The Sun.
London, England, 1832-01-19 00:00:00

3d, a free trade in corn. It was a mere waste of time
and of parchment to attribute the distress to a free trade.
The petition was then read, and ordered to be printed.
The HUN. Alrmszit also presented a similar petition
from a place, the name of which we did not hear.
Mr. ROBINSON, who had but a few minutes before
entered, observed that he understood it had been stated
that his Majesty's Government after taking the subject
into their consideration were not prepared themselves to
come forward with any specific charge.
Mr. SPRING RICE stated, that the Hon. Member had
been totally misinformed of what he did state. What
he bad said was, that he had been waited upon by
se►eral gentlemen in the trade, who had proposed
to him certain retnedie., which they thought would be the
means of eradicating the evil they complained of; but
which he (Mr. S. Rice), after great consideration, was
perfectly satisfied would rather aggravate than diminish the
disease.

Mr. ROBINSON would not then press the matter fur-
ther upon the attention of the House, as an Hon. Col-
league of his intended, in a few days, to bring the subject
forward. He, however, had been in hopes that Govern-
ment would, by this time, have been prepared to state
whether they had any remedies to suggest, or were prepared
again to adopt the prohibitive system.
Mr. WEYLAND though that those who were the
greatest advocates for free trade, ought to make an excep-
tion on the part of this particular branch of commerce.
On the motion of Mr. CAMPBELL, the Limitation of
Actions Bill ; the Fines and Recoveries Bill ; the Curtesy
of England 8.11, and Dower and Inheritance Bill, were
ordered to be committed en the 25th January, and the
Genets! Registry Bill, to be read the second time on the
lst of February.
Mr. HUNT presented a petition from the Political
Union of Manchester, praying f. r Parliamentary Reform,
Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and Vote by
Ballot. On the Hun. Member's moving that the petition
be brought up,
The SPEAKER wished to know in ►hat manner the
petition was subscribed?
Mr. HUNT observed, that it was subscribed as the pe-
tition of the members of the Manchester Political Union,
in public meeting assembled, and that it was signed by a
Mr. Grieves, as the chairman.
The SPEAKER observed, that no petition could be
received in that House presented from petitioners in the
plural number, unless it was signed by the petitioners. If
the petition came from a corporate body, and signed on behalf
of that body—that body being a legal body—the petition
would be received; but in the present instance, it being
signed by a single individual for a body, of which the law
took no cognizance—it could not be received.
Mr. HUNT then said he would withdraw the petition
in order to have it regularly signed.
The Hon. Micatuita then presented another petition from
the Members of the North Western Metropolitan Union
of Marylebone and St. Pancras, praying for the Repeal
of the Assessed Taxes.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. STANLEY stated, in answer to a question from
Mr. Leader, that he had received yesterday a paper, which
would give that gentleman part of the information he de-
sired, showing the total population of Ireland, according
to its present census, to be seven millions seven hundred
and thirty-four thousand ; being an increase of 13i per
cent. on the census of 1821.
Mr. LEADER then moved that there be laid on the
table, a comparative abstract of the population of Ireland,
taken in 1921 and 1831.
IRISH REFORM BILL.

Mr. STANLEY having presented a petition relative to
the Galway franchise, said, I now rise, Sir, to move that
leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the
representation of Ireland. In doing so I feel it is un-
necessary, and therefore inexpedient, that I should at any
length enter into a discussion of the various topics that
might naturally suggest themselves to the consideration of the
House during the progress of the Bill. And I think it
the more necessary to do so, because I have no reason to sus-
pect that the House will refuse me that indulgence which
it formerly granted to bring in such a Bill, and partly
because I consider the principles on which it is intro-
duced and supported to be the same which were so Lilly
theec ted
bEynlgolci 11l
rßeformcumst a
nßeiel
baunt duinuos tt r
ea
mt
Il
sou, of justice, and of the constitution of the United Empire.
(itlibikseecisuyasrstenoedbuenchanged, because they are the principles of rea-
odin
For this reason I do not think it necessary to enter into a
discussion on the principles which I imagine to have been
adopted and recognized by this House, and which, being
recognized with regard to England, must be recognized
with regard to Ireland, unless it can be shown that there
are specific reasons for not applying the same rule of con
duct to one country as the other. We have admitted that
eised fo that ha
thet the
ben corporations;efi t of
al l o f towns
should
ewn have
s
it is repugnant to the principles of the Constitution, that
ti ortan es
representatives for boroughs should be returned by nomina-
n
n
e
tion ;ffido
cerwad
oot orhnoaub:vge rc have
ht
hse x;
admitted
should not take to themselves a monopoly of those right,
rwe
geahrda vet a dopmmi
pt teerdt y , a los
uogthhta tt
oa
bcee rt rt
qti,
admitted that residence is an essential qualification of elec.
con-
sidered as the rule, upon which the representative
system should be established. Now, if there be any who
contend that these principles, in themselves true in Eng-
land, are false in Ireland ; if there be those who contend
that we must have the reality in England,and must be content
in Ireland with the mockery and delusion ;—on them,
and not on me, rests the onus of proving that there are
those circumstances which justify a deviation from the
rule we have adopted. At the same time, Sir, I
am quite aware that I am exposing myself
to no contemptible argument on the part of those who,
admitting the general principle, yet contend that neither
the time nor circumstance in regard to Ireland
have come when it is expedient to agitate such a
question. I shall he asked whether this be the time to
extend popular rights in a country when the authority of
law has been set at defiance, where contention has been in-
troduced, and excitement prevails that have led to the most
frightful excesses. Sir, I feel the force of that argument,
and I am not insensible to the additional difficulty thrown
in our way by the conduct of those who have excited that
easily excited people, and who, professing to mean well to the
cause of Reform, hare by every step they have taken,
thrown the most serious impediments in the way of a Re-
forming Government. At the same time it is not because of
the agitation that prevails, but in spite of it, that I
feel see are not justified in refusing at this time to do jus-
tice to Ireland.—(Hear.) I am ready also to admit that
the Reform Rill for Ireland need not be so extensive as that

for England. And for this reason. That much of what
has been done by the present Bill for England,
has gradually, progressively, and at various intervals,
been already effected for Ireland. If we look at the
representation of that country in its present state, bad
try as it is, and turn hack to the description of
it which was given in 1793 by Mr. Grattan, it is
impossible that any man should say that a real substantial
Reform has not already taken place in the representative
system of the county. In Ireland you have no Gatton, no
Old Sarum, no boroughs incapable of furnishing a decent
constituency. You have nothing to which it is not pos-
sible to fix the title of a respectable constituency. When
Mr. Grattan, in 1793, brought forward his motion for
Referw, according to the statement he then made, of
300 Members, 200 were returned by individuals, Irons
forty to fifty were returned by ten persons ; several of the

. . , , ....
boroughs had no electors at all ; some had but one ;
and, on the whole, two-thirds of the representa-
tives of the House of Commons were returned by
less than a hundred persons.—(Hear.) This is not, says
Mr. Grattan, that ancient Constitution of King, Lords
and Commons: it is nut even an Aristocracy; it is

an Oligarchy ; it is an Oligarchy, not of property,
but of accident ; not of prescription, but of inno-
vation. The Reform, however, in Parliament, in a
great measure which is now adopting with regard to Ire-
land was adopted at the Union, because they proceeded
on a principle of disfranchising the rotten and nomination
boroughs. lam not now entering into the consideration
whether Ireland should have, 399 or 200, or 100 Mem-
bers, and still less on the mode by which the Union was
carried, and the Reim in effected. But representation
has by tbat means been put on a different footing,
by the cutting off of the the rotten and decayed ports : in
short, that system which we recommend with regard to
England, was adopted in reference to Ireland, at the Union.
Instead of 300 M,rnbers, 100 alone were left ; of these, 62
were county ;Members ; two representatives more were given
to the principal cities, and the remaining 31 to the prin-
cipal boroughs ; thereby we ars doing for Ireland what
now we are doing fur England.—(Hear.) When
Mr. Grattan brought forward his proposition for Reform,
be stated the principles on which at that time, he recom-
mended his measure, and I beg that these will be borne
in mind, because in a large proportion his views
hare already been carried into effect, while at the
same time the other portion are being carried into
effect. "We agree, I apprehend, that twelve burgesses
should not return Members to Parliament ; we cannot
differ about the propriety of residence. We agree
that close boroughs should be disfranchised, and on
extending the right of franchise, of the close corpora-
tions, to freemen by birth, marriage, or servitude ; that is,
to the respectable resident inhabitants ; perhaps we shall
not differ as to the right of voting, of a universal re-

..... -
giltry, election to be limited in time, and carried on in