The Sun.
London, England, 1836-10-03 00:00:00

other. The theory of " balances," " drag chains," and
" moderating power," with all the inflated rhapsodies
so liberally bestowed on the perfection of the British
Constitution, are proved, by facts and experience, to
be nothing more than visionary absurdities ; and the
Lords stand revealed as a mere nuisance in the Com-
monwealth. But to return to the English Reformers.
At Halifax, its representative, Charles Wood, Esq..
Secretary of the Admiralty, and Edward Protheroc,
jun., Esq., a Liberal candidate for its representation,
were entertained at dinner by an assembly of above
twelve hundred of its most respectable and influential
inhabitants. The speeches were unanimous in respect
to the claims of Ireland and the necessity of preparing
for the energetic support of the Government in carry-
ing these claims into effect. The charges against the
Lords also were unequivocally admitted, though diffe-
rences of opinion existed as to the means of rescuing
the country from the evils of their domination ; in
other words, their guilt was too notorious to be denied
—but the only question to be decided is the nature of
the sentence. If those who protest against organic
changes aimed at the abolition of the second Chamber,
they could not more effectually promote that object,
than by opposing Peerage Reform. If the Peers
yield to the Commons in the next Session, the loss of
time—the excitement—the horrors continued to be
committed in Ireland—expose not the futility, but the
evils, of having the representatives of the people
under the control of a second Chamber—and if the
Peers do not yield, their privileges as Legislators are
not worth a day's purchase. Abolition will take place
of Reform—and the opponents of the organic change
will have to thank themselves if the limb should be
amputated in consequence of their refusing a timely re-
medy to its disease.—Morning Advertiser.
There can scarcely be a greater libel upon the good
sense of the great mass of the people of England who
advocated the reform of the House of Commons, than
the attempt which is now made to identify that reform
with the revolutionary schemes of a.violent faction. It
is a fact quite notorious, for it appears in almost all the
leading Parliamentary speeches in favour of the Reform
Bill, that the object of the measure was a restoration of
the Constitution to its original state—to give. back to
the people that share in the appointment of the Legisla-
ture which they formerly had possessed—to make the
House of Commons, in truth and in practice, that which
the theory of the Constitution contemplated as the peo-
ple's House of Parliament. Every man of candour and
honesty must admit that this was the declared object of
the Reform Bill. It was intended solely as a reform of
the House of Commons, and never was looked upon by
the national party, whose strength carried the Bill, as a
revolutionising of the whole Constitution. This was the
objection made to it by its opponents, but its friends al-
ways met that objection with direct denial, because they
knew diet their object was merely to restore the popu-
lar branch of the Legislature, and not to interfere
with the other branches which the Constitution equally
recognised. Is there not then the most abundant
reason for indignation when we behold the organs of
that Radical party, which holds the Ministry in subjec-
tion, now taking up those very arguments with refer-
ence to the Reform Act which they contended against
when they were advanced in opposition to the Reform
Bill ? They now pretend that it is impossible the
Constitution can stand, unless the Reform Act be
given up. They say that there cannot be three inde-
pendent powers in the Constitution, and that, unless
the Aristocratic and the Monarchical branches of the
Legislature give way to the popular branch, the Re-
form Act is a dead letter. if this be true, the argu-
ments of those who opposed the Reform Bill were
good arguments. If this be true, it is also true that
the Reform Bill was a revolutionary measure. But
when that measure was in progress the Radicals, in
common with ourselves, who espoused the cause of the
nation, contended that it was not revolutionary.
What sort of sincerity is this ? How is the nation
to trust a party which alters its views of so great a
measure as the Reform Bill according to the cir-
cumstances of the day ?—which contends at one
time for the Reform of the House of Commons as
the only means of restoring, strengthening, and pre-
serving the Constitution, and contends, at another
time, that unless the balance of the Constitution
be destroyed, and the popular branch be made
paramount, the Reform is nothing ? When the Re-
form Bill was in progress, the national statement
(in which the Radicals concurred) was this—that a
House of Commons not elected by the people was in-
compatible with the political freedom of the people,
and with the share in their own government, which,
according to the principles of the Constitution they
ought to enjoy. But what is now the Radical state-
ment ? It is this—that the independence of any
other branch of the Legislature is incompatible with
the amount of power which the popular branch ought
to enjoy—that the Constitutional theory of three inde-
pendent branches, is nothing better than nonsense, and
that, as there can he but one real bone fide House of
Legislature, it ought to be the House of Commons.
Whether this be true or not, it is, beyond all question,
revolutionary doctrine of the broadest and most signi-
ficant description. It certainly is not the doctrine which
was promulgated by the same party when the Re-
form Bill was in progress, and there can be no sort
of doubt in the mind of any rational, well-informed
man, that if such had been the national view of the
consequences of the Reform Bill at that time, the na-
tion would not have pressed for the measure. The na-
tion, we repeat, did obtain the measure believing it to
be a restoration of the Constitution, and not believing
that a destruction of the Constitution would be re-
quired, in order that its provisions might be carried
into full popular effect. It is then an insult to the
understanding of the people of England to say that
the measure which they contended for as a restoration,
is completely useless, unless followed up by revolution.
But it is the most extravagant and intolerable inso-
lence to go even beyond this, as the violent Radicals
do, by contending that all who will not go the full
lengths of revolution are enemies to the Reform Bill.
The nation proclaimed (the Radicals joining in the
assertion) that the Reform Bill was necessary to avert
a revolution, and now the Radicals have the face to
tell us that if we do not aid them in revolution—if we
do not overthrow every power in the Constitution but
the popular—we are enemies of the Reform
Bill ! Is it possible to imagine greater auda-
city, or more gross breach of faith and consistency ?
The Radicals now say that there cannot be two inde-
pendent Houses of Parliament—that one must give way
to the other—that the Lords must yield to the Com-
mons, or the Reform Act be given up, and the Com-
mons absorbed in the Lords. Need we say that we
utterly reject this doctrine as equally false in fact and
revolutionary in principle. If it were true we are by
no means sure that the nation—if it must have but
one really effective House of Legislature—would choose
to abandon the House of Lords. That view of the
matter was never put to the people by Reformers when
the struggle was made for the Reform Bill. It was
not said to them, " You must have no House of
Lords ;" but it was said " You ought to have your
own independent branch of the Legislature, as the
aristocracy have theirs—this is the principle of the
Constitution, and you ought to contend for it." No-
thing can be more destructive to rational popular li-
berty, than the point which the Radicals are driving
at ; for if the nation be forced to sacrifice one House
Parliament, the popular interests, which are now so
broadly insisted upon in the people's House, would no
longer have such exclusive attention.—Morn. Herald.
The Poor Law Commissioners—as represented by a
certain Mister E. Chadwick, acting in their name and
on their behalf--would seem disposed to treat gentle-
men as those gentlemen would be ashamed to treat any
of the unfortunate poor who might chance to be under
the power of the Commissioners. It appears from the
official correspondence in the Northampton Herald
that the Board of Guardians at Oundle received an in-
timation imposing on them new
duties,
fromunder .
the
ate Chadwick,Act
Registration of Births
for
and Marriages. The Guardians Came to a resolution—
"
of the Act of
this Board
thehaving been appointed for the admi-
nistration ,It and sth of William IV.,
a
cap. 76, they do not think it expedient and right that such
Board should be administrators of the Acts of the 6th and.
7th of William IV., cap. 85 and 86, these Acts have no-
thing to do with the administration of such poor law, or any
connection therewith ; and this Board protest most strongly
against any such powers being vested in and devolved on
them."

It was subsequently resolved to postpone, sine die,