The Sun.
London, England, 1831-05-27 00:00:00

SPIRIT tP t'HE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Comm ons of England having, in reply to
the King's demand to know their sentiments on the
Reform Bill, expressed their opitsiosi in its favour,
fra'n one end of the kinadom to the other, not Sr
tr uch by comparative suffrage as by general acclama-
tion, the next question is, how will the House o'
Lords, in the new Parliaraiere, conduct themselves
in relation to the B ill ? On this subject we do no'
share the anxieties and apprehensions of some Re- •
formers, who fear that the aristocratic branch of thi
Legislature may obstinately oppose the will both of
the King -and the people, and thereby bring spot
the couP.try all the calamities of civil commotion.
We have not, indeed, a high opinion of the talent,
or political sagacity of the Atenateformers of ani
class ; but still we are of opinion that even the
Anti-Reformers of the House of Lords are not sr
deficient in that sort of worldly prudence which is
closely connected with the most homely instinct
of self-interest as to snake them vainly, and without
the shadow of an advantage, place themselves
in the invidious, if not dangerous, situation
of attempting to stem the rushing tide of public
i)pinion, which the momentary stoppage of any ob-
stacle would only make mere impetuous in its
course. It is therefore we cannot indulge in the
gloomy anticipations which the writer of" _Friendly
Advice to the Lords on the Refbrin Bill" seems in-
directly, to predict in the following passage
The opposition of the Lords must be powerleia
for any good purpose, but it yet may be pregnant
with evil. Their continued resistance to the mea-
sure so ardently desired by the people may calls(
convulsion in this now happy land—nay, even civil
war ; and if this unhappily should he the case, it
will be but a poor consolation to those who are fel-
low-sufferers in the anarchy aid confusion that
would be thus produced that t'he immediate authors
of it would be, as is certain to be the case, its first
victims." Now the writer of this pamphlet has, in
anticipating the possibility of a civil war, wholly
overlooked the circumstance, that in no cotintry eat,
there be a civil war but where the people are di-
vided in opinion. The Aristocracy might, indeed,
be able to furnish leaders for the boroughmongers'
army, if they could raise one ; but from among what
class of the people would they drew their forces ?
In the civil wars between the Houses of Lancaster
and York the claims of each faction were pretty well
balanced in point of legal right ; and as on neither
side the struggle was one of principle, but of
mere ambitious aggrandisement, the ignorant
multitude joined the standards of the respec-
tive Chiefs, and mutually butchered each other
for pay and plunder. The other great civil war
--that between Charles I. and the Parliament-
-was a war of principle. The struggle was to decide
whether an arbitrary prerogative, or power restrained
within constitutional limits, was essentially to con-
stitute the future Uovernment of England. The
people were not, at that era, sufficiently well in-
formed to understand clearly the nature of the
quarrel, which in its outset was led, on one side, bv
the Roman virtue of Hampden, and, on the other,
by the generous chivalry of Falkland. They took
either side, as passion, ignorance, the influence of a
name, the feudal ascendancy of a Chief, or more
sordid motives, induced them to enter the ranks of
the " Cavaliers" or the " Round Heads," and carry
through their native land the fire and sword of de-
solating conflict. But where are the two parties of
the people, at the present day, to take opposite
sides of the question of Reform ? Is it meant by
the %leiter that the Aristocracy could, in any event,
array themselves against the whole people ?
Is it to be presumed they could be so in-
fatuated as to think of such a thing under any
circumstances ? It is quite ridiculous, and we must
rescue the character of the House of Lords from
the imputation of such extravagant folly. On the
Catholic question the majority of the House of
Lords considered any concession as destructive of
the Constitution until a Prime Minister expressed
his determination to carry the measure, and them:
the titled supporters of " Church and State," in-
cluding ten Bishops, who had previously expressed
themselves in opposition to the measure in terms that
would make one believe they would rather suffer
:nartyrdom at the stake in Smithfield than agree
to any concession, voted for unqualified emancipa-
tion. After this example of the consistency of the
House of Lords, can we suppose they will long
resist a Prime Minister supported by the King,
and hacked by the whole strength of the people ?
The author of the pamphlet relates an anecdote
which ought to have been a sufficient answer to his
own melancholy apprehensions. He says, " when
Sir Joseph Jekyll died he left his fortune to pay the
national debt." " Sir," said Lord Mansfield to
one of his relations, " Sir Joseph was a good man
and a good lawyer, but his bequest is a very foolish
one ;—he might as well attempt to stop the middle
arch of Blackfriars-bridge with his full-bottomed
wig." We suspect that even the Pitt Club will
hardly think of applying their Chairman's wig to
such a purpose; and therefore the Thames and Re-
form will move on, and the power of the Aristocracy
will have an equal effect in resisting the progress of
both.-111orning Herald.

A meeting was yesterday held in Exeter-hall, in
pursuance of advertisement, to raise funds to relieve
the famine now raging in several districts in Ireland.
The meeting was numerously attended. We wish
we could say that the conduct of most of the
speakers wns calculated to promote the object for
which the meeting was called. In short, the meet-
ing was throughout a scene of uproar and confusion,
and ended in a downright tumult. The chief
speakers at the meeting were Protestant clergymen,
of the Evangelical school. We have no objection
to clergymen or laymen meeting to promote the
success of their particular opinions on religion, or
anything else; but when a meeting is called for
purposes of charity, it shows an utter want of com-
mon sense to enter on religious polemics. Admit-
ting even with the speakers, for the sake of argu-
ment, that Popery is the chief cause of the diseased
social condition of Ireland, the meeting of yesterday
was not called to provide a remedy for that evil, but
to relieve a famine now raging in certain districts of
that country. The remedy for the chronic disease
is one respecting which there may be difference of
opinion ; the relief of famine is a point as to which
all must be agreed. To connect the relief with
objects of proselytising is to dry up many of the
sources of charity ; to say nothing of the cruelty of
offering to the victims of famine a relief which they
conceive themselves purchasing at the expellee of
their salvation. We do not believe that these very
clergymen would act in accordance with the senti-
ments which they uttered, and withhold their loaf
from the dying wretch till he had abjured his creed ;
though we cannot blame Mr. M'Donnell fur de-
claring that " as it had been acknowledged that
the funds then collected were to be employed in
' pioneering' the way to ulterior objects hostile to
Ins creed, and that of the Irish people, he could not feel
justified in sending the money to Ireland through such
a channel;' What a strange fat rago most of these
Rev. Gentlemen uttered. We really could hardly
have believed that
so much stupidity could have
been brought together.
The Rev. Mr. Armstrong,
for instance, wished
"to have the landlords encou-
raged to live at home •
capital into
the British capitalist
induced to take his'
apisttal into Ireland;. and the
introduction of such
ay n
to
of feeling into that
country as should give stability
which
he measures of
Government. The only
these. advan-
tages were to be accomplished was, 'Lb
Irishmen,
a moral influence into the breasts f
the only way in which that influence mcoLunl'danbd
introduced was by the propagation of the Gospel.e
If the original sin was the great curse on mankind,
he could not but look on apostacy as a greater
curse; arid he deemed the Roman Cstholic religion
to be the great apostacy from the truth of God."
Well, then, the English are free from the great
apostacy, but what is the moral influence which
the Protestant religion has had on Englishmen
with reference to Ireland ? Let us hear the Hon.
and Rev Gerard Noel :—" He could not contem-

plate without deep sorrow the history of the con-
iection between Ireland and hi§ own country. Eng-
iishmen ought to hence their heads in shame, when
hey reflected upon the nature of that connection for
centuries. It had been marked by everything the
ipposite of kindness, humanity, and justice on the
tart of England. Rapine, peeeecutioi), am; tyranny
had floored on them from Lngland." Mr. Henry
Drummond, with great good tense, endeavoured to
itop Mr. Armstrong's ravings. "It was far from
tiro to deity the wrongs which Ireland had suffered
from England; it was far from him to deny the in-
,ustice of the C'hureh oi Ireland, which received the
money of the people without being able so much a,
to instruct them in their own language. It was far
(rorn him to offer any epolog:e for the errors of
Popery. But when till; Rev. Gentleman spoke of
moral indeente, surely he must know that they
eould not enact laws to enforce moral influence;
end what they had that day to think of, was a re-
medy for a tangible and pressing evil." We are
,lad to see that the conviction of the necessity of a
Poor Law for Ireland is becoming more and more
rte, Chronicle.
The Article in the Journal des Thbats, to which
we alluded yesterday, has produced a great sensation
in Paris. Our readets will find in our correspondent
0. P. o.'s kttcr some account of the conjectures to
which it has given rise. It had the effect on Change
which so warlike an article; in a newspaper the
organ of the Minietqe and conducted by a Minister,
could her fail to produce ; and M. Casimir
Perier took fright, and was at pains to d'eavow it.
We are not of the number of those who are disposed
to find fault with M. Casimir Perier for proceeding
with great caution, when a general war in Europe
may be the consequence of one inconsiderate step.
So much lies already been gained by detaching the
most powerful and influential of the nations of the
Continent from the European Aristocracy, and so
much more must be gained by the influence and
example of that nation if peace continue, that with.
out a strong ntcessity we should be unwilling to
hazard this good by a general war. M. Casimir
[3( rier has seen the consequences of an interruption
of confidence in the distress of the industrious po-
pulation of France, and he is naturally anxious to
have the people employed and contented. The
prosperity of France will do far more in behalf of
good government in Europe than her arms can do.
With respect to the Italians, they are unquestionably
a very clever people in many respects, and a very
amiable people ; but life has so many attractions for
them, that they would prefer ridding themselves of
their enemies in any way rather than one by which
their own lives might be hazarded. It is tolerably
clear that the worthy men who have endeavoured
to regenerate their countrymen have been but very
partially seconded by the mass of the population.
In short, the Italians are not fond of fighting, and
we may appeal to the desertion of Murat by a more
numerous and better equipped army than that against
which he was marching, the ease with which the
Austrians in the evasion put down the Neapolitans,
end the poor stand which has now been made. The
French could no doubt have given another torn to
affairs, but then this would not have been an Italian
revolution, but a French conquest. Under all the a
circumstances, the French Government might well
hesitate before it committed the resources of the
French people to a struggle, which would have be-
come an European war. If the French Govern-
ment can only secure peace and order at home, a
boundless career will be opened to improvements of
all sorts. The chief evil with which the French
have to struggle is the excessive ignorance of the
people in all but a few provinces. The present Go-
vernment is liberal and enlightened. So far from
discouraging education and improvement, we have
no doubt that it will give every encouragement to
them. The example of all this cannot be lost on
neighbouring States, and the Governors of those
States will be compelled to yield to the example.
But war lets all the bad passions loose, and the
Governments now paralysed by the example of
France, and unable to injure her, would soon
be able to revive forgotten national hatreds,
and to array people against people. No Govern-
ment of the Continent, in the present day, durst
meet its own subjects on so unpopular a ground as
a war against France; arid therefore, if France do
not herself take the initiative, she is perfectly secure.
An anecdote, confidently mentioned in the diplo-
matic circles, will serve to show the public feeling
in one neighbouring nation. When the news of the
taking of Warsaw, which turned out to be false, as
every one knows, reached Berlin, the Russian
Ambassador proposed to illuminate his house. He
was waited on by the head of the Police, who
assured him that he might illuminate; but such was
the feeling at Berlin in favour of the Poles, that if
he did so, the probability was that his house would
be a ruin before next morning. The Ambassador
thought it better to save his house than to illuminate
it at such a risk.—elforning Chronicle.

The elaborate judgment of the Lord Chancellor
in !he ca'e of " King v. Hamlet," having drawn a
good deal of notice to the transactions which had
taken place between the parties, we are bound to
say, with all deference to more than one of our re-
spectable contemporaries, that whatever may be the
demerits of the usury laws (and those laws are cer-
tainly no favourites with us), the peculiar merits of
Messrs. King and Hamlet, as they have yet been
developed in these Chancery proceedings, appear to
have little if any connection with the penal code
alluded to. All the world knows that the usury

laws are evaded every day ; and that the modern
method of evading them, by the substitution of a
deed securing to the lender an enormous annuity
from the borrower, instead of a bond bearing inte-
rest at so much per cent., has long since obtained a
legal sanction from the courts of law and equity.
That the effect of exposing the money-lender to cer-
tain risks must be, in all instances, to entail con-
siderable hardships on the borrower, we do not mean
to deny ; but if men so incapable of tendering any
valid security, that no sane legislator could con-
template the chance of any but a madman supply-
ing them with loans—if such men are to succeed in
becoming debtors—we hardly know how to deal
between them and their equally foolish creditors,
otherwise than by letting incalculable risk and mea-
sureless cupidity adjust themselves as well as they
can each to the other. On the case referred to, the

circumstances of which are again to be brought, and
in a formal way, before the Court, it would be wrong
to say more than can be avoided. It appears, that
Mr. Hamlet received a security—or something pro-
fessing to be a security—from this gentleman, of the
name of King, to the extent of 8,0001., without
having lent him 8,0001. in money—(for that, if we
remember rightly the facts, Mr. Hamlet refused to
do)—but for goods, which Mr. King had not at
first expressed a wish to purchase, but which, on
being refused the amount in money, he took on
credit—that is to say, on his bond and judgment—
and which, though valued by Mr. Hamlet at
8,000/., produced in the market not more than
3,000/. We make no reflection upon this particular
proceeding, but it general one upon the facility
with which credit can be had in England, and in
England only among all the kingdoms of the world,
by non whose sole title to be accommodated is their
utter inability to refund even a part of what
they borrow. The system of paper credit—the
system
of exorbitant annuities for small principal
sums—the frenzy of speculation in the funds—in
merchandise—at the gaming table—all, all are parts
of the same dreadful character vi hich has overgrown
this country—the prodigal and spendthrift character,
more general and more prominent amongst our
countrymen than any other people on the civilized
earth. Even avarice, where it exists, has assumed
the
theform of a peculiar sort of vanity : what was
lie love of wealth, being now an eagerness to
looked up to merely for the possession of it.—
been
created by usury laws,
Such a mania has not be
must be found out for curtraePilierat, scheme
credit, which now encourage toif.heir
' nor will it be cured by
the
efinfitalc ialiiitdi es of
cer-
tain destruction thousandswho might b ; ,
otherwise i,e

taught, and at a less price than that of pleviouF.
ruin, the necessity of adapting a man's expenditure
to his means. The evil, we repeat it, may per-
haps be remedied, but no law for either liberating
or regulating, tha ifiterelt of money will bt: worth
one farthing for the purpose.=----Time.t.

We gave an account the other day of some dis-
turbances which had taken place in the western part
of Scotland, in consequence of the return of repre-
sentatives to Parliament, who, from their political
sentiments and pledges, could only he expected to
represent the f2oll'tiei'.l sense of the oligarchy, and not
the political sense of the people. We regret—we
deplore—and we condemn—the outrages which were
there committed ; but when we recollect that the
whole of the northern part of the kingdom has been,
all along, but one close and rotten borough—that the
people have had no voice in the elections—that they
have been spurned, contemned, and ridden over,
rough-shod, by the oligarchy,—that corporations
and paper freeholders have been every thing, and
the people nothing,—nay, that the latter have been
not only most vilely and grossly insulted, but de-
clared to be indifferent to Reform,—we say that
when we remember theee things, we are more surprised
that the ele•till:tion of vengeance on the part of the
warm-hearted, but rather irascible, northcrns, stop-
ped where it did, than it proceeded so far. They
feel keenly the insult offered to them, and most
clearly have they shewn that those who declared
that they were indifferent to Reform,knew them not.
To-day we give an account of two other elections
in the northern part of the kingdom, which we
have no doubt will be carefully perused, as they in-
deed amply deserve, by our readers. They are
those for Banffshire and Aberdeenshire; and they
furnish a glorious proof of the spirit in favour of
Reform which now animates them. They may be
both set down as close counties; yet, in both, Re-
form candidates have been found, and in both have
they contested, though unsuccessfully, the represen-
tation. A day, however, is close at hand, as one of
the descendants of " the Bruce" stated, when a
very different result may be expected, and when
those who headed the poll in the cases alluded to
will find themselves at the bottom of it.—Morning
Advertiser.

The meeting respecting the poor people of Ire-
land had yesterday a termination which we neither
expected or wished; but we would fain hope that
the indiscretions of individuals will have no effect on
the current of English benevolence. The distress
is great ; and it is not only human, but mere animal
nature which complains of starvation and want. The
people are perishing—the cattle dying—of hunger.
What more can be said in favour of a subscription ?
We pity both—every heart must indeed pity them ;
and we have already received one substantial pledge
of sympathy, which we shall hand over to the Com-
mittee, and which, we trust, will be followed by
many more. At the same time we do hope and
trust that the money subscribed will actually be ap-
plied to the relief of the poor people of Ireland,
and not find its way directly, as it did on it former
occasion, into the pockets of the landlords and mid-
dlemen—savages they must have been—for arrears
of rent and other claims, against which practice we
trust every Englishman will protest in presenting
his mite.—Morning Advertiser.
It is not a little surprising that the conduct of
Austria towards Dtvernicki and his corps should
still be a matter of controversy in the French Jour-
nals and among some of our London cotemporaries.
A clearer case could scarcely have arisen. Whether
Dwernicki retreated its the first instance into the
Austrian dominions, or whether he took up a posi-
tion of which the neutral territory was the main pro-
tection, affects not the question. In the latter case,
which is his own version of the affair, he virtually
violated the neutrality of Austria by converting it
into an ally. Had there, again, been no neutral ter-
ritory at hand, his corps must either have been cut to
pieces, or must have surrendered their arms and been
made prisoners of war. By retreating into Gallicia
he saved his men from death, or from imprisonment.
This advantage has neutral Austria secured to
them ; but could she hare done more without be-
coming an active party in the contest against
Russia ? Was she to protect the Poles when they
were in imminent danger,—when by the admission
of their leader their case was desperate,—to pro-
tect them in possession of their arms, and then
allow them to go forth at the most convenient op-
portunity to renew hostilities ? Would this have
been neutrality ? The Austrian Government is
censured for refusing permission to the Poles to
return to their own country, unless upon a pledge
that they will not act against Russia during the
present war. Nothing can be more equitable. Any
other course would involve Austria as a party.—
Morning Post.