The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-04 00:00:00

constitutional privileges of their order—it concerns the
people's rights, and those alone—it is intended to se-
cure to them no advantages but those to which they
are strictly and fairly entitled ; and it will be perfect
madness and fatuity in their House to set themselves
against the ardent wishes and just expectations of an
united people. To what could such ill-advised and
most imprudent conduct possibly tend but to make
wider the breach which already separates their Lord-
ships' House from the sympathies of the country, and
to throw a firebrand of disaffection in the midst of an
excited population ? Irresponsible and virtually para-
mount as they now are, it becomes the more impera-
tive upon the Tory majority of that House to pon-
der well the consequences of the course which they
are now about to pursue. They may impede
and harass the Government, and postpone the set-
tlement of this question to another session ; but
they will eventually have to pay dearly for their
present triumphs ; and they cannot possibly ima-
gine that the opposition of a few scores of Temporal
and Spiritual Peers can permanently prevail against the
all but unanimous voice of the Representatives of the
people, backed by the whole nation. The enemies of
their Lordships, and those only, can advise a violent
course. The friends of peace, order, and Constitu-
tional Government, must agree in urging upon their ac-
quiescence a measure important to the country at large,
and still more important and vital when considered in
connection with the opinions of the public as to the
motives and objects of their Lordships' opposition.
But whatever may be the result, we have this satisfac-
tion, that we have gone as far as possible on the road
of conciliation, and, therefore, that the risk and re-
sponsibility of defeating the hopes and expectations of
the community will lie with increased weight upon
those who shall counsel and pursue so rash and suicidal
a course. After the temperate and dignified manner
in which the Commons have acted, and the general
consent of that House to the renewed measure, what
end can be answered by the pertinacious opposition of
a small exclusive body to the fixed determination
of the public for the accomplishment of this great
branch of salutary Reform ? One thing is certain,
that the Representatives of the people cannot further
recede ; and the only consequence of a renewed oppo-
sition will be, that what might have been conceded
with dignity and grace, will eventually be granted to
evident necessity ; and that which would have been
regarded as a concession, cementing a good under-
standing between the Aristocracy and the people, will
be wrung by superior power from hands avowedly
hostile, and received as a prize captured from an
enemy, instead of a gift of friendship, and a pledge of
peace. A short time, however, will determine a ques-
tion on which so much depends ; and we can only
again express our hope that the country will not be
disappointed in the final determination of that House
which has hitherto, it must be allowed, most doggedly
resisted every liberal measure that has been brought
before it this session, and, should it reject the present
Bill, will have been the cause of a long Parliamentary
session having passed away without any step being
taken to redress the grievances and satisfy the just ex-
pectations of the thitish public. Can such a state of
things be expected to continue ? Ought it to con-
tinue? The plain common sense of the people will
furnish the reply.—Morning Chronicle.
If the Irish Registration Bill, which the House of
Lords have thrown out, had passed into a law, it
would have had the effect of placing almost the whole
representation.of Ireland absolutely at the disposal of
Mr. O'Connell. At present about 40 Members of his
nomination are returned, all pledged repealers—men
whose often avowed ulterior object is like that of their
Dictator, the severing of the legislative connection be-
tween the two countries—in other words, the dismem-
berment of the Empire. If the Bill in question had
passed the Agitator would have been able to have re-
turned at least double that number of pledged re-
pealers into the next Parliament. Of the rejection of
this Bill, therefore, Mr. O'Connell has very great reason
to complain. It has prevented him taking an immense
stride towards the consummation of his projects. That
Lord Melbourne should feel very sore respecting
the allusions made by the Earl of Wicklow to the
real object and origin of the Irish Registration Bill
was natural enough. The sting of Lord Wicklow's
observations was in their truth. The Bill bore evidence
in itself of being an instalment of the " debt of grati-
tude" which the Ministers owe to the man who, by
means of his Parliamentary " tail," has upheld them
in office when they had neither the talents nor moral
influence to maintain themselves at the head of the
affairs of this great nation. But Lord Melbourne
denied that he has been supported in office by the aid
of the Agitator against the sense of the English people,
and he asks "is the support of the English Representa-
tives to be accounted as nothing ? " The Noble Vis-
count's allusion to the support which he has re-
ceived from the English Representatives was rather
an unfortunate one for his argument. If the fate

of the Administration depended upon the votes of
the English Representatives, it would not be in ex-
istence now. Upon the great divisions of the session,
from the election of a Speaker downwards, the ma-
jority of the English Members have voted against
the Whig-Radical party and their allies of the " move-
ment "—but the Irish Agitator and his repeaters
have turned the scale. Do not Ministers, then, owe
them a large debt of gratitude ? They certainly do,
and would be the most ungrateful of men if they did
not pay that debt ; but that is no reason why the
House of Lords should allow them to discharge the
obligation at the expense of the best interests of the
country. The speeches of the Duke of Wellington
and Lord Fitzgerald were certainly not calculated to
smooth the ruffled temper of the Premier. The Hero
of Waterloo does not pretend to be an orator, but
Lord Melbourne has no defensive armour that can re-
sist the home thrusts' of his vigorous logic. Lord
Fitzgerald very properly told the House that " the
Bill, if passed, would, in fact, repeal the provisions
of the Act which was made an accompaniment to the
Roman Catholic Relief Bill, without being actually
embodied in it." In fact it would repeal the most im-
portant of the few securities for their religion which
were given to the Protestant people when Roman Ca-
- _

tholic-s were admitted to legislate for the Church and the
empire.--Morning Herald.

A very numerous meeting of Conservative Peers
took place yesterday at Apsley House. Their Lord-
ships were assembled for several hours, which, we
understand, were spent in grave and harmonious deli-
beration. The result was such as must satisfy the
country of the eager disposition of the House of Lords

to forw'ard all measures which, while they afford the
prospect of national advantage, can be adopted without
violating the rights of individuals or the principles of
constitutional law. We now entertain no doubt that the
Corporation Bill, cured as it has been by the enlightened
and patriotic efforts of the House of Lords of most of its
original vices and defects, will soon receive the Royal
assent. The circumstance that the Duke of Wellington
and Lord Lyndhurst declined assisting in the confer-
ence with the Commons will probably give rise to
much idle remark. We believe the fact to be that
Lord Melbourne pursued a course not conformable to
precedent in including the names of the Noble Duke
and the Noble and Learned Baron in his motion no-
minating the Peers who should represent the House in
conference. The Bill, although substantially, in re-
spect to some of its most important enactments, it is
the Bill of the Opposition in the House of Peers, is
still in name and form a Ministerial Bill. And it
can really excite no surprise that the Duke of Wel-
lington and Lord Lyndhurst should not, in the ab-
sence of any necessity or any reason, consent to share
responsibility upon any subject with Lord Melbourne
and Lord John Russsell.—Morning Post.

An excellent letter of remonstrance and advice has
been addressed to the Peers under the title of " The
Peers and the People," by a member of their order.
The writer at once avows his apprehension that the
,c /oily" and " insanity" of their Lordships' pro-
ceedings, in regard to certain Bills, must excite a flame
which will immolate and consume their rights and pri-
vileges on the altar of popular indignation. He boldly
asks what body in the State dares to arrogate to itself
the right to check, controul, or curtail of their just
proportions the rights, liberties, and privileges of the
British people ?—and answers—it is the House of
Peers which is guilty of this assumption of authority
and abuse of the real power vested in it. It is the