The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-08 00:00:00

Very clever, Lord JOHN; "too clever by Lit," as
some Radical member said of Mr. DISRAELI'S
Your address to the worthy citizens of London is
quite worthy of a practised Whig politician. It
ought to get you some votes, it is so very clever.
There are, however, ten or a dozen days for the
good citizens to consider this clever address, and it
often turns out that, the more these very clever
things are looked into, the less they are liked. The
first part of the address—one-third or so—is a sum-
ming-up of the parliamentary debates against the
bill, and an adroit tit-bit of flattery is inserted
for the small boroughs,—" they are not neces-
sarily corrupt or servile." Surely they will re-
turn RUSSELLITES after the compliment, and after
the assurance that the "present Government" will
corrupt them if it can. •
Then comes the personal defence ; his resolutions
were " the manly and direct course." Whatever
the manliness of resolutions which committed the
mover to nothing, there can be no question that
they were supposed to be the "direct course" to
office ; grievously as Sir HUGH CAIRNS sinned
against Parliamentary conventionalities by blurt-
ing out the undoubted fact. On one point the pub-
lic will easily judge for themselves. Mr. DISRAELI
says the Opp)sition was composed .of such diverse,
almost hostile parties, that it is worth a dissolution
to get a working majority on the Conservative side
of the House. Lord JOHN says • there was such a
general agreement amongst the independent men
that it would have been easy to pass a satisfactory
Bill! Of course he means with Lord JOHN RUS-
SELL as Prime Minister. We must confess that
Mr. BRIGHT and Mr. BERKELEY were much too
compliant for our notions of " independence." But
after all, did Lord JOHN RUSSELL expect that they
and Lord PALMERSTON would all bow to his Dic-
tatorship ? It is notorious that if the election does
not unite the discordant Liberals, they will be, as
they have been all last session, at the mercy of
well-led Conservatives.
But how wicked to dissolve! " Public and
private business suspended and loss of many useful
measures are evils of no common magnitude."
There was Lord JOHN'S Bankruptcy Bill, or, was it
the dropping of the Church-rate Abolition Bill
which calls forth these regrets? And then, there
was no policy to dissolve for—no one knows what
the Ministry mean to do in a new Parliament. So
much the better ; it is left to the country to issue
its instructions to Ministers. Whit, then, will Lord
JOHN do? He will " endeavour to procure the
immediate enactment of a sound, moderate, and
constitutional measure." Doubtless Lord DERBY
and Mr. DISRAELI would profess their unhesitating
belief in the same trinity.
But what of secret voting? That, alas, is a tender
point. At the last election brother CHARLES helped
brother JOHN over the-stile. This year he must get
over himself as he best can. His colleagues have
been sound on the point, and he is the black sheep
—how shall he prove himself white ? Let us see.
Ist. " He will not recur to his votes on the subject."
That is wise. "Least said soonest mended." But
others may yet recur to those votes. 2dly. "He
is in favour of publicity, as most conducive
to freedom of thought and action." Why,
'yes, we may grant that. It leaves the class
who turned his Lordship out of South Devon very
free, not only to think for their tenants, but to act
too on their fears ; and if leaves many classes,
whom we need not again enumerate, very free to
act in the way of intimidation and bribery. Or,
take it 'another way—open voting leaves tenants-
at-will, and others, full freedom of thought, and
landlords full freedom of action. The tenant is free
to curse his landlord, if he likes, in thought ; the
landlord free to act through his tenant, whether his
tenant likes it or not. Most of us think, however, that
the freedom bestowed on the landlord under open
voting is rather what we term " making too free."
3rdly. lie must not affront electors, if he can help it,
any more than petty boroughs—so he " honours
the aim and object of those who support the
Ballot :" they are the same as his own ; he
" wishes, like them, to check intimidation and
corruption,"—that is, -when it turns Whig Lords
out of counties. We are much obliged to
Lord JOHN for all the " honour" he gives us, and
his love too if he feels it ; but the pledge to
" obey" also, if he wishes for political marriage
with a Liberal constituency. Begging, however,
his Lordship's pardon, we thank him little for
honouring our aims and objects, for he tells us he
honours his own in doing so—that is, that we
have the honour of like aims with himself. The
difference is that we are such fools that we know
not what we need; and that he is so wise as to
know what is best for us better, than we ourselves
do. It may be so. But we who wear the shoe
think we best know where it pinches.

But, fourthly, what will he do ? Why, " that
is a question which must be decided by the
growth and maturity of public opinion." There,
electors, you are fairly challenged ! Lord
JOHN RUSSELL throws the decision of ' the
Ballot question on your opinion. Tell him
your opinion unmistakeably—on its growth and
maturity—show how it has grown since the lastjelec-
tion. Hundreds of thousands all over the kingdom
look to constituencies like the city of London, cora-
parati,vely free themselves, to liberate those in eke-
' toral bondage. Liberal electors of London do fear-
lessly your duty to the country ! Tell his lordship that
the die is cast. Tell him that the greatest Reform
of all now is, that of electoral independence; and
tell him that, use what sophistry and what fine
phrases he may, the plain fact is, that electoral
independence is inseparable from the Ballot. That
he must vote for it, or forfeit your votes.

For .the postponement of more legislative im-
provements than those involved in the great
scheme of a comprehensive measure of Parlia-
mentary Reform, the country is immediately in_
debted to a petulant and factious Opposition. It
is espeOally and peculiarly indebted to the noble
lord under the glamour of the motley ranks of that O whose wily resolution
single division—brow pposition were--for one
ght together. Legal reforms,
sanitary reforms, educational reforms, ameliora-
tions and modifications of every description have

ing " loaves and fishes " are generally favoured. It been set aside- collectively for another session—
is by no means improbable that Miniiters may have solely that that noble lord might enjoy the opp Or-,
300 supporters in the new Parliament, and with tunity of at least striving to wrest power from his
such a body they could carry everything be- political antagonists. is earnestly to be hoped
fore them: They will not, however, ne- that the citizens of London will bear in mind this
glect Reform. 'They see how deeply the undoubted fact and wreak upon the noble lord a
feeling of the country is engaged. They have fitting vengeance-
by way of, retribution. Now is
performed faithfully and honourably the task the very time for the reappearance under happier
which they had Undertaken, and thus exhibited a auspices of the young man from Northampton:
strong contrast to the conduct of their predecessors. The Reformers of London ought to bear in recol-
Nor will they now hold back. The wishes of the lection the contrast presented at this moment by
community will be expressed on the various hus- those two Liberal candidates upon the most im-
tings erected in every county, city, and borough portant of all questions in regard to the Reform
throughout the United Kingdom, and these wishes of Parliament. Mr. RAIKES CURRIE is for the
must be duly and properly responded to. But for Ballot. Lord JOHN RUSSELL is resolutely, distinctly
the accession of Lord DERBY to office, -there would obstinately against it! Lord JOHN voted against it
be no Reform Bill offered worthy of acceptance, upon the division taken upon the hon. member
The Ballot is especially objected to by, the rival for Bodmin's amendment upon his lordship's amend-
Lords, and that, in the opinion of the People, is the went. Lord JOHN further endorsed that vote by
alpha and omega of political amelioration, without his personal and petulant announcement on Mon-
which everything else is " worthless and of none day evening, to the effect—" If the present minis
effect." The Ballot, and nothing but the Ballot, is try should introduce any Reform Bill containing
the touchstone of, all true'Reform. clauses introducing the Ballot, I shall feel it my
duty to vote against, it." Nothirig could be more,
explicit, more definite, more precise than the avowal
again and again reiterated by the noble lord, that
he will not consent to the admission into any Re-
form Bill of the most essential of all reforms—the
Ballot.
~ In this he is directly opposed to the ma-
jority of those clustered about him below the gang-
way. He is distinctly opposed in this to the hon.
member for Birmingham. He is at issue with the
right hon, member for Carlisle, with whom, never-
theless, he concocted that precious amendment in
the shape of a double-barrelled resolution—loaded,
as it now turns out, with cartridge as blank as the
faces of those ranged behind it, now that it has been
fired off ! Again, we would remind the Liberal elec-
tors of the city of London that the Noble Lord is
absolutely pledged now to oppose the Ballot—his
Lordship having not only gone into the lobby
against Mr. WYLD'S amendment upon the Resolu-
tions, but having, furthermore, since then, declared
his intention to vote against it hereafter, should it
eventually be introduced as a clause,in any
future Reform Bill to be laid before Parliament.
The constituency that returns Sir JAMES DUKE, as
he deserves to be returned with unhesitating cor-
diality, should bear in mind, at the ensuing general
election, not only the course Lord JOHN has recently
pursued in regard to the Ballot—not only the course
he has plainly announced it to be his intention to
pursue, yet further, as its implacable antagonist—
but that same constituency should remember, in
distinct contrast to this, the manly vote, in favour
of the Ballot, given by the Noble Lord's colleague
(Sir JAMES DUKE), and the unflinching advocacy
of the Ballot by which the -Noble Lord's former
antagonist (Mr. RAIKES CURRIE) distinguished
himself at the time when he competed with
him for the representation of the City,
upon the platform in Guildhall. The citi-
zens of London should consider that Lord'
JOHN is but a sorry champion for Reform—
opposed thus flagrantly to the Ballot, and driving
all hope of any reform whatever again out of our
reach by means of this further most vexatious post-
ponement. Better than the Noble Lord, as a fourth
M.P. for the City of London, better as a colleague
for Sir JAArEs DUKE, better a " young man" of
"fifty-eight," who is in favour of, vote by. Ballot,
who is in favour of Church Reform, who is in
favour of National Education--even Mr., RAIKES
CURRIE—the young man from Northampton.
" Pahnam qui meruit ferat." Lord JOIIN should
have his deserts. And these are they. It were a
fitting retribution for his late factious manoeuvring,
for his intolerable antagonism of the Ballot
for his perverse postponement for another
session of any Reform Bill whatever—it were
fitting retribution, we say, if Mr. CURRIE were
preferred by the City of London to the noble lord
the author of the late triumphant but futile reso-
lution. Certainly of that noble lord and of his
," noble friend " the member for Tiverton, it might
be said with bitterest irony,
" Their's was no common party race
Jostling by dark intrigue for place."