The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-08 00:00:00

leper ts they ate cnahled to cull limn the fiats of
others sufficient to occupy a certain portion of time;
but it is in vain to look for tiny original idea, or
even any decently' expressed argument, from such
men as Lord J. Ru-se9, Lord Althorp, or Sri
James Graham. If they had possessed any power,
of speaking fit to qualify them for the high office of
Ministers, why put forward Sir Francis Burdett,
who has been for a long time in his dotage, and
who is not a responsible Member, to answer such a
speech as that delivered by Sir R. Peel ? It ha:
been customary in the days of Castlereagh, of Can-
ning, and of Peel) for Ministers always to have the
last word in the debate, but these notions of main-
taining the dignity of the King's Administration it,
the eyes of the public are gone by ; and since the ap-
pointment of the piesent Government, the pre-erri
pence of Ministerial intellect has suffered a woful de-
preciation in the opinion of the House of Commons
and of the public. To be sure the want of intellect
and the want of oratorical power on the Ministerial
Bench are very well supplied by' the admirable
drilling of their tools and sycophants (as Lord
Brougham would call them) on the back benches,
and by the ingenuity of their reporters in the galle-
ries. We nevtr heard a more dull and wearisome
speech than that of Sir Francis Burdett, who
was put forward to answer Sir R. Peel, from the
want of power on the part of Russell, Althorp,
Graham, and Co. It was in the worst style ,
of the Hon. Baronet's effusions in Palace-yard or
Covent-garden. It produced proofs of the mast
manifest impatience from all parts of the House;
and yet we see in the reports of the speech the an-
nouncement of cheers and applause, which existed
only in the imagination of the writers. The drill-
ing of the dumb but zealous occupiers of the back
benches, in interrupting the speakers on the other
side, and even in cheering the inanities of such
feeble speakrts as Lord John' Russell, is quite
disgraceful to the House of Commons, and ought to
be exposed. We cannot on this occasion omit also
mentioning the absurd practice of gentlemen, such
as the two Mr. Bulwers, sending copies of what
they intend to speak, but what they never utter, to
the various newspapers, and concluding the report
of their own lucubrations by assertions that the
lion. Member sat down amidst continued applause.
These tricks are unworthy the character of men of
education, much more so of Members of Parliament,
and they fail in their object, by convincing any
attentive reader that the poverty of the matter
renders the applause which is described to have
been given quite impossible. We are induced to
make these remarks from the attempts made by the
111inisterial papers to pervert the real and actual
proceedings on the late important debate, and by
the hope that our observations will not only be
duly appreciated by the lovers of true genius, in
aiving approbation where approbation is due, but
that they will have the effect of checking the in-
ordinate vanity of eertain Members of the Legis-
lature, who have no other ambition than to make
themselves conspicuous, and who do not scruple
about the means of obtaining notoriety.—Morning
Post.

The second reading of the Reform Bill has, then.
passed the House of Commons with a magnificent
majority. Can it be denied that this is the case, or
that the majority is magnificent, when it is observed,
that those who voted against the Bill are hardly
more in number than the Members returned by
rotten boroughs, now about to be wholly or in
part disflanchi,ed ? \%e do not by this mean
to say, that all the Members of nomination be-
roughs voted on one side ; no doubt there are
many and honourable exceptions : but we recollect
that Madame de Stael, speaking, in one of her
writings, of the different advantages of the two
sexes, say,, that the female cannot confer a favour
without making a sacrifice, and therefore nature ha h
formed that sex the more generous and devoted of
the t‘,o. In the same manner of the borough patrons
and nominees. The Reformists cannot confer a favour
on the people, cannot advocate our just rights, with-
out making a sacrifice, or striving to make a sacrifice,
of their interests ; while the other side are strug-
gling, under the powerful motive of selfishness and
their own advantage ill-understood, to keep what
they Have got. It is pretty obvious which have the
strongest motive,. Undoubtedly, there are still
many detaik to be gone thrcugh in the committee.
But the second reading being carried, the attention
of the public is at once turned with increased ear-
nestness to the House of Lords. Thither public
anxiety conducts the Bill, and begins already in ima-
gina,ion to attend its progress, and look for its vic-
torious transmission to the Crown. We have
heard a singular story upon this part of our subject
—namely, that a great borough-huckster, who is
also a Peer of high rank, and another Noble Lord of
yet higher grade, have been laying their heads toge-
ther and determining that the people are becoming
cold or indifferent to the Bill ! Let them, however,
not lay that flattering unction to their soul,—we
know what the people feel better than they do. If
it were possible that the Bill should fail from some
just cause—from some informality, which, according
to the forms of the Constitution, could not be over-
looked,—we should consider even that as a very
fearful accident. But if it wire to be audaciously
met and overthrown by the faction itself, whose
unjust power it is meant to abrogate, that would,
indeed, be ao alarming event for all who value the
ancient institutions of the kingdom. But we hope
better things of the House of Lords. Their own
greatness is much more dependent on the general
welfare and happin,ss of the people, than on any
influence they may possess, and which the weaker
and more sordid of them may be anxious to retain,
in directing the councils of the Lower House of
Parliament.—Times.

It was evident to every person of the least re-
flection, that as soon as public attention had been
called to the state of those rotten or nomination
boroughs, which engross so large a porticn of the
elective rights of the country, and contribute so
little to its wealth or prosperity—which are so rich
in Members of Parliament, and so poor In every
thing else—which manufacture Legislators without
possessing property or population,—it was evident,
we say, that as soon as attention was directed to
those absurdities and incongruities, they could not
long be suffered to exist. The culprits in schedules
A and B were condemned as soon as they were
arraigned : their doom was sealed from the moment
that the
in principle which protests prescriptive abuse
.
was a single instance abandoned. Though the
Reform Bill had been defeated or postponed, they
never could have recovered their influence or vita-
lity. In every division of the House, their repre-
sentatives would have been deducted from the list
of voters. They would have found against their
names the letters A or B, which would have '
neutralized their power, or destroyed the in-
fluence of their opinions as much as the initials
branded on the flesh of a convict. They would,
in fact, have been considered, to use a distinction of
the French law, to have incurred civil and political
death. Every proceeding of Parliament carried by
their votes would have been vitiated in the eyes of
the people, and not even their virtues or disinte-
restedness (though they had possessed such quali-
ties), could have saved them from suspicion or con-
tempt. By their appearance in the condemned list
on the principle of possessing fewer than 2,000 or
4,000 inhabitants, it is easy to see how insignificant
these hundred and odd boroughs are in point of pope'
lation ; but their inferiority in property is still more
striking. A paper printed by order of the House of
Commons now lies before us, containing an account
of the total amount of assessed taxes paid for the last
three years by places sending Members to Parlia-
ment ; and in this paper schedules A and 13 cut a
v,:ry sorry figure. Westminster, which sends only
two Members to Parliament, pays in assessed taxes.
303,4201.; and He, :esbur) has the privilege of
sending the same number, though it pays only
321. Bs. U.! Liverpool contributes to the State, in
assessed taxes, 59,0861., and has the right of electing
two Members; Bramber, with an equal represen-
tation, pays exactly 161. Bs. 9d. The State will
.
not be much enriched by the contribution ot