Star.
London, England, 1831-07-08 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE JOURNALS. '

TIMES —The reform Bill has, then, passed the
House of Commons with a magnificent majority. Can it
be denied that this is the cue, or that the majority is mag-
nificent, when it is observed, that those who voted against
the bill are hardly more in number than the members re-
turned by rotten boroughs, now about to be wholly or In
oat disfranchised ? We do not by this mean to say, that
311 the Members of nomination boroughs voted on one
;ide ; no doubt there are many and honourable exceptions :
:tut we recollect that Madame de Steel, speaking, in one of
nee writings, of the different advantages of the two sexes,
,:ays, that the female cannot confer a favour without making
-.sacrifice, and therefore Nature bath formed that sex the
.nore generous and devoted of the two. In the same manner
)i• the boro igh patrons and nominees. The reformists
canna confer a favour on the people, cannot advocate our
just rights, without making a sacrifice, or striving to make a
sacrifice, of their interests : while the other side are struggling'
under the powerful motive of selfishness and their own ad-
vantage ill-understood, to keep what they have got. It is
pretty obvious which have the strongest motives.
HERALD.—If the Tory Lords should treat with dis-
respect the determination of an unreformed House of Com.
mons, we shall begin to question the sincerity of their
attachment to that Constitution, for the preservation of
which they are ready to sacrifice their lives, or their windows,
as the case may be. We attach no importance to compari-
sons between England and other countries ; we are altogether
after the manner of John Bull, and we think that the Chem-
ber of Peers in France has something the sort of proportion
to the English House of Lords that the Emperor of Elba
had to the Emperor of France. Yet we cannot think that
the time would be fortunately chosen for opposition to the
representative body on a question affecting the mode of elect.
ing that body, when the maintenance of a hereditary Peerage
was the great controversy In a neighbouring nation.
POST.—The most amusing feature in the debate on
Wednesday night, and in the remarks of the Ministerial
Press upon that debate, is the ludicrous attempt to deceive
the public mind as to the impression produced by the speech
of Sir Robert Pe:l. To those who heard it, it is unnecessary
to say a word respecting its effect. In eloquence, argument,
reasoning and constitutional learning. it equalled the best ora-
tions which have ever been made within the walls of parlia-
ment. It left 1/0 point in the dt bate untouched or unanswered,
and it withered, even to annihilation, the prosaic verboseness
of Lord J. Russell, as well as the flimsy and unsubstantial, al.
though it must be confessed eloquent, sophistries of Mr.
Macaulay. As Englishmen we are distressed to see the mi.
actable situation to which our Ministers are reduced in the
House of Commons. There is not one among them, except
Mr. Stanley, who can make even a decent speech upon a
great and national subject. We never heard a more dull
and wearisome speech than that of Sir Francis Burdett, who
was put forward to answer Sir R. Peel, from the want of
power on the part of Russell, Althorn, Graham, and Co.
It was in the worst style of the Hon. Baronet's effusions in
Pelace-yard or Covent-garden.