The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-30 00:00:00

TO ADVERVSERS.

It will be seen by the, ft:flowing extract from the Stamp
Office Returns, that THE Sax is nz,,w the Leading
Evening Paper, in point (!f. circulation, ,as the Lists
for the Months of March and April c:.7sl

show :
Sun
Globe and Traveller 132,000
Courier 70,500
True Sun, and 'Weekly True Sun 58,500
Shipping Gazette

- ------- - -
The publication of THE SUN NF,WSPAPER commenced this day
at 30 minutes past Three o' Clock.

•
1.•
• tt,_>''

r
CI-) 'l> (-.7.H---/"l.t.

LONDON,
THURSDAY EVENING, JUNE 30, 1836,

The Conservatives have not yet got over the shock
occasioned by the failure of their late conspiracy.
This is evident from the stupor in which the whole
party is now plunged, just as if their wits were all
gone a woolgathering, and had no immediate intention

of returning. Not a single fresh calumny can they
muster pluck or tact enough to get up. Really the
poor creatures must be in a most hopeless state, when
they cannot find so much as a lie to feed on. We
should have thought their stock of this sort of pro-
vision would never have beet► exhausted ; but that they
would. have gone on till doomsday, fattening, and de-
riving fresh confidence from each fresh Munchausen.
But it seems we were mistaken. Then as regards
public meetings. Here the faction is equally badly,
if not worse off. No counties—no cities—no
towns—scarcely even a village—stir in their favour. We
are constantly hearing of Reform Meetings, but where
be the Conservative ones ? Where, the " glorious
manifestations of Toryism," that were to shake the
Whig Cabinet to its centre, and return the PEELS and
GOULBURNS in triumph to the Treasury Bench ?
They are no where to be found—no where to be heard
of. We have looked for them in the North and in.
the South, in the East, and in the West ; in Scotland,
in England, and in Ireland ; but if we except South
Warwickshire, where nothing but their unrivalled elec-
tioneering finesse enabled the faction to gain the day,
not a single Tory " manifestation•' is any where visi-
ble. Yet, if ever there was a necessity fo► Toryism to
bestir itself, that necessity exists at the present mo-
ment, when the Institution of the House of Lords is
in jeopardy, and the :Bishops sit uneasily on their
Benches, like tenants apprehensive that they are about
to be served with a summary process of ejection. But
the truth, we repeat, is, Ahdt the Tories are stunned by
their late repeated disasters, and we question much
whether they will recover their tenses, 'till their last
strong-hold is captured.

Among the many
.signs of infatuation—to use no
stronger phrase—which the Lords have manifested of
late, and which lead us to anticipate the speedy down-
fall of their abused power, their neglect of the advice
given them by Lord GREY on Monday last may be
quoted as not the least remarkable. Had their Noble
and hereditary minds been of a construction capa-

hie of undergoing the process of conviction, con-
vinced they must have been. Had they not been
preletermined to shut their ears to every thing that
could enlighten their understandings, the speech of
Lord Giu would have saved them for a time, at least.
from what they look upon as destruetion—a reform or
their House. In the Noble Lord, they had an in-
structor possessi9g qualifications for his office such as
no other ►r.an could have any pretensions to—talents of
the first order—political experience unprecedented—a
character and an eminence in public estimation higher
than any Statesman ever yet attained, and what in
their Lordship's minds must have far out-weighed
every other po:;sible claim to their consideration, a
strong attachment to the Order of which he is the
greatest ornament. But had an angel from heaven
addressed then►, it would have been equally in vain—
not a vote would he have been able to influence.
In calling the attention of the reader to a few pas-
sages in the speech of the Noble Earl, we scarcely
need remark the freshness and vigour which are con-
spicuous throughout. Age has made no inroads upon
his mental powers, while it has added weight to his

opinion.
Lord LYNDHURST had attempted to show, with
his characteristic disingenuousness, that there was
little or no difference between the principles of the
Bill sent up from the Commons and of that sent down
from the Lords. Lord GREY thus sets the Learned
Lord to rights, and puts the question on its true

footing :
" I dissent from the statement of the Noble and Learned
Lord, that the Bill sent by this House to the House of Commons
was merely an alteration of the Bill which had been sent by the
House of Commons to us. The Noble and Learned Lord as-
serted that the Bill, as sent up by the other House of Parliament,
involved three principles;—the first, the abolition of the ex-
isting Corporations of Ireland—the second, the substitution
of other Corporations—the last, the administration of
justice. To two of these principles the Noble and
Learned Lord asserted that your Lordships agreed,
and that you rejected only the second. Now I put it
to your Lordships whether, in rejecting that second principle,
you did not reject the whole essential principle of the measure?
The state of the fact is this : Abuses are universally ac-
knowledged to exist in the Corporations of Ireland, which you
ind it necessary to correct, and in order to correct them
your Lordships propose to take from the people of Ireland all
corporate institutions whatever, instead of reforming those
institutions, so as to leave the people in the enjoyment of the
same local rights and privileges as are enjoyed by their fellow-
subjects in England and Scotland. Is not this an essential
difference from the principle of the Bill as sent up to your
Lordships by the other House of Parliament 2—( Hear, hear.)
It may be exceedingly proper to abolish, not entirely but
in part, certain of those Corporations ; but to destroy all cor-
porate rights and institutions throughout the country would
surely be contrary to every principle of policy and of
justice. The principle of the measure sent to us by the
House of Commons was, that the people of Ireland were
entitled to Live the same privileges conferred upon them as
had been conferred on the people of England and Scotland
by the Municipal Corporation Bill. It is most extraordinary
that when a proposition is made to correct abuses in ancient
institutions, that proposition should be met by Noble Lords
on the other side of the House with a proposition to extirpate
them.—( Hear, hear.) Consistently with the political doctrines
which had been usually maintained by those Noble Lords,
they arc the very last persons from whom I should have ex-
pected such a suggestion."—( Hear, hear.)
To the argument that the Ministerial measure would
create agitation in Ireland, Lord GREY replies, that
until justice is done to Ireland by admitting her to the
rights and privileges guaranteed to her by the Act of
Union, and confirmed by the Emancipation Act, it is
impossible that there should be either order or tran-
quillity in that part of the kingdom :
What we have to consider is, what must be done for the pur-
pose of rescuing the people of Ireland from the state of dis-
content in which they now are—what must be done for the
purpose of re-establishing law and order in Ireland, and of
making the people of that country fit for the enjoyment of
the rights which are their due ? Now, my Lords, I again
ask you, is that an object which is likely to be obtained by
the course which you are pursuing ?—( Hear, hear.) You find
the people of Ireland discontented and agitated ; you are
called upon by them to reform their corporations ; but you
will not do so, for fear of consequences ; and by your re-
fusal you continue the discontent and agitation which
you wish to see terminated. You admit, that- but
for that temporary obstacle you would adopt the course re-
commended to you by the other House. Nay, if it were not
for those circumstances, it would be a mockery and insult to
withhold from the people of Ireland that which Catholic
Emancipation taught them to expect. But, my Lords, what
will be the result of allowing the continuance of the existing
agitation and discontent? We have been told also that the
aversion to the measure proposed by the House of Commons is
nearly general throughout this country. I deny it. I believe
that the reverse is the case. I know that theme are many per-
sons not only among those who in general concur in political
opinion with his Majesty's present Government, but among
those who differ from them, who feel very sensibly the depri-
vation of right to which the people of Ireland are at present
subjected. I have had the names mentioned to me of persons
of influence connected with what is called the" Conservative in-
terest,n who have put themselves forward in requisitions for
public meetings to petition Parliament to pass this Bill. The
people of Ireland are a generous, a brave, and a highly excit-
able people. My Lords, will not speak of individuals. It has
been too much the practice of late to do so in this House.—.
Lieu ).___But this I will say, that if there are any persons
*
who objects are hostile to the peace and tranquillity of Ireland,
I do no,:.know how your Lordships could better consult the views
of such p,:rsons than by giving them the means of appealing
to the sensibility of the people of Ireland, and of persuading
them that they are no: treated with equal justice."
The comparison or ra:2ler contrast between the tem-
perate course pursued by the fommons, and the vio-
lence of the Lords, is clearly and ad.i; rably drawn in
the following passage :
" The Bill which was sent up to you from the 1i6:23c
of Commons your Lordships entirely changed. You al-
tered its preamble, you altered its principle ; and, not.
withstanding the gloss of the Noble and Learned Lord,
you altered nine-tenths of its enactments.—( Hear.) My
Lords, such a proceeding as this I can never under-
stand but as a total rejection of the measure, and a sub-
stitution of another measure entirely different in principle
and character. This is not exactly the way to conciliate.
Nor did you alone send the Bill back to the House of Com-
mons entirely changed. You changed it by the introduction
of a principle which, after several discussions and divisions,
the House of Commons had rejected. Now, my Lords, when
you say that the feelings of this House ought to be respected,
you should at the same time respect the feelings of the other
House.—( Cheers.) How did the House of Commons act ?
They received this altered Bill in a manner and a spirit—l do
not speak of the violent conduct of individuals, which I con-
demn—but the House at large received this altered Bill in a
meaner and a spirit which I must characterise as that of mo-
deration.—( Cheers.) They did not immediately reject your
alterations. They proceeded calmly to consider them, for the
purpose of ascertaining how far, consistently with their own
views of right and justice, they could modify the Bill, so as to
meet your wishes, My Lords, the alterations then made by
the House of Commons have not been fairly, have not been
generously, represented by the Noble and Learned Lord.—
( Hear, hear.) It must he evident to every impartial man,
that those alterations indicate the desire of the other House of
Parliament to go as far as they could to meet your Lord-
ships' objections ; and you, my Lords, arc called upon to
meet them in the same spirit.—( Loud cheers.) The House of
Commons have set your Lordships an example.—(Clicers.)
They have given up much. They have endeavoured to re-
move your Lordships' objections. They now call upon your
Lordships to consider the Bill in its modified form. I hope
you will do so, and that you will try whether it may not be
made acceptable to both 'louses."
The Lords are next reminded of the advance that
will be made in the demands of the country if the
present measure be rejected, and are directed to their
own past experience as a guide in their present cir-
stances :

" Now, my Lords, let me beg of you to consider, whether ifyou
see before you the possibility, and, still more, if you see the ne-
cessity of being obliged, at some future period, to pass some
measure as this, it is wise or expedient to defer doing so even
for another session ? Wait for another session, my Lords, and
what shall we gain in the interval?—(Loud cheers.) Have
we, my Lords, no experience as to what may be the result of
putting off our decision where we see an eventual necesssity
for concession?—( Hear, hear.) How was it with respect to
the Catholic question? Was not that measure resisted by
your Lordships—(hear, hear)—for years, and were you not in
the end compelled—most unwillingly compelled—in conse-
quence of a pressure that you could not oppose, to grant a
much larger measure of relief than was at first called for—
( Cheers ?)—But, my Lords, there is a still more recent case,
from which we ought, if we are wise, to gather experience—need
I say I allude to the Irish Church question ? Consider what has
been the consen,uencc of your rejection of the measure pro-
posed to you on this subject in the year 1834."
This eloquent address is closed by the following
powerful peroration, which we think will long ring in
the ears of our hereditary legislators. They will re-
collect it when it is too late to profit by it :
" I propose a compromise in every way consistent with your
honour, and it is in your power now to avail yourselves of it ;
but if you wait for another session, with all the agitation, with
all the clamour that will take place in the interval, I will not
answer that, any measure of the moderate kind I now sug-
gest will be accepted by the people of Ireland.--(Loud