the estimation of the country, almost all men
of almost all parties ; Whigs and Tories ; Lord
Althorp and Mr. Baring ; Members for large
counties and Members for populous towns.
The House of Commons itself has forfeited
whatever doubtful respect was yet professed for
it by those who were most tartly in their con-
version from error, or least willing to avow their
conversion. But we leave these topics, and pro-
ceed to look into the history of these extraordi-
nary proceedings for lessons which hereafter
may be useful both to the governors and the
largewhich csoinrs
jtiottilienncHieosbiombusseervaendthse
governed. Let those who seek the suffrages of
tsi es
Bur-
dett, irdFiffiracnucli
and Dr. Lushington and Mr. William
Brougham, have placed themselves by the readi-
ness with which they promised what they so readily
discovered it would be
impossible to perform.
Patriots, brazen of forehead, indefatigable of
lungs, have been for years insisting on the repeal
of a particular tax, and, for their perseverance,
have been sent triumphantly to Parliament by
all the respectability
of Covent garden, and
all the philosophy of the Crown and Anchor.
Grave and experienced lawyers, within the last
few weeks—nay, within the last few days—
have been attending meetings of their consti-
tuents, called for the purpose of remonstrating
against the continuance of this taxi and they have