The Sun.
London, England, 1832-04-25 00:00:00

SPIRIT Cr T"P PT'PLIC JOUR'S LS.

We have received a letter from a correspon-
dent signing himself " Scotus," which evinces a
total misunderstanding of what we said )ester-
(lry in explanation of Lord Grey's announce-
ment respecting the nature of the amendments
which the admitted principles of the Reform Biel
may warrant, and to which, in the Committee of
the Peers, he might be induced to give his as-
sent. The misapprehension of our corre-
spondent is so glating, and the means of correct-
ing it are so obvious, that we would content
ourselves with a simple recommendation to re-
peruse our article itself, were our object in re-
curring to the subject only the correction of an
individual mistake, or the defence of a particular
interpretation of a Ministerial speech. The latter,
we think, has been sufficiently effected already.
But as the thorough-paced Anti-Reformers,
reinforced by a detachment from " the Wa-
verers," have announced their hostility to one of
the " principles," or (if you will) to one of the
chief provisions, of the Bill,—namely, the 101.
qualification,—and to one of the main articles in
the enfranchisement clause, namely, the new pri-
vilege to be conferred on the metropolitan dis-
tricts,—as they have, notwithstanding our
repeated efforts to reconcile them to these parts
of the measure, shown no disposition to sheath
the sword,—and, as even on such unreasonable
ground they might appear to the careless or iny
different spectator to make good fight for amend-
ments which have already been defeated, we
shall make no apology for entering a little
further into the subject, even at the risk of some
tepetition. All the enemies of the Bill who
profess to be the friends of any reform, however
moderate, admit that they would extend the
qualification to the enjoyment of the franchises
which the Bill creates or enlarges, to such classee
of the inhabitants of the old and new boroughs
as in their opinion can give securities by the pos-
session of property, knowledge, or respectability,
that they will exercise their rights without.
abusing their trust. The most moderate Re=
formers of the Anti-Reform school can never
imagine fora moment that a narrow corporation,
like that of Bath, should continue to engross the
electoral privileges of a large and wealthy com-
munity, or that in conferting, for the first time,
on Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds, the
right of sending Members to Parliament, the
mode of election at Bath should be taken as a
model. No converted Anti. Reformer has yet
stood up for any of the old plans of proceeding
in adjusting the new electoral rights : none of
them have contended for the monopoly of a close
corporation or the universal suffrage of a pot.
walloping constituency. The only general qualir
fication which could be suggested in this case
was one of property, and the only question
was, what amount of property should be
taken as the measure of an electoral right.
To have fixed upon the payment of a rent of
201. as the only electoral census, would have
disqualified more than two-thirds of the pers, ns
jnstly entitled to express their opinions on pun-
lie affairs by nominating a representative oftheir
choice. To have given a vote to every persen
paying 41. or 51., would have been nea,l) equi-
valent to universal suffrage. The proper, or at
any rate a reasonable medium, therefore,—. a-
pable of general application, and neither creating
dissatisfaction by arbitrary exclusions nor a mob-
constituency by general admission,—was some-
thing between these extremes, or a 101. qualifi-
cation. Had a rent of 201 been made the elec-
toral census, large boroughs of from 5,000 to
10,000 inhabitants and upwards would have
seen their voters reduced to the very manageable
dimensions of a parish select vestry. Thus, to
take from the Parliamentary returns a few in-
stances at random, Newark would only have had
157 electors, having only that number of 201.
householders, though its population be 8,084 ;
Abingdon, with 5,137 inhabitants, would only
have had 36 voters; Reading, with a popu:a-
tion of 12,867, only 452 ; and Oxford, with
population of nearly 15,000, only 339. None
of the boroughs in schedule B, having a popu-
lation of between 2,000 and 4000, would have
had 50 voters ; and the whole of the boroughs
in the county of Cornwall, which now send 40
representatives to the Commons House of Par-
liament, could not have mustered more than
229 electors, or five electors and a fraction
for each member. Even with the 10/. qua-
lification, which is represented as so de-
mocratical, there is not one of the 47 boroughs
at first included in schedule B, and still con-
tinued in the partial or unimpaired exercise of
their privileges, which could boast of 300 house-
holders entitled to a vote ; and of 84 large or
considerable boroughs left untouched by the Bill,
because they exceeded the prescribed limits of
4,000 inhabitants, there are only two,—namely,
Bath and Reading ; only 14 cities and towns now
returning Members to Parliament will be able to
muster above 1,000 electors, or will have a
constituency of above 1,000 by the 101.
qualification. These, we need scarcely mention,
are London, 'Westminster, Liverpool, Bristol,
Southwark, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Norwich, Hull,
Plymouth, Exeter, York, Oxford, Nottingham,
and Southampton. But to show still further
that the constituency of England would not con-
stitute a mob, though every householder in town
or country, paying a rent of 101. a year, were
entitled to vote, we need only mention the fact
(which we derive from official returns), that, ex-
clusive of the metropolitan county of Middlesex,
the whole 101. householders of this division of
the island amounts only to 262,000, of whom
not more than one-half inhabit boroughs or
cities where such a rent entitles to electoral
privileges. Compared with our population
of 14,000,000, most reasonable persons would
consider this limited number of voters rather
as a select body of privileged aristocrats, than
as an overwhelming host of democracy. It is
true, indeed, that Manchester, Leeds, Birming-
ham, Bristol, Liverpool, and two or three other
towns, will have a large constituency under the
Bill ; but when reduced to figures, or stripped of
of Antistheirsitihnui
oeebsjforteercmvst
co,etaitl
oleurhseltejoiftpougiivnlltaueiaremirinioyaobrmeeetxriehmanoagtifs,dg.
examinationvea eoridtnatoteerirmwonsoteiyi withoettebfiii
ia
partwhich
sßeyntead 'telep onsrpoeeuett
seen
laarirtialip:samotwpttrehheree-.
number of new qualifications created in twenty-
six of the largest towns enfranchised by the Bill
(includmg even Liverpool) will not exceed
33,0000 ; or form on an average not more than
1,000 electors for each place. Having gut this
admission, the pretended amenders but the real
adversaries of the Bill turn round upon us and
say, that if the 101. qualification leaves so tew
voters in the smaller boroughs, and confers elec-
toral rights on so many in the larger, why nut
endeavour to adjust the difference, and prevent
anticipated confusic,n by raising the qualification
in the latter from 101. to 151. or 20/.? With
the adoption of this change they pretend that
they would be satisfied, because, with the success
of this amendment they could overturn the ilia