3 MARCH 1832, Page 13

TOPICS OF THE DAY.

. LOGIC OF THE DEBATES.

THE discussion of the Metropolitan representation, which took place on Tuesday, offers some points- for criticism. The argument otthe -Marquis of CHANDOS ran thug—To extend the franchise in the Metropolis. will lead to Vest excitement; it

would give the Metropolis a predominating influence over the rest of the country. The excitement is taken for granted. The pre- dominating power would lie in the superior activity of the mem- bers ; and the members would be active because their constituents were close at hand to look after them. Mr. BARING once tried to alarm his hearers by talking of the extreme activity which the members of the new manufacturing boroughs were to display— they were to worry the squires to death; but their power will be insignificant compared with that which the eight additional mem- bers of London are to exhibit—they will put down both agricul- turists and manufacturers.

Alderman THOMPSON happened to be junketing on the River on the day that the Appleby case was first discussed ; he entered the House when it was about to divide; and being under an influence provocative of eloquence, spoke a speech and gave a vote on a question the terms of which he had not heard and did not under- stand. Dr. BOWRING, and some twenty or thirty other Liveryraen, found fault with Alderman THOMPSON ; and he promised not to offend in the same manner again. This the Marquis of CHANDOS considers quite hors de rtIgle. If men must have constituents_, they must be constituents who will not attempt to find fault with their representative.

But London is already sufficiently represented—e. g. four hun- dred members voted against the enclosing of Hampstead Heath! If a better proof be wanting, one hundred members reside in Mary- lebone. Now, in the first place, if all that the censure-loving elec- tors in London effect, is merely to compel the attention of their re-

presentative to- matters of local interest, the objection of predomi- nating influence falls to the around. Whether the enclosure of Hampstead Heath be opposed by amateur or real members, will

not affect the pleasure or the profit of the tenants-at-will of Bucks. But, in the second place, we must inform Lord CHANDOS, that it is not to protect the local interests of London that these members are

sought, but to protect the interests of the people of England. It is because the London members are amenable to public censure, that they are considered by the people, and felt by the House, to be important.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN'S argument was, that as London is by population and wealth entitled to fifty members,--and as it is im- possible to give it fifty members;—ergo it ought not to have eight. • What would Sir EDWARD say to the man who told his creditor— "If you were to get your right, you ought to get twenty shillings in the pound; but it is impossible for me to pay you more than ten

shillings; ergo I won't give you a farthing." The Globe says Sir EDWARD is "always ingenious and sometimes impudent;" with

our contemporary's leave, we would alter the sequence of the epi- thets, and say, Sir EDWARD is "always impudent, and sometimes ingenious."

Sir GEORGE MURRAY, who has taken to reading since the wars were all over, took a flight above the heir of Buckingham and the ex-Solicitor-General : he would not grant additional members to London—for why ? It would exalt the democracy ; and the demo- cracy destroyed Rome eighteen hundred years ago. It is pleasant

to find arguments against giving a couple of members to Maryle- bone, drawn from the state of society in an ancient city fourteen centuries before the invention of our representative system. Cos- BETT would call this the feelosophical view of the question.

Sir ROBERT PEEL is a practical man—he would vote for the amendment, because the contemplated addition might create jea- lousy in Liverpool. If an outskirt of London get two members, why not an outskirt of Liverpool get one? 'We see no reason why it ought not; and therefore propose very humbly to Sir ROBERT, that his half of Tamworth should be given to Toxteth Park at once. And if as he alleges, Dublin also complain that its skirts are not attended to, -by all means let the other Tamworth member go to Dublin. Neither Whigs nor Tories will suffer by lopping off one borough more.

Sir ROBERT says, an aristocracy saves the people from a mili- tary despotism. So does the shepherd save the flock from the wolf, and for a similar reason—that he may sell them to the butcher. - He argued, moreover, that giving members to populous towns would not put down riots, because riots have frequently taken place in populous towns ; and that refusing them to populous towns would not create riots, because Scotland, which has no members, is a very quiet part of the empire. We beseech him to test this argument—let him try a motion similar to that of Lord CHANDOS, in the case of unrepresented Birmingham, or unrepre- sented Manchester, or of quiet Scotland. Sir ROBERT had another argument, which is even more felici- tous—the Metropolitan members are on the spot, and they will attend closely to the business of the House! Lord CHANDOS would have members without constituents; Sir ROBERT would have constituents without members. What a delightful House they would frame between them Lord SANDON (Lord BSOUGHAM'S prothge) contented _himself

with despising the press; -Which: °Very feet in Englund doesj aS proudly as Lord SANDON. Such are the arguments for refusing eight members to eight hun- dred thousand inhabitants Of the wealthiest city in the universe.