The Sun.
London, England, 1831-03-04 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

In the House of Lords, last night, Lord Farnham
brought forward a complaint of breach of privilege, but,
before his Lordship could proceed, it was observed that
such complaints were not preferred while strangers were
present. Strangers were theieupon excluded. The con-
duct complained of was understood to be the sending
of a threatenis letter to hie Lordship, in consequence
of proceedings regarding the " Wicklow Union."
Indeed, it was added that personal indignities were de-
clared to be in store for the Noble Lord. Witnesses
were examined, and the writing was identified. The
consideration of the subject is to be resumed. Lord
Cirnarvon, in presenting some Reform petitions, adverted
to the " new Constittrion" which had been prepared by
the Government; but Earl Grey complained of such de-
scription, and denied that any " new" Constitution was
proposed--the old one was adhered to. Lord Wharnclitfe
(for the purpose, it is understood, of gaining some inpr-
=fiat), or having some discussion on the Reform question)
gave notice that on Monday he should move for various
potiulation towns, &c., regal ding particular boroughs, &c.
Lord King strongly eulogized the plans of Ministers; but
the Duke af Wellington said he was at a loss to see how they
could be carried consistently with the monarchical insti-
tutions of the country. Earl Grey replied that when the
discussion came on he hoped to he able to show that the
measures contemplated were better calculated to support
the Monarchy than a Government sustained by corrup-
tion and patronage. The Marquis of Cleveland expressed
his approbation of the principle of the measure.—
ose
a•lst
oialfs,act.. P Russellt dei.l,cpursesvi (previously s layr
01 nn
a the
m ot! (ion:hi:nem 'pdorefe.present
byCn Lord
population,
the re-umptton of the adjourned debate), for returns
respecting of boroughs
proposed to be disfranchised, or reduced to ens Mem-
ber. Sir Charles Wetherell expressed great surprise that
information of this nature should be called for after the
plan had been brought forward,—it ought to have pre-
ceded or accompanied it, Lord J. Russell replied that,
had he moved for such returns before he brought for-
ward the plan, the nature of his plan would have trans.
pired before he could folly and regularly bring it for-
ward. Mr. Calcraft said he doubted whether the Noble
Lord had known ally thing of the plan till within 24
hours of having to submit it to the House. Lord J.
Russell answered that the great and leading outlines of
the plan were imparted to him in the midle of Ja-
nuary last, and that the plan afterwards underwent little
or no material alteration. Several Members viewed the
iicpresentiit
iomigobttioit
to ahaysaenbeenpreviously
after-thought,
possessedto
gain information
w ;__where-
upon Mr. Slane) expressed a hope that the House antltll
country would mark the spirit in which the demand for
inrormation was thus resisted. The opponents of the meat
cure, he said, evidently feared . the light. Mr. Perceval
said be was oat of that number ; he wished for -farther
light, feeling assured it only required that the plan should
be completely known to have it scouted by the House,
Sir Henry Hardinge viewed the measure us " revolu-
tionary." Mr. Hobhuuse regrettei the use of such an
expression by such a person, and declared that, what.
ever the measure might be, it was called for by one-
half of the Aristocracy, and by the whole of the people.
Sir H. Hardinge replied, that he had used the expression
advisedly ; he considered the plan to be most revo-
lutionary, and calculated to :pull the Crown from the
King's head. After much further conversation the re-

LONDON,

FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 4, 1831.

The Debates of last night are full of interest
and importance. The Boroughmongers and
their dependents are, as might be expected,
making desperate head against Reform, on the
plea that it is synonimous with revolution.
Mr. BANKES laboured hard to establish this
fact, but was answered, point by point,.by Mr.
HOBIIOUSE, in a speech that will not IA to
make as deep an impression on the people, as it
did upon the House. The Hon. Member for
Westminster put the question of Reform upon
its proper footing, when he declared that" sooner
or later, and rather soon than late, a national
convulsion would be the consequence of reject-
ing it." Lord PALMERSTON too, in one of the
ablest speeches we ever read, inferred its
necessity from the very fact of the people
being naturally so averse to change. If,
said his Lordship, the English character
entertains such an instinctive abhorrence of
innovation, how great—how imperative mtLA
be the necessity for a change, when the
country, from one end to the other, is clamouring
for it in a voice of thunder ? And yet Sir H.
HARDINGE, with all that intrepid assurance
which belongs to profound ignorance, presumes
to call the Reformers, Revolutionists ! Pray,
who are the Revolutionists ? Those, who for
the mere purpose of keeping up their illegal
patronage, quartering themselves and their crea-
tures on the public, and perpetuating the mon-
strous abuses of the boroughmongermg sptem,
would hazard the chance of a national convulsion;
or those who by timely concession to the
wishes of the people would avert so dreadful
a calamity ? The real Revolutionists are
the men who would eternise anarchy, not
those who would allay it. In a word, the real
Revolutionists are the Boroughmongers, and it is
precisely because they are so, that we array our-
selves unequivocally against them. As well-wishers
to our country, as advocates for the preservation
of our social institutions, for the amelioration of
the lower, and the just representative influence
of the middle classes, we are warm friends to
Reform. Were we lovers of anarchy and revo-
lution we should as warmly oppose it.
Who, or what is it that has occasioned this
universal clamour for Reform ? Who are the
men, what the measures, that have made it a
matter of such pressing necessity ? The
answer is soon given. It is the Boroughmongers
and their system. That party and that system
which have drawn a • line of demarcation
between those interests which should have been
inseparable,—wllich have oppressed the many
for the benefit of the few—and which, like rapa-.
cious vermin, have for years kept gnawing and
gnawing, and undermining the glorious edifice of
the Constitution, till it absolutely threatens to
tumble about their ears.

In this tottering condition of a fabric wbich
once was perfect in all its parts, and firm
in its foundation, the Reformers step for-
ward. Like good workmen, they see at once
the exigencies of the case : they see that
the pillars are shaken ; that the timbers
have got the dry rot ; that some parts of the
edifice must be rebuilt, and some remodelled.
Seeing this, they set boldly to work. But the
rats cry out that they arc expelled ! The owls
say that they are unjustly driven from their
roosts ! True : but is time temple to be
suffered to go to decay, in order that rats
and. owls may still linger among the ruins?
What -business had such vermin there ?

Adopting the opinion of CICERO, Sir R. PEEL
stated that, in order to form a perfect Constitu-
tion, it was necessary that it should consist of
three fairly balanced parts—KlNG, Lords, and
Commons. We cordially agree with the Right
Hon. Baronet, and for this very reason claim
his support as a reformer. It is absurd to say
that in the Constitution, as it at present exists, the
Commons,—that is, or should be, the people,—
have their legitimate influence. An aristocratic
oligarchy governs every thing. This is the first,
this the second, this the third estate in the
realm, and it is the main object of Lord *l.