The Sun.
London, England, 1832-04-10 00:00:00

by the united will of the I:enlatien, the King, Lords,
and Commons,—(Cheers.) It is to be passed, therefore,
after sufficient and mature deliberation. It is to proceed
according to the known fitters of the constitution, and to
be carried into effect by the acknowledged authorities
of the State—carried into effect by the will of the three
co-ordinate branches of the Legislature, the Kinn, Lord.,
and Commons. It touches, therefore, The of the ordi
nary authorities—invades none of titnetoms of the Consti-
tution, nor the powers of the Oetewn which are intruste
with the preservation of the authorities of the State. With
such it tines not protein to meddle or interfere.— (Cheers. )
Why then is it to he designated a rtvolntionary measure—
a 'word to be used only in reference an in-
terference with a succession to tnet monarchs', or
the authority of the State ?—(Hear, hear.) It can only
mean that, and I say it dette neither ; and that neither in
its character, nor in its terms, nor in its mintiples can
it be described to be revolutionary. It is a Reform of Par-
liameat, and how, again I ask the Noble Duke, does he
distieraish Reform from revolution? How is a Reform tai
effected? I know no way of effecting a Reform of Par-
liament, which presupposes some defect ir. the Con
stitution of Parliament—(Hear, hear, neat)—some defi-
ciency in the mode of representation, but in one or all al
these three modes, either by disfranchising decayed boroughs,
which was the ancient practice of the Constitetion, and
cannot be considered es revolutionary—Jetty( cheers)
and that is disfranchisement ; or by giving the right
to return representatives to great nswes which' have risen
to opnlence and importance, as has been the practice in
all times, and that is not revolution, hut reformation; or
else by an extension and improvement in the right
of voting, which has also been done when a
change cf times has restored it, and which I
again say is not revolution but Reform.—(Loud clients.)
By one, or either, or all of those modes is Reform of
Parliament, according to n:y notion, to he effected ;
and accordingly, in all the plans that have hitherto been
proposed to Parliament—in all the ; sans hitherto proposed
by the great men as/10 have preceded me, and in
those which I may have been presumptuous enough to
have proposed to the other House of Parliament,
ell the plans have proceeded either upon one or all of these
modes.—(Cheers.) I trust, therefore, I stand here bringing
+Omani a measure, not going beyond the ancient limns of
the Constitution of the country, and th it can in no way
be considered as of a revolutionary kind. But is it necessary
to argue thus Let us recur again to the great
advantage we have in bringing forward this measure, in the
general acquiescence of the. people of this countryen(llear)
—not of the mob—not of persons uninstructed in Reform__
:Cheers)—let not Noble Loris imagine that that is the
description, and the only description of the persons who
have asked for this measure.—( Hear, hear, Incr.)
It is requested by the great mass of to intel-
ligent, the powerful, the opulent, the aushneitative, and
cf all the most important in society,._(Loud awl re-
iterated chesty.) Why, then, can it be necensery
fur me to go into argument to prove that a measure Cannot
be revolutionary which is supported in the way 1
now state. Who are the persons wipe support it ? I say
they are the mast intelligent end the most important
art of the community, possessing the greatest rrenenee of
wealth, and the most vital interests in the peoperty of this
country, of which they possess so large te share—(Cheers) ;
And can it be believed in the 30th century, with the
improvements of knowlenge, with all the intelli-
gence which that class of persons possess, that they
would come forward and propos- to your Lordships—nay,
..iltreat, that you would adopt as a measure of salvation to
them and to their posterity, a system of Reform which was
dcstroy their rights of property—a measure to
interfere not only with the security of their posses-
tootle, but to interfere with those institations of the
country which it was their desire not to pull
down, but to improve, and in such a mannee as to afford
them and theirs the heat and most ample protection ?
my Lords, I therefore proceed to say, that this Bill is
founded, like the last, on the three great principles which
I have just named ; and having on a former occasion
twice addressed your Lordships, at very great length, in
support of the views which induced me to propose a
measure founded upon those great principles, I will
ebetain at the present time from going into those general
iniguments which I could only repeat without adding to
your information, and which would consequently
be a useless waste of your Lordship' time. I
will therefore confine myself to a statement of those
circumstances, on which, in respect to those principles
and the measures founded upon them, the present Bill dif-
fers from the one last presented to yetis' Lordships'
notice ; and first with respect to the principle of
disfranchisement. It is proposed by the present Bill to
di franchise, as it was by the lass, a certain number of bo-
roughs which base fallen into decay, which are considered, I
think justly considered, as an abuse in the system of re-
presentation, and to substitute for them those towns
winch have risen to much wealth and importance.
(Hear, hear.) The manner in which that number
of boroughs has been selected, I will now state. It was
vroposed by the former Bill that a certain line ghould
be drawn, by which all places having a population
under 2,000, and in which it was thought, and
justly thought, that a sufficient constituency could
not be found, that all such boroughs should be
sthoiishrd- The advantage of that mede was this ;
we drew a distinct line by which its application
was limited, and in that degree we were pre-
cluded from the charge of partiality. But it was
objected that we were proceeding upon a principle
(which principle was population) that was very unjust. I
explained at that time, that that might not be the true.
representation of that principle, but that though
population had been taken as a criterion, it was
but a criterion; but it was the best which occurred to
me, and those members of his Majesty's Government
with whom I acted, by which the relative importance
of name places could be ascertained. I do not
k , my Lotds, that any great inconvenience
would arise, if we had adhered to that criterion ;
but when I, and those who acted with me,
with a sincere and anxious desire to consider
eisp;ssionately any proposition which emanated from any
other quarter, with a view, if possible, and to take a bet-
ter criterion, if it could be a-certalned, came to
consider the subject, we certainly thought
could we take a better criterion by a mixed estimate of the
number of houses according to the census of 1631-(which was the
best proof of population) and the amount of assessed totes. That
criterion is founded according to the best principles of
telcuntion, and has been approved of by those autho-
rities who are best informed upon such subjects, and
we therefore think it is the best mode of ascertaining
the relative importance of the boroughs. Having
adapted that plan, we have adhered to the dis-
franchisement of a certain number of boroughs.—(Hear.)
I am aware by looking into this new mode of calcula-
tion, we do not gain that certain distinct line which
was attained tinder the fonner bill; but I think it will be
found when your Lordships come to examine the mea-
sure,—and I trust your Lordships will go into
the examination of it in Committee with the
intention of canvassing it minutely and strictly—
I think and say it will be found, that admitting the prin-
ciple that decayed boroughs must be disfranchised, it would
not be possible to reduce the timber proposed
in the Bill to be so dealt with, although
possibly according to this new mode of calculation rea-
sons might be given for' extending it. The best
friends, however, of the Bill have concurred with
me in thinking it inexpedient to propose to Parliament
to extend disfranchisement further than it was ex-
tended in the last Bel, In adopting, therefore, the cre-
terion given by the number of house., and the
nmeunt of assessed taxes conjoined, we trust we
have obviated the objection raised to the former
mode of estimating the value of boroughs. I trust that
this new criterion will receive the approbation of tie
House, and more particularly of that portion of it which
objected to that which was adopted in the former
Rill. I do not think it necessary to say more
un this part of the subject. I have already said that it
itt admitted that in any pia] of Reform, there must
be some measure of disfranchisement. The ques-
tion here will be, whether the measure we
have adopted, is too much or too little.
I think it will be found, when your Lordships go
into Committee ; that it is not too much ; but that is
at any rate a question to be discussed there ; so that
I trust your Lordships will adopt the minion
hich it is this night my duty to make. My Lords,
the next alteration made relates to schedule B. When this
question was before under the consideration of the House, I
said that I was aware schedule B was the weak part of the
Bill, and as lam still aware objections may be made to it
nas been our desire to reduce as much as possible the
amount of those objections. In taking schedule B
according to the criterion which has been applied
to schedule A, we have, instead of forty-one
boroughs, in schedule B 30, having taken out
of it 11 of the most considerable towns formerly in it,
altogether restoring to them their original right to return
two Members. Included in these eleven towns, many
cf them, by the way, very impertant, are, it should be
observed, several county towns, the pat tial disfranchisement
of which before created so much cneection. I know
it may be said that the Bill is full of anomalies.
I know it will he said that the boroughs restored
from schedule B to their original right of re-
turning two Members each, are many of teem inferior
in importance, poptilation, and wealth, to some of those
boroughs to which the franchise has now been ex-
undid. This and other similar anomalies, I admit,