The Sun.
London, England, 1836-10-05 00:00:00

SIR LIONEL SMITH.

His Excellency's Message to the House of Assembly of
Barbadoes :
" I have the honour to announce to you, that his Ma-
jesty has been graciously pleased to remove me to the Go-
vernment of Jamaica, and that I am ordered to proceed
thither by the earliest opportunity.
" Though I have been unwillinc, to disturb your proro-
gation, I thought it my duty to call you together, to com-
municate the information ; and I avail myself of it, to
offer to your Honourable House my parting good wishes.
" I pray that your Honourable House may be animated
in all your proceedings by a sense of the weighty difficulties
you still have to contend with, and that wisdom and fore-
cast may carry your deliberations to a successful issue.
.. Whatever my future destiny may be, the happiness
and prosperity of this island will continue to constitute one
of my anxious hopes and wishes, and it has been in this
spirit of goodwill that I have faithfully endeavoured to
discharge my duties as your Governor."
Then follows the address of the House of Assembly to
the Governor-General.

Our Windward Island papers do not contain any in-
telligence of importance. The principal subject alluded to
in them is emigration, not from Europe, but from the seve-
ral islands to British Guiana, and, it is expected, to Tri-
nidad and this island.
Extract of a letter from Trinidad, Aug. 19 :—" The
crops of sugar and cocoa arc quite over, and they have been
short, though rainy weather still prevails, and there is not
a hogshead of sugar in town to be had at any price."

---
The Prince and Princess Wittgenstein, family, and
suite, have left Nlivart's Hotel, for the Continent. The Prince
made extensive purchases of carriages, hounds, &c., for con.
veyance to his principality in Russia.

SPJJtIT OF THE PuriLte JOURNAL.

In the Chronicle of yesterday we observed that " the
advocates of the Peers themselves now abandon the
foolish theory of Delobne and Blackstone of three
powers, and admit that the supreme power cannot be
divided." The Standard questions our authority for

this statemett.
We do not (says our Evening Contemporary)
who have made this admission ; we have not seen it any
where ; and we are very sure that, in our own humble
course, we have never conceded anything so monstrous as
the existence of an undivided supreme power in the social

state."
We may observe that Burke, the oracle of the
Tories, is generally considered a shrewd political
writer, even by those who differ from him : and Burke
took considerable pains to impress on the Tories that
the Lords were indebted for their existence to their
possessing a majority in the Commons, of which
they would be deprived by a Reform in the repre-
sentation. But we were alluding more particularly
to the last article in the Quarterly Review for Sep-
tember, on the proceedings of the Session 1836.
It strikes us as rather strange that the Standard
should not have seen an article which its ally, the
Times, transferred in extenso to its columns, and
warmly eulogised. We borrowed largely from the ar-
ticle at the time of its appearance, but that, of course,
we do not insist on. It strikes us, however, as sin-
gular that the Standard should affect such ignorance,
not only of the Quarterly Review, but of the Times.
Is this another way of telling us that it holds the opi-
nions of the Times and the Quarterly Review in no
regard whatever ? The Quarterly Reviewer observed:
" It cannot be too often repeated and pressed on the re-
collection and consideration of the public, that the main
objection—that, indeed, of which all others were but con-
sequences and corollaries—to what was called Parliamentary
reform, was this—that under the pretence of clearing the
House of Commons from all aristocratical influence, and
restoring to its natural, as it was called, and strictly inde-
pendent state, the Bill was in fact calculated to transfer to
it all the substantial power of the country, and to render it
not merely independent but predominant, by introducing
into its composition such additional elements of mere po-
pular and physical influence as could not fail, cx necessitate
rerun:, to lead to an usurpation of power on its part, and
the consequent absorption or annihilation of the two other
estates.
" This objection was strenuously repelled by the advo-
cates of the Bill, who insisted that it was a mere visionary
danger ; that the Commons having re-conquered their own
rights, would be on that very account the more anxious
not to infringe those of the other branches ; and that the
beautiful theorem of three distinct and equiponderant
powers, holding the State in equilibrio, would be the cer-
tain and unalterable result of their experiment ; and we
believe that the vague plausibility of this vision, and its
coincidence with the doctrine of the balance of constitu-
tional powers promulgated by De Lolme, and such super-
ficial observers, seduced to the support of the Reform Bill
a vast number of well-intentioned men, who would have
resisted, and by their influence helped to defeat it, if they
could have believed thas it was pregnant with a democratic
usurpation When, in the Reform debates, it
was urged, with the common-place declamation of the
theorists, that the House of Commons should be indepen-
dent of the two other branches, it was on the other hand
argued, and at that time not denied, that the equal inde-
pendence of the other two branches was a logical conse-
quence of that original proposition; because the constitu-
tional rights of the Commons were neither in law, in
equity, nor in reason, more distinct and absolute than those
of the King and the Lords respectively ; and hence it was
most truly and rationally deduced, that the attempt to
create (under the pretence of restoring what never had
existed) these three independent and self-responsible autho-
rities was not only contrary to the real spirit of the Con-
stitution, but to the very laws of society and nature—which
adm:t of no self-centered powers, and could produce no-
thing but collisions between the parts, and confusion and
distraction to the general system."
The Quarterly Reviewer, whose lucubrations have
been adopted by the Times, goes to what appears to
Tory eyes the very root of the evil—the reform of
the representation, and leaves us in little doubt as to
the specific which the Tories have in yeti() for pre-
venting collisions, the restoring to the oligarchy the
preponderance in the House of Commons which they
possessed previously to the Reform Bill. If, by hook
Or crook, the Tories were ever to obtain a majority in
the House of Commons, and to a division among Re-
formers they look for a means for effecting their object,
we should probably see some very notable attempts to
make future elections less hazerdous to the Tories.
We have thus, we trust, satisfied the Standard that
• we did not make the statement in question without
authority. Om- Evening Contemporary, however, who
is a redoubtable combatant, does not rely on De
Lohne, Blackstone, Cicero, Locke, Montesquieu, and
a hundred nearly equal authorities, but proceeds to ad-
vance his own reasons':—
" The sovereignty of England is (ho observes), we ad-
here to the opinion of Locke, Blackstone, and the rcpt,
distributed among three authorities, reciprocally indepen-
dent, though exercising in some respects various functions.
The effect of this distribution is, that no one of the three
can usurp upon the others, or upon the people generally ;
that commonly none but good measures will be adopted,
while it is extremely improbable that any good measure
will be permanently withheld. As to the House of Lords,
against which this new doctrine of a supreme undivided
power is brought, we have never admitted that that body,
considered as an integral of the Constitution, either is, or
ought to be, responsible to any power upon earth. Res-
ponsible to public opinion each individual Peer undoubtedly
is ; and responsible in a much higher degree than any other
member of society, both on account of the conspicuous
stage on which he acts, and the life-long period which he
occupies, and is, to occupy, that stage. The aggregate of
this individual responsibility to public opinion really con-
forms the House of Lords much more to the steady sense
of the country than the House of Commons is conformed
by any process whatever. It is not always possible, how-
ever, to distinguish between that steady sense of the country
and a capricious popular passion ; and the Members of the
House of Lords, being no more than men, will sometimes
mistake the one for the other, but with this sure event,
that, when the steady sense of the country is known, the
Lords will acknowledge it : but for their own sake, and
the country's sake, they will be, as they ought to be, very
slow in the acknowledgment ; all time worst mistakes that
they have committed have arisen from precipitate concession."
Here we are told that the House of Lords neither is
nor ought to be responsible to any power upon earth,
but responsible to public opinion each individual Peer
undoubtedly is. We are told, moreover, that when
the steady sense of the country is known the Lords
will acknowledge it. But if the Lords are responsible
to no power upon earth, what security have we that
they will acknowledge the steady sense of the country?
There is an easy mode of testing the identification'of
the House of Commons with the country—a dissolu-
tion. Ever since 1830 we have had Houses of Com-
mons voting one way and the Lords another. Disso-
lution after dissolution has taken place ; and the elec-
tions, whether under Whig or Tory Ministers, have
sent majorities to the Commons opposed to the majority
of the Lords. On one memorable occasion public
opinion only produced an impression on the Lords,
when the Political Unions covered the face of the land,
when the citizens were everywhere preparing for
strife, when the men of Birmingham, Glasgow, and
Edinburgh were very tolerably organised and pre-
pared for the exigencies of the crisis. The Lords
admitted that they did not voluntarily pass the
Reform Bill—that they were coerced. There is no
doubt that the extreme obstinacy of the Lords may
always be overcome by operating on their fears: But
this, after all, is but a clumsy mode of enforcing re-
sponsibility to public opinion. On some occasion the
process of conversion may be so tedious, that public
impatience may attempt to hasten it by means well
understood in Printing-house-square. We confess we
are by no means enamoured of a responsibility, to which
in cases of obstinacy effect must be given by such ha-
zardous means. Government is a trust for the benefit
of the people ; its object is the protection of life
and property. The Legislature of a country ought
to be identified in interest with the mass of the
possessors of property. In this country the late
Reform Bill, though it left many awkward ano-
malies, and, by means of the 501. tenant-at-will
franchise, gave the county representation to the
Squirearchy, was a great advance towards the iden-
tification of the House of Commons with the great
body of owners of property. But with the House
of Lords as at present constituted the owners of
property are not identified. It is the interest of
the rich Peers, no doubt, that the Government
should be conducted for the benefit of the nation.
But there are not a few Peers not only not rich but
absolutely beggars, and many who are without the