The Sun. — 1842-04-23 (London, England)

ITXILIC OPINION.  The Herold says, in reference to the Ineome.tax Bill: '° In the progress of the Bill through Committee, we trust to witness very extensive modifications in its provisions. All that Sir Robert Peel can possibly desire is such an amount of annual income as will equalise the national revenue and expenditure, and enable him to financially warrant the sacrifice of revenue which his new tariff demands. Hitherto the Right lion. Baronet has only stated very generally the amount which he anticipates from the newt tax ; but very great doubts may be entertained whether, if his proposition be adopted, a much larger revenue will not be produced than that anticipated. Some further details of the Government calculations on this point are very desirable, because, should the produce of the tax have been understated, the most earnest supporter of the Government will then, we prsume, join us in demanding some modification of schedule .  • .... . The Post contains the following observations:—" The speech arguments, was in many parts exceedingly happy and amusing. andt Bath, anti Monmouth, had the Ultra-Radical plans and judgment,el, r they would have spared possessedthemselvesolff t Sir re toabnerl tlt Memberstii in ►r likeSi tti ano tgei :krone); rlyt ,which the mirth of the House apy eared to excite in them, and they would probably have gone to bed in much better health and spirits. Their indignation, if we may credit their own account of the matter, arose from the supposition that the Premier had treated with mirthfUl congarnedatj judgment would have shown masses of the yeople. A ttvleetmer myr' t-lightllitaietivteiffewow:ars: anonofdtotbhie:rhistsivoostn. and wishes of the people, but the strange arguments in favour of these supposed wishes—arguments that were brought forward in the debate by the UltraRadical Members—with which the Right Hon. Baronet had made merry. Surely, if an antagonist makes use of an argument which has something in it ludicrously absurd, it is all fair to show up that ludicrous absurdity." The Tames thus alludes to Mr. Sharman Crawford's motion on the silt ject of the People's Charter:—" Mr. Sharman Craw ford's motion was rejected in the House of Commons by a majority of 159. Such a fact is a good illustration of what, e have gained by the Reform Bill. We have gained a Government which rests upon a basis wide enough to be enabled firmly to resist all democratical encroachments upon the stabi• lity of our institutions ; a Government in which Members and the popular will have as great weight as the deliberate and conscientious judgment of the educated part of the nation considers their due. The ship had become top-heavy before ; but it is righted now." The Chronicle says :—" About the mere disfranchisement of Sudbury there would probably be no great difference of opinion. But what is to be done with the forfeited franchise? The simplest plan would be to do nothing with it : to wipe out the corrupt borough from the Parliamentary roll : and leave the House of Commons composed of 656 instead of 65S Members. But the Tory party have committed themselves in opposition to this obvious place. Sir Robert Peel voted for General Gascoigne's motion in 1831, on the first Reform Bill, declaring that the numbers of the House should not be lessened : and many of his party probably still feel a strong objection to diminishing the proportion of English to those of Scotch and Irish Members. To whom, then, is the vacant franchise to be given ? The old Tory plan, rerrlered memorable by the East Retford case, was in such • coot ingency to give the franchise to the hundreds. This would be an absurd proposition now. The plan most in conformity with the principle of the Reform Act, which must now be regarded as the basis of our electoral system, would be to look out for any two towns of which the population, has, since 1832, increased beyond the amount of ten thousand, which was tl,en made the criterion of sending one Member to Parliament."  The following is from the Advertiser :—" As we stated yesterday, the frequent discussion of the suffrage question will not only have the good effect etbringing all thonest and zealous friends of an extended franchise together, but it will have the further salutary result of ridding the Liberal cause of those who have been Reformers only in name. The debate of Thursday has already, in some measure, had this effect. Not one member of the recent Melbourne Ministry was in his seat the whole of that evening. They one and all, from Lord John Russell doWn to the most insignificant member of that incompetent Cabinet, ignotly kept away. Coward-like, they shrunk from the discussion. They had neither liberalism enough to advance with the movement party, nor manliness. enough to vindicate their finality principles. Their conduct in absenting themselves from such a discussion will not be lost on the country. They have irretrievably damaged themselves in public estimat'on. They have proclaimed themselves unworthy of any longer heading the Liberal party. They have completed the political suicide with which their imbecility has so long threatened them, Lord John Russell has done ter himself in a double sense. He has not only laid the axe at the root of his future leadership of the Opposition, but lie has sacrificed his seat for the city of London. A requisition was le. warded to him from some of the most influential electors in the city of London, headed by Mr. Mattison and Mr. Grote, the late members for the City, requesting him to be present during the discussion on Mr. Sharman Crawford's motion. But lie did not think proper to comply with the wishes of the requisitionists. Of course, therefore, his connection with the representation of the City will cease with the present Parliament. And, we must :ay, it is better to have to contend with open fees than with simulating, incompetent, and treacherous friends, such as the Whigs hive ever proved themselves to the true interests of the people, which they have advocated only so far as suited their designs as a party, but to which they have ever inveterately :oprosed themselves whenever the progress of popular rights threatened to absorb the interests and influence of party ins she welfare and liberty of the nation. The Whigs will unite with the people to re-establish themselves in power; they will unite with the Tories to exclude the people from a fair representation in the Legislature. Such is Whiggery ! Their absence from the Housc on Thursday night cannot be regal ded so much in the light of a traitorous desertion as of an ol.en avowal of their hostEty to the cause with which they have associated themselves only for the purpose of s4crificing it to their own selfish ignoble ambition.