The Sun.
London, England, 1831-12-17 00:00:00

(LEFT SITTING.)

[The debate is not expected to be over till eleven o'clock
when the House will very probably divide. The majority is cal
culated at from SO to 100.]

IMPERIAL PARLIA MENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, DEC. 16.

( Continued from our Second Edition of yesterday.)

REFORM BILL.

Lord PORCHESTER said he would occupy the atten-
tion of the House but for a very short time. In the pre-
sent circumstances of the country he could not feel himself
at liberty to oppose the introduction of any measure of
Reform, by which some compromise could be effected be-
tween the opponents and the friends of a change in the
system of representation. But he regretted to find his
Majes'y's Ministers hid done nothing to conciliate those
who eonscientimosly opposed them, or to give any man of
his (Lord Porchester's) opinions an opportunity of giving
them assistance; they could have found means to do so
without compromising the principles or feelings of any
offered for the acceptance of Parliament. As irregularity
and anomaly pervaded every part of the natural world,
so where they visible in every part of the British Consti-
tution ; but the result in both cases was, a harmony of
purpose, such as no arbitrarily formed Constitution could
ever hope to attain to. In the times to which the sup-
porters of this Bill referred, as those whence they drew
their model of the principles of this Bill, the civil liberty
of the country was destroyed, and the security of the per-
son and of property was proscribed ; but under the ex-
isting form of Government, liberty exercised its widest

alt I most beneficial influence, and blessings were enjoyed
such as had never been realised in any other place to the
same extent.—(Hear, hear.) The whole of our national
institutions were now in harmony with property, and
while they continued so be had little fear of our Consti-
tution being disorganised ; but if they were to be made, as
they would be made by this Bill, practically opposed to
each other, the organic basis of the Constitution would be
destroyed, and contests would ensue between property and
institutions, the result of which must be, either that pro-
perty would change the nature of our institutions, or our
institutions would break down the influence of property.
—(Hear, hear, hear.) To separate those institutions from
the interests of property, was the aim of the men who
now favoured political changes of all sorts ; and theirsuc-
cess in some parts of the world was the real secret of the
difference which characterised the changes made in other
countries in Europe, and those which were now attempted
here.—(Hear.) With the permission of the House, he
would draw their attention to the democratic institutions
of America, and to the effects which they had produced.
He saw those institutions daily become more popular, so
that at last the federative, or the conservative party, which
bad once been so powerful, was now almost annihilated,
and the republican party was everywhere triumphant.
In the same =hoer he believed, that if we followed the
example of the Americans in making any one part of our
Constitution exclusively and powerfully democratic, we
should, in the end, find every part of it become an
unmixed democracy. The Americans had done
what they could to retain the weight and influence of
property in their institutions. But we were going
Ito change ours with en opposite purpose, for
Iwe were about to destroy the law that gave weight and
influence to property by destroying the law that regulate)
thesuccession so it. If any one asked a Frenchman of
the present day whet was the moat objectionable thing in
the state of ancient France, he would answer, that it was
theute law of p e
succession
ccreosp,
ieornt y—t ino
otte
propertyir words,
;yet tthe law that
hatlawr
d beenegu
-
the same in ancient France as it was now in England,
sad the reason of die objection must be obvious to every
one. If they repealed the law of primogeniture her's, they
would have the same consequences follow that had hap-
pened in France. Yet this was the evident tendency of
the changes now desired to be introduced. He would
now say a word or two with respect to the enfranchise-
ment of the large towns. In former debates, an opinion
was expressed against the policy of Eiving one Member
each to the large towns ; and with surprising acuteness
and ingenuity the argument vrae taken advantage 'of, in
order to secure, what was evidently wished, the object of
making the Bill snore popular than betnre, by giving ad-
ditional representatives to those large towns. C‘aild it be
expected that he and his friends should not feel E.rprised
at observing that the principle against which they b tils•
been contending, instead of being removed or rendered 1e.5
effectual, hail been made to operate more extensively,—
(Hear, hear.) While, on the ode hand, this extension of
the means of popular influence had taken place, on the
other, there was no conservative influence exerted to
check it; bat the popular influence, like the Franken-
stein of romance, was not only called into active exist-
ence, but gifted with gigantic strength.—(Hear; hear.)
While these great towns received additional Members, the
smaller towns, which were somewhat under the influence
of the landed proprietors, were destroyed. Yet' they
were only valuable as affording the landed interest some
degree of protection. They were not absolutely power-
ful, for they did not possess that strength which belonged
alone to assembled numbers, and they were always sure of
beim.; overwhelmed in great contests, in every county its
which such contests were prolonged. The interests of the
smaller towns required the assistance and the protection of
the Minister. Mr. Pitt's plan of Reform has often been
referred to ; but Mr. Pitt's plan did not at all resemble
the present ; for it did not attempt to sweep away the
agricultural interest; but when it removed the nomina-
tion boroughs, it proposed to gi:'e the greater part of the
Members then reduced to the county representation, and
only to transfer a few of them to the large towns. He did
not advocate that plan as exactly fitted to the present state
of the country; he merely mentioned it to show the
difference beeween the plan of Mr. Pitt and that which
was now proposed for their adoption.—(Hear, hear.)
They had been told that the men of property in the
country were enlisted on the side of the Ministers. The
property of this country was protected by its institution.,
and the men of property had, by the very force of those
institutions, long been accustomed to look up to'thy Mi-
nisters of the Crown as the best supporters of these in-
stitutions. They did not expect from such a quarter the
bToty Ihai was to be utterly subversive of their interests ;
they could not believe that from them proceeded the
greatest danger ; and when the Ministers presented the
cup, they did net imagine that there was death in the
honeyed bowl.—(Hear, hear.) He knew there was a
party which had always advocated every change that bore
in its front the stamp of innovation. Their principle was
destructiveness : while the landed interest, which had too
fatally given way to them, was like the Indian buffalo,
that, fascinated by the gaze of the butt constrictor, lost all
its wonted vigour, and beheld the approaching danger
without the power to repel, or the skill to shun it.
(Hear, hear, hear.) Why, he asked, should his Majesty's
Ministers carry these changes so far ? Why should they
suppose that the people would not be satisfied with a mo-
derate change—a change that would remove the objec-
tion to the present system, without endangering our
sow happy C mstitution ? Why should they sappore,
that if they proprewd a moderate change of that
kind, the people would not be satisfied, with such an
act of grace ? On his side of the House they were
sati.fied to leave the matter with the good sense of the
country. On the other side they were told, that if the pre-
sent measure were refused, the refusal would be attended
with infinite peril. If so, he asked from whom that
peril would arise ? From those whom his Majesty's Mi-
nisters followed in their plans of Government—from
those to whom it was not enough to give much, but to
whom they were required to give all. The sacrifice they
were now asked to make was a sacrifice not to the people
but to a party.—(Hear, hear.) They were called on to
surrender their arms to those who pretty plainly showed
how they meant to employ them. They bad been told
that the oldest families of the country were opposed to
the part he advocated, and we.e favourable to Reform. He
denied the fact. 'The names of Wentworth, Russell, and
Cavendish were proud names—they were associated with
proud historical recollections—they were distinguished in
the national annals. He knew, too, that the Premier
Duke of Er.gland, the fist in rank, and not the second in
honour, had, from what he conceived to be his duty,
espoused the cause of Reform ; but as high as these names
were, they were not all. Were the Percys, the Warwicke,
and the Rutlands unknown in British history ?—(ilear,
hear.) Was the name of Montrose unheard of in ancient
times ?—(Hear, hear.) Had Buceleugh not been known
in the period of the border wars ?—( Hear, hear.) Was
Hereford a stranger at Court, and had Cecil no voice in
the country in the times of her glory ? He himself bad
always been friendly to a measure of practical Reform
founded on the basis of mutual concession : but the pre-
sent was not a measure of that sort. Ile was thoroughly
convinced of this; and could not, therefore, consent to
the adoption of the measure. He moved that it be read a
second time this day six months.

Sir E. B. SUGDEN seconded this motion. He could
form no opinion on this measure except from its details.
Now he understood that it was the opinion of practical
men, and of the body of the people, that this measure was
more democratic in principle than any former measure of
the sort. That opinion showed him that be was right in
continuing to offer this measure his opposition. If the
measures were not more democratical, he did not know
how Ministers could settle their account with the Mem-
bets of that House. Still less with the members of the
Political Unions. To those Unions they had given an-
swers once, and having thus set the precedent, they could
never refuse to follow it. In the various Bills that had
been introduced, they had a proof that the Ministers had
uo solid settled princip'e as the basis on which they pro-
ceeded ; or, if they hid, it was the only principle of wild
and universal change, a desire to elevate the democracy,
and to abase the landed interest; and, further than thia,
to make the Political Unions the masters of the country.
For sound and safe legislative principles he looked in vain.
In the first place, has Majesty's Ministers had said that
the Members of th et House must be reduced; and they
said this though the people had not asked for that change.
At that time they proposed that the Government should
keep a Bank in hand of Members of Parliament, so that
Scotland and Ireland had only to draw for them and be
answered at once. Now they had changed this plan, and
Ireland would not he contented. " I will," said Mr.
O'Connell—and in mentioning him he mentioned Ireland
I will have twenty more Members for Ireland, or Ire-
land and England will never agree." If the Ministers
had never committed the error of bringing forward
that part of the measure, that demand never wou
have been thoueht of. The troubles of Ireland had
lust begun. An attentive observer of past events mt's
be satisfied of that. A similar change had taken plun
with regard to the mode of ascertaining the populatinhe
At first it was proposed that the population fur o
purposes of this Bill should be taken by the cense
1821 ; and when it was objected that, within fourteen
lays of the time of that very discussion, the census of
1831 would be prepared, the Ministers refused to adopt
that census as their standard, and said something about