The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-13 00:00:00

—(flaugli.) They had kept the whole country for
several months in a state of uproar about a measure which
they were now compelled to acknowledge was one of pe-
culation.—(Hear, hear.) The House of Commons, evi
as at present constituted, engrossed almost all the powers
of the State. Whit would be the case when the present
Bill was adopted? The result must he popular tumult,
and national calamity.—(Hear, hear.)
In answer to a question from an HoN. MEMBER,
whose name we were unable to ascertain,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL (we understood) stated that
the information on the table, respecting the population of
the various towns and districts, was OA tined from various
persoes, in order to show tl:e practical operation of the
Bill ; but that certainly it might be liable to correction.
Mr. C. PELHAM opposed the Bill, and dwelt espe-
cially on its complexity. Ile appealed to all tba
Members in the House whether what was comorehended
in this Bill did not extend over at least a hundred Statutes?
Mr. ATT WOOD could not allow the occasion to pass
without again entreating the serious attention of the House
to a measure unprecedented in the history of Parliament
and of the country. Since the origin of representative
power and delegated legislation, there was no precedent of
such a proceeding. Was it ever before preposed to the
Commons of lan; land to take away the rights, not, as in
the present Bil!, of a third of the electoral body, but even
of a single set of electors, except after compiles &on, or
as the punisiment of convicted crime? He defended the
system of our representation generally, and contended that
s.
in every great system there must be individual instances
of venality. For these special, particular eases, the Bill
provided no remedy, while it unsettled all our established
institutions. The advantages of the borough system, he
maintained, were evident, front the illustrious Members
which had been returned under its influence to Parliament.
To the boroughs the country was indebted for the ser-
vices and talents of Lord Eldon and Lord Mansfield, and
for the eplendid eloquence and deathless reputation of Mr.
Pitt. In answer to the claim preferred for the King to
withhold the writs to boroughs, he contended that it ii.il
always been the opinion of the best constitutional lawyers
and greatest authorities, that every borough which had
once enjoyed the privilege of sending Members to Par-
liament, was entitled to a continuance of the tight, and
he protested against the Reform Bill in tl:e strongest
terms, as a measure of confiscation, and as a thing
uncalled for, inopportune, and dangerous. He would
ask whether it was supposed that the new constitueocy
would furnish to that House a body of representatives of
greater talent, consideration, and integrity, than those who
now composed it ? The increased number of voters
would not aeld to those qualities in the persons whom tiny
• elected. What, for the lest forty years, had caused tl e
evils of France, but the ambition of the people to have the
guidance of the country in their own hands ?—(Hear.)
It was the same with all other countries of Europe ; they
were nearly all endeavouring to establish the Sovereignty
of the people. But that sovereignty was utterly incon-
sistent with the Sovereignty of the people. It was that
struggle which had been going on in France during the
last fifteen years—and what was the result? Why that
the elder branches of the Bourbons had been banished. It
might be sail that they were weak, and had governed
France badly ; but who was there that could tell what
would be the result to other Governments if the popular
will became so strong? Were they to follow the example
of France, and throw the British Constitution into the
general furnace of revolutions ? If they did, how could
they tell what might be the end of it ? He did not
mean to deny the general doctrine of the rights of Parlia-
trent. There were two distinct rights of Parliamt nt.
In the more enlarged sense of the word, it was the right
of Parliament to abolish any of the prerogatives of the
Crown, and all but give a new Constitution to the
country ; but that was not the case here. The King, in
his Speech from the Throne, called on the Parliament to
inter on the consideration of this question with reference
to the general and acknowledged principles of the
Constitution. In that sense he denied the right of
Parliament to make these changes in one of
the three gloat constituent bodies of the Imperial
Parliam n'. On the same principle adopted by the
Ministry, with r ference to this Bill, as affecting
the Commons' House of Parliament, the constitution of
the other House of Parliament ought also to be altered.
At present, the only constituency of that House consisted
of the fifteen Cabinet Ministers. There was a rumour
that they intended to elect a number of new representa-
tives into the other House (for so he must call the creation
of new Peers), for the purpose of carrying this measure.
He did not believe the rumour. Solely they could not
hive the audacity—the profligacy—to do this.---(Hear,
hear, from the Opposition.) When they were called on
to reform the state of the representation in that House,
inertly because the number of the electors was small, were
they to have the spectacle of him or his Cabinet electing
new representatives into the other House of Parli tment
when that constituency was so much smaller ? That
would indeed he a violation of all the principles of the
Constitution. The power of creating Peers was given to
the Crown to enable it to reward men who had distin-
guished themselves, or to elevate to high honours the first
men among the Commoners of the country : but it was
not given for the purpose of enabling it to carry a measure
in Parliament.—(Hear; hear.) If ten Peers might lie
created for one purpose, twenty might be created for an-
other. If so, that portion of the Legislature would be
absorbed by the Crown. If, on the other hand, a system
of deciding merely by numbers was to go on from the
people, and not from them, would this question receive its
final adjudication ?—(Hear, hear.) If they adopted this
measure they would open the flood-gates of revolution,
which would overflow every prerogative of the Crown—
every privilege of Parliament, and every right of the
people.—(Hear, avd " Question, question.")
Captain GORDON (as we understood) rose to move an
adjournment of the debate.
Lord ALTHORP said, that if it was the pleasure of the
House to adjourn the question, the adjourament must take
place, but lie must say that this discussion was completely
unexpected. He appealed to the Right lion. Gentleman
opposite, whether he had not agreed that one full discus-
sion on the principle of the Bill would be sufficient.-T(No,
no, from the Opposition ; bear, hear, from the Mon-aerial
benches.) He was not surprised that there were Hon.
Gentlemen who did not agree with him on this subject.
He rose now for the purpose of opposing this adjourn-
ment.—(Hear, hear.) He was aware that it would he
impossible at that hour for the House to do more than re-
solve itself into a Committee for foim's sake; but after the
discussion this question had undergone, he thought he did
not ask too much in urging them to adopt that course.—
(Hear, hear.) If the Hon. Gentleman wished to speak on
this question, he should not object to his doing so. He
would oppose the adjournment, zianl take the sense of the
House upon the question.
Col. WOOD observed, that although the principle had
been discussed on the second reading, there were several
Members, and he amorg the number, anxious to deliver
their sentiments on the general details of the measure. At
this late hour of the House, he meant at this late evening
of the night—(Cheers and laughter)—at this late night of
the evening—(Laughter)—or rather at this late hour of
the night, he thought enough had been done, and he should,
therefore, vote for the adjournment.
Mr. WYNN was of opinion that the discussion ought
to proceed for the present, and that the farther discussion
of the principle, on this occasion, was nut irregular.
Sir R. PEEL agreed with the Noble Lord that it had
been understood that one discussion on the principle on the
second reading would be sufficient. At the same time Hon.
Members were at perfect liberty to speak at large on the
principle. It was only at present twelve o'clock, and the
debate might be continued yet for some time. He for one
would be no party to anything like a vexatious delay.—
(Cries of " Adjourn, and " No, no.")
Lord ALTHORP repeated that he should divide the
House.

Sir E. B. SUGDEN urged that the true way to shorten
the debate was to give every Member a fair hearing.
Mr. C. PELHAM said that several Members yet wished
to be heard.
Captain GORDON adied, he should persist in his mo-
tion that the farther debate be adjourned.
The question was then put, and the House divided—
For the adjournment lO2
Against it 128
Majority
After some farther diseu-sion, from which strangers
were excluded, the House divided again on the question,
as we were informed, that the Speaker leave the Chair—
Ayes -8,J'13)
Noes -

Majority
The next division, as we understood, was on the motion
of Sir C. Wetherell, that the debate 13a adjourned to
Thursday.
For the adjournment ........................... 63
Against it... ......................................... V:33
Majority ........................ -172
From twelve o'clock till half past three the gal!ery was
kept shut, and strangers were excluded, during which we
understand the Members were engaged in a long and de-
sultory debate on the course of their proceedings, which
ended in the two parties endeavouring to persuade each
other that the faults were all on the side of their oppo-
nents. At that time we were again admitted into the
Gallery, and found the Speaker then putting the queition
" that I now lave the Chair ;" on which
Lord STORMONT moved that the debate be adjourned
till this day, at five o'clock. lie did that to show the other