The Sun.
London, England, 1821-04-19 00:00:00

tile to every species of Reform and the moderate Reformers was
comparatively nothing, compared to the difference between the
latter and the sweeping Reformers, who would proceed by their
projected reformation to blot out all those venerable institutions
which had grown with the nation's growth and strengthened
with its strength. Ile for one could anticipate nothing from this
general reform but a series of internal disquiets, discontents,
and insurrections, in the progress of which our national great-
ness and national glory would necessarily fall into decay,. and
the country would be reduced to deplore its former happiness
under a different system of things. There never had been a
time when complaints had not been made in this country of the
decay of our liberties and the corruption of the Legislature.
(The Hon. Member here read an extract from a publication in
1689, which excited considerable laughter.)--It was published
only four years after the passing of the Bill for triennial Parlia-
ments, and accused lioth Tories and Whigs of great corruption,
alledging that the Whigs always went restive, except they were
in possession of place eir payment .; it strongly enjoined those
places which sent members to Parliament not to elect,the sons
of the Nobility to represent them, because they were sure to go
into the performance of their duty with a proud spirit, and be-
tray their constituents. After drawing a parallel between this
and other countries, he challenged any man to disprove that this
country, even as it was now governed and represented, did not
.possesst more rational and practical liberty than any other na-
' on on the face of the globe.--(Loud and repeated cheers.)—
He would read from a publication which he held in his hand,
„ The Edinburgh Review," a passage stating what the writer
conceived to be the duties of a member of Parliament. They
were incompatible with what the Hon. Gent. opposite (Mr.
Lambton) required.--:-(Here the Hon. Member read the pas-
sage. Thegeneral import of it was, that members of Parliament
should not, to execute their duties properly, consider themselves
as the representatives of any particular district, but as bound to
legislate for the general interests of the nation.)—ln these sen-
tmients be fully concurred. He felt convinced that if the sym-
pathy desired by the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Blr.Lambton),
between the representatives and his constituents existed, it would
be productive of much more injury than good. When it was
stated that the members of that House were completely depend-
ent on the Minister, he could not admit it to be the case. What-
ever might be the results expected from the plan, now proposed
by those who were the advocates of Reform, it could not be de-
nied by those who attended to the events of past time, or of, the
present day, that liberty was not the birth of a moment. That
it was not to be arrived at instantaneously. He would not tres-
pass.longer on the time of the House, but conclude with the
words of a Right Honoutable.Gentleman who formerly filled
the chair, that it should be their daily prayer to uphold the con-
stitution, and preserve to the latest • posterity the dignity and
authority of that House.
Mr. HOBHOUSE said, that if it were• necessary for the
Hon. Member who spoke last to entreat the patience of the
House, it was much more necessary for him to do so, feeling
as he did his incompetency to the task he had undertaken. He
would, however, state those opinions he conscientiously enter-
tained. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilmot) said, that na-
tions, when they tried to do so, could not, by one step, arrive
at freedom from a state of oppression and slavery. The obser-
vation could not apply to them, however applicable it might be
to other nations. They were not emerging from slavery, but
he did not know how soon they might fall into it; and it was
with the view of preventing so fatal an event that his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Lambton) brought forward the -present motion.
Enough had been said by his Hon. Friend to prove that Par-
liament was quite different now to what it had been in former
times, with respect to its numbers, its duration, its constitution,
and the system of election. It was justly remarked by Mr.
Hume, that the history of this country was a history of per-
petual change ; and Mr. Fox had well observed, that no inno-
vation could be greater in the constitution of that House, than
to decide that no innovation was to be attempted. For himself
he could see no argument, no good reason, against the neces-
sity, the propriety, and utility of Reform. Just as with re-
spect to numbers there was no fixed principle. In the time of
Henry VI. the number of Members in that House amounted
to no more than • 300. In the time of Henry VIII. 31 more
were added, and 13 in the reign of Elizabeth. Westminster
first sent Members in the time of Edward VI. and James I.
added the Universities. At the Restoration 72 places were dis-
qualified that-formerly sent Members to Parliament ; 36 were
subsequently restored to their franchise. A mistake, however,
had been made in the number of places disqualified, for they
amounted, he believed, to 79. The number of places entitled
to send Members having thus varied, they Must now surely
have a right to legislate on the frame of Parliament. The fran-
chise was also changed. It was not known exactly what places
formerly had a franchise. This was the case with respect even to
Westminster itself, for a Committee sat on the subject during two
whole years, and they then reported that they might sit during
the remaining part of the Session of Parliament, without
coming to a decision. As to the duration of Parliament it
was first sessional, then held twice a year, subsequently
annual, and afterwards biennial, triennial, and septennial.
With respect therefore to the numbers, the duration, and the
franchise, there was a variability in the constitution of Parlia-
ment. There was a variability also in its character. It differed
materially in the time of the Plantagenets, the Tudors, and the
Stuarts. The.characterof Parliament, in better times, might
be fairly taken from the Statutes against corruption in different
periods, as compared with the revenue. At the Revolution the
revenue was 1;200;0001., and:the Statutes against corruption 14.
In 1792, the Statutes against., corruption were 95, and the in.
crease in the revenue was proportionate. In 1818, the revenue
amounted to 64,500,0001. Adding to this source of influence,
the East Indies, the Board of Control, the Lee Ward Island,
duties, and 196,0001. paid in pensions, by a parity of reason-
ing, a proportionate change must have. been effected through
means of corruption in the constitution of, the House. Look-
ing to these circumstances he had a right to say that the House
of. Commons, as it now existed, was a mere mushroom sudden-
ly sprung up' from the unfortunate circumstances Of the times.
It was not therefore proposing any innovation to make some
effort at bringing it back to the principles on which it formerly
stood. He had of late frequently heard it asserted that the in-
fluence of the Crown had not increased. In the beginning of
the last century Mr. Hutchinson asserted, that the influence
of the Crown sent between thirty and forty members to that
House. It had not decreased thirty years after; for when
Mr. Henry Cox was called to account for his disbursement of
the public money, allowance was made, as a thing of course,
for the sums necessary to influence thirty or --forty Members of
.that House. • It was impossible to say that the House had not
changed its- character; and the end of the system pursued was
that which had been foretold by Mr. Hutchinson, that the House
of Commons would become a third estate independent of the
people of England. This was now actually the case. He defied
any man, however great his talent Or eloquence might be, to dis-
prove it. They hail a house of Comirions not representing the
opinions of the people ; in place of being so constituted; that
when a majority spoke their sentiments it would be decisive im-
mediately of what was public opinion.- He defied any person to
show that it was the intention of the constitution to have the
country governed bT suckers Oligarehy. When the question of
Parliamentary Reform was introduced, the bbjeation Was--that
all who supported it differed 'in their Opinions, that they pro-
ceeded upon contradictory viewi, and that it was impossible to
ascertain precisely what their object was, or how far they intend=
ed to go. It was very remarkable that,.in the.beginning,
same objection was made -against introducing the R.eformation
into this country. There were then in Germany twelve differcn
sects of Reformers. 'Lutherans Calvinists, and .various others,
and it was asked 'which system of Reform they would introduce
into England ? The unity Of -the Catholic Church was opposed.
to this diversity of opinion. If this objection were listened to,
they 'would in all probability have never enjoyed the benefits of
'the Reformation. He-hoped, notwithstanding similar objec-
tions, that all Reformers would now - unite for• the purpose of
making such a change as would cause-that House. to sympathise •
in the most perfTct Manner possible with the wishes of the peo-
ple. He differed in some points froth his Hon.Friend(Mr.Lamb-
Ion) ; but agreeing with him' in the main object of his motion,
he would support it. He objected to Boroughs, • inasmuch as
they were made an article of traffic. An Oligarchy governing
in this manner, however tolerable' it might be otherwise, was
ruinous to the country for those who bought a borougla•must-
a-course expect and-look for a return in some other way..
to annual Parliaments; the peoplehad a right to them by usage.
From the time of the Conquest to Edward IL they were held
two or three times a year ; and it had) been satisfactorily proved
that those were not merely sessions of the satne Parliament, but
that an eleCtion .took place' for each. Lord Raymohd was of
opinion that annual Parliaments could never be departed from
without injury to the Constitution. (Here the Hon; Member
took a cursory view of, those Who supporte&P.arliamentary Re-
forth froni the thine of Lord-Shaftesbury to Mr. Pitt.) It was
an error to suppote that time House of Commons voted away the
Lords in the time of -the Rebellion. The 'Parliament of that
day was not the Parliament of-England ' for it mas, by being
purged various times, reduced to 87, 67 of whom sat for
boroughs. The Family now on. the throne: need not fear ex-
tending theprivileges of the people. In the Rebellion 011745,
when" the Aristocracy_ favoured the Pretender, he was not joined
on his march towards England by More than-300 of the 'people.
The Hon. MeMber concluded a speech fidl-of learned referenee
and-quotation by ari attempt to refute the arguments of Mr.
Canning in. his Letter to the Electors of Liverpool. From an
observation of that Right Honourable -Gentleman (upon a for-.
tiler occasion, that demagogues soon fell' to their- proper level
in that House, he took occasion to attack. him with much ela-
.borate lievority." • - • . • ..•
Mr. HORACE, .TWISS was inaudible for Some time in the
gallery, owing to the noise'in the House. It- had. been argued
that public opinion was slow at arriving at correctness. This
slowness was his great objection to the extension of suffrages as
proposed by
.the Honourable Gentleman. The opinion of the
people was right' in the great current from age to age. It was