The Sun.
London, England, 1834-12-11 00:00:00

' opposition to the removal of the penal laws, or of the
Test Act, had a tendency to make him afterwards
throw unfair obstacles in the way of Dissenters or
Roman Catholics, or in any manner to frustrate or
embarrass the operation of the legislative indulgencies
Which, although he had been himself their instrument,
had been imparted to each of these classes of his fel-
low-subjects avowedly against his inclination ? There
is, indeed, no doubt that if the Duke's free will had
been consulted, his disposition was no more favourable
to those changes in the old law, which he himself pro-
posed to Parliament, than to that which was subse-
quently not only introduced, but carried into law, in
spite of him. But the Reform Bill is now the law ;
the powers and privileges which it conferred are le-
galized. How, then, can any being but an incurable
and envenomed partisan pretend to greater alarm on
behalf of the people generally, lest the " Conservative"
Government should deal unfairly--should clog, or vex,
or impede the constitutional action of our representa-
tive reform, or the constitutional progress of those
further reforms to which its enactment has given
birth, and the completion of which it has necessitated,
than that its chief members should strive to defeat the
working of those preceding reforms in favour of the
Dissenters and the Catholics, which had been equally
struggled against by the " Conservatives," and the
principle of them equally disapproved ? The plain
truth is, that all derivative reforms, ecclesiastical,
municipal, and every other, stand upon the same iden-
tical foundations as the Reform of Parliament itself
—they can no more be impeded than it can be un-
dermined. If the will of the people declare for such
measures, it must be no less powerful than in the
choice of their Representatives ; it must be equally
respected by any Government, not altogether crazed,'
as the freedom of election itself ; and any attempt
to stop the course of Church or Corporate Reform
once called for by the country, would be no less
a deliberate suicide than would be a Royal manifesto
for determining the choice of Members of Parliament
by the will and pleasure of the Crown. The fear
professed of the Duke of 'Wellington's or Sir Robert
Peel's anti-reform projects is now an insane fear, or a
factious and pitiful hypocrisy. But suppose for a mo-
ment that the bark of these foxes in sheep's clothing
should succeed, and that a sufficient number of the new
House of Commons to constitute a majority should,
by some precipitate vote, oblige the " Conservatives"
to retire,—is it quite certain that the gentlemen of
the country have prepared themselves for what might
might be the 'consequence ? Have they secured a fit-
ting description of Ministers to succeed the present ?
To whom is it probable that the handkerchief would
next be thrown ? Not to Lord Grey. Not, we ap-
prehend, to Lord Melbourne. We wish to look at
this question calmly, for it is one of real mo-
ment to us all, of whatever party. What descrip-
tion of Cabinet could be formed among those in whose
hands the property of the country and its religious in-
stitutions and the integrity of the empire could be
deemed safe by men of sense and sound principles
and patriotic feelings ? Of the original Cabinet
of Lord Grey, half of its original members had aban-
doned office. Lord Melbourne had tried how far he
could go towards the torrid zone of self-confessed de-
mocracy without setting Whitehall on. fire. Suppose
that by any accident we will say nothing of disagree-
ment—but through some affection of the trachea, or
the brain, even two of his Lordship's colleagues had
been obliged to leave him,—we ask any sober-minded
man to answer us, for Lord Melbourne, where could
he have looked for their successors ? We apprehend
that the resources of the old Whig party had been com-
pletely exhausted ; at least, that the noble Viscount
had stooped the cask containing any thing under the
semblance of Cabinet liquor, until nothing, literally,
but the very lees were left in it. Then if a Whig
Ministry were to be again resorted to, requiring, as it
would inevitably require, recruits and reinforcements

from beyond its own small area, where, we ask once
more, could they be obtained ? Not from the Stanley
section, which went off in a body .on a late occa-
sion, and whose indignation at the " thimble-
rig" proceedings which occasioned their departure
was expressed in no measured terms. Perhaps from
the liberal portion of the Conservatives themselves
Why, they are in the Government already—they tom-
pose the Government—and if ousted to-day, from un-
worthy distrust of their intentions or their wisdom, is it
likely they would condescend to coalesce with, and to-
morrow serve under, those whose distrust had forced
them to resign ? Well, then, nothing, positively
nothing (so far as we now can judge), would remain
as material for a new Ministry, but a medley of half-
united Whigs, and fierce and reckless Radicals, of
whom O'Connell, in the House of Commons, plays
the part of mountebank, and Joseph Hume of clown I
and such would be the forlorn-hope of those who raise
a- preliminary outcry against such Ministers as the
Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel. In the
House of Lords, the Earl of Durham appears to have
made himself the exponent of the Radical power ; but
unless the Members of the last Cabinet have changed
their minds within the last two months, it is plain that
his Lordship would, by them, at least, be left in undis-
turbed and permanent possession of even a greater
number of offices than were lately placed, ad interim,
in the hands of the Duke of Wellington.----Times.

COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. 10.