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

lexpressed themselves in most decided terms against any
change. A Right Hon. Baronet, in particular, had said
that these were the questions to which he was most posi-
tively opposed—namely, the repeal of the Test Acts, the
Catholic question, and Parliamentary Reform. The Right
Hon. Member for Tamworth had said, "To all these
questions I mean to give my most decided opposition."—
Now he (Lord John Russell) and his friends had said that
concession, and not opposition, was the line which all true
statesmen ought to pursue. If Hon. - Gentlemen on the
other side of the House had brought in a measure of Re.
form, he should have been ready to give them r 4'74
support that he had in the measure for the red the
the
Catholics, and for the repeal of those laws which^ar ected
Dissenters. He did not blame them for not remain" in
office, or for leaving it, if they considered it to be -
sistent with their duty and principles to do so. But ey
el
ought not to blame him, and those with whom he acted,
for endeavouring to carry into effect principles which they
had always advocated, and for adopting measures which
they thought would give satisfaction to the country,
without endangering its institutions. He was pre-
pared to show that those who were now in his Ma-
jesty's Councils, far from making this a party ques-
tion, had always evinced a ready disposition to meet
their adversaries fairly. When called upon by the
King to bring forward such measures as they believed
would be for the benefit and advantage of the country,
they felt that to propose less would be dangerous, and to
propose more be to run the risk of failure. The Right
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker), in his speech of last
night, adverted to a memorable saying of Lord Plunkett,
that with some persons history was ne better than an old
almanack, but the Right Hon. Gentleman adopted the
words and not the spirit of the phrase. The Right Hon.
Gentleman spoke of the great changes which had taken
place in France, and of the lesson which they ought to
afford to the people of this country. But be (Lord John
Russell) would ask, what had a French Polignac done ?
Had he not issued ordinances to abridge the representation
of the people, and put down the liberty of the Press?—
(Cheers.) Was it to be brought as a charge against the
French that they would not allow the charter to be set
aside, and the liberty of the Press to be put down .by ordi-
nances ? Why, if a proclamation were to be issued to-mor-
row in England for putting down the liberty of the Press,
he trusted that no man _in England would be found to obey
it. —(Loud cheers.) The comparison which the Right
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) had instituted between the
indiViduals who took a leading pirt in the late revolution
of France and his Majesty's Ministers had, in his opinion,
entirely failed. This, however, formed no part of the
question now under consideration. The question was,
whether the Government and the Legislature should incur
the danger of running counter to the spirit of the times ?
(Hear, hear.) He should now turn to the consideration
of the Bill, and the arguments urged against it, keeping
in mind the principles and general reasons which ac-
tuated his Majesty's Ministers in bringing forward that
measure. In proposing the disfranchisement of the
fifty-three small boroughs, his Majesty's Government
felt that the time had gone by when any Government
could be supported by the representation of these boroughs,
and at the same time preserve the support and respect of
the people. The people -found it not in the Constitution
that any individual should have the power of having
Members to sit in that House, and they were anxious that
all the Members of that House should be—what the
Constitution intended thersbould be—the representatives
of the peop'e. It had been argued, however, that although
the nomination of Members was not within the letter or
the spirit, yet it was the practice of the Constitution, and
should not now be departed from. Undoubtedly it had
been the practice, but he begged to remind the House
that the practice had become odious to the people—so
odious that the Government felt that it was dangerous—he
might say hopeless—to attempt any longer to stand by ie.
—(Cheers.) The utility of the small boroughs to the
Government had been repeatedly urge.cl; but he thought
their utility in this point of view had been greatly exag-
gerated, and that almost all the advantages derived from
them might hereafter be obtained through the far less ob-
jectionable medium of popular representation. Another
argument was, that the disfranchisement of the small
boroughs was an infringement of the rights of those who
were the proprietors of the boroughs, and nominated the
-Members. This argument had no weight on his mind.
The Members of that House should be sent there, not for
the benefit of any Lord, or any borough proprietor, but for
the benefit of the people..—(Cheers.) The abstract right
of Parliament to deal with those boroughs no one could
deny. That right Mr. Pitt had asserted at the time of
the Union, when he distinctly declared that Par-
liament bad a right to disfranchise any borough
which it was expedient and beneficial to disfran-
chise. In disfranchising the small boroughs, then,
he contended they were acting in accordance with
the acknowledged principles of the Constitution, and
restoring that House to the real character of a House of
Comtnons.—(Loud cheers.) It had been argued, how-
ever, that the House of Commons returned under the Bill
would be of too democratic a character. To demonstrate
the inapplicability of this objection he need only refer to
the Bill itself. According to this Bill there were to be
166 county Members for England and Wales, and the only
difference made by the Bill with regard to the constituen-
cies for counties was, that copyholders and tenants at will,
renting to the annual amount of 50/., would be entitled to

vote, and that twenty-seven counties would be divided,
the divisions returning two Members each. This was an
alteration no man could say would render the county re-
presentation too democratic, or endanger the permanence
of the Constitution. But, then, it had been said some
of the counties—such as Lancashire and Warwickshire—
were manufacturing rather than agricultural, and, there-
fore, the agricultural interest would not be sufficiently re-
presented. At this time of day he thought they ought
not to be fond of placing the manufacturing interest in
contrast and opposition to the agricultural interest.—
(Hear, hear.) Manufacturing towns often selected gen-
tlemen connected with the landed interest as their repre-
sentatives; but if the manufacturing interests were turned
round upon this way, and put in opposition to the agri-
cultural interest, it was very possible that in future gentle..
men connected with the landed interest might not be so
frequently returned for manufacturing towns. In addition
to 166 county Members under this Bill, SO Members would
be chosen by the places named in schedule B. The House
had heard it stated over and over again in the discussions
on the late Bill, that the places in schedule B were likely
on all occasions to return landed gentlemen. Under the
Bill there would also be about 120 Members returned by
places containing under 10,000 inhabitants, and from in-

vestigation he had found that those Members would be re-
turned by ciinstitnencies not exceeding 400 or 500 in each
borough. It was not unfair, therefore, to assume that
these 120 Members would belong to the landed interest.
There would be 150 Members, therefore, to add to the 166

returned by the counties, who might be said to be con-
nected particularly with the landed interest. To complete
this analysis of the Bill, something under 200 Members
would be returned by towns containingxbove 10,000 in-
habitants, and only 20 of those would be returned by con-
stituencies exceeding 5,000. He might be allowed to take
this opportunity of stating what appeared to be the pro-
portion between the total number of householders in the
large towns, and the number of 101. householders entitled

to vote under the Bill. The proportion varied in different
places, but, taking the average, the 101. householders did
not exceed the one-third or one-fourth of the total number
of householders ; so that the Bill could not be said to ap-
proach to any thing like universal suffrage. The propor-
tion of 10/ householders varied exceedingly even in towns
of the same class. In Leeds, for instance, it was calcu-
lated that only two out of 13 mechanics would be entitled
to vote as 101. householders—while in Manchester, the
proportion was 30 out of 130. The manner in which the
proportion varied showed how unjust it would be to in-
crease the qualification to 151. in large towns, as some per-
sons proposed. The Hon. Member for Preston (Mr.
Hunt) had found great fault with him (Lord John Russell)
for expressing a hope that the Bill el ould represent the in-
telligence of the manufacturing districts. When he read in
the newspapers, however, of persons going into those dis-
tricts and stating to the working classes that " a million
of money was voted by Parliament for the personal ex-
penses of the Sovereign," he could not fail to see how great
the advantage would be if those who exercised the elective
franchise were sufficiently intelligent to be able to detect
such misrepresentations, and to withhold their support
from any candidate who sought to obtain it by
imposing on
their credulity—by expatiating on evils which never
existed, and talking of remedies which no Reform of Par-
liament could ever give.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")

Another argument against the proposed measure was that
the Crown would lose its authority. Now, he saw no
reason whatever to suppose that this measure would im-
pair the real and lawful power of the Crown. The whole
scope and tenor of the Bill was to render the Constitution
of that House less objectionable, by placing the represen.
tation upon a broader basis. The right of voting to be
exercised under the Bill was very different from universal
suffrage, at the same time that it would not be an exclu-
sive privilege. Every 101. householder residing in a town
and paying his rates would be entitled to a vote. Those
exercising the elective franchise would not be a fluctuating
body, but, in point of fact, the electors would compre-
hend the most respectable portion of the householders of
ti e kingdom. This was the basis upon which the con-
stituency was placed—a basis on which he thought they