The Sun.
London, England, 1820-03-31 00:00:00

' fellows. I Rill not saying whether is or is not as it no ht
to be. I merely mean to say why I think that• it cannot be
intended to complain of the wantof power, and of a due share
in the government in the House of Cumulous.
I admit, however, very willingly, that the greater share of
power it exercises, the more jealous we ought to be of its com-
position ; and I presume, therefore, that it is in this respect,
and in relation to its constituents, that the state of the House
of Commons is contended to want revision. Well, then, at
what period of our history was the composition of the House
Of Commons materially different from what it is at present ?
Is there any period of our history in which the rights of elec-
tion were not as various, and in which the influence of pro-
perty was not as direct ; is) which recommendations of Candi-
dates were not as efficient, and some boroughs as close as
they are tow,. ? I ask for information: but that information,
plain and simple as it is, and necessary, One S110111(1 think, to
r a clear understanding. much more to a grave decision of the
point at issue, I never, though soliciting it with all humility,
have ever yet been able to obtain from any Reformer, Radi-
cal, or Whig.
The Radical Reformer, indeed, to do him justice, is not
hound to furnish me with an answer to this question, because
with his view of the matter, precedents (except one which I
shall mention presently) have nothing to do. The Radical
Reformer would, probably, give to my first question an an-
swer very different from that which I have supposed his mo,
Berate brother ts, give. He will tell me fairly, not that he
means to bring the House of Commons hack either to the
share of power which it formerly enjoyed, or to the modes of
election by which it was formerly returned, but to make it,
what, according to him it ous:,•ht to be, a direct, effectual Re-
presentative of the People ; representing them not as.a dele-
gate commissioned to take care of their interests, but as a
deputy appointed to speak their will. Now to this slew of
the matter I have no other objection than this—that the Bri-
tish Constitution is a limited monarchy # that a limited mo-
narchy is, in the nature of thins, a mixed Government, but
that such a House of Commons as the Radical Reformer re-
quires, would, in effect, constitute.a pure democracy, with
which I am at a loss to understand how any monarchy or any
limitation could co-exist. I may hare great respect for the
person who theoretically prefers a republic to a monarchy.
But even supposing me to agree with him in this preference,
1 should have a previous question to discuss, by which he,
perhaps, may not feel himself embarrassed; which is this,
whether I, horn as I am (and as I think it is my good fortune
to be) under a monarchy, am quite at liberty to consider my-
self as having a clear stage for political experiments; whe-
ther I should he authorised, if I were convinced of the expe-
diency of such a change, to withdraw monarchy altogether
from the British Constitution, and to substitute an umPlan-
fled democracy in its stead; or whether, whatever changes
may be desirous of introducing, I am not bound to consider
the Constitution which I find as at least circumscribing the
range, and in souse measure prescribing the nature of the
improvement.

For my own part, I am undoubtedly prepared to uphold
the ancient monarchy of the country, by arguments drawn
from what I think the blessings which we have enjoyed un-
der it; and by arguments of another sort, if arguments of an-
other sort are brought against me. But all that lam now
contending for is, that whatever reformation is proposed
should be considered with some reference to the established
Constitution of the country. That point being conceded to
me, I have no difficulty in saying, that I cannot conceive a
Constitution of which one third part shall be an assembly
delegated by the people, not to consult for the good of the
nation, but to speak day by day, the people's will, which must
not in a few days sitting sweep away every other branch of
the Constitution that might attempt to oppose or controul it.
I cannot conceive bow, in fair reasoning, any other branch of
the Constitution should pretend to stand against it, If Go-
vernment be a matter of will, all that we have to do is to col
lect the will of the nation, and, having collected it by an
adequate organ, that will is paramount aMl•supreme. By
what shadow of argument could the House of Lords be main-
tained in equal authority and jurisdiction with the House
of Commons, when once that House of Commons should be-
come a mere deputation, speaking the people's will, and that
will the rule of the Government ? In one way or other the
House of Lords must act if it be to remain a concitrren t
branch of the Legislature. Either it must uniformly affirm
the measures which come from the Commons, or it must occa-
sionally take the liberty to reject them. If it uniformly affirm,
it is without the pretence of authority. But to presume to
reject an act of the Deputies of the whole Nation !—by what
assumption of right could three or four hundred great Pro-
prietors set themselves against the National will ? Grant the
Reformers, then, what they ask, on the principles on which
they ask it, and it is utterly impossible, that, after such a Re-
form, the Constitution should long consist of more than one
body, and that one body a popular assembly.
Why, Gentlemen, is this theory ? or is it a theory of mine ?
If there be among those who hear me (as any man in the ge-
nerous enthusiasm of youth may blamelessly have been), any
man who has been Li?ten by the doctrines of Reform, I im-
plore him, before he goes forward in his progress to embrace
those doctrines in their radical extent, to turn to the history
of the transactions in this country in the year 1648, and to
examine the bearings of those transactions on this very
question of Radical Reform. lie will find, Gentlemen, that
the House of Commons of that day passed the following Reso-
lution:— •

" Resolved, that the people are, under God, the original
of all just power!" Well, can any sentiment be more just
and reasonable ? Is it mot the foundation of all the liberties
of mankind ? Be it so. Let us proceed. The House of Com-
mons followed up this Resolution by a •eco4d, which runs
in something like these terms " Resolved, that the Corn-
rnons of England assembled in Parliament, being chosen by
and representing the people, have the supreme authority of
this Nation."

In this Resolution, a leap is taken from the premises of the
Radical Reformers to a conclusion, which I know not how
they are to deny, especially with such a precedent before
them. But the inference did not stup there. The House of
Commons proceeded to resolve (and I wish I could see the
logical discrepancy between the premises and the contusion,)
"That whatsoever is enacted and declared law by the Com-
mons of England assembled in Parliament, bath the force of
law, arch hinds the people Of England, uotlnout the towyent and
concurrence of tine Lords or of the Crown."

Such was the tiaeoretical inference of the House of Commons
in 164.9, the logical dependence of which upon the prernisys
laid down by thew, I say, I should be glad to see I,,gically
proved. The practical inferences were not tardy in their ar-
rival, after the theory. In a few weeks the Flouse of Fords
was ►rated useless ; and in a few inoyz we all know what be-
came of the Crown.

Sact., say, were the radical cluctriuo uf IGIB, otiJ SUCIA