The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-22 00:00:00

hold their countena►+ce r:rom the national cele-

oration, bt,t,, to their eternal di.,honour, pre-
vented the customary Royal donation from being
afforded to one of the most laudable charitic.:s

in the land.—Morning Posf.

We have tireatly tontheti more than once on
the extravagance of some of the Tory orators, in

p.retending that a creation of Peers, with a view
to the carrying of the Reform question, might

establish a vicious " precedent," and lead to fu-
ture inroads upon tilts Peerage. In answer to
such hypotheses, we must begi❑ with asking
whether it is likely that the present crisis, sur-

rounded by so many attributes of imminent dan-
ger to the principles tsf free representation, to the
peace of the country, and to the House of Peers

itself, is likely to arise again in England ? If
it be, why then, as in this existing crisis, the
danger must be averted by similar means—by, in
fact, the only means which offer the least chance
of removing it. The nation universally has
abandoned the old borough constitution. In
their eyes, it is no longer the constitution of
England. That constitution, under which alone
'• the people" (a name as much sneered at) have
declared themselves satisfied to live, is deli-

neated by, and comprehended in, the provisions
of the measure now on the eve of its third read-

ing and final passage through the House o
Commons. The Bill, in its actual form, con,

tains those principles and securities of " free re-
presentation" with which, and with nothing less
than which, the people of Great Britain, unani-
mous beyond all example on record, have pro-
nounced their resolution to be satisfied. Is

,here no danger—no practical danger, in setting
hat resolution at defiance ? Will the peace of

the country be worth forty-eight hours' Purchase
if this new
.charter of British liberty be torn to
pieces before the eyes of 24,000,000 of united
citizens, and trampled in the dirt ? Then what
must he the condition of that body to whose

wilful and perverse act the people will see
that such ruin to their hopes, and con-
tempt for their conscious rights, is attributable
We believe—and we state our belief with fear
and trembling—that if the House of Peers, con-
stituted for the nation, and subordinate to it,

shall so act as to impress upon the minds of its
countrymen that it holds the nation to have
been made for it, and for an instrument to its

selfish objects, from that hour the House of
Peers will have dug away the roots and founda-
tions of its own existence, and with them those
of the constitutional Monarchy itself. What !
when the Duke of Wellington was scared by the
terrors of a contest with 6,000,000 of Irish
Catholics, and preferred the abolition of the
penal code, in favour of which he had during a
long life been contending, to a civil struggle
with the 6,000,000 of poor Irishmen by whom
exclusively that code was felt as a yoke,—will it
be said gravely that none but " coward" Peers
and Bishops can yield Reform to 24,000,000 of
confederated Irish, Scotch, and Englishmen, or
that a war with those 24,000,000 for the whole
mass of constitutional rights which they now, one
and all, hold valuable, is a thing to be lightly
or petulantly scoffed at ? Why then we say, it is
better to save the House of Peers from the fatal
influence of its own erroneous counsels, than to

ridulge that ancient body in the infatuation
which leads it to inevitable ruin. Is it better,
we ask, to let 200 Peers destroy the %N hole order
of the Peerage, or by adding 50 to the existing
minority, save both majority and minority for
ever ? If the word " conservative" be not wholly
devoid of meaning, apply it in its true and only
salutary sense, and suffer not one branch of the
general legislature to prepare, by its own suicide,
the destruction of one at least of the others.—
The author of an acute and able pamphlet, to
which we alluded in the Times of Monday, the
Prerogalive of creating Peers, has thrown away
much excellent learning on the needless proof
that it is the prerogative, the absolute preroga-
tive, of the King of England to create Peers at
hia own pleasure. But on another and critically
important question, the powers of this pamphlet
arc bestowed with great effect in establishing
the necessity of' an immediate recourse to that
prerogative, with a view to the salvat►on of the
country. The language employed for this pur-
pose is so emphatic and convincing, that we
shall not weaken it by any paraphrase or trans-
lation of the author's words :
" Is an addition to the House of Lords the sole and ne-
cessary act to reform the representation ? Will Lord Grey
create Peers?
" A creation of Peers is essential to the final success of
the great object and FIAT of his administration ; it is the
only t (institutional means : a creation of Peers can alone
realize the value and promises of a reformed Parliament,
and alone preserve the Monarch and the Peerage'.
Prejudices mistaken—interest unawed—induced a
majority of 41 Peers to reject the second reading of the
English Reform Bill, in October, only six months since,
and under the pressure of circumstances forcibly actin.; on
an opposite determination. The minority notoriously
comprehended many Peers, who, in subsequent stages of
the Bill would have opposed some of the essentials of the
measure. The majority separated without deigning to
appease the nation with even a modified proposition of
Reform. A large portion of that majority included the
most powerful, influential, and declared enemies of any
real or substantial measure. The late House of Com-
mons, uninfluenced by the Government, and unawed
by the Royal prerogative of dissolution suspended
over them, long deluded the ministry with vain hopes of
success. Can Lord Grey look back on his majority of one,
or on the motion of General Gascoyne, and for a moment
calculate the fate of the details of his great measure in that
balanced House of Commons? Will it afford him no in-
dex, n• polar star, to his present chances in an heriditary
chamber of legislators ? Lord Grey has redeemed his
pledge of reviving, in the present sessi n, a measure
equally efficient'—viz. a Reform Bill equally objection-
able to that House which cast out its predecessor. Has
Lord Grey erected a bridge by which any consider•
able number of dissentient peers can pass to his side ?
Can any reflecting politician hope, much less expect,
that a majority of 41, who relined to consider the Bill,
will, nevertheless. in six months, concede its essentials?
But it is replied—' The dread of a peerage creation now
hangs over them !' The same apprehension existed, and
without effect, in the preceeding session ; and did the fear
of a dissolution prevail in the Commons? Locke has justly
observed of persons of caste, that they accommodate them-
selves to the opinions and rules of those with whom they
converse ; that the greatest number govern themselves by
the law of fashion ; that not one in ten thousand is stiff
and insensible enough to hear the condemnation of his own
club !' May it not be preferable that the majority of the
Lords should preserve their consistency in the eyes of Re-
formers, and their honour in the sight of Anti-reformers?
May it not be better that Lord Grey should accept the
support of any sincere convert, to his principles (if any
such there be) after an addition to the House of Lords?
and will not such support ultimately better uphold the
character of the peerage ? Times.
[The subsequent extracts from this interesting pamphlet
,e I have already appeared in The Sun.]