The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-28 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

In the universal excitement by which the Reform
Bill was carried, the nation delivered its emphatic
judgment against the Tory policy to which, for so long
a perlild of years, it was subjected. It welcomed the
Reform Bill as the means of breaking down that domi-
nation : and now, after seven short years, we are await-
ing a division of the House of Commons on the most
unexceptionable point of Whig Ministerial policy, the
government of Ireland, ' in which a few votes, some
dozen or thereabouts, hold the power of deciding for
or against the return of Toryism to office. The fact
is enough. In such a result there is a damning
proof of failure in the machinery by which it has
been produced. We do not believe that under
the old system, the present Government would have
been in any such predicament, nor the fate of
Ireland have been thus trembling in the balance.
When has there ever been such an exhibition as that
afforded by the last division on the Corn-laws? Every
Member of the Cabinet in the House of, Commons—
nay, every individual in that House connected with the
Government (except one) voted in the minority for going
into Committee. And yet the minority is so small,
and the majority so constituted, as to render the ques•
tion hopeless. The former consisted of less than one-
third of the representation, and the mighty barriers of
class interest oppose themselves to any prospect of its
increase. And this happens on a question involving
the commercial prosperity of the empire, the labourer's
food, the manufacturer's market, the profit to stimulate
industry, and the ability to bear taxation. Had such
consequences been prophesied in 1832, would any body
have called them the success of the Reform Bill ?
Had the prediction been credited, would the power
have been put forth by which the Bill was carried?
Our right is questioned to find fault with the
working of that measure, because we were amongst
its zealous advocates. With quite as much reason
might we deny the right of now championing it to those
who pronounced it an entire subversion of the Constitu-
tion. Our ground of complaint is their ground of satis-
faction—viz., that it is a failure. Because it is so, they
are content to pledge themselves against its repeal ; and
because it is so, we demand that it be strengthened by
additional measures, and so enabled to realize its pur-
pose. There is this difference, indeed, between our
right and that of Tories to speak of the Reform Act in
an altered tone, that its inefficiency is mainly owing to
their machinations, and to the mistaken concessions
made to conciliate them. The votes of the tenants-at-will
were conceded in the vain hope of a generosity that
would forbear to make them mere slave-votes. The ques-
tion of the Ballot, too, was then a reserved question, as
it is still an undecidedone. The registration contemplated
fair dealing with the electors, and not the systematic and
rascally vexatiousness that has prevailed ever since the
memorable exhortation in Merchant Tailors' Hall, to
fight the battle in the Registration Courts. The tricks
and resources of faction were, no doubt, under-rated, or
the Reform Bill would have been rendered more strin-
gent. Only experience can enable honest men to cope
with rogues. The country has had the benefit of seven
years' experience ; and the consequence is, that confi-
dence in the sufficiency of the Reform Bill is gone, while
hatred of Toryism remains undiminished. Hence the
seemingly opposite phenomena of the apathy of one class
and the violence of another class. The same means are
Adopted to excite the one, and moderate the other ; the
means which consistency requires all who honestly pro-
moted the Reform Bill to unite in adopting ; the means,
by further amendments in the representative system
of supplying its deficiencies and achieving its pur-
poses. For there is the *end and aim of what we sug-
gest ; the redress of the very evils which Lord John
Russell, when he moved for leave to bring in the Re-
form Bill, declared it was the object of that Bill to
abolish. He defined those evils to be, "first, the nomi-
nation of Members by individuals ; second, the elec-
tions by close Corporations ; third, the expense of elec-
tions." Now, has not the nomination of Members
descended into a baser form, from the influence of a
patron of a borough to the gross purchase of its little
knot of sordid electors ? Has not his Lordship's mis-

judging aversion from change compelled him- to be-
come the apologist of the very nuisance which he
then came forward to abate ? Did he not, the other
night, reproduce the very sophism which he then
demolished ? We adhere to his attack on small
borough constituencies in 1831, for that indicates
the principle and object of the Reform Bill ; we de-
mur to his defence of small borough constituencies
in 1839, for that indicates the failure of the measure
to which he fondly clings. He then contemplated
" a franchise belonging to the great mass of house-
holders." Have we such a franchise now ? Is it less
desirable now than it was then ? Does a vote of the
House of Commons imply what he then affirmed it
ought of constitutional right to imply, viz.—" the con-
sent of the commonalty of the land ?" Has the third
grievance which the Reform Bill professed to cure been
remedied ? If there be abatement in the gross expense
of elections, it has been merely a saving to the corrup-
tor, and not a diminution of the corruption. Liverpool
was pointedly referred to in his Lordship's speech. Is
Liverpool purified ? Has ever corruption been more
rife, more successful, more disgusting and loathsome,
than in the last two general elections ? Why;
then, who are the real and consistent friends of
the Reform Bill but those who aim at the com-
plete, though late, realization of its essential ob-
jects ? We call not on those who are most stre-
nuously attached to that measure for any un-
worthy concession—for any sacrifice of principle—for
any inconsistency of conduct. Our appeal is to their
consistency and their principle. We only want that
done which they solemnly declared themselves desirous
of doing. We only deprecate the sacrifice of the end
to the means, or what were supposed Co be the means.
We require not merely the historical fact that a Re-
form Bill was carried, but the present and,permanent
reality that a reform is accomplished. An objection
has been taken to our efforts as ill-timed, seeing that we
are now in the crisis of a struggle by the Tories for the
resumption of power. And is not the bare possibility of

such a struggle demonstrative of the imperative necessity
of raising the Reform cause into a more secure position ?
With a strong Liberal Government, redeeming all its

pledges—carrying all its measures unmutilated—
achieving a series of economical reforms—and when

it had (as in the case of Ireland) pursued a generous
policy secure of general legislative approval and sup-
port, there might be some force in the objection ; at
least it would have more appearance of plausibility than
at present. It is because the circumstances are critical
that we counsel the adoption of a decided course. The
enemy is upon us ; one portion of the camp is asleep,
and another portion in open mutiny ; and are we to be
told not to sound a trumpet which all may hear, nor to
raise a banner round which all may rally, because the
fortune of an uncertain fight is impending ? To our
apprehension now is the time for union. 'Would the
objector have us wait till Toryism is triumphant ?
" I am hushed until our city be afire,
And then I'll speak a little."
Is that his policy ? We should rather carry on the
war outside the gates, and under that standard before
which alone Toryism has succumbed, the labarum of
popular reform.—Morning Chronicle.
To the applications without number which have been
addressed to us for some clue to the vagaries of the
Queen's Ministers from Thursday last, when the House
of Lords appointed a Committee, by no means rare in
the proceedings of that assembly, for the elucidation of
important facts, down to the present hour, we have no
satisfactory solution of any kind to present. The most
obvious answer may not be the most true—viz. that they
conceived the House of Lords to have voted them out
of office, and they were desirous to vote themselves in
again by dint of an O'Connell majority in the Commons.
There are undoubtedly some unquestionable facts,
if not decisive as to the motives of Ministers in this
matter, at least connected with them. Lord Mel-
bourne and his colleagues could neither blind them-
selves to the all but inevitable consequence of a strict
research into the administration of justice by Lord
Normandy—viz., a
.detection of its abuses, and a strong
condemnatory sentence—nor to the fatal effect of such
a record upon their existence as a Government. Not
being able, therefore, to avert this visitation, they
looked round for a possible counterpoise, and found it
in an appeal to that popular tribunal, with all the Irish
portion of which a systematic outrage upon the prin-
ciples of justice would be the surest passport to honour
and applause. According to the views prevalent with
a majority thus composed, a judicialnondemnation by
the House of Lords would be nothing—the perversion

of the judgment-seat by a representative of the
Crown, and the prostitution of the most sacred
of all prerogatives, would be less than nothing.
A vote of confidence by the Parliamentary partisans
of Irish culprits in the House of Commons would be
set off in favour of him who had withdrawn those
culprits from punishment, against any censure, however
righteous and solemn, pronounced upon his "Excellency"
by the other House of Parliament. What though the
acquittal by the House of. Commons (if he should be ac-
quitted) had been the result of an intemperate discussion
and a gross ignorance of faCts, in the absence of all in-
quiry, without waiting for a particle of the information to
be obtained by means of evidence on oath delivered be-
fore their Lordships, and therefore liable to be at utter

variance with the truth—what though the O'Connell
majority i■ favour of the Noble Marquis should be
counted on the very day when the most damning tes-
timony was recorded against him before the Lords'
Committee, little would a popularity7hunting Lord
Lieutenant, a Romish majority, or a priest-ridden Cabi-
net be moved by the iniquity, the ridicule, or the op-
probrium of such a shameful contrast. A false judg-
ment, prematurely given, will suit the ends of faction
better than to run the risk of an upright one, through
which a member of that faction might be disgraced, and
the vices and evils of the practice pursued by him ex-
posed to universal notoriety. It is thought fitting, there-
fore, that the Noble Marquis fshould stand his trial be-
fore a Committee of the House of Lords, with a verdict
of "Not Guilty"in his pocket,signed and sealed beforehand

by a tribunal which knew nothing of his offences, and
which had never examined a single witness, or even heard
the indictment- read. That such a proceeding may be
held satisfactory enough to those who sympathise with
the assisted criminal is not at all surprising. That it will
satisfy the people of England, whether Conservatives or
honest Radicals, it is inconsistent with all our notions of
English sense or Constitutional feeling to anticipate.
That Ministers meditate a speedy escape from office,
might be believed by those who know them little enough
to give them credit for any solicitude for interests directly
affecting the nation, The accumulation of perils and
mischiefs in every quarter might make the boldest man
living tremble, and the most enthusiastic despair. At
war, an unfatliomahle war in the East ; embarrassed in
the Mediterranean ; wasting troops and treasures pur-
poseless and unprofitable in Spain ; with empire itself
at stake in North America ; with an organized Jacquerie
throughout the North of England, and in Ireland
Popery triumphant—that is to say, with England
threatened, and Ireland preyed upon by tyranny in one
or other of its most revolting forms, these wretched
Ministers, the authors or fosterers of it all, have either
the stupidity to forget that resignation is still within
their power, or the malignity to mix up with it Its many
materials as they can lay hold of for rendering their
own exit from office an instrument of the utmost possi-
ble evil to the empire, and embarrassment to any succeed-
ing Administration. A vote of the House of Commons
proving the factious and lawless government of Lord
Normanby pledges every Member of the majority, that
is the House itself, to a continued support of the
same system of misgovernment in Ireland, and must,
therefore, under the successor of Lord Melbourne,
compel an early dissolution of that House, and an
exposure of most of its existing Members, but as-
suredly of all those Members who now vote with
the Whigs, to the trouble, vexation, and incalculable
outlay of a new election. The church of the United

Kingdom is in a manner staked upon this forthcoming
vote. Every friend of the Church in both islands ought
to bear that momentous fact in their remembrance.
The only hope of a revival of the reign of law and of the
security of life and freedom for Ireland depends upon the
administration of a sharp and timely rebuke by Parlia-
ment of the licentious anarchy which has flourished there
in the guise and under the threadbare masquerade of a
liberal Government. Even on his political deathbed, old
Daniel O'Connell points a sting at the monarchy. In his
frantic letter of the 22d instant, published in yesterday's
Times, the superannuated insurgent brays a loud note
of discord. He talks of Ireland being delivered over
to the " furious and sanguinary" Orange faction—of
the Duke of Wellington (no longer as a " stunted cor-
poral," but) as a " harsh and ungenerous old man"
—of Lord Brougham " singing and yelping with the
vilest of the Orange rabble"—of " civil war and blood-
shed," &c. Why, who dreams of such horrors but this

sordid and desperate and mortified " old" jobber-wild
at the prospect of lost loaVes and fishes ? Now see,
however, what game the wrinkled incendiary is playing,
and with whom it most thoroughly succeeds. He cries
up an enormous agitation, breathing fire and slaughter,
but invokes it in the name of " peace ;" he pro-
mises 300,000 petitioners for perpetuating the gaol
deliveries and Popis'a supremacy of the late Lord-
Lieutenant. .Then, what more'? We will answer.
Lord John Russell told Sir Robert Peel on Monday
last, the 25th instant, and as a formal announcement to
the country of his own intentions, that " lie had
already said he would bring forward the Irish mo-
tion the week after the recess, as it was necessary it
should he disposed of at as early a day as possible. He
would now fix it for Thursday, the 11th day of April."
Very well. These words were spoken on the 25th
instant. But apparently Lord John had not then
received from higher authority an intimation of what
had already passed elsewhere—viz., on the 22d of
March, on which day Mr. Daniel O'Connell wrote the
letter above referred to, beginning ." My dear Ray,"
wherein he states in express terms that Lord John Rus-
sell " will bring on his motion on or about the 15th of
April"—at direct variance this with Lord John Russell's
own subsequent declaration. What happens then ?
Which of these prophets is right ? Not Lord John
Russell, we lament to say ; for, though his Lordship
might be aware of his own intentions, he was left in
ignorance of O'Connell's, who knew that he could not
get up his "peaceable" agitation or his 300,000 names
of petitioners, and accordingly we now find that O'Con-
nell's prediction was right, and the other a failure,
insomuch as the day has actually been changed, from
the 11th to the 15th, at the manifest dictation of him
at whose nod the Whig Ministers have to the present
hour existed, and in whose cause they are (it is guessed)
about to perish!—Tinges. •
A Contemporary has lately discovered—that which
has glen always maintained in the Morning Advertiser
—and which we yesterday maintained---that there are
in reality no very essential points of difference between
the Chartists and the great majority of middle-class
of Reformers, in those " Five Points" which the people
consider necessary in order to place the representation
of the country in a wholesome and satisfactory state.
Our Contemporary has lately disco% ered "a bond of
permanent union" upon these five points ; hut we
have never, with a view of gratifying any body of men,
or satisfying the claims of any particular crisis, dif
fered in our popular and steady view of their neces-
sity—simple or slightly modified. Those "five points"
are-Ist, Vote by Ballot ; 2d, Extended Suffrage ; 3d,
Shortened Parliaments ; 4th, no Qualification for Mem-
hers of Parliament ; and sth, Remuneration for their
labours, For each and every one of these objects we
have by turns persevertngly and unva7ingly contended.
Yesterday we stated our views of the necessity of a
large Extension of the Suffrage. Last week we entered
into a detailed examinaton of all the futile objections
urged against the Ballot, When recently commenting
on the excellent motions of Mr. T. Duncombe, respect-
ing the rate-paring Clause of the Reform Bill, and the
Chandos (or 501. copyhold) clause, we gave our attes-
tation to the necessity, not only of extending the
Suffrage, but of purifying the abuses allowed to infect
it by the concoctors of the Reform Bill. There remain
only three points connected with the " mutual under-
standing and sincere co-operation" of Reformers un-
considered, and on which we are happy to be enabled to
add some present remarks ; remuneration to Members ;
no property qualification ; shortened Parliaments. While
advocating remuneration to Members, as we did last
year, on the occasion of a motion to that effect, we
rested our vindication of it on two arguments—one of
history, the other of fact—first, that it was the original
practice of the Constitution, as proved by rolls of Par-
liament and Municipal records ; second, that it would
prevent Parliamentary " truck and barter:;" traffic
in influence ; and a jabbing dependency of -Members
on the Ministry of the day. It is understood that with
respect to the shortened duration of Parliaments and
to the moneyed qualifications of Members, the two
leading public men who have hitherto advocated these
questions in Parliament, are determined this year to
bring both questions to the issue of a division. We
concur both in spirit and in letter with Sir William
Molesworth's excellent motion, brought forward last
year, for the abolition of moneyed qualifications for
Members. That was going to the root of the evil ;
and we still hope that he will not lose sight of the
object, although be may not be enabled to carry expli-
citly the full amount of the reform which he proposes.
The infliction of a moneyed qualification is contrary to
the original spirit and letter of the Constitution. In
early periods of history, representatives were sent to
Parliament without the exaction of any moneyed qua-
lification—nay, whose sole pecuniary dependance was
upon what they received from their constituents. The
Constitution could in fact prescribe nothing else, inas-
much as Members of Parliament were considered as
delegated attorneys, employing their time and abilities
for their clients ; and, therefore, like every other'
labourer, worthy of their hire. This is beyond a
doubt the theory, frame, and design of the Constitution.
The principle of a moneyed qualification was an innova-
tion introduced in the jobbing reign of George the
First, and it is in utter discordance with the whole spirit
of the British Constitution. We object to the qualifica-
tion on one emphatic ground. It is at variance with
the social spirit of the times, which not Only demands
for educated talent its proper weight in the manage-
ment of affairs (and Lord Brougham's splendid
scheme of education justly meets that demand), but
practically invests it (by means of the Press) with a
power for good or evil, which was never equalled in its
extent and in its influence by any sovereignty which
the
material
masses of a population, as well as their moral ten-
dencies and intellectual drift. We have only, in conclu-
sion, to remark that seven years have been lately and
painfully proved to be too long a period for any Mem-
ber to be freed from responsibility to his constituents,
by the circumstance of mauy individuals " ratting" from
the Liberal principles by which they mounted to their
Parliamentary seat. It is argued that the experience
of the last seven years show? that Parliaments have
been sufficiently shortened by repeated dissolutions.
But times of agitation are an exception, and the regular
Government of the country ought not to be left to the
capricious chances of transitory excitements or critical
occurrences. It is, moreover, granting a power capable
of great abuse to weak or bad Ministers, enabling
them to hold over the heads of unconvinced oppo-
nents the threatened expense of a dissolution. That
Notes are won by such threat, or by the fear of its
exertion, is quite clear, and it might be employed in
a bad cause as well as a good one. It cannot be

VENING EDITION.

deemed an innovation of the Constitution, but rather a
restoration, and that a moderate one, of the principles
regulating the duration of Parliaments precious to the
Septennial Act, in the reign of George the First. We
have now gone through the " Five Pain ts" of the
Chartists, and proved that there is (and has long been
stated to be in this paper) a " common bond. of mutual
understanding and sincere co-operation" of all classes
of independent Reformers. Though a netv light has
broken suddenly upon our Ministerial Contemporary—
now that office is upon the point of receding from view
—no new light has broken upon our views as to the
peremptory necessity of conceding these popular claims,
qualified—slightly modified—but not compromised, as
Iwo of the five points alone are requisite to be. In
conclusion, we shall briefly repeat the burden of many an
appeal—that no Administration, either existing now or
to come, will be enabled (unless it make up its mind to
these just concessions to the peop!e) permanently to
hold office, or, indeed, to maintain its footing amidst
the daily advancing tides of popular enlightenment and
the justly increasing claims of popular self appreciation.
—Morning Advertiser.

METROPOLITAN POLITICAL

SUMMARY.

The illonzing Chronicle of this day observes, in re-
ference to the late discussion in the Lords on the pre-
sent state of Ireland, and their Lordships' proposed
Committee of Inquiry—" From information which has
reached us, it appears that while 'the Earl of Roden was
opening his budget against the Marquis of Normanby in
the House of Lords, Lord Lorton wus making prepara-
tions for razing to the ground an entire village, in. order
to turn its inhabitants wild upon Nature's conainon. The
town of Ballinamuck is to be levelled forthwith as ao
offering to domestic peace, in glorious contradistinction
to the Marquis of Normanby's system .of tranquilliza-
tion. Doubtless, the Judices Selecti' who have taken
upon themselves to decide between the two methods,
will give an attentive consideration to each." For another
of our Contemporary's leading articles, vide " Spirit of
the Public Journals."

The Timcscontains- a leading article on the subject
of Lord J. Russell's notice of motion for the 15th of
April, which will be found under the head of " Spirit
of the Public Journals." Our Contemporary bas ano-
ther article on Sir F. Head's government of Canada,
which is as peppery as it is uncaudid.
The Morning Post has two lengthy leading articles,
one on the subject of Mr. O'Connell's recent letter
of agitation to Mr. Ray ; and the other on the present
aspect of political parties. In this last our Contemporary
remarks as follows :—" It is mere nonsense to talk of the
Tories and the Radicals of the present day, as if they
were the extreme parties in politics. There is now no
other party deserting the name of political, save these
two. They who are for upholding the Monarchy
and the Church, and the fabric of Government built
upon the combined influence of the two institutions
—these are intelligible politicians, and form a party.
They, on the other hand, who would suffer no more
than the form and the shadow of these things to re-
main, and who would have substantial Government to
rest in a delegation from the mass of the people—these
also are intelligible, and form a party. But all the rest
are—as respects the great political battle which is to be
fought in this country—merely nothing."
The Morning Herald, commenting on the
question of the North American boundary line, says :
.‘ With these views, and these feelings pervading the
great mass of the inhabitants of the United States, a
war between the United States and England is, we re-
peat, sooner or later, inevitable—unless averted by a
policy on our parts very different from the present. The
pretext for war may be connected with the boundary
question, or with any other question which may happen
at the time to possess a character of convenience, but
the object of war on the part of the United States is
the annexation of the Canadas to the federal union.
War, then, at a moment suitable to the democratic body
in the United States is inevitable—unless England shall
assume such an attitude as may render the probable is-
sue of the contest very different from what it appears
to be at the present moment."
The Morning Advertiser, alluding to Lord J. Rus-
sell's notice of motion respecting Ireland for the 15th of
April, says :—" The real state of the mutter then is
this : either the Melbourne Administration must une-
quivocally disclaim, as a body, all participation in the
avowed principles of Lord John Russell, and must give
a specific pledge that the three great points already
mentioned, on which all true Reformers are agreed,
shall be immediately conceded, or they must quit the
premises they now occupy in Downing-street, to make
way for the Tories. It is for Ministers themselves to
say whether they will make the above concessions to the
popular will, or whether they will bid a long, aye, an
eternal farewell to all their official greatness." For
another of our Contemporary's articles, see " The Spirit
of the Public Journals."