The Sun.
London, England, 1831-10-04 00:00:00

Ills=ilt .„ ~-., :
x!..-.:. ,k_ VW, - •
VI
4!LIT.
.-,,.-4.4-1',,,?.?",,,,ta,,,
v,-.:/• . --,44. 'l4" '.,'S ' y
whiellrent":ll2"l4ndant upt
will have the beneficial effect of ridding the representation
bringing iinndgt diminishing
tnit:hyinogur
non-residenttLhe6rjeysxolitPeei 7a c'
teo the poll; and further, it
of the interference of strangers ; and each place may in
future be expected to send to Parliament persons connected
and acquainted, and, as it were, identified with their local
interests. In the qualification of those who vote front
houses, it will be required that they show a previous p is-
ion of them the twelve months preceding—that they
value, or paying an annual rent of that amount. If lie
qualifies on rent he must have paid up all arrears; if on
in give
the i d
pariah
s proof o
"t of
for
the
es as value
foraue of
hloOn/s.,
e or
ofb
ratedat
t
poor's rates. [Here the Noble Lord went into a state-
ment of the number of boroughs disfranchised, and
stahxae all
lls,
be
arrears
e entitl to a spe
cified
period
ss
such
bif
b;
iasnd nl a
ndo householder
landlord
pays
siiis
of those enfranchised, but in terms at variance with
the printed Bill- His Lordship almost immediately
corrected himself, but in a tone of voice not
heard below the bar.] Upon this general outline,
your Lordships are now called on to decide. I call
upon any man to say if it be exposed to objection. Will
it be considered that the right of nomination to borough's
forms a part of the British Constitution ; but, on the c n-
trary, will not ail men say that such a right is wholly at
variance, and inconsistent with the spirit and indepen-
dence of that Constitution ; I say, my Lords, that its ac-
knowledged principles demand the discontinuance of this
modern—l should call it this incorrigible—abuse, as the
only means of recovering that popular confidence without
which the representatives of the people in the Commons'
House of Parliament could not adequately discharge the
high trusts reposed in them. I will go much farther. I
will contend that, neither in theory or practice, is
such a system consistent with the principles of the British
Constitution. In theory, all men agree that the represens
tation of the people in the Commons House of Parliament
should be full, fair, and free; while, in the present prac-
tice, it is anything but full, fair, or free: and no roan can
contend for its continuance, unless he be also prepared to
maintain, that a system is beneficial to the country, in
accordance with the principles of political expediency and
unalterable justice, which gives to loan contractors and
speculating attorneys the rights and the influence AO:arch
ought to belong to rank and Landed possessions, and
local connection and personal character. I can little
imagine that, in times like the present, a system Fetch as
this can find its advocates ; that those strange and un-
just anomalies should be defended in the 19th century_.
in an age like this, when" the schoolmaster is abroad."—
( Hear, hear!) I should have imagined that merely
1 to state the existence of nomination boroughs in drat
country would be quite sufficient to ensure their beion de-
nounced. Let us see how far this matter affects the aristo-
eratic branch of the Legislature. In the writings of all
the men who have ever written on the Conetitrition of this
country—in the recorded resolutions of the House of Corn-
inons—in the proceedings of the House of Commons
—I can find no trace or vestige of any thing to warrant
such a pra aice as that nomination. On the contrary. the
emst careful steps have at various times been tsars for
the purpose of avoiding any practice of that suture, or
even having a tendency thereto. Were theeo in the theory
Isr
ittheprae reasonabletice toofsotlpi epo,Ceotnbsatittui
ttiownolaiirdi
anything of
eoefcatpheedsottrare,
acuteness of Locke and of Blackstone? It has not only
been acknowledged by them, but it has been denounced by
Chatham and Saville, by Pitt, by Fox, and by Grattan,
It has been denounced by them as that gross abuse, that
rank gangrene, which was eating into the vitals of the
Constitution, destructive alike of the liberties or the
people, the security of this House, and the maintenance of
the Throne.—(Cheers.) I refer to the records of Parlia-
ment, in evidence of the impropriety of the interference of
Peers in the election of the Members of the other ll:cs4s,k
At the commencemene oi• every session, is it net, qinde, a
standing order that Peers shall not interfere with the elec-
tion of Members of the House of Commons '•
And will
any man in the face of that maint4a that Peers ought to
a
buy and sell seats in Parliament ? 'Will any man,
upon a point like that, have the hardihood to set him-
'elf against the recorded resolutions ea; the House of
ms
°nns ? the HouseAnoth Another principle
cmmo ns of ;
our Constitution is,
and se jealous is that
that no man shall be taxed undeas through his represen-
Cntaotivae in
House of its privilegas, in respect to Bills for the imposi-
tion of taxes., that it will not allow this House to correct
the roost trifling mistake, without instantly thimble. out
the Bill. Will it then be contended that tic practice of
nomination is in any respect consistent with principles soda
:is thcse 7 The arguments, then, which rest, upon Pee
theory of the Constitution, are argutneens which I hold
cannot be refuted ; let us then come fro she practice of the
Constitution. I hold it to hg. equally ineonsistent with all
any man, b y
sucha any
p referenceraotice wto
as the
ever practice
leogtioclely ouroifnt ancestors,introduced? i:ced?i
shows
that I have ever been able to discover of that practice—
where is the proof- of its ever l!aving heen recognised ? Can
is not the known prerogative of the Crown to issue sum-
monses to towns and other places to return Members to
Parliament? And it is equally indisputable that for the
most part those writs were issued with a view to the
competency, wealth, and population of those places,, and
their general fitness to return Members of Parliament
when so suannomed. Is it not notorious that the issue of
those writs has been discontinued, either on application Sr.
be relieved from the burden of returning Members--for in
those days it was a burden—or (teen the known decay of
those places? These are fae';‘a notorious in the history of
Parliament. I do not memo to say that this prerogative hes,
at all times been Wieely exercised. Ido not mean to, say
that it might not have been e‘bv.a..d—that writs werneenied
where they onght to have been issued, and catia:,aued where
they ought to have been withdrawn ; but tells nothin
against the principle for which we a.le contending—that
principle is, that the representatio:,a of the people ought be,
only ground on which writs
g
a real representation ; the.
'..nat the borough had fallen into
could be refused, was
decay. These coaasiderations, then, lead nee to the other
branch of the aubject. It is said that the measure is one
of spee.ulation and robbery.—(A cheer from a Noble Lord
on one of the Opposition benches.) I think I hear some
Noble Lord assenting to this position. Let us look at
the foundation upon which this rests. I deny that
the right of returning Members to Parliament is
other than a trust I and surely no man will have the
hardihood to affirm that the obligations of a trust are
not perfectly distinct from the rights of property. Property
may he enjoyed—may be used—ruay be abused, provided
I the abuse injures no mar but the owner; hut a trust is
confided for certain ends and purposes; and if a trust be
violated, it may be resumed with perfect Justice. In the
private trkusacki,orts of life that principle bar, ever been
acted lis,n ; and I sea nothing that should deprive us of its
beteeAt in transactions of a public and neoletical character;
and I say that time, however long, c4n consecrate no abuse
so glaring and indisputable. Nothing can convert a trust
into a right of property, 'j'his, ales, is no act of rob.
bery or spoliatiou. A win: affirm that, over and over ageless,
the old practice ok the Constitution was, that the :King
should realise has welts; it is a matter of the moss perfect,
noteriery that forty-four boroughs and oue c...ry were thus-
in effect, disfranchised, in censequenceeef: the discontinue
once of the writs ; thus then th!:. sill, only proceeded ac,
cording to the usual practice: if the Constitution, in pro:
ceeding as it did with Ilea bereetahs contatued in aekeirnakt
A. Much has 4,r., SV4LI a tepoliatiou and roblaeey a taut
is there sneaking in neadero times that equally wall desei yes :
VI cc. •:,, ~inae rserne ? Look to the Uoson with Scotland;
on, that occasion sixty-five le Teseghs were reduced to fdteen,
t and one hundred berouglse an Ireland, returning here huge
deed Members, wene, under eieiiiar circunieteneeta distran-
ehised ; was tint an art o: robbery and, soeliatiou? 010,
hut thine wee, on that occasion, etonspeneataten..—(Loud
1 cries of " Hear, hear, sitar,,' from the Opposition
benches, re-echoed l'aertn, the, Minieseelal.) N.', it w.ts
not compere:a-4km,, ie was grvaa and scandalous bribery
_eorreept and neeerioua bribery—it was 5, lire te for
agNeing• to the Unitaea. I was in the Misuse of Costae,
mops at thee time. I voted against e).e measure 4 the
Upiteo at the time, but now thee it has been tarried,
that it has subsisted f;4 so. wady years, I must say
that any attempt tea sheeelee it would be in tae last degree
injurious to Loth ceonteies. Once agar.. i repeat, that
whaa vile. given, to the Irish borough-;rimers was not cona-
Paaettoos but a bribe.-Here Lord PLUNKETT addressed
a few words to the Notate, EA.]: lam rep ended by my
Nettle and Learned, r,ctiend, that twenty-riche of the Irish
hormiehe lee; ;see-half of their es:presentation without any
conapeneatiou whatever, -ef to take ;lie whole be a rob-
hery, surely to telse half is in principle the earn, ; but tie
object is t,‘p,uotorious to be disputed, or to teed any dis-
cu•ina.. No--if the Irish Parliament had not completelY
ftrfeited all claim to the confidence of the
to represent,, that Act would never have le en heard of
which is now attempted so be repealed, and whitehi,sl.thiAkt
never can be rooked without ruin to boatheeca:sunl haver said,
the period when that Union took place,
y afterweards I heard
in the House of Commons, sad 1.1")"'i the Irish House of
Mr. Foster, wile Lead been SP"'tec°
rho United Partied/lent,
Commons, *my in his place is
given, and Peerages bar-
b d been directly
chat money a
—.4Clieets and counter, sheers.) I
he' in hereof votes.
al.: no hesitation in saying, on the subject of I eerages, that
occasion—l allude to the Coronation, a time
no a recent occ people it proles,eds
when the Royal grace and prerogative are usually exercised
in reference to the Peerage—that I should not have done
my duty, if I had advised the exercise of that prerogative