The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-29 00:00:00

CORN LAWS.

Lord MELVILLE gave notice of his intention to more
certain resolutions relative to the price of corn in this
country, on Tuesday, the 15th June next.

REFORM.

Mr. O'CONNELL, in conformity with a notice of long
standing, then rose to apply for leave to bring in a Bill
for securing an effectual and Radical Reform of the Com-
mons House of Parliament. Although he did not antici-
pate any very great degree of success to a motion of this
kind, in a place where he feared there were but a very
few Radical Reformers; and, although lie felt he did not
possess such a degree of weight in that House as would
enable him to enforce those great principles of Constitu-
tional right, of which he was about to attempt to be the
humble advocate, yet he possessed the gratifying conviction
that those principles were widely spreading, and exclusively
adopted by all the most numerous and influential classes of
society—that every day increased the advocates of those
principles, and brought home conviction to every mind of
their overwhelming necessity ; and as sure was he that to-
morrow's sun would rise over the darkness of this night,
as that the time was not far distant, when a full and ef-
fectual Reform would be forced upon the Members of that
House, who he hoped would not be found unwilling to
perform the task then imposed on them. It was not a
pleasant task to him to be compelled to arraign the con-
duct of men whose principles on other subjects he em-
braced, and with whom he was in the habit of holding
social intercourse. It was not an agreeable task to ar-
raign the conduct of an oligarchy, which boasted of
some of the highest names of the country, bearing here-
ditary titles to the respect of their countrymen ; but he
was compelled to yield to a sense of duty which the task
imposed upon him, however be might regret its necessity;
and he would perform that task fearlessly and honestly,
and with no unnecessary severity, beyond that which
was required from a distinct exposition of the facts.
The great question of Reform divided itself into
two topics. The first of these resolved itself
into the question—did abuses exist in the sys-
tem of repre.entation ? That was the first point ;
and lie thought he should be easily able to prove
the existence of those abuses. But if he failed to
show a case of those abuses, of course there was an end
to the question. If he succeeded, as he hoped he would
succeed, then the next question was the remedy for these
abuses. The question, therefore, was very simple ; the
topics embraced in it few; and although there might, in
the Bill which he proposed to introduce, be found some
things offensive to the general reformers of the House, yet
he calculated with confidence on the vote of every genuine
reformer for leave to bring in that Bill, because, if any
thought he had gone too far, they would cut him short
when the Bill came to be considered, and endeavour to
make its provisions adequate to their views of the
subject. In order to entitle him to be thoroughly un-
derstood in his views respecting Reform, it was neces-
sary that he should explain what he understood by the
meaning of the word Constitution. Before he entered
that House he had hoped that it was understood to be
a mixture of King, Lords, and Commons; but from some-
thing which fell from the Right Honourable Baronet
opposite (Sir Robert Peel), in a debate a few evenings
ago, he found that the Constitution was not to be con-
sidered as composed of King, Lords, and Commons, but as
of a King, Lords, and certain persons—a kind of Magnates,
who represented by their influence all the authority of the
people. He reverenced Kingly authority. He was at
tached to hereditary succession. He thought it calculated,
beyond every other Constitution, to protect individual
property, and to confer a certainty on individual right.
He also reverenced the certainty of hereditary succession,
because it was calculated to check the hopes of inordinate
ambition, and to restrain those desires which might prove
prejudicial to the general welfare. He preferred it eit..er
to despotic power on the one hand, or the oligarchy of a
Peerage on the other. Both had been tried, and both bad
failed to contribute to the permanency of human happiness.

The oligarchy being perhaps the more objeetienabl:oo;
cause it sinks more numerous fangs into the pri.
and possessions of the great body of the people, sod 't' I
its oppressive powers over a more extended surface"
was the right, however, of the people to balance to", (
Crown and the Oligarchy, to controul that tender4p,
despotic power in the one, and of ambition in the
this country the people always possessed this demo
principle in its full extent by their representatives 1,51
to the Commons House of Parliament. This Pri7
was established by the unanimous testimony of all POO
authors who had written on the subject. It was tbeto
extension of this principle that he contended for, anta,etii'
only question was, what were the limits to be assig
it? It belonged not to the Crown. It was not the
fo
vilege of the Aristocracy. It was the third estate;
was no fourth recognised by the Constitution which c'fi,
lay claim to it. If it was denied that such a rover
existed, it belonged to those who denied it to show 001
else it was to be deposited. They must show whereof,
power resides before they can raise upon it the super',
ture for which they contend. Blackstone states di5119.,,,
that the sovereignty resides in the people of this colTlf
This was the language of that great expounder °iv
principles of the Constitution. In other countries, sqii
ever the people received a Constitution at the hand.oo,l
despotic master, they were only half advanced to
freedom ; they were slaves, receiving a certain porto
freedom from the hands of a master. In England the
vereignty was in the people, and the only question 10
what manner that power was to be exercised? ,Y
established qualifications. And what was the 9%)
nation given of those qualifications by the author be
just quoted? Why that every man possessed a 101/
that sovereignty, except that person who could be
have Ile will of his own. These were his words

" The true reason of acquiring any qualification, 1.1')
regard to property, in voters, is to exclude such POI,,
are in so mean a situation that they are esteemed to
no will of their own. If these persons had votes ',
would be tempted to dispose of them under some UM
influence or other. This would give a great, an artful,
a wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is rt,j
sistent with general liberty. If it were probable
every man would give his vote freely and without if°a
ence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and gall
principles of liberty, every member of the comme9li
however poor, should have a vote in electing those al,
gates, to whose charge is committed the disposal ofoo
property, his liberty, and his life. But since that 21
hardly be expected in persons of indigent fortunes, or
as are under the immediate dominion of others, all 11°?°,1;
states have been obliged to establish certain qualifiestlwit
whereby some, who are suspected to have no will Of
own, are excluded from voting in order to set other P'oo
viduals, whose wills may be supposed independent, 11'
thoroughly upon a level with each other." 'o°
This was the case when the voters were divide 1,
classes of slaves and villains ; and when Henry VI. k. 70,
to add a qualification, and to limit the right by 1°.7,'
exceptions, that very act itself proved the previous "-ti
ence of the right. The two statutes of Henry
purely to secure the independence of the voters. It tb
his business to attempt to give this same security 10.0
same extent. He wanted nothing but the carryiegjo
execution the true principles of the Constitution.
ing shown, then, what were those real principletiol
would ark what was the real state of the represenofry
Did the people really and truly return their represen°lo
to Parliament ? He believed that no man out Of
House would dare to make the assertion that they
so; and it was by no means unusual to hear even 01")
she House, of the notoriety of the influence by w::,
Members took their seats, and of the number of pe
who sat and voted for this Peer, or that Boroughh.° f
As long back as the year 1792, an Honourable Pt,
ber of that House, now a Noble Lord (Earl Grey), (e
sented a petition, in which he offered to prove, tint° j:
of the whole of the Members of that House, 240 pe9 •
were returned under the influence of Peers. Thelplis
others took their seats by the interference of Como°,
many of whom be perceived had since become I'
That 23 others were returned by Treasury Borough* I
only 134 came into the House as the represents
the people. This was offered to be proved at the
and • •challenged f‘°
investigation was as to the truth el/
fact, that less than 2,000 persons returned a great of
jority of the Member, of that House. If any man odd
that House was to sty that the Marquis of Hertford, of
Cleveland, or of Stafford, did not return by their iufluto
a number of the Members of that House, he would b..etj
sailed by ridicule and reproach. Was the fact dellll,,i
He was ready to prove it. Was it admitted? C°-
then, the inference be refused ? He would pass to
Standing Orders, which were voted before the commee: •
ment of any public business, and which that House °
now declared to be the rule of action for full three I°,
dyed times. What were the words of one of those We
ing orders ? " That it was a high infringement °IA
rights and liberties of Parliament for a Peer or sof 0";
Lord to concern himself with the election of Member°,
serve in that House.' Was that true? Was them 0
infringement of the liberties of the Hoes.? He would o
the gentry of England if they asserted that which weid
true ? Who would' he so audacious as to say that ro
asserted what was false ? And if Members were olecii.
in that manner, he would ask was it not an abuse
required to be remedied ? It was offered to be pr°,te'
in 17e2, that seats were sold like stalls in Smoit°
market. It was an uncourtly—it was a harsh elleo
sion—but it was true. He had heard it over and °I
again asserted in that House. He had heard the sums
.leet
tioned which were paid for those seats. A patriotic YO,
ber (S:r Francis Burdett) had even lately mentioned
sum he paid during the minority of a certain P°,
Duke, for a seat in that House. The prices
managed somewhat like the prices of the public et,c'edr
They were low or high according to the supposed
tion of Parliament. They were less when the xnels.i

of certain persons in exalted stations excited alartni
their safety; and they were more or lea ♦aluable acct
ing to the ideas of the stability of a Ministry, or to

circumstances which might require it to seek for
port. He insisted, however, on the Constitutional cl
vileges of the people; and although he might be told,,
system worked well, of which he would say more:),
and-by, he should be content with nothing but the v,
fair, and free representation of every class of the
It had also been said, that the Union with Ireland had
proved the Constitution of the House. But how MOJ,'
the Members for Ireland were nominated by indivirit7,
Nineteen or twenty of them ; and those nineteen or toie
of course pursued the line of politics prescribed to
their patrons. That was, however, far from beio
only instance in which the Act of Union had sanctiotl
base infringement on public principle. It was said, bower
that notwithstanding all this the system worked well•
fr
them consider how it worked. It appeared by recent retllf,
that seventy-eight Members of that House received dill
to the amount of 180,000/. on account of offices heo:,,

them, but from which they were rernoveable at the plesrfl
of the Crown. It was well known that the power 01
moval had not been altogether unezercised. Gen. Kingy
Hon. Member for Sligo, held an office from which he
removable at the pleasure of tke Crown; and becatts.e,)
consulted his conscience, and voted against the Minios,
from that office he was removed. This could not
nied. The fact was notorious. If it were said th,!/1

was a single instance, his answer might be, that a *;i
instance was sufficient to prove his case. The Pi

Gentleman who had succeeded General King N!cfi

doubt, a conscientious man ; but the example of his l'
decessor was enough to show him, that woe would roil
him if he consulted his conscience, in opposition to
wishes of persons in power. There could be no di))
that, of the seventy-eight placemen who were Membet44
that House, many must, like Paley, be too poor " to ~
a conscience." Let no man, who was not very rieht
cept a place of that descr;ption. But even riches 1(4
not a sufficient assurance for independence of conduct
If the poor man had natural wants, the rich man had /
ficial wants—wants which became the more painfully IV
iug and craving under apparent repletion. Who could t
at the opulent classes of society, and not see how freqoejot
such was the case ? Who was not frequently disguste,,e/
the miserable spectacle of " pride that licks the dust
Who had not frequently been compelled to regard 41)
scorn the creatures who doated on stars, and garters,
ribands, and feathers, and other frippery ; and w11°)
sigh things sacrificed the noblest possession'of a 10,
being—independence.—(Hear.)—He made no cometi
against individuals. He did not assail ineli%idualsv
assailed the system. So far was be from assailing
viduals, that he gave credit to many individuals frill
disposition to carry into effect a more extensive ref:/
than the circumstances in which they were PITT
would allow them to gratify. But did the House 0,
what appeared in consequence of the motion so Poi'
fully urged by an eloquent Baronet near him? Did rivO,
appear that a hundred and thirteen Members efoi°
Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council annually B'ol
among them half a million of the public money ? Poe
true, that most of those persons belonged to the
House of Parliament; but it was also true that o%e
them had gone through the ordeal of Ministerial Po\
tions in the House of Commons. Such was the I#.o
possessed by the Oligarchy of influencing both 1-I°"tiyf
and of procuring majorities on any question in which, ear'
were interested. It might be said that, in former 041
more persons Aetually received public money for CO'