The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-23 00:00:00

mented with bugle fringe, over a black silk slip ; train
of black crape, lined with black silk, trimmed round with
bugle fringe, rosettes of crape, and bugle ornaments ;
body and sleeves ornamented with bugles. Headdress,
black feathers, crape lappets, and jet ornaments (the
whole of British manufacture).
Ats.nchmsEss OF AlLSA.—Train of white brocade
(British manufacture) lined with white glace, and
trimmed with tulle, and bouquets of pink roses and lilies
of the valley ; petticoat of white tulle over glace, with
magnificent flounces of Honiton lace. Headdress,
feathers and lace lappets ; ornaments, diamonds.
AfARCHIONESS OF BREADALBANE.—Train of pink
tulle over white moire, trimmed with pink roses and
white wheat-ears; Honiton lace berthe; petticoat of pink
tulle over white glace, flounced with magnificent Honi-
ton lace. Headdress, feathers and lace lappets; orna-
ments, a tiara of diamonds, and necklace and stomacher
of torquoise and diamonds.
MARCHIONESS OF WATERFORD.—Court dress of rich
white Irish Cabinet; skirt ornamented with four rows of
superb gold trimming; train to correspond, gold berthe '
and lappets; the whole of British manufacture. Head-
dress, 11l thers, pearls, and diamonds.
COUNTESS NELSON.--A most beautiful court dress, of
the richest British manufacture; dress of rich white
glace silk, covered with tulle, and tastefully trimmed ,
with ruches and the choicest blue and white flowers;
train and bodice of splendid Spitalfields blue and white
damask silk, lined with whito glace, and elegantly-
finished with tulle and roses; Court tucker and ruffles
of the finest Honiton point. Head-dress, blue and white
wreath, with blue and white ostrich feathers and choice
Honiton, point lace lappets; ornaments, diamonds and
pearls.
COUNTESS WALDEGRAVE.—Costune de Cour, com-
posed of a train of the richest silver grey satin, lined with
white satin, elegantly trimmed with silver and bouquets
of variegated silver flowers; body and sleeves trimmed
with costly Honiton lace, and stomacher of diamonds
skirts of tulle over white satin, with silver lace ; bou
quets of silver flowers, and magnificent agrafes of dia.
mends. Headdress, ostrich feathers, Honiton lace lap•
pots, and diadem of splendid diamonds.
LADY JOHN RUSSELL.—Dress of Limerick lace,

trimmed with flounces looped with bouquet:: of white
flowers and silver wheat, over a rich white silk slip; train
of rich white satin, trimmed with silver chef; body and
sleeves
feathers,
wornamentedhitetio with
wers,laeleacle andapp flowers
ets,and Headdress,
diamonds.
LADY FARNHAM.—Dress of black tulle, trimmed with
plaitings of tulle and bugle ornaments, over a rich black
glace silk slip; train of black glace silk, trimmed with
tulle and bugles to correspond. Headdress, feathers, lace
lappets and diamonds.
MRS. WYLD.—A Court costume: train of very rich
pink arid white damask, trimmed with bouillonnes of
tulle and coques of ribbon ; corsage drape; petticoat of
rich white satin, with two tunics of tulle, looped with
pink and white azalias. Head dress, plume, Honiton
lappets, and wreath of azalias; ornaments, diamonds.
MRS.. rARDE BIILLER.—.Train of white glace, trimmed
with Llano and ribbon; petticoats of white crape over
glace, trimmed with satin ribbon. Headdress, feathers
and lace lappets; ornament; diamonds.
MRS. SIMEON.—Train of blue glace, trimmed with
tulle :and ribbon; petticoat of white tulle over glace,
flounced with British point lace. Headdress, feathers
and lace lappets; ornaments, diamonds.
MRS.. BAGOT.—Train of white moire, trimmed with
tulle; Honiton lace berthe; petticoat of white crape
over glace, flounced with Honiton lace, and trimmed
with roses. Headdress, feathers and lace lappets; or-
naments, diamonds.
MISS MACKENZIE.—Train of rich White moire silk,
elegantly trimmed with tulle ruches, and white satin
ribbon; a double jupe of white tulle, over rich white
glace, trimmed with ruches en festoci, and looped with
two beautiful chateline boaquets, composed of dew grass
and holly, being the Mackenzie distinction. Headdress
of the same, plume and blonde lappets; ornaments, dia- 1
monds.

Misa TALBOT.—Manteau and dress of the richest
white glace, elegantly trimmed with ribbon and flowers,
tunic of Honiton lace; bertha to correspond. Head-
dress. feathers, Honitan lace lappets, and wreath of
flowers. The whole of British manufacture.
Miss SUMNERS.—Costume de Cour, composed of a
train of rich apricot glace silk, trimmed entirely round
with British lace and bows of ribbon; a dress of Lime-
rick lace, over white glace silk; a lace berthe to corre-
spond with the train, with a wreath and bouquet of
green leaves and berries. Headdress, lappets and fea-
thers; ornaments, diamonds.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
mom THE 11:MIMING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
TIMES.—Hitherto the characteristic feature of the
English people has been their practicality. It is that
which has distinguished them from their French and
German neighbours. They have for the most part
eschewed the coxcombry of sentimentalism and the affec-
tation of philosophy. Whilst other states were dream-
ing of government Englaad was practising it; whilst
others were groping in the will-o'-the-wisp flickerings of
Utopian speculation, England was walking in the com-
parative daylight of free institutions. Inheriting the
genius of ancient, and the experience of modern Italy,
Euglatel trained her people by the liberty which had
made Florence and Genoa rich to the same course that
had made Rome great. Starting with principles which
epelled the pedantry of codification, she, like her great
prototype, found in their elasticity the reconcilement
of the most rigid Conservatism with the most politic
expansion. Preserving the spirit, she changed the ma-
chinery of her institutions with the vicissitudes of sea-
sons and the exigencies of empire. She has essentially,
if not formally, the same regal succession, the same co-
ordinate branches of legislature, the same hierarchy, the
same common law, the same judicature, the same tribu-
nal of appeal, the same maxims of polity in these days
of railroads, cotton, and Chartism, that she had when
Edward refused homage to France, and Henry spurned
the dominion of the Triple Crown. Change has suc-
ceeded change, dynasty has superseded dynasty, en-
croachments have been made on what were deemed the
bulwarks of our establishments—new classes have come
into existence, recognition, and power—still the essential
elements of our political fabric have remained the
same amid the rust and the crash of more than five
centuries. How is this? Why, when we have grown
in material and natural strength—in extent of territory,
of population, and of wealth—why is it that we retain
so much and have added so little to the constituent por-
tions of our system? The answer must be found in our
national character. We are less sentimental than ima-
ginative; less imaginative than reflective, We don't
love change for the sake of change; and when our ma-
chinery, whether in clocks, railways, or government,
goes right, we are unwilling to sacrifice a real good for
a theoretical improvement. Occasionally, indeed, we
have diverged from the beaten track, but, whenever we
have done so, it has for the most part been with a
greater reluctance than that with which we have re-
sumed. it. This is our history in epitome :—Pro-
gression animated and sustained by the spirit of
conservatism. But violent, Precipitate innovation—
innovation without reflection, purpose, or prudence—
innovation for a name, a shadow, a phantasy, a sentiment, or a lie—has been ignored by all who have fought the
battle and pleaded the cause of our constitution. The
traditions of our history have a reality and life about
them
which makes us revolt at fictitious grievances and
despise imaginary remedies. After all the great strug-
gles which they have immortalized, all the sufferings'
which they have consecrated, and the courage which
they have hallowed, we turn with something like dis-
gust from the parade of a platform quackery and a
joint-stock agitation. We have no wish to speak with
disrespect of the sentiments uttered, or the grievances
denounced by any large body of our countrymen. Far
be such presumption from us. Tho deliberate opinion
of any large body of men is always entitled to the
courtesy of deference. Even when it is wrong as a
conclusion of reason, or erroneous in its statement
of facts, it deserves, for the honesty of its purpose,
to Ise met with consideration and respect. But, then, it
must be their deliberate opinion ; a hasty, fortuitous
ebullition of querulousness of passion deserves no respect
and no attention. We will not say that the sentiments
which Mr. Hume expresses are of this kind ; we will
not brand them as the inconsiderate jargon of an un-
thinking multitude ; but we must beg leave to doubt
whether they ought to be received as the deliberate
opinions of an intelligent majority
.of the people. Raving
ourselves pointed out the anomalies of
,our representa-
tive system, we must disclaim the allies whom Mr.
Hume impersonates, and the grounds upon which that
confederacy rests. We must disclaim connexion
with men who rant about the " yoke of
the aristocracy," and cant about the " slavery of
the people ;'' who in the same breath display the
profoundestignorance. of political history, and claim
new privileges for their assumed enlightenment. The
representation requires some remodelling. It is partially
incompatible with the soundest basis on which a repre-
sentative system rests, viz., contribution to the funds of
the
State. It is, moreover, occasionally inconsistent
with itself. Necessarily arbitrary in its restrictions,
the Reform Bill is even more capricious than it is arbi-
trary. It excludes men, by its indirect action, whom
its professed intention was to invest with the privilege
of the suffrage. Its exclusion of small leaseholders and
Yearly tenants from the rights that it gives to a 40s.
freeholder, as well as of tenants of chambers and lodg-
ings in London from the privileges which a 101. house-
holder enjoys, is foolish, frivolous, and mischievous.
We grant this ; but we ask why complicate a truth
with a falsehood, a grievance with a lie, an evil with
a quackery ? Why repeat the nauseous dose which
even the lowest reader of the lowest print has begun to
loathe ? Why talk about the yoke of the aristocracy?
Who groans under the yoke of the aristocracy ? Does
Mr. Temkin: the grocer, or Mr. Hopkins the chandler,
or Mr. Dobbins the shoemaker? How and in what way
are Dobbins, Toaakins, and Hopkins oppressed ? Is
the Peerage against them? Is it the country gentle-
men? Again, whom do they mean by the aristocracy?
To hear some speeches and read some books one might
imagine that wo were living in Venice, under a narrow,
inapproachable, unelastic aristocracy—a class despotic
in government, unpopular in character, and uncongenial
in blood—a caste incapable of fusion or of access, and
raised at once above the sympathies and the alliances of
the commonalty. Now, that the reverse of
this is so every schoolgirl that has read a
novel and every mother that has thumbed the
" Peerage" knows. What, then, can be thought of
the intelligence of persons clamouring about the tyranny
of the aristocracy ? Does nut every man know that his
children may—if they work hard enough and learn
enough, and have health, wit, and strength enough—sit i
in the august House the carving and gilding of which n•
spires their admiration? Or have they yet to learn that
of the leading statesmen for the last 160 years one ball
sprung from the untitled gentry of England, and one
half from its commonalty ? Did Walpole belong to the
aristocracy of the day ? Did Hardwicke ? Did Chat-
ham ? Did Clive ? Did Nelson ? Did Burke ? Did
Sidmouth ? Did _Eldon ? Did Canning ? Did Wilber-
force ? Did Brougham ? Does Peel ? Does Glad-