The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-06 00:00:00

rest atel paramount influents in the towns near which
hey resided, and the counties which were now about, in
(eceiving additional Members, to give the certainty of al.
litional seats to the Aristocracy. If lion. Members insist
that the moment that House mirrors in some degree the
opinions of the majority of the people, the House of Lords
:nui.t succumb and perish, they do not prophecy its future,
they utter its present, condemnation. If this be true, the
House of Lords is gone already ; while they debate on its
lefence, the seal was put upon its abolition.—(Cheers.)
.1 celebrated philosopher had felicitously observed " that
:he greatest discoverer in science cannot do more
than accelerate the progress of discovery." So in
the career of rations as of knowledge, you may ad-
vance, but you cannot contradict the genius of a
people ; the most demberatic law eannot do more than
hasten a democracy, which, before tiuLt Veottld 110
qieeived, must have already beeotne inevitable, at a time
vhen ituthority can no longer support itself by the solemn
plausibilities and the ceremonial hypocrisies of old—it was
yell that a Government should be placed upon a solid and
.ore foundation. In no sac of the wet Id, but least of all
in the present, could any system of Goeernment long exist
which was menaced both by the moral intelligence and
the physical fence of a country.—(Haar, hear.) In the
present instance, he 'SAW a system thus menaced, and thee-
fore thus feeble, modified into one place not only on the
iffections of the populace, though at this juncture he could
.circely consider him wise who held even the affections of
tee populace in contempt; but also on the opinions of that
Chi,: which, in this country, filled up the vast space be-
tween the highest and the lowest, and whose members
weee opposed to every more turbulent revulsion by all the
habit, of &imintitte, and all the interests of wealth. But
so entirely did he agree «full the Hon. Gtutlemen oppoeite
on one principle—namely, that it u'.is the practical titabi-
lity and not the theoretical improvement of the ct.itiol-
wealth, th it ought to be our first object—that he wouiti
become a willing and a cheerful convert to the rest of
their sentiments on this great measure, the moment they'
(emid show him, amidst the tumults of neighbouring na-
tions, and the crash of surrounding thrones, a better secu-
rity for the institutions of power than the love and confi•
donee of an united and intelligent people.
C•donel TORRENS warmly supported the Bill. What
was desirable was, that the [louse should have a constitu-
ency so extensive as to be identified with the country at
large. If that point were secured, whether the qualifica-
tion was 91. or 101., or whether the leases were long or
short, was a matter of little importance. That was the
principle on which Reform should proceed. The object
ought co be to ascertain what was the voice of the people ;
for the voice of the people was the voice of God. For
many ye are the spirit of Reform had been working its way,
not in this country only, but throughout the civilized
world. So general had been the ferment on the subject,
that it could not have been the effect of accident ; but
must have been the result of a strong and grooving and uni-
versal desire. It hail been maintained that the present
Bill would he but the commencement of an extensive system
of innovation. This was a most visionary apprehension.
The Bill would give the people larger elements of power;
hut it would, at the same time, give them additional mo-
tives for the preservation of order. The higher the pri-
vileges of a community the more interested they became
in the preservation of those institutions to which they
were indebted for their privileges; the more anxious were
tiley to ward off those convulsions by which they would
themselves suffer. The danger was created by the oppo-
nents to the extension of popular privileges. The respon-
sibility rested upon those who when the machine of society
wds working at high pressure, closed that safety valve to
which alone the country could look for safety.—(Hear.)

Mr. RICE TREVOR could not consent to a measure
which, under the specious name of Reform, threatened the
Constitution with destruction. Why was the poor and
industrious freeman to he deprived of his right ? Why
were the ties between the upper and the lower classes to
be suddenly severed ? Why was a large body of the com-
munity, convicted of no crime, to be treated as if it had
been guilty of the deepest ? The people of England had
nut been allowed time for deliberation. Every thing had
been done to excite their passions ; and the name of his
Majesty had been most unconstitutionally used in further-
ance of that object.—(Hear, hear.) " The King, the
People, and Reform," were the watch-words which had
he, n resorted to for the purpose of deluding the people.
NV hen from that delusion they awoke, as awake they must,
what would be their feelings on discovering, not only that
all the holes which hid been held out to them were fal-
lacious, not only that all the blessings which had been pro-
mised them had disappeared, but that they and their
children were deprived of sonic of their dearest privileges—
privileges which had for ages been enjoyed by their fore-
fathers.—(hear, hear.) Ile would not resign a tried, ad-
mitted, practical good, for an untried, visionary, and pe-
rilous experiment.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MACAULEY—Before I proceed to examine what
may ha termed the political arguments applicable to the
question, I wish to notice one position, which, if it were
a sound our, I admit would he decisive against Reform.
That position is—that the elective franchise is property—
as much property as the dividends of the fundholder, or
the tents of the landowner.—(No, no, hear, hear.) It
must either he property or not property; and if it be
property, to seize what belongs to the rich man in order
to give to the poor man, would be to break up the very
foundation of social order. I support this measure be-
cause I am convinced that the elective franchise is not
property, and that the Bill ought not, therefore, to give
eompensation.—(Cheers.) I.ooking back at the earliest
times we shall fiud that if the elective franchise be
property, the present system is founded upon the
most monstrous system of injustice and robbery.
The great disfranchisement of the reign of Henry
was an act of unheard of plunder, and the
same remark will apply to the Reform iutro:luced by
Oliver Cromwell. I will not argue on the merit or de-
merit of his system, but this I will say, that the best and
wisest men of that and subsequent times never treated
the elective franchise as property. I speak of all the de-
bates in which Maynard and Hale partook under the
vigorous Oliver mid his feeble successor. Sir Henry Vane
said that it was a Reform which the Long Parliament
would have made had it lasted, and Lord Clarendon de-
, dared that it was a Reform which the King ought to
have made had he then conic. to the Crown. Lord
tendon, the most distinguished of Royalists, who leaned
rather too much to legal ietinetnents on political questions,
describes it as a Reform which was lit to be made by a
more warrantable method, and in better times. This,
then, I say, is that more warrantable method ; thia that
tttr time.—(Much cheering.) What Cromwell at-
tempted in a country lately convulsed by civil war, and
still agitated by religious factions, we are now called
upon to accomplish in a state of perfect peace, and
under a Prince whose title is as undisputed as
his person is lieloved.—(Loud cheers.) The only cir-
cumstances which, in the opinion of lord Clarendon,
were wanting in the Reform of Cromwell we find in the
Reform of William the Fourth.—( Hear, hear.) [After
adverting shortly to the Unions with Scotland and Ire-
land, and to the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders,
the Hon. Member thus proceeded :]—lf the elective
franchise were property, these, I contend, were most m-
kt:sive and sweeping confiscations ; but for the sake of
the great institution of property, for which all other in-
stitutions exist, which is ,the source of all knowledge and
of all industry, Ido most deeply lament to hear the sanc-
tity that belongs to property claimed by that which is not
property. If you mix political abuses with the institu-
tion of property, you must expect that property will con-
tract the odium of political abuses.—(Hear, hear.) If
eau bind them up that they may stand together, take
care that they do not fall together.—(Hear, bean).—
Many have before used the argummt which we heard
repeated last night, and which, it I mistake not, wane
originally employed by the Right Honourable Baronet
(Sir It. Peel). It is true, say they, that the Act of 1829
was a confiscation of the plopettv of the 40s. freeholders tit-
he:and, and spew us a case of 'necessity equally urgent,
and we will vote far Reform. Let them, however, beware
how they set a precedent for the invasion of property on
the ground of political convenience. Considering the dee;
tive franchise as not property, we have only to discuss and
aside this question—whether it is expedient at the pte-
s,nt moment to touch it Hon. Member here paid
a high compliment to Lord Dorchester's speech last night,
and went (tier some of the facts connected with the French
Revolution adverted to by his Lordship, in order to show
that the arguments built upon them were without founda-
tion.] I protest (be continued) against the analogy, and
I deny that the cases of England and France are alike. I
deny that we have hail any parties here even remotely re-
sembling the revolutionary and caunter-revolutionary par-
ties of France. I deny that there is any analogy between
the two Houses of Peers. I regard the Chamber of Peers
of France as an unfortunate experiment—as a kind of
f irtaal production—an exotic : there was nothing in the
prorrty or in the state of society in France which
required such an institution it had no root in
Cie roil, and its decline and fall need not give the
aristocracy of England the slightest alarm.—( Hear, hear.)
fhe principal and most plausible argument against
Cie Reform Bill is this—mark how rich, bow great, how
.i.ippy this country
is, and has been; the admired of all
!nen, and the envied of foreign nations ; will you then
eltange a system which has produced so many and such
ing henefits ? lam far from denying that Englandie
great and prosperous ceuntry. I am as tar from de-