The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-15 00:00:00

for amending the Law of Property Qualification, and had
he confined himself to this, he would have obtained the
support of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and the other members of
his MAJESTY'S Government. Agreeing, as we do, in opinion
with the Hon. Baronet respecting the utter inutility' of the
qualification now demandel—convinced, as we are, that it
operates nii,-,chievouslv upon the moral feelings both of the
electors and the elected-1;11°161'g, as we do, that the law is
evaded, and that its only effect is to multiply perjuries ; yet
we do regret that he did not content himself With his original
notice of motion, which he knew would have been carried as
soon as proposed. In the abstract, all qualifications but those
of mind and of will, on the part of me❑ chosen. to, represent
the people in Parliament, arc absurd. If Parliament were
to raise an objection, it ought to be upon one or other of
these questions, ❑amely—the mental capacity of the elected,
and their willingness to discharge the sacred trust re-
posed in them. But as at present it would not be desir-
able to abolish every thing like a property qualification,
without passing a law to compel constituencies to pay
their representatives fixed Parliamentary wages, we would
prefer the lowering, and the extending of the qualification,
to a measure for its entire abolition. Secure the, inde-
pendence of Parliament by paying for its services—place
every Member above the fear of absolute want—remove
from him such temptations to betray the interests of his
country, as none but the greatest men are able to resist ;
and then proCeed to the abolition of everything in the
semblance of a property qualification. But while you re-
fuse to maintain him, it would be hazardous to assume in-
difference to the fact of his possessing a maintenance.
But while we contend that so long as Members of
Parliament are not paid for their services by their imme-
diate constituents or the State, it would be very questiona-
ble policy to do away with all property qualification—we
quite agree with Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Mr. LgAnEn.
that nothing can be more monstrous than continuing to
make such qualification a landed one. The Noble Lord
well observed, " It is absurd to say that the merchant or
manufacturer, with his 30,000/. or 800,000/. in personal
property, is unfit to be a Member of this House, be'c4use ho
does not chance to have 800/. a year in land : it appears to
me that such a regulation is at variance with one of the
great principles of the Constitution. Yet such a principle
has been in operation since the reign of Queen ANNE and
how did this happen? Why, it arose from the circumstance
that in that reign there existed a great jealousy
between the landed and trading interests—the tradiag
interests being known to be; favourable to the Hanoverian
succession, and the other principles to which the landed
gentry were opposed ; and the result was that the landed
interest procured this innovation, by which citizen's and
burgesses were rendered incapable of holding a seat, unless
they possessed landed property. The consequence has
been :that in numberless cases gross frauds have been
committed, and it is very desirable that this system
should be altered." Not a doubt of it, and that
without delay. So then, according to the Noble. Lord
and his statement is borne out by history we
are indebted for the landed qualification laws to a pack
of dunderheaded rebels—enemies of the Hanoverian -suc-
cession, and to the Constitution of the British empire.
But with such an accurate knowledge of this fact, the
Whigs have been surprisingly tardy in doing justice,to the
loyal citizens and burgesses, and in restoring the true balance
of the Constitution. We do not charge Lord JOHN Rus-
SELL with this omission. His Lordship has done. all that
was in his power, and we are convinced only waits ,for an
-opportunity of doing more. Mr. LXADER, without enter-
ing into the reasons which induced former Parliaments to
support the present rate of property qualification, ably ex-
posed the absurdity of confining it to land. "In a great
commercial country," argued the Hon. Gentleman, ".to come
pel the electors to select their representatives from persons
possessing one particular sort of property, namely, property
in land, is so clearly contrary, not only to all the prin-
ciples of representative Government, but so repugnant to
the interests of the community, and so glaringly opposed
to reason, that it is scarcely credible that any persons
should be found in the present day to uphold so unjust
and unreasonable a law." This is quite true. Eng-
land is now—whatever she was formerly—much more
a commercial than an agricultural country. Her mer-
chants, not her landholders, constitute the principal source
of her greatness, her power, her riches, and her glory.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL himself admits that even in the
days of Queen ANNE, at the very time when the qualifica-
tion laws were passed, the mercantile portion of the
English people were more loyal and more constitutional in
their ideas than the high-landed, aristocracy.
Our view of the question, then, amounts to this :—Pay
the Members parliamentary wages—say at the rate of
WO/. a-year during each session and abolish a pro-
perty qualification altogether ; or, lower and extend
the qualification to property of every descrip-
tion, whether landed, funded, commercial, or profes-
sional. If 300/. a-year be the rate of qualifi-
cation fixed upon, we would have it considered of no
importance whence it was derived. In the mean-
time, we are glad that Mr. WARBURTON has given no-
tice of a motion to amend the qualification statutes. The
sense of the House having been taken upon Sir WILLIAM
MonEswoare's motion, and the opiniOns of the Govern-
ment being no longer doubtful, the Honourable Member
for Bridport may easily so shape his motion as to remove
all that is radically bad in the existing law, without encoun-
tering an insurmountable opposition.

I The argument, " that there had been a great increase of
electors for the borough of Stafford since the suspension of
the writ, and that it would be hard to make the innocent
share in the punishment of the guilty," is specious, and
probably influenced some Reform Members, in supporting
the motion of Captain CHETWYND ; but in these times,
what are we to think of the proposition laid down by the
Reform Member for Worcester ? The Hon. Member is
reported to have said, that " as judicial proceedings were
no longer pending, and as the suspending of the writ, after
the opinion stated by the house of Lords, would be vir-
tually denying the concurrent jurisdiction of that House, lie
must vote against the amendment." Putting out of ques-
tion the course pursued by the Lords last session, and the
conviction so generally entertained, that the principles of
the Reform Bill cannot be brought into bene-
ficial operation, while that course is persevered in,
we merely ask, what would have been the fate
of rotten boroughs—what the punishment inflicted on
corrupt freemen—and what share of the elective franchise
would have been granted to fifty of our large manufactory
towns, if this " concurrent jurisdiction" had been looked up
to with such reverential fear ? The reluctance with which
Members on one side of the House of Commons enter on
any charge of corruption, or admit any popular principle,
and the manner in which they are supported by the Lords,
can leave no doubt that, if this doctrine is to be the rule of
our political faith, Reform is at an end. The Lords have
only to say, inquiry shall go no further ; and the Commons
must obey. But, strictly speaking, the amendment of
Mr. DIVETT did not interfere with concurrent jurisdiction,
and the Hon. Member for Worcester merely went out, of
his way to pay the House of Lords a compliment. The
Commons cannot disfranchise a borough, but by the law of the
land they can suspend a writ, independent of the Lords ; and to
argue therefore that because the Upper House has made
a partial enquiry, and pronounced a judgment, the Com-
mons ought not to interfere, is tantamount to giving up one
of their most valuable privileges. The people of this
country know from sad experience that the power of the
House is already too great, and have too much dread of
the return of that system by which they so long monopo-
lized every office in the State, to sanction such a slavish
doctrine.

We made a few observations yesterday on the thin attend-
ance of the Liberal Members of the House of Commons on
Monday night, when the discussion on the borough of Stafford
came on. The consequence of the absence of Honourable
Gentlemen on that occasion was the loss of an important
question, and a triumph to the supporters of Toryism and
corruption over the advocates of public freedom—ell 3
purity of election. Our animadversions have called forth
a great many communications from absent Members—net
controverting the justice of our remarks, but palliating the
neglect of their public duties in this particulai• instance-
The following is ono of those communications, which, as it
makes out a stronger case in favour of the absentees than
any of the others which we have received, we have selected
for insertion. We shall only say valeat quantum ialere
potent, and shall refer our readers to another part of our
paper for a list of all the Members of all parties who were
not present at the division on the question alluded to
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Wednesday morning•
Sir,—Admitting the justice of your censure upon th°s4