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

t Ikea as an authority in favour of` the present measure.
fig statement, however, is not very different in solid:mee
aid effect from that made by my HOn. and Learned
7riend ; for when Clarendon says 'that ninny persons
'.nought that such and such change would lie good, and
'es not deny their opinions, I think it may fairly be
reposed that he admits those opinions to be true—
(Tear, hear)—and his conduct as a Minister to such a
wing as Charles the Second, cannot be brought as an
eswer to that supposition. The Hon. Genth man also
eys that if we look back to the Reform of MSS, we
quit cease to claim any merit for moderation, by saying
'rat we could not do less ; and he asserts that, in fact,
ee were not pledged to go so far as we have done. We
lo not expect, of course, Sir, that Hon. Gentlemen on
eat side of the House will attend much to our authority
o such a matter ; but still I think I can show that we
race done no more than we were bound to do. We se)
could not do less, not because we were pledged by our
revious conduct to do as much as we have now done, but
ecause we felt we could not do less for the satisfaction er
e country.—(Cheers.) We were pledged to a measure of
:.form, and when we did bring it forward, we telt that
we should be trifling with the feelings of the country if
.e measure was not such a one as we had good reason to
lieve would satisfy the wishes of the country.—(Cheers.)
We have, therefore, brought forward such a measure, and
re have the gratification to find that it has satisfied the
eiuntry.—(Loud cheering.) The Hon. Gentleman who
.as just sat down, has said that the only reason we brought
.re a Bill on a plan so extensive was, that we wanted
the support of the Radicals.—(" Hear, hear," from the
• )pposition.) Sir, we wanted the support of the people of
.tiglarri—(Cheers)—and if we had not proposed a mea-
ure likely to satisfy them—if it had not been a full and
omplete measure—we should but hive continued in the
euntry those tumults, and that division which it was our
deject and our earnest wish to remove.—(Cheers.) In the
•oune of the debate, I have had the pleasure of hearing the
speech of the Noble Lord, the Member for Wootton Basset.
fn those who know him, that speech was of course hut
the accomplishment of previous expectations. I, who did
tot know him, must call it a speech of great promise.
—(Hear, hear.) In the course of that speech lie Wok
eccasion to remark on the at ate of foreign countries, and
.specially of those in which the attempt has been made
t•i follow the ex iniple of this country. He said that thoeft.
attempts had failed, and he attributed those failures to
one cause. He did not think that the cause was the true
rne. The Noble Lord said it was owing to the attempt
-o set up three distinct branches of a Legislature, and to
naintain an actual and complete separation between them,
so that one should exercise no controul whatever over
mother. Whereas, I should think, that from his know-
edge of fareign countries he must be aware that the
'allures be alludes to must have proceeded from the state
f society in those countries being unfit for the immedi-
ate and successful establishment of a system like our own
—he must he aware that the estimation in which the
nobility have been held, and the degradation into which
the people have been thrown, were grounds enough to
induce any one to expect that the fist attempt to found
liberal institutions would be attended with frequent
dianges, and would not at once appear to be likely to be
successful. 1 should say then, that the failure of these
attempts is attributable to the endeavour to apply the in-
stitutions of this country to those places to which they are
not suited, but not to the theory of keeping the three
branches of the Legislature perfectly free from the controul
of each other. However, supposing that to be the case,
is that an objection to this measure ? Will this measure
preserve a complete distinction between the three branches
of our Legislature ? The Hon. Member behind me has
stated truly, that the influence of the Aristocracy could
net by possibility be destroyed. We may observe
how impossible it is to destroy that influence, by the
elections which we now see take place in county
representations, or in elections in the neighbourhood
of smaller boroughs. How is it possible to suppose, with-
out a complete change in the feelings of the people, that
that influence should not continue? Sir, it will continue,
but in a legitimate way.—(Clieere.) If I were to describe
the effect of this Bill, I should say, that the legitimate in-
fluence of the Aristocracy wool I be increased by it.—
(Cheers.) There are some individuals among the Aristo-
cracy who have now a greater degree of power than they
will have under this Bill, hut that does not apply to the
whole mass of the Aristocracy. They will have their due
weight, and in a much more regular, more constitutional,
and better manner than at present.—(Cheers.) The Hon.
Member for Newcastle has made a curious statement with
regard to our disfranchisement of the small boroughs.
He says that we are about to disfranchise them unconvicted
(that I admit with respect to some,) but not only uncon-
victed but undefended. The last position I must deny—
(Hear, and laughter)--for if ever I heard a defence gal-
lantly and obstinately made with respect to any one thing, '
it is the defence made for these boroughs.—( Hear, hear.)
He supposes that the reason why we disfranchise the non-
residents is, that they might be dangerous to us. That
is not the reason. In the first place, the influence possessed
in some boroughs by certain individuals who can en a'e
freemen, thereby overpowering the choice of the real
inhabitants of the town, is one of the reasons for this die-.
franchise:neut. That is an influence which ought not to
continue.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman says,
that when we disfranchise non-resident voters, we still allow
one class of them to remain by giving votes to warehouse-
men in cities. He is mistaken again there in the reason for
the disfranchisement, and for the exception. Tee great
expence incurred in conveying the non-resident freemen
to the place of polling is one of the reasons for our disfran-
chisin. them ; and it is because the owners of these ware-
houses are men who are likely not to require that expence
to be incurred, that we do not object to continue the right
of voting. An Hon. and Gallant Friend of mine has ad.
dressed the House in a speech which I admit contains one
of the most plausible objections to time measure, namely,
that it will have the effect of diminishing in this House
the influence of our Colonial possessions, and of our posses-
sions in the East Indies. With respect to the colonies,
and their influence generally, I do not see, from the expe-
rience I have of the places for which those gentlemen most
devoted to Colonial affairs hold their seats, that there is
any danger whatever that the colonial interests will not be
fully represented. And with respect to the East Indies,
although there may be something in what lie stated, I think
that lie carried the matter a gre it deal to far. Great elite.
tinctions have often been gained by service of this country
in her East Indian possessions, and when a man comes
home with a reputation of having well served his country
in India (1 tnay appeal to my Gallant Friend lahnself as
an example), his name becomes too well known far him to
find much difficulty in obtaining a body of constituents
to choose him for their representative. At the same time
my Gallant Friend must be aware, that even under the
present system, scarcely any man obtains a seat imme-
diately on his return. But, even if this were not the case we
should still have the power to gain the necessary inforina-
' thin. As it is the interest of this country to maintain her
possessions in the Colonies, it is her interest that they should
be governed well, and it will be the wish of this House to
see that they are so governed.—(Hear, hear.) Not only
tvill a Reformed Parliament wish to see them governed
well, but it will have a positive interest in their good Go-
vernment, in seeing that the people are happy, and that
everything is done to promote their prosperity and encrease
attachment to the mother country.—(Hear, hear).
When this country has the right of freely electing its re-
presentatives, 1 do not think so ill of my fellow-country-
men as to believe that they will not wish to see that pri-
vilege extended to the utmost degree in their power. Ido
not, therefore, think that the Colonies are in danger from
this measure. On the contrary, I think that their interests,
and the interests of every class of the community will be
promoted by it ; for all classes will then have their full
share in the decisions of this Mouse.--(Hear). There is
only one thing more on which I wish to say a fete weds.
Having stated that we look not only to what constituency
is to be formed, but to what representatives are likely to be
chosen, and what will be the consequences, in the latter
respect, of the Reform Bill, the Hon. Gentleman supposes
that no person of rank and station will boelected. Ido not
know on what ground he founds that opinion, or how he
finds it justified by elections for counties or populous places.
lie says that the Spanish Cortes would have -done more
good if the Nobles of Spain bad consented to be Members
of the Legislature. If it was the want of the consent of
the nobility themselves, which prevented the Dvitties
from having the advantage of their presence, 1 do not
think that such an evil would be likely to exist here--
(Hear, hear)—and if be looks to the elections of some of
the largest counties, where the middle classes have the
greatest influence, particularly during the last election, he
will see that they are chiefly represented by Members of
the aristocracy. From my experience I should say that
the people have, happily for us, an attachment to the '
members of the aristocracy, unless the members of the
aristocracy act in such a manner as to destroy their con-
fidence.—(Hear, hear.) To such members of the aristo-
eracy I should not wish to see the doors of this House
thrown open. If they do not use their advantages for
the benefit of their fellow-countrymen—if they
will 'not
set an example of good, but of evil—the loss to the
country in not admitting them here will not be heavy—
(Hear, hear.) As the question has already been so ably
discussed, I do not wish to trouble this Home further by
my obseivations.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. MURRAY, after some noisy discussions about
adjournment _ had .subsided, stated, that be thought this