The Sun.
London, England, 1836-09-27 00:00:00

have not been able to do, and spiteful vituperation of
those who have scccessfully opposed them. If Eng-
lishmen consider this conduct either manly or decent,
in a political party, they must be much changed from
what they once were. But we are persuaded that they
do not so consider it, and we attribute the coldness and
indifference with which the public demonstrations of
the Whig-Radicals are received to the natural contempt
of a manly-minded nation for a set of politicians who
can do little else than whine about themselves, rail
upon their adversaries, and put the public money in
their pockets. One standing_ topic pervades these
meetings—to wit, the defects of the Upper House of
Parliament, of which an overwhelming majority has set
itself against Whig-Radical projects of legislation and
government. The iteration and re-iteration of com-
mon-place cant, about the necessity for Peerage
Reform, has become most wearisome and disgusting.
We do not mean to say that the idea of Peerage Re-
form is self-evidently nonsensical, and ought not to be
entertained, but assuredly such a subject ought to come
before the public—if it come at all—upon grave and
reasonable grounds of discussion. It ought not to be
thrust upon us by the swelling impudence or mortified
vanity of some persons whose political schemes the
Lords have treated with calm contempt. What is the
origin of the feeble blustering against the House of
Lords ? Whence arises the cry of Peerage Reform ?
These are questions not difficult to be answered, and
the true answer to them is of great importance to a
just understanding of the merits of the present en-
deavour to raise a clamour about Peerage Reform.
The cry is that of a beaten party. Because their poli-
tics have failed—because their boasted " Reform" of
the House of Commons has produced nothing of the
splendid results which they so loudly vaunted that it
would produce—because they have totally failed, even
with the ten-pound a year suffrage at their backs, to
bring forward even one example of remarkable talent for
public business, or ordinary eloquence in public debate
—because of this miserable failure, and its natural con-
sequences, the public disappointment and contempt,
they must, forsooth, with admirable modesty, lay
the whole blame of their failure upon the House o•
Lords. Is an intelligent public thus to be deceived ?
Is it to be believed—is it not contradictory to all ex-
perience—that, if the weight of reasoning and the
power of eloquence had been on the side of Ministerial
measures in the House of Commons, and the national
mind, filled, as it must have been, with conviction by
the one and enthusiasm by the other, had been also on
the side of Ministerial measures—is it, we say, to be
believed that, at this hour, the advocates of these
measures would be endeavouring to console themselves
with an ineffectual whine against the effectual oppo-
sition of the House of Lords ? When have the Lords
resisted the heart, and the mind, and the united voice
of the nation ? Never—nor does it at all consist with
probability that an assembly so constituted ever should
resist that which the convictions of a free and intelligent
nation like this have decidedly adopted and deliberately
retained. The same effects would, in all human pro-
bability, be produced upon the House of Peers as
upon the rest of the nation. It is, however, very
necessary to bear in mind the marked distinction between
the convictions of a nation and the sudden impulses of
the least instructed of its populace. It is for in-
terested knaves, or unthinking fools, who live upon
the breath of popular folly, to be governed by these.
impulses—it is the duty of steady and honest legis-
lators to resist mere popular impulse, and to wait for
the more deliberate expression of national conviction.
With regard, however, to " Peerage Reform," there is
at present neither the one nor the other in this empire.
The Whig-Radicals have not been able to get up even
a popular excitement in favour of that question. It is
asserted, with the usual effrontery of the party, that
the Lords have been " running counter to public
opinion ;" but every public symptom which we have
an opportunity of observing proves the falsehood of
this assertion. If by " public opinion" popular opinion
is meant, we confess that, whether it were for or against
the course which the House of Peers has lately taken,
our view of the sound national policy of that course
would be just the same : but it is a fortunate circum-
stance that at present even the popular opinion seems
to be on the same side with reason and the principles
of the British Constitution. But we find here and
there—sparsim, as Sir Charles Wetherell would say—
small knots of self-adoring Whig-Radicals, who are
pleased to inform the world that there is a great
necessity for a Reform of the House of Peers, be-
cause that House will not pass Whig-Radical measures
without amendments. A few Members of the House
of Commons, by no means distinguished for natural
good sense, or acquired information, or political expe-
rience, or pure integrity of purpose, get some obscure
rabble about them, which rabble they very compla-
cently harangue upon the necessity of revolutionising
the Legislative Constitution of the British Empire,
because the party measures which they approve have
not been approved by the present House of Lords.
Is such a political exhibition as this to be treated with
any respect ? No, but with derision rather, if we
can so command a natural impulse as to repress dis-
gust. The question of Peerage Reform may indeed
be made an interesting object of inquiry by the inge-
nuity and eloquence of speculative politicians, who co-
lour their abstractions with all the bright hues of fancy,
and bring their poetry to the aid of their politics.
But all the inspiration of the present declaimers upon
the subject consists in coarse conceit. We have no-
thing in support of it but the drivelling of dense stu-
pidity-, the bellowing of brutal ignorance, or the mag-
pie chattering of frivolous and ridiculous vanity. To
such demonstrations no very serious attention can be
claimed, or will be given.—Morning Post.

A NOSE CUT OFF.—About twelve o'clock in the
in the night of Tuesday last, an old woman named Sarah
Smith, who lives in Gregson-street, was brought to the watch-
office in a state of gross intoxication, and her face covered with
blood. On examination it was found that by some means her
nose had been cut across the bridge, leaving the lower part
including the nostrils, hanging over the upper lip, attached
only by a small portion of the cartilage. Her own account of
the matter was that she had fallen across the bed-stocks, the
edge of which had inflicted its unseemly mutilation; but the
appearance of the wound was such as to lead to the suspicion
that some sharp instrument had been used, and this suspicion
was further strengthened by the fact that the woman being of
bad character and disgracefully intemperate habits, frequent
quarrels had arisen between her husband and herself, and that
one of these had occurred during Tuesday evening, the husband
being exceedingly exasperated at her repeated acts of intem-
perance.—Manchester Guardian.

COACH ACCIDENT.—On Monday night last, while
the Standard coach, which runs betwixt Edinburgh and Car-
lisle, was coming down by the bridge into Galashiels the horses
became unmanageable, set of at full speed, and on coming to a
sharp turn of the road the coach was upset and several of the
passengers more or less severely injured. One gentleman, a
Mr. Phipps, received fatal bruises on the knee and foot; a Miss
Cochrane had her arm broken, and a young gentleman and the
driver received serious injuries on the head.—Kelso Chronicle.
SAFETY SPRING.—At a Meeting of the Literary
and Philosophical Institution held at the Museum, a communi-
cation was made by the Rev. Mr. Barlow of a newly invented
patent safety spring for carriages, having amongst other advan-
tages durability, diminished weight, and superior economy.—.
Sheffield Mercury.
On Thursday night a decayed licensed victualler
snaemcedV, committederdun,
suicidewhosefa b
family and h
adadnincgong seneehtiimonslaf areta
in Wapping. Though he had been for some time past la.
bouring under distress, he always appeared in the best health,
and had not exhibited any symptoms of derangement.
A boy of the name of Chandley, who had been
watching crows near Hornsey, on his return home a few days
since, left his gun in the corner of the room. A little fellow
nine years of age, the son of a milkman of the name of
Tucker,. running into the room and taking the gun, ex-
claimed " Joe, I'll shoot you," and pulling the trigger
wounded his young friend in the right hand and thigh. Two
gentleman riding. past at the time alighted, and gave every
assistance in their power. One of them shaking the little
fellow, said he would have him hanged, which had such an
effect on him that next morning he was unable to rise from
his bed. He cried, and " hoped Joe would be better." He
was answered he was getting better, and that he might go and
see him. He did so the following day, and appeared more
composed, but his feelings were too great for his strength, and
on Thursday morning he died. The wounded boy is now
walking about.

Mr. Horace Smith, the celebrated author of the
" Rejected Addresses," " Brambletye House," &c. &c., while
reading a paper the other evening, at the Conversazione of
the Literary Institution and Mantellian Musuem, Brighton,
the subject of which was " the probable moral effects of loco-
motion by steam," among other humorous observations, re-
marked, that so ardent were the anticipations respecting the
rate of travelling by steam entertained by its advocates, that a
gentleman, we believe from the sister Isle, had asserted that
by-and-by a man would actually be enabled to travel from
Brighton to London by steam in a shorter time than he could
stop at home, "an assumption, however," observed Mr. Smith,
" in which I do not exactly concur I"