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

lii: host's Castle, however much the House of Com-
mons was honoured by its late Member, the whip-
per-in. For the privilege of sending two Members
to Parliament, it pays, in assessed taxes, 40/. 17s. I d.,
while Bristol, with the same representation, pays
33,640/. Why should we celebrate the glories of
Gatton, Old Sarum, Cot fe Castle, Fowey, Calling-
, ton, and other places, whose wealth, and contribo-
tions to the Stare vie with the amount of their popu-
lxion ? The direct taxes of the borough of Beer-
alston, being exactly 31. 95., would scarcely pay a
dinner for its Members at Bellamy's, even though
they did not invite any of their constituents to join
them. Manchester or Birmingham alone, neither of
which has hitherto possessed a voice in the Legisla-
ture, pays more in direct taxes or imposts of al;
kinds, than the whole 50 or 60 condemned bo-
roughs in Schedule A, which have hitherto re-
turned more than a sixth part of the House of
Commons ! For East Looe and West Looe, as
many representatives sit in St. Stephen's to levy
taxes and to impose laws on the inhabitants of this
country, as for London ; and the assessments of
the two Loces amount only to 145/. I4s. 9d., while
that of the capital amounts to about 200,0001. It
would be needless to multiply instances of the ex-
cessive and absurd incongruity which meets us at
every line of this document. We do not desire uni-
formity in such cases—we do not expect to find in
any continued system of representation an adherence
to theoretic perfection, even though it were origi-
nally established,—but we have the right to look
for the correction of a state of things where mote
than a fourth part of the miscalled representatives
of the people represent only themselves and their
own purses,—where upwards of a hundred boroughs
sending Members to Parliament do not much ex-
ceed in population or wealth two of the unre-
presented towns, and where the assessed taxes
of some of t ho,e fortunate places would not
pay the election dinner of their Members ! And
yet it is in the face of such absurdities and
anomalies that the Anti-Reformers ask—" What is •
the use of the Bill ? What will the people gain by
the Bill ?" The question has been answered a
hundred times, but it is as constantly repeated with
all the indefatigable monotony of a mere cuckoo.
The following answer to this precious query was
' given on Wednesdaynight by Mr. William Brougham ;
it is tersely and vigorously expressed :—" It is asked,
What did the people gain by the Bill ?' He would
reply, all that the boroughmongers had lost all
that had been drawn from the resources of jobbing,
favour, influence, abuse, corruption, the people had
gained,—all the power of misrule, which a faction
had lost, the country and the King had won. The
King, emancipated from that pernicious faction,
had gained a true British throne in the hearts of his
people. The people, no longer beat under a load of
abuse, at length breathed the free air of a pure and
. good Government."—Timcs.

We present our readers, in another part of this
day's Paper, with lists of the glorious majority of
367 in favour of the Bill, and of the equally to be
remembered minority of 232, who declared, by their
votes, that there was no need for a Reform in the
representation of the people, and they should have
no Reform. On that document we cannot at pre-
sent enlarge to the extent that we could desire; but
there is one fact most prominent on the face of the
lists, and which proves the majority to be even more
overwhelming, more irresistible, than we had anti-
&pated ; and it is this—that while the list of the
minority is swollen with discarded officials, rotten
and nominee borough Membars, that of the majority
is composed not only of the Members for all the
great cities and towns which have the benefit of a
free:election, but :of all the representatives of the
largest counties, commercial, agricultural, and ma-
nufacturing,—in a word, of the wealth, talent,'
and intelligence of the kingdom ! Never, in
fact, was such a " ragged regiment," as the corps
of the Anti• Reformers, compared with the Re-
fmm forces, exhibited in battle array. Falstaff,
liberal as he was in matters of conscience, would not
have marched through Coventry with them for
" worlds "of sherry and sack. Of English Mem-
bers the majority was overwhelming, as we have
already observed, both in numbers and property,—
the same observation applies to those front Ireland;
and even of the Scottish Members, misrepresented
as the people of Seltlitnd are, there was a majority
of four in favour of the Bill ! A decision,—and all
but a final decision,—having been thus given upon
the Bill, the next question is what will the Lords
do with it ? Will they follow the example of the
Commons and pass the Bill, or will they reject it,
and place themselves in opposition to the King, the
people, and their representatives ? Prudence says,
no,—passion says, yes ; and between the two,
who shall decide ? At present there is a ma-
jority in the Lords against the Bill of some ten
or fifteen ; and that majority might, no doubt, be
reduced in a very constitutional manner by a new
creation of Peers favourable to the Bill; but we are
anxious that the Bill should pass without recourse
being had to such an expedient, and our question
applies, in consequence, to the House of Peers as it
now is. What then will be its decision ? We cannot
say; but as in every assembly there are some who
prefer joining with the many rather than be left in
the minority, we are in hopes, that these sonic will
turn the scales in favour of the Bill, and prevent
that national concussion with Me few which might
otherwise result from the rejection of the Bill by
the second estate in the realm. There will, no
doubt, however, he a great, though vain effort, to
arrest the progress of Reform, and to prevent the
people from enjoying those rights which nature,
justice, and policy alike declare to be theirs.—
Morning Advertiser.