The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-27 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

Pex

e;717

'll

It has surprised us not a little ko,llol'l44tiit
among a certain class of politiciiiikhe pro.
visions of the Reform Bill, which gives eight ad-
ditional Members to this great metrbpolis of the
British empire, is likely to be contested with a
heat which scarcely any other of its provisions
has excited. We must believe the rumour on

y. 'ti\
:"'~'~l i.:~

this subject to be correct, because it is in gene-
ral circulation, and because it remains uncoutra-

dieted by the Press of the Anti-Reformers ; but

unless Lord Chandos—a Nobleman of a high
rank—had positively given a notice to that effect,
we could never have conceived the possibility of
refusing to London any privilege which was
granted in similar circumstances to the other
parts of the kingdom. Those who allow Man-
chester, and Birmingham, and Leeds, and Glas-
gow, which had never representatives before, to
return Members under the Reform Bill, must
have some novel and mysterious system to guide
them, which cannot comprehend the metropolis
and its suburbs. On what ground is any system
of representation based, which could exclude the
rights of the latter? It cannot be an inadequate
population of unrepresented individuals in
the metropolitan districts, for some of those

districts which are only to return two Members
each, have a more numerous body of inhabitants

than any county in England or Wales, except
Yorkshire, which is to return 36 Members, or
Lancashire, which is to return 23. The district
of the Tower Hamlets alone contained, by the
census of 1821, 291,650, and by that of 1831,
359,821 souls,—a population greater than any
one of 30 of the English counties,—one of
which under the old system sent 42 Members to
Parliament, and several of which, under the Re-
form Act, will elect between 10 and 18 repre-
sentatives. Finsbury, and its electoral district,
by the census of 1831, contains 244,077 in-
habitants, being more than 19 out of the 42
counties of England, which, inclusive of their
borough Members, are to be represented by be-
tween 4to 12 Members each. Marylebone and
the surrounding parishes, which unite to form
its electoral district, contain 240,291 inhabi-
tants,—a greater and more intelligent population
than any county of England can produce, with
the exception of three or four. The population
of any one of the four districts of Marylebone,
Finsbury, the Tower Hamlets, or Lambeth, ex-
ceeds that of the whole inhabitants of the bo-
roughs in schedules A and B, which for-
merly returned nearly two-thirds of the
House of Commons. But omitting all
consideration of the number of inhabitants
in London, and looking, for a moment, upon
the immense population of the metropolitan dis-
tricts as hordes of slaves,—no more to be
reckoned in a question of political privilege than
the blacks on a Virginian or West Indian plan-
tation,—let us regard, for a moment, that indi-
cation of their aptitude for voting which is mea-
sured by their possession of separate domiciles .
Thus we find, by the last returns, that the num-
ber of houses in the district of Finsbury is 30,000,
and the number of qualifying tenements 23,600 ;
that the number of houses in Marylebone is
28,000, and the number of qualifying tenements
21,600 ; that in Lambeth the former is 29,000,
and the latter 16,400 ; and that in the Tower
Hamlets the houses are 65,000, and the qualify-
ing tenements 23,000. It is almost needless to
say that in none of the enfranchised towns does
the amount of the population, or the number of
qualifying tenements, approach that of the lowest
of the metropolitan districts. In Birmingham
the number of qualifying tenements is only 7,000 ;
in Manchester only 12,500 ; in Leeds only
6,700. Any one of the metropolitan districts
contains more qualifying tenements than the whole
of the two condemned schedules. It would be su-
perfluous to bring forward any other statement
on this point than the simple fact that the
metropolis and its bordering districts contain
nearly a third of the whole houses of England
rated or liable to the assessed taxes, the number
of tenements of the annual value of ten pounds
in the metropolis being 116,279, and over the
whole kingdom only 378,786. But there is
another essential element of qualification intro-
duced into every system of constituency, except
that of universal suffrage—namely, property, or
that criterion of patriotism and knowledge which
is founded on the extent of individual posses-
sion enjoyed by the elector. And how stand
the metropolitan districts in this respect ? The
metropolitan county of Middlesex paid in as-
' sessed taxes in 1830, the sum of 1,250,3001.,
while no other county in England, with few
' exceptions, paid a tenth part of that sum. The
county of York, which is to send thirty-six
Members to Parliament under the new Bill,
paid only 216,8631., and Lancashire only
220,8541. Yet Middlesex, even with the six
additional Members to be given to it, will only
have a representation of fourteen instead of
thirty-six or twenty-three. If the compa-
rison be made with any other county, the
contrast between the wealth of Midd'e-

sex and its number of representatives, placed
on a parallel with the wealth and represen-
tation of the former, will be still more strik-
ing. Cornwall, for instance, which by the Re-
form Bill will return as many Members as Mid-
dlesex, both being 14, paid in 1830 only as-
sessments to the amount of 30,9031. instead of
1,250,300/.! Take the district of Marylebone
alone, and we find that pays assessed taxes to
the amount of 290,3761.,—greater than those of
all Yorkshire, or of all Lancashire, and nearly
ten times more than Cornwall, which is to be
represented by 14 members in the Reformed
Parliament. Taking the same criterion of pro-
perty, but varying its mode of expression, we
may state that the rental of all the houses of
England and Wales liable to assessment for the

house tax is only returned at 11,154,109/., and
of this sum the assessed rental of the single
county of Middlesex amounts to 5,143,3401., or
nearly one-half of the whole ! We have thus seen
that the mighty suburbs of this mighty city pos-
sess an amount of population—a body of house-
holders—and an extent of property, which, being
taken either separately or conjointly as the basis
of a constituency, would entitle them to more
representatives than the Bill proposes to grant,
—in short, that, taken as population, the metro-
polis ought to return more than fifty Members,
and as property more than two hundred. What,
then, is the drawback ? Are the inhabitants of
the metropolis less intelligent or less informed—
less acquainted with the nature of their political
duties, or less able to form a judgment on the
qualifications or legislative candidates for their
tarour,—less alive to the interests and honour
of their country, or less disposed to promote its
welfare and prosperity, than the proposed elec-
tors of other districts ? Let Lord Chandos
and htois
msualoirnterssutchhin
ak
proposition.tw
icebe fo r
e they t
ven-
turee
were even to whisper such a libel on the good
sense and political knowledge of the metropolis,
we would venture to predict that every tenth
,man on whom the Bill is to confer the electiv

rranchise, could prove its falsehood by esta-
blishing, either at the hustings or any where
else, his superiority to any legislator of the house
of Buckingham. Though we do not contend
tit .t London—like some other capitals—should
enjoy any peculiar privileges because it is a ca-
pital, we must maintain, that its numbers, wealth,
and intelligence, shall not be pleaded, as a title of
disqualification. Circumstances, which in other
cases confer aright, should not, in the case of our

great city, he brought forward as grounds for re-
fusing one. London has more than a million
of unrepresented inhabitants ; hut that is no reason
why they should be insulted or provoked by a
resistance to their legitimate claims. London
householders pay nearly as great an assessment
as half the kingdom ; but that can be no reason
why they should have a less voice in the repre-
sentation than boroughs cohieh have few or no
houses to assess. But we are told, in a real or
well-affected alarm, that the proposed new con-
stituency of the metra,polis will form a mere
mob,—that every election will he a scene of
tumult,—and every successful candidate a de-
magogue or Jacobin. Now, if any ground ex-
isted for this fear, it might be pleaded as well
for refusing the elective franchise to Leeds,
Manchester, or Birmingham, as to Marylebone
or Lambeth. It is true that in the four metro-
politan districts there will be. a great body of elec-
tors, but we see no more reason why they should
get more riotous in nercising a great political
duty, than in any other public meeting which
tley can call any day in the year. If the votes be
taken in districts—so as to avoid the necessity of
great assemblages—even this objection—small
as it must always appear to those who have
witnessed, without terror or dismay, the po-
pular storms of Covent-garden—will be obviated.
If we even grant that great multitudes generally
display little moderation or wisdom ; or, in
the words of Cicero, " Si illy undx commitio-
rum tit mare profundum et immensum sic effer-
vescunt quodam quasi xstu, in tanto impetu
studiorum, et motu temeritatis modum aliquem
et consilium et rationem, requiramus
we sec no reason why they should be more mis•
chievous at an election, which gratifies their love
of power, than at a meeting to petition for their
rights, at which they might express dissatisfac-
tion. Then with regard to the election of de-
magogueS, or enemies of our form of Govern-
ment, by the metropolitan districts, no supposi-
tion, we think, can be more senseless or absurd.
Westminster is at present in a similar situation
with Marylebone after the passing of Reform.
Has not Westminster the other day returned a
man of talents, a man of rank, and a placeman
But even on the most unfavourable hypothesis
possible, even on the supposition that the whole
eight new metropolitan Members should be se-
lected from the dregs of revolutionary folly--and
he sent into the House of Commons under
pledges of political mischief—what could they
do against the other 650 Members Wedged to
support the laws and institutions of the country?
In such case it would not matter whence the
disturbers came—whether they were elected by
a small or great number of people,—by one mob
or another : they could only bc eight on a divi-
sion—their numbers would alone tell, and their
weight would scarcely be felt in the scale of a

hostile assembly.— Times.
There are so many and such contradictory
rumours afloat respecting the Reform Bill that
conjecture becomes more perplexed as the day of
trial draws nigh. It is still questioned by some
whether Ministers have obtained the consent of
his Majesty to make Peers; and it is assumed
by manv that, without such consent, the Bill
would have no chance of passing the House of
Lords in any shape that could he reconciled
with its avowed principles. We do not sec the
force "of this latter assumption. On the con-
trary, there are many reasons why the House of
Lords, constituted as it is at present, should
wish to do away the impression of its former
vote ; and, while those reasons exist, there ap-

pears to be no great rashness in supposing that
the House, without any change or threat of
change in its internal condition, may decide
upon a different course from that which had be-
fine exposed it to so much public odium. This
process would, in all likel.hood, be much faci-
litated by the knowledge that Ministers had
such a power at their command, and therefore
many friends of Reform have exhibited impa-
tience at its being kept a secret. To speak
without any affectation of speaking from autho-
rity, we think it probable that Ministers have the
power alluded to, though from motives of delicacy
they have not thought proper to proclaim it.
Every thing that has occurred of late proves the
best understanding between the King and his
Alinisters. Even the rebuke to the Dublin

Corporation, trifling as the circumstance may
appear in itself, is evidence of a perfect under-
standing in those quarters ; and the fact that
Ministers have not yielded a single point of any
consequence since they brought forward the pre-
sent Bill, comes strongly in corroboration of the
opinion that they not only feel their strength, but
feel that it is sufficient to carry them through
their undertaking. Such an exercise of the pre-
rogative as some of our contemporaries are now
calling for with all their might, is certainly ex-
posed to many objections. In courtesy to the
Sovereign, therefore, if for no other reason, it
should not be avoTved while there exists a hope
that it may be dispensed with. The debate
which stands for to-morrow, on the question for

giving additional representatives to the metro-
polis, will probably let in some light upon the
darkness which hangs over all speculation at
present. That the Ministers will carry it, we
have no doubt ; but, if they carry it by a large
majority, we shall have more confidence than

ever as to the final result.—Morning Herald.
There has been distributed a " Return of the
name of every parish in Ireland in which an
agreement has been made under the Tithe Com-
position Act, distinguishing tithes held by eccle-
siastical persons or lay impropriators, and the
amount of composition in each case." From
this return it appears that compositions have
been entered into in 1,507 parishes, and that
the total is 433,9041. 6s. I4d. Of which these
are payable to lay impropriators, 65,9351. Is. -1-12-d.,
to ecclesiastical persons 357,6681. 9d. Id., to
any other person or persons 10,3001. 15s. 7d.
The parishes in which compositions have been
entered into amount to about two-thirds of the
whole. Supposing the tithes of the remaining
parishes of equal value, the whole sum from
tithe would be about 700,0001. Besides this
source of income, the Church of Ireland pos-
sesses glebe lands to a large amount, besides the
estates of the Bishops, which alone amount to.
about a million of acres of the best land in the
island. For a Church without a people this
seems a tolerable endowment. The settlement
of the tithe question from several considerations
must he much easier in Ireland than in England.
The whale of the tithes paid to itnpropriators
cannot in Ireland amount to above 90,0001. The
individuals interested in opposing a settlement of

the question out of the Church must, there.
fore, be few in number. Dr. \Vhateley, though
a churchman, has not the assurance to maintain
that the Church ought to receive one-tenth of
the gross produce of the land. Speaking of the
transfer of the tithes to a Board, he says, " if
the Act were so framed as to authorise the Cor-
poration to take less than a real tenth of the gross
produce, which would be very fair, because the
tenth of the gross produce would be often enor-
mously greater than our ancestors contemplated
to be given to the clergy; I do not think the
clergy would be likely to complain." The truth
is, that in all countries in which tithes are or.
have been paid to the Church, except England
and Ireland, the tenth of the gross produce nei-
ther is nor ever has been taken. The tithe is
never taken from green crops, and only from cer-
tain crops on the lands which have been in cul-
tivation from tune immemorial. The same rule,
too, applies to the claims of the Church which
is applicable to all other claims. In Spain, for
instance, a custom of forty years with respect to
tithes becomes law. In England and Ireland,
• individuals have been shamefully robbed of their
estates by the Church, and the impropriators
treading in the paths of the Church, through the
application of a series of most unjust rules, as
Baron Wood has distinctly shown. This in-
justice is known nowhere but in these islands.
No law to favour the Church, at the expellee
of other property, is known even in the do-
minions of the Pope. What the clergy of
England and Ireland claim—the tenth of
the gross produce—was formerly considered
the whole disposable revenue of a country ; and
in most countries the tithes were divided between
the Sovereign, the Clergy, warriors, &c. Thus,
for instance, according to La Linde, the " Tithes
of Biscay are shared by the Kings of Spain as
Lords of Biscay, and the tithes paid to them
are called Realengos, by the grantees of the
Kings called Mercenarios, by gentlemen, who
defended the country against the Moors, or
founded churches, or rebuilt them, that they may
defray the charges of war, or repair and adorn
the churches, and these are called Deviseros ;
and they may bequeath them in any portions
among their children. The rest of the tithes
belongs to the Clergy." But in all Catholic
countries the property of the Church seems still
to be considered in a great measure the property
of the poor, and the Clergyman who saves money
out of his ecclesiastical income for other than
pious purposes is looked on as a dishonest
man. In the pastoral charges of the Bishop
of Salamanca, Inquisitor-General of Spain, pub-
lished in 2 vols., in 1783, there is an excellent
charge on the best means of relieving the
poor. The Inquisitor-General does not
blame the Clergy for bestowing too little
in charity, but wishes them to adopt a rigorous
parochial system, and avoid giving relief to va-
grants. The claims of the poor on the clergy
he admits to the fullest extent. " If charity (he
says) becomes other men, there are particular
reasons why we should attend to the poor, be-
cause we live on the fruits of the sweat of the
poor; the estates that we possess, or rather ad-
minister, are their patrimony, their endowment
and heritage, which we hold only in deposit for
them; so that, without violating justice, we are
bound to attend to the wants of those who are
within our respective territories. The Catholic
Church has always recognised the validity of the
original distinction of Church property ; and in
practice the great fault of the Catholic Clergy is
that they are too indiscriminately charitable.—
The consequence of this indiscriminate charity
is, that numbers live in idleness on what they
receive from the church. But because the Ca-
tholic Clergy are too charitable, that is no reason
why, in settling the question of tithes in a Pro-
testant country, where the clergy act on the good
old maxim, that charity begins at home, some re-
gard ought not to be had to the wants of the
poor. We always suppose that existing interests
shall he respected ; but in future let it be under-
stood that the Church is not the patrimony of
the Aristocracy, but the patrimony of the poor.
Morning Chronicle.
The question of the metropolitan representa-
tion, which approaches the moment of its de-
cision in the House of Commons, seems to ex-
cite a degree of anxiety which we cannot quite
understand among our radical contemporaries.
N'Ve think they may well dismiss their apprehen-
sions upon this subject. It is scarcely to be ex-
pected that the House of Commons, a majority
of which has decided that it was right on the
part of Ministers to give away five millions of
the money of the impoverished people of Eng-
land to facilitate the completion of a diplomatic
business—a majority of which has decided that
Lord Plunkett is an infallible and immaculate
Judge in a question of.pounds, shillings, and
pence, ill which he is himself personally inte-
rested—a majority of which has decided, in
effect, and in repeated instances, that the
demerit of being surrounded by land not
the property of any adherents of the Ministry
of the day is ground enough on which
to disfranchise otherwise unoffending boroughs—
it is not, , we say, to be expected that
such a House of Commons will oppose
the mandate of the Administration when it is
only required to give to the tag-rag anti bobtail
of the metropolis the power of electing about
one-third of the number of Members of Parlia-
ment that are thought sufficient for the sober,
industrious, and intelligent kingdom of Scot-
land. It is to be sure obvious enough that the
wealth, intelligence, and respectability of Lon-
don and its environs will be deprived of repre-
sentation, and that their deprivation will be the
more complete in proportion to the number of
Members to be sent to the House of Commons
by the district they inhabit ; but this, so far from
being a reason why our radical contemporaries
should have any misgivings upon the subject, is
really, as it appears to us, the strongest possible
ground upon which to rest their confidence that
the rational and conservative proposition of the
Marquis of Chandos will be at once and
contemptuously rejected. What single feature
is there in the Bill, what point in the policy of
the Government, what solitary vote of the
House of Commons, to justify the apprehen-
sion that in this case the influence of wealth,
intelligence, or respectability will he regarded,
and that the passion of the rabble for political
power will not be fully gratified ? Nothing is
more notorious or undeniable than that in most
of the parishes in and about the metropolis
where the vestry clerk, the rate-collectors, and
the beadle, are elected by the householders, one
of two things constantly occurs. Bribery, di-
rect or indirect, governs the election, or a fierce
clamour is excited against the candidate who has
the misfortune to be patronised by the more
opulent classes of the parishioners ; and under
favour of this clamour, founded generally
upon falsehood and misrepresentation, the
pet of the rabble gains the day. There is
scarcely a parish, where the system of popular
election to its stipendiary offices exists, in which

there is not a coterie of persons or the lowest
character and most depraved habits, who know '
where the numerous body of householders are
to be found who can be brought to the poll for
any purpose, and by any body who will qualify
them to vote by paying up their rates, which
with a sagacious view to this chance they keep
systematically in arrear. This knowledge, which
we need not say it is impossible for any respect-
able man to acquire, the club of idle and profli-
gate sots, generally in the case of a contested
election, contrive to turn to good account. In a
large proportion ofcases they sell the office, which
to all outward appearance seems to be filled by
the free voters of a majority of the pa-
rishioners ; and in consequence
the parish
gets a collector who probably in a few months
makes a purse and runs away, or a beadle
who preys upon vagrancy and misery, and
practises brutality as a means of extorting bribes.
This we believe to be no exacrfferated picture of
the effect of the household right- of voting in the
small affairs of a parish. And what right have
we to expect that when the same class of voters
have to elect Members of Parliament they will
exercise this higher privilege more ‘lisely or
honestly ? It is quite certain that the Members
for Westminster and Southwark have not for
many years been elected by the wealth and re-
spectability of that city and borough, but by
the lower classes of householders, who happen
in both cases to be sufficiently numerous to over-
power the higher ; and, when the standard of
personal respectability by which men are mea-
sured who now aspire to be Members of Par-
liament is considerably lowered, as it cannot fail
to be by the general operation of the Reform
Bill, it seems but too certain that all the machi-
nery which we now see so constantly and
efficaciously at work in parochial elections will
be brought to bear with equal force and ana-
lagous results in the election of the metropo-
litan Members of Parliament. Still our radical
contemporaries need not feel alarm on account
of the amendment to be proposed by Lord
Chaudos. In sheaving that the scheme of me-
tropolitan representation is absurd and pernicious
we merely intend to revive their drooping cour-
age. It is absurd and pernicious, and therefore
its adoption is the more certain. For our own
parts we feel but little interest in the matter, and
incline, upon the whole, perhaps rather to think
that the Bill is more coherent and less unjust
with the metropolitan universal suffrage clause
than it would be if this clause were ex-
punged. The rabble of Preston are to be
disfranchised because their right of election has
the fatal blemish that it is an ancient right.
Without this surely the Bill would be incoherent.
But then, again, the rabble influence in our
future House of Commons must at all events,
and by all means, be made greater than in the
present, or here would be an incoherency still
more monstrous and inexcusable. Accordingly
four new Prestons are to be created in the out-
parishes of the metropolis.—Morning Post.

The recent discussion in the French Chamber
of Deputies, relative to the Polish refugees,
served to illustrate, even beyond former examples,
the state of abject terror to which the Ministry
of the once great and powerful French nation
are reduced on those questions in which the
Russian Autocrat takes a peculiar interest. Yet
in reference to this debate the Courier says—
" In the conduct of Casimir Perier, and that of
his colleagues, during the Polish war, there was
great generosity, and the assistance subsequently
afforded to the Poles will prove a lasting monu-
ment to French liberality. Whatever may be
the future fate of Poland, she will not have to
reproach either the French Government or the
French people." In this passage two things are
confounded, which are, and which will, remain
through all future time essentially distinct—
namely, the conduct of the French Government
and the conduct of the French people to the
heroic and ill-fated Poles. The one was as
much disgraced by a treacherous and cowardly
desertion of the cause of Poland, as the other
was distinguished by a manly and generous
sympathy for the vindicators of Polish rights,
and the victims of Muscovite oppression. Can we
forget the accusation which, just at the close
of the Polish war, the Polish Committee in
Paris made against both the French and Eng-
lish Governments, of having persuaded the Ge-
neralissimo of the Poles to remain inactive, after
the great and successful displays of valour which
his army had made in the earlier part of the
ddidEttligo-t
rciasmk paabigattit,lou pt
hoon
inatsesruoreasnscioens
ofthat
F
Fraf
nce cle and
Eng-
land would secure the eventual independence of
Poland without further effusion of blood ? Can
we forget the memorable words of Sebastiani
when he heard. of the " great murder of' War-
saw ?" " Order reigns in Poland," said the
French Minister for Foreign Affairs. It was
the order that despotism establishes when the
freedom of a nation perishes. It was the peace
of desolation—the tranquillity of the grave !
• .Can we forget the charges which the Courier
Itself made against the representative of our Go-
vernment at the Court of St. Petersburgh when
it denounced Lord Heytesbury as lending all his
influence to assist in crushing the cause of the
Poles ? But we must do the Courier the j ustice
to say that it does not excuse the English people
for their cold and heartless conduct with regard
to a cause which so deeply involved the interests
of justice and of humanity. The French people,
indeed, opened their purses to the plundered and
destitute Poles ; they poured " oil and wine"
into the wounds of the sufferer ; but English
generosity looked coldly upon him who had
" fallen among thieves,' and passed by " on
the other side 1" In the debate to which we
have alluded Casimir Perier said " The misfor-
tunes of the Poles were not to be attributed to
the Government, but to those who gave them
bad advice." Well might there be exclamations
• in the Chamber of " This is the doctrine of the
Holy Alliance !" And when Lafayette, ad-
dressing the President of the Council, said, " If
you know who it was that gave that advice,
name them," what was the answer of the Presi-
dent of the Council ? " I am not now called
upon to answer questions ; when I have facts to
state I candidly bring them forward ; and if I
wished to fix a responsibility on any one, I
should not hesitate to name him. I affirm again
that bad advice has been given. Open the
.Journals, anti read the numerous repetitions of
advice to the Poles not to acknowledge the
authority of Russia. Nations may rise against
oppressive and tyrannical Governments; but
they ought to calculate all the chances of such
insurrections, to be ready to meet the conse-
quences, and submit to them." The Courier
says, " Casimir Perier, in this debate, stood the
fire of his opponents nobly, and was the victor."
If to rely on what is false in fact or absurd in
argument be to meet a political accusation nobly,
the conduct of Casimir Perier was undoubtedly
noble. But as to the Poles lie acts the part of
one of Job's comforters : he judges of the
merits of their cause by its success. Alas for

the revolution which placed Louis Philippe on
the throne of France, and raised Casimir Perier li
to the station of Prime Minister ! Alas for that
revolution, if the inhabitants of Paris had sat
down to calculate the consequences of resisting
the disciplined troops of Charles X., instead
of yielding to the sudden inspiration of
patriotism in assailing the despotism of the
ordinances ! The French Minister talks of
the bad advice given to the Poles not to ac-
knowledge the authority of Russia. Why should
they acknowledge the authority of Russia ?
They were not the subjects of Russia. The
Czar, as such, had no dominion over them.
When Poland was raised into an " independent
kingdom," at the Congress and by the treaty of
Vienna, it was upon the ground of being. a
check upon the ambition of Russia ;—so it was
stated by Castlereagh and Talleyrand. Yet the
sceptre was placed in the hand of the Emperor
Alexander, as King of Poland ; but Poland
owed no allegiance to him in the character of
Czar, and consequently the Poles were not
placed under the authority of Russia, to which
State they were allied most impolitically in a
federal union. But Casimir Perier should re-
member that the insurrection of Warsaw was, at
the time, the salvation of France. Until that
event the tyrant Nicholas never recognised the
title of Louis Philippe, or even admitted the
tri-coloured flag into his dominions. Thus the
Government of France received the " certificate
of their existence" by means of the Poles, whom
it first betrayed, and then persecuted.—Morning
Herald.

The Reform Bill, and its safe passage through
the House of Lords, by means of a creation of
Peers, or without any creation, are still the main
subjects of discussion with our contemporaries.
Respecting the Bill itself* there need be no fear—
there need be no doubt. If it do not pass under
the auspices of the present Ministry, it must pass
under the auspices of another. The English
public is now too well informed of its rights to
be deprived of them by any change in the ma-
nagers of State affairs ; and no Tory Cabinet can
possibly be concocted w hich has not a Reform
Bill in its hand—not only quite as effectual for
the remedy of national grievances, as that now un-
der consideration, but more liberal and more satis-
factory. That the Tory party, after setting its
face against all Reform, is perfectly capable of
such conduct, we not only believe, but know—
for we have seen their three Bills; but, on the
other hand, are Englishmen capable of placing
confidence in men who, in the first instance, op•
posed all Reform, atal now, for the sake of
office, would even shake hands with the advo-
cates of universal suffrage ? There is also
another consideration to be gravely reflected on
when the ultimate result of the Reform Bill is
questioned—and that is, the honour and pledges
of the Cabinet—the present and future ex-
istence of the present Administration. Lord
Grey, it is well known, is attached to " his
order," and is extremely anxious that the Reform
Bill should meet with its approbation without
any addition to its numbers ; but, on the
other hand, is it possible for any human being
to be so much attached to '' his own order," or
so reluctant to add to its numbers, as to degrade
himself in the estimation of the public, and to
destroy the measure on which his immortality
would be built, by refraining from doing that
which he has not only the power to do, but
which the public, which drove him into the
King's presence as the man of its choice, calls
upon him most imperiously to do ? The thine-
is incredible in whatever way it may be viewed.
Lord Lord Grey may be anxious to " give time
and place for repentance," to those of '' his own
order," who formerly opposed the Reform Bill ;
but if he has continued in office without full leave
to create as many Peers as may be necessary to
carry the ardent wishes of the people of England
into effect, he has not only ruined the party to
which the country has given its confidence, but
consigned both himself and it to perpetual
conductrpetualoh?-
loquy ! Is Lord Grey capable of such
We rlo not believe it. He cannot be capable of
it, any more than the King can he capable of re-
fusing to his Ministers the power to do that
which he is most anxious to see accomplished ;
and whatever doubts, therefore, may be enter-
tained by others respecting the ultimate result of
a Reform in the representation of the country,
we boldly say that, for our part, we entertain
none. Lord Grey is not the man to yield even
to the King, and the King entertains by far too
largely the opinions of his subjects, not to give
him full power to carry his wishes into effect.—
Morning Advertiser.
We see with pleasure, that Mr. E. L. Bulwer
has given notice of a motion to repeal the Stamp-
duty on Newspapers and the Excise on Paper,
and to substitute in their place a trifling payment
on the transmission of Newspapers by post. So
that, after all the expectations held out by our
Liberal Government, of the abolition of this
most disgraceful of taxes, at their hands, they
have left the work to be performed by an indi-
vidual Member, whom they probably will not
even support in his endeavours. We should
scarcely envy the reflections of a conscientious
Whig leader, after his not impossible ejection
from office, on looking back to the opportunity
he had so shamefully omitted of breaking down
this odious barrier between the people and the
Might he not say—" The curse of my
party has fallen on my impotent efforts : I could
not when I would, I would not when I could !"
This should be inscribed over the door of
the mausoleum of a Whig Cabinet. We
trust the Press will not fail to aid Mr.
Bulwer in his meritorious effort ; not because it
is their own cause, but, through them, of the
country, whose best interests-are, more particu-
larly in conjunctures like the present, vitally con-
cerned in lowering the price of useful knowledge.
The Ministers must not attempt to urge the
argument of revenue. It is no defence of the
worst of taxes,—to say nothing of the produc-
tive amount of a small postage, the extent of
which, in the probably great increase of the cir-
culation of Newspapers, is not to be calculated.
Independent of this, such a defence, in the
mouth of a Ministry that owe office wholly to
their having prekiously maintained a different
language, is preposterous. If the revenue should
suffer, let them go the round of retrenchment.
which they have only begun in the Navy Board.
Is nothing to be done, for the sake of knowledge
and education, by our Liberal Government, with
the Customs, the Excise, and many such strong-
holds of ignorance and idleness ? The Pension
List, we know, is sacred.—Spectator.

THE GLASGOW MAIL ROUTE.—We be-
lieve that nothing definitive is yet known respecting the
projected alteration of the Glasgow mail route from Don-
caster to Penrith. It is stated, however, as probable, that
the mail will be continued on its present line from London
to Leeds, but that its speed will he considerably accelerated
between London and Grantham, and that from Leeds it
will
north road at Wetherby, by which about two miles and a
quarter
proceed
will
be along
ad-
vantage gained by the superiority of the road.—Doncastep-
-1
Gazette. savedngthe Collingham road to join the great
in distance, and a considerable