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

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

We yesterday offered a few observations on the
Legislative anarchy which has been produced by the
vote of the Lords of Monday last. As the English
are a practical people, it is impossible that they can
long tolerate this state of anarchy. We assume that
neither Lords nor Commons can permanently place
themselves in opposition. to the people. When th
Commons. allow themselves to be carried away ny
faction, a corrective is supplied by a dissolotien ; and
when an election has afforded the requisite test of the
will of the nation, a collision with the Lords proves
that they are in opposition to toe peoide,andi‘dlienrinsa,,cnrd:
the remedy which the Crown, exercising its trust I.lr
the benefit of the people, under responsible
can and ought to apply. The English are not a apect.l
lativc but a--practical people. They see that since the
passing of the Reform Bill, the Lords and the Com-
mons pull in opposite directions ; but they are not yet
agreed as to the mode in which the:Legislative anar-
chy shall ho corrected. The time, however, now
presses for inculcating on the people the
portance of supporting the Reforms in. whom
they have confidence in the course they may•
chalk out. We observe in The Landau and West-
minster Rev.:ew for July, of which we have just re-
cei7ea a copy, an article on Tories, Wings, and Ra-
dicals, in which there are some pointed remarks on
•the state of the mind of the people at the passing of
the Reform Bill, and the subsequent conduct of par-
ties, and an appeal to the 'Radicals in Parliament.
This article is deperving of attention, as it seems to
indicate the near approach of a period when the Re-
formers can only be held together by proccedim;s of a
decided character:—

" The predominant section of the party in power (says
the writer), holding the fate of the Ministry in their hands,
and being the body to which, apparently, the country must
look for the Men who are hereafter to -direct its councils—
why are the Parliamentary Radical making no exertions to
prove themselves worthy of this exalted destiny? Instead.
of taking the lead, as belongs in all combinations to those
who hold the most decided opinions, why have they sunk
into a mere section of the supporters of the Whig Mini-
stry ? Why is all their Parliamentary conduct passive, acrd
not active ? Except an occasional motion, to which the re,
putation of some individual among them is pledged, .and
which he could not, without disgrace, abandon, wl4l,- do
they originate nothing, but content themselves w;.th sup-
porting what the Ministers originate ? Why do. they not
bring forward a succession of matured and well-digested re-
forms, which, being sent to the House of. Lords, miglt
compel that body to choose between the ttthintion of them
and its own ruin ? Why do they let slap e%ery opportunity
not only of acting, but even for spedkir,g, like men in ear-
nest about their opinions."

In a former article, written by a great man now uni
more, regret. was eximesse•.l that there should be so
few Luthers =must tl.re Reformers, and the present
Reviewer quotas vv-Lift approbation, as hitting the nail
n:2 the lewd;,the following character give:a of the
Movt"llP7:t party by Sir John Walsh, tliat " it was
dek:ient in the enthusiasm, in the impetuosity, which
could have developed its full power, in vigour and
earnestness of purpose." copy the following
remarks On the state of mir4l of the people, and on
the distinction between the Stanley and Melbourne
Cabinets :

" Those onlywho have qualified themselves by a greater
degree of study and experience than has fallen to the lot
of most arc entitled to have a confident opinion on the
extent to which it may _be necessary to carry a political
change, previously to trial, The people, however, not
having made up their minds, when the Reform Bill passed,
whethr any further constitutional change would be re-
quired or not, they naturally—where they were free to
choose—cbcise mostly, as their first representatives, men
whose minds were no more made up than theirvere . .
It was by practising upon the weakness of such men, that
the Stanley Cabinet (for the conduct of that Ministry took
its character from its worst member) was enabled for a
session and a half to carry on the system which one of
its members has since avowed that it deliberately pur-
sued—that of proposing nothing in the reformed House
of Commons but what was agreeable to the Tories. This
system could not last. The people became alienated—not
because the Whigs did not propose further organic
changes, for the experiment had only just commenced
which was to convince the people that such were neces-
sary—hut because their practical reforms, their course of
improvement in details,' were shaperl to the taste of those
who were of Sir John Walsh's opinion, that no abuses
existed previously to the Reform Bill. The Whigs be-
came unpopular, not because they wished the Reform Bill
to be final measure,' but because, rather than risk a
eohisiOn,' which might prevent that wish from being rea-
lized, they were willing to abandon all the ends to which
the Reform Bill was intended as a means. * * *
The Melbourne Ministry are the representatives of ano-
ther system of government, one remove only from the
former ; and they, too, must soon make their election to
abandon it or to fall. The Grey Cabinet, as a body
Cthough against the wishes of some of its individual
Members), acted on the principle not only of resist-
ing any further Parliamentary Reform, but of not ori-
ginating or supporting Reform of any kind, which, by pro-
ducing a collision,' might possibly lead to that result.
The Melbourne Ministry, as a body (also it is believed
against the wishes of several of its members), has r.ban-
doned only one-half of this policy, retaining the other. It
resists with as much obstinacy as its predecessors, not only
any proposition for a further increase of the popular con-
trol over the Legislature, but the bare idea that such can
Ile rendered necessary by any conceivable prolongation of
the struggle against goodcr government. The difference be-
tween the policy of the Grey and that of the Melbourne
Ministry is, that the latter, though they deprecate organic
changes,' do not, as the former did, make the prevention of
it the grand business of their government. To save the
Lords from themselves is still their object, but tio longer
their sole object. They do not shield the Lords from the
odium of rejecting good measures, by taking that odium
upon themselves ; they propose what they think good, and
what is acceptable to the House of Commons, and let the
Peers reject it at their peril."

And this policy has exasperated the Peers greatly.
The majority against Ministers has continued to in-
crease ever since they acted on it. They instinctively
perceive that a continuance of this policy must either
force them to second the wishes of the nation, or it
will force the people to insist on extending also to
them the principle of reform. The spirit of these ex-
tracts sufficiently shows that the position of Ministers
is full of embarrassment. But they will not, we trust,
run against the rock on which Earl Grey's Ministry
split. By keeping constantly in mind that their only
sure support and stay is the attachment of the people,
they will rally round them Reformers of all classes.
The most disastrous of all policies is to appear more
anxious to gain the good word of the Tories than to be
rooted in the affections of the people. By acting with
firmn'ess and vigour, the Lords must be compelled to
give way.—Morning Chronicle.
It has been remarked of ill-favoured or unsightly
individuals, that they are oftentimes more than any
others plagued with personal vanity ; and that this
description of weakness seems for the most part to
take its rjse from a too partial view of the defects of
their e7..terior, indeed of those very distortions and de-
forrUties which arc peculiarly disgusting in the eyes
oi others. To what preposterous lengths a similar
error can be carried, though not bearing immediately
on shape, feature or • complexion, we were scarcely
sensible until within this day or two, after reading
the panegyrics of the Ministerial newspapers upon
the " able' speech, the " excellent" speech, the'
ar-
gumentative" speech, delivered by Viscount Melbourne
cn Monday last, and more particularly with reference
to those passages of it wherein the Prime Minis.-
ter drew upon English history for an illustration of his
sentiments on the Irish bill. A richer fund or histo-
rical ignorance was never possessed by mortal than.
that of which the treasures have been thus exposed
by the head of the Whig-Radical Administration,
His Lordship, with a view to disparage th'e impor-
tance of those great Conservative interests by which
the House of Lords is now supported in its manly and
inflexible defence of the Constitution, had the har-
dihood to compare the wretched measures contended.
for by the rump of the modern Whigs, with the re.
formation, the revolution, and the Hanoverian %we-
cession, in respect of their hold over the spirit the
()
fa country,li thoseand
multifarious their fitii fitness
means
overwhelmans
ech, thegctn
asr.ttcjitsnlilast:eo :tic: majority
total of the Conservative power. He seernea tbo)fi::atihlcet
foundations of Conservatism upon
of the gentry," the great majority " of the - cleris•
the voice "of the Universities. Ana then
Lord-
ship reminded his hearers that the reformation, the rem-
!talon, and the House of Hanover, had made the; way
to success and to stability in spite of all such opp
But what is the history of the reformation°Wner
forced upon the Crown, the nobles, and the gent cy, by