The Sun.
London, England, 1836-01-23 00:00:00

vagant may be a man's opinions, by how few' soever
of his countrymen they may be shared, and no matter
how numerous those whose interests the propageion
of such sentiments may menace, yet at all times, uin!er
all cliscouragements, every Englishman dares to speak
what he thinks, and he does it unmolested by the
majority from whom he differs. l-; ere law and
habitual tolerance of opposition assist a.nd reinforce
each other. Is that so in every case where democracy
is established, or where its name and prufessions
are usurped ? In the United States the ruling;
power is a broad and unmitigated democracy ; and
what then ? How fares liberty., of act, of speech,
of writing in that Commonwealth ? It exists fur the
majority, but for that alone. Those who think with
the minority must mute, or often times. they are
murdered. .Tocquevillc tells us that there never existed
on the face of God's earth a more ruthless tyrant than
the many-headed Sovereign of North America, nor a
more terrible scourge of persecution than is inflicted
by- that tyrant on those who dare, by word or deed, to
combat' his arbitrary pleasure. Lynch law, under the
real democ -acy of North America, is akin to TVP Hal e
and O'Connell law, under the hypocritical and lying
sham democracy of Ireland ; it is the law of the pike,
the rope, the knife, ana the faggot. We are mistaken
if in both parts of the still United Kingdom, these
manly defences of life and property—Conservative As-
sociations—do not rapidly spread, until they embrace
the whole moral force of a reflecting and high-prin-
cipled nation.—Times.

It seems now pretty evident that the Corporation of
• London wants the requisite virtue and energy to un-
dertake with sincerity and earnestness the work of its
own reform. Nearly two years have now elapsed since
the Common Council first took, or affected to take,
the matter in hand, and it does not appear that, since
March 1834, up to the present time, the work of re-
form . has advanced a single step. Government is,
therefore, furnished with a very plausible pretext for
taking the reform of the Mctropclitan Corporation
into its own hands, and cutting and orving the mu-
nicipal leviathan after its own taste and fashion.
Tame and insipid, indeed, was the debate in the Com-
mon Council on the subject of civic reform, com-
pared with the importance of the question and the
magnitude of the. interests at stake. There was a title
when the Common Council contained a few men, at
least, who knew the value of the privileges, in a public
and constitutional point of view, which they were ap-
pointed to guard, and who were not afraid to express a
wholesome jealousy of any encroaching interference on
the part of the Ministers of the Crown, be those MiniS-
ters of this Or that political party. The political inde-
pendence of the Corporation of London has concerned,
and • ought to concern, the whole empire. In that
Corporation is seen an epitome of the Constitution
itseLf. Like the Constitution it has fallen by time
defe,-ts that ought to be repaired, and into abuses
that ought to be reformed ; but it would not be for the
public that the principle of the old
advantage of the
Saxon popular Gov-,-.rnment, upon which it was mo-
delled, should be destro' ved, and the Corporation which
• braved tyranny in the wor,--t of times in the high places
of the land, be converted into' a species of subordinate
Government Board eastward of Temple-bar. In con-
sequence of the invasion of the cdarter of the city of
London in the licentious and arNtrary reign of
Charles 11., and the renewed attempts upon the inde-
pendence of the Corporation by the Papal bigot James
11., to which we alluded the other day, an Act was
passed soon after the Revolution of 1688, to guarantee
the corporate rights and privileges of the citizens of
London in perpetuity. The Statute, which was passed
in the second year of William and Mary, enacts that
the franchises of the city of London shall never be
forfeited again for any cause whatsoever. If the mem-
bers of the Corporation value 'those franchises as their
ancestors did, and if they would wish to be con-
sidered as trustworthy guardians, as their ancestors
were, of valuable popular privileges, why have they so
shrunk from the necessary work of reforming the abuses
into which the Corporation has fallen that they invite,
as it were, the Executive Government to take the work
upon itself, and remodel the Corporation in a manner
the most satisfactory to a Minister of the Crown, and
most inconsistent. with the principles and objects of its
original institution ? By the adoption of the motion of
Mr. Pritchard in the Common Council the other day,
the whole matter seems indeed to be abandoned into the
hands of Government, and the Corporation that
used to talk so highly of its Tighto and. franchises, yields
them without a struggle, because a Whig Ministry call
for the surrender. For our own part we discuss the
question upon principle, and upon the same princi-
ple we would have contended against such a sur-
render being- made to a Tory -Ministry, for both
Tory and Whiz Administrations have been but too
prone to strengthen their own power, whenever op-
portunities offered, by destroying the independence of
our ancient poptilar institutions. Even now the servile
Journals of the Ministry- are exulting; in the notion that
the Municipal Reform Bill has been it complete delu-
sion upon the public—that its great objecr was not to
purify the Corporations of their acknowledged abuses,
but to convert them into State machinery for vorking
the Parliamentary elections in a manner favourable to
the establishment of a Whig oligarchy, .thereby
teractina tire -professed object of Lord Grey's Reform
Bill, which was to secure complete independence and
purity of election to the people. In making his mo-
tion for referring the matter to a Committee of the
whole Court, Mr. Pritchard certainly made a great
mistake in supposing that he could, either in lbw or
fact, identify the Committee of the whole Court of the
present year with that of the defunct, Common Coun:a
of 1834 ; but we perceive from the report that, upon
a suggestion from the Lord Mayor, he subsequently
altered his motion so as to leave out all reference
to the former Court of Common Council. It is un-
necessary, therefore, to say anything more on that;
point, but we observe. that he alluded to the report
of the Commissioners of Municipal Inquiry being
nearly ready, and folloWed' that up by saying that
"as a measure based upon it would be • introduced
into Parliament, it became necessary to appoint per-
sons to negotiate with the Government upon a ques-
,tion of such vital importance." The fact is, we be-
lieve, that, . although the 'Commissioners have not
vet made their report, the -Ministerial Bill for the re-
modelling of the London Corporation is already drawn
--and we further believe that. nothing that was said or
done in the Common Council on Thursday last, will have
any effect in Causing Government to forego its inten-
tion, or to make any essential alteration in the provi-
sions of its Bill. We have given some information to
the public concerning the pecuniary jobbing by Com-
mittees of the Connnon Council, which, we stated at
the time,4-wc had reason to suppose would not appear
in the forthcoming report of Commissioners. We
trust those Commissioners will linW inquire into those

matters from the sources of information which we
pointed out, or else that report will have more.the ap-
pearance of concealing abuses than disclosing -them ;
but abuses must be known that they may he reme-
died. Severely did Mr. Stevens characterise the peculiar
patriotism of the Common Council when he stated that
" the right way of getting together large numbers was
not adopted. If a 500/. enterthinment in the naviga-
tion barge had been likely to result, there would have
been up small muster." Well might, Sir Peter Laurie
exclaim that lie " was somewhat sur3rised at the ad-
mission of Mr. Stevens that a feed to the amount of
500/., would accomplish what the sense of duty could
not by any means induce the patriotic members of the
Common Council to do. What! the members of
that Court not act without pay ? " This cut of Mr.
Stevens' against the self-denying virtues of civic pa-
r
trion was, indeed, " the unkindest, cut (A all." It
showed that a well-provisioned navigation-barge was. in
their eves a far more animating stimuluste othertoexe u
clay,
than a disinterested regard for the public interests !
The bill of particulars, which. we nave h
as to thf, 7,oi)t /. annually divided for dinners, at-
tmilancsx.ac., was not. alluded.,:t.o.-''..That suni might
f
Flo a good deal ii:atikleifwiatywoepre otilllllyieto save thatiniproVeient
the metropolis, n sum
for useful public purposes a reforM of the London Cor-
poration would be worth the labour.—Mort. Herald.
From the several articles of interesting intelligence
relating to the present state of Ireland, which we
have inserted iii another part of our paper of this day,
it will be seen that even in that country the law seems
likely to prove too strong, for its confederated enemies,