The Sun.
London, England, 1832-12-07 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

During the last Parliament, we uniformly op 7
-posed ourselves to those who complained of the
tardiness of Ministers in introducing measures de-
manded by the country. The great measure of
Reform, from the first moment of its agitation to its
becoming the law of the land, could leave Ministers
little time to enter on complicated questions ; and
it may be said, that fully as much was effected as
any reasonable person could expect. Besides, the
great object for which Reform was demanded,
namely, governing without patronage, rendered it
inexpedient to attempt to carry measures of a
searching description, till Ministers could have the
support of a Parliament chosen by the people. But
we have now passed the line of separation between
the old and the new. We have now bid adieu to
the corrupt boroughmongering Parliament. We
must now ask ourselves what it is we seek from
those who are to 'constitute the new Parlia-
ment. The fullest explanations should now be sought
from, and given by, the candidates to represent the
different constituencies. A great deal of special
pleading has been used by Members on this subject.
The word pledging has been supposed to mean bind-
ing the candidate to a course incompatible with the
due discharge of the duties of a representative in
Parliament, who is bound to decide only after delibe-
ration. Several candidates have conceived such a
horror of the word pledge, that they absolutely refuse
to give any explanation whatever of their views.
There are candidates, it is true, who acknowledge
that they have their opinions yet to seek. But we
take it for granted, most candidates have opi-
nions on most of the great questions which now
engross the public, attention. If a candidate
then does, not explain his opinions on most
of the great questions alluded to, how can the
elector know whether he is entitled to his suffrage
An elector is entitled to the most ample explanation
from a candidate, before he gives him his vote.
The elector has a sacred duty to discharge—that
of returning to Parliament the man whose opinions,
if acted on, will, he conceives, he of the greatest
service to the nation. The people cannot he said
to be represented, if their opinions are not reflected
in the representatives sent by them to Parliament.
What does Lord Althorp say in his address to the
electors of the southern division of the county of
Northampton ?—" I will not in this address enter
upon the many topics of great interest which must
necessarily call for the attention of the Legislature;
but I shall he ready to give such explanations of my
'views as any of you may require when I appear before
you on the day of election." The elector should,
in fact, know from the statements of the candidate
whether he will, in fact, prove the representative
on whom* he may depend for giving effect to those
views with which he deems the welfare of the cOun-
try bound up. It was well observed at the meeting of
the electors of the eastern division of Surrey on
Tuesday night last, by Mr. Fyfe, " Mr. Allen had
told them that he would not give a pledge. Why,
what was an opinion but a pledge ? They did not
seek to cavil about words, if the Honourable Can-
didate expressed firm and decided opinions; then,
if he was honest, he meant to act on those opinions ;
and that was equivalent to a pledge." It must be
belief in the political wisdom and honesty of the
candidate that obtains for him the vote of the
elector ; but how can he judge of the political
wisdom without knowing the views of him on
whom he sits in judgment ? When a candi.
date tells a body of electors, I will enter into
no explanation with you—l will not be pledged—
he offers the greatest insult to them; for he in ef-
fect tells them, you are a set of miserable devils.
with whom I can do whatever I please. No candi-
date, who will not submit to afford the most ample
explanation of his views on all questions of public
interest, is entitled to the respect of the electors.
The electors of Edinburgh made it a point with
their candidates, that they should meet them in the
different divisions of that town for the purpose of
being strictly questioned; and the Lord Advocate
and the lion. Mr. Abercrombie willingly submitted
to this catechising. If Mr. Jeffrey and Mr. Aber-
crombie, men so well known for their talents,
deemed it their duty to submit to this process, w(
do not see why the run of candidates should consi-
der it a humiliation. We do not see why the being
a Minister should form a ground of exemption from
giving on all subjects the most ample explanations. I,
is unjust to Ministers (to say nothing of ingratitude)
to say that a Minister should be excluded from the
representation of any place whatever, whether great
or small. It is to be. presumed that the Ministers
silo shall receive the support of a Reformed Par-
liament, will deserve the suffrages of any body
of electors. But thee, on the other hand, we can
see no reason why Ministers should hesitate to
explain themselves in the most ample manner
to their constituents. It does not follow that
because a Minister thinks so and so on ques-
tions, that therefore he is about to carry all his opi-
nions into effecr. The measure of effect given to
his opinions will depend upon Parliament. The
Ministry must be governed by the opinions of Par-
liament. A member of an Administration must
consider how far the opinion he entertains warrants
a continuance in it ; but it can be no disgrace to
him, that circumstances which he cannot control
prevent the giving effect to the views which he
entertains. But if a Minister ought not to be ex-
cluded from any place merely because he is a Mini-
ster, the people ought not to be debarred, be-
cause a candidate is a Minister, from obtain-
ing the same explanations from him which
they would seek from any other candidate. The
electors, on the occasion, know only the represen-
tative, and are not bound to think of the Minister,
except in so far as their disapproval of the past
conduct of a Minister may appear to them of bail
augury for their representative. It seems to us
that the jealousy which has begun to peep out of
late in some of the Ministerial papers, with regard
to the spirit of the future representatives, is by no
means indicative of prudence.. Why do we bear so
pinch of ingratitude towards the authors of the
ii,t7form Rill ? Why should such ingratitude be
prestunCti? We are to suppose that Minis-
ter., in giving the Reform Bill, meant to give
also its legitimate consequences. A Reform in
the representation means, that the opinions of
the people should be felt through their repre-
sentatives in Parliament. We must suppose that,
in giving Reform, Ministers knew that they were
riving that which would render it necessary for
them to shape their system according to the views
of Parliament. We must either, then, believe that
the people ought not to be represented, and that
Reform is in itself an evil, or we must maintain that
Ministers must act in accordance with the views of
Parliament. To speak of ingratitude, then, is to
speak absurdly. We must suppose that Ministers
:an have no wish but what is in accordance with
are views of a Reformed Parliament; and it would
be strange indeed, if a Reformed Parliament did
riot support the. Ministry who give effect to their
views, But there is more here than meets the ear.
Reform, as has been said, is but the means to an
end, and that end is good government, Now good
government requires that the interests of the nation
should prevail over the interests of any particular
caste There are, however, numberless abuses in
this country, for which those who profit by them
(and their name is Legion) will make war to the
knife. Now here begins the diffieulty. What are
abuses? What are improvements? Some, no doubt,
consented to Reform, under the impression that what-
ever is, is right, and that a Parliament representing
the people, would be of that opinion. Others again
gee in all our institutions manifold abuses, and con-
ceive that the public money has hitherto been
squandered in a shameless and profligate manner,
and that the most unsparing retrenchment is de•
mended. The question to be decided is the extent
to which the benefit of the community shall be the
governing principle of the Reforms to be effected.
There are some, for instance, who even deny that
any Reform in Church matters is requisite, and
who contend that the property enjoyed by the ch