The Sun.
London, England, 1832-04-11 00:00:00

ins of the boroughs, he said that they were the
rotten parts of the State, hut that they must be preserved.
They were like a diseased limb, which adhered to the
body and was obliged to be left remaining, in order to
preserve life. Amputate that limb, and death must
follow. Then came Mr. Pitt, who had adopted souls
of his father's opinions. When he wan in opposition
he brought forward two plans of Reform ; but Mr.
Pitt entertained a strong notion of the value ei
these boroughs. He alao was for disfranchise-
ment. One of his plans would have ifiafranchised
thirtv-six boroughs, and he would have divided the
seventy-two Members among the great towns and
counties. But there was this difference between his
plata and the present one, that he proposed to esta-
blish a fund, in order that the franchise might be pur-
chased front any borough which did not tseiah to retain it,
privilege. There was also one aing(abte clause in his Bill,
that no town was to be enframehised against its wish.
t.7er tainly, in those days that provision was not wanted.
IHear, hear.) Here he was for keeping el the
rights of parties inviolate, and he (Lord Mansfield )
thought that no Minister would have done wrong to have
copied him in this point. Then came Mr. Flood's plan
of Reform, of which Mr. Fox said, that he did hot so
touch approve of it as of that of his Right Hon. Friend.
[The Noble Lord here read a long extract front it speech
of Mr. Fox's, which passed a high sealogitun upon Mr.
Pitt's plan.] Whether the present Bill deserved to be so
characterized, he would leave to the Noble toed oppo-
site. He objected to the Bill upon principle, and
ho alteration which it could receive in Committee could ef-
face his objections, He certainty thought that if the
'rights of boroughs were to he sloes taken away, no property
which was held under a ;,barter from the Crown could be
safe ; and he would even go further and say, that no species
of property could be safe, if this Bill passed into a law.
Indio(' he would go further, and a its that all property
would be affected by it. The union between eights
and property generally would be dissolned. When
he looked to the preamble of the Bill, and saw that
:it was " expedient to deprive certain boroughs of their
rights," it was the infirmity of his mind to conceive that
the greatest tyrant that ever existed could not proceed to
au act of injustice without some attempt at palliation,
either he attempted t doubt the existence of the right,
ur he imputed some delinquence to his victim.
—(Hear, hear, hear.) On a former ocettaion
admitted that rights were removable on compensation,
un tiae occasion of an emergency, add he 113,1 given the
Scotch heritable jurisdiction as art example of it. The
evils which this Bill was introduced to remedy, were
incompatible with good Government, and particularly
obnoxious to the Parliament of Enaland, where such feudal
rights had been obliterated. Yet the object of that
right was stated to be "for remedying the incenveniercie,a
that have arisen, and may arise from the tnuittplicity
of heritable jurisdiction, for making satisfaction to the
proprietors thereof; and for restoring to the Crown
the power of jurisdiction originally and properly
belonging thereto, according to the Constitution."
Here, therefore, were the rights justly odious in
the view of the Parliament then legislatine, rather
(obtained by a prescriptive than by an unquestionable
title, and yet the rights of the proprietor wete ac-
- knowledged and received satisfaction. Now that was one
of those acts to which the great improvement that
Scotland has made, is to be ascrib,d ; but to come
nearer home, they had heard a speech from the
Throee in October, 1831, which, after recom•
mending the subject of Reform to the serious considea
ration of Parliament, expresSett his Majesty's wish
for such an improvement in the representation as should he
found necessary for securing to his people the full enjoyment
of their rights. Now, constitutionally speaking, that was
the speech of his Majesty's Ministers; but was it their
intention that the rights of the poor people should be main-
tamed, and that the rights of individuals of which that
people was cotneosed, should be trampled uneler foot': He
begged to state, that in adverting to this plan of Reform he
was not attempting to give an (pinion as to their merits.
His intention was merely to protect rights from aggres-
sion, not to point out any manner in which these
rights were to be acquired by the Legislature. If it were
the wish of Parliament to acquire those rights, it
might then be made the subject of future discussion,
but he was now imploring for justice. But if all close
horoughs could be disfranchised, would it he any
particular advantage ? The advantage dist sons
of Peers should find a seat in the other House of
Parliament, in which they might acquire a facility
of public speaking, and prepare themselves for the
func,ions they were to perform in that House, was not
confined to them as individuals, but extended also to the
State. This was so eloquently illustrated by the Noble
Earl that he would not now again allude to it. At the pre-
sent moment, the interests of the empire were not confined to
Great Britain alone. We had extensive colonial
and foreign possessions which were not directly
represented. When discussions were to take place on
the state of the West Indies, the renewal of the India or
Hank charter, would it not be fair that these interests
should be indirectly represented, and that the House
of Commons should have men of experience and infor-
mation to guide them in their decisions ? Brat such
then having just returned from India, i. might Le per-
fectly impossible for them to represent a large eonsthueney.
There might he a clamour, as at present, for a
indiscriminate abolition of all monopolies, and
the voters might require from the candidates pledges
that such men could not conscientiously give, and those
candidates would be preferred who would make the
most liberal offers. He did not give his opinion
as to the propriety of abolishing monopolies, but simply
he would express his belief, that as at present consti-
tituted, the decisions of Parliament would be founded on
information and evidence, but that in a reformed Parlia-
ment these cases would he prejudged. It had been
assumed, and not so often contradicted as it ought to
have been, that the representatives of close boroughs were
invariably the tools of the Ministry. Now the reverse was no-
toriously the case, and there were instances in which a public
man had been rejected by his constituents in towns or
counties on account of his political conduct, who afterwards
had not disdained to re-enter the House of Commons by
the narrow portal of a close borough, and there re-asserted
his former opinions. What were public men to
do?- Were they to deceive their constituents,
or 'retract their opinions? There was another course to he
adopted—giving way to public opinion ; not that
opinion for which he, with the Noble Earl opposite,
entertained so high a respect, but public clamour : and he
could conceive a public man of splendid wit, who in
eat ly youth had conceived plans of the most extensive Re-
form, which, in his mature age, he had thought unsafe
or impracticable, afterwards called to the councils
of his sovereign, urged by the voice of the people,
echoed by such representatives as this Bill would
give, and, goaded by a licentious but powerful Press, he
might be driven forward in the course of wild innovation,
with a celerity by no means proportioned to his opinions
or wishes—(Hear)—experiencing at the close of his
public life regrets not less painful, because studiously
concealed, that his ambition had been gratified, but
that he had sacrificed the public weal, and that the
impartial historian would not associate his name with
the growing glory and prosperity of his country, but
rather ascribe to him, and the measures he proposed, the
beginning of her d cay. He had hitherto spoken of the ef-
fects of this Bill as rendering the House of commons more
democratical. But he had heard it stated for the purpose
of disarming objection, that the House would in fact be
rendered more aristocratical.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
The question then was, what would be the consequence of
their Lordships rejecting this Bill ? He admitted that that
was rather a difficult- question to solve, but he could

not think that any apprehensions of danger could justify
their Lordships in a dereliction of their duty,(Hear
hear.) The rejection of the Bill, in his opinion, ought not
t.-) he followed by any declaration of the readiness of their
Lordships to agree to a plan of moderate Reform.
To those words no definite idea could be attached.
To individual* such declarations might be painful; ita
public assemblies they were subject to danger and liable
to misinterpretation. What, he would ask, would. then
follow, if he were to believe in those threats
which had been so plentifully held out by the:Press,
in language most gross and libellous as it respected, indi-
viduals, but worse than libellous, almost treasonable
to the Sovereign and to the whole body of their Lordships'
House, whose existence was threatened with destruction ?
These libels, of the most gross description, had been
brought under the notice of His Majesty's Attorney-Gene-
ral, but the parties who had composed them had had
the good fortune to escape his censure, except in those
eases in which his fiscal sensibility was awakened by
the infringement of the stamp duties.—(Hear.) In the
metropolis violence of anothe^ description had taken place,
such as the demolition of windows and so on'; hut those
were trifles compared with the serious insurrections that

had taken place in different parts of the country. But
be had an opinion that those insurrections would never
have permanent success, if Government did its duty. When
he was anticipating, last Session, the dangers to which
he had adverted, he expressed a confidence in Ministers
which he was sorry to say was now very much
impaired. But he trusted that the lamentable outrages
which had taken place at Bristol and Nottingham would
open their eyes, and that they would see it was not
enough to deprecate violence, but that they must show
13, activity proportioned to the danger. This was