The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-07 00:00:00

elsewhere—that casual refuge for the Destitute—

Marlborough House-7-is now wanted for the resi
dente of his Royal Highness the Prince of WALES
so soon as the heir to the Crown of these realms
shall have returned from his six months' sojourn in
the Eternal City. By that time his Royal High-
ness will be upon the eve of the eighteenth anni-
versary of his birth—the heir-apparent to the
Throne on that account requiring, after the 9th of
November, 1859, in consideration of that maturity
I and of his august rank, a separate establishment.
So that, simultaneously, the paintings belonging
to the nation, and now hanging upon the walls of
Marlborough House, will have to be removed hence
—and the paintings belonging the Royal Academy,
and now and for many years past hanging upon
the walls of the National Gallery, will have to be
removed thence ! Marlborough House cannot
possibly after this year of grace 1859 harbour the
art treasures bequeathed to the nation by the muni-
ficence of Mr. TURNER, of Mr. VERNON, or of Mr.
SHEEPSHANKS. The National Gallery, we trust,
will not be allowed to harbour, after this same year
of grace 1859, the Royal Academy, originally
established under the roof-tree of Somerset House.
Marlborough House is required for the Prince of
WALES. The National Gallery is required for—
the National Gallery ! The latter is surely a rea-
sonable demand. The Royal Academy, instead of
grumbling over its removal now, in obedience to a
positive necessity—ought assuredly only to be
grateful for its past good fortune in being so long
provided with a home in the National Gallery, very
much to the national inconvenience. Everything
combines to confirm us in the hope that the next
exhibition of the Academy in Trafalgar-square will
be the very last that may be there holden. The
Government ought in reason to give them notice
to quit—now when the pictures belonging to the
nation are actually going a begging for room, and
when, even supposing the Academy to be already
removed elsewhere, the existing building would be
insufficient for the art treasures already in the
national possession. The mysterious rumours as to
the £l,OOO building said to be now in course of
rapid and secret construction down in that melan-
choly slough of despond at South Kensington—
these at least, we are sanguine, may be to-morrow
effectually dissipated by the official reply vouch-
safed to the pertinent inquiries of Sir H. WIL-
LOUGHBY. For it is altogether incredible that after
the positively and peremptorily adverse decisions
of the House of Commons last session, any Minister
would so directly and so flagrantly go counter to
the expressed views of the popular branch of the
Legislature.

So London has met, and in the Guildhall—the
Lord Mayor in the chair. Mr. BRIGHT tells us
that " the nation dwells not in the palace but in
the cottage ;" and, accepting this dictum, the
nation, so far as London is concerned, were certainly
present at the meeting of Saturday, for it consisted
chiefly of working people, with Mr. ERNEST JONES
as orator in chief. Who can blame them ? If the
other classes in London chose to let the metropolis
give its judgment on Reform, without the aid of
their counsel, they have no right afterwards to
complain of the decision. The meeting was public,
apparently willing to hear all—why were not some
of the advanced middle-class reformers, and some
of the less advanced also, there, to state their views?
They will bear discussion, and, to a great extent,
and it would have been
better for the usual actors in to have
been in their places. The " people who dwell in
the cottage" should now be met by those who are
termed "their betters," and they would be the
better for being thus met. English workpeople,
when fairly dealt with, are the most reasonable,
the most conservative workpeople in the world.
We believe, for instance, that such an aristocratic
reformer as the " noble lord the member for London"
would on Saturday have had a fair hearing ; as fair a
hearing as he had at Liverpool when lecturing to
working men on Social Science. He very strenuously
insists on the responsibility of the electors to the
unenfranchised. This is, indeed, his stock argument.
for refusing the Ballot. Why did he not show his
sense of responsibility to non electors on Saturday ?
He might then have asked them themselves what
they thought of his argument.
We begin to see, however, that if there is a large
class which thinks Mr. BRIGHT has gone too far,
there is a yet larger class which thinks he has not
gone far enough. We apprehend that public meet-
ings of working men, as large as that which assem-
bled at Guildhall, could be called without difficulty
in every large town in the kingdom. Mr. E. JONES,
in London, had a coadjutor of the same opinion
from Newcastle, who was returning thither to a
large meeting, as it certainly will be, also in favour
of manhood suffrage and the Ballot, the latter being
the one demand in which all Reformers who have
yet spoken unite, as a matter of course. The
longer Ministers defer their bill the more numerous
will these meetings become, and the more apparent
will it become that a rating or household suffrage
is the lowest which can be offered to the many. The
resolution itself—demanding a " just share of poli-
tical power for all classes of the community" was of
course general,—but Mr. JONES'S speech was its
interpretation, and the speech was for manhood
suffrage and the Ballot.

We recently directed public attention to Mr.
BRIGHT'S want of comprehension in reference to
what was complained of by monetary reformers.
Our esteemed contemporary, the Derbyshire
Courier, has ably followed up the subject, and in
an admirable article, which we extracted into our
columns on Monday last, not only pointed out
clearly and distinctly what was complained of,
but the nature and extent of the required
remedy. The question is one pre-eminently
of labour against money. We will not
use the word " capital," because many
capitalists of enormous wealth are deeply in-
terested in obtaining a circulating medium adequate
to the wants and exigencies of the country. Every
owner of real estate, for instance, would find his
income greatly enhanced by what would create an
additional demand for agricultural produce, en-
courage his tenants to improve their respective
holdings, and bring them into the highest degree
of cultivation. His property is thus increased
largely in value, while, if it should be subject to any
encumbrance, either for mortgage or family
charges, the burden will be found far less onerous
soo
abr
ttoiaspifnpyer
dea snsayitv
pea ,r
feaisnisrai
nsamgn uac
lc
reasonable
can
and
ratedt
h the
ofm
inasmuch as the property would comoinrmeteareneasdstilytao,
higher price in the market, should it be-
come necessary to force a sale. Even those
whose farms were let at fixed rentals, would
find it to their advantage, inasmuch as