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

- ‘•
negociatione with Austria with the alternative of
following them up by recourse to ierme, if Austria'
p "ersist In her parpcse. ee The evertie of Italy," he
see; naturally call our at=tention. The situation.
of that country, such as has been regulated by
treaties; the distribution of its forces under the
sanction of the Great Powers in the general interest
of Europe, of which the Roman State forms a part,
demends at present eipianations and guarentees.—
Gentlemen, the. present Ministers ilesire order and
peace; but they only ie.ith order in a respect
for the rights oaf aui, and in the development of
these !rights., We should, however, he unworthy
of maintaining peace—.nay, mare, incapable of doing
so—if we did net eliew ourselves to be the zealous
defendrerser theinterestsof France the wise and proud
guardians of her power and her honour.—( Loud cries
of ' biavo').'' There is o mistaking this language.
The French Goeeenment, under very trying circum-
sraneete, has contrived to throw the responsibility of
disturbing the tranquillity of Europe on the abso-
lute Powers. Belgium was, unquestionable, t strong
temptation ; but Belgium was' left to itself. The
Emperor of Russia asedelitly meditated an attack on
France in the. spent;; but the conduct of Russia was
overlooked, though the temptation to aid the Poles,
\vho threw themselves between the two Powers,
was almost irresistible. Even the suppression of
the revolution ie Modena and Ferrara, galling as it
was to the nation, would not have led to hostilities.
taut there is a limit to patience; for when Austriu
invaded the territories of a great centeal State of
Italy, it became obvious that fierbeatance only led to
more daring aggresaion. We rejoice that France
has not drawn on herself the responsibility of plung-
ing Europe into anoteer war. For the sake of the
I grand principle with which France is identified, we
rejoice that she will enter on this awful struggle
without invert-ling 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 varience with the spirit of the age : they dread
and distrust their own subjects ; and, impelled
by a mad wish to counteract the tendencies which
the present state of European civilization beeete,
they plunge Europe in a war, which it were impious to
euppoee can have any result which shall not leave
despotic rulers in greater danger than ever from the
inclinations of the people, in whom, every day, the
sense of a 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 no security in the day of trial. France
will have with her the sympathies of the people of
every ration, elevated in any degree above 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-
tiously 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 raise 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 are sure that we should
ne 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, on 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 persuaded that whatever country pro-
voked an unjust war against the wishes of Europe, bring-
ing on it that most terrible of all inflictions the human
race could suffer—a war,—without a just cause; hi 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 vic-
tim to the force of public opinion, which, he was sure,.
vr-ould heal all internal dissensions, and rallying the
whole of Europe round one object, vindicate the
great cause of pence and justice.—( Hear, hear, and
(Cheers.) He said this with perfect confidence—if
France, when she vindicated her own rights, when she
revolted against the unjust proceedings of ber late Mo-
narch—if France bad then been asssilecl by the Powers of
Europe, in a confederacy to prevent France from choos-
ing her oars Government, he was confident that the
Powers of Europe would have been unable to controul her
actions, and he was confident that their unjust 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 take redress into
their own hands. There never would be wanting
excuses for the intervention of States in the affairs
of each other were this justification to be allowed.
One evil, the constrained obedience of a people,
cannot justify another, the constraining a neighbour-
ing people, that the latter may facilitate the former.
France is a powerful country, inhabited by a much
more brave, united, and intelligent people than the
motley tribes wider the sceptre of Austria. In this
case, too, the Austrians are in the country of an
enemy ; the French will find friends every where.—
As far as Italy 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 more critically circumstanced
than the other r ono Stntes, she will, probably, be
the greatest sufferer from a general war.—Morning
Chronicle.

nqute amongst Ist3 nutbehtus acluaintances 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 elec.tiormering,and consequent desertion of
their counting—houses, as must speedily lead to the
exhibition of their names in the Gazelle? What
uas Mr. Shelley's boast, but that the Member who
bought his seat was the most (nay, the only) inde-
pendent man in Parliament. No defenders of the
rotten boroughs! Why, the whole opposition to
he Bill is a defence of such boroughs, (not indeed
by name, for, as we have before stated, the mine is
never mentioned), and of the scandalous modes of
entering the House of Commons which are fur-
nished by there; and where borough proprietors do
not take the price of their seats in money, do they
not insist on having an equal value in kind ? Where
they do not take 5,0001. in cash, or an annuity of
1,0001. per session, leaving the occupant of the seat
to indemnify himself as well as he can by huckster-
ing for his vote with the Minister, is 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
he display of them for their own proper be-
nefit—keeping the wretched warming-pan as a
counter spheres ith to mark the tricks teed ho-
nours (honours !) of their game against the
Treasury, discarding him when he shirks his offen-
sive labours or becomes incapable of them, and ill
the while branding as jacobins 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 defenders, and loud ones too, and we
therefore claim his vote. For, let us ask, what is
that system ? It is a despotism, under the mask of
a Constitutional and limited monarchy ; it is a
fourth estate—mot King, not Lords, (for more than
two-thinas of the House of Lords have nothing to
do with boroughs), notoriously not the Common 4
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
at by statesmen of a former day, as a matter of
speculation or suspicion, made use of merely as a
text on which to hang the strongest terms of oblo-
quy, reproach, and disgust, that the most copious
vocabularies of the English tongue could furnish.
The Duke of Wellington—we say it with regret and
mortification—the Duke of Wellington laments
the meditated subversion of the rotten boroughs,
because it Still 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 use the
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 nomination." On the
contrary, allege these myrmidons, the old Kings of
England used to nominate the boroughs which they
would authorise to send up Members to Parliament
—(did they nominate the Members ?) and as\an;ar.
gument for Englishmen of the 19th century,ktfy
send us back to the end of the 14th. This wilLnal
do. We rest our claims on the great event of did
17th century, and on the whole spirit and usage of
the 18th, continued to this hour. We tell the Bri-
tish Polignaes 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-
tstion 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 Constitution.
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 offences, 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 electior.s is
controlled, have been reprobated in all ages. 4 *
But, Sir, beyond this :.—practices of this descrip-
tion 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 realin. 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 be 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 comp set, to cantroul the votes of electors
(even although the electors are not themselves bribed) has
been adjudged to be illegal, upon general grounds of policy
and jurisprudence."—Times.

Eatl Grey, in replying the other night to the
just arid 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 Jacobin 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 nomination. 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 paptilar
power, and it follows of necessity that whatever mode
of culling 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 necessary 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 and 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
greatinnovator, Time, has been to place the whole
essential powers of Government in the , House of
Commons. This is not and cannot be denied. 7he
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 be 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