The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-17 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Tories, and some not over wise Tory Radicals,
contended during the late elections, that the Reformers
were not justified in making their opponents respon-
sible for the despotic acts of the King of Hanover. It
certainly did appear to us that the first act in his
capacity of Sovereign, of one so near to the throne of
these realms, lately the head of the Orange faction,
and the acknowledged head of a large if not the largest
section of the Tories, ought not to be viewed in Eng-

land with indifference ; that, on the contrary, we were
justified in inferring the intentions of the Tories,
should they possess power, from the acts of this Tory
leader the moment he was free from restraint. The
zeal with which the cause of the Sovereign of Hano-
ver is espoused by the Tories, and the nature of the
arguments urged in his defence by the Times and
Standard, remove all doubts as to the fairness of
charging on his former associates the despotic conduct
of King Ernest. The principles which would justify
the arbitrary destruction of the Constitution of Hanover
would justify the setting aside the Reform Bill. And it
is our firm and conscientious belief that had Heaven in
its wrath opened to the despot of Hanover the suc-
cession to the Sovereignty of this kingdom, he would at
least have made the attempt to return' to the old ho-
roughmongering system—an attempt which, though it
could not have ultimately succeeded, would, from the
known unrelenting character of the man, have been
productive of the most ruinous consequences. In
what respect does the setting aside the Constitution of
Hanover by the arbitrary fiat of the King, differ from
the arbitrary superseding of the Reform Bill ? For
the life of us we can see no difference whatever in
principle. The people of Hanover, it is true, are less
able to resist aggression than the people of England,
but injustice is not less injustice when perpetrated
against the weak than when perpetrated against
the strong. The Times repeats, after the patent,
that a change in the fundamental law of 1819
could only be effected by the decided concurrence
of the King and the States. Well, be it so, was
that concurrence withheld ? The Times tells ns " that
this concurrence was withheld, is notorious." And
what is the proof? " The States (says our Contem-
porary) submitted a fundamental law to his late Ma-
jesty, who, without requiring their consent or concur-
rence—without consulting them at all—gave a Con-
stitution in direct contravention of many of the arti-
cles proposed ! To the Constitution so given the
States in the first instance demurred, and the heir-
presumptive to the House of Hanover, his present
Majesty, formally protested against it. It was, how-
ever, established." And how was it established ? By
the consent of the States. The demurring of the
States, in the first instance, is beside the question: We
are to look to what the States did in the last instance
and not what they did in the first. The House of
Lords in the first instance demurred to the Reform
Bill : but ultimately, by means best known to their
Lordships themselves, a majority passed that mea-
sure ; and it did not the less become the law of the
land, because in the first instance their Lordships de-
murred, and because their reluctance was overcome by
strong appeals to their prudence, and other means
respecting which some of them have not always kept
their own secret. But King Ernest, as an agnate,
votested against the Charter. Why, he also protested
against the Reform Bill. In that protest he declared
of the Bill that i= it is, in truth, a new form of Go-
vernment,' of which no one has ever pronounced that
it %voulti be practicable, and which, if practicable,
would be pernicious." The name of Ernest will be
found to protests against every measure which
En9-,lishmen have just cause to be proud. But are
a people, with the hind they inhabit, the property
of a particular family ? What right had Ernest,
because lie was related to tl:e King of Hanover, to
protest against any act of that King in his capacity
of Sovereign ? A kingdom is not entailel estate—a
feudal possession. The Constitution of Hanover,
having been given by the King, and adopted by the
-Estates of the country, became the established funda-
mental law of the country, and that fundamental law
could only be repealed by the authorities constituted
under it. Ernest had no more rii'ht to issue letters
declaring the Constitution of 1833 not in force,
than the Estates had to declare that he was not King.
If fundamental laws could be questioned, because in-
dividuals in the line o succession might protest against
them, the power of Governments would be ruinously
fettered, and there could he no confidence in any in-
stitutions. The Sovereign anti Estates, for the time
exercising the powers of government and legislation,
are of necessity absolute, and the opinions and wishes
of individuals not actually in the possession of autho-
rity are of no consequence whatever, in as far as the
legality of laws is in question. So much for the pro-
test of King Ernest, the alitiiion to which ought to be
deemed an insult by all who live under constitutional go-
vernments. King Ernest's Act is unconstitutional—is
tyrannical. His Ministers, to a man, resigned their si-
tuations when he published his second letters patent.
Into the merits of the Hanoverian Constitution we do
not feel ours6ves called to enter. It may have had
its defects, and yet have been, what:we believe it was,
a vast improvement on the Constitution of 1819. It
is enough for us that it was the lawfidly established
Constitution of the country. It could only have been
altered or repealed, as the Constitution of 1819 was
altered, by consent of the constituted authorities. King
Ernest is an usurper when he, of his own accord, does
that which he has no right alone to do. It is a viola-
tion of the laws, and he deserves to be treated as a vio-
. lator of the laws. He may be an instance of a suc-
cessful usurper ; but the success wili not wash out the
stains of guilt. But the great point for Englishmen is
to draw attention to the circumstance that the Tories
do not now scruple to make common cause with this
bold bad man. The avowal of his intention to de-
stroy the Constitution may have come upon them at
an unseasonable time ; but it is clear that prudential
considerations alone kept them silent during the period
of the elections. They would cheer on King Ernest,
were the suecession to open to him, to do in England
what he has done in Hanover.—Morning, Chronicle.
When last alluding to the affairs of Hanover, we
stated that we should speak of what we may call the
county constituencies in that kingdom. It should at
the outset be observed, that the principal object of the
reigning Sovereign is, that property should be fairly
represented ; for with this question of direct represen-
tation of property it is clear that the local interests of
the several counties must be naturally connected. In
England, it is true, we, without personal intercourse or
actual residence, may comprehend the circumstances
and interests of particular classes, because the nature
of our Constitution, the pervading influence and predo-
minating power of Parliament, must, of necessity, give
an unity and concentrated purpose to the Government of
the whole. But the Constitution of 1833 in Hanover
presents this primary difficulty, that it abruptly gives
the power of representation to persons having no direct
interest, and presumably no political sympathy, with
the constituency represented. It would, indeed,
appear that no interest was consulted in the forma-
tion of this representative body, save the miser-
able squabbles between the deputies of the nobi-
lity and the landed proprietors not ennobled. So fierce
was this jealousy, that the Assembly of the States,
convoked under the provisions of the law of 1815, was
so modified by the law of 1819, that the nobility con-
stituted one branch, and the commonalty another.
Then silently arose into importance a class of men
vhose sole claim to distinction is that they take advan-
age of the indolence, not to call it incapacity, of their
uperiors—men, for the greater part, without birth,
.rtunc, or independence of feeling, who, anxious only
r their personal aggrandizement,- have displayed an
ter insensibility to the interests of the Kilns and the
elfare of his subjects. During the last quarter of a
ntury' the Ministers depended entirely upon persons
this description. They styled themselves servants of
e State, but under that designation they were deter-
ined to be something more. They introduced, for
ample, a law declaring that public functionaries could
t be dismissed from their office .•
We need not waste a
rd upon the ludicrous nature of such a provision. It
clearly establishing an antagonist influence against
Crown, and one which never could have been esta-
,hed, had not Hanover been so circumstanced that
interests were administered to '.)y a Sovereign at a
s'amp and thus imperfectly acquainted with the exi-
n cieT of the State. It is evident that the present