The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-13 00:00:00

w:11 B:!ize every opportunity not only of opposing every
(dame of the Bill, but of retarding its progress. The ma•
ioriti of I,st night ought to teleh them, if, like a clas.,
,vbieh shall be nameless, they are capable of being taught,
I)atSstiell opposition is fruitless, and that if tbey persist
n it, it may not be wholly unaecompanied with danger.
After ti-e case of Appleby had been disposed of, successiv2
unendments were moved (for the words of which we re-

er to our Parliamentary report) for the purpose of pre •
verving the House from going into a Commilee on the
Reform Bill, hut the same result ensued—the Ministers
riumpl.ed in every instance, and left ti their opponents
the fame 4.f a factious opposition only. Such be the fate
~f every petty and underhand trick to defeat a Bill, or
delay its progress, which the King and people of England
may he said to have already passed !—Morn. Advertiser ;

The abore was written at an hour in the morning
when it could scarcely have been expected that the House

would have continued to sit during another five minutes;

but up to this moment, seven o'clock, although division
has followed division, and on every division the Anti-Re.

formers bare been dead beaten in point of numbers, there

is no relax ition of their fictions opposition—no symptom

th it they have any regard either to the dignity of the Par-

liament, or to the peace and prosperity of the country.
Their aim and object seem to be to Weary out the repre-
sentatives of the people, by the most disgusting opposition
that was ever witnessed in an English !louse of Commons ;
and, thatl God, they have now carried it so far, that,
instead of injuring, it cannot but benefit the cause of Re_
form. Their narrow spirit—their hatred of the people—
are now thoroughly known ; and it will not be the fault of
the Press if the names of all those who took part in this
degrading struggle he not made thoroug,hly known to the
public. Instead of endeavouring to avert the revolution,
which they pretend to dread, they are, by their conduct,
scattering far and wide those seeds of dissatisfaction which,
if they persist in such foolish conduct, eann,t fail speedily
to ripen into it—they are endiavouring to goad the people
into a madness, of which themselves would be the first
vie t ms. —Morning Adrertieer.

In speaking of the possibility of the Reform Bill king
thrown out by the Ilotm of Peers, we have alluded more

than once to the equal possibility of its becoming a ques-
tion with the public whether the House of Peers has any
right to append to it the seal of its approbation or disap-
Probition, and. we have given it as our op;nion, that what-
ever right it might have in law, by sufferance, or prescrip-
tion, it has none on a common-sense view of the subject.
The point at issue being a Reform in the representation of

the people—the two Houses of Parliament being tilde-
pendent of one another—and the law of the land deelarimr,

besides, that it is a misdemeanour in any Peer to influence,

directly or indirectly, the election of a Member of Par-

liament—the conclusion seems inevitable, that the Peers
can have nothing to do either with the pawing or the re-
jection of any Bill, which the House of Commons may
choose to pass for its own purification, and the better re-
presentation of the wishes and interests of the people.
But whatever may be the common•sense view of the sub-
ject, a correspondent, with whose favours we have been
frequently obliged, and whose letter will be found in
another column, has mooted the legal right of the
Peers on the subject, and made out, we think, rather
a strong case against them. We have no desire, however,
to provoke discussion upon the point, cud for the plain
reason, that while we should consider as an evil to the
couutry the carrying of the Bill in spite of the Peers, we
are confidently of opinion that there will be no necessity
for the adoption of such severe practice, and that the
Bill will pass the Upper, as it will assuredly pass the
Lower House of Parliament, though unquestionably with

a smaller majority. We refer our readers at once, there-
fore, to cur correspondent's letter, reserving to ouiselvi s
simply the privilege of remarking, that with regard to
the conduct of Mr. Hunt, whose name i• mentioned in
the latter part of it, there is no portion of it respecting
the Reform Bill of which the friends of Reform ran ap-
prove. Its "mysterious" character, and, we might add,
its inconsistency with that exhibited by him on the first
introduction of the Reform Bill, is no recommendation to
u', and ought to be none either to his constituents or to
the people of England,—Morning Advertiser.
In the House of Commons last night, on the motion
for going into Committee on the Reform Bill, Lord Mait-
land moved that the borough of Appleby should be heard
by Counsel at the Bar, and the course taken by Ministers
on this occasion sufficiently exemplifies their sense cf
justice and the impartiality of their proceedings. The
case of this borough is strictly this. In 1811 the popu-
lation returns-for that town included, as they ought, two
parishes, namely, Appleby St. Lawrence, and St.
Michael's, alias Bougate. In the latter are situated the
town-hall and the gaol, and nearly one-half of the bur-
gage tenements, which now confer the right of voting for
that place ; and the population of the two together even
then exceeded 2,000. In 1821, by some inadvertence,
not Ministerial, Appleby is stated as consisting only
of the former parish, in which theme are not above
1,300 inhabitants. The Cabinet, consistent in their
search after error, eagerly availed themselves of this
excuse, and inserted Appleby in schedule A. Re-
monstrances were vainly urged against this Act,
unjust even according to their own principles, but they
declined to proceed as with Buckingham, Truro, and other
places, and to assign to Appleby its proper situation.
Lord Maitland, therefore, was compelled to bring the
question before Parliament, and moved that his consti-
tuents should be heard by Counsel in order to substantiate
their case. To this Lord John Russell objecteJ, for no
reason at all—the Attorney-General, because he approved
of arbitrary measures, and thought an appeal to numbers
much easier than anappeal to reason—Mr. Wood, because
Wareham, which he represents, is nearly in the same si-
tuation as Appleby; and as he intends to urge its omis.
sion from schedule B altogether (he must succeed, as he is
son-in-law to Lord Grey), he thought the House could only
expect the Government to make one concession to reason
and justice, and therefore he preferred Wareham to Ap•
pleby. As for Lord Althorp, we really cannot pretend to
understand his speech or to explain his reasons. We
suppose they were conclusive to bins ; we doubt whether
any one of his 284 friends who voted with him could pos.
sibly comprehend them. The replies of Sir R. Peel, rife.
Wynn, Sir Charles Wetherell, and Mr. Croker, were
indeed most complete ; and our readers may judge of
their effect when they see the great diminution, no less
than thirty-nine, which took place in the majority of
Government. This is indeed but an earnest of what w 1 1
follow ; and we are certain that the far-famed 136 will
shortly dwindle down into a much more humble number.
The course of the Government last night merits particular
observation. They admitted that Appleby had made out
a case precisely similar to that of Buckingham, where
they did rectify an error; but their third edition of the
Bill is, they say, perfect, and they will alter no more.
They admitted that this is a most sweeping measure of
confiscation, but they denied that it is a Bill of Pains
and Penalties • they admitted that all their informa-
tion is grossly incorrect, but they declined seeking
for more, lest some light should be thrown upon
their proceedings, and some justice should, even acci-
dentally, emanate from their wilfully erring conduct. As
to rights of individuals, they ought never, they say, for
an instant to be considered ; and none can be held to be
vested rights save their own claims to the petty emolu-
ments of office, and to the eternal possession of the
Treasury Beach. This language and this conduct may for
a while succeed, but if experience could have any effect .
upon Whigs, they might have learnt from the history of
past ages that deceit, falsehood, and treachery soon meet
with their recompense, not only morally, in the execration
of mankind, but temporally, in what Whigs value infi-
nitely more, diminution of power and pecuniary loss.
With these remarks we will conclude our observations on
this division, only repeating our firm conviction that it is
but the prelude to many and more successful combats.—
Morning Post.

The extraordinary scene that was acted in the House of
Commons from two o'clock till seven this morning ! demands
from us even at this hour a few explanatory observations.
After the question respecting Appleby had been disposed
of by the sheer numerical strength of the Ministry, and one
or two Members had spoken to the motion for going into
Committee, as unequivocal and fixed determination was
evinced by the Ministers4nd their adherents to prevent all
further discussion by dint of noise and clamorous inter-
ruation. Under these circumstances, the opposition pro-
prsed the obvious alternative, either that the debate should
be allowed to proceed regularly, or that it should be ad-
journed to the nc:si sitting. To neither of the proposi-
tions would the Ministry, relying on their numbers,
accede ; and the minority were thus driven to the only re-
source which remains to a reasonable minority against a
tyrannical majority. No less than seven adjournments
were moved in succession, and, lretween each, discussions
arose in which the injustice and violent conduct of the
majority and the reason that supported the minority were
clearly demonstrated. The minority, small as it was, it
was quite evident could not yield ; hut at seven o'clock a
species of compromise was agreed to, by which the Speaker
then left the Chair pro forma, on the understanding that