The Sun.
London, England, 1831-09-27 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The law of England is, like the Peers of England,
the creature of society. Society was not made for
it, nor for the House of Lords. If a law exists for
whose repeal the whole nation cries out, as for a
change essential to its well-being, yet which certain
constituted authorities, composing perhaps a body
of some three or four hundred persons, or rather a
majority of them, flatly refuse to concur in,--that
is to say, after the representatives of the people in
Parliament have, by their majority, declared that
such a change is indispensable, and voted for its
immediate adoption,—we ask, with all humility,
what, under such untoward circumstances, ought to
be the conduct of the aforesaid nation ? " Obey
the law, of course," we shall be answered. Good.
What follows, therefore ? If it be right, if it be
just, that a nation of 22,000,000 of people—that
their Sovereign fully sympathizing with them, and
their representatives in Parliament speaking their
desires,—if, we say, it be right and just that all
these powers should submit themselves tamely
to the negative put upon their common de-
mands by the separate body of a few hundred
individuals in question,—that they should pay
such obedience for one year, it is equally requisite
that they should do so for an hundred years, or for
ever. It is, therefore, according to the spirit of the
British Constitution, that a certain class of 300 or
400 Englishmen—we don't say who or what they
are—should withhold for ever from the King, Com-
mons, and people of this empire, a benefit which
. they all declare to be the only possible means of
*tying the State from destruction. The loathsome
reptile of the borough-pre,s are spitting their venom
at the best and ablest men in the community, who

take up the gauntlet impudently thrown down to
them, and display at public meetings their virtuous
devotion to Refortn. Nevertheless, look at those
meetings—do they languish ? Does the call for
them subside ? Some important ones we have al-
ready noticed. Now follow the names of Middlesex,
Brighton, Canterbury, Cheltenham, Chester, Corn-
wall,
Exeter, Gloucestershire, Glasgow, Gravesend,
Leeds, Romsey, Surrey, Southampton, Tewkes-
bury. Every parish in Bath held separate meetings,
Launceston, Darlington, Falmouth, Chippenham,
Toxteth-park (adjoining Liverpool),Melksham,Old-
ham, Lees, Royton, Kendall, Devonport, Plymouth,
Barnard Castle, Bishop Auckland, North Shields,
Sunderland. In Scotland meetings have been held
in Edinburgh, Leith, Dundee, Greenock, Glasgow,
Stirling, Cupar, Kinghorn, Kirkaldy, Arbroath,
Dunfermline, Kettle, &c. We have also notices of
a great many meetings which are intended to be held
in the course of the ensuing week, among which
are the counties of Wilts, Lancaster, Devon, and
Northumberland, exclusive of Kent, Surrey, and
Middlesex, as noticed above. There's indfference
for you! The Marquis of Westminster last night
presented the petition from that great city whence
his Lordship derives his title and a large portion of
his princely revenues, and prefaced the presentation
of it by a speech wherein his sentiments, as a
liberal Reformer, were expressed with a spirit and
emphasis which did him honour. He was replied to
by Lord Eldon, and in what tone, and with what
indications of the side to which his wishes were
leaning, we need hardly say. His Lordship pro-
mised that in relation to the Reform 1311), " he
would not belie any act of his former life."
Alas ! we could have sworn it. At another part of
the evening, the Learned Lord is reported to have
made some bitter remarks upon the temporary ab-
sence of Lord Brougham from the woolsack, which
might perhaps have come at least as gracefully from
a different quarter. To minds gifted with but the
average allowance of delicacy, it would seem that
of all the men in the House, the very last who ought
P nibble or mumble at the present Chancellor, is an
ex-Chancellor, an opposite party in politics. But,
in common discretion, what ought Lord Eldon to
do? Why, never venture to bring to any man's
recollection, that ha had held the seals for five-and-
twenty years, more especially in juxta-position with
the fact that for the last nine months they have
been held by Lord Brougham. But " hceret
lateri," Lord Brougham's chief labour, and one
of his noblest titles to honour from his coun-
trymen, is his efficient and masterly demolition
of those arrears which it had been the labour,
if not the honour, of another man's life to create.
Rever:ing to the Marquis of Westminster, we
find that Lord Eldon attacked his Lordship for
acqerting (what Lord Westminster denied having
asserted) that the Lords were " not interested" in
the Reform Bill. The Noble Marquis could not
have uttered such folly. But he might well say,
and did say, that the Commons had " a peculiar in-
terest in it ;" and have they not t So much, that
the Lords may very properly be counselled against
meddling with the Bill beyond the clear necessity of
the interference. We will now allude to conse-
quences, with a sense of which their Lordships are,
we take for granted, by this time pretty deeply im-
pressed ; hut rather setting the question before them
as a matter involving much constitutional decorum
asa propriety, we would submit the following
few passages brought to our notice by a pamphlet
which was recently issued from the press, entitled
" A few Last Words to the Lords," and exhibiting
the view taken by Blackstone of the forbearance
,which ought, constitutionally speaking, to charac-
terize either House of Parliament in deciding on
paints In which the other House is principally con-
caned ; and Blackstone was not a revolutionist.
" Dbekstone, the celebrated Commentator of the Laws
of England, has been justly compared to another more an-
cient professor of laws, who is thus described by Pliny—
' Quinn peritus ills et privati juris et publici ! Quantum
semen, quantum exemplorum, quantum antiquitatis tenet !
Nibil est quad discere quod ilk docere non potent.
certe, quoties aliquid Abditum qurro, inc chesau-
frua est.'
" If we take the following passages from this author's
works, they may, perhaps, be found applicable to the pre-
sent case :.
‘" Whatever is enacted for law by one, or by two only
of the three constituut parts of Parliament, is no statute.
To it tso regard is due, unless in matters relating to their
own privileges.'
" ° It will he sufficient to observe, that the whole of the
taw :knd custom of Parliament has its origa front this one
niaxim.--that, whatever matter arises concerning either
House of Parliament, ought to be examined, discussed,
and adjuage4, in that House, and not elsewhere.'
We find, likewise, the following passage, with refe-
enee to this subject, as a quotation from that great and
patriotic Chief Justigs, Lord Holt :
" That the authority of Parliament is from the law ;
and as it is circumscribed by the law, so it triay-be ex-
ceeded ; and if they do exceed those legal bounds and
authority, their acts are wrongfut, anti caunot be justified
any more than the acts of private men.
44 < With respeet to the reciprocal rights of tire Upper
House,' Blackstone 4pin observes, All Bills that may,
in their consequences, iuy way affect %the rights of the
Peerage, are, by the custom of parliament, to have their
first rise and beginning in the House of Peers, and to suffer
no changes or amendments in the Houoe
of Conuttotts."'
--Times.
The Marquis of Londonderry has an Irish pro.,
pensity to a row. He shines upon points of order.
The absence of the Lord Chancellor from the House
of Lords last night afforded the Noble Marquis an
opportunity for vindicating the orders of the House,
and no one had certainly a greater right to vindicate
those orders than one who bad so often made the
,I-louse feel the inconvenience of their violation,
Even in this very instance he gave another of his
practical lessons, by entering into comments when
ot;zht to have given his notice. It seems that
the Noble Marquis is to catechise the Lord Chan-
cellar on the subject tczEci:rwne(dthis) night. We
hope that the Noble and Lord will be pre-
pared for his formillsbl., antagonist.
that willindeed wg have
doubtget over
htibsouLgohrdtshhai7 Earl of Eldon b.
littles
mighty affair, eve"
;eat his authority to Swell it liikc lynportarce
charge of negligence sounds t
i,r,ay thneergliogdel
eye. against
Lord Brougham. It was no
e
-gius he prfOr eti
made the nation ring with the oi
W
in the Court of Chancery. edo not like te im-
ben Lord
ute
p little motives to great men u
pose
that
Uldnn b ;ut whegged theLHouse. not ,t 0 $ P

though several cafes of.bankruptcy were disposed of
by the present Lord Chancellor, his Lordship would
never hear of those cases agetin"—when Lord
Eldon descended to make this insinuation, he

took the worst poqsihle means of preventing that
contrast from being drawn which he ought to be the
last man in the kingdom to provoke by any indiscre-
tion. If any Noble Lord is weak enough to sup-
pose that he can underrate the vast services already

conferred upon the public by the judicial labours of
the present Lord Chancellor, by representing those
labours as inferior in point of importance to the
task of listening to a speech of the Marquis of Lon-
donderry, or of stopping that speech by calling him
to order, we can only say that he will find but few
to sympathise with him, and those few mast be
Lords. It is quite amusing to observe the air of
importance attempted to be given to the absence of
Lord Brougham for one night, and that a night for
which no business of any moment had been fixed.
The Earl of Eldon would have us consider it little
short of a breach of the Constitution ; but it was
ever the characteristic of the Noble Earl's mind to
make mountains of mole-hills, and it was probably
his taste for this very sort of drudgery that made his
laborious efforts in the Court of Chancery so useless
as they really were to the public—for where was the
great utility, after all, in deciding questions, how-
ever justly, when all the individuals concerned in the
decision were dead ?—illorning, Herald.
We are no friends to over-legislation, neither are
we disposed to the other extreme of assimilating so-
ciety as closely as possible to a state of nature by
having no legislation at all. Yet this latter extreme
is what Mr. Hume and certain political economists
seem to consider as the perfection of that poli-
tical milleuium of " free trade, of which they
are the enthusiastic promoters. Notwithstanding
the dreadful loss of life which has been the conse-
quence of the cupidity and negligence of the owners
and navigators of steam-boats, Mr. Hume protests
against any interference of the Legislature, as pre-
judicial, we presume, to the freedom of trade. He
says, if men are not careful of their lives, and neglect
to make the necessary inquiries before embarking,
he does not see what the Legislature can do. If
they are to legislate on steam-boats, he does not see
why they should not be called upon to legislate re-
specting the safety of stage-coaches, houses, &c. We
ask, how are people, ignorant of ship-building and
nautical matters, to know whether a vessel in which
they are about to embark is sea-worthy or not ? A
great proportion of travellers are those who have
no time to stop to make inquiries—whose busi-
ness obliges them to take the first vessel they can
avail themselves of; and those who have time to
make inquiries, of whom can they inquire ? Those
who are interested in the property of the vessel,
or who derive their bread in any way from the esta-
blishment to which it belongs, cannot be expected
to give such information as would deter passengers
front embarking in her; and unless passengers go to
the inconvenience and expence of procuring a ship-
wright, or some other competent person, to examine
the vessel in which they are about to sail, they may
as well keep their inquiries to themselves. The
owners of the Rothsay Castle, the loss of which
was the sacrifice of more than 100 lives, were very
indignant because the Coroner's Jury pronounced
her not sea-worthy ; yet Mr. Grattan stated in the
House of Commons that he had been informed, by
a former mate of that steam-vessel, that four years
ago she had been condemned as not sea-worthy, and
on that account had been taken off the high seas to
ply on the coast, where less risk was apprehended.
Hence, we may infer, the calamity which has clothed
so many families in mourning. We do not under-
stand what Mr. Hume means by saying, if the House
were to legislate on steam-boats, he did not see why
they should not be called upon to legislate respect-
ing the safety of stage-coaches, houses, &c. Surely
so experienced a Member of the House of Commons
cannot be ignorant that Parliament has legislated for
the safety of stage-coaches by requiring, under severe
penalties, that the luggage on the tops of those vehicles
shall not exceed a certain measured height—a provision
exceedingly necessary to guard against the dreadful and
often fatal accidents produced by coaches loaded not
according to the dictates of prudence, but of avarice,
until they become so top-heavy that a slight pres-
sure to one side or the other would be sufficient to
overturn them. There is also a law against furious
driving ; and if there were still another law, to in-
flict a heavy line on the proprietors of stage-coaches
for every life lost by the fault of themselves or their
drivers, this mode of conveyance would only be
properly guarded, not overlaid by legislation. As
to the safety of houses, that has also been legislated
for to a certain extent, in London at least, by the en-
actments relative to party-walls, anti the compulsory
remuneration to the workers of fire-engines—and
yet, from the want of a little more judicious legis-
lation, new buildings are not unfrequetoly unsafe, in
consequence of fraudulent workmanship or unsound
materials. Having suggested some time ago that
all steam-vessels should be surve)ed by a competent
public officer, and that none of them should be
allowed to sail without a certificate of sea-worthi-
ness, we have seen nothing stated since, in Parlia-
ment or out of it, which has caused us to change
our opinion. Freedom of trade does not require
that owners of steam-vessels should be at liberty to
commit fatal frauds upon the public, and one of the
first duties of a Government is to protect the lives
of its people.—Morning Herald.
As the time approaches for the decision of the
House of Lords on the Reform Bill, indications of
the course they are to pursue begin to escape frotn
some of their Lordships. Last night, for instance,
there was a sort of preliminary discussion on the
presentation of the petition from Westminster, lay
the Marquis of Westminster. His Lordship took
the opportunity of alluding to the meeting of the
merchants, bankers, and traders of the city of Lon-
don. " Their Lordships (he said) would do well to
look at what was said at the meeting. It WEIS there
said, that if the Reform Bill should be rejected, the
circumstance would be productive of the greatest
exasperation to the country, and give a fatal blow to
public credit ; and it was also said that the people
would refuse to pay the taxes." After alluding to
the property which some of their Lordships had in
boroughs, he observed that—
" He could not think that such an interest would have
any influence on the minds of their Lordships. But
there was another consideration to be attended to. This
was a question which in a peculiar manlier concerned the
other House. They had agreed to Reform themselves,
and why should their Lordships interfere ? They had the
power to oppose this measure which the Conn tons had
passed fora Reform in their body, if they chose to exer-
cise it. But there was such a thing as discretion. Some
of their Lordships had indeed, an interest in the other
House ; but it was not a constitutional one, and be could
4ot think that any private interests which they might
have there, or anywhere else, would influence the minds of
theiv Lordships in regard to this great and important mea-
sure. If they should refuse to pass it, the consequence
would be a shock upon the public mind, which, in all pro-
bability, would be attended with the most deplorable and
immeasurable mischief and ruin."
This speech called up Lord Eldon, who observed—
" The Noble Marquis was pleased to say that their
Lordships had no interest in the question. Ile had heard
these words from his lips, and heard the advice given that
the Peers should not interfere with the measure. But
since they had been so much advised, he also would give
their Lordships his advice, and that was to do their duty.—
(Hear, bear)—and he had no doubt but they would do
it.—(Hear, bear, from both sides of the House.) He did
not say at present what that duty was ; but he would say,
that even for the sake of the people themselves, their Lord-
ships ought to do their duty.—( Hear, front both sides of
the House.) He bad no hesitation in saying, that many
Noble Lords whom he highly respected would do their
duty, by giving that opinion of the measure which it was
his duty to give. But so far v.-as it from the Peers having
no interest in this question, that they would have no Con-
stitution at all left, unless the Peers had and took an in-
terest in it. He would go farther—he had been bred in
loyalty—he had been bred to the law, and loved the law ;
and,w having now reached the age of fourscore years, he
eld rather die, than admit that the Peep had no interest
in the question."
No man knows better than his Lordship how
ierviceable good words are in the furtherance of

questionable objects. Duty! duty ! forms the
burden of his Lordship's speech. His Lordship
reminds us of a canting rogue who was detected in
a fraudulent attempt to transfer to himself what of
right belonged to another, and who answered, "
must do my duty to my own family." Vice always
pays to virtue the homage of borrowing its name.
We will answer for it that no Noble Lord will call
the object which he seeks to secure by opposing the
Reform Bill the plunder or pillage of the people.
General terms, like duty, therefore, are of great
convenience. His Lordship, however, " would not
say at present what that duty was." He might as
well, therefore, have held his tongue. The Duke
of Wellington would not have conceded emancipa-
tion to the Catholics if he hail not been compelled
by an over-ruling necessity. He felt it to be his
duty to resist the claims as long as he could, and
when resistance threatened the safety of the empire,
he felt it to be his duty to concede them. We pre-
sume his Grace, seeing the consequences of with-
holding from the people Reform of Parliament likely
to be much more formidable than the consequences
from withholding emancipation, will deem it to be
his duty to support the Reform Bill. Other Noble
Lords will deem themselves in duty bound to secure
to their families the same easy access to the public
purse which they had in times past. Though, in
the language of the poet—
" Their aims as various as the roads they take
In journeying through life,"
they will all, no doubt, decide according to con-
science and duty. We only hope that many of them
will have grace sufficient not to set their consciences
by that of John Earl of Eldon. The people of
England, Ireland, and Scotland, have also a duty to
discharge. They must be true to themselves; and
the notions entertained by many of their Lordships
of duty, will, we trust, be very much aided by the
determination of the people. At the Edinburgh
meeting on Thursday last, Sir James Gibson Craig
observed with much force—

" With regard to what they (the Peers) will do, I
think much will depend on the result of such meetings as
this. I have strong hopes they will do what is best for
the country.—(Applause.) I trust they will follow the
example which they chalked out for themselves in the
great question of Catholic emancipation. You will all
recollect, that but a short time before that measure was
carried into effect, the Duke of Wellington, and many
Peers, declared themselves most hostile to it. But the
Duke of Wellington and those Peers changed their opi•
nion on this ground, that the claims of the Catholics were
urged with such a degree of vehemence and strength, that
it was impossible to resist them ; that the Government of
the country could not he safely carried on without re-
moving the civil disabilities which affected Ireland. It
was granted on those grounds ; and we have seen how all
the prophetic fears of those who opposed the measure have
ended in smoke. If the Duke of Wellington was alarmed
by the imposing attitude of four or five millions of the
people, united in the cause of Catholic emancipa-
tion, how much more cause has he to be alarmed
when lie beholds fifteen or twenty millions ranked
in the battalia to carry the still greater question of Re-
form ? The Peers are, no doubt, a separate estate in the Le-
gislature of the country, but in all other respects they
are a part of ourselves. Whatever involves the happiness
or prosperity of the people, must also involve their pros-
perity or happiness in a still greater degree, because indi-
vidually they have a greater stake in the interests of the
country.—(l-fear, hear.) But if the people uninimously

hold that this measure is of such immense importance, as

connected with their prosperity and happiness, I should
think it would be natural that the Peers should feel it es•
sential for them to contribute towards that prosperity and
happiness. In forming their resolution on this subject,
they ought to keep in view that the people are more inde-
pendent of the Peers than the Peers of the people.—(lm-
me,.se cheering,) The people may do without the Peers
—.the Peers cannot do without the people.—(Renewed
cheers.) Ido not say this invidiously ;itis of the ut-
most importance to the prosperity and safety of the country
that the connection should be continued to the utmost
extent. None would lament more than I would to see

the day when that connection should be dissevered ; but
the people have rights as well as the Peers—they know
their rights, and they are determined to maintain them.
—(Great cheering.) Ido not say—God forbid that
it should be supposed—that the Peers have no right to de-
cide on the momentous question now before them. It is
quite clear that, by the Constitution of this country, which
I hope never will be impaired, the Peers have that right ;
but they are placed in a situation of great delicacy as to
the exercise of it. Each order of the State has peculiar
privileges. This question, as it regards the Constitution of
the House of Commons, is peculiarly connected with the
privileges of the people. It is of infinite importance to
avoid all collision between the different orders. If the in-
terference of the Lords affect the peculiar privileges of the
people, what may not the people do with regard to their
Lordships' privileges? Then suppose that the Lords reject
the Bill by a majority of I, or 10, or 20, or any other
number, can they gain any benefit by it ? By doing so
they estrange the people from them—and they may obtain
a short lived and dear bought triumph. But can they
suppose that the King, his Ministers, and the people, will
submit to the domination of a majority of Peers ? This
great measure must be carried. It cannot fail. Means
must be taken, which, in a very few weeks, will set all op-
position at defiance."
" The people (says the newly-created Baronet)
may do without the Peers—the Peers cannot do
without the people." And he points out with suf-
ficient clearness the mode by which the Peers may
be brought to their senses, if they should happen to
loose them. The Peers, in short, are nothing the
moment they separate themselves from the people.
The Peers cannot levy taxes without the House of
Commons. Supposing even that the people should
have no objection to pay taxes, the refusal to vote
them would necessarily compel the creation of as
many Peers as the exigency might require. When
Sir James G. Craig said the people may do without
the Peers, but the Peers cannot do without the
people, he did not, of course, mean that the Peers
should be overboard, but if the people are deter-
mined, nothing can be made of them ; whereas
no determination of the Peers can be considered
as a law of the Medes and Persians, so long
as fresh creations can be made in any number.
Had the Peers succeeded in limiting creations then
the case would, no doubt, have been very different.
But the Constitution of this country gives them no
power of opposing with effect the determina, ion of the
people when expressed in so unequivocal a mariner as
has been in the late elections and in the House of
Commons. The Peers, to use a homely phrase, are
in a cleft stick. Whichever way they turn them-
selves they will find themselves beset with insur-
mountable difficulties. And it is proper that this
should be so. No body of men in a country ought
to have the power to gainsay the fixed determination
of the people of that country. The benefit of a
House of Lords is riot in opposing the nation, but
in securing the nation against the influence of fac-
tion. A factious House of Commons might vote a
measure of great peril to the country, which, if not
arrested by the Lords, could only be resisted
by means calculated to throw the nation into
confusion, were there not a House of Lords to
oppose its passing into a law, and rendering it ne-
cessary to appeal to the nation in a fresh election.
But in a case where art appeal has been made to
the nation against a factious House of Commons,
when the King arid his Ministers have been sup-
' ported by all the nation, minus the borough-
mongers and their creatures, the duty of the House
of Lords is to submit to overruling necessity, and
not foolishly to agitate the country. Noble Lords
should remember—
" The rank is but the guinea's stamp,
The man's the gold."
Those who have gold can easily make guineas.
A people cannot be made to suit Noble Lords, but
Noble Lords can be made to suit a people. When
the Duchess of Milan, whose infant children were in
the hands of the besiegers of her capital, was told
they would be put to death if she did riot surrender,
she answered, as she was young if she lived she
could have more children, but if she lost her domi-
nions she could not recover them. So long as the
King is the fountain of honour, so long we have a
safety-valve which will secure the Peers against
themselves. We have never heard it questioned that
the Reform Bill is a most unpalatable measure to many
of their Lordships. What is money, especially in
England, where, as a Noble and Learned Lord once
said, religion itself is nothing without money, but
the means of commanding all that men desire ? And

who doubts that the Reform Bill will limit the power
of many Noble Lords to quarter themselves and
their dependents on the public Treasury ? Who
ever heard of thieves eulogising Bramah's patent
locks ? Parliamentary interest means the power of
appropriating public money without reference to
public service. When a Peer, or a Peer's son or
cousin, or other relation, possesses merit, he will be
sure not to he postponed to another with less merit.
There is no fear that rank and wealth in England
will not possess abundance of influence. But at
present it is an understood matter, that Parlia-
mentary interest can dispense with merit, and that
the nation must pay both those who are efficient
servants and those who are inefficient. We say
nothing of the immorality fostered necessarily by
a system which hinges on corruption, and allows
interest to trample on merit. Oh the bitter curses
which are now heard every day, and every hour of
the day, by thousands of brave men, who have
often " braved the battle and the breeze," without
obtaining promotion, and are now pining in gar•
rets or in exile, on their pittance of half-pay, while
boys without talent, but possessed of interest, have
been again and again raised over their heads ! But
this odious system cannot be perpetuated, nor w•i I
Lord Eldon's swan-song serve to reconcile the nation
to such an abomination. Lord Eldon said, "he
was determined conscientiously to do his duty, and
he could not be wrong if he did his duty according
to his own opinion ; and at his time of life he would
say, that he did not wish that life to be prolonged a
moment longer, if it were possible that he should
be restrained by any petitions, clamours, or resolu-
tions ; by any favour or prejudice—(Hear, hear)—
or fear, from doing his duty, be the consequences
what they might." We have no doubt that his
Lordship will be consistent with himself to the last.
He cannot conceive the possibility of a nation ex-
isting without one part of it being at free quarter on
the rest. He will die as he lived. It would asto-
nish us indeed to hear that any one measure dictated
by benevolence towards his fellow-creatures, or a
disposition to leave the world better and happier
than he found it emanated from him. He has lived
for himself, and his end will be like his beginning.
—Morning Chronicle.

The crisis approaches. Every body echois the
momentous question, " What will the Lords do ?"
The Commons of the United Kingdom—the mil-
lions represented and unrepresented, are naturally
inquiring, Who are the Lords? What their num-
ber, rank, and degree? 'We answer this question
in the Morning Chronicle of to-day, by publishing
a roll of their titles ; proper names; the dates of
the titles by virtue of which they vote as Peers of
the realm ; the year of their births; the civil offices
they fill. Some few inaccuracies may have una-
voidably crept into the list, but we believe they are
very few. It contains the title of every Lord Spi-
ritual and Temporal entitled to ♦ote, collated with
the lists of the House of Lords up to July last, and
comprising the subsequent creations. The House
of Lords is composed of all the five orders of Eng-
lish Nobility—Dukes, Marquisses, Earls, Viscounts,
and Barons, who have attained the age of twenty-
one years, and labour under no disqualification ; of
16 Representative Peers from Scotland; 28 Repre-
sentative Peers from Ireland; two English Archbi-
shops and 24 Bishops ; and four Representative Irish
Bishops. The gross number appears as follows :
Dukes (four Royal Dukes) 23
Marquisses
Earls 129
Viscounts 25
Barons 143

Representative Peers of Scotland l6
Ditto of Ireland 2B
English Archbishops and Bishops ...... 26
Irish Representative Bishops

Total of the House of Peers .. ...... 420
In this mixed list there a few minors, a few (we
hope very few) insane Peers, some Peers incapaci-
tated by age and infirmities; some few Peers are
absent, and who will not be able to give proxies ;
but in present Peers and proxies we may estimate
that nearly 400 of the British and Irish Nobility
will legislate on the Reform 8.11. Our readers will
not fail to notice the remarkable average of age, a
great proportion of the Peers being upwards of 50,
and a considerable number upwards of 65. Thirty
Archbishops and Bishops form a fearful array ; and
the Scotch and Irish Peers are probably i)l.affected
to the Mininistry. Lord Grey and Lord Brougham
must buckle on their armour, and display energy
and nerve befitting the occasion, or men thrown up
by revolution will occupy their places. We defer
many reflections and enunciations of Parliamentary
influence; and we need not point the attention of
the country to this awful 101 l of hereditary Legisla-
tors, when every mind is riveted with anxiety and
trembling on the decision of that Right Honourable
House !—Morning Chronicle.
The announcement by Ministers of their inten-
tion to withdraw the Irish Arms Bill on account
of the late period of the Session, and to resort to
the revival of the former law, which will not occa-
sion much discussion or delay, is another proof that
they are plunderers, who never know, when they
introduce a measure, whether it is right or wrung.
This, however, is of small importance, the same
thing having been before established by a number-
less variety of demonstrations; but their apology for
this abandonment of a measure, well considered no
doubt like all the rest, and unanimously approved,
like them, by all the Members of Administration, is
very important and very gratifying as a proof that
Ministers arefully convinced that the House of Lords
will make short work with their absurd and iniquitous
project of Reform. The late period of the Session,
unless Ministers mean by it, the concluding period,
has no application whatever to the proceeding for
which it is made to serve as an apology, and if Mi-
nisters think we have already arrived at the con-
cluding period of the Session, of course they can
have no idea of completing their measure of Reform,
the first part of which, after occupying the Com-
mons for three months, has just entered the Lords ;
the second part of which, equal in complexity and
importance to the first, was only introduced on Fri-
day to Parliament ; and the third part of which, the
Irish Bill, is to be introduced nobody knows when,
and is besides likely to be the most trouble-
some of the three, inasmuch as there is every
prospect of a radical Papist opposition, in addition
to that of the friends of the Constitution, to many of
its most material provisions. Proofs, indeed, mul-
tiply on all hands, not only that the imbecile revo-
lutionists are defeated, but that they know and feel.
themselves to be so. Why, then, was the Lord
Advocate the other night, who made a speech upon
Scotch Reform, so dull, heavy, and tiresome that he
must for ever relinquish the claim to be considered
a man of even ordinary talent, unless it be admitted
that lie kt-ww he was only going through a useless and
lifeless ceremonial, and that he knew also every one
of his auditors, to whom it could be worthy of a clever
man to speak, to be fully convinced of the same fact ?
Wc do not now advert to the condition of Scotland
in connexion with the palpable defects in theory
of her representation with any view to the general
question of R-form. This, in present circum-
stances, would be a work of supererogation. But
as a mark of the originality and vigour which the
Lord Advocate thought sufficient for the discharge
of a mere formal task, we may just mention his re.
'lance upon the very novel plea that Scotland had
flourished, not in consequence, but in spite of the
unpopular character of her representation. It was
the free and popular character of the English repre-
sentative system which diffused its genial influence
over Scotland, and enabled that country to
make such
gigantic strides in wealth, civiliz 1-
tion, and prosperity since the Union. If we
had any doubt of the Lords we should wish,
after this declaration, the Lord Advocate
to be added to the Peerage in time for the
second reading of the English Bill. But passing
by this unfortunate oversight of the Learned Gen-
tleman, will he be so obliging as to tell us, the next
time he addresses the House, whether he fancies,
from his reading or experience, from his knowledge

of what Governments are generally at the present
time, or have been in ages that are past, that it is
a very easy thing to frame a Government bet-
ter than one which, by his own admission, has not
prevented the people under its sway from making
gigantic strides in prosperity, civilization, and wealth?
We wish the Lord Advocate would also ponder a
little more upon the facts that Scotland has had
little or nothing of popular representation, England
much, Ireland (since the Union) by far the most of
the three, and that the progress of each in prospe-
rity, civilization, and happiness has been in an
inverse ratio to the popularity of her representa-
tive system; and having done so, to reconcile it
he can his desire to give Scotland a democratic re-
presentation, with the prudence, acuteness, and
patriotism which are supposed to belong in a pe-
culiar degree to persons of his nation. We hope,
however, for the honour of Scottish logic, that
the Lord Advocate will never again reply to the
argument drawn from the comparative prosperity
of Scotland by the reductio ad absurdum. A man
does not of strict logical Necessity deny that a thing
is good when he contends for the possibility of hav-
ing too much of it. Oaten cakes, and haggis, and
whiskey, are good things; ho denies it ? Yet
perhaps it is just possible to have too much whis-
key, haggis, or oaten cake. If Scotland, for her
happiness and prosperity, have now, which is pos-
sible, the effect of popular representation, by sym-
pathy and connexion with England and Ireland, in
exactly that degree which is most conducive to
hoth, to give her, in addition, the effect of a popu-
lar representation of her own, would not be a boon,
but a curse.—lllorning Post.

SECUN EDITION.
SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

ME LONDON GAZETTE

OF THIS EVENING.

DOWNING-STEET, SEPT. 26.

_ .
The King has been pleased to nominate and appoint the fol-
lowing Officers to be Companions of the Most Honourable Mili-
tary Order of the Bath :
Captain Richard Curry, of the Royal Navy.
Captain the Hon. Frederick Paul Irby, of the Royal Navy
Captain Daniel Woodritl; of the Royal Navy.
Captain James Sanders, of the Royal Navy.
Captain the Hon. G. Elliot, of the Royal Navy.
Captain Hugh Pigot, of the Royal Navy.
Captain Sainsbury Pryce Humphreys, of the Royal Navy.
Captain John Tower, of the Royal Navy.
Cm.taM William Henna!), of the Royal Navy.
Captain William Pryce Cumby, of the Royal Navy.
Captain the Hon. Josceline Percy, of the Itoyal Navy.
Captain. Andrew King, of the Royal Navy.
Colonel Richard Payne, half-pay of Hompesch's Rifles.
Colonel Charles Nicol, 66th Foot.
Colonel Henry King, half-pay 82d Foot.
Colonel Frederick Rennell Thackeray, Royal Engineers.
Colonel John Boscawen Savage, Royal Marines.
Colonel Johv Francis Birch, Royal Engineers.
Colonel Henry Phillott, Royal Artillery.
Colonel Robert M‘Clevsrty, Royal Marines.
Colonel W. H. Knight Erskine, half-pay Bradshaw's Levy.
Colonel the Hon. Lincoln Stanhope, hall-pay Uunattached.
Colonel John Grey, half-pay sth Foot.
Colonel Sir Henry Watson, Kist. half-pay Portuguese Service.
Colonel C. Ashe ''Court, half-pay Ist Greek Light Infantry.
Co!onel Charles William Pasley. Royal Engineers.
Colonel John Gillies, half-pay 40th Foot.
Colonel H. C. E. Vernon Graham, half-pay Unattached.
Colonel Sir Robert John Harvey, half-pay, Portuguese Service.
Colonel Robert Waller, Assistant Quartermaster-General.
Colonel Alexander Thomson, half-pay 98th Foot.
Colonel John Duffy, half-pay Unattached.
Colonel Jacob Tonson, half-pay 37th Foot.
Colonel Vim. Alexander Gordon, half-pay 95th Foot.
Colonel Lord George Wm. Russell, half-pay Unattached.
Colonel James Fergusson, 52d Foot.
Colonel Andrew CreagliSlst Foot.
Colonel Robert Pym, Royal Artillery.
Colonel Archibald Campbell, 46th Foot.
Lieut.-Colonel Richard Gubbins, half-pay 14th Foot.
Itieut—Colonel Thomas Hunter Blair, half-pay Unattached.
Lieut.-Colonel Robert Lisle, half-pay 19th Dragoons.
Lieut.-Colonel Win. G. Power, Royal Artillery.
Lieut.-Colonel Wm. Balvaird, half-pay Unattached.
Lieutenant-Colonel John Macdonald, 9'2d Foot.
Lieutenant. Colonel Edward Fanshawe, Royal Engineers.
Lieutenant-Colonel W. Cardon Seton, half-pay 88th Foot.
Lieutenant-Colonel Elias Lawrence' Royal Marines.
Lieutenant-Colonel W. Cuth. Elph• Holloway, Royal Engineers.
Lieutenant-Colonel C. Stuart Campbell, Ist Foot.
Lieutenant-Colonel George Turner' Royal Artilery.
Lieutenant-Colonel T. Alston Brandreth, Royal Artillery.
Lieutenant-Colo:el Patric: Campbel:, half-(gay 52c1 Foot.
Lieutenant-Colonel James Bogle, half-pay Unattached.
Lieutenant_Colonel John Michell, Royal Artillery.
Lieutenant_Colonel Edward Charles Whinyates, Royal Artillery.
Major Sir John Scott Lillie, lint., half-pay 31st Foot.
Major Thomas Adams Parke, Royal Marines.
Major Henry Ross Gore, 89th Foot.