The Sun.
London, England, 1831-06-20 00:00:00

Pairs. , Inert are, bowev'&, sane observations in a
Payer tif yesterday on which we shall bestow a few
words. Our dominical opponent, we perceive, and
certainty not with surprise, was unable to understand
the pith of our argument in Saturday's Paper. For
'lre benefit of all those-, if any there be, less
ulind than those who won't see, we repeat, that our •
argument wii- simply this. Seeing that the old aris-
:neroty support the Bill .by a lar-T Majority,—see. ,
ing, also, that anoth'er portion of the House of Lords
(Of whoin w' Mean to speak with no dis'respeet),
whore more recent honours have been rzree,vect from
A Government of anti-popi.ilar 'principles, and long
in possession of t'•.Y.'er, are hostile to Reform,-----we
asserted-, aird re-assert, that under these tironm-
stances, to insure a fair decision of ti,le question, the
influence in the Hone of t., orris of the class of Peers 1;
whom we hr,ve just described ought to he counter-
acted. if that be done, the question wilt b 2 fairly
left, as we would have it ter': to the decision
of the aristocracy of one country (the most en-
lightened ettd independent aristocracy in the world)
tint_kired by the accidental influence of party feel-
ings ; and then, as the lists we published on Satbr-
day abundantly prove, by that itistocracy the ques-
tion is carried, and rArried by a large majority. We
are reproactrad for not having inserted the names of
certain Peers—such as Tyrone, Abereorn, and Dor-
chester, who are minors -,-, of others—such as Aber-
deen and Downe, e:bioh did appear in our lists; and
of many, the insertion of whose names was trgrreoes-
silty to our argument,—viz., the .th-iwing the differ-
ence of opinions between the older and the more re-
cent Peers.—Tifie4 ,

It is understood to be the intentie of the oppo-
uents of Reform in both Stousei of Parliament, to
move an Arn.cltanent to the usual complimentary
Addn,..n-s in answer to the King's Speech) ::;td that
this Amendment is to follow the tt.!,tits that which
is understood to hove been drawn up by the pre-
sent Premier; then Lord flowick, in !!',01; and
which was to the following off,.-,et

" That this measure of the dissolution of the late Par-
liament, advised by his Majesty's Ministers, at a time who:;
there existei rto difference between any of tft.., btitiaches of
the Legislature, and no sufficient clans': fora fresh appeal to
his Majesty's people, was .lustilea by no public necessity,
or advantage. That t,y the interruption of all private
business, theta depending in Parliament, it had beet int-
dutttire n't great and needless inconvenience t‘A expence,
.v.y b
thereby wantonly adding to the.treaurdens which the
necessity of the times reraite.a. That it had retarded many
useful laws, for she internal improvement of the kingdom,
and for the elitouragernent and extension of its agriertlait,
manufactures, and commerce. And thet iS had either
sktspentled, or wholly defeated, ttatayliaost important public
measures, and had preteteled much of the mot weighty
business of Pas liatti;nt, to a season of the year when its
proseceAoti atu-t be attended with the greatest puhiic arta
privite inconvenience. And that they feli themselves
• bound still farther to submit t' bl.s Maj.-sty, that all these
mischiefs were greattr aggravated by the groundless and
injurious pretensions on which his Majesty's Ministers
had p,Alicly rested this their evil advice ; pretences Efrord-
ini; no justification for the measure, but ealcitiated only to
excite the most dangerous anittzsiiies among his Majesty's
subjects, at a perior! Viben their united efforts were more
than ever ntteSsary for the security of the empire ; and
whet, 'co promote the utmost harmony, and co-operttiott
among them, would have been the first objet t of arise
and prudent Ministers,"
According to the wzA notions of the persons
now engaged in thwarting the wishes of the great
body.tf the nation, this manwtivre, which, at the
' most, men of sense must regard as a very paltt,
personal attack, deserves to be considered it pro-
digiously grand coup d'etat, But a 'little considera-
tion of the circumstances of the two periods, will
show how shallow is the pretence on which it is
attempted to impute to any members of the present
Government the inconsistency of doing in the year
1831 that which they reprobated when done by
their adversaries in the year 180;, Most of the in-
corireniencies occasioned by a sudden dissolution of
Parliament in the spring, as stated in Lord Howick's
amendment, are the obvious and constant results of
stath tt step ; they are true alike of the tli.ssolution
in 1831 and that in . ItKV? ;'but the gist of the '
question—that is, the yustifiability of the dissolution
—lies in the first paragraph of the amendment, arid
comes shortly to this, whether or no a difference I
existed between any of the branch' of the Le-
gislature, and a sufficient rise to justify the appeal
to the people As to the lira and cardinal
point—the difference between the several branches
of the Legislature—the case, as regards the
present epoch, is clear enough, The King had
recommended, by the mouths of his Ministers, a
certain measure cf nerorm in the corstittition of the
House of Commons, on which that House was, upon
a first division, equally divided ; and which, on a
second division, it negatived by a considerable ma,
jority. Here is a great and manile:st difference be-
tween two branchea of the Legislature, upon a
question of transcendent importance in its results,
and in its nature, precisely such as was most proper
to be submitted to the judgment of the nation at
large, and least proper for the House of Commons
(because a party interested) to decide definitively
upon. Far different in all reapec!s was the question
agitated in 1807. That question was the expediency
of admitting Catholics into the army and navy, or
more ittrnediately the propriety of the Sovereign's
exacting from his Ministers a pledge against the
proposition to him of certain measures, however

those measures might recommend themselves to the
conscientes of such Ministers. In neither aspect of
the question, whether viewed as a branch of the de-
licate subject of religious toleration, or as an abstract
constitutional doctrine, was it one upon which the
mass of the people could be supposed capable of ex-
pressitiga judgment the least entitled to consideration.
So much for the nature of the question; now to make
out the difference of opinion between two branch, s
of the Legislature. Why, there was none. Three
several distinct motions condemnatory of the change
of Administration made by the King had been suc-
cessively negatived ; one in the House of Commons
made by Mr. Brand, another by Mr. Lyttleton, and
a third in the Lords made by Lord Stafford. In the
Upper House, Ministers had a majority of 81, and
in the Commons a majority of 46, on the last of

those motion.. Here, then, was indeed "no dif-
ference;" here, indeed, their existed " no sufficient
cause" for an appeal to the people, "no justifica-
tion of public necessity or advantage ;" at least,
none to justify the making such an appeal to the
people at such a crisis,_and under all those circum-
stances of inconvenience and interruption to the
public business set out in Lord Howick's Amend-
ment, and then, as now, flowing from a dissolution
at such a period of the session. But the last and
the greatest distinction remains to be noticed. At
the period of the dissolution in 1807, the country
was engaged in a war, properly characterised as a
great and momentous contest, by the King, in the
speech delivered at the prorogation previous to the dis-
solution of his Parliament ; in a war, for the successful
conduct of which the Sovereign is made, in that most
extraordinary paper, to desire the united efforts of his
people, while, in the same breath, he deplores the
agitation, excitement, and distraction of their minds
by the uncalled for agitation of the very question on
which he proposes still further to agitate, excite, and
distract them by a general election ! Let the oppo-
nents of the present Government, if they seek to
identify the present Ministers with the Opposition
of 1807, and themselves with the triumphant cham-
pions of No Popery in that year—let them explain
the absurdities and contradictions of the measures
of Lord Castlereagh and his colleagues, rather than
impeach the undeviating consistency of Lord Grey
and his associates. The war, the war makes the
difference—plainly and broadly distinguishing the
reckless ambition of men who did not scruple, amid
its awful perils, to excite a sectarian quarrel, wherein
the prejudices of the King served as their own pass-
port poer, from the patriotism of those who,
aimingto w
at the establishment on a surer, sounder, and
broader basis of the free institutions of the country,
rtoesotrhteinnaatiosneafsoornreoifnfperorceemetenotrder and tranquillity
the faction
which has usurped their franchisess .
Never, e the
annals of England, did a sovereign withn% in
ere
Fiery, nay
, under a more cogent and urgent nag"-, .