The Sun.
London, England, 1831-03-26 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

The all-important question of Reform,—of full and sa-
tisfactory Reforms—is, we have no 'look, now. completely
settled. The people, the brave English people, have won
it as decidedly as they ever won battles in the field or on
the ocean ; nor can they by any possibility be cheated or
robbed e't' the fruits of their victory. They petitioned,—
they addressedss--they resolved. We proposed these courses
to them, we urged fkse prosecution of them with vigour,
and our advice prevailed to a degree that even we—used
Ai we are to move the noble feelings of our countrymen ire
a just cause, and on subjects of vast moment—could hardly
have conceived, and were almost surprised at our success:
and still the people of England - address—they resolve—
they petition. Though the victory be assured, they will
not rest while there is an enemy in the field. The meet-
ing, of the great commercial interests of the city of Loud, .11
yesterday, at the Mansion-house, under the presidency
of the Lord Mayor, and the resolutions there emborlieC,
are proofs that Englishmen suspend not their open -
tions one moment, while any opposition remains to l e
overcome—any chicane to he defeated. County meet:
ings go on ; parochial meetings go on ; the zeal, in fact,
does not diminish, but increases everywhere, as the people
find themselves more nearly approaching to the end of all
their generous labours, and their grand object more cer-
tainly within their grasp. How is this to be resisted
We answer boldly, by no human means. Let the enentieN
of Reform, then, clone at once with their conquerors, in-
stead of now offering a factious and provoking opposition,
of which no one can calculate the awful consequences ;
and let them thank the victors of the field for the mode-
rate terms which they impose. The question WAR but a
few days ago debated, whether Ministers might resign, or
whether there would be a dissolution of Parliament ?
Ministers resign ! Ministers resign ! Why, if they re-
sign they must have successors. And what man, or body
of men, we ask, salCuld dare to take upon themselves to
form an Administration at this moment of universal ex-
citement, the principle of which Administration should
he, that the people should be disappointed just when they
put the sickle into the harvest of their hopes, and have no
Reform ? What man would dare to take into his hands
the reins of Government, on the express condition that he
should drive the car of State over the necks of the people,
and crush under its wheels the friends of Reform—that
is, the whole British nation—into the earth ? The ides is
preposterous ! Resign now, indeed ! The question of a
dissolution is a more ambiguous one, but it can only be
solved in a manner agreeable to the public wish, and be-
neficial to the great State question. The King, u e
know, is ready to stamp the proposition of a dissolution
with his Royal fiat, on the instant that it is made to
him by his responsible advisers ; and nothing has. more
excited his indignation and contempt, than the false in-
sinuations, that lie was capable of flinching on this
point,—that he was unstable and indecisive. The King
is altogether, with his people, a Reformer. We shall
for a while relieve the intensity of our thoughts, by relat-
ing an amusing little anecdote connected with our princi-
pal reasonings. The occurrence which it describes took
place within the hearing of several persons. The Chancel-
lor was presenting petition after petition to his Majesty,
at the Drawing-room on Thursday last, in favour of
Reform. The duty became almost fatiguing. His Lord-
ship had presented more than thirty such addresses, whets
" I am really ashamed," was he beginning to say, " of
being obliged to trouble your Majesty with so many peti-
tions from this purse (meaning the huge Chancellor's bag,
so called), but"--" My Lord Chancellor," interrupted
the King, smiling, "I will take any tiling from your purs
but the seals." And now, to recur to our main subject—
the dissolution. Some think it should take place imme-
diately ; others, that as certain insidious enemies of Reform
have voted for the main question, in the hope of frustrat-
ing the efficiency of the Bill in the Committee, it would
be as well to suffer these traitors to commit themselves.
with their constituents before they are sent back to face
them again at a new election, 'What matters it ? Every
one is now preparing for a dissolution ; and the people of
England are, as we before stated, of undiminished zeal
and on their guard. They will suffer nowe to appear on
the hustings as a candidate for popular support, without
calling upon them for an express avowal, whether they
will or will not support the present Bill. A personal ex-
amination will in that case afford as satisfactory a test as
positive experience. To the people we again appeal, and
we know we shall not appeal in vain. Be ready for an
approaching dissolution. Watch your enemies ! have your
candidates ready,—men of strict moral worth, as well as
noble and liberal principles : nay, we see our exhortation
is almost superfluous—
Tv‘h,eateehatylot
,tilosttannoablleikliu sgtrreeyt,in yi,n)udrs
" For there is none of you so mean and base,
Straining upon the start : the game's afoot,
ejnesth'e slips,
Follow your spirit ; and upon the charge
Cry God for William, England, and Reform."
It is said that an old servant of Government, and who
represents one of its boroughs, means to apply his private
resources (we cannot say wuch for his personal influence)
to replace himself in his master's seat. Money honestly
obtained, and honourably employed ! How became he
possessed of those resources ? Not from his official salary.
Perhaps by an early knowledge derived from his situation:
—" And thrift is blessing, if men steal it not !" His
father die,' a bankrupt ; and we have heard some painful
stories of a suffering ward ! Would it not be a better apS,
plication of his vaunted wealth,' to snake up those losses—
to repair those breaches—before he employs it for the de-
struction of a rightful inkrest ? Times.

The Duke of Wellington in a by.debate last Thursday
eta a petition in the House of Lords, chose to open a cross
fire against the Reform Bill, by fairly asserting, that the
wish of the majority of the people of England in favour
of this great measure was no sufficient reason for adopting
it. His Grate was never accused of paying touch idolay
trout respect to the opinions of others; but with reference
to one of his Grace's objections to this Reform,—viz., that
it would introduce a totally " different" set of men into
the Administration of public affairs from those who had
hitherto managed them,—we reply, that if there be one
feature of this Bill more valuable than any other, in the
eyes of the English nation, it is the tendency to produce
a very considerable (though by no means a total) change
in the sort of men who fill the higher and more efficient
offices of the Government. The Duke of Wellington
himself, indeed, and many others who might be named,
can have nothing to fear from any Reform which
gives the country a more direct and effective weight
in the recommendation to the Crown of its offi-
cial advisers ; because men of experience and tried
ability, and honesty, will always enjoy, in their se-
veral spheres, a full portion of public confidence—very far
from diminished by their happening to be persons of rank.
But we do acknowledge, that afti r a Parliament shall
have been returned more immediately emanating from the
people, and representing the bias of the public mind, it
will be difficult, if not wholly impossible, for any Premier
thrust into the place of Cabinet Ministert such indivi-
duals, for instance, as Lord Bathurst, Lord Ellenborough,
or Mr. Goulburn, whom the Duke of Wellington had the
misfortune to select for colleagues, and whom the country,
for want of a proper Parliament through which to speak
its disapprobation, was forced to put up with, as the au-
thorized depositories of power, and guardians of its most
essential interests. For this very reason, then, on which
the Duke of Wellington opposes the Bill, we, and the
people of England with us, approve and admire it.— Times.
In the report of the proceedings in the House of Com-
mons last night, we find the following passage in a speech
of Mr. G. Dawson :—" The Bill was absurd, and he was
sorry to see the public press gave speeches from the oppo-
site (Ministerial) side of the House which could not have
any weight or produce any effect, whist, even in such a
paper as the Times, the speech of his Bight lion. Friend
was curtailed. People ought to withhold their eaoti-
dence from such an infamous instrument as the Pre5..,,.;
First, as to the specific charge, we state .their:hi,:
v.
equivocal terms that it is utterly unfounded.

Pros that every Ministerial speech reported in yesterday's
Times is shorter than the speeches of the Members of the
Opposition; and as to the particular speech of Sir Ho.
'nett Peel, it is given at nearly twice the length of
the address of the Lord Advocate, who preceded, and
.of Lord Palmerston, who followed the Right Hon.
Baronet. So much for the specific charge. As to the
more general and vague accusation of " infamous" ap-
plied to the Press, if the Member for Harwich means to
apply it to the conductors of this paper, we fling it back
upon him with scorn. We are as incapable of a dis-
honourable or " infamous" action as Mr. Dawson or any
cif his friends or relatives. We are compelled, by want of
room, to defer the insertion of some remarks which we had
prepared en the debate following the introduction of the
Irish Reform Bill. We must, for the same reason, be now
content with a mere reference to the discussion last night
on the Civil List, making only one observation, which is,
tkat it appears to us to be a strange sort of loyalty to
:attempt to force upon the Sovereign that which he has
himself declined to accept. The true spirit of loyalty
would be to assume that the King is the best in4e of
what befits his awn dignity, and the dignityef his Royal
Consort. Any conduct founded on a cntrary assumption
is an implied, if not a direct imputation, both against the
understanding and sincerity of hitn whom it is preterried
to serve.— Times.

We -refer our readers to the debet 'in the House of
Lords for the conduct of a certain rreiate.• The transac-
tioss of this person have been no often before Parliament
and the country, that we. 'are almost sick of rt.-ratting
them, or obtruding t!setta on observation. At) ))3, sup-
porting, he ruined at tvrtain interest in tt County of Cam-
bridge, so, by his practices in thc Aurch, he has done
more to upset that venerable ttablishment than all
other evils, real or irnagmAry, of oppressed Curs,' and
non-resident incumbents, We think, in ret!ation to the
matter now before the House, that though Lord Brougham
might not be to blame, Lord Eldon ttertainly was, for as-
-bisting the knave in his sordid fitsolects of nepotism and fa-
mily aggrandisement. If isle Bishop become doting., is
there not some process vi appointing a Vicar.etetteral for
the administration of his diocese? If he posAtsses his fa-
culties, he ought to be brought to the /ta' of the House of
Lords for the mal-adininistration of bin diocese. The last
presentation is the more irrenrdial,le, because it has bee's
made by the Chancellor, tiad it been made by the
Bishop, the pari,,hioners might have refused tithes (and
so brought the validity of the presentation to the test), on
account of the incompetent state of mind of the Bishop to
perform ecclesinstical functions. In any case we holyb
some ground will be started for ejecting the present taver-
loaded. incumbent. —Thies.

Sir Robert Pee 4 is reported to have said on Thursday
night, " As to the argument he had used being against all
Reform, he should not enter on that question, but he re-
peated that, seeing the differences of opinion between that
House and the late Ministers on the subject of deform
(for though they were turned out on the Civil set, he be-
lieved there would have been an expression of opinion
which would have made it very difficult for them to have
earried on the Government), as the new Minist_m were
formed on the principle of some Reform, he (5iS nobert
Peel) was prepared, as an individual, to teatie a compro-
mise on that subject, sod to support s. Measure of mode-
rate Reform if such had been inttoduced." Sir Edward
Sugden boasted that he had, in the coincidence of the num-
ber of boroughs wholly disfranchised with the reduced
number of the House of Commons, discovered a key
to the Bill of Reform. We, without pretending to
the acuteness of the late Solicitor-General, i'Saagine
that the explanatory declaration just quested will fur-
nish a clue to the conduct of the late Mini-
sters in so suddenly resigning, en their not inducing
the House el Commons to proceed at once to a
consitletatinn of the Civil List, without a previous rererence
of the estimates to a Committee. Had the late Ministers
&en remarkable for tenacity of purpeees-shad they showed
themselves habitually and obstinately unchangeable—their
defeat on the Civil List might indeed have accounted for
their resignation ; but we have now the postscript, and
proverbially the mast important part, of the letter. Sir
Robert" believes that there would have been an expression
on the subject of Reform which would have made it very
difficult for them to have carried on the Government"—
From what quarter was this expression to have come?
From a quarter that would have deserved the attention of
the King and his Ministers, or from the Marquis of London-
sherry's " lowest freeholders, or lowest rabble, in the county
Down,"and the " scribbling sehoeltroys of the High School,'
so facetiously said by Sir George Clerk to be the signers
of the Edinburgh petition ? The phrase " carry on
the Government" is generally supposed to mean carry
it on in the Houses of Parliament. Then Sir Robert
Peel did believe that there would bore been an expression
of opinion in the House of Commons about Reform which
would leave been directly opposed to that of the let? Mi-
nisters. So then Sir Robert Peel, by his belief, relieves
the present Ministers from the drew:ln:l responsibility of
having agitated a great national question, which would
otherwise have remained it statu quo ; and further, lie
admits thtt, in bringing it forward, they have only taken
into the hands of Government the production and manage-
ment of a question that would have been forced upon
them, or any other men holding their situations. Sir
Robert Peel's belief is well founded ; the conduct of him-
self and his colleagues respecting East Retford had con-
vinced every man of sense in the country that there was
Lars disposition to use occasions, as they might arise, for
eserrecting the abuses of the representative system, and,
therefore, that the main question of Parliamentary Reform
must at once be brought to issue. Sir Robert Peel did
tret choose either to deal with the question executively, by
bringing forward a plan of very limited Reform, or to incur
the responsibility of opposing the measure that would un.
questionably have been introduced by the present Lord
Chancellor. Lord Grey was the only man who could
have formed a new Government, and therefore Sir Robert
Peel had a perfect security that, as the opinion from which
the late Ministers fled was in accordance with the long-
cherished sentiments of that Noble Lord, no delay would
be allowed to intervene in preparing some plan of Reform.
Sir Robert Peel was thus enabled to act will personal
caution, without compromising the tranquillity of the
country by an absolute resistance on the part of Ministers
to the public wishes, within and without Parliament, on
thin vital question, Lord Bacon, in his " Essay on Cun-
ning," says—" And because these cunning men are
like haberdashers of small wares, it is not amiss to
set forth their shop." Sir Robert Peel is now, as an
individual, ready to make a compromise, and support
a measure of " moderate Reform." Why, really, we
cerinot help again quoting Lord Bacon, and say, " If a
'man would cross a business that he doubts some other
would handsomely and effectually move, let him pretend
to wish it well, and move it himself in such a sort as may
foil it." We hope that, after this declaration from Sir
Robert Peel, we shall not hear again of the dreadful re-
aponsibility incurred by the present Ministers for having
agitated the question of Reform. Sir Robert Peel has
said (and who says any thing, better than Sir Robert
Peel ?) that not only the question of Reform had been
agitated, but that an opinion was about to be expressed
which would have made it very difficult for anti-Reform
Ministers to carry on the Government. He and his col-
leagues must have considered that difficulty insuperable,
for they resigned. Now, the conclusion to which we
arrive from these premises is, that the late Ministers ought
to he less vehement in their opposition to the plan of Re-
form now before Parliament ; and we even go further,
for we think that they were bound, as honest men, to
have in their places expressed their thanks to their suc-
cessors for attempting to do that which they knew to be
inevitable and indispensable (otherwise they would not
save resigned), but which they had not political courage
or patriotism enough to undertake.—Morning Herald.
Though it is not possible, nor worth while even if it
were possible, to refute all the petty calumnies and absurd
misrepresentations which daily appear in the Ministerial
Journals against the friends of the late Government, we
cannot allow to pass without notice a paragraph which
appeared in the Courier of Thursday, copied from the
Brighton Gazette. It is asserted in the paragraph to
which ace allude, that on the ballot for the Forfar Election
Committee on Tuesday last, those Members of the Oppo-
sition who had served before on the Election Committees,
waived their excuses, and answered to their names, with
the " disgraceful motive" of unduly influencing the deci-
sion of the Committee, and turning mit of Parliament " so
important a personage as the Lord Advocate of Scot-
land." A list of names is then given, which is in itself
the best refutation of the " unprincipled and dis-
honourable factiousness" which is imputed to them.
Had the writer of this paragraph been as adroit as he is
malignant, he would not have given the names of men
whose characters at once affix the brand of falsehood on
his charges. It is not true that in answering to their
names these gentlemen departed from a course " which
precedent and custom had rendered sacred." On the con-
trary, it is a common practice for Members to serve more
than once on Election Committees. There are forty or
fifty Members now in the House who have actually served
twice this Session, and some of them three times. On
referring to the list of the thirty-three Members drawn
to serve on this very Committee, we find that of the
'amber there were six strenuous adherents of the
present Ministry, who had served before on Eke-
on Committees : these were, Mr. W. 13. Baring, Mr. Al-
derman:Wood, Mr: Wt, F. Campbell, Hon. H. Tufton, Hon.