The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-20 00:00:00

Sharp lectures were last night bestowed by Mr. Harvey
and Mr. Hume on some of the " ignoble great," who, roll-
ing in wealth, are content to see their near relations pen-
sioners on a nation which they never served. Notwith-
standing a call of the House, Mr. Harvey had but a scanty
audience, and he remarked on this in the opening of his
speech, admitting, however, that on the Ministerial side the
attendancewas "decent." It was hardly reasonable, to
expect that many would assemble on the Opposition
benches to receive the compliments they had a right to look
for from him, and perhaps it might fairly have been said of
their side, that the staying away was" decent." We need
not now go into the subject, as it is one of those with which
the public have long been most familiar. Were the in-
quiry called for by the motion entered upon, it would cer-
tainly ,be painful to rip up old stories, in some cases to the
great annoyance of the innocent representatives of de-
parted offenders, and the irksomeness of this task, would,
we fear, not be adequately compensated by the delightful
opportunities which would offer for rendering " honour to
those to whom honour is due." The motion was resisted,
as involving a distinct violation of the compact made with
the Crown in 1831. Lord John Russell gave it his most
decided opposition, as being at variance with the course
which had hitherto been pursued since 1688. In support
of this assertion he referred to a statement made by Sir
Robert Walpole in 1731, from which it appeared that even
the Revolution and a double change of the reigning
dynasty, had not interfered with pensions granted in the
reign of Charles 11. Hence his Lordship contended that
to meddle now with what rested on a grant of the Crown,
and on the authority of Acts of. Parliament, would not be
furthering the march of public Reform, but must rather
wear the aspect of petty private malice. This opinion
seemed in accordance with the views of the majority pre-
sent. Practically, the decision either way could be of no
immediate importance beyond the assertion of a principle to
be referred to hereafter. Mr. Harvey stated the amount
affected by the question to be 150,0001. annually, of which
he assumed that 60 or 70,000/. might be saved. It was,
however shown by Lord John Russell, that without in-
flicting hardship on individuals the charge was in the
course of rapid diminution, and supposing the proposed
inquiry to exempt from examination pensions not exceed-
ing 100/. per annum, and those granted before 1810, the
Committee would not have more than 20,000/. to work
upon. In the course of his speech Mr. Harvey called
upon the defenders of the Pension List to point out six
names distinguished for science or eminent in literature.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted this challenge,
and satisfactorily showed that if some of the grants had
been made for services which it would not be prudent to
recall, others were such as to do honour to those who re-
commended the parties to Royal munificence. The fol-
lowing names were mentioned by the Right Honourable
Gentleman :—Dr. Dalton, Mr. Ivory, Professor Airey,
Mrs. Somerville, Dr. Southey, Mr. Montgomery, Mr.
Sharon Turner, Sir James South, Mr. Thomas Moore,
and Mr. Farraday.—Morning Chronicle.
The discussion in the House of Lords last Monday even-
ing, failed to throw any new light upon the objects of the
Municipal Bill for Ireland. The fault was not with their
LOrdships. The merits of that morsel of political jugglery
lie within a small compass, and they had been sufficiently
examined and exposed before ever it fell to Lord Mel-
bourne's lot to misrepresent them, as he unconsciously
strove to do on the second reading of the Bill. But if
there be little novelty in these debates, they are still not
void of amusement. There is a grave and indefatigable
monotony,'at which, when seasoned with a due share of im-
pudence, one seldom fails to laugh, and the curious iv hu-
man nature see much in mere dullness to delight them.
When it is remembered, that from the very first debate
upon this Irish Municipal Reform Bill to its third reading in
the House of Commons, the absurd pretence of its being
a measure for " putting an end to party ascendancy in
towns," was shown up in the most luminous and powerful
manner by Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, Sir W. Follett,
Sergeant Jackson, and, we may be excused for adding,
by the independent press, the public might surely have
expected from Ministers, or their patrons, some attempt
to vary the shape and colouring of the argument, or to
break ground in some new direction. But Lord Melbourne
and his colleagues are in a cleft stick : defend or justify the
Bill by reasonings not long ago treated with public scorn,
they cannot ; give up the Bill as utterly untenable, in com-
mon sense or common honesty they dare not. Cabinet, any
more than regimental flogging, is not yet abolished, and •
O'Connell, " cat in hand,' stands over them. Notwithstand-
ing all that has been flung in the face of Ministers as to the
practical effects of this disastrous measure, we find Lord
Melbourne stating-=lst, that a remedy for the ancient ex-
clusive system of Irish corporations is indispensable ; and,
2d, with unmeasured coolness, recommending, as a means of
terminating such exclusion, and " admitting all classes of
the King's subjects into corporations," a Bill which must
infallibly and hermetically seal up the doors of every coun-
cil chamber in Ireland against its Protestant people. The
answer is, that Lord Melbourne's remedy is but another
form of the disease itself, and a grievous aggravation of
it. Lord Melbourne again charged Sir Robert Peel
and his friends with marvellous " boldness " in their
proposition to discontinue all municipal bodies. The
answer is, that the. Right Hon; Baronet is only half as bold
as the Noble Viscount, his accuser, seeing that he does no
more than stop midway on the road which Lord Mel-
bourne has marked out for him. The Noble Viscount
disavows all wish to inflame " the feelings of the Irish
people," and would persuade the House of Lords " that
they cannot be left out in the consideration of this ques-
tion." The answer is, that the whole resistance to the Bill
has been founded on a ripe and clear consideration of what
description of people the lower Irish are; and under what
sort of guidance. Lord Melbourne, in the redundant), of
his historical knowledge, informed the House of Lords that
some kind of local government had prevailed among all
civilized nations, and had been even more prevalent in
ancient than in modern times. The answer is, that repre-
sentative government was altogether unknown in ancient
times, and in modern times, until within the memory of the
present generation, has had no existence beyond the
British empire. But representation, which brings to
a common centre deputies from every district in
the kingdom, communicates to. that centre the wants
and wishes of the provincial inhabitants, exercising
likewise an efficient superintendence over the conduct ob-
served towards them by the general Government. The
chief states of Greece were each contained almost in a
single city, and the Roman towns enjoyed local powers for
the regulation of their domestic concerns as a matter of
convenience, or rather of necessity, presenting an image of
'the parent city, where they had none to represent their in-
terests, or to speak in their names. Less excursive and
cometlike in his apostrophizing range than the Prime Minis-
ter, Lord Lansdowne was more epigrammatic. His Lordship
asserted that the exclusive principle had been ingrafted on
the 40 charters of King James I. in Ireland, but was not in
their original contemplation. The Noble Lord, above all
men, ought to have known more of facts, and felt more for
his bwn reputation, than to make a flourish so purely
literal, which had no support in the essence or substance
of Irish history.. The notorious intent of the charters
granted by King James was to facilitate the erection of
so many barriers against Popery, being part and parcel
of the same spirit in which Ulster was colonized, as
a means, not of oppressing Ireland, but of introducing
civilization among its barbarous and restless people. Lord
Lansdowne described as the cause of the evils attending the
present Corporate system in Ireland, " irresponsibility and
self-election ;" " for which the Government," adds the No-
ble Lord, proposed to substitute " responsibility and free
election." Fine words ! By whom is the " free election"
to be carried on ? By the electors who are in a state of ab-
ject slavery. And by whom is the weight of responsibility
borne ? By the same Si. vassals, who are responsible, not
to any Constitutional power, but to the priest—a party
whom the Constitution does not recognize, who again is
responsible to a foreign church for his offences ! Will the
Whig Ministers have the virtue or honour to make this vi-
cious and anti-national responsibility of the priert a real and
salutary restriction ? Will they have the integrity to bring
in a Bill for buying over the priesthood into the public ser-
vice ? We are sure they will not. We are sure,
however satisfied of the wisdom and excellence
of such a measure, they will not dare to propose
it. No—better it suits them to put false varnishes
upon mountebank schemes of miscalled municipal reform.
It better becomes Lord Melbourne and his colleagues to
echo the O'Connell war cry of " justice to the people of
Ireland," who are one and all comprehended in the Agitator
himself and his clique. It better becomes Lords Mel-
bourne and Lansdowne to argue the question whether this
their misnamed municipal reform is or is not a measure for
vesting power in the independent portion of the people, by
a barefaced petitio prineipii—an assumption of the fact in
dispute, for the sake of accomplishing what Lord Lynd-
hurst most truly denominated a party triumph. But how
do they act in questions which have no party taint, or cor-
rupt bribe, to recommend them ? How, for instance, are
they about to deal with that grand question of a poor law,