The Sun.
London, England, 1831-04-01 00:00:00

(-PIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS•

The Select Committee appointed to report on the
salaries and emoluments of office, have, in our
opinion, very properly recommended to the House
of Commons, that it is expedient to repeal the Act
which enables the Crown to recompense the, ser-
vices of persons holding certain high civil offices;
arid that any case of public service, considered to
be deserving, should be submitted to the decision
of the House. Mr. Goulburn has objected to the
introduction of this topic into the report, as a de-
parture from the proper object of inquiry referred to
the Committee, and an invasion of the right's of the
Sovereign. As to the former objection, it is, at the
best, but a technical one, foe if the recommendation
be a just and reasonable one, we think Parliament i
ought to adopt r, from whatever scarce it comes;
but, even on technical grounds the objection does
not appear to be a correct one. A Committee ap-
pointed
pointed to inquire into the salaries and emoluments
of civil office had surely a right to turn their atten-
tion to superannuated allowances, and retiring pen-
sions, and to recommend to the House any alteration
which seemed to them to be necessary, either es to
the amount of such allowances, or the principle
on which they are granted. Thee- have thought
it their duty to recommend that the principle should
be changed, and that no such allowances oc ee-
tiring pensions should be hereafter given to the
classes of public functionaries to whom the repent
refers but under the advice and sanction of Parlia-
ment. This brings us to the second objection of
Mr. Goulburn—namely, that to adopt such it mea-
sure would be to invade the rights of the Sove-
reign, and to violate the principles of the Constitu-
tion. As far as the Constitution is concerned the
question is easily settled, for the Sovereign has not
this power by the ancient Constitution, but by a
modern Act of Parliament. There was a time
whin several of the great Officers of State now ap-
pointed by the Crown were tilled up by Parlia-
ment. We think it right that the power of appoint-
ment to those offices should remain exclusively in
the hands of the Crown—but it seems equally clear
that the pecuniary rewards and compensation for
the past services of the holders of such civil offices
should at least have the approval of the Great
Council of the Nation. It is an essential principle
of the Constitution that the House of Commons
is the legitimate guardian of the public purse, and
it is of the last importance to the interests of
the country, that such a maxim should not only
be maintained in theory, but rigidly enforced in
practice. The Act by which Ministers, when
they had a most subservient House of Com-
mons, secured pensions for themselves, indepen-
dently of all controul by Parliament over the
merits of each particular caee, was itself a gross
violation of this constitutional maxim. It is neither
for the dignity of the Crown nor the interests of the
country that a Minister should have a prospective
and indefeasible right to a pension, in right of
filling a certain office, without any consideration as
to the manner in which he may have performed its
duties. This is to place the indolent, the corrupt,
the dishonest, and the inefficient Minister, on a
level as to compensation with a Statesman of the
most able and upright character, whose talents may
have adorned the history of his country, and whose
services may have entitled him to its gratitude. Par-
liament should have that controul over the conduct
of the public servants of the state, which consists
in exercising the power of investigating their claim
to compensation and pensions on their retirement
from cffice, and advising the Crown to grant et re-
fuse such allowance. 'Phis is not to take away the
power of rewarding civil officers from the Crown,
but only to qualify and regulate it, by connecting it
with the salutary application of a great constitu-
tional principle.—Morning Herald.

It has been stated that "there are 25 livings in
the Ile of Ely, one of which is of the value of
6,0001. per annum, two of 2,4001. each, four be-
tween 1,5001. and 2,000!., four between 1,000/.
and 1,5001., two of 1,0001., two of 8501., one of
.5001., and nine under 3004, and in the whole hut
two resident Incumbents! ' The same authority
states a near relative of the ilishop of the diocese as
possessing no less than six pieces of preferment,
amounting in value to 5,400/. ; five of them de-
manding constant residence. Now, when any alto-
sion is made to these or similar abuses which un-
happily are allowed to exist, an outcry is generally
raised by the possessors and expectants of these dis-
graceful pluralities, that it is done by enemies of
the Church, with a view of bringing it and religion
into contempt. To such persons Lord Brougham's
admirable allusion to the charitable conscatntions-
ness of Judas Iscariot is the best answer. Such
persons are no more friends to the Church or to
religion than Judas was to the poor. They arc not
the. true shepherds, but mercenary hirelings, whose
vo ces the sheep know not. The time is happily i
gone by for such delusion as this to have any
weight, and people must be blind indeed if they
imagine that, when the spirit of Reform is afloat,
such monstrous abuses as these can pass unre-
dressed. Would it not then be wiser in those who
have it in their power to check such abuses rather
than cherish and increase them—and to ask their
own conscience, if they have any, whether they are
not themselves inflicting more fatal wounds on the
Church than any which its bitterest foes can be the
cause of ? Reform generally is too long in coming,
to assume always so moderate a character, when it
arrives, as it would have done had its opponents
yielded sooner. The Church has, in this point of
view, much more to fear from within than from with-
our; and, as the keys of its safety are still in the
hands of those most interested in its preservation,
they must be insane indeed if they do not protect it
while they can.—Morning Herald.

The affairs of Belgium now assume a very alarm-
ing- appearance. The intrigues of the House of
Orange, abetted too much, we fear, by other Powers,
have provoked the indignation of the people against
the supposed friends of that house. Serious ex-
cesses have been committed. The House of Orange
are further than ever from their object. The affairs
of Belgium are so secondary an affair to this country,
that we trust the Government will not allow us to
be drawn into a war, whatever may be the result of
the present disturbances. The national honour is
not implicated, and we are sure that no object, to be
purchased by a war, can render it our interest to en-
gage in one. Let those merchants who are con-
stantly raving about the Scheldt, bear in mind that
a maritime war throws the whole of the carrying
trade into the hands of the Americans, that this
brings with it the question of right of search, which
the Americans will assuredly resist. The result
may be disadvantageous to America as well as to
ourselves ; but that is no reason for rushing on
danger with our eyes open. All our management
hitherto has only counteracted the object we had in
view. If a war takes place, Belgium will, as a
mafter of course, throw herself into the arms of
France ; and it would not be possible for us to wrest
Antwerp from France, except by taking part in a
war which might be as tedious and expensive as the
last. It would be well to reflect before embarking
ill a war, that of all the wars of the last century,
there is hardly one, which is not condemned by his-
tory.—.2tforning Chronicle.
The entrance of the Austrian troops into Bologna
ott the 20th March is now no longer involved in
doubt. The consnuences of this step must be
continental war. We cannot for a moment believe
that the Austrian General would take such a step
without the express directions of his Government,
and neither can we behave that the Austrian Go-
vernment would take such a step without weighing
all the consequences of it, and withoixthavin deter-
mined to brave them. The speech of M.' Casimir
Perrier in the Chamber of Deputies oh Monday,‘ is
ffi
suciently indicative of the course which France
must now take. That speech is moderate in its
language, and such as it becomes. the first Alinister
of a great nation to use on the eve of such events
as are now,Shadowed forth; but it discloses a fixed
determination, at the. same time, to enter on eke

ree:i-
negociations with Austria with the alternative of
following them up by recourse to arms, if Austria
persist in her purpose. " The events of Italy," he
s iye, " naturally call our attention. The situation
of that country, such as has been regulated by
treaties; the distribution of its forces under the
sanction of the Great Powers is the general interest
of Europe, of which the Roman State forms a part,
demands at present explanations and guarantees.—
Gentlemen, the present Ministers desire order and
peace; but they only wish order in a respect
for the rights of all, and in the development of
these rights. We should, however, be unworthy
of maintaining peeree—nay, more, incapable of doing
so—if eve 'lid not show ourselves to be the zealous
defenders of the interests of France, the wise and proud
guardians of her power and her honour.—( Loud cries
of bravo')." There is no mistaking this language.
The French Government, under very trying circum-
stences, has contrived to throw the responsibility of
disturbing the tranquillity of Europe on the abso-
lute Powers. Belgium was, unquestionably, a strong
temptationt but Belgium was left to itself. The
Emperor of Russia evidently meditated an attack on
France in the spring ; but the conduct of Russia was
overlooked, though the temptation to aid the Poles,
who threw th'emselves between the two Powers,
was eleeost irresistible. Even the suppressicn of
the revolution in Modena and Ferrara, gelling its it
was to the nation, would net have led to hostilities.
But there is a limit to patience ; for when Austria
invaded the territories of a great central State of
Italy, it became obvious that forbearance only led to
More daring aggression, W..e rejoice that France
has not drawn on herself the responsibility of plung-
ing Europe into another war. For the sake of the
grand principle with which France is identified, we
rejoice that she will enter on this awful struggle
without incurring the reproach of having given cause
to the lovers of peace and tranquillity to associate
that principle in their minds with war and blood-
shed. The despotic Governments have sought war.
They know that the principle of their Governments
is at variance: with the spirit of the age : they dread
arid distrust their own subjects ; and, impelled
by a mad wish to counteract the tendencies which
the present state of European civilization beets,
they plunge Europe in a war, which it were impious to
suppose can have any result which shall not leave
despotic rMers in greater danger than ever from the
inclinations of the people, in whore, every day, the
sense of o right to the blessings of good Govern-
ment gains, and must continue to gain, increased
strength. The armies on which they trust are
bondsmen, and oppressive to the people; but they
will prove me security in the day of trial. France
will !Inv?. with her the sympathies of the people of
every nation, elevated in any degree shove the con-
dition of the brutes that perish. May she always
remember, in the course of this struggle, that the
opinion of Europe is a tower of strength, and cau-
tiousle abstain from all that is calculated to deprive
her of the sympathies of the inhabitants of the
countries into which her armies may penetrate.
Better far to sacrifice her own treasure than rase up
to herself a host of enemies, by oppressing the
people, as her armies too often did in the wars which
followed the Revolution. With respect to the
people of this country, we ere sure that we should
be libelling them to suppose for one moment their
sympathies would not be with the French in this
grand struggle between Constitutional Governments
arid Despotisms. The Tories, even, must take the
part of France against Austria. Sir Robert Peel
said, in the House of Commons, en the 18th
February last, that—
" He had such confidence in the progress of knowledge—
such confidence in the force of justice throughout the
world, that he was per•uaded that whatever country pro-
yoked an unjust war against the.wishes of Europe, bring-
ing on it that moat terrible of. all inflictions the human
race could suffer—a war,—without a just cause; he had
such confidence in the force of public opinion, and the
sense of justice, that let the financial resources of that
country be what they might—let her military means be
ever so great—the might and valour of her soldiers ever
so noble, he was sure that she must ultimately fall a vie-
! tim to the force of public opinion, which, he was sure,
would heal all internal dissensions, and rallying the
whole of Europe round one object, vindicate the
great cause of peace and justice.—( Hear, hear, and
(Cheers.) He said this with perfect confidence—if
France, when 3he vindicated her own rights, when she '
revolted against the unjust proceedings of her late Mo-
narch—if France bad then been assai!ed by the Powers of
Europe, in a confederacy to prevent Frnnce
.from choos-
ing her own Government, he was confident that the
Powers of Europe would have been unable to cnntroul her
actions, and he was confident that their tmjnst cause must
ultimately have failed.—(Cheers.")
These cheers testify that Sir Robert was speak.
ing the sentiments of many of the assembly which
he addressed. The case which he put has actually
happened. The people of the Roman State have
chosen their own Government. Austria has deter-
mined that they shall not ; and her legions have
entered the city of Bologna, driving the Constitu-
tional force to the mountains. Austria, therefore,
has incurred the guilt of making war without a just
cause, and deserves the execrations of Europe. It
is no defence for Austria that the example of suc-
cessful revolution at Rome might ultimately en-
danger her tenure of Lombardy. A State is not
justified in interfering to prevent all improvement in
another, because it is hated by its own subjects, who
might be incited by the example to rake rediess into
their own hands. There never would be wanting
excuses for the intervention of States in the affairs
of each other weie this justification to be allowed.
One evil, the constrained obedience of a people,
cannot justify another, the constraining u neighbour-
ing people, that the latter may facilitate the former.
France is a powerful country, inhabited by a much
more breve, un ted, and intelligent people than the
motley tribes under the sceptre of Austria. In this
case, too, the Austrians aie in the country of an
enemy ; the French will find friends every where.—
As far as I'aly is concerned, the result of the war
can hardly be doubtful. But the war will not be
confined to Italy. 'We can hardly believe that there
is not an understanding between Russia, Austria,
and Prussia, to support each other in this conflict.
As Prussia is much mote critically circumstanced
than the other te:o States, she will, probably, be
the greatest sufferer from a general war.—ltforning
Chronicle.

In looking over the debates in both Houses of
Parliament on the question of Reform, we have
been compelled moct reluctantly to entertain the
' opinion—not, perhaps, quite respectful to certain
persons, however conscientious and involuntary on
our parts—that the enemies of the measure have
actually lost their wits. That innocent and single-
hearied gentleman the Duke of Buckingham, to
whose generous indignation w e have before alluded,
was almost petrified by the reports which appeared
to have reached him for the first time on Wednesday
evening, to the effect that such a thing existed as
the sale of seats in Parliament, and that indivi-
duals had come madly forward to defend the prac-
tice as constitutional and wholesome. His Grace,
we say, who manifestly knows nothing about bo-
roughs, was. so astonished and dismayed by what
he then for the first time heard, that he sprung from
his seat (and it was no Slight effort) to give the
libel a flat contradiction. The Duke of Bucking-
ham asked " whether any one in their Lordships'
House, or in the House of Commons, had•
ventured to defend that • proflgate traffic" in
seats for rotten boroughs ? His Grace further,
and with exemplary purity and delicacy of principle,
declared that one of his objections to the present
Bill was its failing to make any provision against
that gross abuse—viz, the traffic in returning Mem-
bers to • Parliament, •or rather its extending that
traffic. Now, if the Duke of Buckingham's vote
for or against the Bill should really depend on the
fact of the sale of seats,—or, what is the same
thing, the purchase of them being established or
refuted 'by a reference to the debates in Parliament,
we shall merely and most respectfully solicit his
Grace to read the reports of the last three weeks'
proceedings in the House of Commons; or, if he
discredits the reports of those vile things called
newspapers, we do entreat the Noble Duke' to

-• • • . -
inquire amongst his nutnereuslacquaintances in that
House, whether one half of the arguments employed
in defence of nomination boroughs did not turn
on the facility which they afforded for the en-
trance of the commercial interest into Parliament,
by virtue of certain sums of money. What was
Mr. Baring's complaint, but that henceforth mer•
chants would be unable to make their way into
Parliament without such a ruinous., devotion to the
business of electioneeringe and consequent desertion of
their r ountinfg-honses, as must speedily lead to the
cehibition of their names in the Gareth?? What
:yes Mr. Shelley's boast, but that the Member who
bought his 'eat was the most (nay, the only) inde-
pendent man in Parliament. No defenders of the
rotten boroughs I Why, the whole opposition to
he Bill is a defence of such boroughs, (not indeed
by name, for, as we have before stated, the name is
never mentioned), and of the standalous modes of
entering the House of Commons which are fur-
nished by them ; and where borough proprietors do
not take the price of their seats in money, do they
tint insist on having an equal value in kind? Where
they do not take .5,000/. in cash, er an annuity of
1,0004 per session, leaving the occupsnt of the scat
to indemnify himself as well as he can by huckster-
ing for his vote with the Minister, ie it not notorious
that they put in some puppet who will sit on what
side of the House they direct, and speak on what
side of each question they feel inclined to affirm or
to negative—that whether his talents be those of a
bear, a dancing dog, or monkey, they lead, or
drive, or whip him if he be a sluggard, into
the display of them for their own proper be-
nefit—keeping the wretched warming-pan as a
counter wherewith to mark the tricks and ho-
nours (honours I) of their game against the
Treasury, discarding him when he shirks his offen-
sive labours or becomes incapable of them, and all
the while branding as jecobins and revolutionists all
Englishmen who presume to say that such liveried
menials are not representatives of the people? Yes,
we can assure the Duke of Buckingham that the
system' has defend, rs, and loud ones too, and we
therefore claim his vote. For, let us ask, what is
that system ? It is a despotism, under the mesk of
a Constitutional and limited monarchy ; it is a
fourth estate—not King, not Lords, (for more than
two-thirds of the House of Lords have nothing to
do with boroughs), notoriously not the Commons
of England, but a thing until lately never acknow-
ledged to exist, (indeed, how could an indictable
offence be avowed ?) and when in any case glanced
iat by statesmen of a former day, as a tinter of
speculation or suspicion, made use of merely as a
text on which to hang the s!rongest terms of oblo-
quy, reproach, and disgust, that the most copious
vocabuiaries of the English tongue could furnish.
The Duke of Wellington—we say it with regret and
mortification—the Duke of Wellington laments
the n.editated subversion of the rotten boroughs,
because it e ill disable an arbitrary Minister
from domineering so completely as he might wish to
do over the representatives of the people. What a
view for a British Statesman to confess that he has
taken of the free Constitution of his country'.—
what an acknowledgment of the imperious necessity
for this Bill, and of its inestimable value to us, t he
British nation. But Lord Grey has been assaulted
by some desperadoes of the oligarchy, for saying
that the Constitution of England is founded on
" representation, and not on nomieation." On the
contrary, allege these myemidons, the old Kings of
England used to nominate the boroughs which they
would authorise to send up Members to Parliattent
—(did they nominate the Members ?) and as an ar-
gutnent for Englishmen of the 19th century, they
send us back to the end of the 14th. This will not
de. We rest our cleims on the great event of the
lith century, and on the whole spirit and usage of
the 18th, continued to this hour. We tell the Bri-
tish Polignacs that the throne, not the Parliament,is
founded on nomination—on nomination by the people
of England. The house of Brunswick has no other title.
We close these remarks by a few extracts from the
discourse of a Speaker of the House of Commons,
who did not understand the principles of represen-
tation as they are understood by the Newcastle and
the Attwood race,—a Speaker who would have
leaped from his chair, had he heard in that assem-
bly an avowal that to buy a seat was to be a repre-
sentative of the people, or that to quell such traffic
was to overthrow the British Constitutien.

With respect, Sir, to the next question, whether
these practices are any Parliamentary offence ? That it
is a high offence, every page of our history, statutes, and
journals, appears to me to bear evidence. *
In the description of these off:nces, which constitute a
violation of our privileges, there is nothing technically
narrow, but the rule is to be tried by its substantial
effects. Force, fraud, corrupt practices, and undue in.
fluence of any sort, by which the freedom of elections is
controlled, have been reprobated in all ages. a
But, Sir, beyond this :—practices of this descrip_
Lion are not only offences by the law of Parliament, they
have been long since') adjudged to he criminal by the corn.
mon law of the realm. The bribery of votes was adjudged
by the Court of King's Bench, in the early part of the
present reign, to have been a common law offence, even
though no precedents could he adduced to show it, and to
have been punishable as such long before its increased
prevalence made Parliament deem it necessary to restrain
it by special statutes. And in like manner any previous
agreement, or compact, to controul the votes of electors
(even although the electors are not themselves bribed) has
hem adjudged to he illegal, upon general grounds of policy
and jurisprudence."—

Earl Grey, in replying the other night to the
just and conclusive observations of Lord Farnham,
in opposition to the revolution, gave a new proof,
either of his ignorance of the British Constitution,
or of his consciousness that the Ministers can sup-
port their .Licobin measure of innovation only by
grossly and wilfully misrepresenting it. The Noble
Earl insisted that the close boroughs never were
part of the British Constitution, and that the Bri-
tish Constitution is founded upon representation
and not upon nom nation. This the Noble Lord
must have known to be false, or his ignorance is
gross and inexcusable. The British Constitution is
not founded upon either representation or nomi-
nation, or any other special and exclusive mode of
calling together the House of Commons. What the
British Constitution has established, and requires
continually and unchangeably to exist, is the due ba-
lance or harmonious combination in the State of the
monarchical, the aristocratical, and the popular
power, and it follows of necessity that whatever mode
of calling together the House of Commons serves
to secure and perpetuate this balance is constitu-
tional, and whatever mode threatens to disturb
it, is revolutionary. It is said by the advocates of
the Revolutionary Bill, that in order to maintain in-
violate the principles of the Constitution, it is neces-
sary to vary occasionally its forms and mode of
action, in order to adapt it to the innovations which
time has wrought. There is much truth in this.
Let us see, however, how it applies to the Revolu-
tionary Bill. Among the changes which time has
wrought, that of stripping the Crown of the whole
of its independent hereditary revenue is one. A
vast increase of the necesssiy expenses of the State,
including the annual provision for the interest of an
immense national debt, is another. The means of
exciting, concentrating, and directing popular senti-
ment in relation to public affairs, are greatly im-
proved. This is another great change. The House
of Commons has gradually become the sole con-
stitutional depository and organ of this over-
whelming arid irresistible public opinion, while it
has acquired the absolute and exclusive power of
giving
.or withholding the supplies upon which
the daily safety of the State depends. Are
not these great and important changes ? The
result of these various changes, the work of the
great innovator, Time, has been to place the whole
essential poweis of Government in the House of
Commons. This is not and cannot be denied. The
King, it is universally admitted, cannot, like his pre-
decessors, refuse the Royal assent, with any degree
of prudence or safety, to any measure passed by
Parliament, nor can he choose, like them, the Mi-
nisters by whom the administration of affairs in his
name shall be conducted, without the most obsequi-
ous attention to the wishes of Parliament: This is

the actual situation of the monarchy, in consequence
of the changes produced by the silent working of
time. And what is the situation of the Aristocracy,
the Constitutional support of the Throne, the body
by whom the Monarch might expect assistance in
resisting any unconstitutional encroachment of the
Democracy ? Would it have the power of resisting
any measure proposed by the House of Commons,
ttnd enforced by means of popular excitement ?
It is quite certain that it would possess no such
power. A measure proposed by the Commons,
however obnoxions to the Monarchy or AristoCracy,
would be blended, whenever any persevering and
effective resistance was expected, with some Bill of
Supply, of a nature absolutely indispensable to the
immediate safety of the State, end thus the power
of resistance would be disarmed by the visible pre-
sence of urgent and pressing danger. This isio
clear that nobody even affects to doubt it. For
more than half a century the power of the House •
of Commons to enforce its resolutions, in opposi-
tion to the united authority of the two other
branches of the Legistature, has been unquestion-
able and unquestioned. What then is the leeisla-
tive change now proposed, in order, as it is pre-
tended, to preserve the principles of our mixed
Constitution from the innovating and deteriorating
operation of time? Is it to throw some new
powers or some augmentation of influence into the
hands of the Monarch and the Aristocracy, in or-
der thus to compensate for their Constitutional
power and influence, which the tide of time and cir-
cumstances has swept away ? Is it to ratify and
confirm that intermixture of the influence of both
with that of the Democracy, which has gradually
taken place in the House of Commons itself during
the period in which their separate and independent
authority has been -in a state of progressive and,
rapid decay, and io which the House of Commons
has risen to supreme and irresistible power ? Is it
to give a more consonant and less precarious opera-
tion to that indirect influence of the more ancient
and elevated order of the State, which has alone
enabled them to withstand the torrent of democracy,
and which at this moment is the only vestige that
remains of their Constitutional power ? It is la-
mentable to say that the proposed change is of a
nature entirely the reverse of that which the
antecedent changes produced by time must have
plainly dictated to any Statesmen desirous
of renovating and preserving the British Con-
stitution. Has the political power of the
Crown and the Aristocracy been impa;red ? It
is to be impaired still further. Have these or-
ders of the State sought and found protection and
security in the dive of their weakness by the esta-
blishment of an influence in the Huse of Com-
mons, to which the varied structure and the multi-
farious inlets of that omnipotent assembly afforded
them the means ? From this their last refuge they
are to be abruptly driven. Has the House of Com-
mons graduals- monopolized all the essential rowers
of the State 9' By the rigorous exclusion from that
body of every other influence than that of the de-
mocracy, the character of the British Government
is henceforth to be rendered, without mitigation or
alloy, republican. That England will he essen-
tially a republic from the moment the Reform Bill
shall have received the Royal Assent, no man who
is not so far entangled in forms as entirely to over-
lo ,k the substance of things, can for a moment
doubt. Follow] will from that moment be subject
to a republican government of the worst and most
pernicious kind—to a republican government, from
which the influence of property, of talents, and of
character will he nearly excluded—to a republican
oligarchy, in which the delegates of shopkeepers
and small traders will possess the supreme and un-
controulable power.—Aforning Post.