The Sun. — London, England, 1832-02-29 00:00:00

Marylebone and Westminster.—(Hear, hear.) And if, on he other hand, the Noble Marquis would have sep Ira to polls taken, then the election will he as much in different districts; and there will be just as much confusion that way, as if we gave separate representatives to each of those districts.—(Cheers.) But the Noble Marquis has also said that he is afraid of an undue proportion being given to the representation of the metropolis in this House. Now, it certainly does astonish me that any Hon. Gentle man should think that the addition of eight Members to the metropolis can give in this House—which consists of 658 Members—such an amazing increase of influence, as to give rise to the fear that the metropolis should pos sess. undue power in Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) But the .Noble Marquis has argued that, in point of fact, the me tropolis is sufficiently represented by the residence of so many Members in it, and by the presence of all of them during the sitting of Parliament. Now, undoubtedly, this fact does give a full representation to a certain class in the metropolis ; but that class is an upper class, much of the same rank as the Members themselves; and the influence of which the Noble Marquis has spoken does not extend to the midd'e classes—to those traders and manufacturers who form by far the greatest part of the wealth and in dustry of the metropolis.—(Cheers.) I should think that :no one can contend that the circumstance of a Member living in Marylebone gives to that extensive parish, and tolls different interests, an adequate representation : the immense population of such a district requires to have representatives of its own, as much as the inhabitants and traders of any large town in the country. The Noble Marquis says, that what he proposes is not against the principle of the Bill. Literally, perhaps, it is not. But it is, at all events, so great an infringement of one of the principal details of the Bill, that I think the Noble Mar. quis's proposition would be most dangerous in its opera tion.—( Hear, hear.) The principle of the Bill is to give to large masses olthe people, and to great portions of the Wealth of the country, due representation ; and, therefore, if we were to deprive the metropolitan districts of the franchise, it world be at least materially injuring the prin ciple, even though not actually destroying it.—(Hear, hear.) I therefore trust that the House will stand by its decision of last session, when the same question was brought forward by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite ; and when, in spite of the ingeniousness of his eloquence, and all the force of his arguments, the House decided (as I trust they will again this evening), in favour of the Bill as it now stands.—(Cheers.) Sir E. SUGDEN—He agreed that the principle of this Bill ought to be the due representation of the country; but in his opinion the metropolis was already sufficiently re presented ; and, indeed, it was impossible, when so many Members of that House were connected in different ways with London, that its views should not always find their due weight within the walls of Parliament. He was of opinion that between the question of the voice of the me tropolis not being sufficiently heard in the House of Com mons, and its being too much heard there, the danger of the latter was infinitely the greater of the two.—( Hear. ) Let them far a moment consider the extent to which the metropolis would be represented should this Bill pass. The number of its representatives might be put at twenty two. He saw that the Noble Lord expressed some sur prise at this, anti he would therefore endeavour to prove that lie was correct in what he stated. According to the old representation, there were four Members for the City, two for Southwark, and two for Westminster; to these Were now to be added two for the county of Surrey (for according to the manner in which that county was to be divided, the effect would be to throw the whole of the representation of one of those divisions into the power of Brixton), two for Merylebone, two for Fins bury, two for the Tower Hamlets, and two for Lam beth, to which they must also add two for Greenwich ; for, as his Right Hon. Friend had already observed, Green wich should, alter all, be looked upon only as one of the metropolitan districts ; and dins, by this calculation, the 22 Members were actually made out. But if he were asked what share the metropolis ought to have in the representation, supposing. that the whole of the country were equally di vided, and supposing that the only grounds upon which they had to proceed were the wealth, the population, and the intelligence of any place, he would at once say that it ought at least to have fifty Members.—(Hear, and a laugh.) Now, what did this show? Why, that it was impossible to take the wealth, the population, and the in telligence of any place as their sole criterion, and that many other considerations must be admitted into the ac count.—(Hear, hear.) Further than this, he begged to say, that it appeared to him that the state of the metro polis was nut so wholesome and unexceptionable as to in duce him to consent to add to the excitern nt that already existed there.—(Cheers.) He had often heard the Hon. and Learned Member for Kerry say, that when he began the Catholic question, it only consisted of seven Members, and yet, such was the nature of its object—such was its exciting quality, that he was very soon able to carry the measure that he had at heart through the agency of that very so ciety. When, therefore, he viewed the spirit that was abroad—when he saw in London a society established for political purposes, and the doctrines that it professed, he could not but have a doubt in his mind whether they might not, by adding to the representation of London, also add vigour to that association, till at length it should become too strong for the country at large. Ile thought that one of the principal things which they had to dread was the giving too much power to the metropolis. They ought sot to undervalue the influence of the metropolis—indeed they could not do that if they would ; but at least let them take care how they made the fate of the country depend on the will of the metropolis.—(Cheers.) They bad unfortunately heard too much of Paris being France : let them therefore take warning lest they made London England.—(Cheers.) Had London hither to had any thing to complain of? Had not its voice been heard, and its interests attended to ? Could any one state an instance in which this had not been the case ? He thought not; and why then should they lead the way to mischief by bestowing the representation which was proposed under this Bill.—( Hear, hear, hear.) It did not elevate the constituency, while it degraded the representative. In the constituency which they were about to create, there was a peculiarity to which he wished to draw the attention of the House. There were in all the metropolitan distiicts large plots of ground that were now uncovered, and that were about to be :built upon. He would leave the Committee to judge, when these plots should be filled up, what would be the representation. He would now make some statement with respect to the Population and number of houses of the metropolitan dis tricts, and would show the House how much both had in creased within the last ten years. In the Marylebone district there were now 241,000 inhabitants, the addition in the last ten years having amounted to no less than 66,000. A similar increase had take p 1 in the 10/ houses, which, in 1821, amounted to 20,790, but which now were as high as 29,000. In the Tower Hamlets the population, in 1821, was 264,000, at present it amounted to 302,000, showing au increase of nearly 40,000 per sons. The number of 101. houses in 1821, in the Tower Hamlets, was 16,777, but they had now increased to 20,655. In Lambeth, in the same manner, the increase in the population had been 52,000, Jim.' in Southwark 10,000/. ; and the increase of 101. houses had in Lambeth been 10,000, and in Southwark 2,385. Suppose a simi lar increase was to take place in the next ten years, he put it to the Committee to consider what would be the aggre gate of such a constituency. In London, again, there had not been, during any time within the last ten years, a greater number than 8,639 voters polled ; but if this Bill were passed, the number of voters would be increased by 15,000, independently of the Lit ery. Such was a part of the mighty change which this Bill would effect. The objection, however, strong as it was upon the statement he hail made, was still stronger when it was considered that this did not stand alone, but was only part of a general alteration that was to affect all the portions of the empire. The papers to which he had referred s=howed some curious facts as to composi tions for rates. The Commissioners stated that those compositions were invariably made when the landlord or the tenant was unable to pay the rates. Now, as the rates were seldom or ever imposed upon the full annual value of the property, it followed that the parties were obliged to enter into composition for annual payments far below the value of the property—a fact showed what were the materials of which the constituency was to be euu . iposed. T here was another passage i n t h e repor t, t o which h e w i s h ed to direct the attention of the C omm i ttee . _t 1 stated th it the value of houses in these districts had lately much increased, that the small houses were readily taken, beca use a great num b er of the persons w h o too k them expected to live rent free by letting off all the rooms in the house except one, which they reserved for their own dw e lli ng. Such was the constituency to which the Noble Lord was now about to give the elective franchise; a constituency, a large portion of which, according to this repo rt , would be formed of persons who were unable to Pay the rates upon their houses, and who were unable to Pay the rent, except they raised it by letting out the greaterepeee part o f t h e i r h ouses to su b -tenants. Y et i t was t h e entativets of such a c on stit uen cy that the Noble Lord described as the repres e ntatives of the middle classes. But ject. It s anoth er po i nt ar i s i ng out o f t hi s part o f t h e sub lord _ orn was mated in th e re p or t, th a t " wh e n the land sideredc enptoiut.nded for th e rates , t h e occup i er was n ot con to vote at the election of parish offieers, although thacif t election in the particular parish might be Popular description." So that, in matters so immedia tely ih c oncerning th e occupier as the matters of pars govern "") au occupier of the sort here described was not, under " the most popular description of elec tion," permitted to vote, while the Noble Lord proposed that the same person who could not vote in his parish should yet be at liberty to vote for a representative to assist in the government of the State. Then the Noble Lord, too, gave these persons the means of getting themselves put upon the rates—an opportunity of which they would most certainly avail themselves, solely for the purpose of enjoying the benefit of the franchise. He had only token those papers furnished by the Government as the data on which he founded his argument. He had not gone at length into the question; but he thought he had said enough to show that, if, in addition to the two great clauses of disfranchisement, and to the other clauses of the Bill, they introduced a clause giving Members to these whkh m co e u tr i o d po n l o i t tan fai d l is o t f ri b c e ts in , gtheywotld infinitelyi n b i e isc d h o ie m v g ous t . h — at (Hear, hear, hear.) Mr. MACAULA Y felt unwilling to occupy the time of the House upon this subject, after the observations which lie had thought it his duty to make in the course of last session. But the extreme solicitude he felt on account of the importance of the question, and of the peculiar circumstances under which they were called on to discuss it, compelled him to make a few observations on the sub ject. In that, as in every other place, the first grand object in the discussion of these questions was to clear the ground and settle epon whom lay the burden of proof. It was his opinion that the burden of proof in in this instance lay upon the Opposition. He considered that he was speaking to a House of Reformers. (No!)—there might be one or two exceptions; but the great body on that and on the other side of the House, had, he believed, agreed that some change in the representation must take place.—(No, no.) He did not assert that every individual in that House entertained that opinion ; but he could not avoid taking it for granted that the great ma jority of the Opposition did ; for he was warranted in saying that in a great majority of the speeches they had de livered they had admitted the necessity of some change.— (Hear, hear.) If he did not entertain the opinion he now expressed as to their sentiments, he must put aside all the addresses seat up from the country by the noble men and gentlemen who in their different counties had op posed this measure of Reform, but all of whom had said that some change was necessary—that some Reform must take place—and that some large bodies of people must have representatives given to them. If the fact was as he had stated, they on the side of the House on which he sat proposed that, as part of the large communities entitled to representation, the metropolitan districts should be repre sented. If enfranchisement ought to be part of the Re form that the times required, and that gentlemen opposite admitted to he necessary, it was for those gentlemen to show why the places now proposed should not partake of the advantages of enfranchisement. He was aware that they had no precise standard by which to determine what were the towns that should receive representatives. He should use the word importance to constitute that standard ; for though it was possible to raise quibbles upon it, none could possibly deny, that if they were compelled to bestow representation on one or two places, they would rather bestow it upon a town like Manchester than upon a petty village, and their choice would be guided by the greater importance of the place selected. If they took the amount of population as the standard of importance—if they adopted that of the number of 101. houses—if they took the amount of the assessed taxes—if they took the wealth —if they adopted intelligence as their criterion—indeed, estimate it as they might, let them tike any combination of arithmetical figures that they pleased—let them multiply or divide, let them subtract or add, let them adopt the course pointed out by Lieutenant Drummond, or that of the Hon. Member who proposed to decide the question by the square root of population and taxes—in short, let them take whatever course of arithmetic they pleased, there was none from which these metropolitan districts would not come marked with the proofs of a most undoubted importance.--( Hear, hear, bear.) If they took population, wealth, and intelligence, as the standard by which to measure their decision, fifty would be a more proper number of representatives than eight to give to these districts.—(Hear, hear.) That was a fact re cognised by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman himself. It was admitted by all Hon. Members that in all these elements of fitness for the formation of a constituency, the metropolitan districts stood higher than any other. If so, it was for those who wished to withhold the enfran chisement to give the reason why it should be withheld. The Not , le Lord had offered some reasons for refusing the Members to these districts, which reasons the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, had most elaborately exerted himself to upset. What, said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, will you let loose 150,000 voters—will you give the rights of franchise to such an immense body ? Yes, said the Noble Lord, I will add Marylebone to West minster—l will give the Tower Hamlets and Finsbury to the City, and Lambeth to Southonrk.—(Hear, hear.) Yes, they who had talked so much of swamping consti tuencies—who exclaimed so loudly against such a course —who affected so much dread of a large constituency— actually proposed to swamp Westminster with Alarylebone --(Cheers)—to swamp the City with Finsbury and the Tower Hamlets—(Cheers)—and to swamp Southwark with Lambeth—(Cheers)—and that too, although at the same time they described the present constituencies of each of these places as sufficiently numerous.—(Hear, hear.) What, were they not afraid of the unhealthful state of the metropolis—of the agitation excited by elections among such very large constituencies ? No, they seemed to be afraid of none of this things when they made the pro posal. Of what then were they afraid ? Of eight Mem bers. Simply of eight Members, that must be the cause of their tear. But the fear was still more remarkable, for the Noble Lord proposed to add two Members to Middle sex; so that it might be said that the Noble Lord feared six Members—a number not so great as was returned by some individual Peers to that House.—(Hear, hear.) The only argument against giving representatives to the metro politan districts was, that the Members would be called to a very strict account by their constituents ; that they would not speak their own sense, but merely the fluctu ating sense of those who sent them as their representatives. But that argument applied as strongly to the instances of Members returned by individuals. He did not understand the grounds on which those who represented the submis sion of Members to be called to account by a numerous constituency as a disgrace, while they thought it a point of honour to submit to the same strictness of account to an individual. He did not understand that spirit of honour that could lick the heels of an oligarchy, while it spurned at the wishes of the people.—(Hear, hear.) He did not understand that point of honour which made a man boast that he had gone out of his seat because he had voted in a particular manner against the wish of one man, his patron, while he taunted another for quitting his seat solely because he had offended 12,000 persons. But supposing this strict ness of calling to account to be an evil, was that evil confined to the metropolitan districts ? During the dis cussion on the Catholic claims there were many gentlemen who disguised their opinion —who compromised their opi nion for tear of offending their constituents. He did not understand on what ground they were more afraid on the subject of the influence to be exercised by the constituency in the metropolitan districts than in other large towns. tie knew an instance of an individual who declared there were many gentlemen who said on that occasion they could not vote for the Catholic question if they wished to retain their seats. That, however, was not the evil of popular representation alone. It was the faut of all re presentations—individual and numerous. To suppose otherwise would be to manifest an ignorance of human nature. But the great argument really was, in plain words, a dread of the preponderance of the people. There might be some evil in that; but if It was an evil, it was one which this Bill would not increase. It had always been found that a great city exercised an influence over the empire of which it formed a part. That influence, however, was not connected with the number of represen tatives it possessed. It might, indeed, exist without the city having any representative at all. It often existed under a despotic Government. At Rome, the despotic Emperors, while they exercised the most unbounded and the most brutal tyranny, yet thought it necessary to conci e the populace with expensive shows. At Madrid, under their tyrannical Government, the mob often com pelled their despot King to promise the dismissal of an ob noxious 'Minister ; they had done so in the reign of Charles II , and again in that of Charles III.; but that had nothing to do with the share the people of Madrid had in the Cortes ; and if in any country in which the people ex ercised a morbid influence over the Government, it was in Turkey, in despotic Tut key ; even there, where reigned the most absolute, the most unmitigated despotism, the tyrant of Constantinople was often forced to obey the will of the people living in the neighbourhood of the Seraglio. That was an influence which nothing could take away but an earthquake like that of Lisbon, or even greater than that which had visited the world in 1606. But did the p Noble Lord propose to ta ke awa y that influ ence? He knew it was Fromalltiie the city off Lon dona rty or of the people hidbee ele ; and n p inipms ofgl.eiabtle. iimportance in theilstrugglest had generally, by the force of its tpomtvie,irn'kd decided ( i i n e ad kthose a law to straggleB;but it would be o ab,urd regulate a power which was only to be dreaded when all law was at end. As long as the rule of law continued, the power of London wou ld only consist of the number of votes it had in that Hou.a. When law was at an end, the power of Loiad t li er o c co w ul a t s i consist of 1,500,000 men, and of that power nothing to deprive it. As long as regular government existed, the metropolis was, in fact, weak ; but when the course of regular government was disturbed, the metro. polis possessed, and could employ, a vast and overwhelm. ing force.—(Hear.) But the Noble Lord proposed that which would, in fact, increase the danger, for he would refuse to the metropolis all votes whatever. Without re curring to the speeches of any democratic orator, he could show the danger of this refusal by showing the advantage of the concession. He should refer to the speech which Burke delivered on the question of conciliation with America. In that speech it was said by Mr. Burke, after referring to the dissensions that had existed in Wales, " A complete and not ill-proportioned representa tion by counties and boroughs was bestowed upon Wales by Act of Parliament. From that moment, as by a charm, the tumults subsided, obedience was restored, peace, order, and civilization followed in the train of liberty, and all dis sensions ceased."—(Hear, hear.) He had mentioned Madrid and Constantinople; but London differed from these in this respect, that the population of London had never assembled round the Palace of the Sovereign, de manding the punishment of an obnoxious Minister.-- (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) He repeated it—the population of London had never done this, at least in his memory. He had, indeed, seen the people assemble round their Sovereign, with the warmest expressions of a sin cere attachment.—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) The people of London were orderly; but exactly as he believed them to be more orderly than the people of Madrid or Constantinople, because they had better modes of expressing their opinions, so did he believe that the people of represented London would be more quiet than the people of unrepresented London.—(Hear, hear.) The cause of all commotions in States had been, that the natural and artificial powers did not correspond with each other. That had ben the case with the Governments of Greece and Italy. It was no new principle ; it had been laid down by Aristotle; it had been maintained and ex emplified by Machiavel. Its effects in the earlier ages were well known. In the last century it bad produced the French revolution ; in this the cry of Reform. The danger was in struggling to resist that altera tion which had been rendered necessary. That danger this Bill was intended to rectify. It gave to the people a place in the Government, like that which it must have in society; and was it not a most monstrous argu ment to say that because a great natural power existed, it should have no political power associated with it?— (Hear, bear.) Was it for them to create dissension where none had yet appeared ? This Bill was meant to be a great deed of reconciliation ; would they deprive it of that character—would they make it produce heartburnings in stead of peace ? It was the object of the Government to frame a measure as final as any human measure could be. Would they make it short-lived? Was it to be the first business of the Reformed House of Commons to discuss a new measure of Reform?—(Hear, hear.) The gentle men opposite bad frequently predicted that this settlement of the Reform question would not be permanent; they now took the greatest pains to accomplish their prediction. He agreed with them in their dislike and dread of change, as change, and he should hear many practical grievances rather than attempt a change, but when a change bad become absolutely necessary, he thought it should be full and effectual. Hear, hear, hear.) It was dangerous to change often. The Constitution was more injured by fre quent tamperings than by a great revolution. If no Members were now given to the metropolitan districts, they would have clamours for Members for them in the first session of the next Parliament, and if gentle men believed, as they professed to believe, that the new Parliament would be more democratical than the present, the alteration would be larger. The question then was, whether they should pass the Reform Bill not only not per fect, but in such a state as was sure to engender discontent. He should support the proposition to give Members to the metropolitan districts, not only because Members ought to be given, but because the majority of that House were now on their trial before the country, and it was for them now to prove whether they were sincere or not ; whether the pledge they had given in last October, to support the prin ciple and the leading details of the Bill, was now to be re deemed. The question was not only whether the metro politan districts should have eight Members or none, but whether they would carry the Bill or compromise it ; com promise that to which they had pledged themselves, in order to gratify those, who, finding it impossible to throw out the Bill, resolved to fritter it away.—(Hear, hear.) He callvd on them, for God's sake, to be firm. The Mem bers who sat in that House for Ireland, would not suffer those who, in the last Parliament, bad deprived them of five Members, to flatter them into the belief that, by voting against this proposition, they would secure even a single Member for Ireland. They owed a duty to their country ; as they performed that duty, the confidence which they had justly earned would he confirmed or lost ; and, on this occasion, it was perfectly and completely true, that he who was not with them was against them.—(Cheers.) Sir GEORGE MURRAY observed that the Hon. and Learned Member had declared himself not a friend of change ; now it seemed to him that this clause was likely to produce the greatest changes. His first objection to the clause was, that it was not required. There was no part of the country that possessed such advantages as the metro polis ; it had, more than any other part, easy access to the Legislature, and to that House ; and many Members of that House were connected with the metropolis by property and residence. A ten-pound householder here had pro. perty of less value than he who held the same amount of rental in any other part of the kingdom ; and yet these persona would exercise a greater influence than any other over their representatives. He concurred with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman near him, that the number of re. presentatives would be, not eight, but twenty-two, which he thought a most formidable body, not only to the Go- vernment, but to the people. They would receive their instructions from some society in the afternoon, and would be called to strict account on the following morning. They would have a greater sway in that House than all the representatives for Scotland. He admitted that democracy was the source of liberty, but if it swelled too strongly it would burst the dams that confined it. It would give the whole power of the State to the House of Commons. What was the disease that had destroyed Athens, Rome, and the States of modern Italy, Florence especially? It was democracy. In Rome it was a half demagogue-- a half military despotism ; but it was the child of demo cracy ; and it was so much so, that when Brutus cut it down, the democracy set it up again. In his opinion, concessions were dangerous, and might be pursued till the liberties of the people were sacrificed. To give so ma n y representatives to the metropolitan districts, would be an injustice to the more distant parts of the kingdom. Th e voters, too, were under the eye of the Monarch, and were largely connected with the aristocratic branches of the Government. If London, on account of its population, was to have additional Members, was it not unjust to Scotland that her representation also had not been in creased ? He insisted that the counties of Scotland were inadequately represented, if compared to the English countie., in respect to population. He would never con sent to so unjust a distribution of the representation, which would give to this metropolis an undue preponde rance over the other parts of the kingdom, and he should, therefore, give his humble support to the motion of his Noble Friend. Mr. C. GRANT did not agree with the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that this was the time for the discussion of the representation of Scotlaw,. The Right Hon. and Gallant Baronet, in a disquisition upon the causes which produced the decay of nations, said that democracy had caused the destruction of Ruins. It was true, indeed, that gentlemen frequently viewed things through peculiar media, and he could not express surprise at the view which the Right Hon. Baronet had taken of this subject. At the same time he could not concur with his opinion, that the destruction of Rome had been occa sioned by democracy. According to his reading, history has told us far otherwise.—(Hear.) Indeed, it appeared to him to be unjust and illogical to attribute the decay of a nation to any one particular cause. But still he thought that the decline of the Roman power had mainly been caused by military despotism.—(Near.) Another Hon. Gentleman had objected to an increase of the representa tion of the metropolis on account of the political feelings which at present prevailed in it, and on account of the existence of the Political Unions.—(Hear.) To him (Mr. Grant), on the contrary, those circumstances see med to furnish the most convincing proof of the necessity fo r g ivin g the metropolis an extended representation.—(i lear, ) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman to whom he alluded had, singularly enough, taken the case of the Catholic associa tion to illustrate his argument. He (Mr. G ra nt) would apply the exampl e ver y diff eren tly, a nd would remind the House, that, when the grievances which gave existence and influence to that association were removed, the Honourable and Learned Member for Kerry himself declared that its functions and its power had ceased. — (Loud cheers.) Another argument of the Honour able and Learned Member for St. Mauves was—not that the metropolitan districts were in a state of decay, and that therefore they had no claims to be represented — but that they were in a most flourishing state—that they were advancing in population, in the amount of their taxa tion, and in every thing which could indicate the increase of their wealth and importance. So far WAS be (Mr. Grant) from thinking with the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman that that was an objection to their being repre sented, that he looked upon it as one great reason for giving them an increased representation.—(Hear.) It had been said that they who were desirous to give addi tional Members to those districts, were bound to prove that there existed an imperative necessity for doing an. But it was enough for him (Mr. Grant) to shorn, that their doing so, was no departure from the principles or practice of the Constitution. By the practice of the Constitution, this metropolis had, at all times, had a predominant re presentation, and its principal districts had been regarded as several cities, entitled to a distinct representation.-- (Hear.) If it bad been proposed by his Majesty' s Minist e r s to leave the metropolis in the same sta te in which it had hitherto stood, in respect to representation, and if, whilst additional Members were given to other great towns, none given h w i e s r 3 e iaj ety , t s o A t i he inis m te e r t s r i o v p o o a l l i , t i an districts, havebee he w n assailedassure with that re_ monstrance! and reproaches from the other side, for having departed from that which had been ever the invariable practice of the Constitution.—(Hear.) The House would have been told, again and again, that the metropolis had always had a representation superior to that of other parts of the kin g dom ; and it would have been asked, with indignation, why was the repre sentation of the capital to be degraded, by Members being given to places which had never before been repre sented, the representation of London not being proportion ably increased.—(Cheers.) The House would have been called upon to look to the extent of the population of Lon don, which was involved in this question ; and it would be asked why had his Majesty's Ministers wronged that extensive and wealthy and intelligent population, by de parting from the principles and practice of the Constitu tion ? Such would have been the arguments of the other side, if Ministers had not given representatives to those districts.—(Cheers.) It had justly been said, in reference to other arguments against this measure, that they applied not so much to the Bill itself, as to the situation of the metropolis generally. The House had been told that the metropolis would overawe the rest of the community. Now was it by means of the fifteen or sixteen Members that it would be enabled to do so ? For his p art, he did not think that the experience of past years had shown that the Mem bers for the city of London would act together in a confe deracy for the attainment of a common object; on the contrary, they had each pursued a different course of po licy.—(Hear.) But if there did exist any danger of such a combination, it would not be diminished by confining the representation to the eight Members which the me tropolis at present sent to that House. For these gen tlemen were the representatives of a smaller portion, they were, therefore, the more likely to feel in common, and to act together, than the representatives of the other districts, which had no identity of interests with one another_ It would not be pretended that the interests of Marylebone were identical with those of the Tower Hamlets, or the interests of the Borough the same with those of the West-end. It was not to be supposed that the inhabitants of those parts of the metropolis, whose chief commerce was inland, and which were in the closest com munication with the interior of the country, should have the same views and interests as those engaged in the great external commerce which was carried on in the parts of the metropolis which had hitherto been represented. The representatives of those districts might occasionally act to gether, as do sometimes the representatives of the several towns of one county ; but that they would act together and invariably for one interest, distinct from that of the rest of the kingdom, was contradicted both by experience and reason. There was another of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's arguments which was of a general nature, and d it,:ohte i ee d ellvdr n ttea,: o eishtN t s,at. aetoavrpdeoi sitting p nai ad l nfl y negudyee t o rnidoact a t ierlinietagrh:t the eßille centre e o that of t h et great r House ea t population o f wh Commons eh was to have additional representatives. But he could not ashsoe H f sw e utoci c llue : l d u Ha l could not d:kasn: g. wes danger, hia But thatwii tf ee e e mr w i d on a v el ei i dt b i , n e ? r h t a o l %iasl Was f existed, to be r e m ove d by t e lli ng th e peop l e t h a t a f ter having held out to them the expectation that they should he represented, the House repented of its promise ; and, having raised their hope!, would not give them their just share of representation ?--(Hear.) This appeared to him to be an additional reason, besides the justice of the case, wherefore the House, having once offered them the boon, should not dash it from their lips.—(Cheers.) Sir R. PEEL congratulated the Right Hon. Gentleman, and he assured him unfeignedly, on the recovery of that eloquence after so long a silence.—(Cheers.) His Right Honourable Friend, if he would allow him to call him so, seemed to say, that in founding a new system of represen tation, his Majesty's Ministers were not bound to state the reasons upon which they founded it.—(Hear.) He (Sir R. Peel) could not but think that it would have been safer for his Right Hon. Friend to have adhered to that course, and not to have condescended, out of the abund ance of his reasons, to have favoured the House with that one argument which he declared to be most just and un answerable. The argument which hie Right Hon. Friend deemed so unanswerable was, that whereas London had always had a preponderance in the representation, there fore it would be an insult to the metropolis—seeing its advance in population, wealth, and commerce—not to give it an increase of representatives, when Members were given to places heretofore unrepresented. That was what his Right Hon. Friend called a just and unanswerable argu ment. But he (Sir R. Peel) was sure that his Right Hon. Friend was too just a Statesman to confine his views to London, and to deny that, if London had such a claim in consequence of its increased importance, other parts of the kingdenn were also entitled to an extended represen tation. If the theory was at all true, surely it would ap ply to other places as well as to London—(Hear, hear) — and, in applying it, he (Sir Robert Peel) would not take mean places, but two of the most considerable towns in his Majesty's dominions—Liverpool and Dublin. If the theory of his Right Hon. Friend were to be taken as true, that, according to reason and the Constitution, because places formerly held a preponderance in represen tation over others to which they were superior in popula tion and importance, they should also have at all times an increase of representation proportioned to their increase of wealth and population ; then he (Sir R. Peel) would take Liverpool, fur instance, and would ask what bad his Majesty's Ministers done in respect to that town ?—(Cheers.) He found that in ancient times that place had two represen tatives, the same number as either Tamworth or Calue, places at the time not inferior to Liverpool. But Liver pool had since increased beyond example. It was now a great commercial town, of far greater importance than either of the others, and it had held out to all other places a most glorious example, not only for commercial enter prise, but by its exertions for the advancement of science. Well, what had been given to it ? —(Cheers.) Tam worth was still to have two Members.—(Cheers.) (Soa,e conversation was here held acro-s the table, which was inaudible in the gallery.) Surely his Right Hon. Friend was not so childish as to say, that because the population of London had been increased its representation should he increased also. Mr. C. GRANT was understood to reply, " I did not say so."—(Cheers.) Sir R. PEEL proceeded to say, that if increase of con merce were to be the test, then, according to his Right Hon. Friend's own principle, it could not be contended that Liverpool should be limited to two representatives, whilst two more still were given to places in no respect comparable to that town in commercial importance. But his Majesty's Ministers had not only limited Liverpool to two Members, but they had added immense districts to its constituency.—(Cheers.) But would his Right Hon. Friend allow the Members for Liverpool to stand up in that House, and to say that it was an insult to Liverpool to limit that town to two representatives, when it had in creased so much in population, wealth, and commerce.— (Hear, hear.) But a Noble Lord opposite had said, that the metropolis was entitled to especial care— Lord ALTHORP addressed some observations across the table, which were utterly inaudible. Sir R. PEEL said, that he had so understood the Noble Lord. But what would be said respecting Dublin. —(Hear, hear.) An additional Alember had been given to each of the towns of Belfast, Cork, 'and Waterford. Now Dublin had increased in population and in wealth, and, however th e N o bl e L or d m i g h t h ave engaged upon his . side the sympathies of Limehouse and Lambeth, he (Sir Robert P ee l) did not k now what his answer could be to Ring's End, Irish Town, and Drunicondra, when they appealed to him f or re p resen t at i ves, on t h e ground that an additional Member was given to Cork.—(Hear.) Let it not be supposed that lie (Sir R. Peel) admitted the justice of th e argument. F ar from it. He as much denied that it was an insult to Dublin to encrease the r epresentation of C or k, w i t h out i ncreas i ng t h e represen tation of the former city, as he denied it was an insult to London t o increase the representation of Manchester, without adding to the representatives of the metropolis. —(Cheers.) He only wished to show that the arguments of his Right lion. Friend was not unanswerable, and that if it were just, it would apply equally to twenty other places as to London. Now he would beg leave to turn to the speech of the lion. and Learned Memb er f or Calne, and to remind the H ouse , t h at if lie were to appl y hi mself to the arguments o f th a t s p ee ch, he should i nvo l ve h imself in a genera l di scuss i on o f th e ques tion of R e f orm. That Hon. an d L earne d Gentleman said, that th e R e f orm Bill would insure t h e happiness of the country, b y making the form of the Government de mocratical. If th a t assum ption respecting the effects of the wh o l e measure were we l l f oun d e d, he (Sir R. P ee l) would be p re p are d to a d m i t that it was expedient to give more additional Members to the metropolis. But he contested the principle.—(Cheers.) lie would not then go into a discussion of the question. He would simply deny that the assnmptiOn 'of the Hon. and Learned Member was well-founded. He would only say that the principle was not established that the happiness of this country would be improved by making the form of the Government more democratical.—(Cheers.) But he did not know well where the Hon. and Learned Gentleman meant to limit his doctrine, for lie said that the measure would increase the happiness of the country by making the form of Go vernment more democratical, seeming to imply that a re- public was the best form of Government, and that the further it was removed from monarchy the better. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said, that the people were 1 best able to govern themselves. Now, if that were granted, the conclusion must be arrived at, that whatever tended to controul the democratic principle tended also to the injury of the people.—(Hear.) That he (Sir R. Peel) denied.— (Cheers.) When he defended the institutions of this country which had that tendency, he was not influenced by an attachment to the persons who exercised the powers which those institutions conferred ; but he did so because the maintenance of the liberties of the people and the se curity of the State against the encroachment of popular tyranny, and against the establishment of military despo tism depended upon those institutions which were at vari ence with democratical power, and which served to con tronl it. He would dwell no more upon that argument, as it applied more to the principle of the Bill than to the particular clause under discussion. But there was one part of the Hon. Gentleman's speech which had especial force, as it applied to that part of the Bill. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said, that if the House did not grant the increase of representation to the metropolitan districts, the first act of a Reformed Parliament would lie to grant it. But why should it be the first act of a Re formed Parliament to grant it to them, when it could be shown that many other places were equally entitled to an increased representation. Why should they be selected for the especial favour of the Reformed Parliament ? On account of their vicinity? —(Cheers.) On account of the greater facility which they presented of bringing the in fluence of aggregate numbers to bear upon the delibera tions of the House?—(Cheers.) But the Right Hon. Gentleman said that it was necessary to give those new Members to the metropolitan districts, because represen tation would operate as a safety-valve against disorder. Now he (Sir R. Peel) begged to ask the House did facts bear out that assertion ?—(Cheers.) Before it should he taken for granted that representation; ought to be given to all large bodies of men congregated together in towns, because representation operates as a safety-valve to disorder, it ought to be inquire' whether that was borne out by facts, however plausible the assertion might seem. Look to Paris, which had a great preponderance in the representation of France, as had always been the boast of the French Constitution.—(Hear.) Was that city re rnarkable above the other departments for its order and tranquillity?—(Cheers.) He did not refer to old times, under the Bourbons, but to its condition under the present dynasty. He could not find that its tranquillity had been in direct proportion to the amount of its representation. Turning to the history of this country, and looking to :the most memorable riots that had occurred here, although London has stood pre-eminent in the repre sentation, he could not see that it had been pre-emi nently tranquil. Looking to the riots which took place in the year 1780, he could not say that representation had acted as a check upon disorder.—(Cheers.) In fact, religious or political excitement would always act upon large bodies of men, unabated by any consideration that they were represented, because those considerations never occurred to them whilst under the influence of such excitement. Much of the argument in support of the proposition upon which the House had that night to decide, rested upon the assumption that the existence of representation, and of an extended right of suffrage, prevented disorders. He would beg of the House to look at some facts which must have come recently within the scope of their ohservation —he alluded to the circumstances disclosed at the places to which his Majesty had directed Special Commissions; let them look at the three places selected for Special Com missions, and they would find that those places enjoyed not only a large right of suffrage, but a great number of representatives. In those places it did not appear that these privileges prevented the disorders which the Special Commissions were intended to punish. Did he, therefore, regard tine right of sending Members to Parliament as a right that ought to be abridged ? On the contrary, lie was quite of the opposite opinion. ;All he meant to coat, d for was, that an extended right ofsuffrage was not a cure for the spirit of disorder. He now came to a consideration which he deemed of much importance, and to which he should beg the especial attention of the House. He would assume that the principles of Reform, as recognized in that Bill, were such as ought to be adopted by the House. He would assume—than which nothing could be further from the truth—that the Bill was, generally speaking, calculated to carry the sound principles of Reform into beneficial effect ; but did it therefore follow, that consis tency required that every Member who gave a general support to the Bill should therefore vote unconditionally for the metropolitan clauses? The matter resolved itself into two questions ; the first was, whether or not it was necessary or expedient that so large a number of Members should be added to the representation of the metropolis ? The second was, whether the constituency was of the sort which, in the present relations of the greater and smaller towns of the United Kingdom, ought to belong to the metropolis? The number of metropolitan Members under the new Bill would amount to no fewer than twenty-two. A very small degree of reflection would enable the House to see the mode in which the influence thus created could not fail to act. These twenty-two Members would be, during their attendance in Parliament, in constant communication with their constituents—under the immediate force and controul of their influence. Thus would there he in that House a body of twenty-two indi viduals, with every facility for combination, and with every means of acting in that House upon the immediate, and therefore ill-considered commands of their constituents out of doors. It must be obvious to all who heard him, that the Members returned to sit for the metropolis wonld re present rather a political, than a manufacturing or com mercial interest. For his part, he could not imagine any thing snore inconsistent with the most obvious principles of common sense, than to apply the same rule to the metro politan districts, and to the smallest borough that could be found in any one of the schedules. The fact was, that where it was &afe to extend the suffrage, the promoters of the Bill curtailed it ; and where it became dangerous to ex tend it, they threw it indefinitely open. It would be better to have made the franchise universal, than to have este.- hlished a 101. franchise in the metropolis ; for, in small towns, there did not exist the same facilities of combina tion, nor the same influence on the part of the Press. He found it necessary to trouble the House with a few details. In the twenty-six largest, the number of new qualifications did not amount to more than 33,703. In the metropolis the number of electors inhabiting houses above the value of 10/. was 59,000, which amounted to nearly all tine householders; whereas, in the smaller boroughs, they were scarcely in the proportion of one to eight ; and strangely enough, it happened, that in London the num her of voters in many of the parishes, exceeded the actual number of inhabited houses rated above the value of 10/. He might be wrong in the calculations which he had made ; they were merely founded on returns put into his hands that morning ; but he believed, upon examination, it would be found that the results were correct. The parish of Paddington, for example, contained 1,126 inhabited houses, but the number of persons raised as occupiers, and therefore en titned to vote, amounted to 1,329. In St. Pancras the r e were 8,424 houses, and the number of 101. rated occupiers, added to those whose houses were not so rated, but were worth that sum, amounted to 8,504. But the great argument in favour of tine present, and all those that might be called the popular clauses of the Bill, was, that it would have the effect of rallying round that House the worth and the influence of the middle classes. Let the promoters of that Bill take care that they were not giving the power and all tine influence to numbers rather than to integrity and respectability. Under the weight of the two-and-twenty metropolitan Members, it would be in vain that a reformed House of Parliament should attempt to resist the pressure which would thus urge them from without, therefore he should say to the House, take time to consider. There could not be a greater or a more dangerous error than to suppose that in such a case, learning, wealth, or refinement, and no t numbers would decide the question. If a modification of the metropolitan clause were found to be not advisable ; if the promoters of the measure and their friends resolved at all hazards to abide by them, then so they might, that course would always remain open to them ; but, on the other hand, if they once took the forward step, they would find it to be a step perfectly and utterly irrevocable. When once they made the suffrage in the metropolis almost universal, and added to it such an unheard of number of Members, the pressure upon them, from within and from h s t v ea i nd t hofflooul done e , tism'opu greatest sr r i ebrde than eh a; rn theatiyh difficultyat attempt , 110 to t of withholding, ret revoke w racti g h:they butot u dbe of tnaturely considering before they decided. All that lie urged them to do was to postpone for the present the ques tion, whether or not, through the constituency which tine Bill established, the integrity, the respectability, the cha racter, the wealth, and the honour of this great city would be duly represented. Mr. C. GRANT briefly explained. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, after complimenting the Right Hon, Baronet who had just sat down on the success with taAihil x i , eilLlg li tiFoe 'l ii e xturtr h dpeHene l ss l rco e :Ahne, liad addressed the House, proess - eded vi ry shot tie to notice a few of his obse.i vationa, conteano:inioeiritgn,,i:nehrreer:tphoy:. that he was quite mistaken in the view taken of the rela • tion subsisting between the number of houses in the till - —thusrotglis a p n r d op t e h l e ty, nu i m nt b e e ll r ig o e f n i' e o , ter a s n;d it po w p a usl four in the smaller places, and one to fifteen in the larger principles upon which the Bill proceeded. He NV:I4 de cidedly opposed to any thing like postponement, for surely nothing could be more disadvantageous than that the first matter which a reformed Parliament should be called to decide should prove to be such a question as that whit they (the present House), with the experience they roe sessed, would he so much more competent to decide. would surely be attended with more peril to renew a ques tion to ld fn oor w . o granted that a wpn. t Nrptcaeß k hoD:vsa i ao n ecoatrl : oluo l Np,trlttl thoe, f orr o tenart r eti:aiihemointo t ealud h estyngeet e drdhv nrp t pai hsal nothing et i tliyfuri friends was at enchonanga t ui s, esg n i ‘nl pl time, than not pledged fmn;n t ptee h i l:airee a penadr i dsgesl assumption ysoe,t t (vrti o :t soeut. u. 1,1 tr i e)tes e ett b. takeih e.eetst a mere childish imagination, proceeding from a terror of o l. should leave it untouched. details of the Bill, at least had voted for all its great principles; but here was a detail upon which he felt that he could not, conscientionsly, abstain from giving a nega tive. In former times, the representation of the parts of the metropolis was regulated by certain fixed principle., and kept perfectly separate; bnt the framers of the Bill were now about to break up a great town into fractions-- (Hear)—and proceed on a principle wholly unknown to the Constitution. Every one knew the extraordinary interest attached to what was connected with the interests or feelings of the metropolis, that they could not pull down the corner of an old chapel without its becoming almost an object of national interest.—(Hear.) He contended that it was necessary to preserve some power which would counteract the extraordinary influence which was thus exercised by the concentrated opinions of the metropolis on the people of the provinces. He saw no sufficient rea son for giving twenty Members to London, when he marked the preponderating influence which it exercised. with all the weight and activity of its Press, throughout the whole of the provincial towns of the empire.— (Hear, hear.) He did not hesitate to speak his opinions boldly on this subject ; for he, for one, would not be overawed by the rod which was held over every Member of that House.—(Hear.) Reform seemed to be the only question on which the Members of the Legislature were not permitted to utter their unbiassed opinions.—(Hear.) He should, however, feel himself unworthy of the ho nour of sitting in that House as the representative for the city which had sent him there, if lie had permitted him self to be awed by any watchword of the whole Rill, and nothing but the Bill; or, if he refrained from the exercise of his constitutional privilege to canvas the merits of the measure before them, and to decide according to his sense of what was due to the national, as well as the provincial interests. These watchwords were, in his opinion, got up for the purpose of deterring the Members from the fulfilment of their duty; but he was confident that those who, iu spite of clamour and opprobium, honestly and fearlessly expressed their opinions, would have their motives justly appreciated by all the estimable and de serving portion of the public, and that they never would be confounded with the factious opponents of a Bill, the principle of which bad received the sanction of so large a portion of that House.—(Hear, hear.) Lord MILTON thought his Noble Friend (Sandon), when he spoke of provincial interests, had come to the di ss cussion with a certain degree of prejudice. It was not a provincial but a national question, and that was his Noble Friend's mistake.—(Hear, hear.) If they disfranchised a certain number of boroughs, what more proper method of disposing of the enfranchisement could they find than that of giving it to the overgrown suburbs of the metropolis, important as they were in population, wealth, and intelli gence? His Right Hon. Friend (Sir G. .Murray) had observed, that if the metropolis got additional Members, Scotland would be unfairly treated in the system of repre sentation ; but admitting the principle of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he would ask him to compare the population of Scotland with that of the suburbs of London. If be did, be would find that Scotland wis over rather than un der represented.—(Hear, hear.) Those who applied themselves to the question had overlooked the fact of the vast wealth, intelligence, and growing prosperity of the suburbs of London'; and he was quite sure, if that Par liament neglected their claims, they would form one of the earliest and most prominent topics for the consideration of the Parliament when it was reformed.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HUNT rose amid calls of question. He agreed with the Noble Lord that the suburbs of London should he represented ; and he was confident if the House of Lords threw out that clause—for in the Commons there was no danger of it—there would not be peace in the country fcr a single day. The clamour would commence instantly, He agreed with all the facts stated by the Right Hon. Bs, ronet (Sir R. Peel), and thought them so true as to be un answerable ; but he differed with him on the conclusions be drew from these facts.—(A laugh.) He knew no house in his neighbourhood at so low a rent as ten pAnids a year, and therefore the Bill might be said to give almost universal suffrage to the metropolis. But what of that ? The Right Hon. Baronet said that such persons would overlay the middle classes ; that they would be swamped by the poorer classes. He denied this ; and he was confi dent they would prove mere virtuous, and less corrupt, than those above them. It was said, however, that the re presentatives for the metropolis and the great towns would be all demagogues. Could there be any greater dema gogues than some they had seen there already ? Could any one be more democratic than the late Mem hi r for Westminster, now the Secretary at War (Sir J. Hohhouse) ?—(A laugh.) Let the democrats once get into the House, and let the most violent get once the way to the Treasury Bench, ann he would warrant the democrat would soon be quiet. It would cure his de mocracy.—(A laugh.) It was said that if the Bill l(seaA'oe of l e a,Au s i sure toes Manchester, re turned for the University of Oxford.—(Much laughter.) No, no. Manchester, they would find, would return some a rpke n ants t e : 7lwerd li n e :eo( b iam sd eal i st e ll. v :iA a .n d iglet it just ert j hir u nse s g t fooapr a ni s ndAi l ol ik naln e or l e. y fhtCe t hs h :t a bep t br:—oti they would he great merchant, and no persons of that kind they might depend on it. They had heard too that a Colonel Jones (Radical he was called) would certainly be the representa tive of one of the metropolitan districts. He (Mr. H.) knew a little of the opinions of the people on that point, and he beleved that Colonel Jones had no more chance or a metropolitan district than lie had.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) In conclusion he would observe, that those who voted that night against the question, would be considered as voting against the Bill itself, and so held by their con-_ stituents. For his own part, and he never said so before, he believed, if the clause was rejected either in that House or in the Lords, they must expect to see the country that ho l plunged g utr e h.l co into convulsion.—( . I confusion, (lHueeas rt.i)on FERGUSON, e ain clause argued as if wealth, intelligence, and population idcthhcarmitesutsohtfe lead Question," opponents e s am ns e o f gsra t e'a h i 4t e were so many reasons for exclusion. He agreed with the Member for Caine, that the necessity of proving the pro priety of exclusion was thrown on the other side, and they had failed to support tb .r case. Mr. SHELL, as th , only Member for Ireland who had taken any part in tne debate in which the Irish were deeply interested, said, that although a wrong was about to be done to his countrymen, that was no reason for them to wish to support the doing of wrong to others ; and he, therefore, gave his cordial support to the clause. He could not, indeed, conceive what lion. Gentlemen could mean by any Reform Bill giving Reform, unless it conferred representatives on the overgrown, powerful, and wealthy suburbs of the metropolis.—(Hear.) The Committee divided : Ayes 316 Noes 2361 Majority for Ministers On our re-admission we found that the House had re, sumed, and the Speaker in the Chair. The other orders of the day were then disposed or, and the House adjourned at Two o'clock. ROBERT LE DlABLE.—Extract of a letter from MEYERBEER to a friend in London:—" I shall be in London in the course of next month, to superintend the production of the original Robert le Diable ; but, in the meanwhile, I think it necessary to acquaint you that I have bad nothing to do with the instrumentation of the operas of the Damon and the Fiend Father, as performed in your metropolis ; and that some of the must prominent vocal pieces produced in them do not belong to me—, (ne m'appartiennent pas). The entire opera, arranged for the pianoforte, Las not yet been published in Paris ; therefore your adapters have been able to procure only few d e tached pieces; so that the gaming scene, that of the cemetery, and the finale to the fourth act, which are not roust be th r e prod n uction of some other person. " Imai, Btc. yet engraved, "Paris, Feb. 24. " Almsuza."