The Sun.
London, England, 1823-04-07 00:00:00

EAST INDIA SUGAR.

EXTItACT from t MEMOICIAL of the COURT of DI-
RECTORS of the EAST INDIA COMPANY, to the
LORDS of the TREASURY, Dated April 7, 1823.
" Your Memorialists respectfully represent to
44 your Lordships, that there is at this time, and
" has long been, a loss upon East India Sugar ;
" and further, that by far the greater part of
" such Sugar is at present Imported into England
" for re-exportation."
" Profit and loss on Sugar Trade of the. East
" India Company for thirty years.--Nett loss,
44 596,0031."

Thus it appears from authentic documents thu

the East India Proprietors have an interest in the
discontinuance' of tlw Sugar Trade by the Company,
since they have lost more than hay' a million ster.
ling by it.
It is, in truth, a measure to benefit a few
traders to India—the very traders who have en-
deavoured to ruin the Proprietors—They hare
already despoiled the Company of all their trade
but their Tea trade, which they tried to do, and
will, at the end of the Charter, deprive the Pro-
prietors of this source of Revenue to pay. their
Dividends.

The Proprietors are therefore called upon to
protect themselves against this attempt, and to
ballot against the Resolutions of these Traders,
w1)0, havinkexported more than the consumption
of India (as was the case to Buenos. Ayres) are
desirous of making the East India Company
Parties to relieve them from the effects of their,
own impudence.

They well knew, when they entered into the
East India Trade, what the law was, and that it
gave protection to the Sugar of the British Colo.
nial Agriettltttrists ; they have therefore no
claim to have their losses front speculation made
good at the expence of others.
I repent, it is a quostion in which the Pro-
prietors are only interested to oppose the

tions, which, if carried, will ;igain involve► the
Company in a losing Trade, and tend to AnMish
their dividends.

AN EAST INDIA PROPRIETOR.

51,385,843

149,824,057

258,0264

1,819,012

Deduct Increase -

Decrease on the Year

258,0211

1,561,700

ON THE SYSTEM ofCLOSE BOROUGHS

RECOLLECTIONS and REFLECTIONS, PERSONAL
and POLITICAL, as connected'with Public Affairs during
the Reign of King GEORGE the Third, by Jo art Nicirot.r.s,
Esq. M.P., in the 15th, lOth, and 18th Parliaments of Great
Britain.
Mr. Nrcuou.s says, these Recollections and Reflections
were written during his late residence in France, and that he is
aware " that there are expressions which may be unacceptable
" to the partisans both of .Mr. Pitt and of Mr. Fox, but that he
" has spoken with the inlegrity of an Historian."
This Gentleman was, we believe, educated for the Bar, but
never practised. His father was Physician to King George the Se-
cond, and his mother was the (laughter of the celebrated Doc-
tor Mead.—Mr. Nicholls has always been considered a sound,
constitutional Lawyer, and although he in general supported
Mr. Fox and his party, yet on several important questions
he voted against them. In private life Mr. Nicholls has been
universally esteemed. He was particularly intimate with that
excellent man and learned. Judge, the late Mr. Justice Law-
rence, and although their political opinions were atipposed to
be opposite, yet it never affected or disturbed their friendship.
Mr. Nicholls may be strictly considered as one of the few ho-
nest old-fashioned Whigs now living, fbr, whilst advocating a
rational Reform, or rather a cort'rction Values in the practice
of Elections, lie is the steady friend of the Monarchy and of
the People, and desiroui only of destroying the unconstitu.
tional influence exercised by certain familin m Close Boroughs.
Mr. Nicholls states that he presumed to point out to "..The.
So-
ciety of the Friends of the People," the state of the Close Bo-
roughs,
and that an Address was voted to the Howe of Coin..
mons on the subject ; " but it was seen that the correction of
" this abuse would be injurious to the interests of the Leaders
" of the Faction of the great Whig Families, and all further
" attempts at Reform in Parliament were abandoned i"
After this candid admission of Mr. Nicholls. we must no
longer be surprised at the rejection of Mr. Willianies BR, In
18111, to destroy occasionally in (10%e Boronglis The period,
has, however, arrived when this important subject must tinders
fro discussion ; the principle of Reform or correction of Abuses
in the practice of Parliament is conceded by the Government
by one of the provisions in the Seditious Bill of December
1819, and by the declaration of the King's Minister, if we are
correctly, informed, in the debate on that Bill ; when he salt%
" that he would concur in any measure which might be intro-
" duced into Parliament to put an end to the corrupt practice
" of ' occasionalty' in voting at Elections."
From Mr. Nicholl's work much useful information may be
obtained, though we by no means approve of all his views of
public men and measures—still the work is deserving the seri-
ous attention of the Public, as it will enable them to appreciate
truly, which of the two great Parties in the State are most likely
to adopt measures conducive to tile general happiness, welfare,
and liberty of the country.

CHAPTER
'REFORM IN PARLIAMENT.
I will ficiw consider that most important question the Re.
form, of Parliament. A dicision on this question must ere
long take place. The general attention of the nation has
been called to it. The people must be subdued, or the sub.
ject must be fully examined, and some Reform consented to.
Let me first state the sense in which I use the words Reform
and Revolution.

I consider Reform to be a correction of abuses without de-
stroying the existing Constitution. I consider Revolution to
be a correction of abuses, accompanied with the destruction of
the existing Constitution.
In England, in 1088, the nation removed the existing dy-
nasty, and established a new one. As the dynasty is cons).
dered as the most prominent part of the Constitution, this
change has been denominated Revolution. Perhaps, accord-
in to my definition, it might more properly have been
called a Reform ; for the two other existing parts of the Con.
stittttion' viz. the House of Lords and the House of Comnsns,
were left unaltered.

In 1789, that Government which had existed in France
during the reigns of Louis XIV. and Louis XV. was swept
away. A new Constitution was established, and when
Louis XVI. accepted Royalty under this new Constitution, the
same dynasty, but under a new tide, was placed on the Throne.
I coraider this proceeding in 1789 to have been, in the fullest
sense of the word, a Revolution.
In 1800, the Irish Government was abolished, and the in.
habitants of Ireland subjected to a new Constitution. This
measure-also I consider as a Revolution.
I have always dreaded Revolution. The crisis consequent
on it, is sometimes beneficial ; I believe it will ultimately
be found to be so in France; but the paroxysms which pre.
cede the crisis, are terrifying. As an Englishman, I have
alwaya wished for Reform ; because I have always been of opi-
nion, that if Reform did not take place, Revolution would be
a necessary consequence of the existing abuses.
I will state what I consider as ths eiblize which stands most
in need q/ beiv eorrerted. It is this—that individual Peers
have, in many places usurped the nomination of Members of
Parliament from those aggregate bodies of the communit to
Crown
which the had originally granted it. I have said indi-
vidual Peers ; lam aware that in many places, individual
Commoners have usurped the property In boroughs ; but the
usurpation is most frequently by Peers: and the acquisi_
don is first made by a CA' mnwoner, the power which he bas
thereby acqutrett soon occasions hint to be elevated to the
Peerage. The mischief is also greater where the usurpation
is by a Peer; for after he has acquired this unconstitutional
power, he exercise* functions inconsistent with each other
in impeachments. for example, the Copintone are the accusers,
and the Peers the Judges ; but if the Alemliers of the House
of Commons, who prefer the accomtion, are nominated by
the Peers; and thete is any truth in that maxim of the
common law, Qui tacit per annul,
.faeit per se, thoee who
are the Judges are at the "tame time the Accusers. Will Any

10,903,560

10,608,104 1 32,707

Deduct Increase

:reuse on the Qttartei

328,163

32,707

295,456

INCOME and C17.4110E Ofthe CONSOLID.ITED FUN!) in the Quarters ended sth 4pril, 182'2 and 1823,
INCOME. CHARGE.
Qrs. ended April 5: Qrs. ended April 5.
f, • A.:.-u...........,....,
1822. 1823. 1822. 11123:
.
Customs - - - - - 1,983,208 1,973,397 Exchequer Annuities 4 - 4 .4:23,750 4:21,701
Excise - - - - - 5,856,798 5,151,279 South Sea Company - - , 153;456 '85,971
Stamps . . . - - 1,58.2,340 1,573,854 Bank on their Capital - - - '. - 89,125 89,125
Post-ffice - - 320,000 330,000 Dividends ~. - - - - - 5,744,188 4,735,176
Taxes- 979,970 858,811 National Debt - - - - 3,195,703 1,210,000
M iscellaneous - - 63,621 76,799 Trustees for the payment of Naval and
. - Military Pensions - - - 1,400,000
10,785,949 9,964,140 Civil List . - - - - 212,509 212,500
To Cash brought to Consolidated Fund, Pensions - - - - - 93,475 94,374
being the amount issued in Ireland Imperial Annuities -- - - --.- for public services, per Act 56 Geo.III. • Other Charges .- 97,262, 71,153
cap. 98, sec. 12. - - - 368,620 89,628 ----
.
9,609,519 7,920,u00.
11,154,569 10,053,768 Surplus - - - 1,545,050 2,133,768
. ~-

Exchequer Bilk issued to meet the
charge at the lith ofJan. 1823
Deduct surplus - - -

11,154,569

%.928,3t4
2,133,768,

10,053,768

Exchequer Bills to he issued to meet
the charge at sth of April, 1823 £3,794,586.

man say that this ought to be ? By the principles of our Con-
stitution, the Commons are to ,vote the taxes, and the Peers
have only a right to prevent the proposed tax from being im-
posed, by refusing their consent, This regulation was intro-
duced to protect the Commons from being taxed beyond what,
they could bear. But what becomes of this protection. if the.
.Peers are allowed to name the Members of the House of Com-.
mans ? Immoderate taxation is the real cause of our present
distress; and men call for a Reform of the House ot Com-
mons, because they feel that the power of taxing
.has been
abused.
Kings first summoned to Parliament Representatives from
bodies of the Commonalty, that they might be protected against
their great vassals. The great vassals saw this, and endeavoured
to deprive the King of this defence, by compelling these ag.
gregate 'bodies of the' COmrnonalty to depute to Parliament
those men whom the several Peers might select. This attempt
of the Peers seems to have been made at a very early period
after RePresentatiVes of the Commons were hist summoned to
Parliament ; for in the first Parliament of Edward I. he enacted
pro Visions to restrain this conduct in the Peers. The exprea.
lions in the act are th---e " Forasmuchas Motions ought to
be free, the King forbids, on pain of severe forfeiture, that any
great man or other should, by force of arms, or by menaces, or
by any subtile contrivance, disturb the freedom .of Election,"
The Commons of England now stand in need of this pro-.
tection against the Peers, which was heretofore wanted by
our Kings. I know it will be said, that the Peer, who noon.
sates Members of the House of Commons, and afterwards
.sells their votes to the Minister, pays hia proportion of those
taxes which are imposed. This may be true ; but the gain
of his immediate object induces hint to forget the more distant
evil.

I decline giving instances in the present reign, of the abusive
exercise of power thus acquired : but I will name one instance
in the reign of George 11. ; and it is so generally known, that
I am confident no man will dispute the correctness of the anec-
dote. The post of Captain of the Band of Pensioners was
vacant ; the King wished to give it to a gentleman whom he
desired to have about his person. The Minister, Mr. Pelham,
proposed to give it to another gentleman ; but after same
struggle, the Minister yielded,. and the post was destined, for
the King's friend, At this moment, before the place was at..
tually given away, Lord Falmouth signified to the Minister,
that he wished to have this employment. Mr. Pelham rernon.
strated with him that the place was destined for a personal
friend of the King : the only answer which Lord Falmouth
made, was ; " Sir, we ate nine." This was the only answer
which the Minister could obtain from him; and because Lord
Falmouth named nine Members of the house of Commons, the
King and the Ministers were both obliged to submit. Lord
Falmouth certainly paid his share of. the taxes, which these
nine Members assisted the Minister..to impose. But this con-
sideration was Out-weighed by the immediate object which he
obtained.
The people of England have been gradually led to demand
a Reform in the.llouse of Commons. , I believe the late .Earl
of Chatham was among the first who suggested the necessity.
Ile saw that the number of Members nominated by Proprietors
and Patrons of Borolighs was so large, that thepeople were not
protected against immoderate taxation.
Toward the close of the American war, the people were led
to observe that they had been engaged in that war, and sub.
jected .to heavy taxes, for the purpose of enforcing a claim
of the House of Commons to tax their fellow-subjects in Arne.
rice). Row far the Rouse of Commons .was entitled to this
right, was at leak doubtful ; for the usage had always been
for the .Colonies to tax themselves in their own Provincial
Assemblies ; and on questions of Constitutional Rights, usage
has always been appealed to. The people of England found
themselves disappointed in that hope which had been held out
to them, that by procuring Revenue from America. taxation
on the inhabitants of Great Britain would be diminished.....
They experienced the very reverie of this hope which had been
so-held out3to them. They, found their own burthens immo-
derately increased, and if the contest were persevered in, they
saw no bounds to taxes. While the Country was in this situa-
tion, several eminent men pointed out to the people, that im-
.moderate taxation was the consequence of the existing state of
the House of Commons ; that a Retbrill of that House was ne.
cessary : that the people ought to be more efficiently represent.
ed in if. • •
The Duke of Richmond was among those who stood fore-
most in recommending a Reform of Parlisment. The remedy
which he suggested, was Election by Universal Suffrage,
If I am correct in-what I have stated respecting the manner
in which aggregate bodies of the Commonalty acquired the
right of sending Representatives to Parliament—the Duke
of-Richmond's plan-would not have been a Reform, but a Re.
volution.

I will acknowledge that I have always heard with regret,- the
suggeition of this plan. It never could be a permanent Con 4.
stitution. It might possibly be an intermediates state, through
which, after much suffering, we might ultimately pass twa
good Constitution.
I have said, that the nomination to some seats in Parliament,
has been usurped by Peers; I will explain what I mean by
this assertion. In Burgage-tenement Boroughs, the right of
electing Representatives to Parliament has been granted to
every owner of a freehold interest, in a tenement within the
Borough ; and it has been decided, that the ache of an ancient
Burgage entitles the owner to a vote: A Peer purchases a
majority of the urgae or ancient scites. The inght before
the election, he B
sendsg down his dependants. The Noble
Lord's steward then delivers a Conveyance of a Burgage to
each person ; the next morning they are carried up to vote,
and as soon as the return is made, the several Voters give
hack their Conveyances to the steward, and they are heard
of no more. The 141tanbers thus returned, have not been
elected by proprietors of a freehold in the'Burgages ; for the
Conveyances transferred no interest to the several persons
to whom they. were made. Suppose thii Noble Lord had
made these. Conveyances to prevent tin.4to Ilurgage-tene..
,rnents from being taken in execution by his creditors ; will