The Sun. — 1842-04-25 (London, England)

JITLIC OPXNXON. The Herald says, in reference to the' Income-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 Hon. Baronet has only stated very generally the amount which he anticipates from the new 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 presuine, join us in demanding some modification of Schedule 1). The Post contains the foll Owing observations :—" The speech of Sir Hebert Peel, iu reply to the Ultra-Radical plans anti arguments, was in many parts exceedingly happy and amusing. If the Members for Stockport, and Bath, and Monmouth, had possessed anything like good judgment, they would have spared themselves all the irritation which the mirth of the House appeared to excite is 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 contempt the views and wishes of great masses of the s eople. A very slight effort of observation and judgment would have show n them that it was not the views 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 Hod. Baronet had made merry. Surely, if an antagonist makes use of an argument which has something in it ludicrously sbsurd, it is all fair to show up that ludicrous absurdity." The Tunes thus alludes to Mr., Sharman Crawford's motion on the subject of the People's Charter Mr. Sharman Crawford's motion was rejected in the House of Commons by a majority of 159. Such a fact is a good Must- ation of What we have gained by the Reform Bill. We have gained a Government which rests upon a basis wide enough to be enables fit mly to resist all democratical encroachments upon the stability 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 658 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, rendered memorable by the East Retford case, was in such contingency 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 fur any two towns of which the population, has, since 1832, increased beyond the amount a tett thousand, which was then made the criterion of sendins 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 of bringing all the honest 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 2nember of the recent Melbourne Ministry was in his seat the whole rf that evening. They one and all, from Lord John Russell down to the most insignificant member of that incompetent Cabinet, ignobly kept away. Coward-like, they shrunk from the discussion. 'fhey had neither liberalism enough ti advance with the movement party, nor manliness enough to vindicate their' finality principles. Their conduct in absenting themselves from such a discussion wit, 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 bear himself in a double sense. He has not only laid the axe at the root of his future leadership of the Opposition, but he has sacrificed his scat for the city of London. A requisition was fa: warded to him from some of the most influential electors in the city of London, headed by Mr. Pattison anti Mr. Grote, the late members for the City, requesting him to be present during the discussion on Mr. Sharman Crawford's motion. But he did not think proper to comply with the wishes of the requisitionitts. Of course, therefore, his connection with the representsJim of the City will cease with the present Parliament. And, We must say, it is better to have to contend with open foes than with simulating, incompetent, and treacherous friends, such as the Whigs have 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 inveterate.ly , opposed themselves whenever the progress of popular rights threatened to absotb_ the interests and influence of party, in the welfare and liberty of the nation. The Whigs will unite with the people to reestablish themselves in power; they will unite with the Tories to exclude the people from a fair [representation in the Legislature. Such is Whiggery I Their absence from the House on Thursday night cannot be regarded so much in the light of a traitorous desertion as of an open avowal of their hostility to the cause with which they have associated themselves only for the purpose of sacrificing it to their own selfish ignoble ambition.'