The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-17 00:00:00

), L 0

LONDON,
WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 17, 1835.

The Tories, those of them at least who have eyes
to see and hearts to understand, are aware that openly

to oppose a measure like the Corporation Reform Bill,
on which the mind of the country is made up, would

be not only a vain but a most unpopular and impolitic
labour. They are, therefore, acting with great cau-
tion and circumspection in resisting it. Though the
discussion which took place on Monday night was
marked by an apparent tone of candour and sincerity,
yet it is not difficult to see that one of the main pro-
visions of Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S Bill—that which in

our opinion constitutes its principal merit, inasmuch as
it establishes an effectual controul by the governed
_ _

over the governing body—is little relished by the party
who have so lately become converts to the Reformation
doctrine, and will be altered if it be in their power to alter
it. The annual infusion of a portion of fresh blood into
the council is the life and soul of the Bill : deprive it
of this, and it is nothing but an inert and cumbrous
mass,. incapable of performing any natural or useful
function, and fit only to he laid in the grave to rot.
Sir ROBERT PEEL has, as might have been expected,
no stomach for an annual election. A period of six
years, as the duration of the borough council, is much
better adapted to his notions of Reform. Whether any
concert exists between the Right Hon. Baronet and Lord
STANLEY, we cannot tell, but it strikes us with some-
thing like an ominous impression when we find the
Noble Lord chiming in with Sir ROBERT—we should
perhaps rather say Sir ROBERT chiming in with him—
in this suggestion. Are we to conclude from this
scarcely accidental coincidence of views that the STAN-
LEY party will support Sir ROBERT and the Tories in
their attempts to emasculate the Bill ? If so, we trust
the Ministers will act with that determination which the
country expects from them. They have already more than
once defeated the confederated forces of the Tories and
the milk-and-water Whigs, and we are sure their hearts
will not fail them now, when their very existence is at
stake, and when they are backed, nay, urged on, by
the almost unanimous acclamations of the people of the
three kingdoms. As to the argument brought forward
to justify a longer duration of the Council, it is al-
most too contemptible for notice—Councils, it is said,
varying so rapidly in their constituent parts, are not
fit to have the controul of large funds, and to carry
on extensive improvements. Indeed I but who has
proved that the Councils will vary so rapidly ? The
Bill permits the retiring Members to be re-elected.
If they have conducted themselves well, they will be
re-elected ; if otherwise they are improper persons to
have the controul of large funds, and the sooner they
are dismissed the better.
Sir ROBERT PEEL, Lord STANLEY, and those who
adopt their opinions on this point, argue as if it were
a provision of the Bill that a third part of the Coun-
cil should be changed every year. " If," says the
Times of this morning, " the election be fairly deter-
mined by the voice of the majority, we do not perceive
an adequate motive for renewing it even partially, at
the end of a single year." To this it may be replied
that there is no reason to presume that the electors
who have acted fairly in electing the whole Council
will act otherwise in renewing a portion of it at
the end of the year. But let the election be de-
termined ever so fairly by the voice of the majority,
we perceive—if not an adequate motive for renewing
the Council partially every year—a most excellent pur-
pose answered by the power of so renewing it, should
they see fit, being given to the borough constituency.
It does not follow that, because the people