The Sun.
London, England, 1831-10-04 00:00:00

in favour of those who were adverse to the present Bill ;
but 1 believe there do not exist men more independent than
those who have been added to the Peerage. But to return
to what Mr. Foster said. He made the statement which
I have described. The late Lord Lontionderry got op, and
objected to such insinuations being thrown out. Mr. Fm-
ter replied, " I make no insinuations—corruption and
bribery have been practised—money has been p lid—seats
have been bartered—is that an insinuation ?-1 am ready
to prove the statement." So did that Right lion. Gen-
tleman speak, and no answer was given. Upon no ground,
then, I repeat, can nomination lie called the practice of the
Constitution. A schedule, amounting to forty-four bo-
roughs and one city—to fay nothing of the disfranchise-
ment of Scotch and Irish boroughs—is to be found in our
Parliamentary history; and as to the resumption of a
trust, when it ceases to be used for the benefit of the par.
ties for whose advantage it was created, I believe that is
a position against which no intelligent or impartial man
will for a moment contend. But in answer to all this, I
am told that the Constitution, in its present form, winks
well ; but that rule of working well proceeds too far, for
if a despotic Prince happened to be a man of mild and
amiable disposition, his subjects should incur the hazard
of submitting to his tyrannical successor, rather than de-
pose biol. Surely that is not doctrine that can ever he
a 'opted in a British Parliament. Freedom is the first of
housings ; when possessed it should he most scrupulously
cherished, and where wanting it should be obtained at
almost any cost. Has the Constitution, in its present
form, It-veers] well ? Has it conciliated or preserved the
confidence of the people ? If it be necessary that the re-
prtoentative portion of our Legislature should aspire to the
confidence of the people, I will say of the present system,
that instead of working well, nothing could have worked
worse. I did not happen to be in this House a night or
two ago, when a most valuable admission was made ; but
I read the statement in the Newspapers. Of the present
representation of Scotland I can say the doom is sealed—
it is really so absurd and ridiculous that I only wonder
how any one could for a moment imagine the possibility
of its continued existence. Its thirty-three counties had
but 3,255 freeholders. If we remove from these the num-
bers who vet, d merely in right of superiority, it reduces
the whole number to I,2so—scarcely enough for a small
borough. Argyle, with a population of 97,000, had only
130 electors ; there were only 131 in Caithness, of whom
but 11 were real proprietors. Renfrew, with 15,000
souls, had only 142 electors. Inverness, with 95,000,
possess 'd no more than 90 electors, and of that number
but 28 were real proprietors. Bute had but 21 electors,
of whom one only was a proprietor. But, my Lords, we
ate not now going into the subject of the Scotch repre-
sentation ; and I only make these statements in answer
to the argument of those who assert that the present
system works well, notwithstanding its abuses. It
g od batiks, industry, respect for property. and in-
ceeated prosperity are the criteria of improvement
what country are they more remarkable than
Sc Aland ? Surely that improvement is not to be
a, telt-nye,' to the system of Scotch representation,
which. as has been acknowledged by a Noble Lord oppo-
e, is so b ul, that it can no longer be maintained. 1
k ow not, then, by what reasoning it is attempted to at-
tribut • the prosperity which this country has enjoyed to
the def ctive representation, or to prove that the abuses
should be perpetuated, because the country has improved
notwithttatiding their existence. But, my Lords, lam at
a loss to understand tae distinction which has been drawn
between those parts of the Scotch representation which
Noble Lords opposite condemn, and Gatton and Sarum.—
(Hear.) In what way is the mound of Old Sarum or the
wall of Gamin Park better entitled to representation than
the Scotch superiority, which reduced the constituency of
a cotrity to one individual ? I cannot see how it is pos-
sible to retain one, if you abandon the other—(Hear)—
nor can I believe but that the removal of those abuses, in-
stead of undermining the Constitution, will render it more
secure. Nor, my Lords, has it been by this House that
the pow tr of nomination to seats in the Commons House
of Pair: sent for Note boroughs was enjoyed, but by a
few !ttlioiduals, who exercised that power for their own
advantage and to promote their private ambition, whilst
the cdiatn is thrown upon the whole body.—(Hear.)
That p ,wer is not exercised for the advantage of the
Peers as a branch of the Legislature, nor is it ex-
elusively possessed by Peers, but :lowed with them by
loan c mtractors and attorneys, who speculate in
the pu-chase and sale of these boroughs for their
own profit. The effect was to diminish the respect
of the p.ople for the Peers, and to place entirely at the dis-
posal of a few individuals those offices of honour and emo-
lument which ought to be the reward alone of merit. By
temovlng a lei, aimaea, you W 11 remove at tile came time
the Pe rs from odium, and do justice to the people.
Ent:, let ii.e ask, do the Peers themselves gain nothing by
the Bill ? lam not one of those who think that it could
be for the advantage of the nation that each branch of the
Stroe, Flooding upon its own right, should cling to the
letter of the Constitution for its own advantage against the
interests of the other two. It constitutes the happiness
of the Stele in which we live, that all the three orders are
an blended together, that each, when acting as a separate
body, Is of necessity led to view its own interests as wound
rip with those of all the others.—(Hear, hear.) My
Lortht, I would by no means deprive the Peers of that
natural and useful influence which they ought to possess;
at the same titre that I thank God they do not pos-
sess such immunities and privileges as were possessed
by the old French nobility. I greatly prefer that just in-
fluence which they possess, as landed proprietors, and as
Magistrates--by good offices, by benevolence and justice to
the people, with whose interests theirs are identified as mem-
bers of the same commonwealth. That influence they will
etuttittoe to posses), and that not diminished but increase(l
after the passing of this Bill—(hear)—for the odium
excited Ito theism-dins:6°n boroughs will then be removed ;
whereas, should the unfortunate decision of this night be
to reject the Bill, I verily believe that the just, and natural,
and useful influence of the Peers of this country will be
seriously reduced—by reforming those abuses which had
become odious in the eyes of the people, and which,
amidst the improvements of time and the increasing know-
ledge of the people, cannot be retained for any considerable
length of time by any ezieting, power in this country. The
Bill, besides relieving the Peers front the odium cast upon
them by their supposed participation in. those abuses, will
add considerably to their just influence, by the addition of
sixty-five Members to the county representation.—(lfsar.)
The Bill has been hailed by the country with a more una-
nimous expression of approbation than any other measure
upon record ; and this remark, my Lords, has brought tne
to the last topic on which it is my intention to occupy you
at present. I have said that the country s: as unanimous
in approbation of the Bill of which I have risen to
propose the second reading. For although it has beer.
said that the eagerness of the people had passed away,
to strong watt this opinion in the minds of many per-
sons at the time of the dissolution of the last Par-
liament, that they tsamfidently predicted that the result
of the elections would be unfavourable to the Govern-
ment which had resorted to that measure. But I need
not remind your Lordships of the result el those elections,
nor need I remind you of the petitions whkh have lately
been preaented to this House, bearing signatures more nu-
merous than tver before were attached to petitions upon
any subject. I may be told that those petitions niust not
be referred to, for that the Peers of England must calmly
deliberate this great question on its own merits, and with-
out regard to the desires of any portion of the people ;
and that the Peers will do their duty. Again, 1 may be
told, that those petitions do not express the sentiments of
the people of England; or, that if they did so, the Peers
are too noble, too high-minded, too courageous a
body to yield anything to intimidation. I believe, my
Lords, I should be one of the last Men in this House to
recommend it to your Lordships to yield to intimidation.
Far from addressing your Lordships in the language of in-
timidation, I would say, " Do not give way to popular
clamour," But Ido nut use menace when I say, "Do
not resist the just and liberal wishes of the people unequi-
vocally expressed."—(Hear.) I do not use the language
of the people whoa 1 pray your i-ordships to atteud to
the voice of nine-tentbs of the people--too loud nut to
be heard, and too plain and reasonable to be mistaken
oc denie,d. But, my Lords, do not flatter yourselves
into the belief that there is any abatement of the feeling
of the people upon the subject of Reform. Do sot believe,
that if this Bill he rejected a more limited measure
can be substituted with safety or advantage. You must
either take this Lill, or you twill be called on, not for this,
hut for something which you will think infinitely more
dangerous than the present measure, aithoogli perhaps not
more dangerous than a second refusal. I would pot re-
commend it to your Lordships to regard popular clamour,
but I would earnestly pray you to consider impartially and
attentively the general expression of public opinion, and,
if expedient, to yield to it.—(Bear.) What was it that
induced the Noble Duke opposite to concede to the claims
of the Catholics? Did the Noble Duke ever state that his
opinions respecting those claims had been altered?
bins
he retract the sentiments and principles by whiet his
former conduct had been governed ?--(ilear, hear.) Did
the Right Hon. Member of the other House of Parlia-
ment, who was second only to the Noble Duke himself
in .influence and importance, say that his own opinions
had undergone any change ? Did he not rather found
the change in his policy upon the exigency of e
times and. the altered state of public opinion? Was not
the Noble Duke himself charged in this Houle with incon-