The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-30 00:00:00

the people—the people, as contradistinnished from
the other three ? Why, then, Lord Melbourne (who
deals now and then, we are aware, in curious books) may
have read some edition of EngLsh history with which we
arc unacquainted. The reformation was prepared by the
clergy, as its teachers ; it was proclaimed and enforced
by the Crown, as its protector ; it was eagerly accepted
by the leading nobility, and by a large proportion of the
gentry, as well as by the people ; nor, except during.
the short and odious reign of Mary, was there one se-
rious attempt in any quarter to re-establish Popery
from the year 1536 to 1685, a period of 150 years,
when it cost the bigot King and his posterity their
Crown. There was here, at least, no triumph over

Crown or clergy by " the people ;" the two former
were for a century and a half in cordial concurrence
against Popery with the bulk of the nation. The
seven bishops were the last sufferers for that cause of
religious purity which the mass of the people of Eng-
land loved, until this recent persecution of the clergy
in our own days by the Popish enemies of all free-
dom, civil and religious, whose oppression is prac-
tised under the sacred name of l►berty. For the
revolution, we admit at once that the greater number
of the squirearchy were opposed to it : but what
of that ? It was maintained by the heads of the
nobility, as the constitutional monarchy, the blessed
fruit of that revolution, is now. It was supported
by the Universities, the firm opponents of Popery.
It was upheld by the intelligence and com-
mercial influence of the nation, as the consti-
tutional monarchy is now by the great concen-
trated masses of property, both territorial and com-
mercial. Are the malcontent squires, from 1688 down
to 1727, the period of George ll.'s accession, to be
named for a moment, in point of authority and in-
trinsic power, with the Lords and Commons, the in-
telligence and public principle of the present day—all
satisfied with the Constitution as it stands, ar.d reso-
lute to preserve it ? When the Septennial Bill was
carried, and the House of Hanover thereby irresistibly
strengthened, it passed the House of Lords by a large
majority. Is this among the proofs referred to by
Lord Melbourne that " Dynasties have been main-
tained upon the Throne" in spite of that power which
his Lordship affects to hold light, because it now
stands in front of the free Monarchy of Great Britain,
and in stern opposition to those vile schemes and fac-
tions, of the first of which his Lordship is the cham-
pion, as of the second he is the tool. Lord Mel-
bourne has no comprehension of the state of England
at this moment, when he talks of contrasting the class
of gentlemen with the intelligent and effective body of
the people. Setting apart the uneducated and hard-
working multitude, all the higher classes of the British
nation, agricultural, commercial, proprietors, capital-
ists, are so intermingled, and so fused, that none
but an untaught or unscrupulous politician will
venture, even in thought, to assert any definite
separation amongst them into adverse schools of
doctrine or of action with reference to the funda-
mental principles of government, or to the neces-
sity or inexpediency of organic changes, whether
in Church or State. It is dull folly to draw such con-
sequences or to risk such irrelevant allusions as those
wherein the Radical Prime Minister seemeth to re-
joice, and his trumpeters of the Press to glory, in.
To sober minds they but bear evidence of a shallow
genius and a loose and reckless disposition. The des-
tinies of England might as well be committed to a set
of strolling players or a gang of Gipsies as to such a
man, and the sort of associates in whom l►e is likely to
confide. Lord Melbourne, too, it appears, thought
fit to presume on his growing majorities in the House
of Commons as proof of an increased hold over the
nation. On what does he rest such flattering pros-
pects ? On the sole phenomenon of the Irish Muni-
cipal Bill, a measure which has made so little way in
Ireland, and with whose spirit and tendencies, operating
upon the local condition of Ireland, Englishmen are so
imperfectly acquainted, that the Members of the House
of Commons have not deerr►ed it worth their while to
make a stand upon it for the general maintenance of
our institutions, and have let the majority slip on
without much attention. But what is the hinge of the
Melbourne Ministry ? What, from the outset, was
the test of their solidity ? The Irish Church Bill,
and the appropriation clause. How has their majo-
rity shown itself with regard to that measure ? Their
last and greatest was 39. It was their last, and we
appeal to the truth and honour of our Conservative
representatives, that 39 shall still have been their
largest majority on that vital measure. We are sure
that this adjuration cannot be made in vain. We
know the strength of the Conservative cause, and we
know that if the last majority be not on this Irish
Church Bill, the cause will have been undermined by
treachery, not by fair and open fighting. We look,
therefore confidently to Monday next, and we shall not
look in vain. The sworn destroyers of the Irish
Church announce that they have some ominous an-
tics in preparation for tl►at important day. Let ma-
noeuvres, then, be left to those familiar with the use of
them. Conservatives need them not, and will scorn a
recourse to them, whether by themselves or others.—
Times.

The most intense interest pervades the public mind
as to the course to be pursued in order to bring the
House of Lords to the concession of those rights which
the Ministry and Commons of England have granted
to the claims of justice and the people. Various modes
have been proposed for the accomplishment of an ami-
cable understanding between the law-givers chosen by
the people, and those whom nature, as it would appear,
has pre-ordained from their birth to exercise the high
functions of legislation. The circumstance in which
the country is placed is, no doubt, one of difficulty,
but it is a difficulty in which a safe and satisfactory
result is far more likely to be secured by a bold and de-
termined course of action, than by a timid, doubting
uncertain policy, which can have no other effect than
to lose the confidence of one parts, without making
any impression on the other, unless that of provoking,
its contempt. Let us briefly examine the different pro-
positions which have been recommended for adoption.
It has first been proposed to dissolve the Parlia-
ment. Of this proceeding, under present circum-
stances, we confess that we can neither see the neces-
sity nor the object. In the present House of Commons,
though convoked under Tory auspices, the Ministry
and Reform have a majority on the great questions at
issue, amply and distinctly expressive of the national
will. In this regard, the increase -of Liberal Mem-
bers certain to be gained by a general election ii unne-
cessary. The other advantage to be gained by a ge-
neral election—the affording to the people an oppor-
tunity of making a simultaneous manifestation of their
sentiments—may be nearly as perfectly achieved by
means of public meetings, for which we rejoice to
perceive preparations are in progress in several parts of
the kingdom, and by which it is incumbent on every
county, town, district, and parish throughout the
empire, to demonstrate their adherence to the princi-
ples so outrageously assailed by oligarchical despotism.
A creation of Peers has also been propowd. This is
the most absurd proposition of all—it is the nostrum
of a Charlatan—an attempt to cast out Beelzebub by
means of Beelzebub. What would be thought of the
person who, when the House of Commons opposed
public opinion, would have recommended a creation of
nomination boroughs, for the purpose of carrying
one or two measures, and as soon as the immediate
object of their creation might be effected, ranging
themselves amongst the enemies of Reform and the
people ? Would not the person who would make such
a proposition be set down as demented, or worse ? And
the proposition of outvoting the opposition of the
House of Peers by an addition to the rotten elements
of its constitution is not a whit more rational nor ef-
fective. A creation of Peers would merely extend the
ramifications of hereditary legislation, and render it
more difficult of eradication—an end essential to the
unembarrassed action of representative government.
The moment a man becomes a Peer he has the
strongest inducements of self-interest " to stand by
his order ;" or, if patriotism prevail in the individual,
ten to one his successor will have imbibed the pre-
judices and despotic intolerance of his class, and stand
in opposition to the principl of popular government.
Hereditary legislation must abolished. We can
et
no longer submit to sacrifice ou interests to antiquated
absurdity. Should a Reform Ministry create Peers to
carry one measure, an Anti-reform Ministry may here-
after follow the precedent, and annul the same mea-
sure by pimilar means. The possibility' of swaying