The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-07 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF. THE PUBLIC JOURNALS

The ceuntry will have observed, with the utmost in-
dignation, the hhughty, the unreasoning, unrelenting
intemperance with which the Lords have treated the
concessions of the Commons, with reference to the,
amendments in the Corporation Bill. Lord Lyndhurst
seemed almost beside himself, while triumphing in his
late achivements, at the head of the oliearchical band
who have accepted him for their champion and leader.
The paeeeetic nee) his talents, his political sin,-7erity,
honour. and ceesistencv. pronounced on the occasion
—anti on such au occasion .f—by Lord Brougham.
must have, indeed, been peculiarly grateful to his feel•
inos I No remembrance of the past democrat, no dis-
gust against abilities prostitwed to the purposes of a
e.
party hostile to all the early prineHee _of Ceelee.
seemed to haunt the memory or of end -the taste of
Lord 13roug,hain. white he was ui) the incense
offering ,
at the shrine of this new god of his idolatry. We
are not among those. who have any wislr.ever
to see the honourable enmities or rivalries of
public life disturb the course of private friendship.
But there are seasons for all things. And we;
must say that any effusion of adulation more unsea-
sonable as to time, more uncalled-for, more abrupt,
more invidious in its terms, more unexpected from the
_ quarter whence it came, we never heard or read, than
this laboured, eulogy of Lord Brougham upon the
mutilator of the Corporation Bill, at the very moment
when that person was exerting all his powers to insult
and degrade the Commons of England. How, for
instance, did lie treat the amendment, permitting the
Council to elect Aldermen for six years instead of for
life ? The alteration, in fe.,venr of the latter precious
scheme, was confessedly his own Invention. His silly
followers applauded and carried it. The Commons.
rejected it unanimously. When the Bill went back_
he still persevered in his scheme, but his precious dis-
ciples abandoned him. Still he adhered -to his
offspring, until he found there was nothing to, be
gained by his - obstinacy, and eventually he
yielded--not to the voice of the Commons, but to
the opinion of one individual "for whose opinions
he entertained the greatest respect ! " Insolence
more unqualified than this has no example in Par-
liamentary history ; and yet this is the man whom
Lord Brcugham thought fit at the very moment, to
elevate upon a pedestal for the admiration of all ages !
Amidst the strange alterations which are going on in
the minds of some public.men, and seeing the immi-
nent hazard to which the public cause is exposed at
this moment—looking to the dangers which the re-
cess may bring with it when possibly another Tory
Ministry may lord it over us for a few months, and
plunge the country into fresh agitations by a new dissolu-
tion of Parliament—we think that the people and
their faithful representatives have an extremely difficult
duty to discharge. On Saturday we expresged without
reserve our opinion on the clauses introduced into the
Bill by the Lords, and drew attention--more particu-
larly to the mischievous character of the alteration by
which the recommendation of Justices is ta!ien
froth the Town-councils. We remain of opinion,
that , the most mischievous consequences must flow
from • both of the clauses thrust into the Bill by
the Lords ; and should the Tories contemplate a
repetition of the -trick or November last, the no-
mination of about a thousand Justices, with power of
licensing, may give them in a fresh election aepower
by which the Reform interest may be deeply injured.
In the course of Saturday and yesterday we had oppor-
tunities of learning the sentiments of several influen-
tial Members of Parliament on the great question
which is about to be decided. Ought the Bill as it
now stands to he rejected, and the original Bill to be
reproduced in its integrity next session ? The lan-
guage which they generally held was—What events
may not happen before next session ? How do we
know what coalitions may not take place, with the
view of depriving our present honest, stedfaste and
popular Ministers of the station which they now oc- '
cupy ?-----A station, we are quite confident, which no
man of high feeling would retain- one hour under
existing circumstances, who was not firmly convinced
that his retirement would be fraught with calamity to
the empire. It is manifestly the hearty desire of
the Lords that the Bill shotiM never become the law of
the land. They have done everything in their power
to render it unacceptable to the Commons. They
have sccirned the idea of conciliation. They disdain
a comprorDissie They have been obliged to abandon
their amendraht retaining Aldermen for life. 'They
approve of Sir Robert Peel's alternative of a 301. and
15/.4ateage qualification, becatise they think it narrows
the door of entrance to the Council, still more than
their 'own -proposal; and it would seem, from the
speech of the Duke of Wellington, that even if one
man had stood up in the Commons' ,''r keeping the
Town-Clerks in their offices for life, that t'eenendment,
too, would have been obstinately adheied to. fe very
thing short of these points which is capable of minis-
tering to corruption they retain—the construction of
petty wards—the nomination by the Crown, under
Tory advice, as they hope, of the municipal magis-
trates. 117 e understand that, according to Parlia-
mentary.-s
it age, there cannot be another Conference
between the two Houses with respect to the Bill._ It
will be for the Commons to accept or disagree to the
measure as it is at present shaped. If they accept
it, then it goes hack to the Lords, where it at
once receives the Royal Assent, as it has already
passed that House. But if the Commons make
any alteration in the Bill-suppose, for instance, they
restore the expunged clauses relative to the wards and
magistrates, then the Lords may deal with the Bill as
they think fit. 'They may, if they choose, agree to
the restored clauses ; but if they reject them, then the
Bill cannot go back to the Commons. It drops, and
there is an end to it for this Session. Should the
Commons run the haz'ard, for the sake of the two clauses
in question, of losing theßill altogether for the present?
Is it probable, that if they restored these clauses, the
Lords would be so anxious to carry the Bill as to
agree with time Commons on those points which they
have so doggedly disputed ? These are serious ques-
tions, and require calm end serious consideration. We
know that the country is indignant at the proceedings
of the House of Lords The people of England see
that the Peers are determined 'that they shall derive
the least possible benefit from the Reform Bill. They
see that if that Bill have diminished the power of the
Lords to do mischief, the Lords, on the other
hand, have still the power of preventing. the CoM-
mons from doing good. Were the Commons indig-
nantly to reject the Bill, the people would, we have
110 douht, warmly applaud them. But we ought not
to conceal from, ourselves that the great battle which
must be fought, lwfore we hope for benefieial legisla-
tion, is the Reform of the House of Lords. -This
battle may be fought by peaceable or by violent means.
Now, evety lover of his country' and its happiness,
must wish to avoid violence, and to cornbat the Lords
by constitu.itmal means. The question then is, shall
we be aided or not by the Bill, as it has been left us
by the Lords, in the contest next session ? The Bill
has been dreadfully mutilated, but still the opinion of
those who have bestowed most attention to it, is that
it is capable of effecting great and vital ameliorations
in the Municipalities of this country ; and the
principle of popular election is a vast 'advantage
gained to the popular cause. That pitineiple is to
pervade the whole Townthe entire - Council.
There is a new land-mark acquired for libertvit is
,
an advance—and a very great advance—in the
right course of freedom. Having gained thus
much—if we take advantage of it—we shall, un-
doubtedly, still move onward. Whereas, if from
feelings of mortification, we abstain from availing our-
selves of the facilities now within our reach, we shall
be exposed to the danger of losing them, perhaps, for
a series of years. Such are, we believe, the views of
his Majesty's Ministers with respect to the Bill. We
anxiously wait thee-ilk-4i of the Commons upon the
advice . whichleCnr JONife 't3sell will tender to them
. e •
this evemng—atiVice whiClie*atever way be thought
,
of it in othwOespeetSeno lii; slit.' man can doZ:bt springs
from a cleaKview. of the orAo perils in whim -!rle.
country is ait,mpted to ho iOr dby the House of
,
Lords—perilseom which: WO ver can be saved in
combating agat9et such foqe ess we act with equal
prudence and (V6eviinatrikrieet Their Lordships have
sealed their own fate,'lrts agreed upon all hands. But
in that fate the interests and tranquillity of this great
commercial country must not be implicated. We

must proceed agaiust those enemicS of our rights and
privileges step by step, until we are prepared to over-
whohn them in the abyss which they have prepared
with their own suicidal hands.—ilioratng Cluorizcle.
Our Skurday's paper contained the striking and
powerful speech of Sir IL. Peel nt Tamworth, on the
day preceding. In this vivid and sinewy address was
contained a happy exposure of the sort of league
vamped up between the Whigs and O'Connell, the
myna] compliments between which worthies in the
King's speech two year.; ago, and in tire Derrvnane
letters to Lord Duncannon, were quoted hv rile Right
Honourable Baronet with no common effect.
Robert further reminded his audience of what the
country would and must have gained by the mea-
,:nres which he had prinred for. Parliament on the
-D:ssent-rs- quest;on, adjourned sine die by the Whi:!;;
the Church of England Reform Bill, adionined sine
die by the `Whigs—the Church of Ireland Reform
Bill, rendered impractiCable by the Whigs—and the
Municipal Reform, Bill, impassable through Parlia-
ment, as at first framed by the Whigs. On all, these
questions let the profit and loss be calculated, and see
what the nation has gained by the overthrow of Sir
R. Peel's Government, and the intrusion of the Whigs,
with their revolutionary associates, into power.—

It would seem by the tone of the Ministerial papers,
and the observations made in the House of Lords, on
Saturday, by the Minister himself, that the last
amendments 'of the Lords are not likely to give satis-
faction to the Commons. Arguing upon general prin-
ciples, and with reference to constitutional 'considera-
tions alone, the amendments re-asserted by the Lords
appear just and reasonable. But there is another way
of looking at the question—the way in which Minis-
ters look at most questions— that is, through the me-
dium of party and with reference to its possible in-
fluence upon their tenure of place. According to this
calculation, it is apprehended that the Conservatives
may by posSibility get the better of their opponents,
or, to express the calamity in its full and formidable
extent, get the places of their opponents, through a
system of manceuvering of which the amendments are
supposed to be the foundation. Under an impression
of this nature,it is scarcely to be wondered at that
Ministers should make a difficulty of agreeing to the
proposed compromise. But will the House'of` Com-
mons go along with them in resisting it ? We cannot
believe that such a mere party speculation will influ-
ence the Representatives of the people so far as to pro-
duce the long-looked for " collision " upon any such
grounds. At all events, we will not believe it until it
has happened. But a few hours will decide what no
speculation can venture to do under existing circum-
'stances—Morning Herald.
The Parliamentary session about to terminate will
be memorable for circumstances even more important
than its unprecedented duration and the passing of the
Corporation Bill. The principles of the English
Constitution have not only rallied, but triumphed.
The independent authority of the Upper House of
Parliament, to the exercise and influence of which we
have, in so many periods of our history, been indebted
for the maintenance of our rights and liberties, has
during the present session been asserted by its native
and essential strength alone, and will, we confidently
hope, be this night again virtually and significantly ac-
knowledged by the further and judicious compliance of
the House of Commons with those salutary amend-
ments to which the Peers have wisely deemed it their
duty to adhere ; and the propriety of which they
know to be sanctioned by the opinion of the people.
It is undeniable that in the late events there. is
much to cheer the heart of every lover of his coun-
try, and every admirer of those ancient institutions
which have alike formed, and sprung from, the na-
tional character ; and which, like all institutions
founded on so sound a basis, are invested with a re
markable and a happy power of adapting themselves
to the wants and wishes of the society which they re-
gulate and protect. At present the people of England
have a wiser trust in the practical wisdom of Alfred
the Great than in the verbose and windy theories of
Jeremy Bentham and his utilitarian disciples ; and as
long asathis-be—the—ease we shall adhere to our
laws, our customs, and our institutions. They have
made this realm "the inviolate island of the sage
and free," and we should be base fools indeed to de-
sert. our Constitution—ay, our still unrivalled Consti-
tution, for such we hold it, and to which we are in-
debted for all our famous liberty, and more "than
Tyrian wealth, and blaze of intellectual glory. We
are not ashamed in this cold-blooded, coxcombi-
cal nineteenth century, to praise the Constitution
of England ; and, if all dared speak of it as
they, deem, the good old times would soon re-
turn, when we were grateful to Providence for
our flee and famous Constitution as for the beau-
teous and fertile land wherein we dwell. But
se rascally rabble of - jobbing sciolists have of
late Tears been distilling their leprous poison
into the ungti7srded ears of our generation. We love
our Constitution, we honour it, we cherish it, and we
understand it. But as for the utilitarian sophists, who,
for the last few years, in public and in private, in press
and market-place, senate and saloon, have been gab-
bling against the institutions, and sneering at the wis-
dom of our ancestors—sthey know nothing about the
Constitution ; .they are absolutely in the dark respect-
ing the very subject they criticise ; every observation
they make, when they descant on the English Consti-
tution, would apply as well to the Aulic Council, the.
Hungarian Diet, or the Divan itself. We have seve-
r-al times of late taken an opportunity in this journal
of exposing the flagrant fallacies which these persons
make when they venture on the sacred ground they too
often violate, and indulge in their constitutional com-
ments and criticisms. We have already destroyed the
great " discovery" of the utilitarians, to wit, " the
anomalous irresponsibility of the House of Lords," and
on which blunder one-journal has lived for the last six
years, and dinned the noisy nonsense every week into the
ears of the lieges. It may truly be said of the Lords, that
" Sutiday shines no Sabbath-day on them."
This mighty discovery, we repeat—this pompous
axiom, which is regularly enunciated with such prac-
tised complacency—we have already proved to le S no-
thing more than a big mare's nest, the Peers of Fig-
land not being one whit more irresponsible than the
Commons of England. The next mischievous misre-
presentation that the utilitarians have taken much
pains to pass current is that the House of Commons
is " the people's House." But although this state-
ment has passed current it is nevertheless base, for as
we have before slime', the House . of Commons is no
more " the people's House" than the House of Lords.
The third artifice of the revolutionary school is their
abuse of the word " people" altogether. We have
proved that all the elements of a great people are en-
listed in the cause of the Constitution, and in ana-
lysing the elements of the Conservative party we have
demonstrated that, instead of a party, it is in fact a
nation. So much for the utilitarians : they are miserable
successors to the Girondists. But the utilitarians are
deep enough for the Whigs, when the Whig Leader,
who has written a book on the English Constitution,
describes our most gracious Sovereign, in the assem-
bled House of Commons,oas one of the three estates
of the realm. We venture to say that, considering
the quarter from whence it emanated, this was the
grossest blunder ever made in a Legislative Assembly.
But it is a very instructive blunder, people of England
—and we do not speak to the Peers and Commons
merely, but to the whole people—this we say is a very
instructive blunder for you.; for, by Lord John Rus-
sell's knowledge of your Constitution, you may judge
of his ability to amend it. The man, who ie even
now ignorant of what the three estates of tlsaerealm
really are, was, five years ago, selected by the
Whigs to reform one of them: We are only sur-
prised that he did not fix upon his Majesty
%9r niis-
tal:e. But to•day we are disposed to treat, the
Whigs with lightness. Lord Jelin Russell, it appears,
fhoarsd.notTfhoererioutdteilesiotuhsata.tih,,ls father is Duke elf Beds
Hume, atirlied Mwrh.igs well-timed notices of Mr,
Inppon, and Mr. have re.
of what they sometimes woti—...
in..
willingly fOrc,jet. The essential strength of the Revo-
lutionary
party in the House of Commons is much
over-rated. Five-sixths of the present Members of the
Lower House are personally interested in the preser-
vation of the House of Lords, and the maintenance of

its authority. Five-sixths, and more than five-sixths,