The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING,

PERIAL PkP.LI.A Iti7N ^^ •

Ftfe
cllheto 11USE OR F iORS, Feb. ,
, Cit °
AlicEw took his seat on the Woolsack at
ock .
I,lEarl
of
ERN.EPETITIONS.
kl a presented several petitions against
pession.
'41.1 °I ST. GERMANS presented several petitions
801,ir of the Marriage Bill.
alloirr4l.l cf CARLISLE presented several petitions with
14e; PlaYer•
Pi of MOUNTCASHELL presented several petitions
leipht beaPal ag;ression. and praying that no further grants
„stf.irl the College of Maynoet.h.
cessioa. "y presented several petitions againt Papal
lord T a,TRE COURT OF CHANCERY.
en-,'"GDA.LE introduced a Bill authorising the ap-
ha,N3l°ol,l,,r_q a new Vice-Chancellor (as we understood, but
_Nbley,„lrd spoke in so low a tone as to be nearly n
Ntla w4tdd move the second reading of the Billion
"
Lo )*
GUAMt:
th°k' ' expressed his approbation of the
e iii was then read a first time.
„tord
_COUNTY COURTS.
24ty e4h...""I:cr.LIAM had, with regard to proceedings in
betC"',..._, been informed that in many cases certioraris
r
,top,. stinted by the superior courts almost as a
eta c• notwihha
khhe e looked ending the directions o.f the Acmt,abut
of at the returns, he was surprised at the small
trh 6 cat_es removed by certiorari in comparison
di°41141111:r of mace which had been tried before
yd;
t3P
-Arta. Since August last, since the
tthctioa
reia `4l° been extented, there had been only eleven
Oyed k
°wed%
."Y certiorari. This was most satisfactors , ats
Oast whitkst there was no disposition in the supreme courts
14)4 '')f certiorari as matters of course.
MARRIAGE BILL.
ZI-m'heALaldailltELl., presented several petitions from
Laded r Eli the Marriage Bill. Scotland. was.
ft aterer°ll2o,...the new Bill, but they considered
th"ce Measure only rendered it the more
ettl,i (oh t: considered it as contrary to the law
°°s. exclusion of Scotland did not remove their
.ieese petitions were signed by 11,000 persons.
ktLarclCS,Re-14,1INAL PROCEDURE
.BILL.
its that b
tLL moved the second reading Bill, and
°ftins•
fon
Propie,e Mould not then enter into any consideration
tktlete_
.4 ge°lll.,,..asr,he proposed that it should at once be re-
ts
waisi":;_s-,onitruttee.
Tetad to a selL., read a second time, and ordered to be
BROtra, Committee.
ot ~!-",kus. stated that in -consequence of the
‘. '° 'Noble Friend the President of the Coun9l
0. Lansdowne) he would postpone, until
rteltsioe t, the introduction of his proposed Bill for the
t‘°444loSicipttllet trisdiction of County Courts.
The race .14 introduced a Bill for-the Registration
Titles in England and Wales.
'4014 ill 12,1:40d a first time ; and
' -7 74T1 then adjourned.
t
.4_
'thetgpzA?23.E OF COMMONS, Feb. 21.
111 took the Chair shortly before. Four o'clock.
13144 NEW MEMBER.
'°4 the oaths and his seat for the Falkirk
itit-'llDOrts' REPORTS.
lad
bin its' copperth the standing Orders had been complied
r
Mop R., the
of England Bill, the Manche
"sa°4 407 RallwaY and several other Bills were
1114
- -1-,A PUBLIC RECORD BILL.
DIl, 4.isad a second time.
lobo the I:n3NDEL POLICE BILL.
tas4a74la of Mr.• DUNCO Al BE this Bill was ordered
So% thae en the 18th of March.
PETITIONS.
NUJ • Mon. r• buncombe, Colonel Sibthorp, Mr. Fre-
fr kcillales• 'Pp, and several other Members, presented
cert,J4t rapid aggression.
ttile 84,'erargbil/lIIT and Dr. POWER presented petitions
qtlll,•,leitlt chaees Praying that the House would not ince-
the bleZoiterhe exercise of, religious liberty in consequence
roeas-es4t which had been raised in this country by
for s.kwirc,s of the Pope.
the id elfolit• •°S presented petitions from Clonmel.praying
lliF,Pibo'-`1‘.41 Or Ministers' money, and complaining that
thoiep Were
d compelled to 'support a form of faith of
algk for seas approve.
th;lotee ,i,m4 Mr. ROZBUCK presented petitions prayw-
, Icitspdi ‘eratton in the administration of the poor-la
\APRA vatts of the-poor-law unions.
kallesa74.
~ esented apetition from Edinburgh pray-
secitti...44l4,lsloc of the paper duty.
kr.talki 13., Presented petitions from several provident
Illity:\•Uti)lTer bodies to the same effect.
" also presented petitions against the paper
Pitt Lord. ix&
B.ll3tliss,ibea*lis;.l-'N'ICERS presented a petition from several
;„ -•1N,,5,461--geshire eomplaining of the present: cur-
-esti eeslWpgra„Ying for their alteration.
%Ito tattla rHER presented petitions sever!sl. pae-
TkbestL'l °fit °f Lincoln, and from several places the
aigned chiefly by the shopkeepers nn
lishtsster s'"o different towns and neighboutrhoods, stating
10,1°fhee„re
..sliffering great distress, and praying for a re
anal "auonal tariff, with a view to impose such duties
met4h 40(j '„'ts, in order to relieve the bur tens upon lan
Vrohltt' Presented several petitions praying that the._
16111440, toitnlkke,,io measures that would interfere with
lill he no
nbertY, and some of them for the aboli-
nl/41;WLMtainLiftablished Church in Ireland.
4-1,1411 - the 1.--en109,7. Presented a petition from 3,605 butchers
trs,44' imksa‘ aLlif Smithfield-market; also apetfitsiotn.
44,` 4.01•-• -iziory. the inhabitants of the parish o
er, complaining of the annexation of the
Itc'titlk:Nt.tull 'anne"zo'ds, Ptitr, and praying that before any other
m issioners of Woods and
SttoeYet"rllP,,,cliedthe Commissioners
a report of their m-
at te ---gs; 41° should na
on the next day's sitting
tet4, qilae Petition be printed with the votes.
um_
fll/0, Presented petitions from North North.
"sal `eying that the income-tax might be remitted
A4ll t-fartner
t4ititt ub 8 and others in a sim.ilar position, who
istence from the cultivation of the soil..
Mrs
ki
Is petition aainst kl/ettruri_!°, 11,‘ Basar°•rdt. aalsoo Mr.sented.a
Duncornbe,T Sir:g John
k,h‘ 'veral other Members.
t•::e4 pirL 6 ' STATE OF IRELAND.
--th."`lntox and Sir Lucius U'BgsEN gave notice,
him th;rtt.,, he should, on the 6th of next month, and
k`e 'rise should, on an early day,- draw the atten-
ith a view to
to the state of Ireland,
,scone measures to relieve' thew distress in the
Western districts of that country.
'sh''‘,yept, MR. ERNEST JONES.
tlirta'ag 4;fliNOR wished to ask the Right
.Hon. Gentle-
V.:41%014'Y for the Home Department if had re-
rsk,l4 meS --aaication from Mr. Ernest Jones complaining.
81,''"ellllaat while in prison, and praying the Right Ho-
%lltilet to institute an inquiry into the matter?
replied in the negative.
bUBLIN PORT DUES.
a-
AsSkt If it• "%ZS wished to ask the Secretary of the Tre L lvse
- intention of her Majesty's Government to
Art 'rsi,„.4lag the pr t ion of Parliament, any
the inercraenate session
traders of Dublin from the
t sor th °A which they are now liable under theo
14? •' ° 56 Geo. 111 C 62, and the Ist Ge IV.,
es 'tivio,*
It 4 -I(frover")lS said. the subject was under the considers-
° '4l but h 3notprepared to say whether
are„,,„ he was
kr. ellßii",'„oe brought in this session.
ES L.N UNION WORKHOUSES";
Poor-
-6 hd,*h , wished to ask the President of the
4ttht..._atiees inet:Pr he
4,74,
‘21013.
aohusadesre.ncesivuedffelkinbfoermsidaetsiotnhesoef otherin the
n ",thi:4l • "`•,. tasiftied by able-bodied labourers sent to
blAalga-c'usequence of want of employment
ttea_
refs said he the lion.
toi, t rred had not, but no- doubttaken
place
vet, orkiieese . a disturbance which bad
Nor-
'l4 had In the !lei hbouring county of
ho eottse received gw contradictory
itofw.shend_lsturbance in° the Suffolk UnionactcVoeurnkts7
Its subject `),;• at all improbable that the affair would
tke'ls hA'Aquiv°,,ian official inquiry.
11.1 lin--41kk-T-'1 IN THE METROPOLIS.
-tat -- wished to ask the the secretary of State for
whether his attention has been called
thi°lllteere;:,* of vagrancy in the metropolis, and whethe
for
ievil? "11 of the Government to propose any remedy
Rhie
%LG. GREv.
171eet ; had received no information whatever on
allowedlthe Police Commissioners had made a return_
ithlesS Lem in 1850 'vagrancy in the metropolis had
:"ralent than any of the ten preceding years,
1)411411 eepti°n fin
No doubt that an increase
b le,llletitee,of late in the *vagrancy of certain localities.
:(11•"CiliSi'CP• IN A WORKHOUSE IN ESSEX.
•la Tyll4
l.‘rh;,.-4e a„ ELL wished to ask the Pres.ident of the
14.„)ict 1,% W°l•-,:b.m he had received any information of a die-
,.`4l/14 D-` uad t place in a workhouse in Essex.
•sei. •••8 repli ad
inn the negative.
Lord • COIIMUACATION WITH AUSTRALIAN
vrtent Ig A
COLONIES.
tope 414 atl'AS asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
4tkh-(18 °r what steps bad been adopted by Governmente
thiitiv•ettiablishing regular steam communicat.ion L
ex_
e°,l°cles; and also how soon the public mop
the se etisen communicationtehe-ANCLLe f would be opened?
e7:1,41. ttoeielaN:rhich were
oalitedhefEorXsCornHeEtQimUeEaßgorieoprliaedattehaamt
ktreec'tion from Singapore to the Australian colonies
leht aced two days back. He had only been enabled.
they
•‘t or over them ; but, as far as he could see, tn
~pti'l,,t,iunsAtisfactory character.
r '' HOUSE TAX AND THE FRANCHISE.
the e. t L said he wished to ask a question withref.e;
(Lo • ellao ha house-tax, which had been proposed
11, 41 t!ellOr of the Exchequer. The Noble Lord
ektYiat o?ull Russell) was aware that by the rattee-
hoitase,, tie of the Reform Act, it was necessary that
4% i,j-4•44 and poor-rate should be paid by 101. heti
G4,„\l'isherious to being put .on the register of voters.
Tte,t,lticaes.t°,.lQlow whether •"it was the intention of Now,rah!
th,•blise 07, case the House should agree to the
it
to Mick bt;" 'the house-tax, that the payment of
lactettsary qualification to a person who wished
Roldnthe register of voters
`JoSELL said it was not the intention of the
I:ekti.°llll bt t° impose any new qualificationhy the proposed
_
41,asaZI,sea• By the interpretation of the law, it would
tit ilar,an assessed taxes.
tet,,;t ta.,otlE-TAX AND THE FRANCHISE.
the..-qtltli,,,'-'4L also asked whether the Government in-_
;°°lisas:" the income-tax should be considered as one of
si.)tet eo-481111 tax
-1 Payments, which ought to be paid before
th„°N placed on a register ?
I:PIest.;„'SSELL said he could not precisely answer
• tax Al. It would be for a legal question, whether
13. -4/a,„aunder the denomination of assessed taxes.
lichLt 11, tiA ,uSEYISM IN THE CHURCH.
n.
114-`4,bl,i said he had to put another question of co
of
Bdt" tr,ortance, which had reference to the. conductnt
to
14Naelse;r• Murray, who was appointed incume
14 ire 4 Church; in Wells-street, Oxford-street.d The
vided ill:bleb this church was situated ha lately been
parish, for the pur-
tai.. ,Of faeil'irn the other parts of the
Vod tating the ecclesiastical government; it con-
the % Oirtr'es'uliii. Inhabitants, and 400 rated householders.
st.._...ithay.. Was consecrated on the 28th January, 1847,
°ltems
having largely contributed towards its
itlZdoa Memorial was presented to the Bishopof
the
ibit4int4ne'd by more than one-third
raf
;ZeMosriariatPoliining of the
hisconductsaid,that appointment Mr. Mur-
helkratv`" 'Make alterations in the church, and though re-
Le' with, and having promised not to make themt
w,
- 441411 64 until he had brought the church into wba
%No. Y tailed a state of Puseyite discipline. The C9131_
as
to . table
titiat or altar as it was called, had twice been raised
days tlaq oloth:e aPProached by steps. It was covered with
ra.
ana saintsltad candlesticks placed upon it, and upon ho t toile/4,_,days was decorated with wreaths of flowers,
appro..u! the chancel was regarded as a sacred place not
14' besti remove by the laity. The table of the Commandments
„Oraised 'oloveil from over the altar, and though it was
ellitro
404 tok_be
restored, had never yet been. . An expensive
"ell engaged, the Litany was intoned by the
With. hill
I)aCk tO the people, the sermon was

A.

-------
rregeltea in a surplice, and neither collect nor Lord's
Prayer were t.t..d bskire it, but, ouiy an .uv.,cation.
the name of the Father, Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
The sacrament also was intoned and altogether administered
in such a mode as to pre-.-ent many of the memorialists from
attending it. It was signed by 450 inhabitants of the
parish, and transmitted to the Bishop of London with an in-
timation that certain of the parishioners wished to wait on
his Lordship and give him further information on the sub-
ject. The information was that the incumbent
of this district had been in the habit of attending the Roman
Catholic Chapel in King William-street, Strand. He (Sir
B. Hall) considered this so grave a charge that he was un-
willing to make it unless the gentleman who had informed
him consented to commit it to wr;ting, and authenticate it by
his own signature, which had been done. The answer which the
Bishop of London gave was, that he had remonstrated with Mr.
Murray on the subject without avail, and to a further com-
munication, he replied that he was about to take some
general steps for the prevention of such practices,
which would, however, take some time to develop.
The Archbishop of Canterbury had also stated, that he had
warned the clergy of another diocese ten years ago, against
such praajces. The question, then, which he wished to ask
the Noble Lord was, whether the bishops and archbishops
of the Church wi'l'e about to take any steps for the purpose
of suppressing these practices, against which, as they said,
they had preached foi ten years ; or were they to leave it
fo the laity to take those step., for the purpose of fulfilling
those duties which the ecclesiastics of the Church had
neglected ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL —With reference to the statement
of my Hon. Friend who has jest sat down, I have to state to
the House that I have been in communication with the Bishop
of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury, in order to as-
certain what the facts of the case really are.—(Hear, hear.)
With respect to the Bishop of London, I am enabled to state
that he juformed me that his attention had been drawn
more than once to the manner in which the public worship
in St. Andrew's Church is conducted, and that he has been
fully informed of :he feelings of the inhabitants.—(Hear,
hear.) He informs lite that he is at all times willing to
give effect to the rubric, h•_,wl to attend to the feelings of the
inhabitants of any district, in order to regulate the habits of
the clergymen who minister in their churches, and
that at all times he was anxious to render
the mode of worship in confo:Enity with those
feelings.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to t. he Archbishop
of Canterbury, I, am informed by his Grace tni‘t he has
that
ways desired, and that the Bishops have always djired,
the practice of the clergy should be at all times so ari...'wged
that the predilections of the laity shall be carefully, at le.:qt
so far as reasonable, regarded. The Archbishop states to
me that he does not think that any alteration of
the law is necessary, or that any interference of this
House or of the Legislature is at the present moment re-
quisite. But the law is such, he says, that there is great
difficulty in reaching cases such as those his Hon. Friend
had brought before the H 0..., Although, however. no im-
mediate change may bring any advantage, some alteration
is evidently necessary.—(Hear, hear.) I hope my Non.
Friend will understand that we do not contemplate any al-
teration of the Liturgy of the Church of England—(Loud
cries of" Hear")—but what we want is some greater or
better means of carrying the law into effect.—(Hear, hear.)
In one case not less than 3,0001. was spent, in order to reach
such a case as this, and ray Hon. Friend and the House may
be assured that no efforts will be left untried to remedy the
mischief.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. A. HOPE regretted that the Noble Lord had de-
scended from his high position to answer a question respecting
the character of a private gentleman, whose character he felt
called upon to vindicate. Mr. Murray had been accused of at-
tending a Roman Catholic place of worship. The fact was, that
Mr. Murray had only attended the chapel five times, and
then only for the purpose of controversial preaching.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Baronet and the Noble Lord would
be surprised to hear that their friend Dr. Cumming was pre-
sent at the same time.—(Loud and ironical cheers.) Mr.
Hope then read a friendly letter from the Bishop of London
to Mr. Murray, promising to attend to his case as soon as he
had leisure. But between Feb. 20, 1850, and Feb. 21, 1851,
no further communication had been received.
Mr. REYNOLDS protested against the introduction of
this subject, and complained of the Hon. Baronet importing
into his remarks the uncalled-for expressions of Romish error
and Romish practices.—(Hear, hear.) Since he had had
the honour of a seat in the House he had not only ab-
stained himself from mooting questions connected with
the affairs of the Protestant Church, but he had induced
other Roman Catholic Members to follow his example.—
(Hear, hear.) It seemed to him that the Hon. Baronet
wished to convert the British House of Commons into a
polemical debating club, but he hoped in future he
would leave the Pretestant Church to the care of
its two archbishops, its 24 bishops, and 15,003 ecclesiastics,
who had the guarantee of the Crown for maintaining the in-
tegrity of their creed.- (Hear, hear.) Unless the Hon. Ba-
ronet did so, he was afraid the House would degenerate into
a Praise-God-Barebones Parliament, and become a scandal in
the eyes of Europe.—(Hear,hear.)
Mr. HUME said his Hon. Friend had done nothing more
than introduce a complaint of the laity of Marylebone, who
had complained to the Bishop about the conduct of their
clergyman, but they could get no satisfaction or redress from
him, although twelve months had elapsed since they first
complained, and therefore they had no other alternative but
to come to this House.—(Hear.)
Sir R. H. INGLIS thought Hon. Gentlemen would best con-
sult the interest of the Protestant Church by abstaining from
bringing such questions as these before the House, which
was firstly not competent to inquire into them, and even if
it was it, secondly, had not the ability to decide them.
THE HUNGARIAN REFUGEES.
Lord DUDLEY STUART rose amidst loud cries of " Ques-
tion, and Oh," to ask the indulgence of the House for a
few minutes. He was compelled to take this
course, in consequence of some other person having
neglected his duty. He wished to put a question
to the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs.—(Laughter.) It would be in the recollect
tion of the House be made a motion on the 7th of February,
last for certain papers relating to the treatment of the Hun-
garian refugees.—(Hear.) He withdrew that motion in
consequence of the Noble Lord having promised to produce
the papers to which it referred. The session closed, and
the papers were not forthcoming. He spoke to the Noble
Lord again and again on the subject, and even ventured to
say that it was too bad—(Laughter)—and the Noble Lord
replied to me, "it is too bad."—(Continued laughter.)
On a subsequent occasion, when he went to the Noble
Lord and complained of the continued delay, he
told him that he could not but feel angry at his conduct—
and what was his answer? That if he (Lord Palmerston)
were in his situation, he would be angry too.—(Great
laughter.) Under these circumstances, he begged to ask the
Noble Lord whether he considered this respectable treatment,
not of an individual Member who was a sincere, ardent,
though humble supporter of the cause of Hungary—but of
the House, when he had unfulfilled his engagement to pro-
duce these papers?
Lord PALMERSTON said that he was quite willing to
acknowledge that his Noble Friend had a claim upon him
for the promise which he had made. He also was quite
ready to acknowledge that which he had acknowledged to
him in private, that upon their non-appearance he had a right
to be angry. But if he knew how great had been the pres-
sure of matters which had prevented him from bringing for-
ward those papers he would be induced to extend to him in-
dulgence. However he should make a point of producing the
papers on an early day in the next week.
MINISTERIAL CRISIS.
POSTPONEMENT OF THE BUDGET.

On the motion for going into Committee of Ways and
Means,

Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose to move that the Committee
should be postponed until Monday. He would then state
the reasons for this request.
Mr. BERRIES wished to know whether it was intended
positively to proceed with the Committee on Monday ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he could not state positively.
On I‘londay night he would state the reason for the request,
and the course which he meant to take.
The remaining orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned.

PARLIAMEN TARY BUSINESS.

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons,
FRIDAY, FEB. 21.
STANDING, ORDERS COMMITTEE.
The following Resolutions were reported from the above
Committee :-
1. That in the case of the Derby and Ashborne Roads
petition, the standing or.dtteerds
toougphretcteoedbewidtihsptehnesierdßwiltthpro_:
That the parties be permitted
vided the same be presented not later than three clear days
after the presentation of this report.
2. That in the case of the Ulverston and Lancaster Rail-
way petition, the standing orders ought to bde dispenseed
with hat the parties be permitted to procee with th ir
Bill, provided the same be presented not later than three
clear days after the presentation of this report.
3. That in the case of the Clerkenwell Improvement
petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with
That ie parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill,
, provided the same be presented not later than three clear
days after the presentation of this Report.
4. That in the case of the Smithfield Enlargement peti-
tion, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with :
That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, pro-
vided the same be presented not later than three clear days
after the presentation of this report.
5. That in the case of the Lancaster and Yorkshire Rail-
way ( Fifth Shares) petition, the standing orders ought to be
dispensed with :—That the parties be permitted to proceed
with their Bill, with the exception of the Clause affecting
the mortgages, provided the same be presented not later
than three clear days after the presentation of this report.
6. That in the case of the Mayfield Railway petition, the
standing orders ought to be dispensed with :—That the par-
ties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided the
same be presented not later than three clear days after the
presentation of this report.
7. That in the case of the Dundee Police petition, for ex-
tending the time for the second reading of the Bill, the
standing orders ought to be dispensed with : —That the time
for the second reading of the Bill be extended to Friday,
the 28th instant.—Resolutions agreed to.
The Ulverstone and Lancaster Railway Bill was'ordered to
be brought in.

NOTICES GIVEN AT THE PRIVATE BILL OFFICE.
The undernamed Bills are appointed to be read a second
time on Monday, Feb. 24:
Bala Pool.
Briton Ferry, Docks, and Railway.
Buckingham's Compensation.
Cameron's Coalbrook Steam Coal and Swansea and Loughor
Railway.
Christchurch (Southwark) Parish.
European and American Printing Telegraph Company, &c.
Great Western Railway (Arrangements with reference to
the Purchase, &c., of the Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth
Railways).
Killarney and Valencia Railway.
London and Blackwall Railway (from London and Blackwall
Extension Railway to Tilbury, &c. )
Manchester Waterworks.
Manchester Improvement. •
Maryport and Carlisle Railway.
Metropolitan Cattle Market.
Midland Railway (Purchase of Leeds and Bradford Railway
and Increase of Capital).
Richmond and Lancaster Turnpike Road (Western District)
Continuation of Term, &c.
Sheffield and Glossop Road.
Sub- marine Telegraph Company between England and France.
Tenterden and Woodchurch Roads.
Wiveliscombe Turnpike Roads.

FALL IN THE PRICE OF BREAD.—Ye3terday the
bakers throughout the metropolis reduced the price of the
41b. loaf one halfpenny. The best bread is now charged
61d. to 7d. ; second quality sid. per loaf ; some, howeveP, in
Whitechapel, the Cut, and other populous districts, only
charged od., weighed on delivery.

)11 "Tir-1131 TYrN IPriT t.),TT T T
111..ALAk.).1ki ti JJ Li

MINISTERIAL CRISIS.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—Lord John Russell has tendered his resig-
nation to her Majesty, and only holds office till another
Government can be' formed. The extensive loss of Par-
liamentary confidence, or rather of Parliamentary sym-
pathy, which his Lordship and his colleagues have evi-
dently suffered of late has probably prepared moat of our
readers for this result. In the face of so much resolute
opposition from so many different quarters, and with so
much irresolate support—in the face of such divisions as
those of yesterday week and last Thursday, Lurd John
Russell could not expect that the present Cabinet would
safely ride through the many delicate questions pressing
upon the attention of Parliament. The Budget, it must
be confessed, has satisfied no party, and it seemed only
too probable that any possible modification of it would
purchase lukewarm thanks at the expense of strenuous
objections. It is proverbially difficult to please
everybody, even under the most favourable circum-
stances, and that difficulty becomes an impossibility
when there is a predisposition not to be pleased.
The interest of the public, which for au unusu-
ally long period has been attracted to questions of the
past, will be immediately directed to the future. What
sort of Government are we to have? A new one alto-
gether, or a reconstruction? So far as regards the
political principles and the personal characters of the
men, there is no reason why a Cabinet should not be
formed with Lord John still for a leader, but with seve-
ral new members, including two or three from Sir
Robert Peel's Administration. Lord John could not
have better colleagues than those who have proved such
steady, though disinterested allies. But, whether for
good or for ill, the Whig school is generally averse to
coalition. It is too much of an oligarchy, almost too
much of a family, to endure the introduction of new
elements, especially when teere is anything to be for-
given or forgot. The Whigs come in and go out toge-
ther, and much as the public will undoubtedly lose by
the sacrifice of the whole Cabinet, we can scarcely
hope to see any part of it in new combination.
Besides what has hitherto been the Ministerial sec-
tion of Parliament, the Protectionists are the most
nestnerous body professing a common creed. What
may they expect out of the present crisis ?
It is sufficient to say that they are still Protectionists,
and to all political purposes might just as well be French-
men or rigid Mahometans. Suppose them summoned to
her Majesty's Councils and compelled to dissolve ar-
liament, which they correctly avow to be their solitary
chance—for they would not get a sixpence of the public
money -from the present House—what sort of account
would they give of themselves to our popular constitu-
encies? They can only pledge themselves to enhance the
price of bread and all other food, and to throw away the
legislation of the last five, or rather of the last nine—nay
of the last twenty years. We are not saying what the
Protectionists might have done. Had they but followed
their leaders—had they taken common sense, instead of
passion for their guide, they might now have been in a
position to govern this country. But they
.have wasted
five years in one long fit of sullen indignation, and have
DOW nothing to offer the public but their incessant
maledictions on free trade and its authors. Their fate in a
general election is too evident. They would only meet
Parliament to be beaten on the Address—to leave
public affairs in the greatest confusion—perhaps to lose
the year 1851 altogether for the purposes of legisla-
tion—perhaps to incur the necessity of another general
election—perhaps to throw the Government ultimately
into the hands of the politicians with whom they feel
much less sympathy than they do either for the friends
of Lord John Russell or for the admirers of Sir Robert
Peel. Undoubtedly there exist abundant materials for
the formation of an entirely new Government, bound to
that commercial policy which Lord John Russell in-
herited from his predecessor. This is not the time either
to revert to the errors of the retiring Cabinet, or to in-
quire very critically into the personal merits of this or
that probable member of the new one. It is rather the
time to view things as a whole, and we have little doubt
that from the numerous independent statesmen of our
day a Government could be formed that would deserve,
and generally receive, the cordial support of those who
are for the present in power. Whatever is done, it
is most desirable, above all, that there should be union,
and therefore some degree of generosity and mutual for-
bearance, among the various sections that stand by free
trade. The progress of sound legislation, the peace of
the country, and the stability of our institutions abso-
lutely require that all should combine to prevent even a
momentary success of the Protectionist imposture. For
the sake of the country gentlemen, for the sake of the
House of Lords, for the sake of that representative sys-
tem which still gives considerable weight to the owners
and occupiers of the soil, the question of free trade ought
not to come again before the people of this country. It
is too serious and too sore a point to be re-opened, espe-
cially by the rough process of a general election. All
wise men should combine to avert that peril, and all
wise men should, therefore, combine to give a fair
chance—that, of course, is all that is asked—to what-
ever body of liberal statesmen her Majesty may summon
to her Councils.
As we long since prophesied, Lord John Russell and
his colleagues have at length felt the odium consequent
upon their,determination to maintain the direct taxation
of the country in it present form. We have never missed
an opportunity during the last nine years of making the
most earnest remonstrance against the absurd
and iniquitous assessment of the income-tax. Nor were
our remonstrances confined to a solitary warning on
each occasion. For weeks—we may
,almost without
exaggeration say for months—at intervals of three
years since 1842—we have endeavoured to re-
present the condition of public feeling on the subject
whenever the renewal of the obnoxious method of
assessment was proposed in Parliament. It was all
in vain. Might makes right. As long as the Ministry
for the time being found a House of Commons prepared
to vote the renewal of the tax as it stood for yet
another period of three years, so long did they stop
their ears to all remonstrance. It was an easier, it was
a safer thing to take the money in the accustomed form.
There was less risk of a deficit when the year's accounts
were closed if the usual balance under the head of
" Income-tax" could be carried forward to the credit of
the nation. Account was taken of figures, but no ac-
count was taken of the feelings of a people quick
enough to discover injustice and powerful enough to
defeat it in the long run. If we are not mistaken, the
course pursued by the educated classes of English so-
ciety under the imposition and re-imposition of this
unequal fiscal burden will be remembered as yet another
instance of the exemplary patience of Englishmen
under circumstances' of political trial. Three times
since the re-introduction of the income-tax by the late
Sir Robert Peel has a locus peenitentice with regard to
its assessment been offered to the Cabinet of the day;
and now, upon the third occasion, unless extraordinary
means had been used, we were as far removed as ever
from a fair reconsideration of the measure. It is not
matter of astonishment that Lord John Russell and his
colleagues have at length stumbled upon an insurmount-
able obstacle. The wonder rather is that they and their
predecessors should have succeeded so long in playing off
one class against the other, and in gaining currency
.for
the merest and most transparent sophisms as the inspira-
tions of profound political sagacity. The explanation us
this phenomenon must be sought for in a succession of
causes. In the year 1842, when the re-imposition of the
tax was proposed, we had lost a whole army in the Can-
bul Pass—we were engaged in war with China—we
were involved in the difficulties of a failing budget.
It was natural enough that men should rather ac-
cept the means of safety than canvass the abstract
merits of the system by which it was to be obtained.
Three years elapsed, and we were intent upon the im-
pending revolutiou in the commercial policy of the coun-
try. All objects sank into unimportance in the presence
of the one absorbing question of the day. Three years
more elapsed. The Irish famine had rendered an enor-
mous loan necessary, the system of free trade bad been
inaugurated, and the feeling of the country was against
endangering the recent settlement by involving its re-
sults with the possible effects of other changes uncon-
nected with its operation. The injustice was felt as
keenly then as it is at the present moment. Remon-
strances were utrered as loudly then as now; •but there
was a fixed determination not to drive matters to an ex-
tremity. For three years longer the professional and
trading classes of England made abnegation of their
rights. It was hoped that, in the interval that must elapse
before the Chancellor of the Exchequer was compelled
once more to ask for the renewal of the tax, his pertinacity
might be softened or his error removed. Well, then,
we have arrived at the end of that period. Again,
the Minister of Finance has come down to the House of
Commons, and has asked for a vote of renewal without
any proposition for an amended assessment of the tax.
Have we not had patience? Is there now any shadow
of political necessity to justify the further imposition of
so unequal a burden upon a particular class, and that
one—we use the terns advisedly—the most laborious, the
most struggling class of English society? Our proposi-
tion is briefly this—that any system which treats a per-
manent and a transitory income as identical quantities
for fiscal purposes is an act of public dishonesty of the
grossest kind. If a confusion of this kind be inseparable
f 'rer oemr 0 tehte Dean tyu re eueohf
iamn
pi
onset! m eittea
very
r theny
name let
e h
euusi
dh ehaer
snyo.
nonymous with injustice and impolicy. Whatever
it may be in terms, an income-tax so levied is in
reality nothing less than one of those expedients for
the fiscal relief of certain privileged classes at the
expense of others which mainly led to the French
revolution of 1789. Let us see for a moment how
the matter stands as a question of figures, and we
will venture once more to employ an illustration which
rwieveudsefdrett
the
ee oihthteerredetaye.f
ITOOII
sterlingincome oisf—onsesymsali:
pdeer-
the income of his neighbour is—say 5/. per au-
th
hise brain.wag es forAt
the
ee
endsweat
of
f tohfe hisy a
ref
moranthies
annum;nlmoraoBf
possessed of 1051. in money ; the other of 5/. Tae
Chancellor of the Exchequer then, upon a system which
professes to be one of direct taxation, takes exactly two
shillings and elevenpence from each of these persons.
That is to say, he leaves the 1001. altogether untouched.
He ignores this sum altogether ; or if he admits its
existence upon the one side, he assumes it upon the
other, where it has no existence at all. This is direct
taxation ! This is the system vaunted by statesmen
and economic writers, as the most just and philosophi-
cal method of dividing the public burdens ! The in-
come of realized property is taxed at a given rate ;
transitory income is taxed at the same rate. Omitting
for the moment all appeals ad misericordiam, is
this a method of taxation which it was seriously pro-
posed to fasten in perpetuity upon the
people of this
country? For it must not be forgotten that these per-
sons whose incomes depend upon the vicissitudes of trade,
or upon the still more sorrowful vicissitudes of health
and sickness—of life and death, contribute also their fair
scare to the revenue in all other respects. The Taiment
they and their Emilio wear, the food they commie, 14

• dwellin,7s they inhabit, are affeeteg in various, ways
Ciatoma:tiiiU li7li 15 Alit, of •i-lough'

their iocoinee were but the interest On i-earzed c;ipitxl.
They pay for their light, they pay for their events
end Liver csrrieges, if tle.y nave theca, and dely
meet all their assessed taxes—just us though they
were capitalists. They live in towns and pay heavy
contributions for the maintenance of the poor, not
according to their real, but their apparent means. In
what respect, then, do they enjoy any peculiar exerna-
tion which should justify the imposition upon them of
any peculiar burden? If it be said that the ineoms-tee
was an expedient for the reformation of the fiscal eye.
tern of the country, and that the trading and professional
classes have received great benefits from the system ef
free imports, the answer is obvious indeed. The physi-
cian or haberdasher who eats a cheaper loaf and washes
it down with cheaper coffee, sweetened with cheaper
sugar taken frcm a cheaper basin, is in no respect more
benefited than the peer, the squire, the fundholder, the
life annuitant. What, then, is the reason or the
justice of tying him to the horns of the altar as a
fiscal sacrifice for the sake of his fellow-country-
men? Not only considered morally is this a pro-
found injustice, but politically speaking it is a grievous
blunder, as the event has shown. We will not here
speak of the extrusion from office •of a Ministry which
a week since might have looked forward reasonably to a
long and prosperous existence, or of the public confusion
inseparable from such an event. But of all the causes
that ever led to the dissolution of a powerful Ministry,
this refusal of Lord John Russell and his colleagues to
reconsider the assessment of the income-tax is the most
irrational upon record. Whatever may be the political
turmoil incident upon a change in the Cabinet, at teast
one of its consequences will be that the direct taxation
of the country will henceforth be placed upon a .more
equitable basis.
CHRONICLE.—The House of Commons has seldom
met in a more curious and excited condition of mind
than that which urged its Members yesterday to crowd
every portion of the House. On ordinary occasions,
when the Budget has once been opened, the popular in-
terest in financial questions is blunted and satisfied.
The representatives of special interests continue, per-
haps, to press their claims, in the hope that the exemp-
tions whieh they severally seek may find some peek or
corner in the system which, in its general outline, is
completed and final; financiers by profession etpresa
their opinions in detail, and endeavour to mould the
more pliable portions of the scheme into accordauce
with their own fiscal theories; but the House in general
is content to leave the responsibility of balancing the
revenue and the expenditure to any Ministry which
possesses its confidence. Sir Charles Wood, however,
is a financier of peculiar qualification. His budgets
have more than once been brought forward in apparent
confidence of success, to be withdrawn is 'defe-
rence to universal disapprobation, and - remo-
delled in their general outline, even when seine' bf the
details have been retained. Thus it was with the pro-
posal to increase the income-tax in 1848, and with two
or three editions of the new Stamp Bill of 1850 s Even
if his skill in the theory of finance were greater than
the dissatisfied critics of the City are willing ter allow,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer has undoubtedly shown
a singular incapacity to anticipate the verdict 91 public
opinion on his project. The general impression, which
was left by his statement on Monday night etas com-
prised in two well-founded conclusions—that She Budget
comprised as many blunders as proposals, and that, good
or bad, it would never be adopted by Parliament. His
financial explanation only stimulated curiositY—as the
propounding, and not the explanation, of a mystery.
The unapplied surplus of a million, and the reduced
window-tax, were rather eliminated from the finan-
cial problem than seriously offered as a solution.
Whatever the system finally adopted may prove to
be, the first Budget is as unlikely to correspond with
the last, as the first tentative vote of the Conclave of
cardinals with the final election of a Pope. The univer-
sal disapprobation of the press, expressing, for the most
part in milder language, the criticisms which were uni-
versally uttered in all popular and commercial circles,
had, in four days, converted the original scepticism with
which Sir Charles Wood's communications were re-
ceived into a confirmed and unhesitating disbAef. Nor
was the position of the Government without its 'effect in
increasing the general mystification. The Aggression
measure had become stale and ridiculous, without ceas-
ing to be dangerous to its promoters. Although post-
poned, it still loomed in the distance, and must be dealt
with in a Parliament whom temper might not be sweet-
ened by a previous exhibition of the financittAiecapacity
of the Ministers. Rumours of a dissolution began to
creep abroad, probably not without the saneion of the
Government; and, as if for an election placard, Lord
John Russell's motion respecting the Jevvi-stoldenly
appeared in the paper of notices. A. fortnight
ago the claims of the Jews were to be postponed
until the Papal Aggression was dealt with. The
determination to bring forward the question on
Monday next, while the Aggression Bill; stood for
the subsequent Friday, might scorn significant of an in-
tention to dissolve, or might enforce the threat of disso-
lution. Mr. Locke King's success on Thursday showed
still more clearly the anarchy into which the Ministerial
party had been brought by the errors of their leaders.
The Premier's extorted promise to introduca. 'a change
in the suffrage next year made it embarrassing for his
adherents to vote against his principles for the sake of
supporting his actual policy. It was clear that the alle-
giance of the majority was shaken; and the certainty
that the Budget would be found to be untenable shook
the confidence even of the most favoured organs of
Government. Yesterday morning it was evident that
the journal 'which had most constantly enjoyed the con-
Sience of Downing-street was preparing, in the pro-
bable crash of the party, to leave a falling house. The
more faithful evening supporter of the Ministers en-
deavours to bluster out a desperate case by making the
most of the threat of dissolution. In answer to the re-
mark that no question is at present at stake which
renders an appeal to the constituencies; proper or
necessary, we are informed that Lord John Russell is
prepared to go to the country on a threefold " cry,"
which would exceed in audacity any 4evice of the
Tadpoles and Tapers whom the author of Sybil" has
celebrated. The ill-used Minister, it seerns, is to appeal
to the electors as a Protestant, as the intended author of
a new Reform Bill, and above all as the patron of free
trade, The Protestant claim may, perhapaeraot be suffi-
cient with Church of England men, whq see penalties
provided against the unoffending representatives of their
communion in Scotland; nor, perhaps, will the Irish con-
stituencies require any pledge of their members, except
that they shall do their best to drive fron4ower the au-
thor of the Durham letter and of the Aggression Bill.
With these exceptions, we admit the claim of the Mi-
nister on prejudiced constituencies who may not be able
to find a more sincere or consistent advocate of No-
Popery views. But it is a happy device 4 appeal to the
country on the franchise after the aateeecr which was
given to Sir Joshua Widinsley, and the fate against Mr.
Locke King's motion; nor will Free-traders fail to
recognize the claims of a Government whioh dis-
solves in the middle of a session, and in prefer-
ence to proposing any serious relief' to trade and
industry. When we are told that the dissolu
tion is, after all, only a threat' to secure; the votes of-
Members who hold liberal opinions, we reply that the
Government might have united them, Without menace
of compulsion, by a liberal and comprehensive policy. If
the loyalty," as it is called, of the friends of progress is
confined to the persons of the hereditary Whigs, they
ought at least to abstain from tempting it by measures
of religious persecution; and by ill-digested and imprac-
ticable projects of finance. The excitement which we
have described was raised to its height by the Protec-
tionist meeting summoned by Lord Stanley to hear the
decision of the leaders of the party immediately before
the meeting of the House. We are of course not in the
secret of the consultations which took place in St. James's-
square; but it is said that Lord Stanley's language was
studiously moderate, and that the less cautious Protec-
tionists were entreated for the present to forget or suspend
their pursuit of Protection. Mr. Herne*, as the financier
of the party, was entrusted with an amendment, to honeyed
on the Budget. The resolution was,' we believe, to the
the diminution of the effect that the results of the income-tax had, in nine
years, been accomplished. Tho House ivas at the same
time to be invited to pledge itself to maintain public
eventual and proximate
abolition.
displayed by the Protectionist
Tcredit,income-
taxhe
withgandea
ta party
aoi
view
commence.
toi
tits
e v
e dexterity
a sprinkling of
admitted, although variously
judged.l
triumph depended on
the suppressing of the peculiar opinions of their party
eaders will
Theirbeo
—in which, indeed, it is well known that neither Lord
Stanley nor Mr. Disraeli participate. The country
nly generally chance o f a
would not hear the open triumph of Protection, but
uladn,
oaublodlitbioell
time
the income-tax;
and, e
to consider the
policy
which might tend to secure it. It was
Hume and
well known that Mr. by other advanced
y oncewou ind rejoice
office, t
hi n e r tehe w
motion, either on its own merits, or for the purpose
of giving a warning to Golverhmant. A. majority
Liberals,moderate not
imhig racwcooneulpdan !apport the Protectionist
was within reach, and the spoil
of the
had the victory seemed
likely to remain with the party which brought the
field. Th
largest mass of forces into the e result of Lord
Stanley's meeting was scarcely known in the House
when the time for commencing the financial debate
arrived. The impatience of all parties to be relieved
from suspense gave vigour to the applause with which
successive protests against religious discussions in Par-
liament were received during th_e_ conversation which
Sir Benjamin Hall commenced. Mra Hope's contradic-
tion of a charge brought against a clergyman
by some
anonymous " gentlernan"—vshose
.statements were as
correct as those of anonymous gentlemen usually are—
was listened to with a patience which was exchanged
for amused indignation on the production of a letter from
the Bishop of London, which illustrated the idiosyncrasy
of that active prelate in a manner almost incredible, and
yet highly characteristic. Lord Dudley Stuart's com-
plaints of Lord Palmerston, though they produced re-
peated laughter, Were treated as an untimely interrup-
tion. At last the clerk read the order of the day, and
Lord John Russell rose, instead of his colleague,
to an-
nounce that the further progress of the Budget was ad-
journed to Monday. In a few minutes the astonished
crowd had dispersed, and the whole of London was fall
of conjectures. No portion of the community was more
surprised and puzzled than the five hundred gentlemen
who heard the Minister's announcsment. We believe
that its meaning was utterly unknown, except to those
possessing official information. The cause of this sudden
resolution of the Government, and its result, will shortly
be known. At present the general opinion inclines to
the belief that a dissolution will result from the Minis-
terial embarrassment--although, perhaps, the fact that
the Premier, during the brief interval between
the termination of the Cabinet Council and the
meeting of the House, proceeded to Bucking-
ham Palace and bad an audience of her 114.
jesty, renders it nt least equally probable that
either the resignation or readjustment of the Cabinet
may be the immediate course adopted. A now Budget,
to be brought forward by the resent holders of office,

4.L.

presents a third alter4ative; but before the Liberal party
ceo he'ieuoited, thefoolisii anti• Aggression blunder
must be abandoned.----With sectarian disputes -quiettui-
i and an improved financial policy, there is no saving but
that the Whig Mniistry might oven yet wcatjher the
storm. We scarcely think it necessary to contempiate
the contingency of the reins of Government being
• risAumed by Lord Stanley; for the mere supposition r:t
once suggests difficulties which, iu the estimation of
the principal personage concerned, are, we doubt net,
regarded as insuperable. While partisans are devi:iog
" cries " for the hustings, and including free
trade in their advertising catalogue, they may b,
well assured that the country is resolved, and will
not even allow it to be discussed as an open question.
Even if Lord Stanley could retain office he must aban-
don his party, or persuade them to compromise all their
favourite doctrines. His pledges to support a vigorous
policy against the Roman Catholics must also be re-
considered, and left unfulfilled. In our own criticisms of
the policy of the present Government, we have ever
sought rather to urge upon it the adoption of sound
principles, than to involve it in party difficulties. With
pledges given to toleration, to free trade, and to pro.
cress, it is perhaps not impossible that the Administra-
tion which has so long enjoyed the indulgence of Par-
liament and of the country might yet redeem its credit,
though it is certainly difficult to hope anything for states-
men who have contrived to be wrecked by deliberately
steering ou a shoal, with calm weather and sea-room at
command. _ _

HERALD.—Last evening the House of Commons
was taken by surprise when, in a full House, anxiously
expecting the resumption of the adjourned debate upon
the income-tax, Lord John Russell rose, and, without
assigning any reason, moved that the debate should be
adjourned until Monday, promising that on that day he
would state his reasons for the request. That the re-
quest has originated in some Ministerial crisis is evident.
At three o'clock yesterday a Cabinet Cuncil was held.
It lasted three-quarters of an hour, and from that Ca-
binet Council the Premier proceeded to her Majesty.
Mier an audience of the Queen he came down to the
House of Commons and postponed until Monday the de-
bate upon the Budget, stating that he could not pledge
himself that even then he would bring it on, but pro-
mising that on that day he would state his rea-
sons for the request of postponement. It
would be, perhaps, useless to repeat the rumours
to which this proceeding naturally gave rise. It was
said with confidence that Ministers at the Council had
resolved on tendering their resignation—that Lord John
Russell had proceeded to the Palace for that purpose—
and that nothing but the shortness of the interval pre-
vented the announcement of their resignation from being
formally made to the House. Our readers will under-
stand the grounds upon which this rumour rested, when
we place before them the paragraphs from the Court
Circular and the Parliamentary report, which give the
authentic account of Ministerial movements yesterday.
The Court Circular informs us that—" A Cabinet Coun-
cil was held at the Foreign-office, at three o'clock, the
summonses for the Council having been issued in the fore-
noon. The Members present were Lord John Rus-
sell, the Lord Chancellor, Sir George Grey, Vis-
count Palmerston, Earl Grey, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, Sir Francis Baring, Sir
John Hobhouse, Right Hon. 11. Labouchere, the Mar-
quis of Clanricsrde, and the Right Hon. Fox Mettle."
The samo authority informs us that—" The Council sat
three-quarters of an hour. After the Council Lord
John Russell went to Buckingham Palace to hare an
audience of the Queen." What is the course which the
Noble Lord proposes to take is the question which is in
everybody's lips. For the rumour that the resignation
of Ministers has been actually resolved on, abundant
confirmation is to be found in the circumstances. The
hasty summoning of the Cabinet Council—the full at-
tendance of its members—the shortness of its delibera-

tions, and the immediate proceeding of the Premier to
the Queen, all seem clearly to indicate such a conclu-
sion. It was but anticipating the inevitable result of
the evening's debate, and escaping a damaging exposure
of the inefficiency of their financial scheme. Other
accounts, or rather, we should say, other
speculations, inform us that the Cabinet Council
ending in an open difference between the two sections
of the Cabinet, Lord John Russell has taken until
Monday to endeavour to reconcile those differences and
prevent the Cabinet being broken up. It is, we believe,
useless to speculate beyond the facts which we find in
the authentic record of the Court Circular and in the
Parliamentary report. We may have on Tuesday to
congratulate our readers upon the downfall of a Mi-
nistry that has betrayed all the best interests of the
country. We may, perhaps, have to tail of some of
those miserable devices by which the Whig Cabinet
may continue to prolong for a very brief period its
doomed existence. To the great cause of the country it
matters very little. Their existence as a Cabinet is
doomed. That Lord John Russell should on Monday
evening announce the resignation of Ministers will, no
doubt, give something of character to their closing scene.
Tney cannnot affect to be ignorant that they have lost,
irretrievably lost, the confidence both of the House of
Commons and the country. If, in spite of that know-
ledge they make an attempt by patching up their dif-
ferences, or even by appealing to new assistance, still
to hold office, the attempt may bring disgrace upon
themselves, but cannot really injure, or even retard, tla,
triumph of the national cause. The Protestant people
of England repose with perfect confidence on the convic-
tion that no Ministry that will mock the Protestant spirit
of the country can govern it—that both the Sovereign
and her subjects will demand from her counsellors an
honest, a firm, and uncompromising course—and that
neither device nor artifice can prolong the existence of
any Cabinet which has forfeited, and justly forfeited, the
confidence of the nation. Whatever be the course which,

on Monday evening, Lord John Russell will propose to
thke, of one thing we may be assured—that his Cabinet
is virtually this day at an end.
ADVER,TISk:R.—There is all the difference in the
world between theory and practice. It is one thing to
lay down sound principles, and another to act up to
them. If saying a thing and doing it were synonomous
terms, Lord John Russell would be one of the best Mi-
nisters which modern times have produced. Unfortu-
notely, however, the actions of the Noble Lord do not
correspond with his words. ne lays down principles,
but never turns them to practical account. Having laid
them down, he suffers them to go to sleep; and never, if
left to himself, would he disturb their slumbers till the

crack of doom. A remarkable exemplification of the
differeisce there is between the Premier's theories and
practice is now before the country. For the last four or
five years the Noble Lord, when hard driven by the in-
dependent Members of the House of Commons, has ad-
mitted the great defects which exist in the Reform Bill,
and recognized the propriety of farther progress in the
pathway of Parliamentary reform. Time atter time,
during the last four years, has the Premier confessed
that the electoral qualification ought to be extended to
large masses of the population, quite as deserving of it,
and as likely to exercise it honestly and efficiently,
as the better class of, the existing constituency.
But it somehow or other has happened that Lord
John Russell has never, during all these years, taken a
single step to carry out his views on the necessity of
further representative reform. When pressed on the
subject, heehas always, under one pretext or other, put
off the time for commencing the work of Parliamentary
amendment. And not only does he refuse to do anything
himself, he will not, if he can help it, allow any one else
to move in the matter. Every proposal for legislative
reform is met by the Noble Lord, under some pretext or
other, with the most strenuous opposition which Govern-
ment can offer it. When household suffrage is proposed,
the motion is opposed on the ground that it is too vague.
When two or three measures are proposed at once, they
are resisted on the ground that they ought to be sub-
mitted to the House in detail, or rather that each pro-
position ought to be brought before the House singly.
"The pretext for the opposition is, that more than one
proposition in favour of popular progress caunet be ad-
vantageously considered at a time. If measures of
reform are brought in after the middle of the session,
the pretext for refusing them a hearing is, that it
ie then too late in the session to admit of their
being carried. A discussion on the question would be
a mere waste of the time of Parliament, when no prac-
tical result can follow. If some popular representative
seizes time by the forelock, and does not allow more
than a fortnight of the session to elapse, without intro-
ducing a measure of legislative reform, Lord John Rus-
sell, inexhaustible in his resources for evading his own
virtual promises, pleads hard as a reason why the motion
ought to be negatived, that the Ministers have other bu-
siness chalked out for the House, which will fully occupy
the sessioa. This was the shift to which the Noble Lord
resorted on Thursday, when opposing the motion of Mr.
Locke King for the extension of the ten-pound qualifica-
tion to the counties. It is pitiable to see the Prime
Minister of a great country like England capable of
having recourse to such discreditable expedients. It
lowers the national character in the eyes of foreigners;
for the people are, unhappily, always iden-
tified by other nations with the Government.
It would be infinitely more manly on the part of
the Noble Lord, to say at once, that he is hostile to all
further reforms. But he has not the candour or cour-
age to do that. He still endeavours to sustain the cha-
racter of reformer, though not having the slightest
pretensions to it. He has not a single yearning
after popular progress in his little Whiggish heart.
Secretly, he abhors real reform. He is called the Mi-
nister of Finality. We verily believe he would, if he
dare, show by his conduct that he is the Minister of
Retrogression. Under his Administration the country,
is, indeed, retrograding. Every sueceeding year sees
the constituencies of boroughs diminishing in large
numbers. We have the prospeot before us, unless some-
thing be done to arrest the process of retrogression,
of seeing some of our populous towns so many no-
mination boroughs. Lord John Russell and his Whig
colleagues are practising a gross deception on the country.
They profess attachment to the cause of popular progress,
but they cherish none. They are hostile to any further
advancement on the road to representative reform. The
Premier will not only never move an inch in an onward
course, but he e ill, if he can, drive the country back to
the state of things which existed prior to 1832. He is
the Minister of false pretences. As such, his Cabinet
has been tolerated too long. The people have borne with
him and his Government, because they were unwilling
to come to the conclusion that be was deceiving them.
This is the result of the generosity of the national cha-
racter. But there are limits to generosity. However
disposed we may be to take the most generous view of
the Premier's political character, there are facts and evi-
dence so utterly conclusive against him, that we can-
not, if we would, resist their force. We are compelled to
believe that he has abused the confidence, and taken an
unworthy advantage of the generosity of an unsuspicious
people.. The great and invariable aim of the Iglie
Lord has been to retain office with the least possible
amount of concession to the popular demand.
.t If ho
ever brought forward a really liberal sure,meaur
fruit
wrung from him by circumstances. It was h
of any affection for popular principles; it was extorted
from him by coneideratiou Qt. expediency. He has

- )-