The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-01 00:00:00

were to be introduced into the system of our
representation. To any proposal that the elec-
tive body should be extended on such principles
as this, neither Lord Chandos, nor the constitu-
tional personage, his father, would make, we pre-
sume, the slightest shadow of objection. But
it is a different thing when we come to argue
about the creation of constituencies which arc
likely to have wills of their own. To intrust
people who have no fear of arbitrary landlords,—
who have money, or houses, or property, from
which they cannot be separated by an agent's or
attorney's notice,—men who have no extraordi-
nary reverence for the overgrown signors of innu-
merable acres, but who have studied commercial
and constitutional questions in books of their
own free choice, and have felt the obstructions
raised on. every path of human industry, and
the clogs imposed upon all fair enjoyment, by
the grasping cupidity and teeming arrogance
of that class of Legislators to which Lord
Chandos and his fellows belong,—to give
such intractable plebeians as these a right of
sending Members to Parliament,—of fishing
through their delegates, in poor laws, and tithe
laws, and corn laws, and game laws, that pro-
found and multitudinous ocean of feudal luxury,
wherein our Leviathans have hitherto rolled and
sported ;—no, no, that was a sort of " extension
of the elective franchise" of which Lord Chandos
never dreamed. Look at any one fear or dissuasive
suggested by the Tories against this and every
other free characteristic of the Reform Bill ; one
only sentiment is at the bottom of all their argu-
ment:llion—a rooted repugnance to let in the
people, or, in other words, public opinion, to the
slightest controul upon the proceedings in Par-
liament. The scheme of heaping up one part of
the constituency of the metropolis upon another,
and multiplying voters for each section almost
without end, at the same time not increasing the
number of representatives, is worthy of Tory
penetration. As no complaint was made that
the elective franchise had not been sufficiently
extended in London by the Bill, and as the
enlarged number of votes could not be got
rid of, the question was, how to render
it of the least possible advantage to the
people. So the manoeuvre was hit upon
of confining the influence of the new elec-
tors to the mere preference of one represen-
tative over another at the hustings, but leaving
these great bodies, within the walls of Parlia-
ment, destitute of all means of successful
struggle where their immediate interests were
concerned. It was asserted by more than one
advocate for the motion of Lord Chandos, that
London was already well enough represented
by the 150 Members of Parliament who resided
in the capital, and were ever alive to questions
which involved its welfare. If the mere fact of
residence be motive sufficient to engage a Mem-
ber of Parliament in the regular service of the
metropolis, the argument proves a little too
much, for in that case London needs no specific
representatives whatever, the eight Members who
are septennially chosen by the Livery, and the
electors of Westminster and Southwark, being
no better than so many superfluities, and proper
subjects for another motion by Lord Chandos,
to the effect that they ought to be taken from
London and turned over to places more in want
of them. And what is the alarm entertained
about the eight additional representatives ? That
they will conspire together to overawe the
Parliament ! That four new and eight old
Members (for the Members for Southwark and
Lainbeth do not represent either the metro-
polis or the metropolitan county)—or, throw-
ing those for Middlesex into the bargain,
14 Members altogether,--out of 658, are
to browbeat the House of Commons ! A
proportion of rather less than lin4B ! One of
the strongest grounds of rational approbation
of the measure is, in our judgment, the prospect
that gentlemen representing various local divi-
sions of a numerous, affluent, highly-intelligent,
and respectable community, having an immense
and common stake in the general prosperity of
the realm, will stand by each other, and form
a strong phalanx in support of whatever policy
may be approved by the predominant sense of
this great and spirited capital. But we are to
have a reverend " fear of mobs," it is said, " in
ceusequence of these additional Members." It
does not appear from the debate of Tuesday,
that any propagator of this doctrine has con-
descended to bring a solitary reason in its justi•
fication. What connection there is in nature
between tumults and representatives no philo-
sopher that ever we heard of has explained. Mr.
Macauley said well, that the most frightful and
most fatal excesses arc found where no such
thing as representation ever existed. Whether
is it most likely that men will resort to violence
when they are muzzled, and have none to
speak for them, or when they are provided
with agents of their own choice, whose ac-
knowledged right and bounden duty it is to de-
clare their grievances, and to enforce redress ? In-
stead of complaining that London was too strong
in the House of Commons, our feeling is, that it
can scarcely be made too powerful. The Exe-
cutive Government—the patronage of the Crown
—the mass of the aristocracy—the Bank—the
India Company—the whole jobbing world—all
have their citadels here : so ought the teople.
The popular force ought to be strong at the
centre. London never can have an interest op-
posite to that of the empire itself: but if you
give .the inhabitants of London no adequate
organ for the constitutional expression of their
sentiments, you krce them upon expedients for
making themselves heard and felt, such as are
not recognized by the Constitution. In con-
clusion, wd have only to obserVe; that before
the discussion on Tuesday night, we were utterly
unable to conceive on what ground Lord Chan-
dos could resist an increase to the representation
of the metropolis, which would not equally ap-
ply to the extension of the county representation,
or to the enfranchisement of the great provincial
towns. We have since read carefully the
speeches of the Noble Lord's party, and our
difficulty is not in the least removed or diminished.
In cracking the nut, with considerable labour,
we have nut found a kernel—but only a worm.
What, then, could have induced the twenty
and odd Members who have hitherto sup-
ported the Reform Bill to join its ad-
versaries, and to oppose it in this essential
provision ? The wretched arguments brouglt
forward in support of an absurd proposition
could not have constituted the real reasons for
their vote. How could they affect to dread a
mob-constituency, while they actually proposed
to increase the tumult by adding the " mob" of
the Tower Hamlets and of Finsbury to that of
the City, and the " mob" of Marvlebone to that
of Westminster ? How could they assert that
the suburbs of no other great town are to be re-
presented, while they remember the relation of
Gateshead to Newcastle, and the situation of the
se.eral of the new constituencies in Lancashire?
how could they pretend that the interests of the
eastern districts of London were sufficiently at-
tended to by the —embers who accidentally in-