The Sun.
London, England, 1837-01-15 00:00:00

we do in the sincerest and most unqualified terms,
that—with the single exception of Lord BROUGHAM'S
—his Inaugural Address is the most manly, the most
unaffected, the most earnest, and the most intelligible,
that was ever delivered at Glasgow. It is a pure and
healthy fountain from which the .aspiring youth wln.‘
thirsts for knowltdge may drink and be refreshed.

In the above remarks we have spoken in praise—as we
felt in duty hound to do—of Sir ROBERT PEEL's inaugural
address at Glasgow, observing., that in his capacity of Lord
Rector, we met him on neutral ground. Since those re-
marks were written, he has come before us in a new
form—as a politician—as the leader of an obnoxious foe-
tinn—as the man who scarcely knows his own mind ; and
who would, and who. would not, be a Reformer. In h's
capacity of Lord Rector, Sir ROBERT PEEL is sincere ar.d
decided enough ;.as the leader of the trimming section of tie
Conservatives=-that is to say, of those who would fain trim,
if they had the opportunity of doing so—he is all hesita-
tion and insincerity ; halting between two slools—between
the Whigs and Tories—with an evident, uneasy conviction
that without luck, and the most dexterous management, he
must inevitably fall to the ground. We have seldom read
a speech more every way meagre and unsatisfactory than
that delivered by Sir ROBERT PEEL at Glasgow. It
was not decided against the Reformers, it was, not
strong in favour of the Conservatives. It was a shal-
low, no-meaning abortion, full of pomp, full of affectation
of sensibility and sincerity, full of every thing but that
which it should have abounded in. True, :the
Right Honourable Baronet is for Reform, but it is
for a Reform of his own manufacture, modelled on the
principles of his own Tamworth Manifesto. He will
have no such Reform, as the people demand—not he :
it is Conservative Reform he calls for ; and who does
not know that this is based on the as-little-as needs-be sys-
tem? His speech from first to last is a virtual begging of
the question. It has no pluck—no bottom—but is a mere
much-ado-about-nothing affair. Was it worth the while of
the citizens of Glasgow to put themselves to the expense
of some thousands of pounds,:for the mere purpose of hear-
ing Sir ROBERT PEEL talk much, yet say nothing ? No
doubt they expected from him something like a firm,
honest declaration of political opinion ; but instead
of this they have heard—what ? Why, a whining sup.
plication that they will " adhere to the principles upon
which the Reform Bill was advocated." And what are
these principles, as the Right Honourable Baronet, inter-
prets them ? Why, the principles of Lord Genet-, which
the majority of Reformers have long since outgrown and
repudiated ! When we say, however, that the Right
Hon. Baronet's speech is vacillating and equivocal, we
should except that Orionp.t of it wherein he alludes to the
House of Lords. Here he is decided enough—speaking
out with a boldness that absolutely electrifies us. What,
then, he has at length found out that the Peers are
worth fighting for ! He could not discover this last
Session, when he had scarcely a word to say in their
favour ; he was discreet enough then : but jealousy
of Lord LYNDHURST, WO suppose, has put him on
his mettle ; as in the old times, did jealousy of
CANNINO. " I avow to you." said the Right
Honouteible Paronet, "that I mean to support in its full
integrity the authority of the House of Lords as an essen-
tial, indispensable condition of the continued existence of
the mixed form of Government under which we live, as
tantamjunt to the maintenance of the British Con-
stitution. I mean to consider every plausible propo-
sition that may be made, not directly assailing that
integrity, but covertly to undermine it,—l mean to consi-
der it not upon its abstract merits, but the ultimate ten-
dency it may have to destroy the British Constitution." In
other words, he will bear of no proposition for modifying and
improving the Institutions of the Upper Chamber. Be it
so. At least it is a point gained, to have Sir ROBERT
PEEL speaking out unequivocally on any one public ques-
tion. Here, at least; there can be no mistaking him. Here
he speaks out, and the time,we suspect is coming when he will
regret his plain dealing on this particular theme, as bitterly as
ever he did his opposition to the Reform Bill. Be Sir R.
PEEn'a determination invincible as it may, we tell him that
either the House of. Lords must be reformed, or the spirit
of Reform must retrograde. And to this last alternative the
people will never submit. They have struggled for Reform,
they have made sacrifices for Reform ; and Reform they
will have have, even though the Peerage perish in the
contest. The Right Hon. Baronet goes on to say, " I
have read the speeches of great legal authorities, and I find
that they have not yet made up their minds to the re-
form of the House of Lords. lam sorry for it. They
say that it is coming, but they have not yet seen
the plan of operation. They are hard at work,
however, ransacking pigeon-holes and depositories, for plans
for a reform of the House of Lords. The chief objection
is, however, that no plan has yet been drawn outright.
Oh ! what miserable trifling But they may spare them-
selves the waste of time—let them take the first of those
which have been proposed—let them substitute for the
House of Lords a Council of Ancients, or a Council
of Five Hundred—or let them substitute a new body,
elected by the Peers, or by the heads of families—
or let them give the House of Lords a suspensive veto.
Let them, in fact, take one or the other of these, the °Meet
will be the same.—Why, do you believe that you can up-
root the oak of the forest, which has seen a thousetnd gene-
rations ?—Do you believe you can uproot the noble pro-
ductions from which the hatchments and the achievements
of a thousand ilAustrious names are suspended? DA rely on it
our change won't be to thelinstitutions of the United States."
What miserable verbiage is all this ? Who desires that
out change should be to the " Institutions of the United
S..lates ?" We are content with our own form of Govern-
ment ; with our own limited Monarchy ; all we ask is, that
the defects in our Constitution which time has engendered
shall be effectually removed. Are we the revolutionists
who ask this ? Not so ; but they would refuse so just a
desire. Sir ROBERT PEEL has taken high ground on the
subject of the House of Lords ; and we congratulate him
on his newly felt sincerity. But who shall speculate on
its duration ? The time was when the Right Ho-
nourable Baronet was inveterately opposed to the Ca-
tholic claims, yet be " twisted 'round" like Jim Crow,
on the question, and it would not at all surprise us were
he to take another twist round on the subject of Peerage Re-
form. Altogether, we must confess that his political speech at
Glasgow has not disappointed us. It is a strange mix-
ture of vacillation, effrontery, and wrong-headedness, here
begging the question of Reform, there out-Heroding He-
rod in his opposition to it.

We are now on the eve of commencing the fifth
session of the Reformed Parliament. Another month,
and we shall be able to judge of the sincerity of many
those Members of the Legislature who, towards the
close of the last session, were so eager to acquaint the
country—not with what they had done, but with what
the,,, proposed; to do—substituting for Bills passed in
1836, notices of motion, to be made in 1837. We are
not alarmists, neither do we now see cause for serious
apprehension; but we honestly tell those gentlemen
that the country will not remain indifferent to their
fulfilment .of pledges spontaneously given. The
Government, too, must adopt a more bold and decided
course. It would be absurd to suppose that Lord
MELBOURNE could' continue to direct the destinies
of the British Empire, and yet remain so very far in
the rear of public opinion as his Lordship's Adminis-
tration appears to do at present. Nothing but the adoption
iof a straightforward and avowed course of public con-
duct will satisfy the people. Ministers, to remain in
office, must move as much in advance of public
opinion as they, to all appearance, are now behind it
—must take the lead in the march of improvement,
and invite the nation to follow at a safe and steady
pace. Acts, not professions, are wanted ; and by its
acts only will the people judge of the honesty of the
Government. To continue to cast a wet blanket
upon every liberal measure brought forward by
their supporters—a line of policy adhered to during the
last Session of Parliament with all hut fatal con-
sistency—will not do for Ministers in the Session
which is approaching. The political jugglery, which
recognises distinctions between public and private
virtue—which joins in the celebration of domestic
worth, while it denounces the conduct of the indivi-
dual as far as regards the well-being of millions
of his fellow-subjects—is neither comprehended nor