The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-29 00:00:00

nothing to deprive it. As long as regular government
existed, the metropolis was, in fact, weak ; but when the
course of regular government was disturbed, the metro.
polis possessed, and could employ, a vast and overwhelm.
ing force.—(Hear.) But the Noble Lord proposed that
which would, in fact, increase the danger, for he would
refuse to the metropolis all votes whatever. Without re-
curring to the speeches of any democratic orator, he could
show the danger of this refusal by showing the advantage
of the concession. He should refer to the speech which
Burke delivered on the question of conciliation with
America. In that speech it was said by Mr. Burke,
after referring to the dissensions that had existed in
Wales, " A complete and not ill-proportioned representa-
tion by counties and boroughs was bestowed upon Wales
by Act of Parliament. From that moment, as by a charm,
the tumults subsided, obedience was restored, peace, order,
and civilization followed in the train of liberty, and all dis-
sensions ceased."—(Hear, hear.) He had mentioned
Madrid and Constantinople; but London differed from
these in this respect, that the population of London had
never assembled round the Palace of the Sovereign, de-
manding the punishment of an obnoxious Minister.--
(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) He repeated it—the
population of London had never done this, at least in his
memory. He had, indeed, seen the people assemble round
their Sovereign, with the warmest expressions of a sin-
cere attachment.—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.)
The people of London were orderly; but exactly as he
believed them to be more orderly than the people of
Madrid or Constantinople, because they had better modes
of expressing their opinions, so did he believe that the
people of represented London would be more quiet than
the people of unrepresented London.—(Hear, hear.) The
cause of all commotions in States had been, that the
natural and artificial powers did not correspond with each
other. That had ben the case with the Governments of
Greece and Italy. It was no new principle ; it had been
laid down by Aristotle; it had been maintained and ex-
emplified by Machiavel. Its effects in the earlier ages
were well known. In the last century it bad produced
the French revolution ; in this the cry of Reform.
The danger was in struggling to resist that altera-
tion which had been rendered necessary. That
danger this Bill was intended to rectify. It gave to the
people a place in the Government, like that which it must
have in society; and was it not a most monstrous argu-
ment to say that because a great natural power existed, it
should have no political power associated with it?—
(Hear, bear.) Was it for them to create dissension where
none had yet appeared ? This Bill was meant to be a
great deed of reconciliation ; would they deprive it of that
character—would they make it produce heartburnings in-
stead of peace ? It was the object of the Government to
frame a measure as final as any human measure could be.
Would they make it short-lived? Was it to be the first
business of the Reformed House of Commons to discuss a
new measure of Reform?—(Hear, hear.) The gentle-
men opposite bad frequently predicted that this settlement
of the Reform question would not be permanent; they
now took the greatest pains to accomplish their prediction.
He agreed with them in their dislike and dread of change,
as change, and he should hear many practical grievances
rather than attempt a change, but when a change bad
become absolutely necessary, he thought it should be full
and effectual. Hear, hear, hear.) It was dangerous to
change often. The Constitution was more injured by fre-
quent tamperings than by a great revolution. If no
Members were now given to the metropolitan districts,
they would have clamours for Members for them in
the first session of the next Parliament, and if gentle-
men believed, as they professed to believe, that the new
Parliament would be more democratical than the present,
the alteration would be larger. The question then was,
whether they should pass the Reform Bill not only not per-
fect, but in such a state as was sure to engender discontent.
He should support the proposition to give Members to the
metropolitan districts, not only because Members ought to
be given, but because the majority of that House were now
on their trial before the country, and it was for them now
to prove whether they were sincere or not ; whether the
pledge they had given in last October, to support the prin-
ciple and the leading details of the Bill, was now to be re-
deemed. The question was not only whether the metro-
politan districts should have eight Members or none, but
whether they would carry the Bill or compromise it ; com-
promise that to which they had pledged themselves, in
order to gratify those, who, finding it impossible to throw
out the Bill, resolved to fritter it away.—(Hear, hear.)
He callvd on them, for God's sake, to be firm. The Mem-
bers who sat in that House for Ireland, would not suffer
those who, in the last Parliament, bad deprived them of
five Members, to flatter them into the belief that, by voting
against this proposition, they would secure even a single
Member for Ireland. They owed a duty to their country ;
as they performed that duty, the confidence which they
had justly earned would he confirmed or lost ; and, on this
occasion, it was perfectly and completely true, that he who
was not with them was against them.—(Cheers.)

Sir GEORGE MURRAY observed that the Hon. and
Learned Member had declared himself not a friend of
change ; now it seemed to him that this clause was likely
to produce the greatest changes. His first objection to the
clause was, that it was not required. There was no part
of the country that possessed such advantages as the metro-
polis ; it had, more than any other part, easy access to the
Legislature, and to that House ; and many Members of
that House were connected with the metropolis by property
and residence. A ten-pound householder here had pro.
perty of less value than he who held the same amount of
rental in any other part of the kingdom ; and yet these
persona would exercise a greater influence than any other
over their representatives. He concurred with the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman near him, that the number of re.
presentatives would be, not eight, but twenty-two, which
he thought a most formidable body, not only to the Go-
vernment, but to the people. They would receive their
instructions from some society in the afternoon, and
would be called to strict account on the following morning.
They would have a greater sway in that House than all
the representatives for Scotland. He admitted that
democracy was the source of liberty, but if it swelled
too strongly it would burst the dams that confined it. It
would give the whole power of the State to the House of
Commons. What was the disease that had destroyed Athens,
Rome, and the States of modern Italy, Florence especially?
It was democracy. In Rome it was a half demagogue--
a half military despotism ; but it was the child of demo-
cracy ; and it was so much so, that when Brutus cut it
down, the democracy set it up again. In his opinion,
concessions were dangerous, and might be pursued till the
liberties of the people were sacrificed. To give so many
representatives to the metropolitan districts, would be an
injustice to the more distant parts of the kingdom. The
voters, too, were under the eye of the Monarch, and were
largely connected with the aristocratic branches of the
Government. If London, on account of its population,
was to have additional Members, was it not unjust to
Scotland that her representation also had not been in-
creased ? He insisted that the counties of Scotland were
inadequately represented, if compared to the English
countie., in respect to population. He would never con-
sent to so unjust a distribution of the representation,
which would give to this metropolis an undue preponde-
rance over the other parts of the kingdom, and he should,
therefore, give his humble support to the motion of his
Noble Friend.

Mr. C. GRANT did not agree with the Right Hon.
Gentleman who had just sat down that this was the time
for the discussion of the representation of Scotlaw,. The
Right Hon. and Gallant Baronet, in a disquisition upon
the causes which produced the decay of nations, said that
democracy had caused the destruction of Ruins. It was
true, indeed, that gentlemen frequently viewed things
through peculiar media, and he could not express surprise
at the view which the Right Hon. Baronet had taken of
this subject. At the same time he could not concur with
his opinion, that the destruction of Rome had been occa-
sioned by democracy. According to his reading, history
has told us far otherwise.—(Hear.) Indeed, it appeared
to him to be unjust and illogical to attribute the decay of a
nation to any one particular cause. But still he thought
that the decline of the Roman power had mainly been
caused by military despotism.—(Near.) Another Hon.
Gentleman had objected to an increase of the representa-
tion of the metropolis on account of the political feelings
which at present prevailed in it, and on account of the
existence of the Political Unions.—(Hear.) To him (Mr.
Grant), on the contrary, those circumstances seemed to
furnish the most convincing proof of the necessity for giving
the metropolis an extended representation.—(ilear,)
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman to whom he alluded had,
singularly enough, taken the case of the Catholic associa-
tion to illustrate his argument. He (Mr. Grant) would
apply the example very differently, and would remind the
House, that, when the grievances which gave existence
and influence to that association were removed, the
Honourable and Learned Member for Kerry himself
declared that its functions and its power had ceased.—
(Loud cheers.) Another argument of the Honour-
able and Learned Member for St. Mauves was—not
that the metropolitan districts were in a state of decay,
and that therefore they had no claims to be represented—
but that they were in a most flourishing state—that they
were advancing in population, in the amount of their taxa-
tion, and in every thing which could indicate the increase
of their wealth and importance. So far WAS be (Mr.
Grant) from thinking with the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman that that was an objection to their being repre-
sented, that he looked upon it as one great reason for
giving them an increased representation.—(Hear.) It

had been said that they who were desirous to give addi-
tional Members to those districts, were bound to prove
that there existed an imperative necessity for doing an.
But it was enough for him (Mr. Grant) to shorn, that their
doing so, was no departure from the principles or practice
of the Constitution. By the practice of the Constitution,
this metropolis had, at all times, had a predominant re-
presentation, and its principal districts had been regarded
as several cities, entitled to a distinct representation.--
(Hear.) If it bad been proposed by his Majesty's Ministers
to leave the metropolis in the same state in which it had
hitherto stood, in respect to representation, and if, whilst
additional Members were given to other great towns, none
givenhwiesr3eiaj ety
,tso
Atihe inismteertsriovpooalli,tian districts,
havebee he w
n assailedassure
with thatre_
monstrance! and reproaches from the other side, for having
departed from that which had been ever the invariable
practice of the Constitution.—(Hear.) The House
would have been told, again and again, that the
metropolis had always had a representation superior
to that of other parts of the kingdom; and it would
have been asked, with indignation, why was the repre-
sentation of the capital to be degraded, by Members
being given to places which had never before been repre-
sented, the representation of London not being proportion-
ably increased.—(Cheers.) The House would have been
called upon to look to the extent of the population of Lon-
don, which was involved in this question ; and it would
be asked why had his Majesty's Ministers wronged that
extensive and wealthy and intelligent population, by de-
parting from the principles and practice of the Constitu-
tion ? Such would have been the arguments of the other
side, if Ministers had not given representatives to those
districts.—(Cheers.) It had justly been said, in reference
to other arguments against this measure, that they applied
not so much to the Bill itself, as to the situation of the
metropolis generally. The House had been told that the
metropolis would overawe the rest of the community. Now
was it by means of the fifteen or sixteen Members that it
would be enabled to do so ? For his p art, he did not think
that the experience of past years had shown that the Mem-
bers for the city of London would act together in a confe-
deracy for the attainment of a common object; on the
contrary, they had each pursued a different course of po-
licy.—(Hear.) But if there did exist any danger of such
a combination, it would not be diminished by confining
the representation to the eight Members which the me-
tropolis at present sent to that House. For these gen-
tlemen were the representatives of a smaller portion,
they were, therefore, the more likely to feel in common,
and to act together, than the representatives of the other
districts, which had no identity of interests with one
another_ It would not be pretended that the interests
of Marylebone were identical with those of the Tower
Hamlets, or the interests of the Borough the same with
those of the West-end. It was not to be supposed that the
inhabitants of those parts of the metropolis, whose chief
commerce was inland, and which were in the closest com-
munication with the interior of the country, should have
the same views and interests as those engaged in the great
external commerce which was carried on in the parts of
the metropolis which had hitherto been represented. The
representatives of those districts might occasionally act to-
gether, as do sometimes the representatives of the several
towns of one county ; but that they would act together
and invariably for one interest, distinct from that of the
rest of the kingdom, was contradicted both by experience
and reason. There was another of the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman's arguments which was of a general nature, and
dit,:ohteieedellvdrnttea,:oeishtNts,at.
aetoavrpdeoi
sittingpnai adlnfl ynegudyeet ornidoact
at
ierlinietagrh:t
the
eßille centre
e o thatof
t h
et
great
r Houseea
t population o f
whCommonseh
was to have additional representatives. But he could not
ashsoeHf
sweutocicllue:l
duHal could notd:kasn:
g.
wes
danger,
hia But
thatwii
tf
eeeemrwidonaveleii
dtbi
,ne?rhtaol
%iasl
Was
f
existed, to be removed by telling the people that after
having held out to them the expectation that they should
he represented, the House repented of its promise ; and,
having raised their hope!, would not give them their just
share of representation ?--(Hear.) This appeared to him
to be an additional reason, besides the justice of the case,
wherefore the House, having once offered them the boon,
should not dash it from their lips.—(Cheers.)
Sir R. PEEL congratulated the Right Hon. Gentleman,
and he assured him unfeignedly, on the recovery of that
eloquence after so long a silence.—(Cheers.) His Right
Honourable Friend, if he would allow him to call him so,
seemed to say, that in founding a new system of represen-
tation, his Majesty's Ministers were not bound to state the
reasons upon which they founded it.—(Hear.) He (Sir
R. Peel) could not but think that it would have been
safer for his Right Hon. Friend to have adhered to that
course, and not to have condescended, out of the abund-
ance of his reasons, to have favoured the House with that
one argument which he declared to be most just and un-
answerable. The argument which hie Right Hon. Friend
deemed so unanswerable was, that whereas London had
always had a preponderance in the representation, there-
fore it would be an insult to the metropolis—seeing its
advance in population, wealth, and commerce—not to give
it an increase of representatives, when Members were
given to places heretofore unrepresented. That was what
his Right Hon. Friend called a just and unanswerable argu-
ment. But he (Sir R. Peel) was sure that his Right Hon.
Friend was too just a Statesman to confine his views to
London, and to deny that, if London had such a claim in
consequence of its increased importance, other parts of the
kingdenn were also entitled to an extended represen-
tation. If the theory was at all true, surely it would ap-
ply to other places as well as to London—(Hear, hear)—
and, in applying it, he (Sir Robert Peel) would not
take mean places, but two of the most considerable towns
in his Majesty's dominions—Liverpool and Dublin. If
the theory of his Right Hon. Friend were to be taken
as true, that, according to reason and the Constitution,
because places formerly held a preponderance in represen-
tation over others to which they were superior in popula-
tion and importance, they should also have at all times an
increase of representation proportioned to their increase of
wealth and population ; then he (Sir R. Peel) would take
Liverpool, fur instance, and would ask what bad his Majesty's
Ministers done in respect to that town ?—(Cheers.) He
found that in ancient times that place had two represen-
tatives, the same number as either Tamworth or Calue,
places at the time not inferior to Liverpool. But Liver-
pool had since increased beyond example. It was now a
great commercial town, of far greater importance than
either of the others, and it had held out to all other places
a most glorious example, not only for commercial enter-
prise, but by its exertions for the advancement of science.
Well, what had been given to it ? —(Cheers.) Tam-
worth was still to have two Members.—(Cheers.) (Soa,e
conversation was here held acro-s the table, which was
inaudible in the gallery.) Surely his Right Hon. Friend
was not so childish as to say, that because the population
of London had been increased its representation should he
increased also.

Mr. C. GRANT was understood to reply, " I did not
say so."—(Cheers.)
Sir R. PEEL proceeded to say, that if increase of con-
merce were to be the test, then, according to his Right
Hon. Friend's own principle, it could not be contended
that Liverpool should be limited to two representatives,
whilst two more still were given to places in no respect
comparable to that town in commercial importance. But
his Majesty's Ministers had not only limited Liverpool to
two Members, but they had added immense districts to its
constituency.—(Cheers.) But would his Right Hon.
Friend allow the Members for Liverpool to stand up in
that House, and to say that it was an insult to Liverpool
to limit that town to two representatives, when it had in-
creased so much in population, wealth, and commerce.—
(Hear, hear.) But a Noble Lord opposite had said, that
the metropolis was entitled to especial care—
Lord ALTHORP addressed some observations across
the table, which were utterly inaudible.
Sir R. PEEL said, that he had so understood the
Noble Lord. But what would be said respecting Dublin.
—(Hear, hear.) An additional Alember had been given
to each of the towns of Belfast, Cork, 'and Waterford.
Now Dublin had increased in population and in wealth,
and, however the Noble Lord might have engaged upon
his. side the sympathies of Limehouse and Lambeth, he
(Sir Robert Peel) did not know what his answer could be
to Ring's End, Irish Town, and Drunicondra, when they
appealed to him for representatives, on the ground that
an additional Member was given to Cork.—(Hear.) Let
it not be supposed that lie (Sir R. Peel) admitted the
justice of the argument. Far from it. He as much
denied that it was an insult to Dublin to encrease the
representation of Cork, without increasing the represen-
tation of the former city, as he denied it was an insult to
London to increase the representation of Manchester,
without adding to the representatives of the metropolis.
—(Cheers.) He only wished to show that the arguments
of his Right lion. Friend was not unanswerable, and
that if it were just, it would apply equally to
twenty other places as to London. Now he would beg
leave to turn to the speech of the lion. and Learned
Member for Calne, and to remind the House, that if lie
were to apply himself to the arguments of that speech, he
should involve himself in a general discussion of the ques-
tion of Reform. That Hon. and Learned Gentleman said,
that the Reform Bill would insure the happiness of the
country, by
making the form of the Government de-
mocratical. If that assumption respecting the effects of
the whole measure were well founded, he (Sir R. Peel)
would be prepared to admit that it was expedient to give
more
additional Members to the metropolis. But he contested
the principle.—(Cheers.) lie would not then go into a