The Sun.
London, England, 1831-10-06 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THt PUBLIC JOURNALS.

, .
The disenssions in the Wise of fords last night are interest.
big; even 4i:a degree of pain. The first thing we shall notice is
the,speecn,of the,Lord Chaneellor in reply to those who would
charge tilt,, ftiry of Mr. P. Haynes's address to the Birmingham
Meeting upon that whole assembly as indicating the principles
and intentions of the vast body. Nothing happier ,in oratory, of
more convincing in reasoning, washever deidged o spOkenaldi
his Lordship's reference to a slieee at
ll made in the House of Peers
on the pXeced,lng evenlnit. We entreat the public to turn to the
Parliamentary report ; we have not room to insert the passage
twice. But now with respect to the meeting itself. It is a very
serious affair! We have known nothing of late years viewed
with so intense an apprehension. Let not the aristocracy imagine
that we are their enemies because we warn them of danger.=
What have we in common with the bons df rapine and plunder,
if there be such.? We suppose It Will be allowed that we have some
cdgeatinti. We have also some stake in the country. We can be no
friends to disorder and misrule. Our only desire is, therefore, and
must be, to state facts. Let the aristocracy understand
what that Birmingham meeting is,—and there are others of a
similar character in contemplation,—and having thoroughly
understood it, if they think that it is nothing,..if they are of
opinion that its petition is Lb be treated With indifference,—all
that we can say it; that we do not participate in the opinion of the
aristocracy, so far as it is concentrated in the House of Peers.
But let it not be said that we are the friends of commotion, be-
cause we say that commotion will follow if the Bill be rejected.
It is the rejection of the Bill, and not our prediction of the con-
sequences that will occasion those consequences. We simply
wish the Lords to understand perfectly the state Of the country.
It; with that understanding, they think the Bill is to be rejected,
we have done our duty,-.-we say no more, but wait, in sorrow.
the fulfilment of Mr apprehensions. Other parts of the discussion
of last night may require notice to-morrow at present we shall
merely state that Lord Wharnclife's appeal to the tradesmen
)f Bond-street has received a ready answer from that quarter •
tkprewifirit.vgabftoabitahts having requested Lord. Hollan
orin. In the debate oiittiir-ifh/heir anxious wish for Rc
eading Were Lords Lansdowne, Goderi-chfor the secon
_t, Lords Londonderry, Dudley, and Haddington. Wec43olki
any rational man who reads the speeches, whether there is not
most striking superiority in the three advocates of the measure
over the three opponents. Who can see, without pain, Lords
Dudley and Haddington placing themselves in the same
category with Lord Londonderry ? What would Mr. Can-
ning say, if he were alive to witness such a scene. The
proceedings of the House of Commons demand almost
equal attention with those of the Lords. The contin-
gent operations of the Lower House are of vast importance.
The public will remark the question which Lord Ebrington put
to Mr. O'Connell respecting the call of the House. His Lord-
ship also gave notice, that if certain circumstances occurred, he
should feel it his duty to submit a motion to the House on the
critical state of public afPairs. The fullest assembly possible of
the House of Commons is most ardently desired on Monday next ;
for if certain circumstances should occur, to whom or to what
has the country then to look, but to a House of Commons,
chosen under no ordinary circumstances,—a House of Commons
zealous for its own Reform.—Times.

The debates in the Lords will be of infinite use throughout
the kingdom. If themajority of that assembly should, which we
still trust they may not, decide against the second reading of the
Bill; there is in the speeches of its noble opponents a valuable
set-off against their votes. Whatever may be the numbers of
the recusant Peers, their political authority, at least, as mea-
sured by the reasoning power which (with the single exception
of Lord Harrowby) they have exhibited, is not of a nature very
flattering to the cause of Anti-Reform. Of Lord Harrowby,
whose speech displays no ordinary talents, it may be said with
truth, that it is to be regretted we cannot find his Lordship
among the advocates of the Reform Bill. But with regard to
the Duke of Wellington, we really feel no further concern than
that the thirteen or fifteen proxies intrusted to his Grace are
thereby likely to be recorded against the general wishes of
the nation. Never having extended to the Duke's attain-
ments as an orator or a reasoner any large share of that ad-
miration which his military actions may fairly challenge
from the world, we did not certainly expect a great deal from
his speech against the second reading. His Grace's whole ob-
jection to the Bill may be resolved into this—that popular con-
trout over a Legislature body is prodigiously inconvenient to a
despotic Minister. There are, doubtless, numberless instances
wherein the apprehension of what might be said or done by a
real House of Commons, would have for the people a salutary
—though, for the Minister, perhaps a provoking—effect, in
checking the indulgence of partialities at home, or of vindictive
passions against foreigners. There is no sort of doubt that the
pension and place list, which exposed the beggarly meanness of
great families, with flashy names and Aristocratical pretensions,
would have been of far more limited extent,—indeed, that it
would never have existed, if that species of democratic watch-
fulness, so much the object of the Duke of Wellington's
abhorrence, had been in full operation over Ministers
some 30 or 40 years ago. It is only from one point of view
that the mind of this prejudiced soldier seems capable
of contemplating a law for the enlargement of the people's sway
over the policy of the State,—namely, from the position of the
Prime Minister's house in Downing-street. " It is impossible
to carry on the Government," saith his Grace," with this influx
of a fiery democracy' into the Constitution." Why, if the de-
mocracy be tierce and dangerous, is it not better, as tip Duke
himself found it in the case of the Catholics, to make them part-
ners in the Constitution than its enemies,—to enlist them in
your garrison than to leave them in the camp of the besiegers ?
But the breadth of the Duke of Wellington's dislike to popular
government may be inferred from his panegyric upon the repre-
sentative system of Scotland (given up even by Lord Wharncliife
as indefensible), and the reach of his Grace's knowledge and re-
flection is visible in his reason for that eulogy. He spoke of
Scotland as the best governed country possible,—as that,likewise,
which had made the most rapid advances in wealth, commerce,
&c. ; and in the next sentence he lamented the overthrow of a
system " which had produced such admirable results !" thus as-
cribing the growth of those Scotch interests, which the Lord
Advocate in his luminous speech showed to be quite independent
of the local representation of Scotland, to it, and to its " admi-
rable" working ! With such views of the principle of popular
Government, it is by no means strange that the Duke of Wel.
lington should take political systems under his protection, with
an alacrity proportioned to the absence which they present of
every thing like an approach to independence of Royal, Oligarchic,
or Ministerial power. But we were not altogether prepared for an
admission made by his Grace on Tuesday evening, whence it
would appear that his well.known speech against all Reform,
shortly before he was driven from office did not proceed from
him in his character of Duke of Wellington, but only as
Minister of the Crown ! Apologizing to a Noble Lord, a friend
of his own, who had lamented the Duke's denunciation of all
manner of Reform, his Grace had the wonderful naivete to
declare, that it was " the duty of a King's Minister to protect
the institutions of the country !" Good God ! could he have pon-
dered but fora single moment the meaning of these extraordinary
words ? Is it an" institution" of the country that no abuse shall be
corrected or grievance redressed ? Is every thing, whether good
or evil, to be regarded as an institution ? and is no important
change of any kind to be recommended or supported by " a
King's Minister ?" The Scotch Parliament, we suppose, was an
" institution." How was it protected ? and by whom destroyed F
The Irish Parliament was an " institution." Did " the King's
Minister," Lord Castlereagh, discharge towards it the duty of
" a protector ?" :the penal code against Catholics, or, in other
words, the monopoly of all legislative power by Protestants, was
as much an " institution" as the borough usurpation ; and more,
because it had law to show for it, which the rotten borough sys_
tern was ashamed to shew. Did the Minister of the year Me
confer upon that code his " protection ? " The Duke of Wel-
lington's theory, then, is not borne out by his practice; and
well for the country that it has not been so in every
instance, since a more monstrous theory never was broached,
nor one more destructive of all national confidence in
the Crown or its advisers; for what does it say but that, no
matter how ardent or universal may be the wish of the people of
England for the removal of what is felt to be an evil, the Crown
through its Minister is bound to refuse its assent, or, to speak
out, the King is, ex officio, the nation's enemy? What a states-
manlike description of the purposes for which Kings were
created ! This, however, is not aIL The Duke of Wellington
made assertions, positive assertions, and delivered distinct opi-
nions, tonchinith6 merits of the borough Parliament, which
must have been either true or false, and which his Grace must
have believed to he true or false, while he uttered them. If he
conceived himself to be speaking truth, it is now the reverse of
true that he was not at that time pronouncing his genuine senti-
ments, but was merely playing " King's Minister," and spout-
ing the lines written down for him. But if he was capable
of affirming solemnly his belief in the absolute perfection of
the old system, and declaring that the wit of man could not im-
prove it, being satisfied all the while that it was not perfect, and
being conscious that he was stating, as " King's Minister,"
what, except as King's Minister, he would have confessed to be
chfferent from the fact, it amounts to nothing short of a desire
to impose both on Parliament and on the people, an unfounded
representation of the merits of a most important public question,
to serve the objects of the day. What reliance, then, we with
sorrow ask, can either Parliament or people place in the Duke of
Wellington's most serious declarations ? Or what conclusion
can they draw respecting his sentiments on the general subject
of Reform, but that he assumes one principle this weak as most
convenient for a Minister wishing to remain in office, and a
different principle next week when it suits his purpose to turn
another Minister out. His Grace's desire that the House should
reject this Bill, but should not pledge itself for or against any
future Bill, was extremely entertaining. Force Lord Grey to
resign on the question of Reform, and then you shall have as
good a Bill from me. Admirable candour! Disinterested
policy !—Tunes.

To the pamphlet, of which we spoke yesterday, entitled The
Second Part of What will the Lords do ?" are added three post-
scripts : the last is the only one upon which we shall say any
thing at this moment of hurry. It seems to call upon the Mi-
nisters to create a number of Peers, and forthwith, In order to
prevent the possibility of the Bill being rejected on the first di-
vision. It may seem proper to explain why this has not been
done; and be the motive for such omission what it may, it is
certainly a proof of any thing but disrespect on the part of Mi-
nisters to the Upper House, to abstain from augmenting its num-
bers, and thus diluting its respectability, except upon the most
urgent necessity—a necessity created by the House itself. How
were the Ministers to call upon their Royal Master to create
Peers, till they knew whether any and what number would be
wanted, to secure the successof that measure which they deemed
indispensible to the preservation of the country ? It is uncertain
whether the Bill may not be carried without any augmentation
of the number of voters in the Upper llouse ; and then, what a
reproach to Ministers to have needlessly created a batch of Peers!
The conduct of Ministers is therefore, as we think both delicate
'and firm. As they will not increase the Upper I-louse without
necessity, so they will not flinch from that measure if the ne-
cessity occurs.—Times.

The Bankruptcy Courts Bill was read a second time last night,
and the manner in which it was received by the House would
seem to leave no doubt that it will pass. The opinions of law-
yers upon such matters may be distrusted; because, among other
reasons it has been by the influence of lawyers that many honest
and enlightened attempts to remedy the confessed evils of our
jurisprudence have been defeated from the days of the Common-
wealth to very recent times. When, however, men like Mr. J.
Smith, acquainted with the practical mischiefs of the extinguish-
ing system, and perfectly competent to pronounce a sound opi-
nion upon that which is proposed to be substituted for it, declare
themselves in favour of the measure, the public, who are the
most deeply interested, cannot fail to see the necessity of at
least trying a new method, which, if it should be found to have
defects, must still be infinitely preferable to the compound,of
extravagance and injustice under which they have hitherto
suffered.—Times.
CALL OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.—It is very es-
sential to call the attention of the public, and of every Member of
Parliament, to .the question put by ,ord Ebrington to Mr.
O'Connell last night; and the notice which: he afterwards gave
of his intention, under certain circumstances, of bringing for-
ward some motion on Monday next, connected with the present
crisis in public affairs. The circumstances adverted to were, of
course; a division in the Lords, and the probable rejection of the
Reform Bill. The motion—either for resolutions of confidence
in Ministers, or an address to the Crown, as may be judged most
expedient, with a view to the ultimate success of this momen-

thus question. It IS of vital importance to the cause of Reform,
to the peace of the empire, and to the security of all our institu-
tions, that every Member who supported the third reading of the
Bill should be in his place on Monday. We should have hoped
that the feat of a visit from the Serjeant's messenger was not re-
quired to convince our representatives, 1. that England expects
every man to do his duty' on that occasion. At the same time
Weadmit, Lord Ebrington is perfectly justified in taking every
precaution to ensure a full attendance. The call will be rigidly
enforced.—Mornirig Chronicle.
The debate on the Reform Bill has been again adjourned. The
Marquis of Lansdowhe, in his very able and luminous speech,
thre* light On several points on which there has been much mis-
rpresentation, Cnt of 274,823 accounts of stock dividends kept
at the Bank of England, there are no less than 264,668 kept w.th
persons for slims lesS thah 2001. per annum. As those persons
comprise a great ptirtiOn of the constituency of IC/. householders,
Wotild they say to their representatives you may do what you
please on the matters that coins before you, but above all take
care that Out dividends afe not paid." He alluded to the mis-
take hi supposing, that because 101. was the lowest qualification,
the 101, houSehtilders Would tedominate. The clause which
10/. householders to vote, includes not only those who pay
that rent, but all those who pay above that sum, including every-
thing from 101. to 10,000/. There will be more voters who pay 201.
a year and upwards rent thah who pay only 10/. There has,
indeed, beet! zionstrotis exaggeration oh this point. In Glasgow,
tot instahce, with its 202,000 inhabitants, there are only 6,000
hbuses rated at 10/. and upwards, consequently there will not be
above 5,000 voters. Lord Holland, in the carly part of the evening,
gave what, in familiar language, is termed a nice trimming, to the
Duke of Wellington—" 1 can think (said his Lordship) of a
Noble Lord or Noble Duke, who had previously declared that
nothing Could induce him to form part of any Government which
saheticined a measure of Reform. I can now fancy such a Noble
fluke coming down to this House and saying—' Things are now
Most materially changed—there is a collision between the House
of Lords and the House of Commons. I know what war is and
you do not. I told you I had no intention of bringing forward a
measure of Reform, but now the state of things is mostmaterially
changed, but don't allow large meetings, such as that of Birming-
hrm, to intimidate you.-be bold be stout, be determined. But
if the association be once formed you must give way, then there
is danger of war, and agitations, and blood; and I know what
war is, and I tell you that you are in a different situation from
that in which you before stood, and I will drag you through the
mire after having before bespattered you.' It is just possible that
a Noble Duke might hold such language." His Grace was a
good deal nettled. But it seems, though he was prodigiously
afraid of the Irish, and had, in 1822, a horror of civil war, he
thinks the English may be easily managed. He had a thorough
contempt for them. If not encouraged by his Majesty's Govern.
ment, they would not be formidable. His speech has not cer-
tainly added much to his reputation as a statesman.—Morrwg
Chronicle.,

The meeting at Birmingham has attracted, as we exPected

resentin
swvohuarld,netthiffeeesinpectroidaulcedattethnetiosunbitl:hne Hous.-Lif rd
n s m iteeting ocertain the petition adopted at the ho n London, with 1304) signatures,
hank„,o'hlp43ll:t,Alkdite-looked (he said) at the proceedings
*lie meeting of the Birmingham Political Union, in order to
ote their petition, he might say that the revolution was not only
hreatened, but actually begun ; for in case the Bill did not pass,
they openly threatened to employ physical force to carry their
measures." His Lordship then made several quotations from
the speeches of a Mr. Hayr.es and Mr. Attwood, to prove his pc-
sitibn, that revolution was actually begun. As the people at this
Meeting conducted themselves in a peaceable manner, it would
be hard to make the whole 150,000 indi.iduals responsible for the
speeches of two or three individuals • but Lord Wicklow called
their Lordships' attention to a proceeding of a peculiar character.
Our readers will remember that Mr. Edmonds "declared before
God, that if all constitutional modes of obtaining the success of
the Reform measure failed, he should and would be the first
man to refuse the payment of taxes, except by a levy upon his
goods.—(Tremendous cheering? which lasted some minutes.)
I now call upon all who hear me, and who are prepared to
join me in this step, to hold up their hands.—(An immense forest
of hands was immediately elevated, accompanied by vehement
cheering.) I now call upon you who are not prepared to adopt
this course, to hold up your hands and signify your dissent.—
(Not a single hand appearing, loud shouts and cheers were re-
peated.) Mark my words—failing all other constitutional means."
The Lord Chancellor said he did not like this fact; and the fact
is certainly a very ugly one. There can be no question that a
resolution to resist the law is illegal, is revolutionary; but it is
because men possessed of a reasonable share of foresight know—
from the sentiments openly expressed at many meetings, and
which, indeed, form the subject of almost every conversation—
that the people, if driven to desperation, would adopt the danger.
ous course above indicated, that they are anxious to put an end
to this fearful state of things by a Reform of Parliament, which
would instantly give strength and vigour to the law. The anxiety
of Lord Eldon to establish that the resolution in the Birming-
ham case was illegal, at a time like this, when the condition on
which obedience to the laws can be expected is the subject of
universal discussion in all parts of the country, reminds us of
the passage in the " Life of Goldsmith," where, on the Poet's
expressing an anxiety, on the first night of one of his plays, for
a certain scene, he was answered, " Zounds, who would mind
squibs when we have been sitting a couple of hours on a barrel of
gunpowder ?" We do not wonder at Lord Wharncliffe's having
been particularly struck with the account of the proceedings at
the Birmingham meeting. On the very day when that Noble
Lord was insulting the people of England by .his declaration that
as he was in the habit of intercourse with the people, he could
speak to the fact of their indifibrence to the Reform Bill from
his own knowledge, 150,000 individuals were solemnly pledging
themselves to a measure amounting to insurrection if that Bill
should be rejected. What a refutation ! But wise men do not
suppose they can add to their security by shutting their eyes to
approaching danger. The inhabitants of Iceland foresee the issue
of the devastating volcano in the roaring and flame which pre-
csde an eruption. Would to God that the Aristocracy of this
country may open their eyes! One of those "signs of the
times," never to be forgotten by those who witnessed it, was the
Birmingham meeting on Monday last. The avowed object of
this central meeting of all the Political Unions was the clearing
their characters from the unlucky imputations cast upon the
consistency of the people by those Tory Anti-Reformers who had
the temerity to represent the popular feeling as subsided and
altered on the one all-absorbing subject—the Reform Bills. Nearly
1.0,000 men marched in from that hive of industry, the Stafford-
shire Mineral District. Upwards of 12 acres of ground were lite-
rally covered with Reformers. The political operations of the in-
dustrious and intelligent _part of the British community are always
on the wholesale scale. The meeting was held in a small valley of
about twelve acres. The sides of its rising banks had, we are as-
sured, a most picturesque appearance. The most perfect order
prevailed—and the physical as well as mental energy of a con-
siderable part of the vast assemblage may be estimated in the
fact, that thousands had been on foot from three o'clock in the
morning till past four in the evening, without rest or food, some
of the Unions having marched 15 miles to the scene of action.
Awful, indeed, will be the convulsed state of this country, if the
hearts of the Anti-Reforming Aristocracy are turned aside from
the people. On theleads of the infatuated Tories rest the deep
responsibility and future consequences of these convulsive throes
of public opinion. Their blindness and bigotry have electrified
the public mind ; they have created a voltaic battery, which may
destroy its maker; but there is yet time to turn from their evil
ways and repent. We solemnly warn them, that neither dun.
geons, bonds, nor fetters, nor laws, nor military dictators, will
conquer the popular spirit. We know the hysteric horror of
political Unions, which shakes the hearts of the Aristocracy ; but
the Reform Bills alone will " put down" those Unions. Reform
will dissolve them as a talisman; such Associations are the wild
shoots of mis-government ; good government—Reform—can
alone dissolve them. They are tumours in the body politic, but
the saving of its constitution.—Morning Chronicle.
Lord Wharncliffe received, last night, a most unkind cut from
the inhabitants of Bond-street, whom he chose to honour with
the distinction of being Anti-Reformers par excellence. There
are but 200 houses in the street, and Lord Holland presented a
petition, signed by 101 inhabitants, in favour of the Bill ; and
at the same time informed Lord Wharncliffe, that " if he would
only mention the particular street in which he supposed an opi-
nion to prevail unfriendly to the Bill, he was ready to pledge
himself to bring down to the House to-morrow (this day), a
petition from the majority of the inhabitants of such street, set-
ting the Noble Lord right as to the state of their opinions.—
(Hear, and a laugh.) Lord Wharncliffe looked of course exceed-
ingly foolish ; and the lesson he has received ought to be a
warning to Noble Lords not to be so ready to shape their aver-
ments to answer their opinions. There seems a wonderful tendency
in some of their Lordships (accidental, no doubt) to commit mis
takes in favour of their own side. Thus, for instance, Lord Wham-
cliffe last night presented a petition from certain of the inha-
bitants of Ipswich, against the Reform Bill. On Lord Radnor
looking into the prayer of this petition, he found what it was—
that their Lordships would take the Bill into their most serious
consideration, in order to do away with what was objectionable;
and two or three others, presented as petitions against the whole
Bill, had been equally misrepresented. Lord Eldon, too, was
not less fortunate in summing up the number of signatures to
his petition for Norwich. A mistake of 10,000 is a serious mis-
take. Surely after this we shall hear no more idle stuff about the
change of sentiments in the people of this country. In the
milst of the overwhelming testimony" from all quarters, it is
really childish to see Noble Lords singling out an accidental peti-
tion, hurried °filo be in time for the second reading, and merely
on that account not having so many signatures as a former peti-
tion from the same place, as a proof of the general indifference
towards the Bill.—Morning Chronicle.

Lord Harrowby took great pains to show the injustice of
case of the borough of Tiverton, with which his family had been
depriving Corporations of their influence, and pointed out the
so long connected. Neither his grandfather, father, nor himself
had ever possessed an acre of land within one hundred miles of
the place ;.still much intimacy continued between his family and
the borough for nearly a century. It commenced by his grand-
father, then Attorney-General, being introduced to the borough
by the influence of Government, and from that time they con-
tinued the Members for Tiverton ; and his Lordship declared
that he never appronended any attack, even fronva Nabob with
100,0Q0/. But what does his Lordship mean ? is he deceived ?
or is he desirous of deceiving ? What can the Corporators
see in the countenance of a Ryder, a family unconwected
with their neighbourhood and without an acre of land in
their county ? Is it not absurd to suppose that such a friend.
ship would exist without the quid pro quo? True it is that his
_Lordship's tender conscience has been- relieved from- paying
2,400/. a year for the two seats out of his own purse;
but how has he dealt with the public purse ? How has the
family of Duntz (no dunces either) been provided for—how have
the Walkers been supplied, or how has every individual Con-
nected with the borough been remunerated for their forbearance
in resisting the offers of rich and ambitious candidates ? If his
Lordship laments that any a' teration should deprive him of the
power to leave this ancient and hereditary friendship to his fa-
mily, he can easily believe that his dear friends at Tiverton will
partake of his sorrow. We cannot, however, give him much
credit for their gratitude on a recent occasion, when they rejected
his,Lordstiip's son, Viscount Sandon, because they discovered that
his enlightened mind had led him to take such a political course
as would no longer command the loaves and fishes. We will
conclude by briefly stating, that of all boroughs none are so in-
jurious to the nation as those which are held by persons in office,
who, in lieu of paying a ,stated sum, are in the habit of feeding
their constituents at an enormous expense to the country, in the
shape of places and pensions ; and we do not hesitate to assure
his Lordship, that if he can impose on his hearers, he cannot
make the same impression -on those who can only read his
speeches.—Morning Chronicle.
It is difficult to understand what the Duke of Wellington
means by stating that in delivering, last November, his memos.
able declaration against all Reform, he spoke as a Minister of
the Crown, unless he wishes to have it inferred that the opinion
of this great question, which he entertained as a private indivi-
dual, was differest from that which he thought it expedient to
express in his official capacity. If this be the meaning of the
distinction taken by his Grace, we feel it our duty to protest
against the political doctrine which it implies. What is that
doctrine ? It is, that in great questions deeply affecting the in-
terests of the empire, a
Minister of the Crown may be justified
in giving advice to the Sovereign directly the reverse of what his
own conscience and
Private judgment approve. This is an un-
worthy doctrine for a Statesman to avow, and a dangerous oneto
act upon. He who, in the capacity of a Minister of the Crown,
resists all Reform, while, as a private Member of the Legislature,
he feels convinced that some Reform is necessary, abuses the high
trust which his Sovereign confides to him, and deserves to lose
the confidence of the public. We know the doctrine of expe-
diency, as opposed to that of principle, had been carried to
great lengths by most of our modern Statesmen. Sir Robert
Peel has, on more occasions than one, pretty plainly avowed
that 'the rule of political morals is not to regulate eircum-
ctunstances by principles, but to make principles yield to circum-
stances. We could mention others too, both of Whig and Tory
colours, to whom the same observation applies; but this is the
first time, within our recollection, in which an ex-Minister has
attempted to excuse a declaration of hostility to the public senti-
ment on the ground that he made it "as a Minister of the
Crown ;" a circumstance which, if that declaration were an act
of folly, aggravates the offence. The Duke was never more in
error than when he stated that the demand for Reform at the
latter end of last year was caused by the French revolution. This
statement' is not borne out by the history of the last fifty years,

LONDON,
THURSDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 6, 1831.

In the House of Commons last night, Lord
EBRINGTON stated that he should give notice of
a motion for a call of the House on Monday, to con-
sider the critical condition of the country, in the
event of a certain important measure not meeting
with the sanction of the House of Lords. This
is ominous and well-timed. We trust it may be
duly appreciated in the proper quarter. The Bank-
ruptcy Bill was read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Friday.

The discussion of the Bill wasresumed last night
in the Upper House. The principal speakers were
Lords DUDLEY, LONDONDERRY, LANSDOWNE, and
RADNOR, the two former of whom vehemently de-
nied the necessity of Reform—or at least of the
Ministerial Reform, while the two latter argued as
emphatically, and far more effectively, in favour of it.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE'S speech is one of the
most able and convincing we ever read, and, by all
accounts, produced a great effect on the House. In
ihe course of the evening, and just before the regu-
lar discussion on the Bill was entered into, the
Duke of WELLINGTON seicsed the opportunity to
express, for the second time, .his profound contempt
for all public meetings. His Grace more pal-
ticularly alluded to the great Birmingham meeting
which he seems to look on as a mere bugbear.
This injudicious expression of opinion will, we ap-
prehend, cause his Grace to become more unpopular
with the country than he bas yet been. These
are not times when the. people ,can be ridi-
culed with impunity.. Despise the solemn warnings
of a great public, we might even,add, national as-
sembly, like that recently held at Birmingham
Why, there were more Englishmen.assembled there
than fought under his Grace at Waterloo ? Men
equally fond of liberty, equally conscious of
their just power as Euglishmen, equally resolute
to maintain it. These are not men to be despised,
my Lord Duke, even though looked down on from
your own elevated position. Rely on it, that if the
Reform Bill pass the House of Lords, its triumph
will be in no slight degree indebted to the demon-
stration of moral and physical energy so seasonably
and so tranquilly put forth by the Birmingham
Political Union. This, if nothing else, will
we are convinced have the effect of bringing
Noble Lords to their senses. But not only War-
wickshire and Staffordshire, Berkshire too, and
Monmouthshire and Derbyshire, have just met,
and manfully recorded their opinions on the subject
of Reform. But probably these county meetings
are farces too ! We shall see.

While the Reform petitions were in the course
of presentation, Lord RADNOR took the opportu-
nity of correcting one or two slips of a Noble
Anti-Reformer, who, in the excess of his zeal,
slluded to one or two petitions as being inimical to
Reform, which on inspection proved to be in its
favour rather than otherwise. Lord ELDON was also
opportunely set right on the subject of an extra-
ordinary mistake he had (inadvertently, no doubt)
made regarding the number of signatures affixed to
a certain provincial Anti-Reform petition. The
Noble Lord had only manufactured thirteen thou-
sand out of three thousand signatures, in the same
way as Falstaff created eleven men in buckram
out of two! The debate was again adjourned to
this day.

It cannot have failed to be remarked that, at the
Birmingham and other meetings,. great stress was
kid on this point—that the House of Lords, as at
present constituted, does not represent the genuine
Aristocracy of the country, but is composed chiefly
of an oligarchy of modern origin, who have no pre-
tensions to arrogate to themselves any claim to the
national veneration. The tenor of Lord WIN-
CHELSEA'S peroration would lead ignorant persons to
infer that he was addressing an assembly, the Mem-
bers of which had on an average at least three cen-
turies of noble blood in their veins, for his Lord-
ship uses many such apostrophes, as, " To you, my
Lords, I appeal, in whose veins the pure blood of a
long line of noble ancestors mantles with an invi-
gorating current!" This kind of address may be
well suited in speaking to the Duke of NORFOLK
or the Earl of SHREWSBURY, but becomes inex-
pressibly absurd when used towards such a species
of nobility, as the KENYONS, MANSFIELDS, ELLEN-
BOROUGHS, BEXLEYS, FARNBOROUGHS, WYNFORDS,
or WIT ARN CLI FFES.

If we look to the state of the Peerage up to the
last creations, we shall find that, of the titles of the
nineteen English Dukes, there were but two in
existence in the sixteenth century,' nine in the
seventeenth, and seventeen in the eighteenth, up to
the year WO. Of the English Marquises, eigh-
teen in number, there was only one existing previous
to the reign of GEORGE the Third. Of the one
hundred and five Earls, there were but fifty-one pre-
vious to GEORGE the Third ; of the twenty-two
Viscounts, but four; and, of the one hundred and
sixty-two Barons, only twenty-seven previous to the
same period. So that, out of the number of 326,
composing the Dukes, Marquises, Earls, Viscounts,