The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-30 00:00:00

support the resolution, to which "exception might
be taken on the ground of general prudence and
convenience," and be unequivocally declared
that so far as his own opportunities of know-
ledge went—and it will be admitted that they
are by no means inconsiderable—that "this is the
first occasion on which a resolution has been moved
to the second reading of a bill, the purport and
matter of which consist simply in dealing with cer-
tain portions of the bill, which portions might be
dealt with in committee." It is not only a novelty,
but a " very inconvenient novelty." One that
would form a precedent more honoured in the
breach than in the observance. Some portions of a
measure may be highly popular, others equally
displeasing to the house and country. The course
now adopted would prevent any elimination of the
elements, and separation of the good from the bad—
any sifting of the corn, rejecting the chaff and re
taining the wheat, which could be turned to the
most valuable purpose..
Another and an unquestionably strong reason for

rejectimg the resolution, is that there is no cohesion
between its supporters. Supposing it were adopted,
we would find the chief leaders of the different
parties, who have combined for the time being,
totally at variance. Lord JOHN RUSSELL would
eagerly seize the reins of power, and rush into office
on any terms. On the other hand, the noble lord
the member for Tiverton would not permit either

a resignation or a dissolution. He "condemned
Ministers to retain their places." They had as
cepted the Government " with its• engagements,"
and should not be allowed even " to pay forfeit.'
They must run with the weights fixed by their
opponents.

As to the hon. member for Birmingham, the
course he has decided on adopting seems to be
utterly incomprehensible. We believe him to be a
sincere Reformer, and yet he is trying to adjourn
the question sine die, because his own particular
views have not been adopted, although as we have
already explained, he must know that there

is early prospect of their being carried,
and that they may be fully and fairly
tested in Committee, and the opinion of
the House taken thereon. Indeed, it is the only
chance of even their partial success for a consider.
able period. Why, then, does he support the
Whigs ? He did not profess to be greatly
enamoured with the proceedings of either of the
rival Premiers, or to vindicate their policy. It
could therefore scarcely be his wish to bring either
in, when by so doing not merely the cause of Reform
would be deranged, but the peace and tranquillity
seriously endangered. He must be well aware that
the firm but conciliatory policy adopted by the
present Government with respect to foreign affairs
has been productive of the most felicitous results,
that the horrors of war have been averted, and

that despite the gravest complications, and yet he
seeks to put the men who have rendered such pre-
eminent services out at any hazard, in order to
bring back the man whom he represented to be
the worst Minister that ever held office. It is
inexplicable save on the ground that he intends to
make the question of Reform his own peculiar
measure, and will not sanction the settlement of
the important subject by any one but himself.
Mr. MACAULAY made a very able speech against

the resolution. He pertinently inquired what
party had a majority in the House, and the inter-
rogatory should be carefully considered before
any steps were taken to substitute a
weaker Ministry for that now in office. Mr.
HARDY was also exceedingly good. Indeed, the
speeches on the Ministerial side have been from
the very commencement of the debate of a very
.high order, and the longer the discussion is con-
tinued the more fully will the people be convinced
of the objects and motives for which the resolution
was framed and supported.

One-quarter, or rather we believe one-fifth, of
what was actually expended upon the late Crimean
war would have paid for the whole of those metro-
politan improvements upon which we very recently
commented. It would be a perversion of ordinary
language to talk of the sum total of the cost of these
projected improvements as in any way extravagant.
The aggregate amount could in no respect be regarded
as extravagant—whether the wealth of the capital
be taken into account, or the size of the twin cities,
or the extraordinary magnitude of their popu-
lation. According to reliable estimates there are
in the British capital no fewer than 2,500,000 in-
habitantst. The superficial extent of the area covered
by it in. houses and pavements is calculated, as