The Sun. — London, England, 1832-03-19 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The Reform Bill reaches this day its last stage, and will achieve its concluding victory in the House of Commons. With regard to its treatment by the other House of Parliament, we wish it were possi ble entirely to forego our misgivings. But the stake is too enormous, even were the probabilities in fa vour of a national over a factious triumph more de cided than we have yet any reason to suppose, for the devoted friends of free institutions to build their confidence on grounds of hope or calculations which have hitherto sunk under them. It is prognostica ted that a certain number of Bi s hops are to vote for the second reading of the Bill, and that a majority of from 20 to 30 Peersaltogether will support the sante second reading. We have heard too much already upon this point. The real question is,—and nothing bet arrant childishness or extreme duplicity can now adopt any other view of ite—the real question concerns the amount of resistance which Ministers Neill be able to oppose to the anti-reformers in Committee, Since, however, (on the showing of the optimists themselves) no greater majority seems to be hoped for than from twenty to thirty votes, in an assembly composed of 400 persons, and that, too, tni the second reading of the Bill, is it, let us ask, imaginable, that Ministers will leave the second reading itself to a risk of failure so obvious and so imminent as that arising from a struggle wherein the conflicting parties, accerding to the most san guine calculation, must be so very nearly on a level ? Errors have been found in former Parliamentary anticipations, to a greeter extent than twenty voters in 400. Should even a dozen or fifteen Lords take a different course from that now prophetically as signed to them, where is the majority of twenty or thirty" contents" on the second reading ? What, then, becomes of the Bill itself, not of this or that clause, but of the whole WI, of the very principle of " peaceful" Reform ? And where will the Minister who involves us in that calamity then hide his unhallowed head ? Yet a cunning party-shuffle may, without difficulty, effect such a terrible chaster; and by those who view the sub ject with the prejudiced ey e of Toryism, the accom plishment of such a feat would doubtless be consi dered a passport to immortality for its authors. But, once more, grant the second reading of the Bill. What does the Committee promise us ? We be lieve sincerely that at present the Ministers intend the most strenuous and manly opposition to any at tempts upon the schedules A and B, upon the me tropolitan representation clause, and on those which define the qualifications and rights of electors. If, nevertheless, the second reading be carried by no better a majority than from 20 to 30 votes, and if She purpose of suffering such a majority, however scanty, to exist at all, be (so far as Lord Harrowby and his friends are pricy to it) no other than the ex traction of the " popular venom" from the Bill with greater facility, with less odium and eventual dan ger, what rational prospect can be entertained of saving one of the vital characteristics of the measure —namely, the two disfranchising schedules, the rights of the metropolis, and the creation of an effective constituency ? Then a sentiment is ex pressed ott which we far no inferences very favour. able to the consciousness of Ministers in their own strength can be founded. It is said that " some changes will probably be attempted as to a few of the new places to which it is proposed to grant the franchise ;" and in relation to this point, adds the commentator—" though it may be of consequence to indiv;duals, it is not very material to the country at large." What ! the" changes to be attempted" can mean nothing less than the disfran chising of some of the places on which it is the object of schedules C and D to htstrow the r;ght of representation, and is that a thing " not very mate rial to the country at large ?" Is it a matter of mere individual consequence whether places of great com mercial wealth, and industry, and intelligence shall or shall not send Members to Parliament to assist its deliberations on the general interests of commerce? Is it no protection to the " country at large," that lar g e masses of its mo ra l an d mater i a l power s h ou ld in different quarters be able to speak for themselves in the collective council ? We repeat that we are sorry to hear such language, because it augurs ill. But the best of all is coming. The Duke of Wel lington is himself, it seems, to be converted, or neu tralized, on the Reform Question; and by what means? Why, indeed, since his Grace showed himself so very kind and candid as to give up his motion for papers on the Belgic correspondence, by teason of Lord Grey's assurance that the production of such papers might be inconvenient to the public service, and much more by reason of his Grace's full con viction that nothing could be gained to the character of his own past Administration, or towards the exposure of M. Casimir Perier, which had not been already obtained in the course of the debate itself, " ergal" (most absolute of grave-diggers!) "how much better would it be for the Duke of Wellington to act on the Reform question as he did on Friday 'tight (in respect of the Belgic question) ?" " The moment his Grace learned from Lord Grey that if his motion was acceded to, it might produce incon venience, if not positive injury, to the country, he withdrew it in the most handsome manner. Let his Grace act a similar part with respect to the far more important question of Parliamentary Reform, and the country will, he may be assured, rejoice to find him ranged once more on their side." Oh ! oh ! oh ! as they cry in Parliament when any flight of surpassing wisdom astonishes their feeble com prehensions. The Duke of Wellington is to drop his Anti-R-form principles, as be did his Belgic papers, and actually to support the Bill, on an assur ance flom the Pi ime Minister that his continued opposition to it " may produce inconvenience, if not positive injury, to the country." And are we come to this? Is such our last hope of safety ? Is this credulous courtesy of the Duke of Wellington to be Lord Grey's succedaneunt for all vigorous and efficacious measures on the part of himself and his colleagues? Does the daily expositor of the Minis terial designs and expectations, put it forth gravely to the world, that there is no hope for the success of the Reform Bill but in the Duke of Wellington's conversion, when patted and smoothed down by Lord Grey ? If that be the case, why, then, Lord have mercy upon us! In the meantime, the House of Commons has still its last great duty to execute. It has this night to pass the Bill,—to pass it by such a majority as will put the rettetionists at least to silence, if not to shame ; and to heap the opprobiutn of its ultimate overthrow—if overthrown it is to be— on the heads which ought to bear it.—Tinter. have received a communication from a cor respondent, who signs.himself a " Graduate of Ox ford," relative to the much-agitated question of a creation of Peers to carry the Reform Bill. The writer dissents from our view of the subject. He reasons with moderation and plausibility in support of an immediate creation of Peers, but his letter, under existing circumstances, is too long for inser tion; we shall content ourselves with extracting the material parts, and making a few observations by way of comment. Our correspondent says, "As I believe the judgment of a great body of the middle classes is, in some degree, influenced by your Paper, as being argumentative, moderate, and not insepa rably attached to any Mini ter, or to any party in the State, I regret that you should entertain these scruples (as to the creation of Peers.) When I consider the uncompromising hostility of the T ry party to any liberal measure, and their almost personal enmity to the existing Government, I really can not see how Reform can be carried by any other means; and even if the most moderate of its opponents would cot:cede the principle, and al low the essential parts of the Bill to pass, is it to be expected that a reformed House of Com mons would agree with the Upper 'louse as it :exists at present ? Would they not be in perpetu a l n collisio unless a more liberal spirit were infus e d in. to the House of Lords to meet the altered circurn- stances of the times, and the feeling which now so generally prevails ?—and if the two Houses continue in opposition to each other, i; not the WIN of the Constitution the natural consequence to be appre hended ?" It is obvious from the above passage ' :hat our Correspondent does nut desire a creation of Peers merely for the purpose of carrying the Re form BP; he thinks that, even if the essential parts of the Bill were allowed to pass the Upper House ithout an addition to the Peerage, still a number of new Peers ought to be made, for the purpose of liberalising the House of Lords, that it might not be in a state of hostile collision hereafter with a re formed House of Commons. In thin respett our correspondent goes farthtr than most other persons do in approbation of the policy of augmenting the number of the hereditary legislators of the land. 'file most zealous advocates of such a coup d'etat do not pretend that the measure would be right or good, or es-tn expedient, with re and to any other object than to eases the Reform 13t11. They argue /Veit to be the necessity which justifies an act of policy not otherwise correct in principle, or sound in practice ; arid for such a purpose they insist that the end sanctities the means ; but no person that we are aware of, with the exception of our correspondent, has contended that a numerous addition to the ' , mks of our hereditary law-makers would be a substantive good, even al though the Reform Bill were certain of success in the present House of Lords. Whatever may be thought of the creation of Peers as a necessary means to carry the Reform 1311, surely every one who understionls the British Constitution, and wishes its principles to be preserved while its abuses are purified, would demand of Ministers that a clear and indisputable case of r ecessity be made out before an alternative of so violent a char..eter, and so dan gerous as a precedeqt, ought to be resorted to. There is nothing in which injudicious Statesmen are so likey to err as in mistaking, on the one hand, timidity for prudence, or confounding, on the other, intemperance woh energy. It must be admitted to be a very strong exercise of the prerogative which converts the majority of the House of Lord: into a minority; and if it be a constitutional application of regal power under any circumstances, it is quite certain that nothing but an overwhelming necessity can excuse it. Before Earl Grey is condemned for not advising the Sovereign to have recourse to the extreme measure of neutral zing the House of Lords by force of the prerogative, it ought to be shown that every chance of carrying the essential principles of the Bill, according to the ordinary forms of the Constitution, is lost, and that even the hope of suc cess in that way must be abandoned. We say the principles of the Bill, for we do not much admire its perplexed, complicated, and almost chaotic details. What,,then, are the principles that we would be satisfied with ? They are the disfranchise ment of the rotten boroughs, and the enfranchise ment of the great and populous towns. These once c oiled, the deliverance of England from the domi nation of a Borough Oligarchy will have been effected; and in a Parl'ament not controlled by the nominees of a few Noblemen, and iov'gorated by the infusion of the wholesome freedrm and intelligence of a corresponding number of the real representatives of the people, the minor questions touching the ad justment of the elective franchise, and other matters of arrangement and detail, will, no doubt, be satis factorily settled. In the present state of the coun try—the stagnation of trade—the excitement and suspense which unsettle the people's minds, and disturb the regular course of industry—we would be willing to make some compromi•e, ever► as to a portion of the boroughs in schedule B, to secure the speedy passing of the Reform Bill, and thereby relieve the country from the provisional state into which all its great interests have been thrown by its protracted agitation. As to what our correspon dent says of the necessity of creating Peers to assi milate the Howe of Lords in opinion to that of the Commons, and prevent the two branches of the Legislature from corning in hostile collision after the passing of the Reform Bill, we would observe that we wish to see the Constitution restored trot de stroyed ; we wish to see the people really repre sented, but we do not desire to see the indepen dence cf the House of Lords overthrown. We are for continuance of a Government, consisting of King, Lords, and Commons, not for a wild democracy, with a shadow of kingly power obedient to its fierce com mands. Our Correspondent says, " Hereditary legislators should not court a too narrow inspection of their title; many of them are totally unfitted by the lives they lead for the discharge of any office of trust or importance. Virtue and wisdom are the only patents that can confer true nobility." Yet with such an opinion of the balks and qualifications of our hereditary legislators, he is anxious that their numbers should be increased ! But, then, his reason is that the House of Lords may be assimilated to a reformed House of Commons. Now, if it be de sirable that under a reformed Parliament the House of Lords should have no will of its own, would it not be the safer and more prudent way to abolish that branch of the Legislature altogether? If it be retained only to nod assent to every measure of the Commons, of what possible use can it be ? To retain a House of Lords merely to register the decrees of the Com:nons would be useless, and to make it merely the ornamental appendage of the democratic part of the Constitution would be ridiculous. If we think it unreasona)de and unjust that the Lords should intrude upon the tepreientation of the people by sending their nominees into the Lower House, so we think it unreasonable and unjust that, in calling upon the Lords to restore to the people their usurped rights, it should also be demanded of them to surrender their own. This is not to do justice, but to substi tute one case of usurpation for another, and destroy the balance of the Constitution. There are other objections which we have to a large crea.ion of Peers, which make us regard it as an evil, which, if it can be avoided, ought not to be inflicted on the country. We do not speak now of the danger of the precedent which may be pleaded in justifi cation of ensuring the success of the wens! measures of the worst Government hereafter, though that is a strong objection. L-t that be put aside at peseta. But we would point out to the public a circum stance which seems to be forgotten; and that is, that for every Peer created by the Minister a new family is placed in a situation which disqualifies all its members for the paths of industry, and may eventually make them a burden upon the resources of the State. Does not the Pension List, which Lord Aithorp, since Ins accession to office, defended upon the prileciple of charity, and which, like cha rity, " covers a multitude of sins"—does not the Pension List, we say exhibit, sufficiently numerous instances of " splendid pauperism" already ? If vice and extravagance, if the race-course and the gambling table, break down the fortunes of en nobled prodigals, can it be expected that the Lord Augustuses and Lady Matildas should degrade the Peerage by turning their hands to honest indusry What then remains? The resources of the State; and if Lord Grey advises the King to make 100 new Peers, the country may be prepared to find them or their descendants, and even r mote connec tions, liberally provided for out of the public taxes. Besides, if a large creation of Peers should have the effect of turning a considerable !Amber of the inde pendent supporters of Ministers in the House of Lords against them and the Reform Bill, the nation has to dread lest those Peers createdfor the occasion may not be the most servile tools of any succeeding Minister whether good or bad. Did we not hear much of the balance of the ancient Nobilly b&ng in favour of the . Reform Bill, and that of the new ..Vo bility being against it ? This surely does not fu,nish an argument why the nation should be passionately fond of new and large accessions to the Peerage.— Morning Herald. As the period approaches when the fate of the Reform Bill is to be decided, the public anxiety be comes fearfully intense. To say nothing of the anxiety which every honest Englishman must feel to see an end put to the system which has already entailed so much calamity on thecountry,and which is utterly incompatible with the national well-being, the long continued agitation of this question has been attended with most disastrons consequences to the industrious part of the population. With every disposition to confide in Earl Grey, the people are yet tremblingly alive to the consequences of a second blunder of his administration respecting the disposi tions of the Upper House. The effect of the mis •ake of last year has been grievously felt throughout the couny4 ; and anoth er mi sca l cu lation would driv e the peck to absolute despair. There is no dis guising the fact, that though the people coefitle in the good intentions of Ministers, they yet have not the s,-Ine confidence in their moral courage. They be reve them to be much more eager to stand well with the caste to which they belong, much more afraid of the sneers of fashionable coteries, than alive to the opinions and wishes of the people. The people cannot of course know precisely the-means by which Ministers hope to carry the Reform Bill. But the people know that a majority of the House of Peers, of 41, have already declared them•elves hostile to the Bill; they believe that the chance Is much greater that the Peers will succeed in deceiving .misters, than the Ministers will succeed i n gaining over Peers; and with the prospect of convulsion staring them in the face as the conse quence of a second failure, they may well be excused for wishing that an end were put to their apprehen sions by an exercise of the prerogative which would secure the passing of the Bill through the Upper House. Among the publications on the subject of the exercise of the prerogative, we havealready noticed an able pamphlet by Mr. Allan. We have just received an early copy of one about to be published, without the name of the author, under the title of " The Prerogative of creating Peers," highly distinguished for extent of Constitutional learning, and soundness of argument. The author has succinctly traced the English Constitution through its incessant changes to the last great changes by which this great country has been enslaved by a caste, whose prede minance has prevented our municipal institutions from accommodating themselves to the new wants'of soc'ety. It is only accidentally that the Peers have obtained their present authority over the Commons ; " The Lords (observes our author) anciently had no' pryer over the constitution of the House of Commons, which was long exclusively vested in the Crown. Th e . . Articles of the Scotch and Irish Unions (which determined the relative proportions of the representative body), first gave the Peers a virtual right to l.gi-late on the Represen tation, o Kish can now only be changed by Act of Parlia ment, and net as formerly by the King's Writ and Char ters. The Commons have still no power whatever over the rights of the Peerage, or on the writs returnkble in the House of Lords, and they formerly jealously exclu.led the Pteri from exerciing any power over their rights." With respect to the prerogative of creating Peers, the writer shows, from a host of authorities of the most distinguished names since the ReKlu tion, that conjectures like the present give its pecu liar value to the prerogative of creating Peers. Sir Robert Walpole was one of the most strenuous of the opponents of the attempt to limit the exercise of the prerogative in 1718-19, and one of the pamphlets of that day is ascribed to him by the late learned Mr. Hargrave. Some of the arguments of Walpole in this pamphlet are peculiarly appli cable to the present crisis " If this preroptive (be says) is taken away, the House of Lords will be a fixed independent Lady, not to be c ailed to an account like a Ministry, nor to be dissolved or changed like a House of Commons. The same men will meet again with the same resolutions, and probably height ened by disappointment, and nothing can stand before them. If their Lordships should take it into their thoughts to dislike the Ministry, and commit them to prison, I would willingly know who should fetch them out. Or, if the House of Commons should be so unwary as to give them offence, and their Lordships think fit to , feclare they could act no longer in concert with a body who h a d used them ill, it is evident the Crown must exert its authority to choose another more to their Lordships' fancy, and after wards use its utmost efforts to keep them in a becoming complaisance to their bettors. If they should resolve to have all the great employments in England in themselves and families or should take a collceit to be like the No bles of some other countries, to pay no taxes themselves, and yet receive the greatest part of what is paid by others in salaries and pensions; I would ask the advocates of such a I,w, what recourse the Crown and people have? and I shrewdly suspect they will propose no other than what the Commons of Denmark made use of upon the very same occasion." The point was agitated during the two Regency questions, in consequence of the limitations of the power 9f creating Peers, introduced by Mr. Pitt, and aPerwards by Mr. Percival in imitation of him. Fox, Burke, Sheridan, Lords Grey, Lansdowne, Holland, &c. strongly contended that for the work ing of the Constitution the unrestrained exercise of the prerogative of creating Peers was indispensible. They all assumed that the end and object of all Go vernment ought to be the good of the people; that the prerogative was a trust for the good of the peo ple; that when the Commons are at variance with the nation, the Constitution has provided a remedy by appealing to the people ; that when the King, the Commons, and the people are agreed, and the House of Peers opposed to them, the exercise of the prerogative by creating Peers can alone rerore ha:- niony. A Mr. Joliff has, in the debate on the R , 2- gency, ably summed up the most strik;ng points urged on this important question.---" The limiting that prerogative (he said) was to vest in one part of the Legislature the whole legislative capacity of the kingdom. The reasons for this prerogative were two ; the one to enable the Sovereign to reward merit, and bestow favours on the deserving ; the other, to prevent a combination in the House of Peers, which might subvert the very Monarchy it self." We may observe, that in all the divisions in 1811 against the limiting the exercise of the pre rogative, his present Majesty, William IV., voted for the people, and that he headed a brief and Con stitutional Protest on the Journals of the House of Lords. After showing the purposes for which the prerogative of creating Peers is given, the writer proceeds to show the present expediency of using the Royal prerogative; the extent to which its exer cise is essential to the liberties, and therefore to the happiness of the people. " Excepting (be observes) in the practical intlu-nce and superior power of public opinion, the House of Com mons bas become annually less a Representative of the People. The Lower House has been in a great degree a creature of the Aristocracy and Peers. It has been rem eered by its septennial duration independent of the people, and dependent on the other two Estates of the Realm ; and has all the properties of a standing Senate. The qualification of the elected has been limited and periodi cally abridged. The Franchise has been practically raised and subverted. The Representation of the Nation has been a trade. The Electors and Representatives compute the utmost a septennial prostitution and service will re pay ; and when the Legislature has deb ised the people— when a thousand millions sterling have been expended in misgovernment and corruption, and comparatively nothing for our moral and intellectual interests.—we are denounced as unworthy the trust of pager and liberty ! Assuredly the people could not govern themselves worse, and the domi nion of misrepresentation has miraculously so long existed. 'Tis Avarice all, Ambition is no more!' Prerogative has been supported by Influence—Representa tion by Nomination—Liberty by Corruption. The fortu nate principles of the Gmstitutior. enabled Lord Grey to redeem his c runtry, and to save the nation from anarchy and revolution. Will he have the sagacity and moral for titude to perceive the crisis of the Constitution? Will be triumph over Aristocratic prejudice, and view with a phi- losophic eye the state of society? Will Lord Grey substi tute the Statesman for the Peer? Will he resist the routine and conventional reasoning of an Order ?'" The writer arrives at the conclusion that " a creation of Peers is essential to the final success of the great object and pledge of the Administration : it is the ONLY Consti tutional means; a creation of Peers can alone realize the The late House of c "uninfluenced by the value and promises of a Reformed Parliament, and alone p r es e o r m v e t;i t o h n e sMonarch observes,and the Peer ; g e " Govern ment, and unawed by the Royal prerogative of dissolution suspended over them, long deluded the Ministry with vain hopes of success. Can Lord Grey look back on his Majority of One, 4;r on Vie Motion of General Gascoyne, and for a moment calculate the fate of the details of his great measure in that balanced House ofCommons? Will it afford him no index, no polar star, to his present chances in an Here ditary Chamber of Legislators? Lord Grey has redeemed his pledge of reviving, i i the present Session a measure ' equ.illy efficient,' viz. a Reform Bill equally objection able to that House which cast out its predecessor. Has Lord Grey erected a bridge by which any considerable number of dissentient Peers can pass to his side ? Can any reflecting politician hope, much less expect, that a majority of forty-one, who refused to consider the Bill, will, nevertheless, in six months, coucede its etatials?— 'Butßut it is replied—' The dread of a Peerage creation now hangs over them !' The same apprehension existed, and without effect, in the preceding Session ; and did th , - fear of a dissolution prevail in the Common-s - ? Locke has justly observed of persons of caste, " that they ac commodate themselves to the opinions and rules of those with whom they converse; that the greatest number go vern themselves by the law of fashion ; that not one in ten thousand is stiff and insensible enough to hear the con demnation of his own club !' May it not he preferable that the majority of the Lords sbould preserve their con sistency in the eyes of Reformers, and their honour in the sight of Asti-reformers ? May it not be better than Lord Grey should accept Vie support of any sincere con verts to his principles (if any such there be) after an ad dition to the House of Lords? anti will not such support ultimately better uphold the character of the Peerage ? " Admitting any reasons of the Cabinet for desiring to carry the Bill without additional Peer, are t 7,e whole pos sible benefits of such a policy equivalent to the risk ? In such a juncture will Lord Grey he justified in temporising, for the single purpase of c isting again on the Piers the responsibility (through a majority against some vital prin ciple of the BM) of forcing a creation of Peers ? Have wit the Anti-reform Lords already, to the full, incurred that responsibility? A second defeat of the Bi'l will give no more real authority to Lord Grey to increase the Peerage than its first rejection gave to him—indicating, as it did, that that House will never pass ;in efficient measure, or enable Lord Grey to redeem his uledge to the country. The personal character and rank of Peers precludes the possibility of sufficiently sifting or pledging their opinions. Is Lord Grey satisfied of the votes on the essentials of the measure even (lithe minority who supported him in Octo ber ? No Peer who oppssss the second reading in the ensuing discussion will support the essentials of the Bill ; how many of those who vote the second reading will oppose its details ? The suspension of proxies in Committee will, doubtless, aid the Ministry; but the Reform Bill has to pass a third reading, where proxies revive; and how many unwilling supporters may then withhold their votes, should a modified measure be craftily proposed at that stage by the Opposition Shoul I the Bill be thrown out or destroyed in effect with out new Peers, will Lord Grey preserve the confidence of the Nation for a third trill under his auspices ? and will Reformers or Anti Reformers admit that a second rejec tion more justifies a resort to new Peers than its October rejection ? What changes may not death involve within the Palace, the Cabinet, and the Legislature? Can Lord Grey carry on the Government (if 'the Reform Bill pass) without an infusion of new blood into the Pee-age? And will nit a present creation, to ensure the success of a great constitution 11 change, be preferable to a creation for the purpose of preserving a party Ministry or particular principles of policy ? If Lord Grey's Bill of Reform is ulti mately lost, will the House of Lords ever have another offer of so aristocratic a measure ?"—alforniny Chronicle. The speech of the Duke of Wellington on Filthy night on the subject of the braggart oration of the Prime Minister of France, and the testimony borne by Earl Grey to the accuracy of the Noble Duke's statements, will excite, there can be no doubt, a deeper and more general sensation throughout Europe than any Parliamentary proceeding which has for several years taken place in this country; and whatever may be thought of the character and position of some other Statesmen, as developed by means of this interesting explanation, one opinion only can be entertained as to the prudence and spirit with which, upon this occasion, the illus'rious Duke discharged an imperious and a most difficult and de licate duty. It is not surprising indeed that the slaves of the present Administratiorejustly alarmed at the effect which must naturally be produced in the public mind of Great Britain by the contrast between the feelings and conduct of the Noble Duke and those of the men who have immediate possession of po litical power, should attempt to insinuate the exist ence of unworthy motives on the part of the former, and labour to persuade. the people that although the Noble Duke stated nothing but facts, and although the statement of those facts was necessary to vindi ca'e the honour of the British Government and of several of its most faithful and valuable Allies, the Nob'e Duke should, nevertheless, have con demned himself to silence from the apprehen• sion of embarrassing the existing Govern ment of France, of offending Monsieur Casimir Perier and his colleagues, of disturbing the harmony between France and England. Our Liberals have suddenly become great sticklers for the unsparing sacrifice of principle, of veracity, and of character, upon the altar of expediency. But they grievously misapprehend the genius of the British people if they hope that the latter can be brought to sympathise in this degraded and dege nerate doctrine. We maintain that if it had been the Citizen King of the French himself, a quieter man, we suppose, than his Minister, and more iden tified perhaps with the character, the feelings, and the fortut , es of the French nation, who, instead of Monsieur Casimir Perier, had insinuated falsehoods injurious to the honour of England and of her an cient and faithful Allies—we maintain that even in this much stronger case for reserve it would have been the duty of Earl Grey promptly and effectually to repel the calumnious imputation, and that, the Noble Earl neglecting or shrinking from the dis charge of this imperious duty, it was then incum bent, not upon the Duke of Wellington only, but upon any British Statesman or Senator who had the necessary knowledge of the facts, to expose the base and braggart falsehood of the French fat faro,/ whom the proper and official guardians of British honour had consented to shield; thus ex hibiting a baseness not equal to his own in degree, hut. different and more despicable in kind. The prime Minister of France, relying, as it now appears, with good reason, upon the base acquiescence of Earl Grey anti Lord Palmerston, promulgated to Europe two distiect falsehoods, both flattering to what in that country is deemed national glory, a sentiment quite independent of that of national justice, and both derogatory to the honour of Great Britain, and the other great European States. He said that France had supported and protected the Belgian revolution, which with honour the other Governments of Europe could not have permitted. He insinuated that this support and protection was the effective defence of the Belgian revolution from a meditated hostile interference on the part of the other Powers. The assertion and the insinuation were equally false. France discouraged in common with the other Powers the Belgian Revolution, by every means short of armed in tervention, as she and they were bound to do by the terms of existing treaties. By common and spontaneous consent France and the other Powers concurred in the impropriety of going further. In all respects France and the other Powers acted in unison, and in every word that he uttered leading to a contrary inference M. Casimir -Perier was a vain-glorious braggart and an unprincipled calum niator. These truths it was necessary for the Duke of Wellington, upon the narrow principle of self defence, as well as from the more comprehensive feelings of patriotism and justice, to reveal to the world ; and it is a signal proof of his discretion and liberality that he knew how to reveal them in a manner which must be not only inoffensive but grateful to an honourable arid high-spirited people like the French. The Duke of Wellington was un questionably right in expressing as he did his respect for the French nation, at the same time that he held up to the contempt of Europe the Minister of France. It would be injurious to the people of France to sul;. pose it possible that they ca►► have any Sympathy with a Minister who exposed himself to such a con viction of falsehood as M. Casimir Perier has just undergone. But whet* the disgrace of this Statesman be the result of character or of position, h is equally pregnant with instruction as to the na tural effect of democratic revolution in every country. If the result of character, it presents an example of chat is most vile being thrown by the waves of revolution into the highest place in society. If the result of position merely, and an involuntary and compelled baseness, it is an example equally striking of the truth that revolutionary Governments are sure to become the representatives and expo nents, not of the mind and feelings of a nation, but of the mind and feelings of the dregs of the popu lace, who in a revolutionary state overpower the voice and usurp the authority of the whole commu nity. In either case, when we consider this convic tion of falsehood in conjunction with the fawnings and flatteries by which Earl Grey and Lord Pal- inerston have su seduously sought to cultivate the friendship of the present Government of France— viten we view it in combination with their facility in accepting explanations of other transactions of that Government of a nature the most suspicious and threatening, we may safely conclude that these Noblemen are very incompetent judges of men and of things, and very unfit protectors of the honour and interests of Great Britain. Fortunately M. Casimir Perier is not France any more than Earl Grey and Lord Palmerston are England, so that the duplicity of the former, and the sycophancy of the two latter, may, for any thing which yet appears, have left the honour and the ititeregs of these two noble nations, worthy as they are of the friendship, worthy as they are when occasion shall require of the arms of each other, essentially unimpaired. France when she koows it wi l scorn and detest the falsehoods which her Minister has uttered, as England scorns and detests the truckling and time-• erring servil.ty of her S atesmen, who have professed to hold in honour and con fidence the Statesman whom they /.new to have been guilty of these falsehood,. Of the progress of political morality to be expected from the per manent ascendancy of the democratic party in Eng land we catch a glimpse in the kind of apology put forward by the most ingenious of their number for the falsehoods, deceptive and fraudulent as regards the people of France, calumnious as regards the Allies of France, of .% hich the French Minister is convicted. " Surely a French Minister speaking ad eaptandem may be excused, &c." We are not of the democratic party, hut, nevertheless, we hold that no Minister can be excused in speaking ad eap• tandem at all; for whatever those who daily flatter the people may think, it seems to us an error and a crime to treat a nation as a body of fools or an assembly e,f children who are to be amused and played with and tickled to keep them in good humour. We are, above all, not among the supporters of the present Administra tion of Great Britain, and therefore we are free from the temptation. which seems too powerful for the understanding and the principles of their adhe rents, to struggle in behalf of falsehood, to maintain that Ministers may excusably promulgate informa tion which they know to be untrue, or introduce measures which they know to be mischievous, and do not wish to complete, ad captandum vulgus ; in other words, to maintain themselves a few weeks or months longer in place. It is a vet)" curious cir cumstance indeed that the apology offered by Mini sterial writers for M. Casimir Perier's stat ement, " con trary to the fact" with respect to Belgium, is pre cisely the apology which, if it were good for any thing in this case, would serve just as well for Earl Grey in the event of its turning out :hat his R , form Bill was intended merely as a temporary means of exciting and propitiating the vulgar.—]horn. Post. The third reading of the Reform Bill is tixed for this evening in the House of Commons, and it is almost unnecessary, to observe, that although it be certain of passing by a large majority, it is of the utmost importance that that majority shou'd, if pos sible, surpass all the previous majorities in its favour, and that the first, the last, as well as only retnaining duty towards the Bill, of those Members who were returned to Parliament under distinct pledges to maintain its principles inviolate, is to prove their con tinued adhesion to them, by attending every night in their places until the Speaker has declared that it has passed. What the tactics may be of the anti-reform crew on this occasion—whether it be their intention to suffer the Bill to pass unmolested to that House in which its flee is to be sealed once more—or whether they are to treat us to a repetition of all the hack , ney. d verbasities and non-entities about Constitu tion, pillars of the State, utility of rotten boroughs, necessity of corruption and non-representation, agri cultural interest, &c., with which they have so com pletely tired out the pat'ence of the public—we do not know; but we augur that, in despite of being un able to show their hared in any otherform, they will again have recourse to their old game of delay, and endeavour to spin out a little longer existence, as the only boon which it is now in their power to obtain. For their loneiloquises, however, there is a simple, and not very inefficient, remedy within the power both of the reforming Members and of the Reform Press; and that is, on the part of the former, to make no reply, and on the part of the latter, to observe a well-studied brevity in reporting their speeches. These means have succeeded before, and if unanimously applied now, may prove not less suc cessful. But however this matter may turn out, let no Reform Mt mber be absent from his post. The third reading of the Bill is not only its hour of trial and judgment, but by the presence or absence of the Reform Members on this momentous occasion will the public judge, and justly judge, the fitness of their present to be their future representatives. Their eyes are now most intently fixed upon them ; and it shall rt,t be our fault if the excellent arrange ments which have been made to ascertain their fide- lity to their constituents, be not successful, so far as our influence extends, in informing them accurately upon the subject. Let those who doubt that there has been any re-action in the public mind look at the conduct of the people of Liverpool towards Lord Sandon—let them go forth and inquire for themselves, instead of being content with such information as the club-houses afford, and they will find that in all quarters, and among all classes and descriptions of his Majesty's subjects, the same anxiety exists upon the subject—that the same zeal which was formerly evinced continues to be manifest, and that were they at this final moment either to retire from the hardly contested-field, or even to pair off with Members on the opposition benches, the public indignation against them would know no bounds—nay, that it would be even more full and overflowing towards them than towards them e ho have, on all occasions, exerted themselves so uniformly to defeat the hopes and wishes of the people. To your posts, there fore, we say, representatives of the people—stand to them until you have fulfilled the pledges which you gave to a generous and confiding public—and prove to those in the other House that a people who deserve their freedom have only to will it in order to obtain it against all obstacles and all opposi tion.—Morning Adverti4erfr The Anti-reformers, contrary to expectation, ex hibited no show of fight on bringing up the report of the Reform Bill on Wednesday last ; with the exception of the Tory Member for Lincoln—Colo nel Sibthorp—who made a feeble attempt to have a second night's debate on the - subject. All is there fore accomplished in the Commons but the third reading, and passing of the Bill, which come on to morrow. We suppose for appearance's sake, two days will be consumed in these matters—so that on, or about, Thursday, we may expect the Bill to be in the Upper House. The treatment it is likely to meet with there is well described in the excellent addrsss from The National Union, which will be found in our present number. " Unchanged as to opinions— unchanged as to numbers," how can any reasonable being expect a different result from the fate of the la-t Bill ? We are, however, desired to confide in Lord Grey's management of the Lords, although it is upon record that lie has allowed himself to be deceived by them once already. The question as argued now by the papers in the seeming confidence of Mi nisters, is not, however, whether new Peers will be made—that they must be made to carry the Bill, is admitted on all hands—but at what period or stage of the Bill they should be made. If the n ew crea tions are to come out of the Common 's !louse, Lord Grey unquestionably stands justified in riot having made them hitherto, as it would . be impo litic to weaken his majority oil the thud reading by any material diminution of the numbers of th e friends of the Bill. But this argument will lose its face the instant the Bill is in the Lords. lii our opinion, no time should then be lost, but such a demonstration be made as must convice t h e noble corruptionists that yam w ill be their endea vours to arrest the progress of the Bill. If the Pres mier thus act, he will at once re-establish himself in the confidence of the Reformers, as to whom, it can not be denied he has of late, sailed somewhat to the northward in good opinion.—News. CURIOUS CHARGE OF ARSON. IVER, MARCH 16.—0 n S iturday last information was given of the individuals who set fire to the trims, &c. in the occupation of Mr. Willi m Ashlee, the as,istant overseer of this parish. The persons charged are two brothers of the names of William ;eel Frederick Alldridge, th e former of whom is about IS years cf age, and the latter 28, arid the person who gave the information was the wife of the elder ! It appears that the younger brother was lately em - pleyed by Mr. Ashlee at 4s. per week, but having no further oceasion for him, heleft him for another job, and on Friday, the 24th February, he applied to the Vestry for work, which was refused, as he had been almost constanCy employed up to the time of his making application, and had left his last place only one day, and is single. It appears that on his leaving the Vestry-room he declared he would "do something for old Ashler.," and on the Sunday night following the tire took place. The elder Alldridge has a wife and three children, and his wife says that he spent his money at the alehouse, and she and the children were almost starving, and that he other wise misused her, and, consequently, she resolved to g ive this information. She stated, " that William Aldridge came into 11.. r house on the Sunday morn , ing, and lerought two buneLles of matches which he threw on the table, and she told him she didn't want his matches,' when he replied, No, I can put 'ern to a better use than you can ;' that in the course of the day her hushind asked her for a good great piece of lag, and that on its being given to him, be tore it iii two, and made tinder of one part and wrapped it in tha other, :old put it in his pocket ; that about nine o'clock they both went out, and she went to bed; on their return the younger one asked his brother if he thought Beck (the wife) was asleep ; and on his answering in the affirmative, he said, Well, we've had a pretty good sweat. flow well it .b trot, didn't it ? because we got so far away before it blazel ; but Lord! come to the window and see what a blizzy (blaze) there ' s now; I wish the old was in the middle of it; I hope nobody will see it to help him." The wife further stated, that during this conversation, which was mixed with h irrid oaths, site never spoke, fearing that if they d scovered she was awake, they would do her some personal violence. This is a voluntary statement. which she made before she was examined by the Mlgistrate-, and on this confession the men were apprehended on Saturday ;right, and on Monday they were taken before the Magistrates, and Wm. All dridge was committed to Aylesbury gaol to take his trial for arson, and her husband for want of sureties to keep the peace. It should be stated that the wife bears a very bad character amongst her neighbours. It is asked—What is the reason the elder Alldridge was not committed for arson ? Is not the wife evi dence in such a case against her husband ?—Wind sor Express COUNTRY CORN MARKETS DURING LAST WEEK. W heat. Barley. Oats. rcr Quart ?r. Cat lisle- s. to s. s. to s. 61 21 s to S. Heexham 56 65 30 35 Morpeth ---.1 54 61 3.2 36 Penrith i 61 — 33 Slnetfiekt 62 36 Winchester 52 66 31 36 Per Bushel. j s.d. s.d. b. d . P. d. Carmarthen --.1 6 6 7 0 3 6 3 9 Coventry 7 0 9 0 4 8 5 4 Newcastle (Staff.) 9 0 9'2 6 0 6 4 Northallerton —..... 7 0 9 3 3 6 4 6 Stone . 9 1 9 3 5 6 6 0 Swansea ---.. ;76 80, 39 40 Warwick 90 10 0' 4 6 50 Per 8011. 13arnardeastle 0 17 6 9 0 10 0 Durham.. _ .'l4 0 16 0 9 0 10 0 Richmond . . ll5 0 18 0 9 0 9 6 Stockton il4 6 18 0 9 6 10 0 20 24 20 25 32 40 - 38 2T2 s. d. s. d. 14 '2O 36 4 0 36 39 33 40 39 40 2 4 2 8 22 26 42 46 s. d. I. d. 00 00 56 6 0 49 50 56 60 70 80 00 00 73 76 53 60 46 70 50 68 50 70 00 110 90 100 90 100 00 0 0 WAKEFIELD CORN MARKET.-March 16 Wheat, Red, Norfolk and Suffblk -s. 5.35. to 58s. fine 61s. Lin. and Cam. ...... ...-s. 535. to 58s. fine 601. Yorkshire -s 555. to 58s. fine 60s. White -s. 565. to 1726. fine fisl. Foreign, Red -s. 475. to 525. fine 581. White -s. -s. to -s. fine 635. Barley, Norfolk and Suffolk - Lincolnshire 33s. to 375. fine 41s. - Yorkshire Wold 34s. to 38s. fine 41s. - Foreign -s. to -s. fine -6. Beans, Small - Tick 325. to 345. fine 36s Oats, Potato 22s. to 255. fine 268. Poland -8. 20s. to 245. fine 255. - Friezland and Small -s. 17s. to 225. fine 245. - Mealing lo.d. to 12 1 4 d. per Stone. Shelling 268. to t.Vs. Od. per Load. Malt 32s. 40s. fine 445. per Load. Rapeseed 221. Os. 251. Qs. 261. 10s. per Last. SCOTCH MARKETS. Wheat. I Barley Oats. Beans. Aberdeen Coldstream Cupar Dundee --- Elgin 1nverne55.......... Kelso Kirkald Perth The size 50 58 -40 43 38 42 57 62 48 56 52 56 51 58 41 44 40 45 CO 64 of the tm 25 30 20 23 20 22 28 32 30 33 26 32 33 34 22 23 27 39 28 31 sure vai 18 22 15 18 16 18 22 24 22 26 20 24 21 22 17 19 25 32 24 26 iet; throttgl 30 32 35 38 22 24 30 31 26 30 26 28 23 30 30 34 22 26 45 48 25 29 ;bout the 48 -- 43 44 EDINBURGH CORN AIARKE:.—March 14. Our supply of Oats, and Pease and Beans, to-day was still un commonly large, and met with heavy sales, Potato Oats for seed brought 325. and Ilopetoun Oats 365. The supply of Wheat and Barley was again very small, and sales not so quick as last day, though the supply was less. Wheat down :Is. on the top, and up 2s. Id. on the average. Barley 72 quarters; same top, and up 2s. on the average. Oats 278 quarters; same top, and down 2d. on the average. Pease and Beans 36 quarters; up Is. on the top, and 4d, on the average. Wheat. Barley. Oats. First 7os (3d 40s Od 32s Od Second fOs Od 38s Od 27s Od Third s4s Od , 36s 6d 20s (id Pease. Beans. 355 Od 35; Od 335 01 33s Od 315 Oci 31s Od PRICES QF PROVISIONS &C. Beef, peer Os. 3(1. to Os. 6d. 04 0 6 0 5 0 10 Pork 0 4 0 6 Lamb, per qr. 1 6 3 0 Fallow, cwt.... 0 0 40 0 Quartern Loaf 0 0 0 9 Potatoes, 1711 b. 033 o Fresh Butter, lb. s.lod. to is 2cl Salt Ditto.-- 0 10 1 0 Ditto, per CA t. 80 tl 90 0 Eggs, per dot. 0 9 0 0 OatStrawocp%)ll 0 11 6 Wheat Ditt0...12 0 12 6 Barley Ditto ...10 0 10 6 Hay, per 1 2 I 4 EDINBURGH MEA MA KKET.-7March 13. We had a small supply of w Inch sold heavily, at last week' Per Sack of 2s011). Imp. First Oatmeal Second ditto 1 16 0 Barleymeal • llO 0 Peasemeal . 1 10 0 Pot Barley —No. 1, per cwt. 12i Oatmeal at this day's market, .'s prices. Per Stone of 141 b. Imp. First Oatmeal £0 El 0 Second ditto 0 1 10 Barleyrneal 0 1 8 l'easemeal ...... 0 1 8 's. -2d. 153.-3 d, 18s.—Plaa 1225. GLASGOW CORN 11 There has been a good deal de steady sale at former rates. T Scotch rather dearer. No alter: Wheat, per 2401 h. s. d. a. d. British, old 25 0 to 28 0 - new 26 0 29 0 Canada, free 2Bll 29 0 Irish Barley, per 3201 b. A RE Hr.—March 14. me in Wheat. Oats have bad a larley has sold better, and fine thou in Beans and Pease. • Oats, per 2641 b. s. d. s. d. Irish l6 0 to 18 3 British — 0 Beans, per a 301 1 ,. English Scottish Pease, Scottish Oatmeal, per 140Ib l6 0 17 0 Flour, per 2801 b 46 0 48 0 English - 0 Scottish 24 0 26 0 Irish CORNWALL. MARKET. Immo—Wheat (average) 225. 3,l—Barley, Ih. 3 , l.—Oats, 9s. ST AUSTELL—Wheat, —s. to Ins.—Barley,—s. to 11s.—Oats. Os. to Ss. Od. _ _ 13c;t;;;N:Wheat (average) 225. o.l.—Barley, I is. Od.—Oats, HELsToN—Wheat, 235. Od.—Barley, lls 6d. PENZANCE—Wheat, 225. to 24s.—Barley, s. to 12s.—Oats, Os. to Bs. Od.—Beef and Mutton, sd. to 6d.—Pork. Sid- to Butter, 12d. per Ih. lAstccsau--Wheat, —s. Oil, to 23s.—Barley, 1 ls. Od.--Oats, N. to 7s. 6d. cod.--VarleY,los.4(l.—O a ts, 1.A.--USCESTON—Wheat (average) 7s. 01.—Beef, 6d.—Mutton, 6tl. _Barley, to 12 3 .—Meer , Sr. COLUNIO—Wheat. 225. to 2 3 5. and Mutton, 4d. to Veal, 0a, —Lamb' Od. MINING IN TELLIGENCE, Tons. Cwt. 2uantity of Copper Ore cola at Redruth last Thurd.y 3,518 0 Quantity of fine 315 LI A vera ge Produce , 0 Amount of Sale, 20,8471. 10s. Od. - -Average Standanl.96l. 148.011. BIRTHS. On the 16th inst. at Kelmarsh, Northamptonshire, the lady of William Banbury, Esq., of a daughter. On the 16th inst. in Eaton+lace, the lady of William Ewart, Esq. M.P., of a daughter, On the 17th inst. at Mitcham, in Surrey, the lady of Robert Dent. Esq., of a son. • MARRIED. On the lith inst. at Great Hormead, Herts, Edwin Wheately Wight, Esq., to Margaret, youngest daughter of the late Henry fhwciites, jun. Esq., of Staff or d- row , Buckingham gate. On the 12th ' inst. at St L e on a rd' s , Shoreditch, John Hildcr, Esq., of Robertsbridge, Sussex, to Miss Mary Ellis Pattenden, of the same place. a lingering ill ness D On the 17th i nst. at her hous lED. m Labeth.road, aged tit, atter Stoney Bowes, E sq., late M.P. tbr Durham, and High Sheriff' of Mrs. Bowes, relict of Andrew Bobinbon the county of Northumberland, deeply t regretted by her family and a numerous circle of friends. On the 10th inst. at Stevenson House, in East Lothian, the youngest daughter of Sir John and Lady Sinclair, atter three weeks' illness. On the 17th inst. in Nottingham-place, aged 85 years, Eliza beth, relict of Samuel Newton, Esq., of the island of St. Croix. On the 15th inst. in Langham-place, Frederick Musgrave,. third son of Sir James Langham, Bart. On the 15th inst. in Brunswick-square, Harriet, third daughter of the late Mr. Charles ltivington, of Waterloo-place, in the :)oth year of her age. Gn the 10th inst. at Hemsworth, in the county of York, aged :6, the Rev. John Simpson, master of He mswor th H osp it a l, an d vicar of Thornton Curtis, Lincolnshire. On the 16th lost. at Lexham-hall, Norfolk, Louisa, widow of the late Frederick Keppel, Esq. YRINTL D AND l'uauslin) B 1 M U 1t 1) 0 YOU N G, AT THE SUN OFFICE, 112, STRAND, LONDON. Beans. 'Oatmeal. intry.