The Sun. — 1854-07-26 (London, England)

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 1854.  preceding Sessions on the part of the representatives of free and independent constituencies. Lord Jonar Russmr, attempted to ride off on a collateral point, to make the question one of " Confidence" or "No Confidence." He said, " If we are fit to be Ministers of the Crown we are fit to have that discretion. If we are not fit to have that discretion, on the other hand we are no longer fit to remain Ministers of the Crown !" Now, we must earnestly and emphatically protest against such an argument—one, indeed, that might be pushed to any extent, even to making the lives and properties of the people dependent on the will and pleasure of the Minister for the time being. We are well aware of the efficacy of so very significant a hint respecting a change of Ministry—a hint carrying with it not merely the " delicious treat of an autumnal session," but the inestimable blessing of a general election, with all its noise and  turmoil, and its innumerable demands on the  time, the patience, the energies, and the pockets of those who are to determine the matter, and many of whom would be guilty of an act of poli tical suicide, signing their own death warrants as public men. We repeat, then, that it is not fair  to make use of such a threat in order to induce  the guardians of the public purse not merely to abdicate their functions, but to transfer the power constitutionally reposed in them to any Ministry, however popular. As we have already stated, " the most trusted, and the most trustworthy, should not demand so great a sacrifice, nor should the chosen representatives of the people, disgrace themselves by establishing a precedent so fraught with danger to popular rights and privileges." The dangerous example has, however, been set—  the " precedent has been established." The three millions now granted may be quadrupled, or more than quadrupled, another time. A still greater responsibility than that so boldly assumed may be encountered by future Ministries, more unlimited confidence (if that be possible) may be reposed in the discretion of Ministers, until the liberties of the people be sacrificed to the magnitude of a discretion more suited to a Turkish Vizier than a First Lord of the Treasury of the United Kingdom ! A similar "discretion" will, we suppose, this evening be insisted on for capitalists who are prac tically to be allowed to raise funds for the uwe of the AUTOCRAT if the dividends offered be deemed satisfactory. That " discretion," as we have already explained, may operate very prejudicially to the interests of the tax-payers of Great Britain and to the cause of European Civilisation. And, in like manner, the unlimited discretion of rulers must promote the cause of " despotism." What, in fact, is the principle of " Autocracy" but " unLimited discretion " for the ruler to do as he thinks proper, without being accountable to any person or persons whatever--to "do as he likes with his own "—without let or hindrance. And this is the course in which the House of Commons has made a very decided step by its vote of last night. We trust that the time will speedily arrive when the voters, aye, and nonvoters, of the United Kingdom may express their opinions on the propriety of such a proceeding. The fear of a dissolution is the true secret why members have neglected their duty. But their time is coming—and that soon !  A reviewer, in the Edinburgh has manifestly not followed the advice of Sir