The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-19 00:00:00

' :hat our Correspondent does nut desire a creation
of Peers merely for the purpose of carrying the Re-
form BP; he thinks that, even if the essential parts
of the Bill were allowed to pass the Upper House
ithout an addition to the Peerage, still a number-
of new Peers ought to be made, for the purpose of
liberalising the House of Lords, that it might not be
in a state of hostile collision hereafter with a re-
formed House of Commons. In thin respett our
correspondent goes farthtr than most other persons
do in approbation of the policy of augmenting the
number of the hereditary legislators of the land.
'file most zealous advocates of such a coup d'etat
do not pretend that the measure would be right or
good, or es-tn expedient, with re and to any other
object than to eases the Reform 13t11. They argue
/Veit to be the necessity which justifies an act
of policy not otherwise correct in principle, or
sound in practice ; arid for such a purpose they
insist that the end sanctities the means ; but
no person that we are aware of, with the
exception of our correspondent, has contended that
a numerous addition to the ',mks of our hereditary
law-makers would be a substantive good, even al-
though the Reform Bill were certain of success in
the present House of Lords. Whatever may be
thought of the creation of Peers as a necessary
means to carry the Reform 1311, surely every one
who understionls the British Constitution, and wishes
its principles to be preserved while its abuses are
purified, would demand of Ministers that a clear and
indisputable case of r ecessity be made out before
an alternative of so violent a char..eter, and so dan-
gerous as a precedeqt, ought to be resorted to.
There is nothing in which injudicious Statesmen are
so likey to err as in mistaking, on the one hand,
timidity for prudence, or confounding, on the other,
intemperance woh energy. It must be admitted to
be a very strong exercise of the prerogative which
converts the majority of the House of Lord: into a
minority; and if it be a constitutional application
of regal power under any circumstances, it is quite
certain that nothing but an overwhelming necessity
can excuse it. Before Earl Grey is condemned for
not advising the Sovereign to have recourse to the
extreme measure of neutral zing the House of Lords
by force of the prerogative, it ought to be shown
that every chance of carrying the essential principles
of the Bill, according to the ordinary forms of the
Constitution, is lost, and that even the hope of suc-
cess in that way must be abandoned. We say the
principles of the Bill, for we do not much admire
its perplexed, complicated, and almost chaotic
details. What,,then, are the principles that we
would be satisfied with ? They are the disfranchise-
ment of the rotten boroughs, and the enfranchise-
ment of the great and populous towns. These once
c oiled, the deliverance of England from the domi-
nation of a Borough Oligarchy will have been
effected; and in a Parl'ament not controlled by the
nominees of a few Noblemen, and iov'gorated by the
infusion of the wholesome freedrm and intelligence
of a corresponding number of the real representatives

of the people, the minor questions touching the ad-
justment of the elective franchise, and other matters
of arrangement and detail, will, no doubt, be satis-
factorily settled. In the present state of the coun-
try—the stagnation of trade—the excitement and
suspense which unsettle the people's minds, and
disturb the regular course of industry—we would be
willing to make some compromi•e, ever► as to a
portion of the boroughs in schedule B, to secure the
speedy passing of the Reform Bill, and thereby
relieve the country from the provisional state into
which all its great interests have been thrown by
its protracted agitation. As to what our correspon-
dent says of the necessity of creating Peers to assi-
milate the Howe of Lords in opinion to that of the
Commons, and prevent the two branches of the
Legislature from corning in hostile collision after the
passing of the Reform Bill, we would observe that
we wish to see the Constitution restored trot de-
stroyed ; we wish to see the people really repre-
sented, but we do not desire to see the indepen-
dence cf the House of Lords overthrown.

We are for continuance of a Government,
consisting of King, Lords, and Commons, not
for a wild democracy, with a shadow of
kingly power obedient to its fierce com-
mands. Our Correspondent says, " Hereditary
legislators should not court a too narrow inspection
of their title; many of them are totally unfitted by
the lives they lead for the discharge of any office
of trust or importance. Virtue and wisdom are the
only patents that can confer true nobility." Yet
with such an opinion of the balks and qualifications
of our hereditary legislators, he is anxious that their
numbers should be increased ! But, then, his reason
is that the House of Lords may be assimilated to a
reformed House of Commons. Now, if it be de-
sirable that under a reformed Parliament the House
of Lords should have no will of its own, would it
not be the safer and more prudent way to abolish
that branch of the Legislature altogether? If it be
retained only to nod assent to every measure of the
Commons, of what possible use can it be ?
To retain a House of Lords merely to register
the decrees of the Com:nons would be useless,
and to make it merely the ornamental appendage
of the democratic part of the Constitution would
be ridiculous. If we think it unreasona)de
and unjust that the Lords should intrude
upon the tepreientation of the people by sending
their nominees into the Lower House, so we think
it unreasonable and unjust that, in calling upon the
Lords to restore to the people their usurped rights,
it should also be demanded of them to surrender
their own. This is not to do justice, but to substi-
tute one case of usurpation for another, and destroy
the balance of the Constitution. There are other
objections which we have to a large crea.ion of
Peers, which make us regard it as an evil, which,
if it can be avoided, ought not to be inflicted on

the country. We do not speak now of the danger
of the precedent which may be pleaded in justifi-
cation of ensuring the success of the wens! measures
of the worst Government hereafter, though that is
a strong objection. L-t that be put aside at peseta.
But we would point out to the public a circum-
stance which seems to be forgotten; and that is,
that for every Peer created by the Minister a new
family is placed in a situation which disqualifies all
its members for the paths of industry, and may
eventually make them a burden upon the resources
of the State. Does not the Pension List, which
Lord Aithorp, since Ins accession to office, defended
upon the prileciple of charity, and which, like cha-
rity, " covers a multitude of sins"—does not the
Pension List, we say exhibit, sufficiently numerous
instances of " splendid pauperism" already ? If
vice and extravagance, if the race-course and the
gambling table, break down the fortunes of en-
nobled prodigals, can it be expected that the Lord
Augustuses and Lady Matildas should degrade the
Peerage by turning their hands to honest indusry
What then remains? The resources of the State;
and if Lord Grey advises the King to make 100
new Peers, the country may be prepared to find
them or their descendants, and even r mote connec-
tions, liberally provided for out of the public taxes.
Besides, if a large creation of Peers should have the
effect of turning a considerable !Amber of the inde-
pendent supporters of Ministers in the House of
Lords against them and the Reform Bill, the nation
has to dread lest those Peers createdfor the occasion
may not be the most servile tools of any succeeding
Minister whether good or bad. Did we not hear
much of the balance of the ancient Nobilly b&ng in
favour of the. Reform Bill, and that of the new ..Vo-
bility being against it ? This surely does not fu,nish
an argument why the nation should be passionately
fond of new and large accessions to the Peerage.—
Morning Herald.
As the period approaches when the fate of the
Reform Bill is to be decided, the public anxiety be-
comes fearfully intense. To say nothing of the
anxiety which every honest Englishman must feel
to see an end put to the system which has already
entailed so much calamity on thecountry,and which
is utterly incompatible with the national well-being,
the long continued agitation of this question has
been attended with most disastrons consequences to
the industrious part of the population. With every
disposition to confide in Earl Grey, the people are yet