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

will, nevertheless, in six months, coucede its etatials?—
'Butßut it is replied—' The dread of a Peerage creation now
hangs over them !' The same apprehension existed, and
without effect, in the preceding Session ; and did th, -
fear of a dissolution prevail in the Common-s-? Locke
has justly observed of persons of caste, " that they ac-
commodate themselves to the opinions and rules of those
with whom they converse; that the greatest number go-
vern themselves by the law of fashion ; that not one in ten
thousand is stiff and insensible enough to hear the con-
demnation of his own club !' May it not he preferable
that the majority of the Lords sbould preserve their con-
sistency in the eyes of Reformers, and their honour in the
sight of Asti-reformers ? May it not be better than
Lord Grey should accept Vie support of any sincere con-
verts to his principles (if any such there be) after an ad-
dition to the House of Lords? anti will not such support
ultimately better uphold the character of the Peerage ?
" Admitting any reasons of the Cabinet for desiring to
carry the Bill without additional Peer, are t 7,e whole pos-
sible benefits of such a policy equivalent to the risk ? In
such a juncture will Lord Grey he justified in temporising,
for the single purpase of c isting again on the Piers the
responsibility (through a majority against some vital prin-
ciple of the BM) of forcing a creation of Peers ? Have
wit the Anti-reform Lords already, to the full, incurred
that responsibility? A second defeat of the Bi'l will give
no more real authority to Lord Grey to increase the
Peerage than its first rejection gave to him—indicating, as
it did, that that House will never pass ;in efficient measure,
or enable Lord Grey to redeem his uledge to the country.
The personal character and rank of Peers precludes the
possibility of sufficiently sifting or pledging their opinions.
Is Lord Grey satisfied of the votes on the essentials of the
measure even (lithe minority who supported him in Octo-
ber ? No Peer who oppssss the second reading in the
ensuing discussion will support the essentials of the Bill ;
how many of those who vote the second reading will
oppose its details ? The suspension of proxies in
Committee will, doubtless, aid the Ministry; but the
Reform Bill has to pass a third reading, where proxies
revive; and how many unwilling supporters may then
withhold their votes, should a modified measure be craftily
proposed at that stage by the Opposition
Shoul I the Bill be thrown out or destroyed in effect with-
out new Peers, will Lord Grey preserve the confidence of
the Nation for a third trill under his auspices ? and will
Reformers or Anti Reformers admit that a second rejec-
tion more justifies a resort to new Peers than its October
rejection ? What changes may not death involve within
the Palace, the Cabinet, and the Legislature? Can Lord
Grey carry on the Government (if 'the Reform Bill pass)
without an infusion of new blood into the Pee-age? And
will nit a present creation, to ensure the success of a
great constitution 11 change, be preferable to a creation for
the purpose of preserving a party Ministry or particular
principles of policy ? If Lord Grey's Bill of Reform is ulti-
mately lost, will the House of Lords ever have another
offer of so aristocratic a measure ?"—alforniny Chronicle.

The speech of the Duke of Wellington on Filthy

night on the subject of the braggart oration of the
Prime Minister of France, and the testimony borne
by Earl Grey to the accuracy of the Noble Duke's
statements, will excite, there can be no doubt, a
deeper and more general sensation throughout
Europe than any Parliamentary proceeding which
has for several years taken place in this country;
and whatever may be thought of the character and
position of some other Statesmen, as developed by
means of this interesting explanation, one opinion
only can be entertained as to the prudence and spirit
with which, upon this occasion, the illus'rious Duke
discharged an imperious and a most difficult and de-
licate duty. It is not surprising indeed that the slaves of
the present Administratiorejustly alarmed at the effect
which must naturally be produced in the public
mind of Great Britain by the contrast between the
feelings and conduct of the Noble Duke and those
of the men who have immediate possession of po-
litical power, should attempt to insinuate the exist-
ence of unworthy motives on the part of the former,
and labour to persuade. the people that although the
Noble Duke stated nothing but facts, and although
the statement of those facts was necessary to vindi-
ca'e the honour of the British Government and of
several of its most faithful and valuable Allies,
the Nob'e Duke should, nevertheless, have con-
demned himself to silence from the apprehen•
sion of embarrassing the existing Govern-
ment of France, of offending Monsieur Casimir
Perier and his colleagues, of disturbing the
harmony between France and England. Our
Liberals have suddenly become great sticklers for
the unsparing sacrifice of principle, of veracity,
and of character, upon the altar of expediency. But
they grievously misapprehend the genius of the
British people if they hope that the latter can be
brought to sympathise in this degraded and dege-
nerate doctrine. We maintain that if it had been

the Citizen King of the French himself, a quieter
man, we suppose, than his Minister, and more iden-
tified perhaps with the character, the feelings, and
the fortut,es of the French nation, who, instead of
Monsieur Casimir Perier, had insinuated falsehoods

injurious to the honour of England and of her an-
cient and faithful Allies—we maintain that even in
this much stronger case for reserve it would have
been the duty of Earl Grey promptly and effectually
to repel the calumnious imputation, and that, the
Noble Earl neglecting or shrinking from the dis-
charge of this imperious duty, it was then incum-
bent, not upon the Duke of Wellington only,
but upon any British Statesman or Senator who
had the necessary knowledge of the facts, to
expose the base and braggart falsehood of the French
fat faro,/ whom the proper and official guardians of
British honour had consented to shield; thus ex-
hibiting a baseness not equal to his own in degree,
hut. different and more despicable in kind. The
prime Minister of France, relying, as it now appears,
with good reason, upon the base acquiescence of
Earl Grey anti Lord Palmerston, promulgated to
Europe two distiect falsehoods, both flattering to
what in that country is deemed national glory, a
sentiment quite independent of that of national
justice, and both derogatory to the honour of
Great Britain, and the other great European
States. He said that France had supported and
protected the Belgian revolution, which with honour
the other Governments of Europe could not have
permitted. He insinuated that this support and
protection was the effective defence of the Belgian
revolution from a meditated hostile interference on
the part of the other Powers. The assertion and the
insinuation were equally false. France discouraged
in common with the other Powers the Belgian
Revolution, by every means short of armed in-
tervention, as she and they were bound to do by
the terms of existing treaties. By common and
spontaneous consent France and the other Powers
concurred in the impropriety of going further. In
all respects France and the other Powers acted in
unison, and in every word that he uttered leading
to a contrary inference M. Casimir -Perier was a
vain-glorious braggart and an unprincipled calum-
niator. These truths it was necessary for the Duke
of Wellington, upon the narrow principle of self-
defence, as well as from the more comprehensive
feelings of patriotism and justice, to reveal to the
world ; and it is a signal proof of his discretion and
liberality that he knew how to reveal them in a
manner which must be not only inoffensive but
grateful to an honourable arid high-spirited people
like the French. The Duke of Wellington was un-
questionably right in expressing as he did his respect
for the French nation, at the same time that he held
up to the contempt of Europe the Minister of France.
It would be injurious to the people of France to sul;.
pose it possible that they ca►► have any Sympathy
with a Minister who exposed himself to such a con-
viction of falsehood as M. Casimir Perier has just
undergone. But whet* the disgrace of this
Statesman be the result of character or of position, h
is equally pregnant with instruction as to the na-
tural effect of democratic revolution in every
country. If the result of character, it presents an
example of chat is most vile being thrown by the
waves of revolution into the highest place in society.
If the result of position merely, and an involuntary
and compelled baseness, it is an example equally
striking of the truth that revolutionary Governments
are sure to become the representatives and expo-
nents, not of the mind and feelings of a nation, but
of the mind and feelings of the dregs of the popu-
lace, who in a revolutionary state overpower the
voice and usurp the authority of the whole commu-
nity. In either case, when we consider this convic-
tion of falsehood in conjunction with the fawnings
and flatteries by which Earl Grey and Lord Pal-