The Sun. — London, England, 1831-09-27 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The law of England is, like the Peers of England, the creature of society. Society was not made for it, nor for the House of Lords. If a law exists for whose repeal the whole nation cries out, as for a change essential to its well-being, yet which certain constituted authorities, composing perhaps a body of some three or four hundred persons, or rather a majority of them, flatly refuse to concur in,--that is to say, after the representatives of the people in Parliament have, by their majority, declared that such a change is indispensable, and voted for its immediate adoption,—we ask, with all humility, what, under such untoward circumstances, ought to be the conduct of the aforesaid nation ? " Obey the law, of course," we shall be answered. Good. What follows, therefore ? If it be right, if it be just, that a nation of 22,000,000 of people—that their Sovereign fully sympathizing with them, and their representatives in Parliament speaking their desires,—if, we say, it be right and just that all these powers should submit themselves tamely to the negative put upon their common de mands by the separate body of a few hundred individuals in question,—that they should pay such obedience for one year, it is equally requisite that they should do so for an hundred years, or for ever. It is, therefore, according to the spirit of the British Constitution, that a certain class of 300 or 400 Englishmen—we don't say who or what they are—should withhold for ever from the King, Com mons, and people of this empire, a benefit which . they all declare to be the only possible means of *tying the State from destruction. The loathsome reptile of the borough-pre , s are spitting their venom at the best and ablest men in the community, who take up the gauntlet impudently thrown down to them, and display at public meetings their virtuous devotion to Refortn. Nevertheless, look at those meetings—do they languish ? Does the call for them subside ? Some important ones we have al ready noticed. Now follow the names of Middlesex, Brighton, Canterbury, Cheltenham, Chester, Corn wall, Exeter, Gloucestershire, Glasgow, Gravesend, Leeds, Romsey, Surrey, Southampton, Tewkes bury. Every parish in Bath held separate meetings, Launceston, Darlington, Falmouth, Chippenham, Toxteth-park (adjoining Liverpool),Melksham,Old ham, Lees, Royton, Kendall, Devonport, Plymouth, Barnard Castle, Bishop Auckland, North Shields, Sunderland. In Scotland meetings have been held in Edinburgh, Leith, Dundee, Greenock, Glasgow, Stirling, Cupar, Kinghorn, Kirkaldy, Arbroath, Dunfermline, Kettle, &c. We have also notices of a great many meetings which are intended to be held in the course of the ensuing week, among which are the counties of Wilts, Lancaster, Devon, and Northumberland, exclusive of Kent, Surrey, and Middlesex, as noticed above. There's indfference for you! The Marquis of Westminster last night presented the petition from that great city whence his Lordship derives his title and a large portion of his princely revenues, and prefaced the presentation of it by a speech wherein his sentiments, as a liberal Reformer, were expressed with a spirit and emphasis which did him honour. He was replied to by Lord Eldon, and in what tone, and with what indications of the side to which his wishes were leaning, we need hardly say. His Lordship pro mised that in relation to the Reform 1311), " he would not belie any act of his former life." Alas ! we could have sworn it. At another part of the evening, the Learned Lord is reported to have made some bitter remarks upon the temporary ab sence of Lord Brougham from the woolsack, which might perhaps have come at least as gracefully from a different quarter. To minds gifted with but the average allowance of delicacy, it would seem that of all the men in the House, the very last who ought P nibble or mumble at the present Chancellor, is an ex-Chancellor, an opposite party in politics. But, in common discretion, what ought Lord Eldon to do? Why, never venture to bring to any man's recollection, that ha had held the seals for five-and twenty years, more especially in juxta-position with the fact that for the last nine months they have been held by Lord Brougham. But " hceret lateri," Lord Brougham's chief labour, and one of his noblest titles to honour from his coun trymen, is his efficient and masterly demolition of those arrears which it had been the labour, if not the honour, of another man's life to create. Rever:ing to the Marquis of Westminster, we find that Lord Eldon attacked his Lordship for acqerting (what Lord Westminster denied having asserted) that the Lords were " not interested" in the Reform Bill. The Noble Marquis could not have uttered such folly. But he might well say, and did say, that the Commons had " a peculiar in terest in it ;" and have they not t So much, that the Lords may very properly be counselled against meddling with the Bill beyond the clear necessity of the interference. We will now allude to conse quences, with a sense of which their Lordships are, we take for granted, by this time pretty deeply im pressed ; hut rather setting the question before them as a matter involving much co nstitutional decorum asa propriety, we would submit the following few passages brought to our notice by a pamphlet which was recently issued from the press, entitled " A few Last Words to the Lords," and exhibiting the view taken by Blackstone of the forbearance ,which ought, constitutionally speaking, to charac terize either House of Parliament in deciding on paints In which the other House is principally con caned ; and Blackstone was not a revolutionist. " Dbekstone, the celebrated Commentator of the Laws of England, has been justly compared to another more an cient professor of laws, who is thus described by Pliny— ' Quinn peritus ills et privati juris et publici ! Quantum semen, quantum exemplorum, quantum antiquitatis tenet ! Nibil est quad discere quod ilk docere non potent. certe, quoties aliquid Abditum qurro, inc chesau frua est.' " If we take the following passages from this author's works, they may, perhaps, be found applicable to the pre sent case :. ‘" Whatever is enacted for law by one, or by two only of the three constituut parts of Parliament, is no statute. To it tso regard is due, unless in matters relating to their own privileges.' " ° It will he sufficient to observe, that the whole of the taw :knd custom of Parliament has its origa front this one niax i m .--that, whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament, ought to be examined, discussed, and adjuage4, in that House, and not elsewhere.' We find, likewise, the following passage, with refe enee to this subject, as a quotation from that great and patriotic Chief Justigs, Lord Holt : " That the authority of Parliament is from the law ; and as it is circumscribed by the law, so it triay - be ex ceeded ; and if they do exceed those legal bounds and authority, their acts are wrongfut, anti caunot be justified any more than the acts of private men. 44 < With respeet to the reciprocal rights of tire Upper House,' Blackstone 4pin observes, All Bills that may, in their consequences, iuy way affect % the rights of the Peerage, are, by the custom of parliament, to have their first rise and beginning in the House of Peers, and to suffer no changes or amendments in the Houoe of Conuttotts."' --Times. The Marquis of Londonderry has an Irish pro., pensity to a row. He s hines upon points of order. The absence of the Lord Chancellor from the House of Lords last night afforded the Noble Marquis an opportunity for vindicating the orders of the House, and no one had certainly a greater right to vindicate those orders than one who bad so often made the ,I-louse feel the inconvenience of their violation, Even in this very instance he gave another of his p r actical lessons, by entering into comments when ot;zht to have given his notice. It seems that the Noble Marquis is to catechise the Lord Chan cellar on the subject tczEc i : r w ne ( d this) night. We hope that the Noble and Lord will be pre pared for his formillsbl., antagonist. that willindeed wg have doubtget over htibsouLgohrdtshhai7 Earl of Eldon b. little s mighty affair, eve" ; ea t his authority to Swell it liikc lynportarce charge of neglige nce sounds t i, r , a y th n e e r gli o g d e l e y e . again s t L o rd Brougham. It was no e -gius he prf Or eti ma d e the nation ring with t h e oi W in the Court of Chancery. ed o not like te im ben Lord ute p little motives to great men u pose that Uldnn b ; ut wh egged theLHouse. not ,t 0 $ P though several cafes of.bankruptcy were disposed of by the present Lord Chancellor, his Lordship would never hear of those cases agetin"—when Lord Eldon descended to make this insinuation, he took the worst poqsihle means of preventing that contrast from being drawn which he ought to be the last man in the kingdom to provoke by any indiscre tion. If any Noble Lord is weak enough to sup pose that he can underrate the vast services already conferred upon the public by the judicial labours of the present Lord Chancellor, by representing those labours as inferior in point of importance to the task of listening to a speech of the Marquis of Lon donderry, or of stopping that speech by calling him to order, we can only say that he will find but few to sympathise with him, and those few mast be Lords. It is quite amusing to observe the air of importance attempted to be given to the absence of Lord Brougham for one night, and that a night for which no business of any moment had been fixed. The Earl of Eldon would have us consider it little short of a breach of the Constitution ; but it was ever the characteristic of the Noble Earl's mind to make mountains of mole-hills, and it was probably his taste for this very sort of drudgery that made his laborious efforts in the Court of Chancery so useless as they really were to the public—for where was the great utility, after all, in deciding questions, how ever justly, when all the individuals concerned in the decision were dead ?—illorning, Herald. We are no friends to over-legislation, neither are we disposed to the other extreme of assimilating so ciety as closely as possible to a state of nature by having no legislation at all. Yet this latter extreme is what Mr. Hume and certain political economists seem to consider as the perfection of that poli tical milleuium of " free trade, of which they are the enthusiastic promoters. Notwithstanding the dreadful loss of life which has been the conse quence of the cupidity and negligence of the owners and navigators of steam-boats, Mr. Hume protests against any interference of the Legislature, as pre judicial, we presume, to the freedom of trade. He says, if men are not careful of their lives, and neglect to make the necessary inquiries before embarking, he does not see what the Legislature can do. If they are to legislate on steam-boats, he does not see why they should not be called upon to legislate re specting the safety of stage-coaches, houses, &c. We ask, how are people, ignorant of ship-building and nautical matters, to know whether a vessel in which they are about to embark is sea-worthy or not ? A great proportion of travellers are those who have no time to stop to make inquiries—whose busi ness obliges them to take the first vessel they can avail themselves of; and those who have time to make inquiries, of whom can they inquire ? Those who are interested in the property of the vessel, or who derive their bread in any way from the esta blishment to which it belongs, cannot be expected to give such information as would deter passengers front embarking in her; and unless passengers go to the inconvenience and expence of procuring a ship wright, or some other competent person, to examine the vessel in which they are about to sail, they may as well keep their inquiries to themselves. The owners of the Rothsay Castle, the loss of which was the sacrifice of more than 100 lives, were very indignant because the Coroner's Jury pronounced her not sea-worthy ; yet Mr. Grattan stated in the House of Commons that he had been informed, by a former mate of that steam-vessel, that four years ago she had been condemned as not sea-worthy, and on that account had been taken off the high seas to ply on the coast, where less risk was apprehended. Hence, we may infer, the calamity which has clothed so many families in mourning. We do not under stand what Mr. Hume means by saying, if the House were to legislate on steam-boats, he did not see why they should not be called upon to legislate respect ing the safety of stage-coaches, houses, &c. Surely so experienced a Member of the House of Commons cannot be ignorant that Parliament has legislated for the safety of stage-coaches by requiring, under severe penalties, that the luggage on the tops of those vehicles shall not exceed a certain measured height—a provision exceedingly necessary to guard against the dreadful and often fatal accidents produced by coaches loaded not according to the dictates of prudence, but of avarice, until they become so top-heavy that a slight pres sure to one side or the other would be sufficient to overturn them. There is also a law against furious driving ; and if there were still another law, to in flict a heavy line on the proprietors of stage-coaches for every life lost by the fault of themselves or their drivers, this mode of conveyance would only be properly guarded, not overlaid by legislation. As to the safety of houses, that has also been legislated for to a certain extent, in London at least, by the en actments relative to party-walls, anti the compulsory remuneration to the workers of fire-engines—and yet, from the want of a little more judicious legis lation, new buildings are not unfrequetoly unsafe, in consequence of fraudulent workmanship or unsound materials. Having suggested some time ago that all steam-vessels should be surve)ed by a competent public officer, and that none of them should be allowed to sail without a certificate of sea-worthi ness, we have seen nothing stated since, in Parlia ment or out of it, which has caused us to change our opinion. Freedom of trade does not require that owners of steam-vessels should be at liberty to commit fatal frauds upon the public, and one of the first duties of a Government is to protect the lives of its people.—Morning Herald. As the time approaches for the decision of the House of Lords on the Reform Bill, indications of the course they are to pursue begin to escape frotn some of their Lordships. Last night, for instance, there was a sort of preliminary discussion on the presentation of the petition from Westminster, lay the Marquis of Westminster. His Lordship took the opportunity of alluding to the meeting of the merchants, bankers, and traders of the city of Lon don. " Their Lordships (he said) would do well to look at what was said at the meeting. It WEIS there said, that if the Reform Bill should be rejected, the circumstance would be productive of the greatest exasperation to the country, and give a fatal blow to public credit ; and it was also said that the people would refuse to pay the taxes." After alluding to the property which some of their Lordships had in boroughs, he observed that— " He could not think that such an interest would have any influence on the minds of their Lordships. But there was another consideration to be attended to. This was a question which in a peculiar manlier concerned the other House. They had agreed to Reform themselves, and why should their Lordships interfere ? They had the power to oppose this measure which the Conn tons had passed fora Reform in their body, if they chose to exer cise it. But there was such a thing as discretion. Some of their Lordships had indeed, an interest in the other House ; but it was not a constitutional one, and be could 4ot think that any private interests which they might have there, or anywhere else, would influence the minds of theiv Lordships in regard to this great and important mea sure. If they should refuse to pass it, the consequence would be a shock upon the public mind, which, in all pro bability, would be attended with the most deplorable and immeasurable mischief and ruin." This speech called up Lord Eldon, who observed— " The Noble Marquis was pleased to say that their Lordships had no interest in the question. Ile had heard these words from his lips, and heard the advice given that the Peers should not interfere with the measure. But since they had been so much advised, he also would give their Lordships his advice, and that was to do their duty.— (Hear, bear)—and he had no doubt but they would do it.—(Hear, bear, from both sides of the House.) He did not say at present what that duty was ; but he would say, that even for the sake of the people themselves, their Lord ships ought to do their duty.—( Hear, front both sides of the House.) He bad no hesitation in saying, that many Noble Lords whom he highly respected would do their duty, by giving that opinion of the measure which it was his duty to give. But so far v.-as it from the Peers having no interest in this question, that they would have no Con stitution at all left, unless the Peers had and took an in terest in it. He would go farther—he had been bred in loyalty—he had been bred to the law, and loved the law ; and, w having now reac h e d t h e age o f f ourscore y e ars, he eld rather die, than admit that the Peep had no interest in the question." No man knows bette r t h an hi s L or d s hi p how ierviceable good words are in the furtherance of questionable objects. Duty! duty ! forms the burden of his Lordship's speech. His Lordship reminds us of a canting rogue who was detected in a fraudulent attempt to transfer to himself what of right belonged to another, and who answered, " must do my duty to my own family." Vice always pays to virtue the homage of borrowing its name. We will answer for it that no Noble Lord will call the object which he seeks to secure by opposing the Reform Bill the plunder or pillage of the people. General terms, like duty, therefore, are of great convenience. His Lordship, however, " would not say at present what that duty was." He might as well, therefore, have held his tongue. The Duke of Wellington would not have conceded emancipa tion to the Catholics if he hail not been compelled by an over-ruling necessity. He felt it to be his duty to resist the claims as long as he could, and when resistance threatened the safety of the empire, he felt it to be his duty to concede them. We pre sume his Grace, seeing the consequences of with holding from the people Reform of Parliament likely to be much more formidable than the consequences from withholding emancipation, will deem it to be his duty to support the Reform Bill. Other Noble Lords will deem themselves in duty bound to secure to their families the same easy access to the public purse which they had in times past. Though, in the language of the poet— " Their aims as various as the roads they take In journeying through life," they will all, no doubt, decide according to con science and duty. We only hope that many of them will have grace sufficient not to set their consciences by that of John Earl of Eldon. The people of England, Ireland, and Scotland, have also a duty to discharge. They must be true to themselves; and the notions entertained by many of their Lordships of duty, will, we trust, be very much aided by the determination of the people. At the Edinburgh meeting on Thursday last, Sir James Gibson Craig observed with much force— " With regard to what they (the Peers) will do, I think much will depend on the result of such meetings as this. I have strong hopes they will do what is best for the country.—(Applause.) I trust they will follow the example which they chalked out for themselves in the great question of Catholic emancipation. You will all recollect, that but a short time before that measure was carried into effect, the Duke of Wellington, and many Peers, declared themselves most hostile to it. But the Duke of Wellington and those Peers changed their opi• nion on this ground, that the claims of the Catholics were urged with such a degree of vehemence and strength, that it was impossible to resist them ; that the Government of the country could not he safely carried on without re moving the civil disabilities which affected Ireland. It was granted on those grounds ; and we have seen how all the prophetic fears of those who opposed the measure have ended in smoke. If the Duke of Wellington was alarmed by the imposing attitude of four or five millions of the people, united in the cause of Catholic emancipa tion, how much more cause has he to be alarmed when lie beholds fifteen or twenty millions ranked in the battalia to carry the still greater question of Re form ? The Peers are, no doubt, a separate estate in the Le gislature of the country, but in all other respects they are a part of ourselves. Whatever involves the happiness or prosperity of the people, must also involve their pros perity or happiness in a still greater degree, because indi vidually they have a greater stake in the interests of the country.—(l-fear, hear.) But if the people uninimously hold that this measure is of such immense importance, as connected with their prosperity and happiness, I should think it would be natural that the Peers should feel it es• sential for them to contribute towards that prosperity and happiness. In forming their resolution on this subject, they ought to keep in view that the people are more inde pendent of the Peers than the Peers of the people.—(lm me,.se cheering,) The people may do without the Peers —.the Peers cannot do without the people.—(Renewed cheers.) Ido not say this invidiously ;itis of the ut most importance to the prosperity and safety of the country that the connection should be continued to the utmost extent. None would lament more than I would to see the day when that connection should be dissevered ; but the people have rights as well as the Peers—they know their rights, and they are determined to maintain them. —(Great cheering.) Ido not say—God forbid that it should be supposed—that the Peers have no right to de cide on the momentous question now before them. It is quite clear that, by the Constitution of this country, which I hope never will be impaired, the Peers have that right ; but they are placed in a situation of great delicacy as to the exercise of it. Each order of the State has peculiar privileges. This question, as it regards the Constitution of the House of Commons, is peculiarly connected with the privileges of the people. It is of infinite importance to avoid all collision between the different orders. If the in terference of the Lords affect the peculiar privileges of the people, what may not the people do with regard to their Lordships' privileges? Then suppose that the Lords reject the Bill by a majority of I, or 10, or 20, or any other number, can they gain any benefit by it ? By doing so they estrange the people from them—and they may obtain a short lived and dear bought triumph. But can they suppose that the King, his Ministers, and the people, will submit to the domination of a majority of Peers ? This great measure must be carried. It cannot fail. Means must be taken, which, in a very few weeks, will set all op position at defiance." " The people (says the newly-created Baronet) may do without the Peers—the Peers cannot do without the people." And he points out with suf ficient clearness the mode by which the Peers may be brought to their senses, if they should happen to loose them. The Peers, in short, are nothing the moment they separate themselves from the people. The Peers cannot levy taxes without the House of Commons. Supposing even that the people should have no objection to pay taxes, the refusal to vote them would necessarily compel the creation of as many Peers as the exigency might require. When Sir James G. Craig said the people may do without the Peers, but the Peers cannot do without th e people, he did not, of course, mean that the Peers should be overboard, but if the people are deter mined, nothing can be made of them ; whereas no determination of the Peers can be considered as a law of the Medes and Persians, so long as fresh creations can be made in any number. Had the Peers succeeded in limiting creations then the case would, no doubt, have been very different. But the Constitution of this country gives them no power of opposing with effect the determina , ion of the people when expressed in so unequivocal a mariner as has been in the late elections and in the House of Commons. The Peers, to use a homely phrase, are in a cleft stick. Whichever way they turn them selves they will find themselves beset with insur mountable difficulties. And it is proper that this should be so. No body of men in a country ought to have the power to gainsay the fixed determination of the people of that country. The benefit of a House of Lords is riot in opposing the nation, but in securing the nation against the influence of fac tion. A factious House of Commons might vote a measure of great peril to the country, which, if not arrested by the Lords, could only be resisted by means calculated to throw the nation into confusion, were there not a House of Lords to oppose its passing into a law, and rendering it ne cessary to appeal to the nation in a fresh election. But in a case where art appeal has been made to the nation against a factious House of Commons, when the King arid his Ministers have been sup ' ported by all the nation, minus the borough mongers and their creatures, the duty of the House of Lords is to submit to overruling necessity, and not foolishly to agitate the country. Noble Lords should remember— " The rank is but the guinea's stamp, The man's the gold." Those who have gold can easily make guineas. A people cannot be made to suit Noble Lords, but Noble Lords can be made to suit a people. When the Duchess of Milan, whose infant children were in the hands of the besiegers of her capital, was told they would be put to death if she did riot surrender, she answered, as she was young if she lived she could have more children, but if she lost her domi nions she could not recover them. So long as the King is the fountain of honour, so long we have a safety-valve which will secure the Peers against themselves. We have never heard it questioned that the Reform Bill is a most unpalatable measure to many of their Lordships. What is money, especially in England, where, as a Noble and Learned Lord once said, religion itself is nothing without money, but the means of commanding all that me n desire ? And who doubts that the Reform Bill will limit the power of many Noble Lords to quarter themselves and their dependents on the public Treasury ? Who ever heard of thieves eulogising Bramah's patent locks ? Parliamentary interest means the power of appropriating public money without reference to public service. When a Peer, or a Peer's son or cousin, or other relation, possesses merit, he will be sure not to he postponed to another with less merit. There is no fear that rank and wealth in England will not possess abundance of influence. But at present it is an understood matter, that Parlia mentary interest can dispense with merit, and that the nation must pay both those who are efficient servants and those who are inefficient. We say nothing of the immorality fostered necessarily by a system which hinges on corruption, and allows interest to trample on merit. Oh the bitter curses which are now heard every day, and every hour of the day, by thousands of brave men, who have often " braved the battle and the breeze," without obtaining promotion, and are now pining in gar• rets or in exile, on their pittance of half-pay, while boys without talent, but possessed of interest, have been again and again raised over their heads ! But this odious system cannot be perpetuated, nor w•i I Lord Eldon's swan-song serve to reconcile the nation to such an abomination. Lord Eldon said, "he was determined conscientiously to do his duty, and he could not be wrong if he did his duty according to his own opinion ; and at his time of life he would say, that he did not wish that life to be prolonged a moment longer, if it were possible that he should be restrained by any petitions, clamours, or resolu tions ; by any favour or prejudice—(Hear, hear) — or fear, from doing his duty, be the consequences what they might." We have no doubt that his Lordship will be consistent with himself to the last. He cannot conceive the possibility of a nation ex isting without one part of it being at free quarter on the rest. He will die as he lived. It would asto nish us indeed to hear that any one measure dictated by benevolence towards his fellow-creatures, or a disposition to leave the world better and happier than he found it emanated from him. He has lived for himself, and his end will be like his beginning. —Morning Chronicle. The crisis approaches. Every body echois the momentous question, " What will the Lords do ?" The Commons of the United Kingdom—the mil lions represented and unrepresented, are naturally inquiring, Who are the Lords? What their num ber, rank, and degree? 'We answer this question in the Morning Chronicle of to-day, by publishing a roll of their titles ; proper names; the dates of the titles by virtue of which they vote as Peers of the realm ; the year of their births; the civil offices they fill. Some few inaccuracies may have una voidably crept into the list, but we believe they are very few. It contains the title of every Lord Spi ritual and Temporal entitled to ♦ote, collated with the lists of the House of Lords up to July last, and comprising the subsequent creations. The House of Lords is composed of all the five orders of Eng lish Nobility—Dukes, Marquisses, Earls, Viscounts, and Barons, who have attained the age of twenty one years, and labour under no disqualification ; of 16 Representative Peers from Scotland; 28 Repre sentative Peers from Ireland; two English Archbi shops and 24 Bishops ; and four Representative Irish Bishops. The gross number appears as follows : Dukes (four Royal Dukes) 23 Marquisses Earls 129 Viscounts 25 Barons 143 Representative Peers of Scotland l6 Ditto of Ireland 2B English Archbishops and Bishops ...... 26 Irish Representative Bishops Total of the House of Peers .. ...... 420 In this mixed list there a few minors, a few (we hope very few) insane Peers, some Peers incapaci tated by age and infirmities; some few Peers are absent, and who will not be able to give proxies ; but in present Peers and proxies we may estimate that nearly 400 of the British and Irish Nobility will legislate on the Reform 8.11. Our readers will not fail to notice the remarkable average of age, a great proportion of the Peers being upwards of 50, and a considerable number upwards of 65. Thirty Archbishops and Bishops form a fearful array ; and the Scotch and Irish Peers are probably i)l.affected to the Mininistry. Lord Grey and Lord Brougham must buckle on their armour, and display energy and nerve befitting the occasion, or men thrown up by revolution will occupy their places. We defer many reflections and enunciations of Parliamentary influence; and we need not point the attention of the country to this awful 101 l of hereditary Legisla tors, when every mind is riveted with anxiety and trembling on the decision of that Right Honourable House !—Morning Chronicle. The announcement by Ministers of their inten tion to withdraw the Irish Arms Bill on account of the late period of the Session, and to resort to the revival of the former law, which will not occa sion much discussion or delay, is another proof that they are plunderers, who never know, when they introduce a measure, whether it is right or wrung. This, however, is of small importance, the same thing having been before established by a number less variety of demonstrations; but their apology for this abandonment of a measure, well considered no doubt like all the rest, and unanimously approved, like them, by all the Members of Administration, is very important and very gratifying as a proof that Ministers arefully convinced that the House of Lords will make short work with their absurd and iniquitous project of Reform. The late period of the Session, unless Ministers mean by it, the concluding period, has no application whatever to the proceeding for which it is made to serve as an apology, and if Mi nisters think we have already arrived at the con cluding period of the Session, of course they can have no idea of completing their measure of Reform, the first part of which, after occupying the Com mons for three months, has just entered the Lords ; the second part of which, equal in complexity and importance to the first, was only introduced on Fri day to Parliament ; and the third part of which, the Irish Bill, is to be introduced nobody knows when, and is besides likely to be the most trouble some of the three, inasmuch as there is every prospect of a radical Papist opposition, in addition to that of the friends of the Constitution, to many of its most material provisions. Proofs, indeed, mul tiply on all hands, not only that the imbecile revo lutionists are defeated, but that they know and feel. themselves to be so. Why, then, was the Lord Advocate the other night, who made a speech upon Scotch Reform, so dull, heavy, and tiresome that he must for ever relinquish the claim to be considered a man of even ordinary talent, unless it be admitted that lie kt - ww he was only going through a useless and lifeless ceremonial, and that he knew also every one of his auditors, to whom it could be worthy of a clever man to speak, to be fully convinced of the same fact ? Wc do not now advert to the condition of Scotland in connexion with the palpable defects in theory of her representation with any view to the general question of R-form. This, in present circum stances, would be a work of supererogation. But as a mark of the originality and vigour which the Lord Advocate thought sufficient for the discharge of a mere formal task, we may just m ention his re. 'lance upon the very novel plea that Scotland had flourished, not in consequence, but in spite of the unpopular character of her representation. It was the free and popular character of the English repre sentative system which diffused its genial influence over Scotland, an d e nabled that country to make such gigantic strides in wealth, civiliz 1- tion, and prosperity since the Union. If we had any doubt of the Lords we should wish, after this declaration, the Lord Advocate to be added to the Peerage in time for the second reading of the English Bill. But passing by this unfortunate oversight of the Learned Gen tleman, will he be so obliging as to tell us, the next time he addresses the House, whether he fancies, from his reading or experience, from his knowledge of what Governments are generally at the present time, or have been in ages that are past, that it is a very easy thing to frame a Government bet ter than one which, by his own admission, has not prevented the people under its sway from making gigantic strides in prosperity, civilization, and wealth? We wish the Lord Advocate would also ponder a little more upon the facts that Scotland has had little or nothing of popular representation, England much, Ireland (since the Union) by far the most of the three, and that the progress of each in prospe rity, civilization, and happiness has been in an inverse ratio to the popularity of her representa tive system; and having done so, to reconcile it he can his desire to give Scotland a democratic re presentation, with the prudence, acuteness, and patriotism which are supposed to belong in a pe culiar degree to persons of his nation. We hope, however, for the honour of Scottish logic, that the Lord Advocate will never again reply to the argument drawn from the comparative prosperity of Scotland by the reductio ad absurdum. A man does not of strict logical Necessity deny that a thing is good when he contends for the possibility of hav ing too much of it. Oaten cakes, and haggis, and whiskey, are good things; ho denies it ? Yet perhaps it is just possible to have too much whis key, haggis, or oaten cake. If Scotland, for her happiness and prosperity, have now, which is pos sible, the effect of popular representation, by sym pathy and connexion with England and Ireland, in exactly that degree which is most conducive to hoth, to give her, in addition, the effect of a popu lar representation of her own, would not be a boon, but a curse.—lllorning Post. SECUN EDITION. SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock. ME LONDON GAZETTE OF THIS EVENING. DOWNING-STEET, SEPT. 26. _ . The King has been pleased to nominate and appoint the fol lowing Officers to be Companions of the Most Honourable Mili tary Order of the Bath : Captain Richard Curry, of the Royal Navy. Captain the Hon. Frederick Paul Irby, of the Royal Navy Captain Daniel Woodritl; of the Royal Navy. Captain James Sanders, of the Royal Navy. Captain the Hon. G. Elliot, of the Royal Navy. Captain Hugh Pigot, of the Royal Navy. Captain Sainsbury Pryce Humphreys, of the Royal Navy. Captain John Tower, of the Royal Navy. Cm.taM William Henna!), of the Royal Navy. Captain William Pryce Cumby, of the Royal Navy. Captain the Hon. Josceline Percy, of the Itoyal Navy. Captain. Andrew King, of the Royal Navy. Colonel Richard Payne, half-pay of Hompesch's Rifles. Colonel Charles Nicol, 66th Foot. Colonel Henry King, half-pay 82d Foot. Colonel Frederick Rennell Thackeray, Royal Engineers. Colonel John Boscawen Savage, Royal Marines. Colonel Johv Francis Birch, Royal Engineers. Colonel Henry Phillott, Royal Artillery. Colonel Robert M‘Clevsrty, Royal Marines. Colonel W. H. Knight Erskine, half-pay Bradshaw's Levy. Colonel the Hon. Lincoln Stanhope, hall-pay Uunattached. Colonel John Grey, half-pay sth Foot. Colonel Sir Henry Watson, Kist. half-pay Portuguese Service. Colonel C. Ashe ''Court, half-pay Ist Greek Light Infantry. Co!onel Charles William Pasley. Royal Engineers. Colonel John Gillies, half-pay 40th Foot. Colonel H. C. E. Vernon Graham, half-pay Unattached. Colonel Sir Robert John Harvey, half-pay, Portuguese Service. Colonel Robert Waller, Assistant Quartermaster-General. Colonel Alexander Thomson, half-pay 98th Foot. Colonel John Duffy, half-pay Unattached. Colonel Jacob Tonson, half-pay 37th Foot. Colonel Vim. Alexander Gordon, half-pay 95th Foot. Colonel Lord George Wm. Russell, half-pay Unattached. Colonel James Fergusson, 52d Foot. Colonel Andrew CreagliSlst Foot. Colonel Robert Pym, Royal Artillery. Colonel Archibald Campbell, 46th Foot. Lieut.-Colonel Richard Gubbins, half-pay 14th Foot. Itieut—Colonel Thomas Hunter Blair, half-pay Unattached. Lieut.-Colonel Robert Lisle, half-pay 19th Dragoons. Lieut.-Colonel Win. G. Power, Royal Artillery. Lieut.-Colonel Wm. Balvaird, half-pay Unattached. Lieutenant-Colonel John Macdonald, 9'2d Foot. Lieutenant. Colonel Edward Fanshawe, Royal Engineers. Lieutenant-Colonel W. Cardon Seton, half-pay 88th Foot. Lieutenant-Colonel Elias Lawrence ' Royal Marines. Lieutenant-Colonel W. Cuth. Elph• Holloway, Royal Engineers. Lieutenant-Colonel C. Stuart Campbell, Ist Foot. Lieutenant-Colonel George Turner' Royal Artilery. Lieutenant-Colonel T. Alston Brandreth, Royal Artillery. Lieutenant-Colo:el Patric: Campbel:, half-(gay 52c1 Foot. Lieutenant-Colonel James Bogle, half-pay Unattached. Lieutenant_Colonel John Michell, Royal Artillery. Lieutenant_Colonel Edward Charles Whinyates, Royal Artillery. Major Sir John Scott Lillie, lint., half-pay 31st Foot. Major Thomas Adams Parke, Royal Marines. Major Henry Ross Gore, 89th Foot. DOWNING-STREET, SEPT, '26. His Majesty has been pleased to nominate and appoint the following Officers in the service of the East India Company, to be Knights Commanders of the Most Honourable Military Order of the Bath:— Major-General Alexander Knox, of the Bengal Infantry. Major-General John W. Adams, C.B. of the Bengal Intantry. Major-General Henry Worsley, C. 8., of the Bengal Infantry. Major-General Hopetoun S. Scott. C B. of the Madras Infantry. Major-General Robert Scot, C. B. of the Madras Infantry. Major-General M'Dowall, C. B. of the Madras Infantry. His Majesty has also been pleased to nominate and appoint the following Officers in the service of the East India Company, to be Companions of the said Most Honourable Military Order : Colonel John Rose, of the Bengal Infantry. Colonel Gervase Pennington, of the Bengal Artillery. Colonel James D. Grenhill, of the Madras Infantry. Colonel John Doveton, of the Madras Cavalyy. Colonel F. Hagley Pierce, of the Bombay Artillery. Colonel Robert Pitman, of the Bengal Infantry. Colonel Hastings M. Kelly, of the Madras Infantry. Colonel John Mayne, of the Bombay Infantry. Colonel W. C. Faithfull, of the Bengal Infantry. Lieutet.-Colonel F. W. Wilson, of the Madras Infantry. Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Lindsay, of she Bengal Artillery. Lleutenaet-Colonel Henry T. Roberts, of the Bengal Cavalry. Lieutenant-Colonel James Caulfield, of the Bengal Cavalry. Lieutenant-Colonel Richard Tickell, of the Bengal Engineers. Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Fitzg:rald, of the Bengal Cavalro. Lieutenant-Colonel Samuel Hughes, of the Bombay Infantry. Lieutenant-Colonel Bober; Smith, of the Bengal Engineers. Major Alexander Manson, of the Bombay Artillery. Major James Nesbitt Jackson, of the Bengal Infantry Major Archibald Irvine, of the Bengal Engineers. DECLARATIONS OF INSOLVENCY. THOMAS HENRY WEBSTER, Stafford, builder. JOHN SPIER, Berkeley, Gloucester, wine-merchant. FRANCIS MASKERY, Birmingham, linen-draper. BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED. RICHARD ALDERSON, Crawford-street, Marylebone, linen-draper. BANKRUPTS. ROBERT CASSTINE, Devereux-court, Strand, tailor, to surrender Oct. 4, at eleven, 11, at nine, and Nov. 5, at twelve, at the Court tdCommissioners. Dobie, Buckingham-street, Strand. JOHN DAWSON, Pimlico, victualler, Sept. 30, Oct: 11, and Nov. 8, at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners. Ellson and Bloxam, Lincoln's Inn-fields. WILLIAM HUME, Manchester, timber-merchant, Oct. 10, 11, and Nov. 8, at the Glarendon-rooms, Liverpool. Miller and Peel, Liverpool ; Taylor and Roscoe, King's Bench-walk, Temple, Temple. FRANCIS U ARTON and SAMUEL RADFORD, Lenten, Nottingham, lace-machine-makers, Oct. 8, at three, 10, :and Nov. 8, at eleven, at Wilson's Hotel, Nottingham Swarm and Brown, Nottingham ; Enfield, Raymond's-building's, Gray's Inn, London. RICHARD HOSKIN, Holsworthy, Devonshire, innkeeper, Oct. 10, 11, and Nov. 8, at one, at the Commercial-rooms, Bristol. Perkins, Bristol; Stevens, Gray's Inn-square, London. THOMAS SALMON, Stoke Ferry, Norfolk, maltstor, Oct. 12, at six, 13, and Nov. 8, at nine, at the Crown Tavern, King's Lynn. Mickelsfield, Stoke Ferry ; Flowers, Bread street. Rev. JOHN DRAKE CROFTS, Wells next the Sea, Norfolk, ship-owner, Oct. 10, at six, 11, at nine, and Nov. 8, at ten, at the Fleece Inn, in Wells. Swain, Stevens, Maples, Pearse, and Hunt, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry, London ; Garwood, Wells. JAMES GIIISON, Manchester, commission-agent, Oct. 11, 13, and Nov. 8, at nine, at the Palace Inn, Manchester. Damp son, Manchester; Adlington, Gregory, and Faulkner, Bedford row, London. JOHN WOOD, Liverpool, livery-stable-keeper, Oct. 18, 19, and Nov. 8, at two, at the Clerendon Rooms, Liverpool. Curt, Liverpool; Chester, Staple-inn, London. CHARLES ELY and BENJAMIN TREACHER, Swansea, Glamorganshire, merchants, Oct. 12, at the office of Mr. T. R. Jones, Swansea, 13, and Nov. 8, at eleven, at the Public Rooms, ; Swansea. Jones, Swansea ; Rowland, Princes-street, Bank, London. WILLIAM KING, Beech-street, Barbican, victualler, Oct. 4 and 18, at two, and Nov. 8, at three, at the Court of Commis sioners. Butler, Surrey grove, Kent-road. JOSEPH SINGLETON, Rugely, Statlbrd, chemist, Oct. 13, at twelve, 14, and Nov. 8, at ten, at the Talbot Arms lnn, Rugeley. Dove, Carey-street, Lincoln's-Inn, London, or Smith, Rugeley. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT THIS EVENING. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SiEA KER took the Chair to-day at a Quarter be fore Four o'clock. Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice of his intention to post pone the call of the House to Wednesday week. Lord CASTLEREAGH presented a petition from Glenarn, in the county of Antrim, in favour of the grant to the Kildare-street Society. Great dissatisfaction was experienced in that part of Ireland which the Noble Lord had the honour of representing, in consequence of the measures intended to be adopted by his Majesty's Mi nisters with reference to this subject, considering that they had been treated with a want of care and attention by the Government. Mr. lIUTIIVEN observed, that in the North of Ireland a great division of opinion existed upon the subject, but generally speaking that part of the country were gr ea tl y obliged to his Majesty's Ministers for the course they hail thought fit to pursue with reference to this measure. After a few words from Mr. D. Brown, Mr. O'Connell, Sir Robert Bateson, and Colonel Sibthorpe, the petition was ordered to be printed. Mr. DUNDAS. presented a petition from the Principa of the University of Edinburgh, the Lord Provost, anti others, the trustees of a charity in that city, complaining of a certain portion of the Reform Bill. In 1817, certain pro perty bed been bequeathed to the charity, and the trustee, in the same year obtained an Act of Parliament to sell tle superiorities, all of which gave the right of voting, but 0f that right they would be deprived by the Scotch Reforhi Bill. The lion. Member appealed to any Member at all acquainted with Scotch law, to say whether or not thit superiority did not give a clear and distinct right 01 voting, and if such be the case, which was clearly conferred by a special Act of Parliament, the deprivaticu of that right, which was a valuable property, should be followed by compensation to the injured. In every stance in which private property was taken for the public benefit, compensation was given, and upon that prig gib the petitioners prayed an investigation into their case with a view of being compensated. Mr. PRINGLE spoke in a very low tone, but was 1 10 " derstood to support the prayer of the petition. Mr. CAMPBELL said the House had not heard of single petition from a proprietor of English rotten boroughs praying for compensation, and he regretted it should he left to the Scotch to be the first who should claim it, for the loss of that which they never had a right to.—(He ar ' hear.) In fact, it was not intended to take any prop ely from the petitioners; their property remained, but the power of voting was taken away, and the sooner that trs' done the better it would be for the country.—(Hear.) Mr. DIXON was surprised to hear the Hon. an Learned Member class the case of the English rotten be' roughs with that of the petitioners.—(Hear.) If the House would institute an inquiry, it would be seen tha t the superiorities in Scotland were legal qualifications, sod ought not to be taken away. Mr. GILLON observed, that the property would re' main, and only the right of voting, which should never have been possessed by the superiorities, would be tak en away. The only way by which the petitioners would be injured would be, by the lessening the pride of the stir riorities, which was enhanced in consequence of the pool f of voting being attached to them. Sir E. SUGDEN said the proprietors of boroughs to England never contemplated such a thing as to demand 6 compensation. As these superiorities were in the nature of burgage tenures, and as the English burg ige tenure s were to be done away with, he thought the petitione rs should not be entitled to compensation. Mr. KENNEDY observed that the Bill merely deprived a person possessing superiorities of the power of enhancing their value by a system of political jobbing.—(Hear.) After a few words from Mr. DUNDAS, Mr. CAMPBELL, and Lord STORMOUNT, Sir C. FORBES said, if their were any political jobbing, it lay with the Ministers and the Lord Advocate—( who, to effect the object they had in view , wer e robbing and plundering, not only the freeholders of Eng land, but also those of Scotland. He contended that the f reeholder si l of Scotland had as much right to their superiorit ies as any Member of the House had to his estate— Hear)--- MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. Tl e i n e tr i a i n o: e . 011f1EtshtrunshwearsoirethreruBptiaecdkinRobdis, swprocbsobsl the awned the House to the bar of the House of Lords? : hear the Royal Assent given to several Bills. The Speakero' attended by several Members, then left the House, a nd % their return the Right Hon. Gentleman read a list of t"i Bills (for which Pee the Lords' report) to which the Ma _ Assent had ORBES been given. Sir C. F then proceeded to contend, tbe t sj s c ' the supetiorities were to be taken away for the P u rr v iSe good, the owners were entitled to compensation. '. ll , Hon. Baronet proceeded at some length to (lee lli a l upon the effect of the Reform Bill, which he designa te j revolutionary measure, without which the country lf long flourished, and would still continued to do so, if his ') ilt. f jesty's Ministers would let well alone. The great body °, the people in the Scotch counties did not want Reforms, they desired no such measure as that proposed, a nd P 4 - ' for one, would take care that not one of his te nali ' should have a vote under it inflicted upon him.—( Hea v e hear, and laughter. ) He considered it the greates t cot- i on the tenantry of Scotland to make them p o liticians, t b ' had no desire to have votes, and he would ta k e care, t"' . , instead of leases for seven years, his tenants should to y " leases for six years and eleven months, and instead of ing 501. a year, they should pay him 491. 19s. 6d. , Sir E. SUGDEN had nut at all objected to the su; periorities of Scotland, but could not see the justice e` the principles which would give compensation to Chest, while it was refused in the case of burgage-tenures. Sir 11. INGLIS supported the prayer of the p et er and stated his conviction that the petitioners bad ae'e much less than they were entitled to obtain. u 'itte e Mr. GORDON brought up the report of the C ora on papers relati N ve to Windsor Castl ing ed the M D r. ay °' of postponing it till Monday, the 10th October , he foraCo N Call E LL o f s t a h i e d, Housein r obe read, that withth e the e de v been induced to do so in consequence of an intimatio n had received that the Hon. Member for Oakhaelll: ton (Sir R. Vyvyan) meant to move an amendmen The Irish Reform Bill had been deferred till the S th October, and be was desirous to avail himself of all c° ,l; stitutional means which the orders of the House put is, : c power to enforce upon that occasion, and upon th e ing Monday the fullest attendance of all the Members e'4l the House.--(Hear.) The Hon. Member then Me l d. that the order of the day for the cull of the House be re i The Clerk having read ti e ord he House be calle d O'er er, onAtlhre. 10th of N o E e L to L be m r o n v e e x c t l . that t Sir R. VYVYAN said, that in consequence of the n on usual course which the Hon. Member for Kerry had the this occasion pursued, to the great inconvenience 01_1r House, be should move as an amendment, that the 01-"- of the day be now discharged. Mr. HUNT seconded the motion. Sir J. NEWPORT thought that whenever the sli: s l c ,,e of Reform was to be submitted to consideration o ',..;;Si House, whether in the shape of Euglish, Scotch; or Bills, it was the duty of all Members to be present - ' l - 4 , the fnllest attendance of the House ought not to be °lc fired to private interests or arrangements. r od Mr. C. FERGUSSON agreed with the course p u- no by the Hon. Member for Kerry, and would vote in fey " of his motion. . , Mr. HUNT rose, and was left speaking. . , HOUSE OF LORDS. ( 1 ' The Rcyal assent was, by commission, given to th e t he lowing Bills :—The Surplus Ways and Means Bill;rfi l Waterloo-bridge Street Bill; and one private Bill. 1 , t Lords Commissioners were,—th Lords Chancellor , d ' Archbishop of Canterbury, .end the Duke of Riclun ee- rr i The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, he wa 9 t had fallen to the lot of so humble an individual PI 0 6 1 self to grapple or complain of the Noble and Let Lord on the Woolsack. It had been said by to Noble and Learned Lord that that House ura', o f most disorderly he had seen. He (the Alare'do Londonderry) must say, that he had never seen 0 4 Noble and Learned Lord rise to order, but the o t %e attention was paid t o hi m , an d h e hoped that r.t th e i ti oid that statement was made, to have seen some Nobl e dt more competent than him take up the subject• et' undoubtedly considerid that the first duty o f tile P h i, son filling the situation o f L or d Ch ance ll o r, W 59 atli s attendance to his duty in th a t House. He (the Alarlgri of Londonderry) had a motion relative to 1° lo t affairs, which he should have brought forwan i night even in the absence of the Noble Earl (Grey)' vided the Noble and Learned Lord who was the ell 3et t io se of the Government on all occasion, and particularly too referring to foreign matters, been in his place , but et , Oil to the absence of both those Noble personages , be,o'ble not bring it forward. Was it to be allowed that the ' o re and Learned L..rd should take to himself such a larg e t hey of praise for attention to the duties of his office, wb en , h efot had had such men as Canning, Castlereagh, and °"" who, he believed, had fallen a sacrifice to their Cp. stant application to the cares of Government. Ile No ble one, would not hear such praises heaped upon the io t and Learned L or d w i t h ou t en t e ring his protest ag3aorl them. Was it to be .allowed, also, that the No b !, la' Learned L or d s h ou ld b e i n t o w n , receiving large e,lbe meats, and yet not attend to his duties in his place dto third standi ng order on their Lordships' books referre such a . cas e . It might be admitted to him and others:od! had b een b re d i n th e cam p to outstep the be tbe of the orders of the House ; but it 50 ' 4,0°, duty of a Lord Chancellor to know and to obey ' rules. The Noble Marquis concluded by t h ro wing to upon the House, stating that he was aware be °C . C if' have left this subject to one more competent than 111- 5 , but he felt it his duty to bring it forward, bec ae t ted felt it was the first duty of the Lord Chancellor to is his place in that House. vefe f The LORD CHANCELLOR said there bad f or been a charge made against any officer with less,. o d , lation than that which their Lordships had COO' tp3; fhe last thing which he had expected W a '' f re' charge should be brought against him for a want:la 0 , pest to that House, or a want of diligence in his ,15 e hancellor. The chnge against him was that i ns . ee e . ne an w y h o o n l e ra w d h e o ith i e n r ig g i o it ne fo b ll e o f t o v re hi b m im , , een in rite habit of staying away without leaving a tc ; :0 occupy the Woolsack. He would not Yie d tie t ris duties in Chancery or in that liousel (LEFT SPLAkIS AT 2111NTED AND PUBLIMED BY MURDO YOUNGI SUN OFFICE, 11:2, STRAND, LWOW% eiinthtehrat silos to to in attentrea• A By 14rofe One Pe het Son.i At ( men, fro m Neot li, C al , liy -li