The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-23 00:00:00

REFORM BILL.

Mr. C. PELHAM said h.. had listened with the deepest
attention to the arguments that had been urged on both
sides during the important discussions on the question now
before the House. These discussions he considered of the
most serious and grave description, and well worthy
the notice of the House, especially from the important
conseqcences involved in them. The only substantial
reason he had beard from the mouths of gen-
tlemen on the other side of the House was, that those
out of doors would have the Bill, and therefore it must
pass. This was no fanciful notion of his; for an
Honourable Member on the other side had used
these very words—" That there was now a de.
mocratical change in the people." He had no wish to
speak against the revered person of the present Monarch,
but if he wished to substitute another form of Government
for pure and limited Monarchy, he could not adopt
more convenient language. He had paid the greatest
attention to the speech of his Majesty's Attor-
ney-General, but there was one principle in it to
which, as an independent Member of Parliament, looking,
as he had a right to de, to every thing that concerned ge-
nerally the legislature, he could not assent. That principle
was, that the House had no right to interfere with the
concerns of the other House. [lt was almost utterly impos-
sible to hear one sentence in the gallery from the beginning
to the end of the Hon. Gentleman's speech. We under-
stood him to say that the real distresses of the country
would not, in his opinion, be removed by this Bill ; and
that the act of purifying the House of Commons would be
better accomplished by pausing than by adopting the course
the House appeared to he about to pursue.]
Mr. J. STANLEY contended that Reform of some
sort or• another was called for, by not only the bulk of
the public, but nearly every Member of the House of
Commons, every Member without almost an exception.
Lord Bolingbroke had recommended, as the only
remedy for the evils of the country, a Reform in Par-

. -
liament, and to give the people a more equal representation
in that House. That illustrious philosopher had said
that so long as a few individuals could controul the Go-
vernment of the country, so long must that Government
be carried on by undue influence. An Administration, said
Lord Bolingbroke, must concede to an Oligarchy places
and profits in return for the power they give them. Lord
Bolingbroke complained, a hundred years ago, shat
the corruptions of Parliament would spread to every
department of the State, and would make the Aristocracy
a most degraded body. He had contended that the
power of Old Sarum or Gatton was as great as that
of the Members for Yof kshire or London; and
the remedy was that all such boroughs should be abolished.
He (Mr. Stanley) should be reluctant to change any of the
old institutions under which England had enjoyed more of
liberty than any other part of the world ; but he

found that under the same system practical evils existed,
and for which practical evils practical remedies must be
provided. The present system of representation had enabled
Ministers to carry on disgraceful wars against the sense
of the country at large. The American War was carried
on in opposition to the opinions of the people at large, re -
peatedly expressed, and likewise in opposision to the
decided sentiments of the real representatives of
the people ; and all this was done because the Ministry were
backed by the Members for close boroughs. It was the asto-
nishment of the people that this country which possessed a free
Parliament should have been more proflik'ate and corrupt
than the most despotic Governments in Europe. Every
body must be aware of the astonishment which foreigners
expressed between the different feelings of individuals
and those which, up to a late period, had been
acted upon by Government. It was to make the
Government act in unison with the feelings of the people
that this Bill was introduced. What could remedy the
evils of the country but to restore the power of the people
over the House by giving the country a real representation ?
One portion of the Bill was designed to give Members to
towns in England which, although now unrepresented, pos-
sessed greater wealth and population than half the capi-
tals of Europe. He was astonished when he heard
Gentlemen object to the Bill upon such pitiful grounds
tef detail as were frequently urged. Because some persons
thought that Appleby was not fairly dealt with, they
gave vehement opposition to the whole measure. He
would tell all such Members that the country cared little
for those minor details—details which were important only
to individuls, and certainly of no consequence whatever
to the great principles and the objects of the Bill.—
It had been thrown in the teeth of that side of the
House, that a much smaller measure of Reform would
have been sufficient. If it were an Anti-Reformer
who used this argument—an Anti-Reformer whose only
object was to satisfy the immediate outcry of the people
—he would reply to such a person, that he agreed that the
Bill had done more than was necessary; but if it were
a sincere Reformer that urged this objection, he should
say that he could not conceive how lie could he dis-
contented with the extent of the measure, unless he
could show that a less extensive Reform would he
sufficient for the extent of the evils to be remedied. IL
would always maintain that a Bill less comprehen-
sive would never have been sufficient to satisfy the
people, or to attain the objects which they ha.
in view. The Honourable Member for Oakliamptoo ha,
spoken of the re-action in his county ; and that the wealtl
and tespectability of that county was against the Bill. H
denied the fact; and would state in spite of the exertions o•
the clergy, the people were unanimous for Reform, and hat.
gone counter to all who usually had influence over them.