The Sun.
London, England, 1831-03-04 00:00:00

house) was traveling to the same constitutional end as bia '
Hon. Friend, only it happened that they were going by
different roads. Ilis Learned and Hon. Friend had fallen
into the most unfortunate trap that had been laid for him
by the Hon. Memb2r for Boroughbridge, with respect to
the Parliament in the d lys of Oliver Cromwell. He bad
warned the Learned Ex-Attorney-General last night of
his error, but there were some gentlemen that would not
take advice, and Last of all from an enemy. If the Learned
Gentleman had only extended his reading of Mr. Pitt's saeech,
and had c :cried kis reading still further, be would not have
quoted that portion of that celebrated harangue. If he
had only looked into a page of Hume—certainly a very po-
pular and commonly read author,—he would have found a
full and accurate statement, why Oliver Cromwell dis-
. missed the Parliament in the short space of eighteen days.
—(llear, hear.) So far from the Learned and Hon. Gen-
man's assertion being founded in truth, he would have
learrie from the historian that Cromwell dismissed that
• Parliam-nt for the very reasons fur which some of those
seho heard lii7n would wish- to have just such a Parliament
now. It was because he found by their proceedings that
the Parliament completely represented the people of Eng-
land, and was swayed by the public voice, and influenced
by the good of the country. What was it that Parliament '
did ? As Hume said, these very intemperate popular gen-
tlemen did not want to flatter the government of the Pro-
tector, but they wished to begin to pull to pieces t' e in-
strument of government, and Cromwell in the Privy
Council said, that although they were called together to con-
sult for the good of the country, they forgot the authority
by which they were called together, and that therefore
they should sit no longer. This was because they really
were the representatives of the people of England, and bad
the good of the people at heart—they were the representa-
tives whom Lord Clarendon said were worthy of more war-
rantable authority, and deserving of better times,—they
were, in fact, representatives whom Cromwell's sagacity at
once saw were totally incompatible with tyranny. No man
better knew how to speak lucidly and forcibly than Cromwell
when he found it necessary and wished to be understood ;
and, on the contrary, no man knew better how to involve a
speech or pet plex a subject—not even the Hon. and Learned
Member for Boroughbridge.—( A laugh.) This was
the declared and open reason why Cromwell dissolved this
Parliament, and this was the reason of Clarendon's giving
such an opinion of that assembly. The Parliament was
tit for the people of England, but not fit fit the purposes
of Cromwell. That was a popular Parliament, a Parliament
solely and entirely for the people, Cromwell soon found
out ; and in eighteen, days he pronounced it to be an un-
manageable assembly. Had Cromwell lived in these times,
it would have been quite another thing.—(A laugh.)—
lie would have found out the modern secrets of managing
a Parliament. He would have gone on allowing the
pleasing contention of parties, with sometimes one set of
gentlemen in office, and sometimes another set of gentle-
men out of office, whilst the people and their interests were
left out of consideration. The Learned and Hun. Mem-
ber for Boroughbridge was excessively jocose on the pre-
ceding evening, and, with all due admiration of the
Learned Member's talents, he (Mr. Hobbouse) must say
that he lied never passed a happier hour in his life than
during the Learned Gentleman's speech.—(A laugh,)_
The Learned Gentleman had talked to the House about
Oliver Cromwell's and Pride's purge, and tried to saddle
the term upon the Noble Lord, the present Paymaster of
his Majesty's Forces. It hail not, however, been con-
venient to the Learned Gentleman to consider what the
Parliament really was that Pride had applied his medi-
cine to, and he had talked of it as the regicide Parlia-
ment. The Hon. Member for Oxford had claimed a
sort of privilege of making an ex officio blunder upon
the occasion, and had indulged himself in a mutilation of
the History of England, as the University of Oxford itself
had done before now. The Hon. Member for Oxford
(Sir R. H. Inglis) ba,l said, that if ever the country had
had a popular House of Commons, it was that which
ended in murdering the King. Now this, he conceived,
was not the time to talk thus of crowned heads, dead or

living, for they had enough to do to keep their stations
without further endangering their position—(Loud
cheers fro:n the opponents of the Bill, which were re-
turned from the other side.) He spoke advisedly. He
was fully aware of what he had said. The reason why
he had objected to the words of the Hon. Memb( r was,
because, he thought that the error ought to be contradicted,
avd it might be contradicted with all the good humour of
the Hon. Member for Boroughbridr, who at another time
might, without great mischief, enter again into the dis-
cussion. If he had been aware of the cheer, he should say
the same thing again. It was not the time when it was ne-
cessary to slur over what tended to detract. from those un.
rirtunite men who were placed by birth, or other rireurn-
stances, upon thrones. He might, had he been disposed
to quibble or be captious, have quarrelled with the Hon.
Member's phrase of " murdering the king." The Hon.
Member for Oxford perfectly well knew—for he (Mr.
Hobhouse) well knew his learning. and it did not require
much to know that—(A laugh)—that the unfortunate and

ill-advised monarch, Charles 1., met his doom, not in con-
sequence of any determination of the democracy to put
him to death. It was very well known by this time,
—it vas not a very modern discovery,—who it was that
put the King to death. So thoroughly were understood
all the circumstances that led to that event, so well were
known the motives, views, and objects of those who in-
fluenced or were concerned in the transaction, that he felt
astonished that the Hon. Member for Oxford should com-
mit himself by such a mis-statement before the House, and
in the eyes of the country. Was it not known to every
hotly the least acquainted with history, that when attempts
were made to come to terms with Charles I , it was un-
fortunately discovered, that. at the very time that the
treaty was pending, the King was preparing to sign the
compact, with a mental reservation that when he should
.be placed upon the throne by these means he did not in-
tend to stand by his bargain ? He was therefore put to
death on a principle of self-defence, and by those who
were guided by the paramouat consideration of their own
purposes. The Monarch was brought to the scaffold by
an usurper, and not by a democracy; and well did the
Hon. Member fur Oxford know the fact. But did not
the Hon. Member likewise know that the Parliament was
not what he had termed it—a popular Parliament ?- It
%vas in every respect a borough Parliament. It was a
Parliament composed of only sixteen Members for coun-
ties, six Members for cities, and all the remaining Mem-
hers were fur boroughs : only 84. Members coin-
' posed tl,e Parliament that condemned Charles to
death, and mere than sixty of those Members were
fur boroughs. The Learned Member, therefore, was
wrong, entirely wrong, in asserting that it was a popular
patty or a popular Parliament that brought the King to the
block. If he travelled from. ancient to modern tunes, the
Hon. Member for Oxford.would be found equally wrong
in all his fact, and equally confused and mistaken in his
view of them. He had said that whatever domestic or
popular assemblies had been tried, they had bean found in
practice to be utterly inconsistrnt with a monarchy.
-What were the two instances he had quoted to make out
such an extraordinary opinion ? First, the Hen. Member
had quotel the recent political history of Spain. Ile
(Mr. llobhouse) would ask whether it was the Curbs of
Spain that dethroned Ferdinand VII. He was dethroned
not by popular violence, but because the French army, in
violation of all the treaties of Eur Ope, entered Spain, not
being prevented by this country, as unquestionably it ought
to have been. This was the reason why the power of the
monarchy anl of the democracy was found incompatible;
and until the French invaded the country, the kingly
functions and the rights of the popular assembly had been
found perfectly consistent, as the Constitution of England
had long shown them in every respect to be. Next the
Hon. Member referred to Sicily, and had triumphantly
asked why the experiment had not succeeded there. Ile
would answer, for the best of all reasone, because Lord
Caetlereagh's settlement of Europe (of which Europe was
still enjoying, wed likely for some time to enjoy, the
fruits) had not tended to any settlement, but to revo-
. This was the reason why popular assemblies
had pot recently been foUnd compatible with tl.e monarchy.
He had thought that the merits of the Frenchrevolu-
; Lion of 1830 bad lesen settled in every man's mind.
; He had thought that all parties in that House had acknow-
ledged tbat it was as experiment which the French
people Were not only justifted in making, but that it was
one which they were imperiously called upon to make, and
he was extremely sorry that any individual could now be
found capable of blaming it. If that experiment had not
succeeded, and if France were not now tranquil, it was
not because the Parliament of France was too much the
repres ntative of the people, but because the people com-
plained of the very'reverse. This was the cause, and the
sole cause, why there were likely to be any disturbances
in France. - He had listened to all that had been said upon
the subject of the present debate with attention, and be
had not heard one single argument, or any thing worthy
the name of argument, to show that there was any danger
whatever that could arise, or was likely to arise, from
adopting the project of the Noble Lord. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Newport, who had been Member for Wootton Bas-
set (Mr. Horace Twiss) had expressed himself very much
alarmed lest the present plan of Reform should throw the
elective franchise into the hands of shopkeepers and attor-
, nies• He should like to know where the elective franchise
rested
at the present moment. Were there any indivi-
duals in the country that now exercised so much power at
elections
people
wereas
very this
nproscribedbutbe d d notcla:rs,tl see a
why that gn
t to rni ee. Soeme.