The Sun.
London, England, 1831-12-19 00:00:00

,NDON DURING I.

What will our Tory friends say now to re-action within doori
Out of doorsit has long since been given rip. But hoWr had the
House of Cornrdons delivered itself ? It has read the RefOrrri
Bill a second time by a majority of exactly two to one, and in a
House of 542 Merithers. This majority is greater by abOve 54
Votes than that which passed the Bill and sent it to the House
of Lords lest session. It exceedi by 26 votes the majdriti of
last session for the second reading. It equals the Whole amount
of the Minority of Saturday night. The numbers being as fol.
loo's :—) - 4
For the second reading • " 324
Against
Majorit; - ' ' — —•-162162
Adding the four;tellers, the total number dt lileinfrets present
was 490 ; which, with 52 who paired off on both sides, W ill gi,'e
us the sentiments of 542 Members of the House of Commons—
not quite, though not far below, the highest number of the last
session. This hi: a great service rendered to the country—an
inestimable soured Of eneeurigenient, tranquiliiiyi rmd comfort.
This vote, declararry of-the unimpaired solicitude of the if dust
of Commons to *cure a' mighty act of justice for the people,
will enhance th 'l,ighout, Great, Britain tlio spirit Of cheer:.
fulness proper : the season for the celebration of which
the labours of P i irt are now suspended, and the represen-
tatives of the natlinviiioerseil to their several homes. May those
among them wildhive hOgiVrabli fulfilled their trust be hailed by
their constituents with becoming applause and gratitude ! After
such a division, it is clear that Reform can no longer be with-
held. It is clear, we say, that when so powerful a majority is
backed by such unanimous determination as confessedly inspires
the whole people of England, there is nothing to resist the for-
midable confederacy but some exertion of physical force.
Whence, then, is such an enemy to be dreaded, or by whom
employed? It is a chimera! Yet there are those WhO think
not so. There are men struck with total blindness, or those by
whose imperfect vision nothing save monstrous or unreal objects
are perceptible. In looking over the list of Saturday night's
division, we observe small symptoms of amendment on the part
of the Tory aristocracy. Sir George Warrender's is the
only name which cannot be found in lists of former ma-
jorities,—the aggregate of this majority exceeding the
minority in a greater degree than on former occasions,
because of the diminished attendance of the opposition ranks.
But, coming to individuals, Lord Clive and his brother were
absent,—intentionally, as is supposed, that they might avoid
the division. The Duke of Northumberland's Members, Lord
Chandos, Mr. Wortley (Lord Wharncliffe's son), and Mr.
Granville Ryder (Lord Harrowby's), voted in the minority ; so
that it may be fairly presumed that these Noble Lords, who
have been so recently professing their conversion to the main
principles of the Bill, have relapsed into their ancient invete-
racy against Reform. Sir Robert Peel's' language was also
conclusive as to his uncompromising obstinacy. The question
comes, therefore, not " what will the Lords do ?"—that, we
fear, is too plain—and the nation must in that quarter be pre-
pared for the worst. The question is, will King and Ministers
do their duty ? We do not meanfinally, for that will be of
course, but promptly, without hesitation. Will they
prove at once their sincerity, energy, and wisdom ? There
is but one course,—let the truth be proclaimed throughout
the empire,—there is no other course but a creation of
Peers—a bold and powerful creation of liberal Peers
or Great Britain, before the summer returns, will be one
scene of blood and terror. If Ministers, so supported,
as they are now supported, by the people and the HoUse
of Commons, and by a regard to their own fame and honour;=
if they were not to press emphatically and solemnly upon their
Sovereign the extreme necessity of the case which has actually
arisen, and the paramount importance of an immediate exer-
cise of the prerogative,—it follows that they are a set of men,
whom it would be labour thrown away for press, or Parlia-
ment, or the British nation to befriend,—that they would do
nothing effectual for the country, which has done so much for
them,—nothing to satisfy, nothing to secure it, nothing to ar-
rest; but, speaking negatively, all on their part that could
• produce a state of anarchy and ruin. Will this happen ? We
fear it not. Lord Grey just touches the goal, and attains an
- eminence to which no preceding Minister dared aspire. It is
physically and morally impossible that he should fail now, at
the very threshold of the temple. Mr. Lambert, Member for
. the county of Galway, declared that he would mark, by his
• absence from the division, his disapproval of the principles on
which Ireland was governed.—Timcs.

The language of the Tories in the House of Commons has
undergone a marvellous change. There is no longer the
triumphant air and tone of Sir Robert Peel, congratulating him.
self and the country on the vast improvements which the stub-
born resistance given by himself and followers to the last Re-
form Bill has enabled or compelled the King's Ministers to in-
troduce into the present one ; that dangerous ground is now
abandoned, as tending to weaken the opposition to the new
measure, and thus to commit the common blunder of witty
people—viz. that of sacrificing one's friends for a joke. No ;
in the same way as the once favourite cry of " reaction," has
given place, though rather comically, to that of " increased de.
lusion on the part of the people," the charge against Minis-
ters of 0 haring adopted valuable amendments" from the op-
position, has been soured into that of having brought forward
a Bill "even more democratic" than the last, and such "as
would not enable even the least hostile Anti-Reformer to re-
turn his sword into the scabbard." Such is the account given
of this Bill by Lord Porchester, an able and vigorous opponent
of Reform, who, therefore, throws upon Sir Robert Peel
the task of justifying his own self-glorifications on the
essential difference between the two measures, not
merely by his arguments, but his vote in support of Ministers.
It is exceedingly odd that clever men should not be ashamed of
uttering seriously before the world absurdities which, in private
conversation, would be given up as too flat and stupid to be
listened to. Here is Lord Porchester asserting that the Reform
Bill will separate power from property, and thus destroy the
State. Now is this not a little too bad when addressed to an
assembly which contains two Members for Old Sarum, and not
one for any or all of twenty great commercial towns in Eng-
land, whose capitalists possess among them three-score millions
of money at the very least? Does it not seem passing strange
that the present measure, whose sole object is to restore to pro.
pertY the power which fraud or force had succeeded in
wresting from it, should be accused of effecting their separation ?
If the rights of property be looked at honestly by men wish-
ing to form just opinions, will they not admit (supposing
property to be the constitutional basis of English power)
that men should, ceteris paribus, have power in some-
thing like the ratio of their property ? Yet could we name
peers of enormous wealth, who from the caprice with
which representative and elective privileges are now dis-
tributed, cannot sensibly influence the return of a single
Member to Parliament, while others, without a tithe of their
rental, can nominate half a dozen. The possession of boroughs
by mere adventurers have been well described as one of the
characteristics of the present system, and is felt to be among
the most burdensome and offensive of the grievances which call
for redress. What connexion is here between property and
power, except in so far as the power of nominating representa-
tives leads directly to a transfer of the national property into
the hands of one who enters Parliament for no other end than
plunder ? The notoriety of facts cannot be contended against
by the Anti-Reformers, any more than the nature of things.
The war by which we are threatened is not, as alleged by Lord
Porchester, one between " property and numbers," resulting
from the Bill—but between right and usurpation, if the Bill be
refused; and in that case those who take part in the usurpation
will find themselves engaged in an unequal contest with property
as well as numbers. The Lords who persist in their enmity to
Reform may discover ere long that they have sacrificed or en-
dangered the lawful interests of the Peerage, for the sake of
enabling a small portion of it to oppress and rob the nation with
impunity. As for the reproach made against the framers
of the Bill, that they have served the commercial interest at
the expence of the landed, it seems to have been dictated by the
same blindness as misconceived the bearing of the measure upon
the rights of property in general. In lieu of the borough
Members, who might be merchants, manufacturers, attornies,—
any or every sort of speculator, who could raise 4,0001. for a
seat, that he might sell the vote it gave him for a profit of 500
per cent.,—the counties have received an addition of near 70
Members, all to be returned by the proprietors of land, while of
the remaining 72 there are at least five-and-twenty, that from
the new construction of the elective franchise for the smaller
towns and boroughs, must derive their seats from a preponderancy
of constituents belonging to the landed interest; and of the 13
new Members for Scotland and Ireland, more than half will be
similarly elected. If even we were obliged to state an objection
against the nature of the elective qualification throughout the
whole kingdom, we should be apt to say that it was too exclu-
sively under the controul of the landed proprietary, being almost
all based upon the occupancy or enjoyment of certain portions
of the soil, or of houses which go with the soil.—Times.

The majority yesterday morning in favour of the second
reading of the Reform Bill was 324 to 162, exactly two to one.
This great increase looks well. It is quite evident, from the
tone of those who continue to oppose the Bill, that they believe
it must soon become the law of the land. Mr. Croker's speech
was clever. The Right Hon. Gentleman has much talent and
more ill-nature ; and if giving pain to opponents were the great
object of public speaking, he would carry away the palm from
most competitors. But he is deficient in the power of per-
suasion. The speech of Friday night, the best he ever de-
livered, failed to show how Reform could possibly be refused
with any hopes of success. He showed what happened to
Charles I. and to Charles X. ; but he did not show how either
of these Monarchs could have been successfuL Mr. Croker,
too, has :one great defect as a speaker—he never throws his
hearers offtheir guard, they never for one moment imagine
him in earnest, and is
playing constantly under a suspicion that he s
playing some trick with them. Sir Robert Peel's speech was
rather a defence of his own political life, than an argument
against the Bill. He gave the Cabinet history of the Catholic
Emancipation Act, and allowed us to see that, but for him,
the Bishops and George the Fourth would have been successful