The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-15 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Conservative Association of the City of Lon-
don had a grand dinner on Wednesday in Covent-
garden Theatre. It would seem that the absence of
the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel did not
prove altogether satisfactory to the managers of this
drama, for the Chairman, Mr. Henry Hoare, took care
to intimate that " they were not met to celebrate the
principles of any one man, or any particular set of
men—not even the Conqueror of Waterloo, or the
great Conservative Leader of the present day."
(Who is the great Conservative Leader if the Duke
of Wellington is not ?) Sir Robert Peel was attend-
ing his duty in Parliament, which afforded him a
decent excuse for not exhibiting himself as a fellow
performer with the Rev. Mortimer O'Sullivan, who,
no doubt, spoke more to the taste of the generality of
the audience. The Chairman boldly committed the
Association to a partnership with the Orangemen.
Though the Conservative Association was not exactly
the same Society, yet what was proved against the one
was no less proved against the other. Sir Robert
Peel no doubt anticipated some such awkward declara-
tion as this, and knowing as he does the narrow escape
of some of the leading Orangemen, against whom there
was but too much proof of their having been privy to
the designs broached by Colonel Fairman, he may well
congratulate himself on his prudence in avoiding all
participation hi the responsibility of the declaration.
The Chairman, who plunged into all subjects, though
in treating them his zeal not unfrequently outran his
discretion, adverted to the opinions lately broached
with respect to the House of Lords. The worthy
gentleman was not a little perplexed to discover a
reason for preferring. the Peers to the Commons. If
it were necessary to destroy one of the Houses, he
should say, " Perish the House of that irresponsible
tyrant the people r —that is, the House which is re-
sponsible to the people. It might naturally be inferred
from this that ht preferred the House of Lords,
the
because it is not responsible to the people. But
he said,
worthy gentleman hates the Commons be-
cause they are responsible, and. loves the Peers because
they are not irresponsible. "The Peers of England,"
anthey met
in public, debated in
public, and their character, opi-
nions," were not an irresponsible body ;
d conduct were public property." It would
require the subtlety of one of the old schoolmen to

state the precise difference between responsible and
not irresponsible; but we must do the Chairman the
justice to suppose that there was a better reason for
his preference of the House of Lords than he hap-
pened to express. The responsibility of the Commons
is like the responsibility of a debtor, who, if he do not
pay his creditor, must suffer execution against his
person or (mods—and the responsibility of the Lords is
like that of a privileged debtor, who may pay if he
chooses, but cannot be compelled, and is therefore re-
sponsible only to himself. And the Duke of Beaufort,
taking up the allusion to a collision between the two
Houses, observed that "if the House of Lords were
to be deterred by the threat of that collision from
doing what they considered not for the good of
the nation and the welfare of the country, let
that collision come as soon as it would, they would
stand manfully forward and do their duty." Aid, no
doubt, his Grace of Beaufort thinks there is great man-
liness in rejecting measures considered by the nation
conducive to its welfare, and sanctioned by the appro-
bation of a majority of the House of Commons, merely
to show that they have the power of rejecting such
measures, and are not afraid of a collision. We would
entreat the Noble Duke, and those who share this
puerile dread of not appearing sufficiently independent,
to adopt a wiser and really more manly policy. What
if the people were irritated at the course pursued by
the Peers last year, and .in their despair of the two
Houses acting harmoniously together began to inquire
into the utility of the Peers ? To avoid doing that
which is just and proper, because it may have been
demanded in language not the most courteous and con-
ciliating, is not displaying true greatness of mind and real
independence, but weakness. Artful men, who wish to
practise on persons of slender understanding, and gain
them to their purposes, aware that it is characteristic
of such persons to dread of all things least they
should be thought to have no will of their own, gene-
rally propose to them to do the reverse of what they
wish, when to evince their independence they fall into
the snare prepared for them. A man of a strong mind
looks steadily at every question, and his decision is
not govefted by such extrinsic considerations as the
fear of what may be thought of him, if he do what has
been demanded in a manner displeasing to him. The
Peers may see that there is really, at present, no dis-
position in the country to embark in extensive organic
reforms. The people are prosperous and wish to make
the most of the blessings within their reach. Above
all things, they are unwilling to hazard the continuance
of the good they enjoy by unnecessary agitation—and
they would therefore be content with such practical
ameliorations in our institutions as circumstonces de-
mand. The surest way to keep the people in this
temper, is cautiously to avoid all such extreme
courses, as the injudicious advisers of the Peers
incline to recommend to them, merely to prove that
they are not afraid of collision. For the sake of the
nation, as well as for their own sakes, we implore the
Peers to lend a deaf ear to such treacherous counsel.
It is for their interest not to force on the people the
reflection that they do nor sympathise with them. The
power which, in our times, is not founded on public
opinion, is like a house which has its foundation on
sand. It is a dangerous speculation to endeavour to
ascertain the measure of the patience of a people.
Nothing is more certain than that every occasion fur-
nished to the people of dissatisfaction with the con-
duct of the Peers, diminishes their reverence for that
branch of the Legislature ; and that which no man
may dream of now, may, by means of repeated discus-
sions, become familiar to the public mind. We there-
fore, once more, wish to impress on the Lords to be-
ware of extreme courses, and above all to beware of
the folly of deciding against the wishes of the nation
merely to display their independence.—Morning
Chronicle.

If report is to be credited, that part of the speech of
the Duke of Beaufort, at the dinner in Covent-garden
Theatre, on Wednesday night, in which he alluded to
the probality of a collision between the two Houses,
had reference to a foregone conclusion on the part of
the Tory faction, to throw out or destroy the liberal
measures which have now found their way to the
Upper House. It seems their Lordships arc bent on
enacting the part of " Destructives." The Irish Bills
are condemned, and in due time the public will be
made acquainted with the sentence. In the mean
time their Lordships are not idle. Last night the
English Corporation Amendment Bill, instead of being
publicly and honestly discussed by their Lordships in
Committee, was sent to 66 a Committee up stairs,"
on the motion of Lord Lyndhurst, a select junto
of Noble Undertakers having been nominated by
that most patriotic Peer. We do not doubt that
their Lordships will make short work of this, and
of every other popular measure they can lay their
destructive hands on. They would fain undo the
Corporation Act itself, but this is a feat above their
power. The Times of yesterday, the treacherous or-
gan of the Conservatives, prominently inserted a Lynd-
Imrst-D'lsraeli epistle under the signature of .66 A
Constitutionalist," in which the Tories are told that
" the least the Conservative party can do for their
friends, is to take the first occasion for remedying the
mistakes in the late Bill, which were partly due to
some want of attention on their part." We do not
doubt that Lord Lyndhurst would gladly, if he could,
remedy the " mistake " of last Session in the con-
cession of Municipal Reform, but it is too late. The
Tory Peers may Burke the Corporation Amendment
Act in a Select Committee—they may indeed, pro
tempore, do just what most pleases their fancy ; but
they greatly mistake their own position if they think
that these displays 'of factious designs will in any
way serve them. The collision of the two Houses,
which they seem so anxious to provoke, cannot long
continue, and the Peers are unconsciously placing
themselves, without any necessity, in a critical posi-
tion with regard to the country. They may rest as-
sured that they cannot prevail in the long run against
the Commons and the people. The most reckless
Member of the Upper House, and the most danger-
ous councillor of their Lordships, is unquestionably
Lord Lyndhurst. His consequence is, of course, in-
creased by the difficulties in which lie may contrive to
involve their Lordships. He has nothing to lose, and
as their leader he occupies a space in the eye of the
country. Theirs is the risk, and his the advantage.
To the desperadoes of the party his daring movements
will, of course, be more acceptable than the cautious
tactics of Sir Robert Peel ; but a day of reckoning
will come.—Morning Chronicle.
As we yesterday announced, the motion for the en-
tire abolition 'of flogging in the British army has been
rejected by a majority of 117 in the House of Com-
mons. After the very decided line taken by us in dis-
cussing this question, it is natural that we should say a
few words upon the recent debate—a debate which we
are perfectly convinced has terminated in a manner most
unsatisfactory to the country at large. As we anticipated
on Wednesday, an enemy, powerful from position, and
faithless . from principle, abandoned by its customary
supporters, and begging assistance from its political
opponents, was the effective obstacle to the fulfilment
of the public wishes. When we first took up the
question on military punishments and rewards, we
enumerated some of those members of the Government
whose recorded votes on this question through a
long course of years were falsified by their con-
duct since the Whigs had been in office. Among
others we mentioned Sir Ronald Ferguson, and we
were impudently contradicted by an evening print,
which assured the public that Sir Ronald had been
recently turning his attention to this subject, and that
lie would be found at the day of trial fulfilling the
wishes of his constituents. The day of trial came, and
Sir Ronald Fcrgusson was at his post. The Gallant
Officer is reported to have said, that " he was as hos-
tile as any man to corporal punishment, and had dis-
couraged it to the utmost of his power ; but when
called upon to abolish it altogether, and thus to put
the army in a new position, it was impossible for him
to consent to any such proposition." A Government
organ gives an additional sentence, which, for the in-
formation of the evening print, we subjoin. Sir Ronald
is, then, reported to have said, that " although he
wished to pay every attention to the wishes of his consti-
tuents, yet as a free agent he felt bound to express his
opinion on the subject. He had no hesitation in saying,
that from his experience in the army it was impossible
to do without some system of corporal punishment.
As a flat contradiction had been given to us on a mat-