The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-25 00:00:00

AtOrAtilViN Atilt

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1845.

The House of Lords met at Fire o'clock.
The Earl of CHARLEVILLE informed the House that
Lord GARDNER had neglected to attend the Committee
on the Glasgow Bridge Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND moved that another Member
be appointed in his Lordship's place, and that Lord
GARDNER be summoned to attend in his place on
Thursday, and state his reasons for his neglect.
Lord BROUGHAM said that the attendance of Peers on
Committees was compulsory, and that there was an in
stance on record in which a Peer bad been fined 1001
for non-attendance on a Committee.

After a short discussion, the motion was agreed to.
A similar complaint was made of the non-attendance
of Lord ORMOND on the Aberdeen Committee.

The Noble Lord explained that he was out of town
when the notice was left at his house, and did not re-
ceive it in time to attend.

Lord CAMPBELL, after a short explanatory speech,
re-introduced the Common Law Process Bills, which were
read a first time.

Some conversation then ensued on the subject of the
treatment of Dr. KALLEI by the Portuguese authorities
of Madeira, after which a long discussion arose on the
motion for the second reading of the Tenants' Compen-
sation (Ireland) Bill, which, however, was at length
agreed to, and their Lordships adjourned at a quarter
past twelve.

The House of Commons met at Four o'clock.
The Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway
Bill was read a third time and passed, after a short dis-
cussion.

The third reading of the Oxford and Rugby Bill was,
after a lengthy discussion, carried by a majority of 37,
the numbers being—Ayes, 132 ; Noes, 95.
The Deodands' Bill was read a second time.
Mr. HUTT then brought forward his motion respecting
tho slave trade, and a discussion ensued, which was in-
terrupted by the House being counted, when, there not
being 40 Members present, the debate terminated, and
the House adjourned.

The two great domestic reformers of our times are
neither Father MATTHEW nor ROBERT OWEN, nor
Chartist leaders, nor Chairmen of Temperance Socie-
ties. There is no indispensable necessity for men to
drink ardent spirits ; there is no Act of Parliament to
compel them to forego their use. Men may pass
through existence without once becoming candidates for
a right of " common" in New Harmony, or a
Lanarkshire parallelogram ; and it is quite pos-
sible for people to " eat, drink, and be merry,"
to exercise the rights of freemen, and even: delude
themselves into the notion that they are comfortable citi-
zens, without once informing themselves about the seven
po'nts of " the" Charter. Where there is so much indif-
fe-rence about which of the two alternatives we shall
adopt, there is not enough of moral resistance to either,
to make a reformer. Reforms exist only in virtue of
resistance ; for without this principle what would there be
for reform to work upon ? If porters and journeymen give
up dram drinking, " by way of a change," it is possible
they may derive so much comfort from the experiment
as habitually to persevere in the practice. A reform
in the habit of dram drinking, generally to make itself
felt, sensible, obnoxious, must operate upon a sort of
league among a large community of the public to drink
the greatest possible amount of drams in the most
public manner possible. The venerable Father
MATHEW himself cannot reach the vice he would
put down, so long as it is diffused tbrnigh five
hundred thousand private channels without being
concentrated in any. Now, unhappily, lands and edifices
which do not happen to be in that state of improve-
ment that comes up to certain arbitrary standards, pro.
posed by certain arbitrary authorities, are immobilia,
which are always present and ready objects for the re-
forming operation. They cannot run away from the
process. They can exercise no option whether they will
be repressed, the one by fencing, cultivation, and
drainage, the other by quaint devices, decoration, pull-
ing down on one side and building up on the other.
Now, in respect of these two great elements of social
property, your most untameable reformers are certainly
Mr. BARRY and the Earl of LINCOLN. In our morning
impression of Monday we published an announcement
which has not yet received any contradiction, and to
which we think ourselves bound to refer. Most of our
opo
readers will remember Mr. BARRY'S modest pio
for the reform of Westminster-bridge, in order to taen
compli4,l2 two objects, or rather to reform two
defects. Mr. BARRY found that the span of the
arches of the existing bridge w„
ther too large, for the effect of the diminutive
arches of his own new Souses of Parliament, ,„„,