The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-13 00:00:00

!7/
"0.1

the motion should again be made this evening, when the
Mt where to whom a hearing was denied this morning wil
be at liberty to state their opinion'. We have not time a
present for further comments.—Morning Post.
The first attempt made to defeat " the Bill" last night,
being itself defeated by a majority of 254 against 137,
deserves notice, for the purpose of exposing the treachery
of all those disavowals of factious opposition of which
the Anti-Reformers have been so lavish. On the presen-
tation of a petition, it was moved that the borough of
Appleby, now about to be disfranchised, should be heard
by Counsel against the Bill. Was ever any thing so
enormously disingenuous practised by men who disavow
faction and trick in their opposition ? If Appleby were
to he heard by Counsel against the Bill, so of course
ought every other borough to he heard which it is pro-
posed to deprive of the elective franchise ; and then
when should we ever have a reformed Parliament ?
Had Appleby been accused of any thing such as the
abuse of the elective franchise, then, of course, the party
accused would have a right to be heard in justification.
But the Bill charges no one, no corporation, no town,
or county, with any offence: it simply enacts a general
measure. The claim, therefore, of a single borough to be
heard by Counsel against such a measure was insolent and
preposterous, and the proposition was properly rejected.
But the fact itself shows that the friends of Reform must
not slumber ; treachery and chicane are awake ! After
the rejection of this insidious proposition, several attempts
were made to force an adjournment for the evident pur-
pose of getting rid of the Bill. These attempts were
triumphantly defeated. The people of England will
know how to appreciate this mode of discussing the
merits of their favourite measure. It will be seen that
Sir Robert Peel withdrew himself from this factious
opposition : the anger of Sir Charles Forbes at this
defection of the Right Honourable Baronet is highly
amusing. We cordially join in the hope expressed
no earnestly by Lord George Lennox, that Ministers
will continue at their Pat liamentary post through days and
nights of uninterrupted sitting, rather than yield to this
discreditable explosion of party-spirit. The House acted
wisely in shutting their doors, and preventing, as much as
possible, the public exposure of their proceedings. The
champions of the boroughs in Schedules A. and B. will
probably, from a similar feeling of modesty, wish to with-
hold their ingenuity and eloquence from the admiration of
the people. What a national loss, only to he compensated
by the passing of the Bill ! The House did not break up
till half-past seven o'clock this morning ; but the firm-
ness of Lord Althorp and the Bill, after seven different di-
visions, succeeded—as firmness in a good cause always
must succeed—in carrying the point in issue.— Times.
We insert four letters, signed " Surriensis," " M. N.
" H. W. E.," and " R. B. S." on different clauses and
principles of the Reform Bill. They all seem worthy of
attention, and will repay the trouble of perusal. That of
" Surriensis" settles the charge of " corporation robbery"
brought against the Bill, by showing more minutely than
has been hitherto done, that the elective franchise ie a
trust or duty, and not a property. Boroughs were ori-
ginally required to send representatives to vote subsidies to
the Crown, and sometimes begged to he relieved front the
burden. This did not look as if they considered the right
of voting a beneficial interest in property. Members,
when in Parliament, have often declared that they consi-
dered themselves as acting for the whole people of England.
Th it would be a strange kind of " corporation property,"
which would impose upon a body of corporators the duty of
electing a trustee for the whole empire. " Virtual" repro-
pentation, so much talked of at one time, proceeded on the
idea as Mr. Canning expressed it, that " unrepresented Man-
chester was included in represc,ied Liverpool." Then was
it " corporation property," or a duty, in Liverpool to elect
a representative for :Manchester; and if it was property,
what beneficial interest could Liverpool derive from elect-
ing Members for its neighbouring town and for the whole
empire? The letters of "M. N." and "R. B. S." re-
late to the following clause in the Reform Bill :
" And be it enacted, that notwithstanding any thing herein-
before contained, no person shall be entitled to vote in the elec-
tion of a Knight or Knights of the Shire to serve in any future
Parliament, in respect of any house, warehouse, or counting-
house, or of any land occupied together with a house, ware-
house, or counting-house, by reason of the occupation of which
respectively he or any other person shall be entitled to vote in
the election of a Member or Members to serve in Patliament
for any city or town, being a county of itself, or for any other
city or borough."
The evident effect and intention of this clause is to pre-
vent the same property from giving two qualifications, and
not to prevent the same person from having two votes ;
for, as our correspondent truly observes, ti:e tenant of a
house paying lot. of rent may have a vote in the borough,
while he may vote for the county on a 40.. freehold. It
certainly appears an anomaly that the freeholder of a house
of the value of 9/. 15s. may enjoy a vote in the county ;
but that the freeholder of a tenement of 101. or upwards,
cannot appear at the county poll•book. It ought, how-
ever, to be recollected, that .the Bill does not propose to
interfere with the rights of freeholders, in-& s where it
gives other privileges of a similar kind as inhabitants of
boroughs. An inhabitant of a borough who has a 40s.
freehold, retains his right to vote in the county, because he
cannot vote upon that property as a burgess ; but if his
freehold amounts to 101., either lie or his tenant can exer-
cise the rights of an elector in the borough; and it is not
thought advisable that the same property should give two
qualifications. It may, indeed, be argued that the freehold
proprietor of a farm paying 501. rent enjoys a vote in the
county, while his leasehold tenant likewise votes in right
of the same farm ; but the magnitude of the holding, and
the consequent diminution of the number of electors, may
render a rule expedient in the one case, which is not expe-
dient in the other.— Times.
It is with no small satisfaction that we recur again to
the result of the French election', at which the war party
has received a signal defeat. The country had so much
need of repose,—it was so tired of tumults and trees of
liberty—of seditious festivals and streetriots—that it wil-
lingly lent its suffrages to those candidates who offered
themselves at once as the friends of freedom and the ene-
mies of precipitate change—as the supporters of internal
order and of external peace. The Paris press made in
vain a mighty stir with its lists of favouritism and pro-
scription. The old democratic societies, who had exer-
cised so powerful an influence on former occasions, because
they had some ground for their opposition to the Bourbon
Government, could not on this occasion procure a
hearing to their exhortations, or the adoption of their
candidates. Unless where known services or great repu-
tations were brought forward, local interests and per-
sonal respect prevailed more with the electors than the
recommendations of the Jacobin press or the intrigues of
patriotic associations. By the new electoral law, of
which we gave a sketch some days ago, the
present Chamber is to consist of 459 Depu-
ties, instead of 430, as by the law of last
year ; of these, the moderate and constitutional party
have already secured the nomination of more than one
half, the number of returns announced on Saturday being
334, of whom the Ministers had 249. In this majority
we find all the distinguished names of the last Chamber,
such as 31. Royer Collard, Casimir Perier, M. Sebastian',
31. Duvergier de Hauranne, M. Villmain, M. Calmon,3l.
Delissert, M. I3ertin de Vaux, 31. Charles Lameth, M.
Lafitte, M. Bignon, M. Keratry, M. Joy, M. Dubois,
31. Etienne, 31. Dupin, M. Vatismenil, Marshal Girard,
N. de Saint Cricq, M. Humann, and others. The move-
ment party will be represented by its old Deputies, but
not in greater numbers than in the last Chamber. It is
supposed that on great questions of external or internal
policy, in which the stability of the monarchy may be
considered as involved, the majority for the Cabinet will
be about two-thirds of the whole. The popularity
of some Members of the Opposition bas not abated
in the midst of this accession of strength to the
Government. We find, for instance, that able orator
and consistent republican, M. Odillon Barrot, re-
turned for four places—for Strasburg, Verneuil, Chauny,
and Brionne ; 31. Lafitte for two, Paris and Bayonne;
and M. Merilhou, likewise for two. To balance this dis-
play of popular favour in behalf of the Ultra-Liberals,
Casimir Perier, the Prime Minister, has been returned
for three places--Epernay, Troyes, and Paris. But
though the majority of the new Chamber must be on the
side of the present Ministry, the Ministry, in order to
meet their friends half way, must surrender or modify
their opinions on several important points of the system
which, before their appeal to the ceouicntirny, theyk had re-
solved to maintain, and of which th
be tenacious. Among these is the hereditgaial:iriiist7isloeuinesetoof
the Peers. When asked to pledge himself o
by a body of electors at Troyes, 31. Casimir Perierj '
and de-
clined to make any declaration of his opinions,
seve-
tal other constitutional supporters of his Government fol-
lowed his example ; but the current of popular prejudice,
or popular judgment, ran so strong against the institution of
the Peerage on its present basis, that few ventured to pro-
nounce in its favour. On the other hand, a very great
proportion of the candidates either volunteered addresses
in which they bound themselves to vote for the abolition
of the peerage, or, being questioned as to their intentions,
answered by their affirmative pledges. In such circum-
stances, it is not likely that Ministers will make a very
strenuous resistance to a measure already decided in
the public mind, and all but decided in the Cham-
ber. The movement party are certainly entitled to
demand an immediate consideration of the question. Had
they insisted on the abolition of the hereditary rights of
the Peerage when they were strong enough to effect its