The Sun.
London, England, 1829-04-20 00:00:00

which seldom indeed belongs to any human pro-
ceedings. We would readily, therefore, fight side
by side with the Winchilseas, Newcastles, Fah-
mouths, &c. for Parliamentary Reform, in. the per-
fect assurance that their success in this object could
not promote any of the narrow views they have at
heart, while it would prove of vast advantage to the
country. Reform in Parliament is what Catholic
Emancipation was seen to be for some years past, a
question of time. That it will be carried, sooner or
later, no calculating man can doubt, and we have
the satisfaction of reflecting, that even while it is
delayed the soil is cultivating for its reception, and
for giving it the better effect whenever it arrives.
The people are gradually improving, and in propor-
tion to the extent of their improvement must be the
value of increasing their influence on the councils of
the State. An opinion has been inconsiderately
entertained, that the popular prejudice, which would
have denied the Catholic claims, has furnished an
argument against the utility of reform. It is asked
by those who take things on the surface, What
would have been the fate of the Catholic Question,
if the influence of the people had been felt by their
representatives ? The answer is, that if the repre-
sentation of the country had been popular, it would
long ago have been found impossible to maintain the
state of things which has existed in Ireland. The
mass of the community may have a liking for into-
lerance, but they have a far stronger affection for
their money, and bigotry would have been stunted and
starved in the tax-gatherer's reduced levies. Let us
suppose a popular House of Commons, and we can-
not suppose a war establishment in time of peace,
and an army of 30,000 men supported in Ireland, to
restrain her struggles against oppression. Extrava-
gance has supported injustice, aad justice, notwith-
standing the adverse sentiment of the people, would
have been compelled by economy. John Bull
might have liked his bigotry, but
,he would have
considered it a luxury at too high a price, when put
in the short question, " Will you pay for 30,000
bayonets, or relinquish the misrule and oppression
of the sister kingdom, and keep your money in
your pocket ?" The argument, ad crumenam, never
fails. No people, who had any controul over their
purse-strings, would long endure a costly charge for
the maintenance of strife and perpetuity of disorder.
Taking these considerations into the account, we
contend that it is a flimsy fallacy to argue that
popular representation would have continued the
Catholic disabilities. For we urge that, in this
superficial view, the most necessary and wholesome
operation of popular representation is entirely over-
looked, namely, its check on extravagance, without
which the misgovernment of a dissatisfied nation
could not be perpetuated. The question would
thus have briefly resolved itself into the alternative
of the preference of pecuniary interest or intoler-
ance, and in the long run, at worst, we are persuaded
the purse would have prevailed. If, however, there
were more force in the solitary example of popular
error urged against popular influence, it would still
be most unreasonable to resist a principle, sound in
its general application, on the ground of a single
instance of abuse, which is now placed beyond the
reach of fate or folly. The people have shown
themselves capable of a single and great fault ; their
corrupt representation has shown itself capable of
a single and a great benefit—the one is not to be
condemned, nor the other redeemed, by these ex-
amples. Gratified as we are by the result, we
must yet confess, indeed, that the Houses of Parlia-
ment are not raised in public estimation by the
past exhibitions, and the Upper House is most
especially discredited by them. To what but ab-
ject subserviency to a Minister can be attributed
the change, within three years from a majority of
forty-five against the Catholic Claims to a majority
of one hundred and four for the Relief Bill ? We
cannot close our perceptions to the truth, that if the
measure had been the most mischievous ever pro-
posed, as we believe it to have been one of the most
beneficial, the triumph, through sycophancy and
Ministerial influence, would have been equally cer-
tain. Nay, if the Duke of Wellington had been suf-
ficiently foolish or wicked to have recommended the
re-imposition of the Penal Laws, we are convinced
the tools which have just assisted in securing the
triumph of liberality, would in that case have, with
equal pliancy, and certainly with more consistency,
ensured the victory of the most grinding oppression.