The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-02 00:00:00

elm= t-2-iitit

LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1850.

; The House of Lords have, we regret to say, ex-
-1 hibited another proof of their invincible antipathy to
any measure in any degree tending towards the ex-
i tension of popular rights. " Parliamentary Reform"
is a phrase that stinks in the nostrils of the heredi-
tary legislators. They look back with regret on the
igood old times when rotten boroughs flourished, when
1 each Noble Lord could " do as he liked with his
lown," and when the obedient constituency received
• with due submission the orders of its lordly pa-
I tron, returning as its representative the worthy
gentleman, who, having purchased the honour, at a
tolerably high figure, was anxious to turn his bargain
to the best possible advantage, and only sought fa-
vourable opportunities for selling them in turn—or
even, if a greater evidence of subserviency were re-
quired, would, with equal pleasure, have re-
turned one of the sturdy " flunkeys," whc,
with fragrant bouquet and stalwart calves,
wield the gold-topped bamboo behind her
Ladyship's chario`. These palmy days have
unfortunately passed away. The fatal year 1830 was
a period of mourning and tribulation among those
who had invested their capital in whit were com-
monly termed "pocket boroughs." Many were alto-
' getter disfranchised. Placed in the black list, the
doomed schedule A, no consolation remained for
. their dejected proprietors. Others retained a
moiety of their former honours, and still sent
one Member to dose away his time on the
benches of St. Stephen ; while a fortunate few,
barely evading the assigned limit, continued to send
two Members to the Commons House of Parliament,
and thus shone with increased lustre from the extinc-
tion of former competition. Forty-two boroughs,
sending sixty-nine Members to Parliament, escaped
this modern " massacre of the innocents." These fa-
voured districts are still what is modestly styled
"subject to local influences," or, in other words,
the mere form of an election is gone through.
The "free and independent electors " flock
joyously to the hustings to record their
votes in favour of the nominee of the noble patron.
There is of course no appearance of a contest, no
person would be guilty of an act of such ridiculous
folly as to suppose that those " highly respectable
persons," so eminently worthy of the franchise, would
vote contrary to the high behests of the magnate
into whose hands they had surrendered what, should
be the most cherished privileges of a freeman. A
few complimentary speeches are made, and the day
closes in drunkenness and debauchery, a fitting con-
clusion to the disgraceful scene of corruption and
venality with which it commenced.
. . .

But the Peers of England cannot consent to any
amelioration however trifling. Any additional infu-
sion of the popular element into the constituencies
might render greater the chances of rebellion, and
possibly lead to political revolutions in the representa-
tion of these happy boroughs. Un warned by
the consequences of their dogged refusal,
twenty years since, to disfranchise East Ret-
ford, and to bestow the privilege of which it
should have been deprived to one of our busiest seats
of manufacturing industry, their Lordships are still
opposing every concession, and exhibiting the most
unbending obstinacy. But they were speedily
obliged to " eat their leek," albeit the task was one
of intense suffering, and possibly they may again
have to yield an undignified submission if they force
the popular branch of the Legislature into a collision,
and that on a question relating to the constitution of
the Commons House of Parliament.
The state of the franchise in Ireland had become
truly deplorable; it was a ridiculous absurdity to
assert that it was anything approaching to a popular
representation. The state of the electoral lists in
France previous to the late revolution was not more
remarkable than those in the Irish counties at this
moment. We have heard it over and over again
asserted that the fall of the Orleans dynasty was
mainly attributable to this glaring defect, and yet
the Lords are anxious to perpetuate in Ireland a
system which led to such results in a neighbouring
country. _ _

The Earl of CARLISLE last night stated, and we
believe but too truly, that " the whole constituency
of the Irish counties did not amount to 30,000." And
be it remembered, that the inhabitants of these coun-
tries amount to between 6,000,000 and 7,000,000, or,
as Lord DEFFERIN remarked, " but two-fifths of a re-
spectable man to every hundred persons in Ireland."
This was a state of things urgently requiring cor-
rection. Something should manifestly be done, and
that speedily to remedy the grievance. The Parlia-
mentary Voters (Ireland) Bill was accordingly brought
in and carried through the Commons by decisive
majorities. The main principle of this much re-
quired and salutary, although inadequate, measure
was to bestow the county franchise on the occupiers
of land rated to the poor-rate at a net annual value of
81. or upwards. That this was no wild or revolu-
tionary proposition, something approximating to uni-
versal suffrage, may be gathered from this fact, that,
if conceded to the fullest extent, it would not
give more than 264,000 county voters out of the
nearly 7,000,000 of inhabitants, or ]5 per cent. of the
adult male population, while 29 per cent. of the adult
males are thus privileged in this more favoured
country. That was not so great a boon, but it was
objected to, and on the motion of the Earl of DESART
151. was substituted for 81., the amendment being
carried against Ministers by a majority of 22. One
of the most important and urgently required measure
of the session has thus been neutralized by their
Lordships. It, however, remains to be seen whether
the Commons will remain firm, and stedfastly refuse
to yield to the alteration that has been made.

Fortunately for the credit of the Government and
of the Legislature, not to speak of the national
pocket, the amendment proposed last evening by the
Hon. Baronet the Member for the University of
Oxford in reference to the Bill for theerection of a
temporary bridge at Westminster, was carried by a
sweeping majority of 123 out of a House of 153,
merely 15 being opposed to and 138 in favour of Sir
ROBERT HARRY INGLIS'S amendment. That amend-
ment was simply to the effect that the measure in-
stead of being read a second time should be for-
mally referred to the consideration of a Select
Committee. We have no very prodigious af-
fection, we must admit, in the abstract for
Select Committees. Indeed we rather look upon
them as Parliamentary valves for the superfluous ex-
penditure of public' time, or as systematic excuses
for supplementary procrastination. To our thinking
there was something wise as well as witty in the re-
mark made the other day by pocr Sir ROBERT PEEL,
when it was proposed to pursue a similar course in
regard to the Metropolitan Burial Bill—that tl e
reference of the matter to a Select Committee would
be the most extraordinary instance upon record cf
extramural interment ! Nevertheless, nuisances