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

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS

The House last night came to a division on the Reform Bill.
Ilse cause of truth and justice was carried by the great majority
of ; the numbers being 357 for the Bill, 213 l against it ; the
minority being, in point of number, as nearly as possible the
number of Members returned for borough sto be disfranchised We
suppose, though the Bill has still several stages to pass through,
we may now consider the main question settled. We have that
confidence its the wisdom and patriotism of the House of Lords,
which cuts off all fear of their disappointing the reasonable
hopes, the righteous desires, of an all-but unanimous people.--
We have not room at present, even if we hail inclination, to
notice the debate of last slight. The disinterestedness of a bo-
rough proprietor (Sir F. Franco) was the best feature of the
night's display; and next to that the eloquent appeal of Sir F.
Burdett. Sir Charles Wetherell did not relieve the uncon-
scionable length of his harangue with his usual proportion of
buflbonery ; and Sir Robert Peel was prosy, without being argu-
mentative. His tone and manner were those of a man wh.; had
a misgiving as to the strength of his case, and the effect on the
House was, of course, proportionably insignificant..
" He spoke bat faintiv, and Would be denied;
" We. speak with heart and soul, and all beside."
If there are any for whom, in this whole measure, we feel con-
tempt, and for whom the public ought to feel contempt, it is for
that class of politicians who pretend now that they are no ene-
mies to Reform; that they always thought some change ought
to take place;—that great places, like Manchester and Leeds,
ought to be represented, and rotten boroughs, like Garton and
o.d Sarum, ought to be disfranchised. " Why, in the name of
wonder, gentlemen," we ask, " did you not tell us before ? Why
are you come to this at last y" It was the corniption of old
Houses of Commons, and their detestable adherence to the
abominations, that made the people, by one glorious act c f
exertion, (so far as they could exert themselves under the
trammels of the evils which they were determined to eradi-
cate,) choose an House like the present,—an house bent
upon a neat and substantial Reform, being elected for
that purpose. Whom Sir George Murray shay have meant
on Tuesaay night, by his picture of one who now kept himself
in retreat, but would soon step forward, and gathering up the
ruins of the Constitution, make an empire for himself, we know,
not. But Sir George will be pleased to recollect that we have
not had a civil war yet, and that the most effectual means of
preventing one,--except that we should all fight on one side,—is
a complete and thorough Reform. And, due consideration being
had to the wrongs and insults which the people have sustained in
the demand of their just rights, they have shown themselves
most temperate in being content with the present Bill. Have
they not been told, that it was their duty and highest interest to
be bought and sold ? that, such a system was best for them ?
that persons who bought seats for themselves, and others sent in
by Peers, were titter egislators of the British realm than repro.
sentatives chosen by the people themselves ? The people have
heard these things, and yet, thus grossly insulted,—thus impu-
dently mocked,—they are quiet ; and only want a real Reform.
Real Reform they must have.—Times.

The most interesting part of the proceedings (luring the las'
three days in the House of Commons—namely, the division—we
can now communicate to our readers. The second reading was
this morning carried by a majority of 367 to 231—0 r 136. This is
a very full House, considering the lateness of the hour—five
o'clock. The speeches last night were, upon the whole, possessed
of little interest. Well might Mr. H. Lytton Bulwer rally the
Anti-Reformers on their want of unanimity. " That nice dis-
tinction—those speculative differences—the want of unanimity
in any plan or opinion, which was so much the subject of Mr.
Canning's contempt and ridicule, have lett us to become the pe-
culiar characteristics of our opponents. But that which is a
proof of their real weakness, I am willing to acknowledge, in ar-
gument becomes the great point of their strength ; for no Sooner
have we answered a violent Anti-Reformer of the good ()Id
placing
by
anngda ylsleo
tme
his
not
oggt egon,ritiylte,em,sa n ,
school,
,t,llNlanno7wigoeudaietireea
at repliedhp li
Tory."
Thus, for instance, after Sir James Mackintosh aid
id Mr. Mae_
auley had taken some pains to demolish the Corporation-robbery
argument, first started by Sir Charles Wetherell, and succeeded
in making it obvious, even to Mr. Thomas Attwood, that the
elective franchise is a very different trust from private property,
up starts Sir Robert Peel and says these are not my opinions.
" When the cases of Grampound and of Penryn were under
consideration, I e pressly claimed for Parliament the right of
forfeiting the privileges of the minority if the majority were
convicted of an offence which rendered them unfit to be trusted
with them; I who was a party to the disfranchisement of the
forty-shilling freeholders of Ireland could hardly think I was
guilty of an act which amounted to a confiscation of property._
(Hear, hear, hear.) Although I see a clear and palpable dis-
tinction between the individual right of an Irish forty-shilling
freeholder and a corporate franchise which has existed for cen-
turies, still if you establish the same over-ruling necessity,
I do not deny the competency of Parliament to legislate."
toa a sa Well, then, according to Sir
Robert l'eel, there was an overruling necessity in the case of
Grampound and Penryn. And was over-ruling necessity ?
the corruption of the voters. And why is it that the nomina-
tion and potwalloping boroughs ought not to be disfranchised ?
Because they enable that to be done, which can only be done by
corruption. It was happily observed by Mr. Campbell, with re-
spect to this notable subterfuge of Sir Robert—namely, the plan
of taking away the franchise from delinquent boroughs and be-
stowing it elsewhere—" that these very delinquent boroughs
were so called because they were doing the identical thing which
was bepraised by the same party—viz., that of selling their right
for money, and thus affording an opportunity to the rich gentle.
men from India and elsewhere to obtain a seat in the House.
Such a measure would be a mere mockery of Reform, mid, in
the eye of the public, would be merely a consummation of the
disgrace already entailed on the Anti-Reformers. Besides
which, he should like to know how the delinquency of these
boroughs was to be proved ; for it was obvious, that the closer
the borough, the more difficulty there would be at getting at the
necessary proof. If, therefore, this plan were adopted, it would
be a complete establishment of the doctrine that secre.y was
virtue, and that detection was the crime." How is it possible to
deal with such opponents ? One set of them exclaim, you will
destroy the elasticity of the Constitution—you will allow no
opening to rising talent, no opening to the representatives of
the moneyed interest, of the East and West Indies—all these
interests are represented in the House, in the ratio of their im-
portance, through the medium of the money they can com-
mand. Another set abhor bribery and corruption ; affbct as
much primness as certain females at a christening, and profess
readiness to disfranchise all who are found guilty of corruption.
But, on the other hand, we are only required to believe that all
those who are not detected in corruption are incorrupt, and
merely wish to retain the franchise to promote the good of
their country. And then Sir Robert Peel says, you must
retain these places, the corruption of which has not been
discovered ; for, though corporation franchises are not pro-
perty, it you invade corporation franchises without a strong
necessity, you thereby diminish the respect for property. " If
you deal lightly (he also says) with corporate franchises which
have endured for ages, for the sake of visionary schemes of
speculative improvement, you establish a precedent by which, at
no distant period, the franchise of the l'eerage, and even the
prerogative of the Crown may be attacked upon the same
grounds and the same reason."—(( hecrs.) Touch Gatton and
Old Sarum, and yni disfranchise the Peers and dethrone the
sovereign. This over-ruling necessity which would justify
the taking the franchise from Grampound and Penryn, but
which could not be urged in justification of the taking the fran-
chise from Gatton and Old Sarum, is a very singular sort of
over-ruling necessity. The over-ruling necessity seems the ne-
cessity of hypocrisy—the necessity which dictated to the Spartans
the punishment of the thief wiai was discovered, and rewarding
the thief who was not discovered. Upon the whole, Sir Robert
Peel made a very tame, ineffective speech, little calculated to
please either the Reformers or the Anti-Reformers. Instead of
grappling with the question, he exhausted himself fir minute
criticisms on points immaterial to the great question now at
issue between the people and the patrons of boroughs. The
people will now look for the lists of the majority and minority,
that they may understand how the pledges given to them have
been redeemed. In all other respects, however, the interest is
transferred to the Meuse of Lords. The overwhelming majority.
which has voted the second reading will sufficiently protect the
Bill against caprice and treachery in the subsequent stages of the
Commons. There were 611 Members in the House before the
division. Eight paired oft; leaving 603, 1. e. the majority and
minority, the four tellers and the Speaker.—Morning Chrontele.
We call the attention of our readers to the speech of Mr. Ma-
cauley on Tuesday night, as being an effort worthy of the very
best days of the House of Commons, and as containing all that
can be best said in refUtation of the furious declamation, pom-
pous nonsense, and wearisome sophistry of the hypocritical mo-
derate Reformers. Mr. Macauley, with great force, pointed out
the danger of setting up the prescriptive sale and nomination to
seats in Parliament as equal, in right of possession, to property
generally—of any man who, for the purpose of the moment, so
unites them, it may be said, " Mortise quinctiam jungebat cor-
pora rinds." The borough of Gatton is defunct, and it is absurd,
as well as dangerous, to declare that the property in the mansion
and park of Gatton must share the fate of the borough. If the
attempt be made, the living subject may per sh in the putrifying
embrace of the dead body—but we believe that the very uphol-
ders of this dogma are not only fully aware of its absurdity,
but would be sadly 'surprised if its truth were to be proved
by the fact. We have observed that some travelled gen'
tlemen of fashion, in the House of . Commons, are rebel
mently opposed to Reform; they have had the advantage of
being in Spain during the tumultuous Sittings of the Cortes,
and, more recently, they had the still greater advantage of peel,
ing from behind the window-shutters of hotels at Paris and
Brussels, while the mob (for with them the mob and the people
are always synonymous terms) were ruling the roast in the
streets ; "Esparto creek Roberto," they know what a revolution
is ; and take their words for it there is no difference between
England and France, England and Belgium, and, still less, be-
tween England and Spain. The divine Arguellas, and the learned
' The peopl- of England