The Sun.
London, England, 1831-12-19 00:00:00

might safely place the constitution of that House:—
(Hear.) He agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Croker) that we ought not to look so much to the history
of other countries as the history and the present state of
our own country.—(Hear.) As to the introduction o
this measure by his Majesty's Government, lie hoped
they might hail it as the commencement of a better
system. It was a measure supported by great autho-
rities—by the great names of Chatham and Fox—of
Locke and Swift. He might also refer to another autho-
sit& a predecessor of the Right Hon. Gentleman who now
filled the chair of that House. Mr. Speaker Onslow, liv—
ing in 4 tine of Sir Robert Walpole—in those days of
jobbing and joviality, when profligacy and corrup-
tion were only a subject of jest—states that as he eat
in the chair, he had often privately thought that the
system which was carried on, was such as no honest man
ought to sanction, and no good man could approve. He
thought that a remedy might be found for the venality
and corruption which prevailed, by disfranchising the
small borough., and transferring the franchise to great
and populous towns, in which an independent body of
voters might he found ; and he spoke of the glory which
awaited any Prince, and the lasting reputation that world
be acquired by any Ministry, under whose auspices so great
and beneficial a Reform should be effected. Theglitry
which Speaker Onslow had referred to, might, p
have been reserved to this time and for his present Ma-
jesty, acting as he did for the benefit of the country,—and
in accordance with the wishes of the country.—(Hear,
hear.) In that case Ministers would pride themselves on
being the servants of a Prince in whose reign so great a
glory was achieved. If, on the contrary, however, Par-
liament determined in favour of the present state of the
representation, with all its acknowledged alm.es, and all
its undenied corruptions—with corruptions defended only
because they formed part of the system, he hoped he might
be wrong, but he could only see that, by the maintenance
of such a system! the Legislature would not merely lose
the respect and sympathy, but bring itself into a state of
total discordance with the feelings and wishes of the body
of the people of this great and free country. " I trust,"
said the Noble Lord, " that the•issue may be prosperous,
but, if the Legislature persists in its denial to accede to the
wishes of the people, I own I shall not be sanguine as to
the result."
Sir C. WETHERELL said that the Noble Lord (John
Russell) had on this, as on alt other occasions, as far as his
own opinions were concerned, stated those opinions freely
and distinctly. If he (Sir C. Wetherell) should allude
hereafter, therefore; to a class of Reformers who did not
speak their sentiments freely and distinctly, the House
would understand that he did not mean to include the
Noble Lord in that clam,. The Noble Lord had argued that
the measure of Reform now before the House did not tend
so subvert the throne, the aristocracy, the church, or the
landed interest. He gave the Noble Lord credit for be-
lieving all this. He was satisfies that the Noble Lord
thought that Reform would leave all thoseibings unshaken
—but he claimed for himself that credit which he gave to
the Noble Lord for his sincerity when be declared his opi-
nion that the proposed Reform would not only shake,
but that it would subvert, every one of those insti-
tutions. The Noble Lord had formerly proposed a plan.
of Reform upon the most contracted and limited scale
possible, giving Members to Leeds, Manchester, and other
large town-, and not reducing the qualification to 101. He
might say that at a time when the minds of men were so
excited, and so much speculation was afloat on this subject,
the fault was not his, for there had been a time when he
introduced the most limited measure that was possible.
Why did not the Noble Lord, as a Member of the Govern-
ment, pursue the same plan as he had done in 1819 ? Why
did he not when a Member of the Government, say as for-
merly, that he thought the furthest limit to which Reform
could with propriety be extended was the giving Mem-
bers to the large towns, and fixing the qualification at suet
a rate as would not give dissatisfaction to the con-
servative party ? Why did he not, in 1831, think that
enough which he thought was enough in 1819 ? If au&
a measure had been introduced, he did not hesitate to say
that lie had not the least doubt it would bare been carried.
He (Sir Charles Wetherell) said that in the prcgress of
time, according to the increase of large towns, it was fit
to follow that prudent plan which had been adopted in
the reigns of El zabeth and Henry VIII, and even so late
a, the time of James and Charles, to a limited extent. It
the Noble Lord had said " L-t us follow the course of the
Constitution by introducing a limited number of Members
to the House of Commons, to meet the exigences of the
time occasioned by the increase of the large towns, with-
out altering the right of representation of every town in
England"—if that plan had been adopted by the Govern-
ment-the Noble Lord might indeed have said, .‘ It is-band
to blame his Majesty's Ministers for introducing a plan
which they advocated even when they sat upon the oppo-
sition benches, and to which persons of no party were op.
posed," for it was notorious that persons who did not attach
themselves to any party were of opinion that a certain ex-
tent of Reform was desirable. He was of opinion that the
Noble Lord bad not vindicated himself or the Governmeot
for introducing a measure which altered the whole
right of representation. The question was whether the
excitement which at present prevailed had not been occa-
sioned by Ministers themselves, by bringing forward so
large a measure at a time when there was no exigency for
it ? Why had not his Majesty's Ministers, when they
were appointed, said—" Oae great grinciple upon which
we accept office is that a plan of Parliamentary Reform
shall be produced according to the ancient course of the
Constitution?" Why did they not say that, as in the
times or the Tudors, or at any other period of our
history, it now became necessary, without imparing
the Constitution, to introduce six or seven Members
into that House ? Why were their measures not
gradual ? Why did they proceed to this un-
measured and extravagant step, when the leading
members of the Administration had been for years con-
tent with a plan much more moderate ? Although be was
not surprised at what the Noble Lord had said of himself,
he must say that a weighty and a grievous responsibility
rested upon those who introduced this measure, not being
called upon to do so by the public wants. Why did not
the ignoble Lord recommend that, when seats were lost by
corruption, the number should be gradually replaced from
some purer sources ? Why did be, who formerly thought
this principle sufficient—why did he, when he changed
his aide in the House, abandon his gradual course, and
proceed to this unexampled . and uncalled-for measure of
universal change in every one department ? The Noble
Lord said it was necessary to propose something, and,
therefore, that the responsibility would fall upon those
who rejected what was offered. He agreed with the
Noble Lord that, if the Reform which he proposed were
reasonable, the responsibility would fall upon those who
rejected it; but he said that if the proposition were un-
reasonable, as he contended this was, the fault lay not
with the rejecters, but with the Proposers. The Noble
Lord had proceeded to' Mike-some other observations to
which he should.take the liberty of alluding. The
-Noble
Lord said that a change was necessary. . That a change
was necessary might be very true, and yet the particular
change which the Noble Lord proposed might be by no
means expedient. The spirit of the times might require
something, but that it followed that what the Noble
Lord recommended must necessarily be that something,
was a proposition which it would be as impeachment of
the accuracy of the Noble Lord's logic to impute to him.
That Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham ought to
have Members, might be true; but be should do
discredit to the Noble Lord if he thought he could ad-
vance the proposition that, because these large towns
required to have Members, it was necessary to anni-
hilate all the boroughs in pchednle A, to proceed to the
demolition of those in schedule B, and to -alter the right
of qualification in every place which Nude Members to
Parliament. The Noble Lerd said that' there existed a
great degree of excitement, but that it Was not to be laid
to die charge of his Majesty's Ministers. He (Sir C.
Wetherell) said it was wholly imputable to them, and to
them alone. He should presently take the liberty of look-
ing at some few of the notions derived by the Learned and
eloquent Member for Caine from the times of the Tudors
and the Stuarts—but at present the Noble Lord would
permit him to refer a little to that period of history to
which the Noble Lord had himself alluded. The Noble
Lord said that great and extensive changes bad taken
place in France, and yet that Casimir Perier was still
Minister. It was true he was still Minister ; but it was
not at all certain how long he would continue so.—(llear,
hear.) It was true that there had been a barricade re-

volution in France last year. The Noble Lord said we
need not be afraid of an extensive revolution, for we ob-

serve that there has been a revolution in France, the
effects of which have been the overturning of the reigning
dynasty of France, and the rejection of Charles X., and
yet that Casimir Perier still remained Minister. He said

that Casimir Perier might not continue Minister so long
as the Noble Lord might wish, to give stability to the re
volution. The Noble Lord said, " Look at the modern

history of France, and the fate of Polignac." He said it
Was necessary that a revolution should take place, because
Polignac was about to establish a censorship of the Pres..

He (Sir Charles Wetherell) deprecated as much as any
man measures which should introduce a Polignac Press.
But let the Noble Lord take care that we had not a Po•
lignite Press in this country. He said that the Press
was one of the causes which Lad occasioned the pre-
sent excitement, acting, as it did, in unison with
the feelings and wishes of his Majesty's Governimnt.