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

justified in calling the measure which had ken brought
forward by his Majesty's Ministers a revolutionary mea-
sure. When the present measure was first brought for-
ward by the Noble Lord .opposite oa Tuesday night, be
(Mr. Hobhouse) sitting as he did in that region of the
House (on the Opposition benches), which had been his
abode from his first entrance into Parliament up to the
present moment, could not help observing (and in making
the disclosure he supposed he did not maintnit any breach
of confidence, or violate what was due to proper privacy)
with astonishment, not the indignation, but the delight
With which the proposition of the Mile Lard, as he un-
folded it to the House, was received by the Hon. Members
who sat around him. The Hon. Members well knew what
were dangerous sul jests to propose; they had themselves
experience in that way, and they viewed the proposition of
the Noble Lord as one calculated to drive out the present
Minister and replace themselves in their former situa-
tions. They appeared then to think that the day was not
distant when they were to regain their old placer,
and when his (Mr. Hobhouse's) friends opposite would
be sent back to that side of the House to advocate still, but
with less chance of success, the rights of the people. In
the conversations which passed amongst those Hon. Mem-
bers while the Noble Lord (John Russell) was speaking, be
(Mr. Hobhousej heard nothing about the measure being a
revolutionary one; be heard nothing from any one of them
but the language of congratulation.—(Hear, hear.)—
Since, however, that measure had been denounced by his
Hon. Friend the Member for Corfe Castle as a revolution-
ary measure, it had been also denounced by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Boroughbridge; and the lion. Ba-
ronet, the representative for the University of Oxford, had
shadowed it out as something equally as bad as the murder
of Charles I. He had heard much abuse levelled against
this measure, but he begged to remark, that in the way
of argument, or proofs, or document, he had heard no-
thing urged against the proposition of his Noble Friend
opposite. Nothing had been adduced to prove that if this
Bill passed the people of England would lose their consti-
tutional rights,—that the Monarchy would be destroyed,
—and that the three estates of the reahn—the King, Lords,
and Commons—would cease to exist. To listen to the
language which had been employed by some of Owe who,
opposed this measure, one would think that these, if not
more dreadful consequences, would result from this Bill;
but where were the proofs to substantiate such absurd asset.-
tions ? His Hon. Friend (the Member for Curie Castle)
had adverted to the authority of Mr. Huskisson. He did
not mean to undervalue the authority of Mr. Huskisson,
and, indeed, for some time previous to his death, in his ca•
reer of Parliament, he believed that he (Mr. Hobhouse) was
More inclined to pay attention to the authority of Mr. Hus-
kisson than his Hon. Friend was. As to Mr. Huskisson's
opinions, however, upon Parliamentary Reform, lie (Mr.
Hobhouse) had never participated in them. He had never
been the disciple of Mr. Huskisson, and if his Hon.
Friend meant to convey a sarcasm in turning towards him
(Mr. Hobhouse) when he quoted the authority of Mr.
Huskisson, it was a rather waggish mode of attacking
some of the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite.—(A laugh.)
As to the authority of Mr. Huskisson, therefore, on this
subject, he (Mr. Hobhouse) begged to say with all due
respect, that it was no authority for him. Hie lion.
Friend had also quoted the authority of Mr. Pitt, he had
quoted from one of the most distinguished speeches that
that marvellous man had ever made,—lie alluded to the
speech pronounced by Mr. Pitt on the 31st of January,
799, on the subject of the Legislative Union. Now, in
answering his Hon. Friend, he thought that he could pro-
duce a most complete answer from the lips of that same
great man, to the learning as well as the law with which
the House had been favoured by the Hon. and Learned
Member far Boroughbridge. What did Mr. Pitt say to
the right of the Parliament of England and Ireland, to
take away corporate rights, and to disfranchise such bo-
roughs as it might think fit? Let the House mark the
masterly and overpowering manner in which he disposed
of the trumpery precedent which was then set up as it had
been now, that the Parliament of the country had no right
to alter the represesentation of the country,—that it was a
fundamental principle of the Constitution that the Legis-
lature could not entertain the question as to the disfran-
ehisement of boroughs, and the taking away of corporate
rights, unless in cases where delinquency had been
proved. What was Mr. Pitt's answer on that occasion
to such arguments ? He (Mr. Hnbliouse) should read
;t to the house from his speech ueon the Union. He
might, in passing, remark that he could not possibly
divine, while looking into Mr. Pitt's speeches that
morning for the extract which he -was about to read, that
lie and his Hon. Friend the Member for Corfe Castle,
should be poaching in the same manor—(A. laugh)—
and that they should have gone to the same speech for
their authority. The decisive passage which he should
quote from Mr. Pitt would settle, as far as authority could
settle any thing, the arguments which had been put forth
last night by the Hon. and Learned Member for Borough-
bridge, on this point, and which, indeed, had been already
tolerably well settled by the Attorney-General. And in
quoting that, passage he would beg to say, that though
Mr. Pitt might not have been as learned in the subtleties
and difficulties of the law, as the Hon. Member for Bo-
roughbridge, he was at least as high an authority in mat-
ters connected with English history and the principles of
&Institutional government.—(Hear, bear.) The following
was the opinion of Mr. Pitt upon this subject :—" If the
principle of the incompetency of Parliament to the deci-
sion of the measure he admitted, or if it be contended that
Parliament has no legitimate authority to discuss and de-
cide upon it, you will be driven to the necessity of recog-
nzing a principle, the most. dangerous that ever was
adopted in any civilized state. I mean the principle that
Parliament cannot adopt any measure new in its nature,
and cf great importance, without appealing to the consti-
ruent and delegating authority for directions. It that doe-
trine be true, look to what an extent it will carry you. If
such an argument could he set up and mainta'ne I, you
acted without any legitimate authority when you
created the representation of the principality of Wales,
or of either of the counties palatine of England. Every
law that Parliament ever made, without that appeal,
either as to its own frame and constitution, as to the
qualification of the electors or the elected, as to the
great and fundamental point to the succession to the crown,
was a breach of treaty and an act of usurpation. If we
turn to Ireland itself, what do gentlemen think of the
power of that Parliament, which, without any fresh dele-
gation from its Protestant constituents, associates to itself
all the Catholic electors and thus destroys a fundamental
distinetion on which it was formed ? God forbid that I
should object to or blame any of these measures. lam
only stating the extent to which the principle, that Pallid-
snent has no authority to decide upon the present measure,
will lead ; and if it be admitted in one ease, i: must be
admitted in all. Will any man say, that (although a Pro-
testant Parliament in Ireland, chosen exclusively by Pro-
testant constituents, has, by its own inherent power, and
without consulting those constituents, admitted and com-
prehended the Catholics who were till then, in fact, a se-
parate community) that Parliament cannot associate itself
with another Protestant community, represented by a
Protestant Parliament, having one interest with itself, and
similar in its laws, its constitution, and its established re-
tigion ? What must be said by those who have at any
time been friends to any plan of Parliamentary Reform,
sad particularly such as have been most recently brought
forward, either in Great Britain or Ireland ? Whatever
may have hove thought of thee propriety of the measure, I
never heard any doubt ofthe competency of Parliament tta
eonsirler and discuss it. Yet I defy any man to maintain
the principle of those plane, without contending that, as a
Member of Parliament, he pomestes a right to concur in
disfranchising those who sent him to Parliament, and to
select others, by whom he was not elected, ha their stead."
Having read that extract, be should suppose that they had
now completely done with the arguments about corporation
robbery, and about the incompetency of Parliament 'to
deal with corporate franchises.—(Loud cheers. )—lie
thought that he had now done with the law with which
the Hon. Member frit Boroughbridge had favoured them,
with regard to this point. Again he would say, that with
respect to the details of Chancery practice, he would not
piece the authority of Hr. Pitt in competition with that
"f the Hon. Member for Boroughbridge ; but Mr. Pitt
knew something of constitutional law, and he did not
think that there was any thing illegal iu the disfranchise=
Mt" of ef'tinsrate boroughs, or that such a proceeding on
the part rharliatrient would: be looked upon as an att
spoliation and roh‘ey
nutelf
—(Cheers.)—Mr. Pitt rill More
strongly expressed .himself
ago
st the principle insisted
_upon by .the Learned Membe
r for Boroughbridge, in the
passage immodiately succeeding that which lie (Mr. Hob-
. house) had quoted. " I eta ' ur. continued Mr. Pitt,
" that no sufficient distinction, it;:'Point of principle, can
be successfully maintained fur
n
d:ngle momint; nor
should I deem it necessary A
upontheaetti:oiilt .
point iu
the manner I do, were I not convinee
d in part, with all those false and dan
iodys notions
on the subject of Government which hays.
too prevalent in the world. At may, in fact, be traced toe
that gross perversion of the principles of all political societT
which rests on the supposition that there.exists coati_
nually in every government a sovereignty in abeyance (as
it were) on the part of the people; ready to be called
forth on every occasion, or rather on every pretence,when
it may suit the purposes_ of party or faction, who are the
advocates of this doctrine, to-Support an occasion for its
exertion." It was thus -that Mr. Pitt disposed of that
prineiple, sn that it would be found that he (Mr. Hol).