The Sun.
London, England, 1831-10-07 00:00:00

%widen changes would produce greater evils than the worst
form of Government could, by any possibility, inflict;
therefore the American Constitution was remarkable for
this, that it could not be overturned without the most
calm and deliberate discussion, and without being sup-
ported by such an overwhelming majority of the wealthier
classes as placed resistance out of the question. Now he
wriuld put it to their Lordships, did the present Bill settle
anything, or, rather, did it not unsettle every thing 1" A
Noble Earl near him had read an extract from a periodi-
cal work, the "Notes American Reviev," published at
Boston, in July, 1831 ; but, terfortunately, that Noble
Earl did not complete his quotation, and it was the more
to be regretted, as the work was one of considerable
depth of thought, and soundness of reasoning. This
writer, occupied in discussing the prospect of Reform in
Europe, says—
€, The necessity for farther Reform Will also be more apparent
as soon as the application of the new and uniform system of suit
(rage shall take place. At present the right of. suTrage is very
variously exercised in the different boroughs. 'VS hen it becomes
uniform, and the election is made to &Vend on the number of
the inhabitants in the several boroughs possessing the flan,- it,
qualifications, and when great questions come to be derivk'sib -
small majorities in the House of Commons, will We 'unre )rey
:vented, or inadequately Ve.aresented populatim, toith -
abuse ? Will Leeds, asisl Manchester, and, L'Aerpool, submit te
be represented by the same number et' Members as the old boo_
rotre;lis, whose population is ever so little over 4,000 ? Surely not.
'Those who suffer by the imperfed application of th e ride orskreo
system—that is, the majority 4' the people—will elambtir to have
it carried through; and tlyey will have reason and Conitrion sense
on their side. Mr. Canning and the Anti-lieforinists could answer
them; but Lord John Russell cannot. The bite of the present
sysdem is, that it is the rule of three Plan, ',vitt] a blunder in
working the question. The viSteicin is, if the borough A ha's
4,000 inhabitants, and scuds two Members how many. Mehthers
shall the borough' B send, Which has 10,00'0 ? Loot ..I.6l'in Russell
works the question thus :as 4,000 is to 2, so .is '.0,000 to But
kt is not. As 4,1n0 is to 0, so is 10,000 to h. 41-ben if Lord John
Russell should say, that, after all, he ddes not follow the rule of
three principle; the next question trille, what principle &you
follow, in disfranchising wholly OA! boroughs under 0,000, and
half disfranchising those Under 4,000? It is to be considered fur-
ther, that the population (*England is exceedingly hotriogeneous.
The people, on an average, are as enlightened, and well-inforined
in one borough and in one county as another ; and if they were
not, Slit reformed plan does not attempt to give any prethrence to
the more enlightened few over the less enlightened many. 'l'o
tare manifest injustice of such a state of things as already existing,
the Anti-Reformer has his answer ready ; and it is an answer in
the spirit of the British monarchical :System. We take the re-
presentation as welind it, among ty'Se traditions of the monarchy.
specific abuses of bribery and Corruption, we are willing to cur.
sect by disfranchisement in the individual case; but we Will dis-
franchise no corporation tin the rule of three system. The mode-
rate Reformer can pis.e ho answer ; he can neither plead tradition
nor the rule of three. He sins at once against the genius of the
British Constitution and the four rules 01 arithmetic. He can
stand neither upon Lord Coke nor Coeszer' the jus Parliamen-
&ilium nor the multiplication table. But it is by no means the
most momentous consequence of the nese plan of British Repre-
ssentation, that it must infallibly lead to radical Reform and a
geographical representation in the House of Commons. How '
will it affect the other institutions of the monarchy—the House
of Lords, the Established Church, and the hereditary Crown ? On
what foundation do these all rest ? Is there any other than tradi-
tion and prescription ? When they are subjected to the test of
the political metaphysics, which decide that no borough of less
than 0,000 inhabitants shall retain the franchise of choosing
Members, can these other institutions stand? We think not.
The right of Old Sarum to send Members to Parliament is as-
suredly as ancient as the House of Lords. Old Sarum was a city
before the Peers of England were a MUM of Parliament. The
whole Parliament of England once ,at within the walls of this
ancient city, now to be deprived of the franchise which it has
enjoyed for so many cer.'curiets It la true that Old Sarum, now
reduced to a wheat-f-elds entleved by a mound, is a very different
thing from what it was whets It was first summoned by the King's
writ to send b;argesses to Parliament. But is it more changed
than the House of Lords is changed from its original character
and core:position I" He goes on to say—
"'While, then, you disfranchise Old Sarum, because it is a theo_
retical absurdity that an individual Nobleman should, as its pro-
prietor, return two Members to Parliament, how can you defend
the still more stupendous absurdity, that some three or four Inin-
dTCCl Noble individuals, neither richer nor more enlightened than
as many thousands in the community around them, should ac-
tually compose one entire }Ruse of Legislation, independent of
the people and the Crown, and transmit this great franchise
to their posterity? We again wish the precise point we are
labouring to be mio'lerstood. We are not now arguing against a
Rouse of Lords ; to moot that question in this country, would
be like reviving the Ptolemaic system ; but we are maintaining
that the reasons alleged for disfranchising Old Sarum go the whole
length of disfranchising the House of Lords. It may be said, that
there is no clamour against the House of Lords, and that there is a
s-cltement clamour against rotten boroughs. This is a reason of a
different kind ; and the tact, we believe, is partly so. The Whig
Aristocracy do not yet clamour against' their own order;' on the
contrary, they manfully sustain it; and the moderate Reformers
go along with them in this respect But is a majority of the
'mop le of f, England, numerically en
; is tri!cr,al!yeetraagkeeni,,ofirtiltai friendly lty,
itt(tit
tahno hereditary
douse
Read the extracts from the penny Papers in The Quarterly
Review for last October. Recollect the manner in which the axe
was laid at the root of the House of Lords in the time of Crom-
svell. We know the Statesmen who bring forward the present
measure do not propose to destroy the I'cerage ; but will the like
forbearance be observed by the agitators whom that measure will
bring into Parliament, and by the people, whom that measure
will instruct in their strength, and animate in their zeal ?"
These were the opinions and arguments of the American
writer, and he called upon any Noble Lord in that House
to refute them. But now, to come more particularly to
the Bill under consideration, he objected to it for this
amongst other reasons, that the old system of representa-
tion in this country was general, whereas that introduced
by the Bill was departmental—with the example of France
then before their eyes, he trusted the House would
pause before it rushed madly forward into a revolu-
tionary current which would sweep before it every-
thing that the country bad been accustomed to respect
and reverence. Again, he would ask, was there any-
thing so inviting in the example of France as to induce
us blindly to follow that example? The Noble Earl re-
erred to the Unions with Scotland and Ireland, hut the
analogy did not hold between the circumstances of those
countries respectively and of those in which the empire at
large was placed at the present moment. What was done
at the period of the Union of either country ought to form
no rule for subsequent proceedings. Ile really was sur-
prised to see the Noble Earl endeavouring to justify injus-
tice by injustice ; but, then, the Noble Earl went off from
that argument to take up another argument, equally un-
tenable—he maintained that the disfranchisement of bo-
roughs was in perfect accordance with the ancient prac-
tice of the Constitution ; he would maintain it was no
such thing, for the date of the Constitution could not be
carried further back with propriety than the revolution of
ItiBB—it was then the Constitution was settled. He was
ready to abide by the disfrancbisements of boroughs which
took place since 1688, hut he would hear of none others,
for none others could be brought legitimately within the
real practice of the existing Constitution of Great Britain.
He would now come to an argument upon which the Noble
Earl appeared to lay peculiar stress—that which was
founded upon its being assumed that the franchise was a
trust, and not a property ; but he would maintain, that if
a trust, it was one of those trusts to which were incident
many of the rights of property—in truth, it was rather a
privilege than a trust. It was somewhat analagous to an ad-
vowson ; but could advowsons be confiscated ? There was
yet another argument of the Noble Earl with which he
should have to deal ; namely, that by adopting the pre-
sent measure, the country got rid of the system of govern-
ing by patronage. Was there no patronage in the whole-
sale creation of Peers which had recently taken place ? If
that was a specimen of the no-patronage which the country
had to expect, he must be allowed to observe that the ar-
gument could have little value in the eyes of impartial and
intelligent men. The circumstances, too, under which the
increase was introduced, and the time chosen for it, formed
with him powerful objections to it. The period was most
unfavourable to calm deliberation. Not only was the state
of France and Belgium opposed to anything of the sort,
but even our domestic condition was most unfavourable
for a degree of excitement heretofore unexampled. Want
of employment led to riot, and the disbanding of the
yeomanry left the Government without the means of put-
ting down disturbance. Finally, he had no difficulty in as-
serting that the measure was calculated to deprive the
people of their senses, to drive them to madness, and to
produce any thing rather than that which its promoters
anticipated. Let the House only look at the effect which
the bare announcement of it had upon the people. Let
them look at the rejection in their respective counties of
such men as Sir Edward Knatclibull and Sir Thos, Acland.
Amongst the various arguments by which the present mea-
sure was attempted to be sustained, one surprised him
not a little, recollecting the quarter whence it proceeded.
When he looked upon his Noble and Learned Friends, and
recollected how the Woolsack was occupied, lie could not
but be surprised to find it maintained that the system
worked ill, when talents and merit had the fullest and
fairest opportunities of being rewarded. No, a closing of
the door against merit was not the vice of the present
system, whatever its faults might be, and he believed its
greatest defect was, that it afforded to its enemies too
great facilities in the work of its own destruction. One
of the principal seeds of that destruction was, that the
schoolmaster was abroad. A vanity had been generated
in modern days, which led men to despise all that their
ancestors had venerated. Could it be asserted that there
existed any where in the world a system at all approach-
ing the British Constitution in excellence ? In the pro-
tection of that Constitution he would call upon the Right
Rev. Bench to unite. In the time of James the Second,
their predecessors had given the tone to public opinion,
and be entreated them now to exercise their influence for
the good of this country. He had promised that he
should not long detain their Lordships, and he should
now only say, that notwithstanding the respect which lie
entertained for the Noble Lord who introduced the Bill,
and his high opinion of his talents, his most cha-
ritable wish for that Noble Lord was, that the measure,
whether it succeed or not—(Hear, hear)—might not
bring him down in sorrow to the grave.—(Hear,
hear.) He would not affront the House by much allusion
b
usiooy
to the possibility of their Lordships being influenced
the threats thrown out against them from many quarters.
Indeed they who hold out those menaces denied that they
had any intention to menace the House, although one of
those persons, a gentleman of the other House of Parlia-
ment, spoke of putting their Lordships into schedule A.—
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) A Noble Lord whom be did