The Sun.
London, England, 1839-05-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LO" -DON, MAY 16, 1•539.

considered that the Bude light would be quite as cheap
as the present method, and infinitely more conducive
to the comfort and health of the Members, as the
ventilation wouid then go on from above downwards,
instead of from below upwards, according to the present
plan. The recess would afford an opportunity for fairly
trying the experiment, and Mr. Faraday had reported
that there was no danger from explosion.
Sir F. TRENCH complained of this question being
brought forward on a Wednesday, and that Wednesday
the Derby day, when most of the advocates of that
gentleman's light were absent. He contended that can-
dles conduced to the ventilation of the House, and that
he had not been fairly treated by the Honourable
Member for Kilkenny with regard to this subject.
The new lighting would be attended with great
expense, the machinery alone costing 2,0001.
The whole of the proceedings from beginning
to end had been of the most shabby description.
The expense of lighting the House on the plan pro-
posed by him (Sir F. Trench) would be only 11. ss. per
night, whilst the expense of the new light could not be
calculated eve❑ by so celebrated a financier as the Hon.
Member for Kilkenny.—(A laugh.)

Mr. HUME explained.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was glad that a Committee
was to be appointed, because it was impossible for any
Hon. Member to say which was the better and more
safe light. Sitting there, as he was obliged to do, for
so many hours, he must say he was extremely pleased
with the present light.

Sir R. PEEL said the Committee could not recom-
mend any light to the House as being safe, without hav-
ing scien ific evidence on the subject.
Mr. HU ME said he intended that the House should
be lighted to-morrow at ten o'clock, and any Member
would then have an opportunity of seeing it. If any
one had a doubt about its safety he would propose that
evidence should be received by the Committee after the
recess.

The motion was agreed to, and the Committee ap-
pointed. . .

Lord JOHN RUSSELL gave notice that
on the 31st of May, in a Committee of Supply, he
would move a vote of 30,0001. for public education.
The House then adjourned.
On the SPEAKER leaving the Chair, several Mem-
bers from both sides of the House shook him most
cordially by the hand.

EP OM- RAuES-1.-

The many peculiar and exciting features of the " Derby
day" have been so often anal so fully chronicted, as well in
verse as in humble prose, that it would be in vain for us to
attempt to impart novelty to the occurrences of yesterday ;
" Boz " alone could strike out new lights—we fairly admit
our incapacity. It must suffice, therefore, for us to state that
the morning opened favourably for the occasion ; that the
display of equestrianism and charioteering was, as they say
of a good fire, `° terrifically gra"d," and the confusion Con-
sequent on it " awful;" in short, that the panorama of the
road was as animated as ever. On the race-course, where so
many ups and "Downs" have been experienced by high and
low, was to be found an immense numerical display of horse
and foot ; nor could we perceive any falling off in the vehi-
cular department. The Grand Stand, as we mentioned yes-
terday, was the resort of the higher and middle classes ;
here, " for a consideration," they were provided with a well
served table, protection from the dust or rain, as the case might
be, and a good view of the races.
At two o'clock, the advertised hour for starting., the scene
was imposing in the extreme, and must have astonished not
only the natives, but the foreigners, of whom there were
many present. The hill was covered with carriages of the
usual motley character, while horsemen out of number
amused themselves by galloping about in all directions, re-
gardless of the fears or safety of the " poor devils" on foot.
The ring dispersed about this time, and " steady goers"
taking their stations on the inner side of the course from the
top of the hill to the corner, added not a little to the interest
of the picture presented on this part of the Downs. The
straight course was lined on both sides with the foot people,
with a back ground of carriages and stage coaches filled with
well-dressed people. The temporary sands were as full as the
skill and cupidity of their lessees could make them, while that
properly termed the " Grand" was crammed from the lower
balcony to the roof. In short, the ensemble was indicative of
the immense interest which the race had excited, and cannot
he said to have shown any falling off.

Agreeably to the announcement made by us yesterday, his
Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Russia and his Royal
Highness Prince William Henry of the Netherlands, accom-
panied by the Princes Lieven, Dolgorouki, and Bariatinski,
Count Orloff, Count Tolstoy, and a numerous suite, arrived at
the Grand Stand a little before two o'clock, in four of the
Royal carriages. After remaining a short time in the Stand
their Royal Highness mounted horses which had been in
waiting in front of the stand, and rode to the hill, had a peep
at the ring, the nags, the Warren, &c., and returned in time to
see the races, which, commencing with so interesting an event
as the Derby, must have excited mingled feelings of admiration
and pleasure. Tlwir Royal Highnesses left the ground highly
gratified with their excursion.
Besides the above illustrious individuals there were present
the—

Duke and Duchess of Cleveland, Duke and Duchess of Rich-
mond, Duke and Duchess of Beaufort, Duke of Montrose, and
Duke of Rutland.

Marquis and Marchioness of Exeter, Marchioness of Ailes-
bury and Family, and Marquis of Tavistock.
Earls—Jersey, Verulam, Che•terfield, Albemarle and Coun-
tess, Stradbroke, Wilton, Waldegrave, Lichfield and Countess.
March, Bruce, Errol, Devon, &c.
Lords—G. Bentinek, J. Fitzroy, Torrington, Villiers,
Maidstone, Dromore, Tenterden, Portarlington, Drumlanrig,
Digby, Caledon, Kilburne, Eglinton, &c.
Honourables—Gen. Grosvenor, G. Anson, G. S. Ryng,
S.. Herbert, H. Rous, W. Rous, W. Fitzroy, J. Villiers, &c.
Sirs—J. Shelley, C. Coote, G. Hamilton, J. (and Lady)
Gerard, G. Heathcote, J. Tyrrell, &c.
Gen. Buller, Gen. Sharpe, Col. Peel, Major Vivian, Capt.
Knox, Capt. Willan, Capt. Hunter, &c.
Messrs.—Bowes, Watt, Etwall, C. Wilson, Greville, Hawker,
Batson, Newton, Thornhill, Portman, Irby, Payne, Worrall,
Clive, Bayly, Gardner, Tyrrell, S. Stanley, &c. &c.

For giving so short a list the crowd and the time occupied
in obtaining other intelligence connected with the meeting
must be our excuse We have now brought up our account
to two o'clock, at which time the bell had rung for clearing
the course and saddling—all was bright and promising, and
we looked forward for nothing else to do than watch the pro-
gress of the sport and report it. But it was not to be a com-
mon Derby, for just before the start, which was unnecessa-
rily delayed till three o'clock, the sky became overcast, and
the race was actually run in the midst of a heavy fall of snow.
We have seen many wet and windy Derby days, gut it has
never before been our ill fortune to participate in the enjoy-
ments of a snowy one. This uncomfortable weather was not
confined to one—it continued throughout the whole of the
races ; and after completely destroying the anticipated pleasure
of the assembled thousands, cleared up just as they were leaving
the Downs.

The race, as we have before mentioned, should have been
decided at two o'clock, but from some cause or causes which no
one could make out, for there was very little time lost in false
starts, the spectators were kept on the " tenter-hooks of expec-
tation" till three,.when a general movement on the hill, and a
general shout of " they're off" from the roof of the Stand,
announced that the hopes and fears of a year were about to he
set at rest. •

Having disposed of all preliminary matter, we will now pro-
ceed to describe the racing:—
The Derby Stakes of 50 sovs. each, h. ft. ; for three-yrs-old
colts, Bst. 71b., and fillies, Est. 21b. Last mile and a half.
The second to receive 100 sovs. out of the stakes, and the

winner to pay 100 sous. towards the expenses of additional
police officers, &c. (143 subs.)
Mr. W. Ridsdale's c. Bloomsbury, by Mulatto (Templeman) 1
Fulwar Craven's b. f. Deception, by Defiance (Trenn) 2
The following also started but were not placed :—Mr.
Thornhill's c. Euclid (P. Conelly)—Lord Westminster's br. c.
Sleight-o -hand (W. Scott)—Lord Jersey's b. c. Caesar (J.
Robinson)—Hon. S. Herbert's b. c. Clarion (J. Day, jun. )
Lord Lichfield's bk. c. The Corsair (V. Wakefield)—Mr. G.
Clarke's br. c. Dragsman (H. Edwards) Sir G. Heath-
cote's ch. c. Valaincourt (J. Chappell)—Captain Wil-
liamson's br. c. Melbourne (N. Flatman )—Duke of
Grafton's b. c. /Ether (J. Day)—Lord Jersey's ch
c. Ilderim (E. Edwards)—Lord Albemarle's ch. c. Do-
mino ( Cotton)—Lord Exeter's b. e. Bosphorus (S. Darling) Mr
Sadler's b. c. Dart (W. Sadler)—Mr. Bowes's The King of
Kelton (C. Edwards)—The Duke of Grafton's b. c. Montreal
(W. Wheatley)—Mr Worral's b. c. Peon (S. Rogers)—Mr.
Edtlison's c. Rory O'More (J. Holmes)—Mr. Dixon's b.
Hytlns (S. Day)—Colonel Peel's br. c. The Dey of Algi-rs
( A. Pavis).
Betting.-9 to 2 agst Sleight-of-Hand-6 to 1 agst
7to 1 agst Caesar—t! to 1 agst Clarion-12 to agstDeception-15
to 1 agst Corsair-16 to 1 agst Dragsman-25 to 1 agst Valain-
court-25 to 1 agst Dart-30 to 1 agst Montreal-30 to 1 agst
Bloomsbury-33 to 1 agst Melbourne-50 to 1 agst lEther-50
to agst Ilderim.
After two attempts the lot got away with one of the best and
most impartial starts ever seen for the Derby. King of Kel-
ton, Clarion, and Deception were first off; the former, after
half-a-dozen strides, took the lead at a moderate pace, followed
by the two just mentioned and Bosphorous, all lying very near
together. On getting over the first road, Deception and Bos-
phorus went in front, the latter having his neck in advance with
Clarion at their quarters. Euclid, Ilderim, Dart, and Blooms-
bury laid next, and behind them Corsair, The Dey of Algiers,
Hylius, Melbourne, and Domino ; at least such were the posi-
tions as -near as the falltng'snow would enable us to ascertain,
The favourite of Lord Jersey's, Scott's, and Stephenson's sta-
bles were in the centre ~of the crowd, which unenviable place
they were unable to better at, any part of the race. They went
in this order till near the Tattenham corner, where Bosphorus
died away, alth ugh the pace had been anything but first-rate.
Deception now took the lead, and in going r.,und the turn,
as a proof of the badness of the speed hitherto, increased it
so immensely that she must have been four or five lengths
in advance. With this extraordinary lead she rattled into
the straight running, Bloomsbury and Euclid following
her till they were half way between the gravel road and
the distance, when Euclid made an attempt to collar her, but
failed. At the distance Bloomsbury challenged her, ran her
head and head to the stand, defeated her, and won his race in
gallant style by a length. Euclid was about two lengths be-
hind Deception, but was not placed. To account for the posi-
tions of three or four other hirses at the finish, we should
state that at the turn Clarion, Bosphorus, Hyllus, and one or two
others, dropped off, leaving The Dey of Algiers, Dart, Mel-
bourne, and Domino, in front ; and these, to the best of
our belief, went by the Chair in the order we have given
them, neither, of course having had a chance from the
corner. Of the favourites we need only say that
they never made a show in front, and that Sleight-
of- Hand was beaten early in the race. Rory O'More
had the honour of being last; in fact, all Scott's horses made a
sorry figure, considering the enormous sums for which they were
backed. Bloomsbury, who has thus disqualified himself for
maiden races, was riot long ago considered unlikely to start ; and
it was not until a fortnight or three weeks since that the for-
feits for all the engagements were, paid in advance, and the con-
templated objection abandoned. Value of the stakes, deducting
the winner's, 3,550/.

The Ewell Stakes of 5 sous. each, with 40 added ; 3 yrs old,
7st. ; 4 yrs, Bst. ; 5 yrs, Bst. 71b. ; 6 yrs and aged, Bst.
111 b. ; mares and geldings allowed 31b. ; winners at any
time (matches excepted) to carry for twice, 31b. ny
;thrice;
blh. ; and four times, 71b. extra. Last half mile. Seven
subs.
Colonel Peel's Vulture, 6 yrs (Pavis) 1
Duke of Richmond's Vale of Belvoir, 3 yrs 2
Mr. Bell's b. f. La Sage Femine, 3 yrs
Mr. Balchin's Lady Agnes, 4 yrs 4
Mr. Waring's b. L. Knowsley, by Felt, out of Urganda, 5 yrs 5
Vulture made all the running, and won in a canter, by two
lengths.
The Ashtead Stakes of 5 .ovs. each, with 40 added ; 3-yrs old,
ist. 101 b, ; 4 yrs, fist. 91b. ; 5 yrs, 9st. 31b. ; 6 yrs and
aged, 9st. 61b. ; mares and geldings allowed 31b. Last half
mile. The winner to be sold for 150 toys., &c. Nine subs.
Duke of Gratton's Chemist, 4 yrs .. (J. Day) 1
Captain Daintree's b. c. Harlequin, 3 yas
Duke of Richmond's b. f. Quadroon, 3 yrs 0
The following also started, hut were not placed :—Mr. Great-
rex's ch. f, by the Colonel, out of Crutch's dam, 3 yrs—Mr.
Bowes's Roostan, 3 yrs—Captain Gardnor's br. c. by Revel-
ler, out of Scurry, 3 yrs—Mr. Batson's Brother to Pie-
nip", 3 yrs—Mr. Bacon's e. g. Foresters, 3 yrs. Scurry
made the first running,* the others lying alongside her nearly
head and head, to half-way up the distance, when Che-
mist took it up, and won a fine race by half a length. A dead
heat for second between Quadroon and Harlequin. The win-
ner was claimed, and is now Mr. Coleman's.
The Walton Stakes of 5 sovs. each, with 40 added ; three-yr-
olds, 7st. 101 b. ; four yrs, Bst. 91b. ; 5 yrs, 9st. 31b. ; six
yrs and aged, 9st. 61b. ; mares and geldings allowed 31b.;;
the winner of the Ashstead Stakes to carry 51b. extra. The
Winner to be sold for 120 sovs. Last half mile. Fifteen
subscribers.
Lord Stradbroke's ch. f. 10, 3 yrs ........................Cotton 1
Mr. Falconer's gr. m. Sister to Professor, 4 yr 5...... ......•" 2
Mr. Payne's Elf, 4 yrs
The following also started, but were not placed :—Mr.
Bowes's Roostan, 3 yrs—Fulwar Craven's b. f. Old Maid,
3 yrs—Capt. Gardnor's Ochiltrce, 4 yrs—Mr. Rogers's b. c. by
Zinganee, out of Dirce, 3 vrt—Duke of Richmond's b. 1.
Quadroon, 3 yrs—Duke of Richmond's ch. c. Felo-de-se, 3
yrs—Mr. Bacon's hr. m. Elizabeth, 6 yrs-31r. Shelley's ch.
m• Gold, 4 yrs—Mr. Greatrex's ch. c. by. Rubini, out of
Aricia, 3 yrs. There were several false starts—in the first Io ran
the whole length ; in the second, not many strides short of it ;
and in two others, half way of the course. In the actual race,
Elf made play, the others lying alongside in a line, nothing oc-
curring to change this order till they passed the road, where Io
took the lead, kept it, and won easy by a length—nothing near
the first three. The winner was claimed.
We did not hear any bet on any race subsequent to the Derby.

A WOMAN BURNT TO DEATH.—A poor
woman the wife of William Somerfield, a brewer's man in
the employ of Mr. Wright, was burnt to death on the night
of Tuesday last. Somerfield, who left his home on the
morning of that day, did not return again until 11 o'clock
that night. On reaching his door, he perceived a bright
flame inside • he knockd, but got no answer, and after
some delay, he broke the door open, when he beheld his
wife enveloped in flames. There was no fire in the grate,
nor did he perceive a candle burning. He caught her in
his arms, and placed her on the floor, covering the flames
with his smock-frock ; in doing which he was severely
burnt himself. The poor woman was subject to fits. she
had just put her family of five children to bed, when this
horrible event occurred. An inquest was held on the body
—and a verdict of accidental death was returned.—Liver-
pool Chronicle.

LORD BROUGHAM'S REPLY TO
LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S LETTER TO THE
ELECTORS OF STROUD, ON THE PRINCI
PLES OF THE REFORVI ACT.

Gratieri-street, May 4, 1839.
DEAR JOHN RUSSELL—I have read your letter on the
Reform Act with the interest that belongs to so irn-
poi tent a subject, as well as to everything proceeding from
the pen of a much valued friend and fellow-labourer
in the cause of the people. If it had filled me with
any feelings of a hostile character, or raised any
questions of a personal kind, nothing would have in-
duced me to enter into the controversy, which you
have now continued, having begun it by your well-
known declaration of November, 1837. But as it is
written with still greater temper than ability, and treats
the question at issue between us with exemplary calm-
ness and candour, I feel myself under some obligation
to lay before you my views, and press upon you a re-con-
sideration of your own. That obligation arises from
the high place which vou have, during your whole pub-
lic life, filled among the friends of general improvement,
and the lead you have se long and so usefully taken in
the question of Parliamentary Reform. You are among
the statesmen whose unwearied and judicious exertions
principally brought about the great measure of 1831-2 ;
you propounded that measure to Parliament as well
as bore the chief part in framing its provisions ; you have
moreover always been the advocate of Reform as a means
of popular improvement, and have rested the people's
claim to it upon their increased capacity to exercise poli-
tical rights, and to enjoy political power you have often
been my colleague in the direction of the Society whose
object it is to help the education of the people, and thus
fit them more and more for the great task of self govern-
ment ; you thus stand out most honourably from the herd
of vulgar politicians whose public lives are consumed in
bandying about the topics of ephemeral contention, and
echoing the hackneyed watchwords of all but obsolete
factions ; and although the severance of such a man
from the good cause is impos,ible, and I have con-
stantly denied the ridiculous outcry raised against
you as if you were no longer devoted to our com-
mon principles, yet I see with exceeding pain that
a very material difference of opinion has grown up
between us, upon the thing: which most chiefly con-
cern popular improvement, as well as public liberty, and
I am sincerely anxious to narrow the breach ere it be-
came irreparable. This I shall best effect by calmly
discussing with you the points of our difference ; and I
enter upon this argument not at all in the spirit of or-
dinary controversy, or with the mere desire of vie-
r tory, which inspires combatants upon most occasions ;
bat. with the very earnest hope that a consideration of
some things apparently neglected by you may lead you
back to the path we used both to tread so consenta-
neously together ; so that I shall have the satisfaction,
if not of altogether healing the breach, yet of construct-
ing a bridge over which you may repass, and be found
on its right bank.

Before we proceed further in this good work, I must
advert to one or two things of a more personal kind, in
order that these less important matters may be put
aside, nor interrupt more general and momentous dis-
cussions.

First, it is only fair towards myself to remind you
that I never concealed the great diversity of my
opinions from those now adopted by you, and that
I declared my own views of further Reform long
before you made your unfortunate statement in
November, 1837. I denied more than once in 1832,
that the Bill was to be taken as a final measure. I loudly
denied it in the summer of 1837, when a Noble Earl fell
into that error during a debate ofthe Lords. I then stated
distinctly that I had always regarded the Bill as only a
measure to rest upon for the present, but by no means
as final. Again; in October of the same year, in a letter
addressed to the grand education meeting of Manches-
ter, I avowed my opinion that the people had already
showed themselves capable of a more extended elective
franchise, and I expressly denied that the right should
be limited by property, to the exclusion of the most in-
dustrious and skilful members of the community. This
was nearly two months before your declaration ; there-
fore, when you made that declaration, you must have
been aware that my support, such as it was—very zea-
lous, though very feeble—of the Government would be
withdrawn ; and you cannot have ever joined in the silly
outcry raised by some of your supporters, whose zeal so
far outstrips their knowledge, as if kny opposition was
grounded on personal considerations—those personal
considerations having existed in 1835, 6, and 7, during
which three years my support of your Ministry had been
uniform and unremitting.
It is fit that having defended the living I also do jus-
tice to the dead. You speak of the means taken to
pass the Reform Bill as not very easily justified, and as
fraught with the highest nanger. Ido not see anything
in Sir Herbert Taylor's conduct on that occasion to call
for this remark. He knew that the King had given Lord
Grey and myself a carte blanche, addressed to me in
writing, for the creation of Peers, and being under no ob-
iigation of secresy, on the contrary the fact being purposely
disclosed by ourselves, he conveyed the knowledge of it to
ainse.wbose,lecession from their plaCes would prevent,
and he well knew frourilii knowledge of thosw to whom
this pledge had been given, would alone prevent, re-
course being bad to an expedient full of peril to the
Constitution. No man more than myself was aware of
the extreme evils of a large creation for a given purpose.
It was an expedient barely allowed by the Constitution ;
an expedient which nothing could justify us using but
its absolute necessity for avoiding the greatest evils ; an
expedient which, if resorted to as often as the House of
Lords proved adverse to the Ministry, or the Commons,
at once destroyed the whole frame of our mixed mo-
narchy. Abolishing the Upper House altogether would
be a more honest and a more rational course, than
such a habitual coercion of a body which you pre-
tended all the while to regard and to treat as deli-
berative. Even when the alternative seemed to be
pressing close upon us, and that alternative a
frightful and general convulsion, I always felt it a
most dreadful expedient to embrace ; and certainly had
I been the ruler of the Conservative party's councils,
supposing me to be an enemy of the Bill, I would have
taken possession of the Government at all hazards of
being unitLle to hold it, and had recourse to a sudden
prorogation, or to any expedient which could have
arded off the evil hour, as 1 should have deemed it, of
having to choose between abolishing the Lords, or revo-
lutionizing the Commons. My opinions were not those ,
I firmly believed the Bill to be a wise, a wholesome, a
necessary measure ; and in the state of the country I
was certain that its friends were bound to carry it.
All that Sir Herbert Taylor did was to enable the
Peers who opposed the Bill to avoid a fate which
would have both forced its passing, and destroyed the
independence of the House of Lords.
If it should be thought that Sir Herbert Taylor's
connection with the King, as his private secretary, ren-
dered the proceeding taken by him improper, it must be
borne in mind that no threat whatever was held out to
the. Lords of anything to be done by his Majesty, nor
was any attempt made to scare the Lords from a dis-
charge of their duty. All that Sir Herbert communi-
cated on his Royal Master's part, was the state in which
he was placed by the pledge he had given ; all that the
Lords were told was to mark a danger in their way, in
order that they might avoid it. He who warns you
that there is a pitfall in your path dug by another, can
surely never be charged with using undue means to ob-
struct your passage. His act is as friendly as it is fair.
Let nothing which I have here said be taken to lessen
the merit of the gallant and excellent person whom we
have since lost. Though he did nothing to which any
one could, upon reflection, object, the step he took with
singular promptitude and decision wore an aspect well
fitted to deter a man of less firm purpose ; and he took
it, believing that he exposed himself to imminent risk of
encountering much clamour and misrepresentation, pos-
sibly greater hazards. He took, too, the undivided re-
sponsibility of it upon himself, communicating his inten-
tion to no one. Of course, Lord Grey and myself were
no sooner apprised of what he had done, than we made
the proceeding our own, as every principle of duty and
feeling of honour required those to do who were acting
as Ministers of the Crown.
Connected with this passage in the history of
.the Re-
form Bill, is another mistake which has been dissemi-
nated, under the sanction of your name, in the late
debates. You are represented as having stated that all
our Government, except one, decided for what is vul-
garly termed swamping or sluicing the House of Lords.
In this there must be some mistake. You never could
have spoken in public of so delicate a matter as a Ca-
binet division ; and, moreover the question never was
raised as to creating Peers ; for when Lord Grey
and I went to Windsor with the proposition of the
Cabinet for creating a large number of Peers, which his
Majesty at first refused and afterwards acceded to,
the whole of the Ministers tendered their resignations
upon the refusal. Another, the one supposed to be
alluded to, as well as myself, refused to take the
Government, and form a new administration in place of
Lord Grey's ; and all of us afterwards resumed our
places upon the pledge being given to Lord Grey and
myself (under the King's hand), when we attended his
Majesty after the attempt to form another Govern-
ment had failed. The proceeding of Sir H. Taylor, in
fact, prevented the question from ever being practically
discussed among us, of making new Peers, or of the
number that should be made.

And here I must say a word or two upon this remedy
of Peer-making, so much in the mouths of thoughtless
men. Besid, the reason against it to which I have already
adverted, as showing its utter repugnance to the very
frame of our mixed Monarchy, how little have they
considered ita consequences to their own views of
the Constitution ! If there be a form of Govern-
ment more hateful than another, surely it is that
had kind of aristocracy which we call oligarchy, or the
government of a particular knot of privileged men
not directly under popular controul. But of all politi-
cal reasoners, those hate oligarchy and every species of
aristocracy the most, who are the most ready with
proposing Peer-making as an universal remedy for
the discord of our two Houses—a remedy which they
would apply on every the most inconsiderable occasion
of conflict. Have they ever reflected on what must
inevitably follow ? Suppose Lord Grey and myself to

have gratified them with creating eighty new Peers ;
and supp.:sc a year after our opinions had come to
differ with those of the Commons, and of the coun-
try at large, aye, and of the King too—l will not
say that the new Peers certainly would have stood
by us, for I have already been favoured with unmea-
sured abuse by some of the few Peers whom I made
while in office ; but it is enotLzh to sty the hulk of
them probably might have stood by us—the
sure gave us every chance of having a majority in our
house at variance with all the rest of the Legislature.
What then would a new Ministry have been forced to
do? Another creation of Peers was a matter of absolute
necessity, unless the government was destined to become
a pure oligarchy. This constant accession to the Upper
House must have one or other of two consequences.
Either it must destroy that House altogether, by an-
nihilating its independence, or it must absorb
into it all the wealth of the country. So that in
one point of view this remedy would swell the Peerage
to a bulk fatal to all balance in the Constitution ; and
in another, it would operate its destruction. I venture,
however, to think that it might very probably unite the
worst parts of both these consequences. The whole wealth
avid power of the State might be centered in the House
of Lords, and its independence might be utterly de-
stroyed, by thus treating it as a body only allowed to
decide as those who could " swamp" or " sluice" it
chose to dictate. The Crown alone having this power
of creation, would thus have the absolute control of the
whole government of the State.

Your letter has led me to these remarks, for no small
portion of it refers to the collision between the two
Houses of Parliament. Your supporters have not indeed
of late been so loud in their demands of what they called
Peerage Reform. Time was when your Irish friends
named the very day of their motions on that subject,
and would hear of nothing else. It seems now to
have shared the fate of Repeal ; having served the
purpose of the day, it is laid aside for ever. Though none
of your colleagues ever declared their opinion upon this
question, I verily believe that it was one which not
one of you all ever seriously mentioned. Some of you
I know could not speak of it with a grave countenance.
To have said, however, that you all regarded it as the
most absurd, and most of you as the most laughable,
thing in the world, might have lost you a few sup-
porters, whose votes your slender majority could ill
spare. On this, as on so many other questions, there-
fore, the course taken was that your advocates always
pretended to the public that you were a mighty deal
more liberal than you ever dreamt of being ; and that it
was no fault of yours if you did not show it in your con-
duct. Nor was the least contradiction ever given to
such beneficial misrepresentations. As soon as you had
possession of the Court, you^ famous declaration of No-
vember, 1837, opened men's eyes ; your subsequent
opposition to all the motions in favour of the negroes,
and your resistance even to the attempts for checking
the newly-established slave-trade, widened the breach
between yourselves and the country ; nor can it be
in the least degree healed by the silly attempts now
made to convert your quarrel with the Jamaica As-
sembly into a pretended act of favoui• towards the poor
nagroes, because every one remembers your conduct last
year on that question, and no one perceives the least
attempt to extend this measure further than Jamaica.
To fancy that the opposers of all the motions on slavery
and slave trading in 1838, the enemies of every inter-
ference with the Assemblies, should all of a sudden have
become so enamoured of the negro cause- as almost to
risk their tenure of place upon a Bill for its furtherance
in 1839, would argue a strange aptitude for being gulled,
an aptitude in which assuredly I do not share.
The last matter of a personal kind to which I shall
refer also relates to the secret history of the Reform
Bill. You followed up your unfortunate declaration of
1837 by a statement next day, which very little tended
to heal the wounds the former had given to your
friends. The oil which it poured into them was indeed
rather of vitriol than olive. It seems the object of the
Bill was to increase the preponderance of the landed
interest ! Surely you never could have said so.
Like the old story circulated by Cobbett, that I called
the newspaper press " the best possible public instruc-
tor"—whereas I only said that the periodical press,
which might be the instructor of the people, would, by
its contamination, become their deluder and corrupter ;
or, like the older story of Mr. Windham crying "Perish
commerce," when it was G. Harding who said this, and
Robespierre who said something like it—two men as
different from Mr. Windham as they were from each
other ; or like the still more false and ridiculous story of
Lord Plunket calling history an old almanac—when he
said the very reverse, namely, that they who cited his-
tory, without regarding the circumstances in which they
applied it, made it of no more use than an old almanac
—I fondly hope that you never said what gave certainly
a great exasperation to the pain you had caused the day
before. Be this, however, as it may, lam bound to give
the statement a flat contradiction, if it is applied to the
other authors of the measure. I never, before the moment
when I read it, had heard of such a motive as influencing
any of them. I know, indeed, that both Lord Althorp
and myself often said the fault of the Bill was its beinc,
ton aristocratic, and especially we said this after the
CLandos clause had been forced upon us. But instead
of this proving our desiie of strengthening the landed
interest in Parliament, it rather proves the reverse—so
that if you have not been misrepresented as much as
Mr. Windam, and Lord Plunket, and myself, on the
occasions above referred to, you have misunderstood,
and through misapprehension misrepresented, Lord
Althorp and myself pretty much in that proportion
—a proportion as great as can well exist between any
one original fact and the copy of it—the latter being,
as near as may be, the reverse of the former.

The ground being now cleared for discussing our
question, I must begin by expressing my belief, in which
I rejoice, that the difference between us is far less than
it looks. You allow of changes being required in the
Reform Act, for you say there "are many defects
which require to be remedied," and among them I am
truly delighted to find you number the " so far changing
the freeman's franchise as to make it the pride of the
working classes." I read this important passage, p. 36,
in connection with p. 24, where you speak of making the
" freemen the proper representatives of one of the
most valuable classes of the community, that of the
industrious, intelligent, and able mechanics who abound
in our great towns." " Such a change," you most justly
add, " would do much to purify our elections, and
strengthen the House of Commons." Now, you will
presently perceive, and your traducers will also see, hoW
near you come to opinion—an opinion which, I
admit, goes even far beyond Household Suffrage.
But, unquestionably, you adhere far too rigorously to
the position, not that the Act should be " final," for you
deny ever having used the word, and seem not well to
understand its premise meaning, nor indeed do I. as ap-
plied to any work of frail and erring man—but that
the questions of extended franchise, secret vote, and
shortened Parliaments, are precluded by the arrange•
ment of 1832, as if by some compact which our Go-
vernment then made with the country. You adopt the
words " permanent settlements," and you contend,
from the speeches which you cite of Lord Grey and
Lord Althorp, that they considered the measure as one
not afterwards to be changed.

I think those passages do not fairly bear such a con-
struction. The whole must be taken together, and
you must see to what it is that those able and ex-
cellent men oppose " permanent measure," before you
can fairly get at their meaning in using those words,
to express what they intended the Bill to be. The
passages quoted in p. 25-6 from Lord Althorp, and p.
27-8 from Lord Grey, show that the former opposes
permanent measure" to universal suffrage, and con-
stant " anarchy and agitation ;" the latter to the
" agitation of reform" " in seasons of distress and diffi-
culty," and to " an assault upon the principles of the
Constitution." Surely this is a very different thing from
declaring the plan as settled, once for all, never to be
afterwards altered, nor extended nor meddled with,
any more than if it were one of the fundamentals of
the Constitution, like the Act of Settlement, or Monar-
chical principle, which are excluded from discussion,
and can only be drawn into the debate when a revolu-
tionary crisis arrives, and all law is about to be silenced
in the clang of arms, and all debate to be stifled, and
each articulate sound to be lost in the shouts of violence
or the wailings of fruitless resistance.

It must always be borne in mind, that the plainest
words only could be allowed to convey so extravagant a
sense as you are seeking to affix upon the speeches under
consideration. Indeed, I greatly doubt if any man
could be fairly supposed capable of uttering so wild
a proposition, as that a measure, which they bad
framed, in six weeks, was too perfect to admit of im-
provement. I still more doubt if any promise could be
held binding which went to preclude the judgment of the
State from being exercised in revising a great scheme of
policy, when experience should have tried its efficiency.
Most of all am I disposed to deny the possibility of Par-
liament being tied up from applying its wisdom to the
Constitution established at one time, when at a future
time a change of circumstances had rendered it unsafe
or mischievous, or less benefical than might be desir-
able. The only thing, lawyers tell us, which exeeds
the supreme power of Parliament, is to bind its own
hands against future Legislation. It has performed
strange feats we well know. It has declared Malta to
be in Europe, and Berwick-on-Tweed in England ;
it has protected, by a 101. penalty, the truth of the
proposition in Euclid, that the opposite sides of a paral-
lelogram are equal (in the Excise Laws regulating
glass melting), and it has declared the one pound bank-
note to be equal in value to 205., when it was so depre-
ciated that a severe penalty was in the same breath de-
nounced against all who gave or took less than 20s. in
exchange for it. But it is on all hands admitted that a
statute, made with all the solemnities of legislation, and
clothed with all the formalities of law, which
.should
enact the " permanence" of any one clause for eighteen
months, would be null and void to all legislative intents,
and would not prove the slightest obstacle to the total
alteration of that very clause the first week of the next

session.
Let us, if you please, in order to try these finality or
permanency doctrines, take an instance ; and to wake
the discussion the more practical, the more apposite to