The Sun.
London, England, 1867-02-06 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sin,—Parliament has now assembled, and it
seems after all, from the Queen's Speech, we are
to have a Reform Bill—albeit, we have now got a
Tory Government. Yet, why should we not have
a Reform Bill from a Tory Government ? Have
the Tories or Conservatives, as it has now been the
fashion for many years to call them, always shown
themselves the enemies of Reform? Far, very
far from it. Eight years ago they brought in a
most sensible Reform Bill, which the Whigs de-
feated in June, 1859. And what did the Whigs
do for Reform, I Should be glad to know dur'
ing their seven years' tenure of office ? 11711Y'
the whole subject was as much—nay, more
upon the shelf than even during the adminia'
tration of that Tory of Tory administrational
" the Liverpool Cabinet," Reform was in 182/9
after the downfall of the Liverpool Ministry, and
either during the time that George Canning or the
late Earl of Ripon was First Lord of the Treasury,
"as a hopeless, forlorn, and drooping plant," or
words to that effect. lam sure the same thing
might have been said in the seven years, or six-ancl-
a-half years, of the late Lord Palmerston s
Government. True, a Reform Bill was intro.
duced by Lord Russell, but then people are
by far too wide-awake to rely over much 11P°11
death-bed repentances. Everybody saw that the
Whig Ministry a year ago was upon its death-bed,
and therefore no Reform Bill emanating from such
ah
te Government
statutehad Book.much Why
d
chance o f findinguring a
theirlodg
uponing
so-
called palmy days of office, did they never attempt
to bring in a Reform Bill ? Why, was it postponed
until they were actually in the struggle between
life and death ? A person neither naturally ill-
natured or satirical might fairly call it tneir aernter
resort. To return, however to the chances of ne"
form under the present Ministry. Be it rancor
bored that 'our present Premier was, in his early
days, not only a warm advocate, nay, the warmest
advocate, of Reform, but he was actually a pronli-
nent and eminent member of that very Administra-
tion, headed by the late Earl Grey, which carried
ca
" the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but tlid
Bill." Yes,. Lord Derby—at that time Der,
Stanley—was in that Whig Government, heade"
by Lord Grey, the so called Father of Reforrale
with whom he was a sort of pet and favourite. Ilia
Lord Stanley of those good old days-1831 513
1832 (all bygone days are called good, on the Prim
of the proverb, "De mortuis nil nisi boatel'
..v9
—wae as much the dread and horror of the rre'J
party, with the late Duke of Wellington, Sir Robert
Peel, the Duke of Cumberland, and Lord Eldon ft.
their head, as John Bright may be to the 0170
Tories now. It is not to be denied that there is
mauliving whohas done more for the cause of Ref°rol
r.
and progress than our present Prime Minis' t e
Now comes the question—Does Lord Derby Tegrieo
in 1867 what he did in 1832 ? Would he, th
were able, undo what he then did, and did too 'si°
such zeal and fervour 35 years ago, and go back 0
rotten boroughs with Manchester and Birmingb6
ar
wholly and entirely unrepresented. No! f
bis
from it. Only last summer he stated since
accession to office the course he took with regard to
0„
the old Reform Bill of 1832. Neither did he Intebe
tiou having been an accessory to the fact with re,
slightest degree of remorse, contrition, or
opt
pentance. Why then should the country a° 0,
his bringing in a good and useful Reform fill
Both he and his son Lord Stanley may fair]
age.
called two of the most gifted statesmen of the
_;,`" t.
True, he might say, there were gross abuses e'30,1
ing in 1832 which required to be swept awaY' that
that there are no such abuses now, and go,
although a Reform Bill was necessary 35 years se,
in 1832, no Reform Bill is necessary in 1861• ost
however, says no such thing, in fact, it le. 41013300
the entire contrary. He is most willing to g,O to
Reforming as far as he conceives it wise or s'__ 130
do so, but he is against what he conceives t 0
try
a rash and ill matured change. Let the ee fair
therefore give Lord Derby's Government
.a oot
trial, for I am certain it must by this timee
and tired enough of being governed by the " oss
Added to which a change of administration 40.
natural and ordinary an event as a change of ,re,,Yrige
sentation, indeed, man is not only born for om`it is
but is himself essentially a creature of change :to, aod
the regular natural and Ordinary course of evePotoot!
this is really and truly a far more genuine ants pit
to Toryism than all the Whig Governtne' oh°
together. In conclusion I will merely ad d O
leer
present Premier was a member of the 0 ov
strong Whig Government that England was Earl
governed by, the Administration of the]
trial,
e,al:,iteioleint'
Grey, the father of Reform. Let •
t A
i
a fait tiotO
therefore, give the present Ministry
not annoy or worry it by any needless or
• opposition, but remember the maxim--
"1:1() just and fear not."
I remain, sir, your faithful serv, •
Fjo•P
A LOVER OF HISTORICAL DATES AND
.h

is
aDnuEoAuTnTicedo: DR.v iAi . J. S tITIIEIC--AiND•'-'--Tile
known London
psoridtetitiouer, he devoted
Alexander John Sutherland, „lie)).
PRESENTS ATeh;
was a fellow of the Royal Society. rboN'
opsi_eAcci_Ran:,:shAlAttillmoDsugtohcrotstcTnio:aoct,itasiveirt:;:irtio:
tgraphicAlbums,irig-cases, dr
es
sg-cch.
dressing-cases,
ei 7,
toaf.a,3l ,eoin ;0
_dbessgpsa, t co v
ei
or ..:01);00,
ii_boy:e., _eg,
blotting-books, ink-stands, desks, book-slides, NO'''. 000'
tea-caddies,ca hand-bags and reticules, card-c3ses' pool;:
stationery-scabinets, scent-bottles, tlibutus f°l. :DeA'
1 e eft° -gil t and&e. ; cigar
a-cases,
card
t-ebdast3rt:iieri:l‘e .13iti;IPee:
Prayer-books, and Church Services, ill iseviiecrio 1)1°-
Parkins and Gotto, 25, Oxford-street• The Pu'—dso:
at wholesale prices fr9ia the largest stock t