The Sun.
London, England, 1835-12-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 26, 1835.

legislatively as respon4ibk a body 118 the Members of
the House of. CoMmons? We know. that they will
not ; and yet such in reality is the fact. Master
D'lsnAEtt does not. condescend to inform the public
by what process a Peer is to be ejected, when his
votes are found to oppose the wishes of a majority of
his countrymen ; neither does he attempt to reconcile
the rejection of poor Sir CHARLES WETIIERELL,
CROKER, and the old boioughmongering chiefs of the
Tory squad, by the electors of Great Britain, with the
presence of NEWCASTLE, WINCHELSEA, LYND-

HURST, ELDON, and KENYON in the House of Peers.
With all his logical quibbling, he dreaded to approach
the subject nearer than where he might safely ensconse
himself behind a school-boy sophistry—the fallacious-
ness of which few schoolboys would be found incapable
of demonstrating. We call particular attention to the
flourish of trumpets with which the common responsi-
bility of the several branches of the legislature is in-
troduced by the author of the " Vindication

Who has not heard of the fatal and anomalous irres-
ponsibility of the House of Lords ? Of what Whin•c.jour-
nal does it not form the subject of the choice and cock-
brained leading article ? Is there a tavern-Cleon, from
whose foaming lips its anathema does not flow in rabid
sentences of seditious folly ? Is- there a plebeiatroracle of
a metropolitan vestry who does not warn the Peers of
England with the solemn stolidity of his Delphic utterance ?
Nay, the authorised agitator of the Administration itself
is sent upon a provincial tour of treason to open.the.minds
of the King's lieges on this urgent point of constitutional
revelation—the vagabond and over-rated rebel—vomiting
his infamous insolence in language mean as his own soul !"

Here the cloven foot peeps out, and we discover in
the new defender of the Tory political faith the rabid,
rejected, impotent reviler of DANIEL O'CONNELL !
But why call the " man of the people" a rebel ? Is
it rebellion to support his MAJESTY'S Government ?
Is it rebellion to oppose by constitutional means the
re-accession of a faction to power, by whom the coun-
try of O'CONNELL was bathed in her own best and
bravest blood ? Was it rebellion to be instrumental

in striking the chains from nearly eight millions of his
MAJESTY'S British and Irisb subjects ? Was it rebel-
lion to co-operate with the Government in passing the
Reform Bill, the Poor Law Amendment Bill, and the
Municipal Corporation Bill ? Is it rebellion to advocate
the claims of the Dissenters ; the Emancipation of the
Jews ; and to denounce corruption, whether screened
by an ermine robe, concealed by lawn sleeves, or be-
dizzened with a ducal coronet ? Is it rebellion to tell

,he people that their liberties are threatened ; that the

Tories would sacrifice their country for place and
power ; and that even Master DISRAELI is less con-
cerned about the fate of the British Constitution than
about the chances of his individual honour and profit?
If such be rebellion, then is there not an honest Man
in England who is not as great a rebel in thought, in
word, and in desire, as Mr. O'CONNELL is in deed.
But no man with two sound ideas in his head would
listen for an instant to such imbecile drivelling. The
principles of the Tories are too well understood to
allow any person to be mistaken as to the worth of
such insane ravings. It is well known that were
O'CONNELL to join the Tories to-morrow, and so
enable them to seize upon the reins of Government,
he might make his own terms with them. He might
choose his own office, and even nominate every member
of his family to some place of distinction and emolu-
ment. Nay, were he to take it into his head that a
mitre would sit gr'acefully upon his ample brow, six
months would not elapse before the Tories would ap-
point him to an Archbishopric—and that, too, with-
out a renunciation of his creed, provided the really re-
ligious portion of the people could be persuaded to
hold their peace. In the profession of Toryism only,
Mr. O'CONNELL would find a regenerative ablution,
which would completely purge and purify him from
every spot, stain, or Abomination communicated by a
belief in the errors of Popery.
We pray our readers to take especial notice of the
charge against the Ministry, which is directly made in
the last sentence of the above extract. The author
assumes that Mr. O'CONNELL was " sent upon a
provincial tour of treason" brhis MAJESTY'S Govern-
ment. Now this is not only a notorious falsehood,
but even DISRAELI must have known it to be one when
he made it : yes, this newly-reared pillar of that Corin-
thian edifice—the House of Peers—directly states, in
the true spirit of Toryism, what not only himself, but
every man in the United Kingdom knows to be a pure
fiction, invented for the most dishonest purpose—
namely, that of periling the peace of the country by
exciting its distrust of the good faith of the present
Government. Nor is O'CONNELL a person to be
made the instrument of such a design, even supposing
it to have received the sanction of the Whig Cabinet.
He is not a man to be " sent" on any errand—a pro-
position which even Master DISRAELI has admitted,
where he accuse Ministers of being the passive slaves
of the Agitator.
Neither can we see the propriety of a youngster,
like Master D'IsEAELI, complaining of the mean-
ness of Mr. O'Co NNELL'S language. Has Mr. 0' C o N.•
NELL ever made use of such a phrase as "the vaga-
bond and over-rated rebel," applied to a Member of
the House of Commons, and virtually the chosen Re-
presentative of the KING'S subjects ? We will under-

take to affirm, that he has never " vomited" forth any
thing so insolent, foul, and calumnious. Mr. O'CoN-
NELL represents the opinions of the majority of his
countrymen—does Mr. D'IsaAELI, the younger, dare
to tax them with rebellious designs ? We are no advo-
cates of the extreme license which Mr. O'CONNELL
allows himself in condemning the conduct of those who
oppose his political views. We are persuaded that
were he to abstain from personalities in his attacks
upon those whom he looks upon as the betrayers of
liberty he would be even more successful—in England
at least—than he has been hitherto ; but compare his
most furious harangues with the language of his youth-
ful Tory monitor, and then it will be easily seen that in
foul-mouthed ribaldry Mr. O'CoNNELL has at least

one successful competitor.
So much for the attack upon Mr. O'CONNELL.
We now come to the defence of the House of ' Peers
with all its hereditary abuses, inconsistencies, and
" anomalies." The morceau is among the daintiest
rarities of the season

" The estate of the Peers is in no greater degree irre-
sponsible than the estate of the Commons. Both are alike
popular classes, that is, sections of the nation, established
for the public and common good, into political orders or
estates. For this reason are they privileged, and for no
other ; nor is there any privilege of importance which the
Lords enjoy which the Commons do not share ; though
there arc very many, and those too very important privi-
leges, which the Commons in the course of time have ac-
quired, and which they have jealously monopolized. The
Commons, for their own convenience, meet in Parliament
by their representatives ; the Lords, from their limited
number, meet personally. Yet a Peer is allowed to vote
by proxy on the same principle that the Commons are al-
lowed to vote by their proxies or representatives ; it ever
being the wish and intention, and genius of our Constitu-
tion, that the three estates should be as completely and
constantly consulted on all subjects, and their consent to all
laws as perfectly obtained as human wit could devise.
This is the real and original cause of the Peers voting by
proxy, an analogous privilege with that enjoyed by the
Commons ; yet in these days of profound constitutional
learning even this vote by proxy is held an anomaly,' and
no less a personage than an exalted Member of the Upper
House itself, eager to obtain a little vulgar popularity by
falling in with the superficial humours of the day, has been
found anxious to deprive his own order of an ancient and,
as I have shown, not a peculiar privilege."
4 *

" If the estate of the Peers be not more, irresponsible in.
the exercise of the power with which it is invested than,the
estate of the Commons, so also the qualification by which
the Peers exercise their power is in it nature the same as

the qualificatitm:by which •the - Commons exercise their
power. If the institution of hereditary legislators be ab-
surd, I do not see that that of hereditary electors is less so.
If it be absurd to enact that a man in the most elected
and cultivated class of the community should be burn with
the right of becoming, at a legal age, an English legislator,
so is it equally absurd to-maintain'that It man in one of the
humbler and less educated classes of the community, should
be born with the right of becoming, at a legal age, the no-
minator of a legislator. Yet the qualification of a majority
of the English Commons is hereditary."
Principles are not worth a farthing unless they will
bear to be carried out as far as they can go. But we
will commence with the details, and so progressively
reach the whole. - " The estate of the Peers," com-
mences•this most logical and acute reasoner, " is in no
greater degree irresponsible than the estate of the
Commons." This. is false in every sense. Taking

the estate of the Commons to include the whole of the
electoral body, can it be said that they are as irre-
sponsible as the Members of the House of Lords ?
Most certainly not. They are not voters for life ;
they cannot vote by proxy ; nor are they in any one
sense of the word a hereditary body. An elector
_ .

dare not presume to claim a right to vote, because his
father and grandfather were voters ; but solely and en-
tirely because he is hi:nself legally qualified to dis-
charge such a function. Is such the constitutional
doctrine with respect to the Peers? Are they liable
to prosecutions for bribery and co►ruption in the event
of their votes being given in lieu of Ministerial patro-
nage ? Are they, too, subject to pecuniary scrutiny
and disqualification at the commencement of every
new Session of Parliament ? And if they are not,

NVith what appearance of common discernment can Mr.
DISRAELI assert that the estate of the Peers enjoys
no privilege i❑ which the Commons do not partici-
pate ? . But the richest part about this defence is the
sentence in which Master DISRAELI asserts that
voting by proxy in the House of Peers, is " an ana-
ogous privilege with that enjoyed by the Com-
In what, we should be glad to know,
consists the analogy between the two cases ?
Has .an elector a choice as to the manner
of his voting as the Peers have ? Is it a matter of
pure choice with him whether he sends a representa-
ive to Parliament, or takes his seat personally in the
House of Commons ? Suppose he does not • choose
to vote in the Legislature by proxy—what then ? Can

mons.

he claim a right to sit and vote in his own House ?
Where then is the " analagous" discovery made by
Master D'IsRAELI ?

In these remarks will be found an answer to all
Mr. DISRAELI'S bombastic defence of the Peerage
abuses. They contain a complete refutation of the
absurd nonsense beginning with, " If the institution of
hereditary legislators be absurd, I do not see that that
of hereditary electors is less so." Such reasoning may
do for Lord LYNDHURST, but it will be justly scouted
by the country. We have shown above that there is no
such thing as hereditary electors. No commoner can
inherit a right to vote from his father ; the right must be
in himself, derived from a bona.fide qualification. If the
eldest is not individually qualified he cannot vote, al-
though such a right is exercised by every member of
his family. There was a time when the eldest sons
of freemen had claims which entitled them to the exer-
cise tif the elective franchise ; but that time, with
many of the abuses which disgraced it, is for ever
passed away.
But Mr. DISRAELI in admitting—what he cannot

deny—that the Commons are an estate of the realm,
which estate is equal to and constituted in the same
way as that of the Lords, at once admits the prin-
ciple, that the people may exercise their own privileges
in whatever way their representatives in the Commons

approve of, without the sanction of the other branches
of the Legislature. According to his doctrine, any
English, Irish, or Scotch elector, who does not think
proper to send, a representative to Parliament,
may, by virtue of his " hereditary " right, come
to London, take his seat in the House of Com-
mons, and record his vote personally on all subjects
before the House. His sending a representative is
regarded by this youthful Solon as a mere matter of
personal convenience—nothing more: so that if his con-
venience prompts differently, be may act accordingly I
Bless us I what a prodigy of talent the Tories may
henceforth boast of, if they continue to be glad-
dened by the presence of Master D'ISRAELI.
And yet this more than inspired youth—for all hu-
man learning would fail in leading to such wonderful
discoveries —is contented to boast only of the
extent of his legal knowledge ! Verily we do not
marvel that our Contemporary of Printing-house
Square was seized with a spasmodic affection while
perusing these lucubrations. And yet we may be
rong in all that we have assumed respecting the
author; as in reality, perhaps, he intended his " Vin-
dication" for a quiz upon the Peerage. If so, we
have reason to complain of the dullness of its pages.
Such a mode of joking may be common in those
circles within which D'ISRAELI the younger moves,
but we beg leave to assure him that it is not intelligence
to the great bulk of the British people.

We are glad to team by a communication from a
Dublin Correspondent, which will be found elsewhere,
that the proposal for establishing a " Reform Registry
Association in Ireland" is meeting with great favour
among all classes of Liberals in that country. The first
meeting of the Association was held a few days ago, and
on which occasion, says our Correspondent "nearly one
hundred individuals, including more wealth, talent, rank,
and respectability, than ever before assembled as the nu-
cleus of a political body in Ireland, _were present."
This is a cheering sign of the times.

We have received the Fourth Number of the Port-
folio, published by It IDGwAY. Extracts-from it, as
given by a Morning Contemporary, the general tone
of whose foreign politics we highly approve of, will
be found in another part of The Szi;z. On Monday
we shall devote an article to the principal topics to
which it refers.

We have received the whole of the Paris Papers of
Thursday. The victories of the French troops in
Africa were celebrated on Tuesday last at the Turneries
by a Drawing-room, at which all the Ambassadors
were present, with the exception of the R ussian Envoy,
Count PAHLEN. The reports of these victories will
be found among our extracts from the French jour
nals.

PARIS, DEC. 24.—1 t will be observed that the Ministe-
rial account of the operations of our army in Africa, does
not mention the amount of killed and wounded in the short
campaign of Mascara. A morning paper states it at 12
killed, and about 200 wounded.
This
from a letter dated at Mosta-
ganem,
some details of the return from
mas journal
e
The army commenced its return on
the Bth. But 'the vanguard had proceeded only a short
Mascara.
j. 4 thl t Ds
aae:.essoe_mg,bi,se, er
distance, when it perceived the enemy's army extending on
the right ; the position was skillfully turned, and the Arabs
being between two fires, were obliged to fall back. How-
ever, they marched in good order to the defiles of Imadal,
where they placed a battery of five small pieces of cannon.
The position of our troops was becoming difficult, when
the brave General Oudinot, following only the dictates of
his courage, placed himself at the bead of the sharp-
shooters, and impetuously attacked the enemy, who were
obliged to open a passage to us. Our troops had severol
other combats to sustain, in order to reach Mostaganem."
The La Guicnnc says it has certain information that
General Alava comes to Paris, to require the execution of
the treaty of quadruple alliance—that is, in other words,
the intervention—but that M. de Rayneval has declared
that it will not be granted, till it shall be authorised by a
great majority in the Coytes,----Messager, Dec, 24.