The Sun.
London, England, 1831-09-22 00:00:00

which had formerly been exercised that he condemned. It
was impossible that the present Government could go on
in Ireland if it was thwarted by influence both in and out
of the Castle.
Sir R. VYVYAN thought that the Hon Member who
spoke last had answered the Hon. Member for Kerry.
The Hon. Baronet explained what he had previously said
about the ballot.
Mr. SHAW said a few words.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, in moving that the petition be
printed, said that there was a great difference between the
case of an individual Peer using an undue influence, and
the Government requiring that those who eat its bread
should support it. To confound them was most injurious.
The reason why the petitioners would not go before the
Mayor was the known partiality of that officer. He thought
the conduct of the Peerage more likely to make it unpo-
pular than anything that could he said against the aristo-
cracy. He would always defend his constituents.
Mr. H. GRATTAN explained.
After a few words from Lord IscEsTRIE, the petition
was ordered to be printed.
REFORM BILL.
Colonel SIBTHOItPE moved the order of the day for
resuming the debate. After the order of the day had been
real, the Gallant Officer proceeded to state that he gave
the Bill his most decided opposition. He regretted that
his being unwell would not allow him to address the House
at any length.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He would only de..
dare his decided hostility to the Bill. He trusted that the
Bill would neither pass the other House nor receive the
Royal assent.
Mr. CRAMPTON gave his hearty concurrence to the
grateful measure before the House. He defended himself
from the imputation of the servants of the Government
not having defended the Bill, and declared that he consi-
dered it legal, constitutional, and necessary. The Hon.
Member said he was attached to the Constitution ; but he
denied that rotten boroughs, nomination Members, and
buying and selling seats were parts of the Constitution.
The Hon. and Learned Member entered into a dissertation
on the Constitution, and contended, on the authority of
various Acts of Parliament, that nomination boroughs and
undue influence were forbidden. If nomination boroughs
were necessary let them be legalized by statute. If the
arguments of the Hon. Member for Thetford proved any-
' thing, it was that the Constitution was a tissue of abuses,
and lie (Mr. Crampton) contended that schedule A was
the legitimate and constitutional method of correcting those
Abuses. The transference of the elective franchise from the
rotten boroughs to the great towns was in effect in strict
conformity with the original principles and practice of the
Constitution, and he defied any lawyer to rise up in that
House and say otherwise. It had been said that the -Bill

made a dangerous experiment. He for one was not afraid
of the consequences of the experiment. He believed that
no sensible Government would continue long to resist the
loudly expressed opinions of a whole people, and he be-

Hewed at - the same time that as the Bill would confer the
right of election on all the sound sense and respectability
of the country, that no Members would be returned whose
views were hostile to good government. It had been con-
tended that the passing of the Bill would ensure
the destruction of the Church of England. lie
believed that it would have a directly contrary ef-
fect. But if the Church of England could not exist
without the rotten boroughs—(Hear, hear, hear)—if
it was based on principles so unsound that it could not live
without the perpetuation of rank and hateful abuses_
(Hear, hear)—then he would at once declare it to be his
conviction that the Church of England ought to fall.—
(Loud cheers from the Opposition.) He begged that he
might not he misconceived.—(Hear, hear.) If the Church
of England could not support itself—if it could not stand
unless it rested on tl e mouldering bases of the rotten bo-
roughs, be repeated that it ought not to stand. But
the Church of England rested on a rock, and they were foul
libellers of that Church who ventured to insinuate in that
House that its doctrines and its p' inciples could not main-
tain themselves without the assistance of cot ruption, or that
there would be any danger to its permanency because it was
thought necessary to remove the abuses which impaired ra-
ther than maintained its influence. The argument used
by the other side was, that if they corrected the abuses
of the representative system, the Church must fall; but he
contended, on the contrary, that the correction of the
abuses of the State would support and uphold the Church,
and that the measure now be.ore the House would prove
the most powerful support of both the one and the other.
The Constitution was, he contended, the purest and the
most perfect that could be devised, and he would most
gladly say, Esfo perpetua ; but the arguments of the
gentlemen on the otter side proved that the country had
two Constitwiens—one fit theory, and the other for prac-
tice ; and they contended that it was impossible the theo-
retical Constitution could he maintain. d, unless they con-
tinued all the crimes and abuses which had crept, through
the course of ages, into the working of that theoretical
-ystem. There was one topic to which he applied himself
with some pain. The Hon. Member who last addressed

the House, as well as many others, had declared that they
crusted in God that the House of Lords would reject the
Bill. He (Mr. Crampton) as sincerely lobed they would
not; for he could not but consider it a very great mis-
fortune that any such great difference of opinion should rise

up between the two great estates of the Constitution. A
Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) who last night ad-
dressed to the House one of the ablest and most eloquent
speeches which he had heard on the subject, declared that
of all the Rills that was ever presented to the Lords, the
present Bill was that which they would canvass with the
greatest care, and examine with the minutest attention ;
and if they do not do so, the Right Honourable Gen-
tleman concluded by asking, " Of what use was the
House of Lords?" He (Mr. Crampton) venerated as much
as any man the hereditary privileges of the Lords, but he
would say, that if ever there was a Bill presented to
them which they were called en to treat with peculiar de-
licacy—( Hear)—nay, which they should scarcely venture
to criticise any more than a Money Bill—(Hear)—it was
that Bill which was now about to be sent up by the House
of Commons.—(Loud cheers from the Opposition.) He
understood that cheer, and he respected it.—( Hear, hear.)
He knew it proceeded from those who were conscienti-
ously opposed to him ; hut, as he as firmly and as ho-
nestly believed what he asserted, he trusted they would in
candour allow him to explain his views on that subject.—
(Hear.) He was most fully satisfied that, in anything
connected with the representation, the House of Lords
should, according to the principles of the Constitution,
have as little power or influence over it as the House of
Connnons ought to have over the privileges of the Lords.
—(lfear, hear.) To the Peers belonged the exclusive right
of deciding every thing connected with the privileges of
the aristocracy. To the Commons belonged the right of
determining all questions connected with the system of re-
presentation.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) He
knew well that the Union with Scotland and with Ireland,
the connexion with Wales, and the provisions of many local
statutes threw difficulties and impediments in the way of the
exercise of this exclusive power on the part of the Com-
mons ; but he believed that it existed, and that it was in full
and perfect accordance with time principles of the Constitu-
tion, with the common law, and with the custom and prac-
tice of Padiatnent.—(Cheers front the Opposition.) He
repeated, he was satisfied, as a lawyer, that the
House possessed this exclusive right ; and he must c6n-
tinue so, until the contrary was proved to him.—(Hear.)
Let, then the House of Lords reject the Bill. They had
the constitutional right to reject it, and he did not pretend
to question that right ; but then, he would say, one main
object of the Reform Bill could be carried without their
concurrence.—(Loud cheers from the Opposition.) If he
was right in that assertion—and he believed he was—the
House would sec what important consequences would