The Sun.
London, England, 1858-03-29 00:00:00

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

TVS DAY—Morn., 56 min. aft. I—Even., 12 min aft 2
TO-SiORBOW —Morn., 29 min. aft. 2—Even., 45 rain. aft. 2

men," and, politically, we judge of the motives
by the measures. Indeed, it may sound rather
unamiably, but we strongly suspect that Lord
PALMERSTON certainly, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL
too, probably, would never offer us a really liberal
measure again, but for the political credit they
might gain by it. True, the elect families would
say that they are consistent in making popular
proposals ; but the new Ministry have stoutly
denied the right of BEDFORDS and GREYS to a
monopoly of Reforms. We take the liberty to
remark that the denial is altogether superfluous.
We have had nothing but the husks of reforms
from the Whigs of late. We think it no charge
against the Conservatives, that office has libe-
ralised their practice ; we predicted that it would.
It has, however, been a grave charge against the so-
called Liberals, that office makes Tories of them.
Mr. HORSMIN himself honestly told Lord PAL-
MERSTON this.

The truth of it all is, that any Ministry no w-
a-days must govern in accordance with prevalent
public opinion. Those who have been long in
opposition, when they come into office, find them-
selves face to face with the public, and no longer
merely professional opponents, or the leaders of a
clique. They have the nation to serve ;in their
former opposition they may have done many
things merely from party spirit ; this may, indeed,
be inconvenient to remember, but they cm afford
to do it no longer. They feel, practically, all the
difference between the licence of counsel, and the
responsibility of the j udge ;and they:must do per-
haps, in some few instances, what a judge must do,
could he pending a cause, have been raised from
the bar to the bench. We are not defending
reckless party spirit, or apologising for unfair
opposition, but we must take things as they are ;
and we must therefore allow that practically
opposition and office have very much of the
difference between the bar and the bench ; and
Lord PILUERSTON and thePalmerstonian journals
may taunt as they will, but they will find the
country perfectly indifferent to adroit appeals to
Bansard. It will perhaps even laugh at them
and enjoy the joke, butit willnevertheless support
the men who do its work. It will scrutinise
neither antecedents nor motives. It will only be
too glad to get rid of these who said, " I go, sir,
but went not."

It is but negative commendation, to be sure ;
we wonder however what we should have got from
the PALMERBTON Ministry that we shall not get
from Lord DERBY'S. One of the most respect Able
deputations which has lately waited on a Minister,
went to Lord PALMERSTON on the subject of
Church-rates. A gentleman present has told us
that he believes Lord DERBY would have treated
them more respectfully, and have promised them
quite as much, indeed that he will do as much as
Lord PALHERSTON With Lord SHAFTESBURY at his
right hand, could be ever got to do. Then as to re-
form—all we know about it is that Lord PAL-
MERSTON kept it, as HEROD did his prisoners, in-
tending after Easter to bring it forth to the people,
and most likely for the same purpose—to kill it.
Had he had a popular Reform Bill in his desk, or
even a middling good one, if he had intended it to
survive the annual massacre of the innocents, we
should have heard of its merits long before now,
probably amongst the very first things in the ses-
sion. We never had any faith in a Reform Bill
from L ord PALMERSTON.
But wetake leave to tell Lord PALMERSTON and
Lord JOHN RUSSELL too, that we do not care a
straw for any Reform Bill either of them would
at present give us. We will certainly not write
a line, so far as reform is concerned, to turn out
Lord DERBY and to get them in. We feel very
little inter est in the manipulation of the constituen -
cies by the opposite parties, for their own purposes,
and. the gain of a member to one party here, anti
to another there. The two Whig leaders who
think the Premiership the perquiite of one
or the other of them, will neither of them concede
the independence of the vote. They want to re-
tain the " influence," but to shuffle the members
a little differently amongst the influenced electors;
and, while this is their cue, why should we go
across the street to vote for a supporter of either
of the Lords, rather than to vote for a supporter
of the Conservative Peer ? We expect little dif
ference in the administration ; in Favouritism and
Nepotism Lord DERBY /cannot surpass his pre-
decessor ; in his India Bill he has undeniably
surpassed them in these respects, while hitherto
none of his appointments has outraged the na-
tional sense of propriety. Two grand points Lord
DERBY has in his favour. He has tii:o competitors ;
they cannot unite ; they are each of them in a
minority, and the Manchester party sincerely
despises both, and is quite disposed to support
him heartily in all useful measures. The other
point, which we regret much, is that neither of
his two opponents are sufficiently in advance of
him at present to outvote him on any question on
which they could go to the country. Would either
of them but go heartily for the ballot, Lord
DERBY or any other Minister might be ejected at
once. We only wish he would anticipate them
and offer it himself. They richly deserve it, and
they might then long in vain for office through
many a weary session.