The Sun.
London, England, 1831-10-21 00:00:00

It was in vain to ask if the 'Bishops came where there was
distress. ; they had strutted about in their lawn
sleeves and their silk aprons, and had dabbled in politics,
legislating, as they said, for the people, while in fact they
were neglecting the first duties in religion ; and he as-
sured, that though their sentiments may triumph for a
season, the day is fast approaching when they will be ut-
terly defeated. Mr. S. concluded his speech by an appeal
to the meeting to stand firmly by their King, for if they
did they might be sure he would be true to them.
Mr. W. WILLs seconded the resolution with all the
powers of his understanding and the best feelings of his
heart. He did so because it recognised the great prin-
ciples of the Constitution, which he had always supported,
and ever would support.
The resolution was then put to the meeting by the High
Bailiff, and carried unanimously.
Mr. JOSEPH PAICKES moved the fourth resolution, of
confidence in the King, and recommending the exercise
of his prerogative for a new creation of Peers. He rose
under feelings of deeper responsibility and apprehension
than on any other public occasion. He would not be a
party to delusion; he would not longer conceal his real
fears that the country and the Reform Bill laboured under
almost insurmountable difficulties. What was now our
awful situation? The King, the Ministry, the House of
Commons, the declared voice of the people had sent up
to the House of Lords the English Reform Bill, and the
Peers had rejected it. If ever the pressure of national
opinion could operate on a Legislature, it was on that re-
cent occasion. But what have we witnessed?—a ma-
jority of forty-one against the rights and claims of the
people; and not only so, hut the House will prorogue
without the Anti-Reformers deigning to communicate to
us what small measure of Reform they, in their generosity,
fear, or wisdom, would vouchsafe us.—(Hear, hear.)
When also he read over the speeches of the Anti•
Reform Lords, he noted a vulgar, ignorant, bitter
malignant feeling towards the people, which he now
plainly avowed, led him to the melancholy and foreboding
opinion that the House, as now constituted, would never
give a satisfactory amendment of the representation. The
Lords were politically blind, deaf, and dumb. They were
blind to the wants, the interests, the rights, the new crea-
tions of society. They were deaf to the repeated echoes
of public opinion ; they were dumb, for only thirteen
Lords did, or perhaps could, state their opinions and
reasons for voting. He classed the Noble oppouents of Re-
form into two classes—the honest and the dishonest op-
ponents of the measure. Many men he knew there were
who were sincere in their opposition. Lord Harrovrby,
Lord Wharncliffe, and Lord Dudley might be so. Ignorance
and prejudice of birth and education would account for much
infatuation and folly. He would not take up their time by
illustration on this point ; hut he could not avoid coin-
tnenting on a passage in the speech of Lord Dudley,
That Noble Earl had attempted to ridicule the " philoso-
phers of Birmingham and Sheffield." He (Mr. Parkes)
would not revile the private or public character of any
man. Much as he condemned Lord Dudley's opinions
and speeches, he admitted that he was an accomplished
Nobleman, and a munificent patron of the fine arts of Bir-
mingham. But Lord Dudley was ignorant of our intelli-
gence—of our philosophy—of our commercial progress.
Would he taunt us with the honours of Watt, of Dr. Roe-
buck, of Dr. Priestley—would he taunt us with the bless-
ings of the mechanic ingenuity and industry of this great
town, as displayed in our immense and ingenious manu-
factures? Does Lord Dudley know that we have 4,20
persons in Birmitighatti,—yes, of the middle ranks,—
equally enlightened on political science as his House of
Peers ? The Noble Earl was ignorant, philosophically
ignorant, that more persons were now born in a day, in
consequence of our " philosophy," than were horn in a
year at the last settlement of the Constitution ? Did
Lord Dudley wish to enjoy a monopoly of political
philosophy and power, as his ancestors once enjoyed
a monopoly of the manufacture of iron ? He (Mr.
Parkes,) would mention a singular fact as a commentary on
Lord Dudley's sarcasm and futile satire. Every one knew
that one of the great grievances of our country was once
the monopolies of trade and science granted to Noblemen
and powerful Commoners. The growing intelligence of
the nation in the reign of James I. overcame that restric-
tive system, as they would doubtless ultimately break open
the borough monopoly. The monopolists reasoned lustily
how much good they did to our ancestors by their sinister
and vile monopolies. A celebrated statute of James I. put
an end to this shameful system ; but among the excep-
tions of the Act was one to Edward Dudley, for the ma-
nufacture of iron in Staffordshire. That monopoly, how-
ever, soon perished. Competition and free trade had
now quintupled the population and opulence of the
country. But had the people only gained by it ?
No. Lord Dudley now derived in his immense and
accumulating income, drawn from our " philosophy,"
a corresponding advantage, as also that Nobleman would
enjoy when they should have destroyed the infamous traffic
and monopoly of the borouglimongers. He would now
only reply to Lord Dudley, that locked up in Park-street,
with antique statues and biblioinaniac books, with Ari-
stotle on Government, and Plato's Alcibiades, he knew
not his own country, or the people who dwelt in it. Hr
(Mr. Parkes) would give a singular proof, that the
mind of Lord Dudley was not obtuse if ha had the oppor-
tunity. He (Mr. Parkes) had the honour, some six years
since, to be united, with a few gentlemen, by a humble
commoner, to meet the Noble Baron. His friend, Mr.
Corrie, the President of the Birmingham Philosophical
Institution, was one of the guests. So astonished and
delighted was Lord Dudley with their society, that, on
leaving, he paidan elegant compliment to the host, in a
classical quotation, in English " would that ours
were such as yours." He would now only men-
tion two facts, further to illustrate the ignorance
of noblemen. As a native of Warwick, and living there
till eighteen years of age, except when at school and at
col'ege, he never saw one member of the Earl of War-
wick's family in the town, though their castle overhung
the borough, excepting Lord Warwick's brother, Sir
Charles Greville. Ile had asked the burgesses of Stam-
ford, " Do the Marquis of Exeter's family ever appear in
Stamford ?"—from which they live only half-a-mile dis-
tant—the answer was, " Rarely, and then with the tight-
laced stiffness and silence of Austrian Potentates." Can

such men know UR ? If they did, they would respect us ;
and the old proverb says, " Where you are respected you
are feared." But he must come more gravely to the state
of the House of Lords, and its probable decision. What
was the fact ? That the House of Lords had thrown out the
Bill ; that this successful exploit, thus fur safety accom
plished, would embolden them to repeat their desperate ress
lotion. He would call their attention to the numbers oldie
division. The House of Lords consisted of 421 Peers, and 199

voted against the second reading of the Bill ; 158 voted in
favour ; 6-1, Peers did not vote at all ; of the latter number
20 might be absentee's, insane, and minors. Therefore,
there were 40 certainly disaffected to the Bill, who did
not vote. Now it was notorious that of the minority,
many Peers voted for the second reading inimical to the
principles of the Bill, and who would have opposed its de-
tails in Committee. Thus in fact, only about one-fourth of
the Peerage was sincerely in our favour. Deny this gloomy
fact who may, deceive the people in hiding it who might,
he (Mr. Parkes) would not be a party to the delusion. How
was such a critical situation to be overcome ? Would in-
trigue, corruption, tear, conviction—would any other causes
or motives operate, in the short interregnum of the proroga-
tion, to reduce this formidable majority of their opponents.
would they not be emboldened ley their impunity ?
Would they not again combine and intrigue when Parlia-
ment again assembled ? Would not the Bill be again
thrown out, or more probably be smothered or torn in
pieces, and rendered useless in Committee ? He again
repeated, that he would not delude the people. There
were but two modes of carrying this measure—by consti-
tutional means, or by means not strictly constitutional ;
in other words he told them it could only be carried by
more Peers or fewer. —(Loud cheers.) He did not deny
the right of the Peers to legislate on this measure. They
unquestionably possessed the right;—the expediency of
their possession, and exercise of it was another matter.
Ile knew the history and mystery of the Constitution
be had studied it, and that of other countries. An_
ciently the Lords and Commons sate in one assembly
utt.uiun
thatof on our
history, together, exercising their powers as legislators eqally and
concurrently. The partnership from incompatibility of
temper
nl'remote periodt
their separation, the Lords carried with them the exclu-
tstoprery. wiats
wasdisso ,lsv,uerrlt, hy at
of particular
sive right of determining their own privileges. The
Commons also with equal jealousy took with them exclu-
sive controul over their privileges. On the great prin-
ciple of representation and taxation, the Commons alone
originated supplies, and vote away the public money.
Nay, all rights of election were exclusively determined by
tile Commons. True it was, that the Scotch and Irish
Union, and Bills affectine the proportion of Commons' time sent up re-
presentation, were of old time to the Lords for
but numerous • •
approval or rejection ; historical facts
proved that the jurisdiction of the Lords on the rights of
the Commons, though consonant with the latter, was in-
consistent with the spirit of the Constitution,„...(Loud
cheers.) He trusted that he had not overstated
this argument. It should apprize the Lords of
the delicacy of their legislative situation. But
who would now suspect them of delicacy ? He re-
peated that he conscientiously believed that they would
do the like again, unless their numbers were increased.
If new Peers were not made he solemnly Warned the