The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-22 00:00:00

lowing view of our representative system, which
our readers will find a strong confirmation of Mr.
PARKEs' remarks at the meeting of the Corn-law
Delegates :
By the census of 1831, it appeared that the population
of England was 13,000,000, of that number there were
3,199,000 males of twenty years and upwards, and the
electors were 619,000, being one in every five. In \Vales
the population was 860,000 males, above 21 years of age,
194,000, and the number of electors 37,000, being one in
five. In Scotland the population was 2,300,000, the num-
ber of males above 21 years of age, 549,000, and the num-
ber of electors 64,000, being one in every eight, while
Ireland, having a population of 7,700,000, and 1,867,000
males above 21 years of age, the number of electors were
92,000, being one in 20. . • • • • •
In Manchester, in 1834, there were only 8,400 electors,
while there were 12,700 inhabited houses. In Lambeth
there were 154,613 inhabitants, 29,079 inhabited houses,
16,405 ten•pound houses, but only 4,455 electors. Fins-
bury arid the Tower Hamlets were in the same situa-
tion. Again, he found that Cheltenham and Salford,
having a constituency of about :1,054, returned only
two Members of Parliament, while six Members were
returned by boroughs having only 1,259 registered elec-
tors. No man could say that this was a fair state of re-
, presentation. In England there were five counties re-
turning ten Members, with a registered constituency of
only 16,296 ; while other five counties, returning also
only ten members, had a constituency 0f.80,500 electors on
the register. The same anomaly existed in the county
representation of both Ireland and Scotland. Surely
that was neither a full nor a fair system of represen-
tion. He had made an analysis of what the House was
now, and he was sorry to say it did not appear to be any
better than it was in 1793. He found that 331 Mem-
bers. a majority of the House, was elected by 157,492
electors, or one-sixth of the registered electors. Was
that a system with which the people of England ought to
be contented.
The remedy which Mr. HumE contemplates for
this anomalous state of things is Household Suf-
frage, and his notice embraced that principle, giving
to every person residing and paying rates for a
year a right to vote ; but on the suggestion of some
of his friends he was induced to confine his motion
to asking leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Re-
form Act. The motion was ably supported by Mr.
GROTE, Mr. WARD, and Mr. O'CONNELL, but
they
these
justlygentlemen
hahall
t spokeeomp toai
complain
o%ic r
the
thin
little
attention House, and
vouchsafed by the representatives of the people to
their grievances. If the motion had referred to
some paltry question of privilege, such as Lord
MAIDSTONE'S attack on Mr. O'CONNELL) the
House would havebeen crowded ; itsemptiness when
such a question was under discussion, was of it-
self an unanswerable argument in favour of Mr.
HussE's motion. It was lost on a division by a
majority of 35, the noes being 85, the ayes 50,
while the whole number of Members present
including the tellers, was only 139. We will not
complain of the discourtesy of noit allowing the Bill
to be brought in, for we hold it to be the .duty of
Members to defeat any measure to which they are
opposed at the earliest opportunity, and so save
trouble and expense.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed the motion,and
made a slip-slop speech, which deserved no compli-
ments, and which no person complimented. His
Lordship has taken up the Tory maxim, and acts
on the Tory practice, that Parliament can settle
everything, and that it gives the law to society in-
stead of taking it from society. If there be one
truth, however, which recent political events have
established more firmly than another, it is that so-
' ; ciety has a peculiar coarse of its own, derived from
L the laws of nature, to which legislation inits highest