The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-20 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1857.

The discussion on the leading point of the
"Precious Budget" will unquestionably come on
this evening. The Arena is prepared, the
Knights are armed, and Asquires in attendance
for the Parliamentary passage at arms. The old
and worn-out dodges are resorted to. Liberal
and independent members are emphatically cau-
tioned against giving their votes in favour of any
proposition emanating from the Opposition. The
new coalition is held up as a bugbear "to fright
the Isle from its propriety," and even ominous
hints of a dissolution in the event of an adverse
division are whispered in the clubs. These
" dodges" cannot, however, always prove success-
ful. The most obnoxious measures have been
carried, the most salutary ameliorations procras-
tinated, or eltogether rejected, by means
thereof. "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" has been
the motto of the waiters on PROVIDENCE, at all
times, the plausible pretext by which tergiversa-
tion of every description has been justified,
pledges violated, and the most sol emn obligations
set at nought. Ministers have been thereby
encouraged, to disregard the voice of public opinion
—to display a perverse obstinacy on matters
where graceful concession would be of vital im-
portance to the best interests of the country. It
is the very essence of "red-tapism" which renders
men liable to the imputation of thinking more
of the triumph of a clique than the welfare or
happiness of the community. The Statesman who
"To party gave up what was meant for mankind "
has many imitators at the present day—and we
fear that such will be the case to the end of the
chapter, unless more salutary opinions are incul-
cated, and the sound principle of " measures, not
men," be more generally acted en.

Should the nation refuse an acceptable and
valuable boon because it is tendered from a wrong
direction ? Should we establish a despotic Go-
vernment whose wishes in every point must be
obeyed with cringing servility ? Because we ap-
prove of Lord PALMERSTON as Prime Minister
are we therefore bound to follow all the crotchets
of Sir G. C. LEWIS ? To see the national cur-
rency fettered and restricted, faith violated, so far
as the importers and dealers in tea are concerned,
and the hardly-acquired earnings of industrious
men subjected to the same charges as the perma-
nent and certain incomes arising from accu-
mulated and realised property ? Must we
sanction Tory measures because proposed by
professing Liberals —or reject comprehensive
reforms if tendered by Derbyites and
Aberdeenites ? Far from it ! No delusion
re has led to more fatal results. It has produced
maladministration and misgovernment—the con-
tinuance of old sores that might otherwise be sub•
jected to adequate remedies. It has made the
Whigs in office very different from the same party
in opposition, rendering them to all intents and
purposes " more Tory than the Tories themselves."
This impolitic, this indefensible system, must be
brought to a speedy termination, and never will a
better or more suitable opportunity arise than that
offered this evening by the motions of Mr. Ms-
RAELI and Mr. GLADSTONE.

There is still a locus penitentice for the Govern-
ment. The unfair and oppressive assessment of
the so-called Income Lix is the rack that threatens
their destruction. As we have repeatedly ex-
plained, the impost must be repealed or modified.
There is no other alternative. Its total repeal
either now or in 1860 will render a retrograde
policy inevitable. Alt hopes of further fiscal
improvement must be abandoned. Indirect im-
posts must gradually be introduced, and the
further development of British trade and com-
merce relinquished. Bub so repulsive is the
existing system, so repugnant to every principle
of natural equity, that any risk will be encoun-
tered rather than endure it much longer. All
that is necessary is that the Financial Minister
should recognise the distinction between promi-
nent and precarious incomes, and on behalf of the
Government make some temporary ameliora-
tion, pledging himself to introduce even
during the present session an adequate modi-
fication. The whole fiscal system requires
speedy revision. But, unfortunately, Sir G.
C. LEwrs has proved a total want of capa-
city for the arduous and important task. But
why should Lord PA LMERSTON, therefore, aban-
don his position ? An efficient Commander-in-
Chief will not sacrifice his army because one of
his Generals of Division is known to be incap-
able ! Nor should a great Statesman yield
because one of his subordinates is incompetent for
the duties that devolve on him. Oa the course
adopted this night the fate of the Ministry de-
pends. If timely concession be made, well !
None will rejoice more than ourselves at any
symptom of returning reason. If not, the course
for the liberal and independent members is plain
and straightforward. They must not sacrifice the
interests of the community, and their own cherished
convictions, to the crotchets of Sir G. C. LEWIS,
Or to Lord PALMERSTO.N' S determination to sup-
port that unfortunate financier through thick and
thin. The lesson may be painful, but it will be
salutary, and it will teach men of all parties that
the wishes and opinions of the nation must be
respected, and that " the People are the true and
only source of legitimate power."

Lord CAMPBELL has already announced his in-
tention of bringing the " Law of Libel," as exhi-
bited in the case of DAVISON V. DUNCAN, under
the consideration of Parliament. The Noble and
Learned Lord last night gave notice that on Thurs-
day next,
the 26th instant,She will move for "a.
.
v
Select Committee
to consider whether the pri-
ile
in ges LOVf enjoyed by the reports of proceed-
ings Courts of Justice may be safely
and properly extended to reports of proceedings
in the two Houses of Parliament, and to any and
what other assemblies or public meetings,.under
any and what conditions and restrictions." This
is as it should be, and we only hope that the
Committee, which will unquestionably be ap-
may prove itself fully qualified for the
pointed,

important duties confided to its charge. Wo
have recently pointed out that no mischief can
arise from this Ifair and moderate concession.
Speeches in Parliament are properly privileged,
because it is for the " benefit of the community
at large" that the most unlimited freedom of
speech should be obtained. It is just as essential
that the publication of the debates should be pro-
tected. There would be but little practical utility
if the discussions were confined within the walls of
Parliament, and not " wafted on the wings of the
press" ithroughout the length and breadth of the land.
It is by means of that general publicity that the
various constituencies know how their chosen re-
presentatives discharge the important trusts con-
fided to their charge, and whether they merit a
renewal of that confidence. The duty of the
public journalist is very simple. It is merely to
insure a faithful and strictly accurate report of
what has taken place. If anything prejudical to
the character of an individual is uttered, the bane
carries with it an efficient antidote. If an answer
be given on the spot, that also will be reported.
if not, it is known not to be the charge of the
journal, but of the member by whom it has been
put forward. It rests solely on his authority,
and is taken for exactly what it is worth, and no
more.

The same may be said of the proceedings
at public meetings. More especially those of con-
stituted bodies which have the disposal of public
funds. The proceedings at such assemblies fre-
quently possess a local interest superior even to
those of Parliament itself. The journal that ne-
glected or abstained from reporting them would
be guilty of a gross dereliction of duty, for which
it would forfeit blao good opluiou of its sub
scribers. It is merely the conduit pipe that con-
veys through a wider space that which has al-
ready been delivered, and the last importance of
the diffusion is universally recognised. Why then
should any impediment be interposed ? Why
should a formidable weapon be left exposed, which
any person can direct against the journal or the in-
dividual who is fairly exercising his vocation
without malice or vindictive feeling. If any im-
proper motive can be established, let the offender
still be subjected to all the penalties of the law.
But when he can prove that the publication has
been without malice, and for the public benefit,
he should be exonerated from all responsibility.
We have not impeached the decision of the
Court of Queen's Bench. We respect too highly
the learning and impartiality of our judges. But
we may surely question the policy of the law
which has been recently introduced by a series of
judgments opposed to the old constitutional prin-
ciples. The ancient law exempted thoss who
made the statement, not from themselves, but
giving at the same time the authority, and on
much better grounds than this innovation rests.
At all events let the question be fairly discussed,
and that which is right be adopted. This is all
we ask, and this we earnestly hope we may obtain
from Parliament. Truth must, at all events, be
promoted by the ventilation of the question.

It is the misfortune of some applicants to be
" too late," and others to be " too soon ;" a third
class are lucky enough to hit the right medium,
while a fourth can never come right, in the opinion
of some people, come at what period they may.
To which class does Mr. L. KING belong ? As
Lord PALMERSTON would have us believe, to the
second—as Lord PALMERSTON may be supposed to
believe, to the last. Come when Mr. KING may
he is never ready for him, but always meets him
ou arrival with an objection as to the time of his
application. The country is at war. The Hon:
member is " too soon." He should wait till we
are at peace. The war is over well-nigh a twelve-
month, and still the Hon. Member is " too soon."
Can Mr. KING hit the happy medium and come at
the right time according to the judgment of the
Premier ? Reformers are very strongly disposed
to believe he can't. There are certainly weighty
grounds fur such belief.
If the Bill of the Hon. Member were of an
unreasonable character, the ill-luck he meets with
would call for little or no remark. Its provisions,
however, are characterised by moderation, and
based on the most obvious grounds of justice and
expediency. AU he asks for is, that the occupiers
of tenements of the annual value of 101., in Eng-
lish and Welsh counties, shall have the same right
of voting as the occupiers of such tenements in
boroughs. As matters now are large bodies of
respectable tax payers are wholly shut out from
representation. Unless they have a county qua-
lification the ten pound occupiers of many towns,
and most of our villages and hamlets, have no
vote at all—have nothing whatever to do with
the taxation or general government of the coun-
try but to pay their share of the one, and quietly
submit to the other, however contrary to their
wishes. The unreasonableness of this is apparent
on the face of it, and it would seem to require
some hardihood to oppose the act of simple justice
Mr. L. KING contemplates. The Premier knows
better than to denyan extension of the county fran-
chise, but the Hon. Member had better wait and
see what effect his measure might have on the
general system and organisation of the country.
There were many little objections to the principle.
of his Bill, which he Nt ould barely hint at. It
would uproot distinctions which ought to exist,
and lead to consequences probably not contem-
plated by its framer ; he himself had. no ob-
jection to a Bill extending the county representa-
tion, but must oppose this bill, and if for no other
reason because it was not likely to pass, and its
introduction would lead to a waste of the time of
the House, already too little for all the business
before it. The Hon. Member had Letter wait.
Such, in brief, is the nature of the Premier's op-
position'to the introduction of the Bill, and, of
course, it had sufficient weight with the hangers-
on of PROVIDENCE to ensure a majority in favour
of his views. How little force there is in the ob-
jection as to time was sufficiently exposed by Lord
J. RUSSELL, and so paltry were the other objec-
tions that the reader will be disposed to agree
with us in thiaking had an extension of the
franchise in counties been an object on which the
Premier had set his heart, leave would have been
given to Mr. L. KING to bring in his Bill.

Last Wednesday Sir JOHN PAKINGTON pub-
lished in the House the bans of marriage bet seen
religious and secular education, also between per-
missive educational rating and local rating. This
time the House did not, as they did last year in
the case of Lord Joux RUSSELL, forbid the banns
altogether. But then Lord JOHN wanted to unite
at the altar of St. Stephen's, compulsory educa-
tion and general rating. We can hardly doubt,
however, that Sir JOHN'S match will be fatally
objected to the second time of asking.
This seems somewhat hard. The parents of
the young couple and the young couple themselves
had agreed at Manchester to the union. Whom
Manchester would join t)gether why should the
House of Commons keep asunder ? The terms of
the marriage settlement were adjusted, the two
families were said to be quite satisfied ; we almost
think the wedding dresses are ready—why forbid
the banns ? That they will be forbidden we have