The Sun.
London, England, 1831-04-20 00:00:00

at the risk of cutting their own fingere. Sir, I aclnOw.
edge this change of tone in the petitions of the peopl• ;
red I hail it as a gratifying proof (to those by whom such
roof is needed) that the people are not unreasonable ;
hat they will give up as much to the prudence of their
tees as they expect to obtain from their generosity; and
will prove by the example of the present, to those who
will not condescend to read the history of the past, how
very limited a measure of confidence on the part of a Go-
vernment in the fidelity of its subjects is repaid—with
!low full a confidence on the part of those subjects in the
.visdom and inteerity of their rulers.—(Herr, hear.) And
-now, Sir, that I may keep my promise of brevity better
-han such vows are usually kept, I will omit what I
would have said on those inquiries into the primitive for m
of our representative system, of which we have in former
years heard so much ; and I will more willingly give up
'hose doctrines of abstract right so much insisted on by
our predecessors in this great cause. I should even he
content, for the purposes of this dispute, to assume that
our right tit our present liberties is a prescriptive
right alone ; for, by the very same evidence whereby
this is prayed, I claim the same prescriptive right
to occasional necessary Reform. If lam referred to the
records of hiatery for the title deeds of our representative
.stem, that same history tells me of alterationa in that
system, compared with which the present measure
dwindles into insignificance.—(Hear, hear.)—lf lam
told that the transfer of the elective franchise from Gat.
ton to Birmingham, without judicial procedure, is a violent
innovation, I cannot but recollect that within little more
than a century, two independent Legislatures have been
blotted out from the page of the Constitution—
(Hear, hear)—and with them the greater part of the
representation whereof they were composed. If lam told
that the vested rights of the present constituency are in-
violable, I ask (and though so frequently asked before, it
has never yet received an attempt at an answer) what has
become of the forty-shilling freeholders of Ireland.—
(Hear.)—Sir, that very revolution of 1688, which has
sometimes been appealed to as the definitive resting place
of our Constitutional ark, as the Sian of our political wan-
dering, that revolution which changed the succession to
the throne, is surely sufficient precedent for the disfran-
chisement of .a nomination borough.—(Hear, hear.)—
Sir, if the success of my own argument were the sole in-
terest I felt in this question, I should willingly risk the
event of the controversy on this appeal to historical pre-
cedent; hut I will not place the cause of the people of
England on any such narrow ground of defence. We
seek not this Reform, as a matter of abstract right, but of
practical expediency; we claim it, not as the fruit of his-
torical research, bat of historical experience—(Hear)—
we ask it, not because it was so in our forefathers'
time, but because it would have been so now had
our forefathers lived in ours.—(Cheers.)—Sir, it is net
enough to tell us that our borough system is now what it
was 200 years ago. It is not enough to tell as that a sys-
tem of tyrannical compulsion and corrupt influence which
was in harmony with the violence and fraud of the political
war. re of those days, which was in harmony with the re-
mains of feudal power and the remembrance of feudal fidelity,
which was suited alike to the selfishness of their political
vices and the sternness of their political virtues; it is not
enough to tell us that such a system is not grown worse,
or even that it is considerably improved. If the political
struggles of those days were, compared with the polite
encounters of our own, the warfare of giants, they dis-
played the selfishness end tyranny of giant natures ; and
when the bludgeon was the umpire of popular meetings
and the axe of legislative assemblies, it was natural and un-
avoidable that corruption and intimidation should be reck-
oned the two main pillars of established Government and
social order, and that political honesty should lie identified
with blind fidelity to the landlord or the party leader. But
now, Sir; that the Sunday pamphlet has superseded the
bludgeon of the mob; now, that the daily Journal has
been admitted, by mutual consent, as a fitter arbiter be •
tween contending factions than the axe ; now, that the
prim schoolmaster is found a more effective bugbear to po-
litical disturbers than the grim headsman, it is too couch
to demand of us the continuance of those means of Go-
vernment whose worst corruption was unnoticed amidst
the greater hideousness of the ends to which they were
rendered subservient.—(Hear.) Sir, I never contem-
plate the discussions which have parsed on this question,
but I feel myself half a convert to the now unfashionable
doctrine of the wisdom of onr ancestors. lam told that
they had, of necessity, less experience, and less wisdom
than our ourselves. Less experience, I admit they had;
but that they had less wisdom I almost doubt, when I see
that, unlike their descendants, they made, to the beat of
their ability, a practical application of that experience to the
necessities and -difficulties which occurred ; and were Sir
T. More really to rise from his grave for the purpose of in-
structing a poet laureate in political econotny,he might well
ask us what do we gain by our superior knowledge and
accumulated experience, when a fete sounding phrases
and a few hard names are sufficient to deter us from put-
ting to a practical use the results of that experience, and
the t:eductions of that knowledge.—(Hear, hear.)—So
much, Sir, for the authority of past generation ; now a
few observations addressed to the reflection and the expe-
rience of the present. Of course, Sir, I shall not be
called upon at this day, either in or out of this House,
to atistver an opponent who seriously pretends ignorance
of the measure in which our nomination system works,
whatever may be his opinion of the results which it pro-
duces. Upon the former of these questions, there is no
longer either mystery or disagreement; to the latter I
shall briefly address myself. Now, Sir, this question of
the results of our borough system is a question of fact;
and it is a question of fact to which the limits of debate
preclude us from adducing a, satisfactory and direct testi-
mony ; for such testimony won'd be nothing less than the
political history.of England fir such a period as the dis-
putants should agree in considering a fair criterion. To
enter satisfactorily upon such a field of inquiry, is, in this
place, minifestly impossible; and to touch upon it by
quoting a few isolated examples is only opening a vast
magaaine whence disputants on either side may furnish
themselves with a species of light weapon of equal bright-
ness, but equally indecisive. We have been told, for in-
stance, of the talent habitually introduced into the House
through the narrow portal of a close borough ; but we
have not been told what proportion this talent bore to the
aggregate mediocrity, not to say occasional imbecility of
sued; introductions. Hon. Members opposite string up their
dozes of choice pippins in a golden row to win our admi-
ration ; but we have not been called to notice the bushels
of crabs which have sprung from the same stock.-,-(Cheers. )
—And surely, Sir, it would not have weakened our oppo-
cecre case, if they had bestowed some pains in showing
that this taient had been generally applied to the service
of the country, 404 not of its possessors and their pa-
trons. Napoleon's serails: ,ornate was a collection of tine
talent,- the science, and the experieu of France ; but we
shall hardly refer to that as a pattern of a Legislatise As-
seinbl7.-.--(Hear, hear.)—And these observations, Sir, re- I
mind rue of what is, after all, the fatal objection to such I
a system of election; that which is, to my mind, the e!e- '
cisive reason against the caistence of even the purest of
these boroughs. We have heard much boasting of the
independence of our self elected Legislators; and if inde-
pendence is sl;cays to be measured by irresponsibility, it '
is not to be denied that they are most aristocratically inde-
pendent of that people whose representatives they are so
food of styling themselves. But here, Sir, is the fatal
taint in the sogree frum.whence they spriog—here is that
illegitimacy of origin which will ever stand in the way of
that salutary respect which all rulers, to make their rule
effective, should enjoy in the eyes of the people. Legisla-
tors they may be—wise and honest Legislators if you
please—b..:` representatives they are not and cannot be.
Hereditary Mstrii.ers of an Elective Assembly—Peers in
the House of Commooe-e-by their presence here they
intercsipt from tine hereditary branch of the Legislature
that popols; popfidrnce which they gannot enjoy
themselves. —(Che4rst )—Sir, there is no one remark which
our adversaries are mose aasialtmos in submitting to our
attention than the necessity that it legislative assembly
should so far enjoy the confidence of the people that it
should not be obliged to act as the mere momentary index
of popular wiH ; :het it should represent the opinions of
the community upon an verage of years, and be respon-
sible for the ultimate tendency rather than the particular

line of its conduct. Sir, in this doctrine I most cordially
agree ; and I do, therefore, protest against the continu
ance of that system of representation which compels
the people to interfere with a jealous expression of their
opinions nn =eh particular action of this House that
does not fall in with the momentary humour ; because
they feel that whether the ultimate molts cif that action
be such as to justify us or not, they at least will have
no f:Jture opportunity of controuling the actors, or 01
adopting pr;xautions against .the repetition or continu-
ance of the actiuu, It is, Sir, for these reasons that
the Press admonishes us ,b;, threats instead of advice—
(Hear).....that the manufictu6r.z art:zan enrols his
name in atiliated societies, instead of -,,:ltxtribing it t,
petitions,--(Hear, hitr)—that the agriculturist winks at,
if he does not encourage, thc, outrages of the labourers, as
th:seled
adic.irhcuitunas means of lightening those taxes which had
with a political affectation of
him frots; meeting their demands ; it is, Sir, for
that revolution has reasons that khonver our adversaries may persist
(ear to transpose the terms
antiquated corruption
wanted ; 4 irt, tc7ini
la caged for when Reform was
that
Wobstinate continuance of this
at ewriceb,thsionsece petbrieeticsatluovuot:
breaks of popular disconte

lutlon, Lave kept that people, and among them the
greatest ,ntellect of the ege, in a state of wonder at the
continued existence of a Constitution which only throws
off its peccant humours by this system of chronic convul-
sions.—(Hear, hear.) It is, Sir, to use the language of
common life—it is because lam obliged to secure, not by
force, at least by an understood readiness to apply it, the
good conduct of that man towards me to whom I can offer
no other motives ; it is because a very little know-
ledge of human nature would make the most careless di.-
position unwilling to trust for a moment out of sight th
man who has any power in his possession, but of whose
character I do not approve, and over whose actions I have
no controul.—( Hear, hear.) But, Sir, as I said before
it is quite impossible to prove general misconduct, or
general merit, by any number of particular instance'
which the limits of debate will permit us to quote;
there is but one indisputable criterion to which we can ap-
peal in this place : and that criterion must be sought b 1
each individual among the results of his own oh-ervation,and
his own experience without these wall.. That criterion
of legislative capacity is the general effect produced upon
public opinion by the conduct of such a legislation: a
slow, silent, continuous effect—visible, indeed, through
the whole of its insidetous progress to those whose busi-
ness it is to watch the signs of the times—the gathering
thunder-cloud of a summer's day—unheeded by less atten-
tive ob.ervers, until the first audible mutterings of it.
wrath, and unnoticed by the multitude in general, until
; it burst in stortn and desolation on the land. This is that
unerring criterion to which rulers have never yet appealed
until the eleventh hour ; this is that indisputable sign of
the times which Governments never deign to notice until
; they can no longer close their eyes to the lightning nor
their ears to the thunders—(Cheers.) There is, indeed,
Sir, en this question of fact—on this question of the
good or bad results of our present system—one argument
which I shall suggest to the House—an application of the
phi arguments from cause to effect. What, Sir, is the
plain state of the case now before this Court? Here are
two parties,—one affirming the good effects of our nomi-
, nation system; the other, at least equally numerous, and
, if not more disinterested, at least placed in eirctosstancea
which throw less suspicion over,their testimony, affirm-
, ing, with as bold en appeal to experience, the bad effects
of the same system ! So far, Sir, the testimony in favour
of us is at least of equal value with that in favour of our
adversaries; but what will be said when these very adver-
• saries join most cordially with-us in their ch macter of the
system which produces these much-disputed effects ?
Why, Sir, these very trumpeters of this House—these
champions of our motley franchise—allow that they are
astonished when they contemplate the apparently inadequate
causes which produce these vaunted results; they allow
that they cannot explain by what miracle of our politico-
moral nature such purity is engendered of such corruption.
(Hear, hear.) We infer the existence of bad effects from
bad causes. Our adversaries join with us in our character
of the causes, but infer therefrom nothing but good
effects.—(Hear.) Thus much, Sir, for those who, aban-
doning the machinery of our representative system as un-
tenable ground, take up their position in defence of its re-
sults. But there is another, and no less numerous class,
who, giving up both machinery and results as equally in-
defensible—who, acknowledging that they Fee here no ex-
ception to the old rule of " like causes produce like effects,"
demur, nevertheless, to any proposal for amending the
system from an apprehension of danger, whose magnitude,
in their eyes, is perhaps to be explained upon the old
principle of " omne ighotum pro mit-I:fie° ;" inasmuch as
they have never yet be eu able exactly to specify what that
danger is. The sole difference between them and us is,
Shall the decayed parts of the system be mended or not ?
Both are agreed how moth the system wants mending, but
one party is unwilling to begin so perilous a job. Both
are agreed that it is in rags and tatters ; but whenever we
begin to thread the darning-needle, they exclaim, " Leave
it alone, in the name of prudence—in the n one of caution
—in the name of Robespierre and Danton—it is so rotten,
that if you attempt to put a stitch in, the whole will fall
to pieces." I will not stop, Sir, to remind such objectors
what manner of compliment they Are paying to the old
garment which has served their turn so long, and for which
they profess such a veneration ; but do they not see the
inevitable inference which the political renovators would
draw from this admission ? Would not the answer be teady
and irreplicable ? If the state of the garment be such as you
avow, then it is high time to get a new one. And is not
this, Sir, the dilemma in which the obstinate refusal ofall the
moderate and timely atnendments has, for some time,
placed us ? Have we not been told by a loud, if not a strong
party, that the Legislature of Engl cud is incorrigible ?
that it is too rotten to be p etched up—and that it is high
time to get a new one? And to whom do we owe this,
but to those who passed by every opportunity for a timely
Reform, with an impudent denial of the existence of any
blemish—(Cheers)-_and who now, when such, denial is
no longer possible, think to evade the results of their own
obstinacy by an affectation of sudden discovery, that such
blemishes have gone too far—have spread themselves too
universally through the system, to leave any part where a
repair may be commenced without danger of pulling the
whole to pieces.—(Hear, hear. )—And these, Sir, are the
self-elected champions of our Monarchies! Government?
And these are the best grounds on which they would risk
its defence? Sir, lam not of their opinion. I have better
thoughts of that Monarchy of England, which has with-
stood far more serious renovation than this—l have better
thoughts of those institutions which our ancestors feared
not to reform and repair whenever they saw need so to do
I tremble not at their exposure to the ordeal of public
opinion ; through that ordeal they were never yet passed
but they came out with equal beauty and with renovated
purity—(Hear, bear)—from those struggles which have
exuded the superfluous flesh the bone derives its strength,
the sinews their elasticity. What these apprehensions of
danger are it is in vain for us to ask. Our oppo.
nents have on this subject contented themselves with
vague generalities, nor have they even condescended
to place before us any intelligible picture of those
phantoms which exercise so powerful au influence
over their own imaginations. We cannot, of course,
be expected to combat those forces which will not take
the field. We can only ask, what danger there will hence-
forth exist which does not exist now ? What suppot ts the
Monarchy and Peerage now but public opinion ? and how
can that support be weakened when we have enlisted public
opinion in their favour by granting that Reform which,
of all others, public opinion is now most loudly demand-
ing ?—(Loud cheering.) We have been told, indeed, that
the House of Peers could not exist without the support
which it derives from its nominees in this Assembly. But,
Sir, were we to grant this we should immediately ask,
what supports this Assembly ? If the House of Peers is
thrown back upon the House of Commons, on what does
the House of C •nsions rely ? After all the discussions of
the theoretical, and the intrigues of the practical statesman,
we come ultimately and in the last resort to public opinion
as the tortoise which is to carry the elephant, which carries
the ministerial world ; an I, however we may consult our
distaste-for unpalatable remedies—however we may think
to avoid the bitter necessity of physic by attributing our
strength to the disease of which we are dying ; however
we may flatter our imagined dignity by a vaunted inde-
pendence of popular opinion ; it is that popular opinion
which is our best staff of support, though we will con-
tinue to insult it by clinging to a broken reed.—(Cheers.)
This topic, Sir, reminds me of Mr. Canning, and which
is thus briefly summed up in his own words :—" If
you reforinsthe Hotise of Commons on the ground of
past misconduct, what will you do with the House of
Lords ?" Now, Sir, this objection to Reform in
general, is shortly and conclusively answered by a re-
ference to that part of the Bill which is now the sub-
ject of discussion. In theschedules A. and B. is written that
which we intended to do with the House of Lords : we
intended to deprive them of that corrupt and unconstitu-
tional influence which they exercised in this House; intend to
confine them to their own Court ; we wish in future that
either House should be what it was intended to be, a Court
or perpetual appeal from the decisions of the other, in-
stead that of monstrous aoomsly which they now offer to
the world of two Conrts, designed to controul each other,
but ruled in a great tneasore by the rime Judges, and con-
trouled by a mitts) iufluence.—(Cheers.) One complaint
has been made against the particular part of the measure
now under discussion, which comes with a peculiarly bad
grace from those by whom it is now put forth ; we are
told of the anomalies both as regards population and pro-
perty, which will still defend our representative system, a,
if those anomalies could be put for one instant in coropari
son with those which now e#ist ; and as if those very per-
sons would not be the most vociferous in scouting such a
Reform as would be necessary to sweep away all anomalies
whatever.—(Cl eers.) Another complaint I will notice
is one not directed against the measure itself, but against
those who have introducer; }t; and this complaint I ap-
proach with some diffidence of my own coostito timid know-
ledge. Sir, I must confess (and I shall be thankful fur
correction if wring), I must confess that I was not aware
until the late debates on this question, that the appeal of
a British King from his Parliament to his people was an
unconstitutional measure. I had thought that both the
theory and practice of our Constitution had decided,
that a Parliament at issue With its constituents on a great
constitutional question might, by no unprecedented exer-
cise of the Royal prerogative, be sent back to those con-
etituent., if not for further instruction, at least for fur
ther proofs of confidence.--(Cheers.) And now, Sir.
before I sit down, one werd ooncereing that people of