NEWS OF THE WEEK.
THE GREAT MEASURE has at length been laid before the public. It fully justifies the anticipations of the warmest friends of Reform, and has filled with confusion and dismay the whole of its enemies. By the plan of Ministers, as it was well explained on Tuesday by Lord Jomv RUSSELL, the following important changes will be effected in the constitution of the House of Commons.
All boroughs which contain less than 2000 inhabitants are to be dis- franchised ; this change condemns 60 boroughs and 119 members.
All boroughs which contain more than 2000, and less than 4000 inha- bitants, are in future to return but one member; this will reduce 47 'boroughs and 47 members.
Weymouth will in future return two instead of four members.
Seven towns are added to the representation, each to return two members.
Twenty others will each return one member.
The metropolis will in future return eight additional members. To 27 counties are added two members each.
The Isle of Wight will return one county member.
One member is added to the representation of Wales.
Five members are added to Scotland.
Three members are added to Ireland.
All persons residing in representative towns, and occupying a house of the value of 10/. per annum, will have a right to a vote at elections for members of towns.
Persons having a right to vote under the present laws will retain it for life. Non-residence, however, is an absolute disqualification in every case.
In the counties, all persons having a right to vote at present, will re- tain that right.
All persons possessing copyhold, or in Scotland holding the dominiurn utile of land to the amount of la per annum,-and all persons renting property on leases of nineteen years in Scotland, and of twenty-one years in the rest of the empire, of the annual rent of 50/. or more-will be enti- tled to vote in county elections. Polls in towns to finish in two, in coun- ties in three days.
The addition to the number of electors will be about 500,000 in Eng- land; the constituency of Scotland is estimated at 60,000.
Such are the grand outlines of the greatest, wisest, and best measure ever submitted to Parliament. The details of the changes in England will be best understood by the subjoined tables. The following exhibits the names and population (where they have any) of the condemned boroughs. The numbers are taken from the ,. opulationiteturns of 1821.
- Aldbormigh (York) •• • - Aldborottgh (Suffolk) ........
Appleby
Bedwin ..... ......... Beeralston ..................
Bishop's Castle ............. Bletehingly ... . Itoroughbridge ..... Bossiney...... ...........
Brackley Itramber Buckingham Callington ....
cametrord... ...... ......
'Castle Rising Corfe Castle .. ........
Trunwich .... Eye
Fowey Gatton. ........'..
Haslemere .... ......
Hedon ....... ...... ........
Heytesbury High= Ferrers ..
Hindon Ilchester • .
Looe (East) Lone (West) .... ... ......
Lostwithiel ..
Ludgersball.... ... •• • • • • • ..... .
...... .
..
.......
...
..... .. . ... .
: .
•
1187
4134 1212 824 1929 • 1610
860
fra
1851 99
1495
1321 1256 343
823
200
1882
1455
135
887 902
lass
877 830 802
770
539 933 477 Malmesbury Midhurst Milborne Port Minehead .... ..... Newport (Cornwall) . . Newton (Lancashire) .. ..... Newton (Isle of Wight) ...... Okehampton Orford ...
Petersfield
Plympton.. .. Queenborough .. ...........
Reigate ......... Romney .. . St. Mawe's . ...
St. Michael's (Cornwall) .... Saltash
Sarum (Old) .......
Seaford ..... .... I"... '
VI is .
Stockbridge Tregony„ ,'„, ,, ...
Warcham • We•-dover Webbly ...
Whitchurch . Winchelsea ............• Woodstock Wootton Basset Yarmouth (Isle of Wight) .... .
..
...
...
..
.
...
....
• • • 1322 1335 1440 1239 977 1643 ,. r 1119 1446 762 681
1328
962
1648
• 1548
•
1047 1324 715
1035
1931 1602 739 1434
817
1455 1701
564 • The boroughs of Old Sarum, Beeratston, Si, Michael's, and Neirtongsle of 'P00% ass included in other parishes. They are net distinguished iD the Population Returns. The reduced boroughs are these,
Amersham 2612 Lymington 3164
Arundel 2511 Maldon 3198
Ashburton . . 3403 Marlborough . 3033 Bewd ley .. 3725 Marlow 2532 Bodm in 2902 Morpeth 3415 Bridport . 3742 Northallerton
2646
Chippenham 3201 Penryn 2933
Clitheroe 326 Richmond 3546 Cockermouth 3790 Rye 3599 Dorchester 2743 St. Germains 2404 Downton 3114 St. Ives 3526 Droitwich ... 2176 Sandwich 2912 Evesham . 3487 Sudbury 2115 Grimsby 3064 Shaftesbury 2743
Grinstead (East) 3153 Tam worth 1636 Guildford . 3161 Thetford 2922 Helston 2671 Thirsk 2533 lionitnn. 3296 Totness 3123
Huntingdon . • .. ..... ...... . 2806
Truro 2712 Hythe 2185 Wallingford . 2093 Launceston 2183 Westbury 9117 Leominster 3651 Wilton 2053 Liskeard 2423 Wycombe 2864 Lyme Regis 2269 Weymouth
The added towns, which will in future return two members each, are
Manchester 108,016
Wolverhampton 6,8380
Salford 25,772
Bilston 12,003
133,768
Sedgeley 17,193 66,036
Birmingham 85,416
Sheffield 62,105 Ashton 19,189
104,605 Sunderland 14,725
Leeds 83,196 Bishop Wearmouth 11,542 Deptford .. 19,862
Monk Wearmouth 7,644 33,911 Greenwich 20,712
• There is some error In the lists here, but we Woolwich 17,008
56,582 hare not the means of correcting it.
future return one member, are. WhitehaVed .
Brighton. ........ ............ 24.429
Blackburn 53.350 Wolverhampton . . 36,838 Workington. 7,158 Harrington 1,845 12.438 Macclesfield.. 17,746 21,471 elemy 18,211 South Shields 8,885 Dudley Westoe 7,618 Tyud outh 9,454 16.503 North Shields 8,105 Warrington.. 16,696 17,659 Huddersfield. 24.220 Cheltenham 13,394 Halifax 92.850 Bradford (Wilts) 10,231 Gateshead 11,767 Frome 12,411 Kendal 17,417 Wakefield 22307 Bolton Kidderminster 15,294 Stockport.. . ........ • • • 44,957
London Districts to return two each.
Tower Hamlets 283.000 I Finsbury . .. 162,000
Holborn 218,000 1 Lambeth 128,009 The counties, which will in future return four instead of two members-except Yorkshire, wh eh will return six-are
Chester 270,099 Nottingham 186,873 Cornwall
257,447 Shropshire 204,153 Cumberland
156,124 Somersetshire 355,314 Derby
213,333 Southampton 283,293 Devon
439,040 Stafford 341,040 Durham
207,473 Suffolk 270.542 Essex
289,424 Sorry 399,658 Gloucester
335,843 Sussex 233,019 Kent • • • 424,014 Warwickshire 274,392 Lancaster
1,052,859 Wiltshire
222,137
Leicester
174,571 Worcestershire ....... .... 184,424 Lincoln
283,058 Yorkshire, East Riding ... 150,449 Northampton
l02,4S3 „ „ North Riding .. 184,381 Northumberland ..........
198,965 " " West Riding ... 792,357 Norfolk .. ..
344,343 Isle of Wight 31,616
The added towns, which will in In Wales, Swansea and some towns in its neighbourhood are erected into an elective district.
In Scotland, Edinburgh will, in future, return two members. Glasgow two ; and Aberdeen, Paisley, Dundee, Greenock, Leith (including Por- tobello and Musselburgh), will return one member ; Dumbarton will be joined to Bute, and Peebles to Selkirk, in addition to the conjunctions al- ready existing, and Peterhead will come instead of Aberdeen. The An- struther district of boroughs will be disfranchised. The voting will take place in the head town of each district, without delegation. The bill will disfranchise all the present burgh voters, except' such as may have the new qualification. Of course, the municipal go vernment is not affected by it. . The alterations in Ireland are one member added to Belfast, one to Waterford, and one to Limerick.
The result of the whole changes will be a diminution of 71 members in England. The House now consists of 658 members; it will in future consist of 596.
The first striking feature of the Ministerial plan, is the attempt for the first time since the foundation of the monarchy, to connect the Parliament in strict and intimate union with the great mass of the intelligence and property of the kingdom,-to give stability to the constitution, not by a mere widening of the bases on which it rests, but by substituting for the rotten and unequal piles by which it has hitherto been propped rather than supported, the good sound heart of oak of Old England-the man of sense and sub- stance, from the decent, thrifty shopkeeper, up to the mcr , t and landowner of a hundred thousand a year. It is a plan Wit must succeed. The second striking feature of the plan is its simplicity. Instead of the thousand confused, unintelligible, often unknown, always undetermined franchises at present existing, it offers an easily in- telligible test for the voters in towns and in counties respectively all over the kingdom. The consequence will be, the reduction of ex- pense, the abolition of vexatious and harassing disputes the re- moval of riots, drunkenness, and tumults, the introducing into the election of a member of the Legislature all that decency and deliberation which are so fitting in an act of so high importance. The interest which the measure has excited it is needless to com- ment on, for which of the whole number of our readers does pot feel its intensity ? On the House it seemed to burst like a thunder- clap. So well had Ministers kept their secret, that up to six o'clock on Tuesday—up even to the moment when Lord JOHN RUSSELL having ended his exordium, actually announced the de- tails of the measure, there did not appear to be a single soul that anticipated what these details were to be. The House of Commons was crammed—so much so, that the members could not find sitting-room. The Speaker declared he had never witnessed such an attendance. We need not de- scribe the gallery : the passages were crowded with anxious ex- pectants—barriers even were found necessary to protect the mem- bers from the pressure of the crowd in passing into the House. The speech of Lord JOHN RUSSELL was distinguished for its plainness, simplicity, and for the absence of every thing like an attempt at mere effect. The motion which he made, and which the House has been occupied in discussing for four nights, and will perhaps discuss for other four, was—" For leave to bring in a bill to amend the state of the representation in England and Wales." The representation of Scotland, and that of Ireland, will form the subject of two separate bills. It is unnecessary to allude to the various speakers. We have thought it our duty to assign to them a space in our columns which nothing but the immense importance of the subject could have justified. Arguments against the bill are not very new, nor will they prove very convincing. There is little fear that a cause which is opposed by no stronger weapons than the popularity of Sir ROBERT PEEL, the modesty of Mr. CHOKER, the learning of Sir ROBERT HARRY INGLIS, the discrimination of Sir CHARLES WETHERELL, and the gentility of Mr. HottAcc Twis* should seriously suffer in the eyes of men of sense, honour, or honesty. It was hinted to Earl GREY the other day, by a milk-and-water politician, that the bill would not pass. " What r said the vete- ran, "not pass? A bill which is approved of by the King, which is recommended by the Government, which is accepted by the People of England I—It must, and it shall pass."
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, he rose with feelings of the deepest anx- iety to bring forward a measure as unparalleled in importance as in difficulties. The measure was not individually his, but that of the Go.. vernment in whose name he appeared—the deliberate measure of the whole Cabinet—the redemption of the solemn pledge they had given to their Sovereign, to Parliament, and to their country. The interest that attached to the subject was shown by the crowded audience assembled there, but still more by the deep interest felt by millions out of the House who looked with anxiety, with hope, and expectation to the re- sult oethat day's debate. His Lordship attributed the authorship of the aneasnr4- to Earl Grey; and then proceeded to observe upon a cavil which had been raised upon an expression of the noble Earl—" that he would endeavour to frame such a measure as would satisfy the public mind, without endangering the settled institutions of the country." Some persons had said that the rotten boroughs were part of the settled insti- tutions of the country; but the noble Earl did not mean to include them in the above expression. "But can you," said this party, "pretend to satisfy the public mind without shaking the settled institutions of the country ?" His Lordship thought that the danger was involved rather in not attempting to satisfy the public mind. These institutions rested upon the confidence and love of Englishmen. The Government desired not to comply with extravagant demands, but to bring forward a mea- sure which every reasonable man would wish to become a law. The Go- vernment wished to place itself between two hostile parties—those who assert that no reform is necessary, and those who declare that one par- ticular reform only will satisfy the people. They placed themselves be- tween the abuses they wished to amend and the convulsion they hoped o avert.
His Lordship then proceeded to state the case of the Reformers.
The ancient constitution of our country declares, that no man shall be taxed for the support of the state, who has not by himself or his representative consented to the imposition of the tax. The well-known statute de tallagio non concedendo re- peated the same language. It included all the freemen of the land; and provided that each county should send to the Commons of the realm two knights, each city two burgesses, and each borough two members. Thus, about a hundred places sent representatives, a,.a some thirty or forty others occasionally enjoyed the privi- lege; but it was discontinued or revived as they rose or fell in the scale of import- ance. At that early period the House of Commons did represent the people of England. The House of Commons does not now represent the people of England. (Noise.) Therefore, if we look to thequestion of right, the Reformers have right in their favour.
His Lordship declared it impossible to preserve the House of Cour. mons in its present state.
Suppose a foreigner were told that in this most wealthy, most civilized, most free .country, the guardians of her rights were chosen every six years, would he not be carious to hear in what way this great and wise nation selected its representatives Would he not be astonished to learn, that a green mound, or that a park without the vestige of a dwelling, sent two members to Parliament? Still more would he be astonished if carried into the North, he should see large, flourishing towns, full of trade and activity, vast magazines of wealth and manufactures, and were told that those places sent no members to Parliament. Would he not be astonished to wit- ness in a popular election (as at Liverpool) the most barefaced scenes of bribery and corruption? Would he not be surprised, that representatives so chosen could perform the functions of a legislature "L say, then, if we appeal to reason, the Meformers have reason on their side. Our opponents may say, 'We agree that in Point of right the House of Commons does not represent the people, and in point of reason nothing can be more absurd; but Government is a mattes of practice and worldly wisdom, and as long as the House of Commons enjoys the respect of the People, it would be unwise to change." This argument has much weight; and as long as the people did not answer the appeals of the friends of reform, I felt that it was not to be resisted. But now the whole people call loudly for reform. (Noises.) The confidence of the people in this House exists no longer. (Noises.) I will say,. It would be easier to transfer the flourishing manufacture of Leeds and Manchester to Cation and Old Sarum, than to reestablish confidence and sympathy between the House and those whom it calls its constituents. Therefore, I say, if this question be one of right, right is in favour of reform ; if It be a question of reason, reason is in favour of reform ; if it be a question of policy and expediency, policy and expe- diency are in favour of reform. (Loud cheers.)
The Ministers thought, continued his Lordship, that it would not be sufficient to propose a measure which should merely lop off some ex.. crescences, or cure some notorious defects, but would still leave the battle to be fought hereafter; that no half-measures would be sufficient —no trifling, no paltering with reform, could give stability to the Crown, strength to the Parliament, or satisfaction to the country. (Much cheering.) The people complained of the nomination of mem- bers by individuals, of the elections by close corporations, and of the expenses of elections. The nomination by individuals might be effected in one of two ways—either over a place containing scarcely any inhabi- tants, and with a very extensive right of election, or over a place of wide extent and numerous population, 'but where the franchise is con- fined to very few residents. Gatton was an example of the first, Bath of the second. A remedy had been applied to both. In boroughs, where the inhabitants were few, and the franchise extensive, it would be a mere farce to take away the right from the persons and give it to the borough. The only remedy was to disfranchise the borough. He was aware that this was a bold and decisive measure, and that on all ordinary occasions rights of this kind ought to be respected—for no small consideration should they be touched. Lord John proceeded to quote the precedent of the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling free- holders of Ireland, when the Catholic Emancipation Bill passed.
That bill was accompanied by another measure—the disfranchisement of 200,000 freeholders—who had broken no law, corrupted no right, but exercised their privi- lege, ignorantly perhaps, but independently, and according to the best light they could obtain from their consciences. " Now If I am about to quote the words of the right honourable gentleman (Sir Robert Peel), it is not because he was bound to be consistent. (Cheers and laughter.) On great occasions of this kind, men must act as the interests of the country demand. But I beg the House to recollect, that he stood here as the servant of the Crown—representing the Ministers who have gone out of office—and declaring in their name, the principles which ought to bind Parliament in the decision of a great question at an important crisis. He told us that on fit occasions the House was bound to step beyond its ordinary rules—that it did so on the discussion of the Union, the Septennial Acts, and some others. Shall we say that this principle is to be maintained when the poor peasantry of Ireland is concerned, but not so when it touches the great and the wealthy ? Shall we at once deprive the freeholder of Ireland of the right which he merely exercised as the constitution gave to him, and be afraid to touch the right of the noble proprietor of Gatton, who returns two members to Parliament, although he derived no such power from the constitution ? Shall a strictly constitutional right be abolished be- cause the convenience, the necessity of the country demands it, and that a right, which is a mere usurpation, with no sanction of law, and supported only by usage, shall be respected and untouched, though the public interest requires, and the pub- lic voice demands its abolition ? Shall we make this glaring distinction between rich and poor, high and low—disfranchise the peasant, and prop the falling fortunes of the peer ?" (Hear, hear!)
His Lordship said, it had been a point of great difficulty to decide to whom the franchise should be extended. In ancient times, every in- habitant householder resident in a borough was competent to vote for members of Parliament. This arrangement excluding villeins and strangers, the right belonged to particular persons in every town, who were persons of property ; they in fact paid the subsidies and taxes. In some towns every person possessing a house was admitted to partici- pate in the privileges formerly possessed by burgesses ; in others, bur- gesses became a select body, more or less exclusive of the inhabitants. These differences led to the complicated questions of right, which the House was every week called upon to decide—questions most vexatious and difficult, and at the same time most useless. Originally, these ques- tions were decided by the prevalence of one party or the other ; they were now determined fairly, but still the determinations were founded upon the iniquity of the parties. His Lordship contended, that the House ought to get rid of these complicated and vexatious questions, and give the right of voting to the real property and real respectability of the cities and towns.
In speaking of the 168 vacancies to be created by the disfranchisement of the boroughs, Lord John Russell said, that the Government thought it inexpedient to fill up the whole of them. The number of members at present was inconveniently large. (Cheers and laughter.) No gentle- man who had been a member of the House before the Union with Ire- land would deny that the facility of getting through business had been since greatly diminished.
"Besides," said his Lordship," when Parliament is reformed, so many members will not enter Parliament merely for the sake of the name, and as a matter of style and fashion. (Murmurs.) Some members spend their money in foreign countries, and never attend the House stall. At the end of a Parliament. there are generally found some instances of individuals who have been elected, but have never appeared at the table of the House even to take the oaths. But when constituents watch the actions and the votes of their members, their attendance will be more regular.
His Lordship then gave the details of the measure, which we have already stated. Speaking of the increase in the constituency of the empire consequent on the bill, Lord John said— Re that the number which would be added to the constituency would certainly be half a million of people, and of people, too, who would be connected with the property of the country, having themselves a valuable stake in the coun- try, deeply interested in preserving and promoting its interests and upon whom they could depend in any future struggle which the country might have to sustain to support that House—to support Parliament, and to support the Throne, in bringing that struggle to a successful termination. (Loud and repeated cheers.) He thought that such a measure was calculated to give the greatest possible incitement to iodustry and good conduct throughout the great body of the electors in the United Kingdom. When a man found that he was rated for a certain amount, and that that rate gave to him the privilege of voting for a representative in Parliament, it would be evidently both prudent and politic on his part to preserve his character unimpaired amongst his neighbours, and in the face of the country. He was of opinion that when they added such a large constituency to the 'country, they pro- vided both for its mOral and political improvement.
Two qitestions the bill left untouched—the duration of Parliament, and the vote. by ballot. 14h respect to • the first, granting the diffi- culty to be no mean one of fixing what period should' be long enough to enable members to, be fully acquainted with the dnties they had to perform, and at the same time not so long as to remove them from the salutary. control of their constituents, his Lordship yet thought it could be best settled by a future and separate enactment. With respect to the vote by ballot, he admitted that few questions came backed by stronger and more convincing arguments ; at the same time, he could not say they had convinced him. The ballot went to establish a system
of irresponsibility ; and he was not friendly to the existence in the con- stitution of any bcdy, electors or others, who should be wholly irre- sponsible for the manner in which they exercised their politic& privileges.
The objection usually urged against such a measure as he then brought forward, was, that it weat to alter what had been rendered venerable by time : but he must contend, that they would pay a much higher compliment to the wisdom of our ancestors, by removing than by per- petuating the abuses which vitiated the system of which they were in their wisdom the founders. Thus it had been said, that if close boroughs were disfranchised, men of talents only might not be able to find their way into the House of Commons ; and examples were brought forward' of many men of talents who had commenced their Parliamentary career as rep:esentatives of closc boroughs. Lord John ridiculed the notion that under a popular system of election talent and probity would not have more weight than under a restricted system. It was said that a Bouse of Commons, chosen as he would have it chosen, would be wholly democratical—that such a plan would be fatal to the aristocracy of the country— He utterly denied that his plan could have any such effect. Wherever the aris- tocracy resided, receiving large incomes, performing important duties, relieving the poor by charity. and evincing private worth and public virtues in their attention to the neighbourhood around them, it was not in human nature that they should not possess a great influence 1.17JOU public opinion, anti have an equal weight in electing persons to serve their conidry in Parliament (Hear, hear!) Although such an aristocracy might not.under u system of reform, possess the influence which they now enjoyed, he felt assured that they would have as much influence as they ought to bave in e.ecting the members of that Douse, and fully as much as the constitution ever intended that they should have. But if the effect of this measure were only to destroy the influence of an aristocracy that did not live with the people or for the people, that knew nothing of the people, that cared nothing for the people—an aris- tocracy that sought for honours without desert, that craved for places without du- ties, and for pensions Ivithont service—for such an aristocracy he had no respect and no sympathy, and the riestroction of their influence would be one of the most powerful arguments that could be urged in his favour. (Laud and repeated cheers.) The question, however, was not whether reform should exclude here or there an unlucky man of talents—not whether it might detract from the influence of this or that lord ; it was, Whether, without some large measure of reform, the Government could carry on the affairs of the country with the confidence s.nd support of the nation. If this could not be done, it might still become a question whether reform could be resisted, but there could be no question that in such a, case the British constitution must perish. (Noises.) The House of Commons in its unreformed state had nothing to look to but public confidence, and the sympathy of the nation, for its support. It appeared to him that if reform were refused, all such confidence and sympathy would very soon be withheld. (Noises.) He asked whether, when the Ministers of the Crown were convinced that reform was necessary—when the Sovereign bad per- mitted them to lay before the House their proposition ; and when they came, with that permission, to declare in the most firm and unequivocal manner, that they considered reform to be indispensable, and when the people out of doors, by mul- titudes of petitions, and millions of voices, were calling for the same thing—was it for the House of Commons to say—" We are the judges of our own purity ; we equally despise the Ministers of the Crown and the voice of the people. We will keep our power against all remonstrances and all petitions, and we will take our chance of the dreadful consequences?"
Whatever might be the result of the propositions he had made to the House, he must say that his Majesty's Ministers would feel that they had thoroughly done their duty in bringing the measure forward. (Cheers.) His Majesty's Ministers had pursued the strict line of their duty, and had followed a straightforward course, neither seeking for the support of particular classes, nor the applause of the multi- tude. When they bad fell; it to be their duty to resist popular feelings, they had not hesitated to encounter and resist them by a firm and vigorous enforcement of the law, by which many disturbances had been prevented, and many In other parts of England had been suppressed, he trusted permanently. By their vigorously enforcing laws, passed before they had entered into office, agitation had been made to subside, and peace had been re-established. In no case could it be said that Ministeis had wavered in their duty by bending to popular clamour, or by seeking to ingratiate themselves in popular.and transient favour. He had a right to say, that in submitting the present proposition to the House, they had evinced an in- terest in the future welfare of the country. They had thought that what they had proposed was the only thing calculated to give permanence to the constitution which had co long been the admiration of foreign nations on account of its free and popular spirit, but which could not exist much longer except by an infusion of a new popular spirit. By these means, the House would show to the world that it was determined no longer to be an assembly of the representatives of small classes and particular interests, but that it was resolved to form a body of men who repre- sented the people—who sprung from the people, who had sympathies with the people, and who could fairly call upon the people to support their burdens in the future struggles and difficulties of the country, on the ground that those who asked them for that support were joining heart and hand with them, and like themselves were seeking only the glory and welfare of England.
Lord John Russell concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill in conformity with the propositions laid down in his speech.
Sir Joux SEBIZIGIIT very briefly seconded the motion.
Sir ROBERT H. Israms, said, Reform had now for the first time been brought forward by the Ministers of the Crown. He denied that the people demanded reform. A similar cry for reform had been often heard before—not, perhaps, backed by so many petitions, but still by a sufficient number to justify exclamations as loud as had been heard that night. In 1782, the House was told by Mr. Burke that there would be great and urgent danger to the Government if reform were refused ; In 1782, the meetings and the demands of the people were as formidable as they are now. The excitement that now prevailed, was stimulated by the transactions of Belgium and of France, and would pass away when the novelty of these transactions had worn off. It was quite as great in 1793, and from a similar cause. Ten years ago, the cry for reform was raised in consequence of the popular insurrection in Naples. The case at present was wholly different from what it was during the discussion of the Catholic question : then the people spoke of what they understood —they asked to keep what they possessed ; now they sought to cast away what they possessed, and thus, asking what it would be improper to grant, he felt he was quite justified in refusing to listen to their prayers. Members were not chosen as attorneys for particular places, but for the empire at large ; and they were not bound to obey the recommendation of their particular constituents, unless it coincided with their own. judgment. With respect to the theory that population and taxation formed the sole basis of representation, there was no proof in the history of England that such a basis ever existed. In the earliest part of the Parliamentary history, small boroughs had been called on to return Members, while large towns had been passed over. When the Erst writ was directed to the stock example, so often alluded to in the House and out of it, Old Sarum, it was but an inconsiderable village. He defied, indeed, Lord John Russell to show a single instance in which the privilege of sending members to Parliament had been with.! drawn from a town merely because it was small, or granted to a town merely because it was large. In one instance, Queen ' Xlieqbeth: hod created, two boroughs, at the special .request of on of her favourites,—Newport, in the Isle of Wight, was created at the request of Sir George Carew. It was evident that the boroughs were originally called into being to gratify the aristocracy; yet Lord John Russell denominated the destruction of the boroughs and of the influence of the aristocracy, a restoration. Some of the towns to which it was intended to transfer the right of returning members, were large and populous very many years ago. Previons to 1680, Manchester con. tamed no less than 5400 inhabitants ; yet subsequent to that period, no less than 51 boroughs were summoned for the first time, while Man- chester was passed over. Sir Robert went on to argue, that with a very few exceptions, all the men who had taken a large share of the business of the country had entered Parliament through close boroughs—that there was no other method by which lawyers and mercantile men were likely to enter it, however desirable their presence might be; and that, so far from its being How more than at any former period or our history necessary to repress the influence of tile Crown, there was no former period when the influence of the Crown was less. The influence of the aristocracy had equally declined, from that period when a Duchess of Norio' lk, after arranging the return for the county of Nor- folk, proceeded to nominate the members for Mahlon, and when an Earl of Essex commanded one of his kinsmen to be returned for Stafford and one of his servants for Tarnworth. The only ground for a change in the constitution of Parliament was the prevalence of money ias fluence, of the influence of place, of the existence of parties injurious to free discussion, none of which were at present proper and just sub- jects of complaint. The increase of petitions, the publication of the debates, every thing proved that the independence of the House was never so great as it now was. To add to the popular branch of the Legislature any greater weight than it at-present possessed, would only tend to destroy the other two.
He sincerely believed that a represo.ntation so entirely popular as that which the noble Lord wishel to introduce, never could coexist with a free press on the oar hand, and a iiikeliirchy on the other. No instance, he was sure, could be pointed out, where a popular Goverturient on the one hand, aided by a free press on the other, could be found in juxtaposition with a monarchy. They had an instance of this formerly. On the very day when the Commonwealth Parliament murdered their King, they voted the House of Lords a nuisance; and he was convinced, if the proposed plan were agreed to, that in the course of ten years the shock would be decisive. If such a measure Os that of the noble Lord were carried, it woull strike at the very foundation of the constitution, and lead to the utmost confusion.
SirRobert concluded by declaring his intention of opposing the motion.
Sir C. E. SMITH approved of the principle of Lord John Russell's plan, though he did not approve of all its details. He thought that the best safeguard against bribery, would be to administer to members the ame oath as to voters.
Mr. HORACE Twiss said, the Ministers were acting on the precedent of the worst of times—the times of Charles the Second and James the Second. The same thing was done then as was attempted to be done now, under the colour of law. But the course pursued at that period had been condemned with universal and lasting reprobation, as grossly unjust mid unconstitutional.
The object which the Ministers of that daybed in view. was effected by the assist- ance of Judge Jefferies,—that object being to give additional and unconstitutional power to the Crown, as it was now sought to confer it on the Democracy. But what was done at the Revolution I Why, those who effected it placed the boroughs and corporations on their proper footing; and the declaration sent out by King William, even before his landing in this country, after reprobating the unconstitutional acts of Charles and James, said, in one brief but most important sentence, that " all the boroughs of England shalt return again to their ancient prescriptions andchartersa' The Convention Parliament of that day framed the Bill of Rights ; and the pream- ble of that bill recited " that the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, them assembled at Westminster, were the lawful representatives of the people of Eng- land." He hoped that the same sound sense which preserved the institutions of the country in the first Parliament of William the Third would continue to uphold therm in the first Parliament of William the Fourth.
Mr. Twiss was so far from thinking that the people had not sufficient power in the House, that if they would but honestly speak their senti- ments, he believed there were not twenty men in the House that did not think the people had too much power there. The great danger to be guarded against in the House of Commons, was not the influence of the Crown, or of the Aristocracy, but the influence of the people themselves. Mr. Twiss said he had no objections to such changes as took place in the cases of Grampound and East Retford; but he must protest against the wisdom of calling in the influence of shopkeepers and small country attorneys—shallow and dogged politicians, to whom reduction of taxa- tion was every thing—persons to whom Mr. Twiss had no objection in their proper place, but he thought they had no claim to influence the House of Commons. He contended, that, extensive as the proposed
measure of Reform was, it would be considered by the Reformers out of doors as an evasion of their rights ; and he concluded by panegyrising the national debt as the grand source of the national welfare.
The public stocks were solid grounds for confidence in the security of the institutions o' the country. By the special blessing of Providence, the burdens of the country formed some sort as security for the welfare of the country. The superincumbent weight, while it pressed down, gave stability to the structure. There would be no revolution to fear, nor any permanent dissatisfaction to dread, while that pressure remained. But if, surrendering the free privileges of the Legis- lature, we blindly obeyed the will of the people instead of consulting their welfare, —if we decided on this great question, not according to experience and wisdom, but were led away by the cry of the day,—then we should let in danger,—then we should let in revolution, of which the noble Lord had spoken' —by teaching the peo- ple, that their will would alone direct the course of the Legislature. (Cheers.) Lord ALTHORP said—The grounds of complaint among the people were the nomination-boroughs, and the great expense of elections. Now
h i
e would ask, could any man succeed n convincing the people that it was a beneficial thing to have nomination-boroughs ? The system of nomination-boroughs put it in the power of persons of large property to dictate to the Ministers of the day. This dictation was such as mast constantly interfere with the good government of the country. This was an evil which counterbalanced, and more than counterbalanced, the advantages of the system which had been so much praised by Mr. Twiss. It was undoubtedly true that many able men had come into Parliament as members for those nomination-boroughs ; but it did not therefore follow that those men wouldnot have come into Parliament if those nomination- boroughs had not been in existence. The next complaint of the people referred to the expenses of the elections. Whence did these expenses arise ? In the first place, from the distance which the voter had to travel to give his vote; and, secondly, from the elective franchise being placed in the hands of persons of no property, and whowere liable LS be corrupted and bribed. The proposition to which Government had pledged themselves, was to bring forward a full and efficient reform ; and that pledge they endeavoured to redeem, by annihilating the evils of nomination-boroughs, and diminishing the temptation to corruption by placing the franchise in the hands of the middle classes. This pro- posal had been denounced as a step to revolution. Was it meant to be asserted, that the middle classes of the country were discontented with the present form of government ? The present form of govern. went was prized by the middle classes. He meant the form of government of King, Lords, and Commons,—but not a House of Commons constituted partly by nomination and partly by purchase of seats. A house so constituted was not popular. The people of this country, though approving of a mixed monarchy, objected to the system of representation which prevailed. Perceiving that that was the feeling of the middle classes, and feeling confident that they had no wish for a change in the form of government, or any desire for a revolit. eon, his Majesty's Ministers had thought it their duty to propose the present measure, being satisfied that the House might safely entertain It, as it would place the election of members for the House of Commons in the bands of the middle classes. It was his opinion, that if the middle classes of this or any other country were hostile to the form of govern- ment under which they lived, whatever the state of representation might be, that government would never be safe. Mr. Twiss had ridi- culed the middle classes ; he could not be aware of the extent of intel- ligence and information possessed by those classes, or he would not have talked of them in the way he had. They possessed a degree of intel- ligence which fully qualified them to return members to the House of Commons, whose honesty, integrity, and ability, would enable them to discharge their duties to the-benefit of the country. Sir Robert Inglis had argued against taking population as a test for representation. Lord Althorp proposed to take population as a test, for towns to return members ; but he took property and not population as the basis of the franchise.
Mr. Twigs had said something about the seizing of the charters by James the Second 5 and compared that act with the proposed alteration for the benefit of the popular branch of the Legislature. It was true, as Mr. Twiss observed, that our ancestors of the Revolution considered that act of King James a most gross viola- tion of the constitution ; and they had so considered it. because it was intended to be subversive of the liberties of the country, and to destroy every thing that was valuable in the institutions of the land. But the object of his Majesty's Government was, on the contrary, to establish the freedom of election, and make the popular branch of the Legislature a real representation of the people. He confessed himself one of those popular theorists, who thought that the House of Com- mons ought to be the genuine representation of the people. (cheers.) That was the constitution of the country. Honourable gentlemen might go back and find periodi in barbarous times, when great outrages were committed by the Crown against the privileges of that House ; yet it had always been held to be the consti- tutional doctrine, that the House of Commons ought to be the representation of the eop e of England.
Mr. Twiss said that the proposed measure of Reform would give no satisfaction to the country. There might be some ammo, the Reformers whom it would not satisfy. But they were but a small minority of the class which was calling for Reform ; it was the great body of the middle classes who were crying out for Reform. He was convinced that they would be satisfied with the proposition. (Hear! Mr. Twiss was quite mistaken in supposing that the proposed measure was not intended to be a final settlement of the question. As far as his Lordship was concerned, he did propose it as a final settlement. It might be supposed that his own opinion would have been favourable to a somewhat different mea- sure; but he thought the best way to succeed in what he had long aimed at as the great object of his political life, was to sacrifice some of his own opinions. Having, therefore, united with his colleagues, and agreed upon the measure, lie felt himself pledged to support it, and not to go beyond it. He thought that great advantage would be secured to the country by the adoption of the proposition, and that the measure would be sufficient to place that House, as it ought to be, under the influence of the people of England.
It had never been his habit to look to theory, but entirely to practice ; and his wish was to remedy practical evils. He saw those practical evils in the present sys- tem; and unless the House of Commons were placed under the influence of the country, those evils could never be avoided. He thought that the present proposi- tion would have the effect of giving to the people that influence over the House which they ought to have, and which he wished to give them, He certainly was of Opinion that the House of Commons should be under the influence not of the Aris- tocracy, or of the Government, or of the Crown, but under that of the great,body of intelligent and respectable classes of thesouutry,—the large majority of the people coining under that distinction. (Cheers.) Lord F. L. Gowoo rose to defend existing institutions. It was ex- tremely difficult to estimate the benefits received from them, although all who looked at other countries and reflected on the state of their own, roust feel grateful. In his reverence for these institutions, he might be led into absurdities, but be could not fall into any so great as the belief that our distresses were due to the state of the representation. His ob- ject was principally to call attention to that part of the measure which related to Scotland, with which he was closely connected. He trusted that the noble Lord would pause, and ascertain with some accuracy the details of the system of Scotland, and the manner in which the state of the representation was interwoven with the property of that country. There was a time when priests engaged in political discussions in that country, and he would be most unwilling to countenance any plan that should induce them to renew that interference. There was no country on the face of the earth, not excepting Ireland, where the ministers of religion exercised so much influence over the minds of the people. His Lordship believed that the question of Reform had received a fresh impulse, not from any new arguments, but from the succession of events on the Continent. His Lordship thought, in the recent Skirmish of pamphlets, which had preceded this debate, the advantage had been upon the side of the Anti-Reformers. He eulogised Pitt and Canning ; whose principle it was, though now deserted by their followers, to judge of the Constitution by its fruits—to look not at its theories, but its effects, and to think the prosperity and the peace and happiness which it bestowed upon the country, worthy of being defended and preserved. Those great men never assumed a nobler or a grander aspect than when, like the prophet of old, they placed themselves between the Constitution and the plague of an unlimited popular representation. (Loud cheers.) The represen- tation of the House, asit stood, was a sufficient security for liberty : Pitt and Canning thought, that in a more extended representation there would be less security for property. They saw Mr. Burke driven from the representation of Bristol, because he dared to advocate the union of these bonds which should connect kindred people. The portal- of the Constitution might be occasionally low, but integrity might pass it with- out stooping. Straight and narrow might be the way of the Constitu- tion, but they knew that wisdom and virtue might enter with safety without losing sight of integrity or public honour His Lordship thought that the bill should be allowed to proceed to that stage in which the details might be considered. He had not left his place on the other side long enough not to know, that every measure recently brought forward in that quarter was defective and illusory. He did not mean to say any thing offensive or uncivil to the Ministers, but he did not perceive in their measures that overpowering talent which should induce him to relinquish the opinions he had derived from higher authorities. This declaration was quite consistent with the most perfect respect for the assiduity, the ability, the research, and the candour of Lord John Russell.
Mr. HUME moved the adjournment on Tuesday ; and, by the courtesy of the House, he opened the renewed debate on Wednesday. Radical reformer as he was, Mr. Hume said, he was bound to admit, that the plan of Re- form exceeded his expectations. With every disposition to give confi- dence to the Ministers, he had not been prepared for so manly and bold a measure. It efficiently redeemed the pledge of Ministers. Any change from bad to good,—or rather, in this case, front the worst to the best,— must be attended with difficulty ; but it would be the duty of every man, instead of throwing petty obstacles in the way of the plan, to do his utmost to promote so great and good an object. He was glad that Minis- ters had not incumbered themselves with the Ballot and Triennial Par- liaments : these should be postponed, at any rate, till the present import- ant changes had been accomplished. It was with satisfaction he stated, that all the persons with whom he had had the opportunity of conversing that day, highly approved of the plan. (Cheers. ) Many of these were among the strongest Reformers in England. And it was wise to be satis- fied. It was the perfection of government to meet the grooving wishes of the people, and, by timely changes to avoid the risk of more violent changes. Perhaps some would think that the qualification of an elector was placed too high, because it excluded so many of the lower orders ; but he believed the great mass of the community would see at once the great good that had been achieved, and the little injury with which it was attended. The parties who would be chiefly benefited would be the lowest and highest classes—the people and the peers— for population and property were made the two foundations of the fran- chise. The speeches of Lord Leveson Gower and Mr. Twiss were not so much against any specific plan of Reform, as against Reform in the ab- stract. He put it to the House, whether it could be seriously asserted that it did not need Reform. (Noise.) The noble Lord had talked of the pros- perity of Scotland, as if it had arisen out of the defective state of the repre- sentation. True, Scotland had thriven, but her prosperity had grown out of her connexion with England, a rich manufacturing- country ; and if her system of elections had been different, her prosperity might have been greater. Scotland had raised her voice for Reform. She would have the satisfaction of knowing that the number of her electors would be increased from three thousand to six thousand. Mr. Hume approved of the plan of reducing the number of members ; he thought no deliberative assembly should exceed five hundred members. He was anxious to say, that every argument advanced last night against the measure seemed to him the strongest possible argument for its adoption at the present moment. • Did the House possess the confidence of the people ? In the face of the petitions from all parts of the kingdom and from all classes of the community, no member would venture to say it did. Was it not wise, then, to comply with reasonable wishes rationally urged, instead of waiting for the compulsion of a more violent ebullition ? The recent violent changes on the Continent had been produced by the obstinate refusal of Government to listen to the voice of the people. Let any man who opposed this beneficial change, think what might be the conse- quence of its rejection.
Mr. SHELLEY, member for Gatton, looked upon the proposed measure as the prelude of future misery. (Cheers.) All must agree that the eyes not only of Britain, but of Europe, were turned to the proceedings of the House upon that question. He confessed he stood in a peculiar position in regard to the measure, but he was entirely uninfluenced by the consideration of personal interest. It had been urged as an argument for the destruction of the close or rotten boroughs, that their representa- tives cannot give a free vote ; but he considered that the only members who were completely, thoroughly, and entirely free and independent, re- presented the close boroughs. (Cheers, and great laughter.) It bad always been held that representatives were bound to support the individual interests of their constituents, but the members for the close boroughs were un- shackled by any obligations to support local or individual interests, and were free and unbiassed for the consideration of all questions for the whole nation. Mem- bers who represented agricultural districts were bound to support agricultural inte- rests; and the representative of a manufacturing district, to support manufacturing interests.
Mr. Shelley was inclined to think that Ministers would not be greatly vexed if they were defeated, and that they would be willing to give their impracticable pledges as a coup de grace to their declining Administra. tion. (Cries of "No, no !") He wished that the House should not sup- pose him to be actuated by personal motives. He believed the bill was calculated to break up social order. Persons occupied by the business Of a trade or profession would not by any possibility obtain a seat in Par- liament. Lawyers and merchants must bid farewell to the House of Commons. (Cheers and laughter.) No Government could last six months, and the country would soon reach the climax of Reform, Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and the ne plus ultra of innovation, the Vote by Ballot. The noble Lord opposite' proposed to give to the respectable neighbourhood of St. Giles's, to St. Martin-in-the-Fields, and to Marylebone, the power of sending members to Parliament. Now, if Gatton should be disfranchised, in common fair- ness the noble Lord should at least give him the chance of being returned as a mem- ber to that House by giving the franchise to the parish in which he resided—the pa- rish of St. George; (Cries of" It is in Westminster.")
Mr. WALL, Member for Guildford, thought that the alteration of the tone and temper in which' this measure was received had not been suffi- ciently regarded. Was this an age of misrule ? The Parliament was strong, but the Government was weak. He did not mean the present Administration, but Governments generally. Could any Government come down to Parliament with. the certainty of a majority upon any measure ? Was not the House of Commons more independent of Go- vernment, and less corrupt, than it had ever been before ? In what country was there more of liberty and less of corruption, or a more ample representation of property and intelligence ? The most remark- able feature in our system of representation, was the total absence of system. All our institutions resulted from the adaptation of laws and usages to times and circumstances as they occurred, without regard to the working of the whole machinery. Therefore, as there was no system in the representation, none was necessary in the Reform. Mr. Wall objected to the measure, that, professing to be an act of grace and favour, it was, in fact, one of harshness and disfraachisement. The interests of corporations ought to be considered. He had always been brought up in a feeling of respect for a Mayor, and Aldermen he regarded as men of much respectability. (Laughter.) He would as soon have thought of an equitable adjustment as of overthrowing that class. The plan would leave the agricultural districts without representation. Cornwall, instead of forty representatives, would have twelve only. Portsmouth was still to send two members, but what would follow throw- ing open the corporation of that town ? The representatives of Ports- mouth would, in future, he twO junior lords of the Admiralty. By the new arrangements, the representation of England would, like the manu. facturers, migrate northward to the coal-cminties ; and in the progress of Reform, the Southern counties would be at length without representa- tion. It was impossible to say where innovation would stop. As Mary- lebone was to have a representative, would not Paddington be clamorous also for the right to send a deputy to Parliament, and Hamp- stead become factions because she is not represented ? Lord Althorp supposed his Reform would be a final measure. He should remember, that had he carried that measure in 1800, Brighton and Cheltenham would at this day be without representation ; and as far as they are concerned, another reform should now take place. Mr. Wall wished to know how official persons were to obtain seats ?—a question of no light importance, but he left that to the consideration of the gentlemen oppo- site. He did not think that a House of Commons upon the noble Lord's plan would be the most fit to deliberate upon many great questions of importance. Would the question of West India slavery, or of the Corn- Laws, be wisely considered in such a Parliament ? Seats of refuge should be preserved.
Lord NEWARK replied, that official Members then in the House would find no difficulty in retaining their seats. With respect to Corn- wall, his Lordship was sure that the people of that shire did not think themselves represented by their present members ; and they would pre- fer a change in the quality of the representation to a mere increase in number of their representatives. In his present views of the subject the bill appeared of too sweeping a character, in respect at least of the nomination boroughs but be would fairly and frankly state, that if he was reduced to the alternative of adopting this bill with all its provi. dons, and with hs full destruction of all these boroughs, or to that of having no Reform at all, his warm though humble support should be given to the bill, even without his desiring one single letter of it to be altered. (Hear, hear !) Lord DARLINGTON said that, as an unprejudiced and independentMem; ber of Parliament, he felt it to be his duty to give the question his most attentive consideration—carefully to weigh the arguments on both sides, and adopt that most recommended by reason. It might be said that he was himself one of the aggrievedparties—perfectly;true ; but did it thence follow that he was incompetent to form a right. judgment upon the matter ? He had considered the matter most deeply and attentively—he had given it all the consideration in his power—he had arrived at no rash conclusion ; and he was influenced by no motives except those which arose from an earnest desire to promote the welfare and the interest of the great body of the people. The question of Reform had now been agitated for more than half a century; but within the last two years, and more especially within the last six months it had become an object of paramount importance. He could not conceal from himself, that the
late Revolutions in France and Belgium had considerable influence in producing this change in the public mind. The representative system was not quite perfect, but the country had for more than one hundred and fifty years enjoyed a degree of prospe- rity, under existing institutions, which was unparalleled at any ante-
cedent period. He was not so bigoted as those who thotight no conces- sions should be made. Representatives should be given-to some of the
large towns ; and the rotten boroughs he thought ought to be carefully observed, and when detected in any delinquency they should be de- prived of their charter—that Would be nothing more than their just deserts. As new interests arose manufacturing or otherwise, they should be represented ; but he could not agree to witness what was, in effect, the confiscation of so much private property, without compensa- tion to the owners of boroughs.
Lord EBRINGTON felt it incumbent on him to return the thanks of his constituents to his noble friend, the proposer of the bill, to that united Cabinet which had deputed his noble friend to propose the mea- sure, and to that gracious Master who had given his sanction to the pro. position. (Loud cheering, and cries of " Order" from the Opposition.) A Member appealed to the Speaker, whether such an allusion to the sentiments of the Sovereign were not most disorderly.
The SPEAKER had no difficulty in answering, that nothing could be more disorderly than to introduce the name of the Sovereign for the purpose of influencing the House in its judgment and decision upon a public measure. (Cheers from the Opposition.) But if the name of the Sovereign were alluded to merely with a view to state to the House what the House knew well to be the case—that, by the constitution of the country, Ministers being alone responsible and answerable for public measures, the presumption was that the Sovereign, having the right and prerogative to change his servants, would not continue them in office if they proposed measures that were not considered beneficial to the coun- try, the allusion was not disorderly. (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Lord EBRINGTON went on to repeat, that he felt it his duty to offer to the Ministers of the Crown the thanks of his constituents, as well as Ins own thanks, for the measure which they had proposed to the House, ....thanks which he was sure would be reechoed from every part of the country—thanks for this great and comprehensive and safe, because efficient and full, measure of Parliamentary Reform. (Cheers and
htughter from the Oppositi,n.) Lord Ebrington said, the defence of the rotten boroughs that had been attempted u ma too far : the argument went to show, not merely that the members for Old Sarum and Gatton were as good as other members, but that they were much better. (Laughter.) The effect of such reasoning, if pushed its full length, would be to show that in order to have the country well governed, and the public business well done, the House ought to consist entirely of re- presentatives without constituents,—entirely of members for Old Serums and Gattons. (Laughter.) He had no intention of giving up opinions deliberately formed on subjects not contemplated in the bill ; but he should consider himself the worst of Reformers if he offered to press at this moment any question, such as the ballot, which might have the slightest tendency to embarrass Ministers on this great and healing measure. The passing of the bill would restore sympathy between the people and the House of Commons ; its rejection would widen the breach to an extent that he dreaded to contemplate. ( Cheers from the Treasury side, anti cries of " No I " from the Opposition.) Sure be was, that if his noble friend's measure were not carried, the confidence of the country would be altogether withdrawn from Parliament. (Noise.)
Lord STORMONT, Member for Aldborouglx characterized the bill as a Budget of Reform—be could find no name for it in the dictionary, but that which was in common language given to financial statements, of which Lord Althorp had a few nights before favoured them with so curious a specimen. Lord Stormont complained greatly of the system of intimidation which was pursued by Ministers and their supporters. At one time, the House was sought to be compelled into a vote for the bill, because the Sovereign was favourable to it, and at another because the people demanded it.
The call to comply with the " demands," or with the " just griev- ances" of the people, Lord Stormont said, was so correspondent to the language put by Shakspeare into the mouth of Corialanus, that he could almost fancy the great dramatist had foreseen the day—a dreadful day to England—when it was to be enforced, as it had been the pre- vious evening, by the authority of Government. The language of the
plebeians of Rome was
" We did request it ;
We are the greater poll, and In true fear They gave us our demands."
To such an argument Lord Stormont, as Coriolanus, would answer-
" Thus we debase
The nature of our seats, and make the rabble Call our cares fears, which will in time break ope The locks o' the senate, and bring in the crows To peck the eagles."
What did the bill propose ?
To disfranchise an immense number of boroughs. The borough Which he re- presented was surrounded by walls ; the walls indeed had crumbled away, but within these walls, and there only, the electors were entitled to vote. The extent oi these walls proved very clearly, that a much greater number of voters existed there formerly than possessed the elective franchise in that borough at present. Now he could see no reason why the rights which bad been so long enjoyed 1, y those indi- viduals should be interfered with. The proposition of the noble Lord would have the effect of consigning to civil death a great number of those who now had seats in that House ; and he did not think that the noble Lord would eir.ily find 168 members in that House, or anywhere else, who would be willing, however plan. sible the arguments which might be urged, to vote their own damnation. (Laughter.)
With respect to Scotland, Lord Stormont begged to say a very few words.
The wish of Ministers seemed to be, to establish a popular representation there. Now, when the Scotch representation was adapted to that of England, it never was intended tube a popular representation. (Laughter.) It was intended to be a re- presentation of the land, and the owners of the land. The petitions from Scotland prayed for the right of returning members to Parliament for each county. But what had the noble Lord done 1 Why, he had jumbled county into county, and this he called complying with the prayer of the petitioners. He could assure the noble Lord, that the people of Scotland would be much better pleased if they were left alone with their ancient rights and privileges. They would be fur more content with their old institutions than with new ones that were founded on untried theary. He was not one of those who were opposed to a measure of reform, merely because it was a measure of reform ; but when he compared the present motion with what had been brought forward year after year, he could not help thinking, that if he understood the plan rightly, reform would be revolution—possession would be spo- liation, and, sooner or later, religion would be atheism.
Sir JOHN WALSH did not impute any improper motives to Ministers, but be did not think that they saw clearly the consequences of their own measures ; they did not perceive what changes in a couple of years would be effected in the institutions of the country by a plan which was not so much a Reform of Parliament, as a remodelling of the whole constitution. Lord John Russell had referred to three grievances, but if he had looked narrowly to the petitions he would have found a ' fourth.
In the petitions, Retrenchment and Reform appeared like the Siamese Twins. There were two distinct things, but they were so strictly united in the mind of the public, that it was extremely difficult to separate them. Reform was sought in order to secure extensive retrenchment. If, then, it were granted, and produced that effect, would it not be the instrument of doing that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted to be incompatible with the best interests of the country ? (Cheers.)
A much greater stress had been laid on the opinions out of doors than it merited.
The House deferred too much to external opinion. He would suppose that the House was a jury, considering their verdict. If that jury were addressed from without, and it was demanded that they should act in a particular way, would they, occupied in the performance of a great public duty, bejustified in suffering clamour to influence their decision ? Certainly not.
He would defend the Ministers on one point. Lord Stormont had ac- cused the Ministry of holding out an intimidation of the dissolution of Parliament ; and he certainly had heard the First Lord of the Admi- ralty make use of that observation ; but be did not think that it had been stated as a threat. It appeared to him, that if the Ministers car- ried this measure, they would be bound to dissolve the Parliament in a very short time ; so that, after all, this was only a sort of plus and Ininus, and either it was not intended as an intimidation, or, at all events, it was a mistaken intimidation ; for honourable gentlemen must feel, that this sword of Damocles was suspended over their heads in both cases. (Cheers.) Mr. MacattLEY defended the proposition of Ministers at great length, and in a speech of singular power and brilliancy.
He thought it a wise noble and effective measure, skilfully arranged for the pur- pose for which it was intended, and calculated to unite and link together all orders In the country. Sir John Walsh had said, that it contained two incongruous prin- ciples. On the contrary it appeared to him to contain but one principle—that it was desirable to give a share in the (representation to the middle classes of the British people: and to do this by a change as little violent as possible to the pre- sent institutions of the country. It had Also been said that the act ought to have been symmetrical in its form of representation ; but, in his opinion, it was wise wet to make it symmetrical—it was wise in keeping the counties and the towns distinct—it was wise. because a measure had been taken which would give due weight to the middle classes of the people, without producing any convulsive change. He did ma pretend to say that the same institutions would suit every country. (Laughter.) Some nations were so happy. that the best elective franchise for them was universal Suffrage. Such was his opinion ; for he conceived that if all the labouring classes of England were fully employed, and their wages high, with reason for believing that their feelings would extend to all classes of the community, and be lasting in their effect, then the whole body might be intrusted with the elective franchise, for It was known that the American people used that advantage well, and he did not believe that either in head or heart they were superior to the English people. (Cheers.) lint, as the case now stood with this country, the body of the labouriog classes was reduced to a state of considerable distress ; and they all knew what effect distress had on the minds of people even better educated and of sounder judgments than the labouring classes. Distress made men credulous and irritable ; and on that ground, principally, he never could consent to an extension of suffrage of which property was not to be the basis. He supported this measure because he was opposed to universal suffrage : he supported it because he looked with horror on revolution ; and he supported it because he believed that it was the best security against revolution.
In answer to the charge of intimidation, Mr. Macauley said, he did mot think that any had been used. When Lord Castlereagh had come don-n to that House and enforced his proposi- tion for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, by alluding to the possibility of po- pular tumults arising—when he had enforced his arguments in favour of the Six Acts, by the same observation—no one then thought ofassuming that a reference to thepossibility of such an occurrence was either threat or intimidation. So he re. Served to the present state of the country as a reason for granting Reform ; he did not refer to it as a threat. He felt great alarm for the fate of the country, which would be endangered, he would not say if this measure were rejected, but unless some similar measure were passed. Ile did not threaten the House, lit was dis- charging his duty to his country and to the House, in stating soberly as a reason, and not as a threat, his limn and sincere conviction, that unless some measure were adopted for admitting the middle classes to an effective share of the representa- tion, the institutions of this country would be exposed to great danger. He supported the -measure not merely as a measure of Reform, but as a measure of Conservation. If the House wished to exclude revolution, this measure was neces- sary, and it must be adopted as a means of safety for a desired end. If it was said that property and intelligence,were the bases of a representative government—that it was only by means of intelligence and by means of property that such a government could be preserved—if property and intelligence ought to govern the country—if it was necessary to keep out the mass, that property and intelligence should be repre- sented—why now compel them to side with the multitude and join the enemies of order e Were the times such that the cause of good government could spare one of its natural allies ? (Cheers.) If he wished to set forth the evils of the present system, lie would refer to the Northern part of the metropolis, and, adopting the illustration of Lord John Russell, continued—
If he had that foreigner whom his Lordship had introduced into the debate, and wished to make him fully sensible of the peculiar evils of our system, he would con- duct him to that great city which lies to the north of Oxford Street and the west of Russell Square. There he would show him a city that exceeded in size the capitals of rmuty kingdoms, and even superior in intelligence and knowledge to any city on the face of the globe. He would there show him long lines of interminable streets and spacious squares, tilled with well-built, magnificent houses, inhabited by opulent and intelligent men, some of the tirst citizens of the State. lie would show him the znagnificent shops, the splendid apartments he would carry him to the palaces that stretch along each side of the Regent's Park, and he would tell him that the rental of these palaces and houses exceeded the rental of all Scotland at the time of the Union ; and then he would tell that stranger, that all this wealth and intelli- gence were unrepresented. He should not need to refer to Leeds, or Manchester, or Macclesfield, or to tell him that Scotland had only the shadow of a representation. The principle of the property-tax, be believed, was, that no income below 1101. per annum should be taxed; and he doubted, should he include only the property as- sessed to that tax, if he should find one-half ot the persons who paid that tax had any votes for representatives. One-fiftieth part of those persons returned a greater number of representatives than did the other forty-nine parts. Ours, then, was not a Government on the principle of property ; it was only a Government founded on some fragments of property, and no principle whatever presided over its formation.
Sir Robert Inglis had said that the system of representation was never better, but the House was not there to inquire into what it had been, but to make it what it ought to be.
They were not antiquaries, but legislators. It was their duty to consider whether tt could be made better than it was at present. The Constitution might have been good at some former time, but it did not now correspond to the existing state of the country. If it had stood still, the population and intelligence of the country had been continually in progress. Lord Stormont said openly and manfully, that the borough he represented was the same now as it was when it was first called on to send representatives to Parliament in the time of Edward the First? But though that borough was the same, had not the population, of the country materially changed ? Was It the same now as in the days of Edward the First ? Small places had now become large cities, and the population, which did not then exceed two millions, was now multiplied seven-fold. The increase of wealth was even greater
than the increase of the population, and both had materially changed. They, how- ever, were to legislate for their own time, and not for the ages that were passed ; they could not possibly think it right that the seat of Government should be trans-
ferred to York, and that London should be only the second city of the empire, be- cause York was the capital of the country in the time of Constantine Chlorus Was the representation of the country, adapted for two millions of people, to be
mow kept as it was established in the thirteenth century ?
In answer to the complaint that the Constitution had been violated, Mr. Macauley asked, Which of the laws had not been violated P—They bad all been violated.
By the old original Constitution, it was the right of the commonalty to raise the taxes; that right was guaranteed to the subjects by Magna Charta—so was freedom from arrest. Was that never violated; or, rather, was it not continually violated down to the time of passing the Habeas Corpus Act ? Great changes had taken place in every part of society since the period referred to. New property had been called Into existence ; society had assumed a different form, and much capital and much wealth, formerly unknown, were now unrepresented. Some towns had sunk to vil- lages, others had remained stationary, but many had risenfrom villages to be as large as London in the time of the Plantagenets. Society had grown, but the policy of the Government had remained still ; and the form of that must be renewed, to make it accord with that on which it depends. It was time, then, that our old institutions should be new-modelled. But when it was said that we ought not to alter these in- stitutions, because they were established by our ancestors, we ought to consider what they would do in our circumstances. Be did not deride the wisdom of our ances- tors ; they had modelled our institutions to suit the circumstances of their own times. He would not do as our ancestors had done, but be would do as they would do if they were In our circumstances.
Further, Sir Robert Inglis had described the measure as revolutionary. Was he not aware that society was always in a state of revolution, and that institutions must be changed to correspond to it ?
That was confirmed by the political history of every country in Europe. The political history of the world could not be opened without finding some new interest coming into existence ; at first it was weak, and was trampled on—then it grew strong, and pressed on those who trampled on it. If protection were then granted, well—if it were not granted, a struggle began. Such was the struggle between the Plebeians and Patricians at Rome, and Such wasthe struggle between the Cities and Nobles of Italy. Such was the struggle between the North American Colonies and the Mother Country. Such was the struggle in Ireland between the Catholics and Protestants till the former were released from their servitude. Such, too, was the straggle now going on in Jamaica between the Freemen of Colour and the aristo- cracy of the Skin ; and such was the struggle between the middle classes of England amd the Aristocracy—men of localities—the aristocracy [merely of gentlemen, not distinguished for talents or genius—and which, by withholding a due share of the Representation from the middle order, was making itself noxious in the sight of all
Europe, which beheld with wonder the wealth and intetligence Of the people whom this Aristocracy excluded from political power. Sir Robert had also said, that unrepresented cities had their interests as well taken care of as if they were represented ; and that his votes were given as much with a view to the interest of Manchester as Oxford. Mr. Macauley said, that was the old doctrine of virtual representation, and he could not understand the reasoning of those who stood up for virtual representation, and would not give real representation, because it was noxious.
He could not comprehend how that power which was virtually so beneficial, should be, when directly exercised. so injurious. If the influence were good vire tually exercised, it must be good directly exercised. It was a strange position to hold, that virtual representation was good, and that real representation was evil. If there was an evil in change—if change as such wre on evil—was net d:seontent, as discontent, an evil ? This was the strong eart of Vie case of those who oppose the measure. It was said that the system worked well. lie denied that the system worked well, as it iegarded the people of Englund, though it might work well for a few people in that House. Was that a good system which was approved of by Ties other six hundred and tifty-eight men in the kinedom 1 Let them take the same number of men by chance from the shopkeepers and respectable middle classes in any part of the country, and they would say that the system did not work well. Let them take any number of the middle classes by lot, then they would find that the people had no confidence in the present representation. lie was not defending this feeling ; he was only arguing from it as a fact, and it would be well if it were ab- stained from ; but, existing in the people, it was a proof that they believed that the system worked ill.
Ile proceeded to show the cause of the unpopularity of the present system of representation. It was the theory of the Constitution that property should be represented. Why not make the practice comply with the theory ? The people did not forget what was
due to the King, and what was due to the Peers. It was against that House that the popular voice was raised ; and there was a good reason, for corruptioltptheipessima. Burke had properly described the House of COU1111011S as a check not on, but a check for the-people. There were many other cheeks on them, but the House of Commons was the check for them. " If the salt have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted I" If the check for the people MOS corrupted, how were they to keep other evils in check ? It was not extraordinary, then, that the people should havelost their feelings of respect for the House of Commons. They had not lost their respect fur the King--they had not lost their respect for the Aristecracy, us long as the Aristocracy remained in its proper sphere; but they had lest their re- spect for the representative system of the country.
It had been said that the popular excitement in favour of Reform was a temporary feeling—the result of the revolution in Belgium and in France. He had read history very falsely if the feeling sprang from these causes.
The plague of discontent was not the growth of time day. It possessed all the symp- toms of a deep-seated malatey. Thelpresent discontent;harl been growing through two generations. The Legislature had tried every means in its power to put an end to it. It had called new laws into operation. What bad it not done ? Was it to be supposed that any probable measure of cure had eacaped the subtlety of Burke or the sagacity of Windham 1 Had not every species of coercion been tried by Lord Londonderry ? Had not laws been passed to put down public meetings and to en- thral the Press ?—and was not the evil still in existence, and was it not increasing from day to day ? What had they not done to palliate it ?—and what more pallia- tives could they try ? What farther palliatives had they ?
Under these circumstances, the Government proposed to adapt the system of representation to the present state of the country.
The proposed measure was a practical measure, adapted to the wants of the country. It was founded on the good practical principle of giving to the middle classes political power. It was calling into alhauce with the ordinary ;:rinciples of good government all the intelligence of the middle classes. He congratulated the Ministry on their standing or fatting by such a measure. If he were in their place, he would rather fall with such a system of representation, than stand on any other question. (Cheers.)
The objections to the plan of Lord John Russell did not seem to Mr. Macanley important. Sir Robert Inglis had stated one objection, which, if it were well-founded, would be an attack upon other parts of the constitution. He had told the House, that a reformed House of Corn. mons could not exist for ten years without pulling down the Throne, and destroying the House of Lords.
It was impossible, Sir Robert said, that the property and intelligence of the middle classes could be adequately represented without the result being to pull down the majesty of the Throne and thedignity of the Aristocracy. If that were a true description—if that could be laid to the charge of the country, which he did not believe—if that argument were correct, it spoke volumes against the Monarchy and the Aristocracy. Nothing ever said by Thomas Paine could be more injurious. Monarchy and Aristocracy were not valuable in themselves. They were means to an end. If the bill should produce a republic by improving the representation—though he was convinced it would have no such effect—if what the honourable member for Oxford says were true, if giving the great body of the intelligent and middle classes a share in the Government,would lead to the destrum. tiou of the Aristocracy, and the demolition of the Throne—what did that imply. but that these two were opposed to the welfare of the nation? It would not bear an argument to assert, that admitting the middle classes to a share of the represen- tation would subvert the Government of the King and the Peers. If that were the only objeation to the measure, there was no ground whatever for opposing it. Mr. Macauley admitted that many great and eminent men had been returned for close boroughs ; but in estimating the system fairly, it was
proper to consider general tendencies and not accidents.
Despotism was detestable as asystem, but it had some good accidents ; he would not, therefore, like to submit to a master who might destroy him at army moment. It would scarcely be possible by any other mode of election not to bring some emi- nent men into the House. If the boroughs were done away, able men would still find their way into it. If one hundred of the tallest men of the kingdom were to be elected members of Parliament, some among them would be eminent. If one hundred men of a tawny complexion were to be representatives, men of eminence, too, would be found amongst them. In ancient times, a king was chosen by the neighing of a horse ; aud though nobody would recommend that mode of choosing a king, it might happen that the one so chosen might be a good king. In the great city of Athens, it was well known that all public officers were chosen by lot, which could not be recommended ; yet it had once caused Socrates to be chosen, and had enabled him to resist an unjust measure. It was, therefore, not the accidents of any system, but its general tendencies, that must be considered. 'Whatever might be our system of representation, clever men would find their way into that House. They might not be the same men as would come in under the borough system, but they would be men of talents, and 110 one man was indispensably necessary. A great nation needed no one individual. Let them give the country good institutions, and they would be sure to find good and great men. The learned member expressed his surprise at the charge of Mr. Twiss, who had said that the measure attacked property, and had com- pared it to the proceeding which took place at the close of the reign of Charles the Second, for disfranchising the cities and boroughs. If the franchise were property which was not to be taken away without a compensation—if it was not to be withdrawn but after a judicial investigation, and after proof of guilt, and after some crime had been fully established, what must be said to the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling,Treeholders, which, on this doctrine, was a flagitious robbery ? They were all at once deprived of their rights without any charge, without having been guilty of any crime, without having been heard, and without a thought of compensating them. If the franchise at Bath were a property, was it not also a property at Waterford —and was it to be taken away in the latter case when no crime could be imputed?... utiles, indeed, It was a crime in the Catholic freeholders of Clare to elect the pre- sent honourable member for Waterford for, that county, and but to • punish the forty-shilling Catholic freeholders the Protestant forty-shilling freeholders had been disfranchised.
'Sonia Of the Ministers, who supported the present measure, had un- doubtedly been at some former time opposed to Parliamentary Reform. The country would not think the worse of them, nor value their services the less, because they had shown themselves capable of learning by ex- perience—that they had profited by their observations, and were no longer opposed to what they and many others saw was an inevitable change. He wished that other persons would learn a similar lesson.
Was it possible that those who now despised this lesson could forget the humili- ating lesson they were taught not long ago, by an absolute resistance to a measure which was rendered inevitable by the progress of society ? Was it possible that those who arrogantly censured others should not recollect that they were obliged to surrender what they strove In vain to defend I In May 1827, the right honourable Baronet Sir Robert Peel—of whom he wished to speak with all the respect that was not inconsistent with his sincere desire to serve his country on such an important question—the right honourable Baronet. who had just before quitted office, de- manded of the Government of that day what it meant to do with respect to the Test and Corporation Acts, Parliamentary Reform, and Catholic Emancipation ; and then the right honourable Baronet stated that he should give to these questions his decided opposition. Such was the case four years ago, and.how stood the case now with these three great questions 1 The Test and Corporation Acts had been repealed, and they were repealed by the Ministers who succeeded Mr. Canning. 'The penal laws against the Catholics had been repealed, and they were repealed by the Ministers who succeeded Mr. Canning. There remained Parliamentary Reform ; and whoever beheld the signs of the times, the important signs that were hourly manifested, must be convinced, that unless the question of Parliamentary Reform were speedily settled—unless the people were given some share in the representa- tion, and had their affection for our institutions restored, there was great hazard of our being exposed to a most fearful danger. ;No, no ! Hear, hear !) He could not believe that those versed in political affairs would not so read these signs, and would not be convinced that the representation of England must be altered before 1860. Why, then, did they now wait? Was it merely to show that they had not protited by experience ? Did they wait till the public resolution became irresistible ? Did they want more disturbances—a larger mass of discontent—a more perfect sys- tem of organization—a higher collection of rent—more skilful agitators—and a more complete development of power than that which existed in 1827? Were those scenes to be acted over again ? Or were those who, as Ministers, had brought that on, u-ere now crying out " No Reform ! " to become Reformers, as they had then cried "No Popery I" to become Emancipators. (Cheers.) Had they forgotten the history of Ireland, where the Catholics were indulged in rebellion, because they were deniedjustice ? There were signs abroad, and none could see them with his eyes, or hear them with his ears, or understand them with his heart, and not think it his duty to stand between them and the great and serious effects which might be an- ticipated. Reform should be given as a means of preservation. Now, then, when every thing was alarming around us—when it would be madness to invite a struggle. with that spirit of the age which had just crushed the proudest Crown in Europe and when we saw the palaces of our Sovereign supplying an ignominious asylum to the expelled heir of forty kings—when we have seen the great discontent, but while the heart of England was yet sound, while the national feelings of many old asso- ciations were yet retained bound to the honour and character of the country. and which might soon, too soon, pass away—now was the accepted and sure time. (No, no ! Hear, hear !) Now was the accepted time—this was the day of our unquiet). when, if we did not act in a faulty spirit of consistency, but with a due regard to the signs of these portentous times—now was the promised moment, the worthy time, when the great debt due from the Aristocracy to the people should be paid- If they attended to these signs, they would secure the safety of the country, and rich advantages to all. If the measure were lost, he prayed to God, that those who should vote against it might never be brought, by the results of that vote, to regret the not having employed the means in their power to prevent the dissolution of social order. (Long continued cheering.)
Lord 141Anox differed from Lord John Russell, on the same principle that he agreed with him formerly. Then, he was restoring the Con- , stitution, but the present was a revolutionary measure. He contended that the existing feeling in favour of reform would soon pass away.
Mr. HUNT deprecated some strong language used by Mr. Macauley respecting Radical Reformers and the lower orders of the people : he feared its only tendency would be to produce difference of opinion out of doors, by representing the question as one between the middle and Inferior rank of society. He thought the bill did not go far enough, in- asmuch as he conceived that any tradesmen earning 30s. a week was as well qualified to give an honest vote, and as well entitled, as the weal- thiest man in the realm. If any part of the people were to be denied the exercise of the elective franchise, then consistency demanded that they should be free from taxes and from services to the State, in whose regu- lation they had no voice. If Government took their money, it should also take their votes. He declared, however, that the sweeping away of the rotten boroughs was a measure which claimed and should receive his unqualified approbation ; and that though the bill Was not all he wished, still it was much better than he had anticipated, and he should give it his hearty support. In the course of his speech, Mr. Hunt forced the House to listen to some very unpalatable observations regarding the Manchester massacre, and his own imprisonment in Ilchester Gaol "for two years and six months." He contrasted those times with the present. Lord MORPE Tit said, if the House were prepared to declare that the demand for Reform was not proper—that the evil was not manifest— that the corruption was not glaring—they might with perfect consistency determine not to give up a stone of Gatton, and to die in the ditch of Old Sarum, where there was nothing but a ditch to die in. He believed, however, that the House would not so far outrage the sense of the cora. inunity as to say that they would not so much as entertain the question. The question of Reform had been supported by the constitutional autho- rity of Lord Chatham, the talent and integrity of George Saville, the young energies of Mr. Pitt, and the consistent manhood of Mr. Fox. Those were high authorities. It was true there was one great name opposed to Reform. It was the only point upon which he differed with the late Mr. Canning in the latter part of his career. What course Mr. Canning would now have pursued, it was not for him to determine ; but that great statesman had laid down the principle, that when two extreme parties were agitating society, it was the duty of a patriot to steer clear of both of them. Two extreme parties were at present agitating the country. One was opposed to all amelioration, and the other advocated the worst species of Reform with the view of subverting the existing institutions, and all the gradations and ranks of society. Between these two extremes the only safe path was the conservative principle to which the measure submitted to the House led. To that let them hold fast.
Sir CHARLES WETHERELL, member for Boroughbridge, designated the disfranchisement of the rotten boroughs as corporation robbery. True, there were 106 members to be added for the 168 that were taken away, but did that lessen the guilt of the robbery ? Was it less a measure of robbery and pillage, if they took from A.B. and C. D. and gave to E. F., and if the House was to be composed of 60 meeffiers less than at present ? This cutting off, this amputation of 60 members, was an odd sort of a thing- No Reformer yet, still less a Reforming Cabinet, had ever produced a plan of Reform which began by cutting off. (Cheers.) This was a plan for which his Majesty's present Cabinet deserved the eredess.the present Cabinet of Althorp and Co. (Order.) The present Cabinet of the noble Lord and his associates, then who seemed to have proceeded upon the precedent in the history of England which bad been set by Cromwell, Fairfax, Milburne, and Co. (Cheers.) worthy regicides set about reducing the number of members of the House, and this% plan of cutting off the boroughs and confining the number of members had not the merit of originality, for it was almost the same in form, in substance, am lit principle, as the Radical system of Reform which had been introduced by regi- cides when they established a Commonwealth in England. Yet it was said that the object of the measure was to preserve our ancient institutions. Conservatinta was to be the rule of the system. The question was not one of Reform. It was most unjustly argued thde every man who opposed the question must be opposed to Reform. He de- nied the imputation. The question was one of radical change. Did gentlemen recollect how many experimental Governments were now afloat? —that there was a question to settle as to a constitution for Greece 1—another as to a constitution for Portugal ?—that in Belgium there were yet unsettled the rela- tions of the President and the Representative Government ? Did gentlemen re- collect what had taken place in France ? Did they recollect that in South America, for the last seven or eight years, new Governments were continually appearing ; and that, netwithstandim they had no government there yet ? (Cheers.) " Let me," said Sir Charles, " be permitted, as I am in extrinnis, to utter the last dying ex- pression of the wish of an expiring man,—I must distinguish my natural death front my civil death,—it is that Great Britain may not be added to the catalogue of expe- rimental states. (Cheers.)
There was no precedent in the history of England for such spoliation of corporate rights as the bill of Ministers contemplated.
He defied the whole Cabinet, and all its deputies, military and civil, to cite ai case of any corporation having its chartered rights abrogated at one fell swoop, without a case of delinquency having been even insinuated against it,—without auw form of trial, without any pretext, palliative of such monstrous conduct, without any shadow of argument ; unless, forsooth, the telling them they werebigoted adhe- rents to the laws and usages of the cuustitution were received in argument. (Cheers.) The only case was the Cambridge case in the time of Richard the First—that was the solitary precedent on which the Ministerial billmust be founded. He adverted to the refusal of Mr. Fox to sanction the dis- franchisement of Nottingham because of the conduct of the electors irt 1802 ; and to his voting along with Lord Eldon against the disfranchise- ment of New Shoreham, because, as Mr. Fox contended, if corporations were so destroyed as these corporations were sought to be, none, however palm, would in futurebe safe from attack. He would ask, as Mr. Fox had done on these occasions, if once the principle of charter spoliation be admitted, where were they to stop 1 Did the honourable Alderman behind him (Waithman) recollect any thing of the quo warrants robbery of the corporation of the City of London's charter in the time of Charles the Second 1 (A laugh.) If he did, then his vote w-as, to use a homely expression, as surely nailed down agninst the present scheme of the noble-Paymaster, as he (Sir C. Wetherell) had nailed down the spurious coinage Which the military deputy of the Cabinet bad given them by way of argument. And why did he thus count on the honourable Alderman's voting with him, simply on the old maxim /iodic inihi cra,s: fib—what may succeed to do with respect to some obscure borough, may be tried with equal success to-morrow with the corporation of London itself!
Sir Charles strongly deprecated the threat of dissolution which had been held out in the event of the House not accepting of the bill pre.. sented by Ministers. He must say, with respect to that most unconstitutional and insolent menace; that the man who would be influenced by it in his vote on the present momentous occasion, would be nothing less than a rebel to his country. The man, whom snch a threat, uttered by any Government—particularly by one so vacillating and indivi- dually opposed, and only united in this one monstrous measure of wholesale spolia- tion. would influence—was a man wholly unworthy of the name of British senator —was a recreant in morals—was a man wholly deaf to the call of consclence,and of English liberty. (Continued cheering.) He ridiculed the idea that the country, which sought for bread, was to be satisfied with the stone which the Ministers offered. He should like to hear how the First Lord of the Admiralty would explain at Cockermouth to his constituents his conduct since he last addressed them. Ow that occasion, retrenchment unlimited was to be the order of the day; all taxes burdensome to the middle and poorer classes were to be removed, and the constr. tution was to be restored to its ancient splendour, by a full and satisfactory mea. sure of Reform. Now what answer could the right honourable baronet make to one of his agricultural constituents, if thus accosted by him : " Well, Sir James, have you taken off the malt-tax 1" (Laughter.) "No," quoth therighthonourable baronet, " Have you," rejoins the farmer, " at least taken off the assessed-taxes ?" " No," again quoth the First Lord of the Admiralty, " the House of Commons and a sense of duty prevented me." (Laughter.) "Then," again quoth the farmer, " since you have neither repealed the malt-tax, nor the assessed-taxes, what the Devil have you done ?" (Laughter.) " Why, we have not, to be sure, retrenched much in the way of taxes, but to make amends we have made a pretty considerable retrenchment in the House of Commons ,• if we have not taken off the malt-tax we have taken off sixty-two members." (Continued hiughter.) There existed in Cromwell's time a purge of the House of Commons. (Laughter.) The purge was called Pride's purge. (Laughter and cheering.) The gentlemen Mr the opposite side of the House were close imitators of the Cromwellian system; they were prepared to expel, by one strong dose, no less than one hundred and sixty-eight members of that House. To the specific which the House had been pro- mised by the noble Lord, as no name had yet been attached, he would attach the name of Russell's purge. (Roars of hiughter and great cheering for sometime.) The principle of the bill was republican. The prificiple of it was destructive of all pro- petty, of all right, of all privilege ; it was the same principle of arbitrary violence which expelled a majority of the members from that House in the time of the Com- monwealth, which notv, after the lapse of a century from the Revolution, during which the population had enjoyed greater happiness than was ever enjoyed by any population under heaven, the Ministry were desirous of applying to the House of Commons. (Loud cheering fin some minutes.) Sir THOMAS PENMAN, the Attorney-General, replied to Sir Charles 'Wetherell.
He admired the humour with which his honourable and learned friend had com- pared the purification of the representative system which this bill attempted to ac- complish, to the two purges of the House which took place in Cromwell's time, and to the proceedings on the quo warrant° which took place in the reigns of Charles the Second and James the Second. They might be cited, Indeed, by way of contrast, they did not bear the most remote analogy to each other. What Sir Cbarles meant by an attempt to compare the proposed plan of Reform with Pride'slnuge he was utterly at a loss to divine. Did he recollect that Lord Clarendon, in describing the plan of Reform which Cromwell brought forward, said that it IYILS worthy of imitation by other parties? Surely he did not mean to say that Colonel Pride's purge had any thing to do with Cromwell's system of Reform ? Then, as to the quo warrantos. The quo warrantos took away certain rights from corporate bodies ; but what rights did this bill deprive them of ? The power of voting was no municipal right. The power of selling a vote to a duke or a peer, or to a duke's nominee or to a peer's nominee, however palatable and delightful it might appear, was not a reason why a corporatejurisdictien was established in any borough.
Sir Charles had expressed himself indignant at its being imputed to him that he was an enemy to improvement in the representation.
When, where, how, in what shape, had he ever professed himself a friend toll? The Attorney-General bad never heard such a sentiment from Sir Charles before—it was brought forward on the present occasion to break with the public the force of the Government plan of Reform : it certainly was not the practical view, which his honourable and learned Friend and his habitual political friends were accustomed to take on the subject, and if it had recently become their view, it was because they had been driven to it by the force of public opinion. (Loud cheers.) If they were advocates to any extent, would they inform him what their plan was, and how far It went? Unless they meant to say that the miserable plan of disfranchising Evesham and East Retford was their plan of Reform, he knew of no plan of reform which they had ever patronized. That because in Evesham money had been paid to the electors, and the payment of it had been discovered by a committee formed of members whose only merit was that they had not been found out in making emit payniefits,—that because they were ready in each a case tentake e meet viglimit Inquiry into the number of poor wretches who had contaminated their fingers with the bribes held out to them by their wealthy tempters,—that because they were willing to do this, they were to represent themselves friendly to Reform, was a pro- 3eet against which he, as an honest man, felt bound to enter his protest. (Cheers.) Be looked upon a plan of reform so difficult, and distant of execution, to be a needless expense of money and of time, and an assured hypocrisy, insulting to the people at large. (areal cheering.) A good deal, Sir Thomas said, had been made of the opinions of several great departed names, in the course of these debates. With respect to Mr. Canning, he had staved off Reform as long as he could, on the sole grounds that the system worked well because the people were satisfied with it. Could he have made use of such an argument now ? The close boroughs were represented as the portals by which genius found access to the House— When he was told that Burke, and Pitt, and Fox, and other illustrious characters bad one and all owed their introduction into Parliament to the defects in the con- stitution, he would reply that it was not for the happiness or glory of those indivi- duals that they had found their way into that House by any other road than that of the free choice of the Commons of England. It happened, curious enough, that all the opinions of Mr. Fox, which the gentlemen opposite were so fond of quoting, were delivered by him at a time when he was sitting for a close borough,—when he was a Lord of Admiralty; and. strange recommendation I when he was by law incapacitated by his youth front voting in that House.
Mr. Shelley and others had told the House a great deal about the independence of the members for rotten boroughs : Sir Thomas said he would only in answer state his own experience on the subject.
In the year 1818, he was given to understand that there was a wish that he should be In Parliament. A seat was offered him for the borough of Wareham ; sand, to his shame be it spoken, lie had not had virtue to resist it. Ire should have respected himself inure if he had. Nothing could be more kind and liberal than -the conduct of those who gave him a seat for that borough ; but at the end of the two -first sessions in which he sat in Parliament, there was a dissolution ; and then be Sound, that in their opinion he had been found wanting. (Ifear, hear !) There was then no nomination-seat for him • and if the town of Nottingham had not sent a deputation to him to tome forward,he should have been out of Parliament. So far from a seat for a rotten borough being enjoy, he could assure the House that it was -quite the reverse. Could there, indeed, be any thing more harassing than the idea of baying a secret council always sitting upon your conduct, and determining upon each vote, whether you ought to be permitted to retain your seat in Parliament or -not (Hear, hear !) He made no complaint against those who gave him his seat; but when he contrasted his situation as member for a close borough, with his situ- ation as member for Nottingham, in which he enjoyed the confidence of thousands, be felt that there was no more comparison to be made between them than between the crumbling walls of Aldborough and the most stately and magnificent palace in -England. (Cheers.)
They had been told that the people would remonstrate against the present plan of Reform.
Was it possible that the gentlemen who told them this could be sincere ?—that they could really believe what they said ? If so, let them wait but a little while
--let them see whether the people who might assemble in various parts of the country, would re-echo the sentiments of the mourners at the funeral of the defunct
xnember for Boroughbridge, and murmur and remonstrate that It was proposed to confer upon them a better system of representation. (Cheers.) Mr. GEORGE BANKES revived the complaint of intimidation; and, replying to Sir Thomas Denman, he contended that no answer had been given to the charge of Sir Charles Wetherell—that the proposed measure involved an unconstitutional deprivation of corporate rights. ale instanced the reformed Parliament of the Protectorate of Crom- well as an example of the probable effects of the proposed Reform. 'Cromwell had given that Parliament two trials—in-the first place of -Sire months, in the second of sixteen days, at the end of which he .dissolved it. Mr. Bankes quoted from speeches of Mr. Huskisson and .31r. Pitt, to show that those distinguished statesmen had been adverse to Reform, and that the present measure was revolutionary.
Mr. HOBIIOUSE thought he could produce as good an authority as that of Mr. Bankes—even his own authority, Mr. Pitt—that the pre- sent measure was not revolutionary. When the present measure was brought forward on. Tuesday, he could not help observing with astonish- ment, not the indignation, but the delight with which the proposition was received by the gentlemen around him. (Mr. Hobhouse spoke from the Opposition benches.) They well knew what were dangerous sub- jects, and they viewed it as calculated to drive out the present Ministers, end replace themselves in their former situations. Mr. Hobhouse quoted a long passage from one of Mr. Pitt's speeches, declaring the compe- tency of Parliament to entertain any and whatever measure, and that a member of Parliament possessed the right to concur in disfranchising those who sent him to Parliament, and to select others by whom he was not elected in their stead. Mr. Hobhouse showed that Cromwell dis- solved his Parliament because it was too popular—more devoted to the interests of the people than to 'him. Sir Robert Inglis had said that a reformed Parliament would destroy the other branches of the Legislature in:ten years, and illustrated his position by referring to the Regicide Par- liament. Now the Regicide Parliament was in every respect a borough Parliament, composed of sixty members for boroughs sixteen for coun- ties, and six for cities. When Mr. Pitt introduceihis plan of Reform, which, like the present, contemplated the disfranchisement of some and the enfranchisement of otheq boroughs it was not deemed] revolu- tionary. Mr. Hobhouse did not think ;hat by this or any plan of re- form the complexion of the House would be much changed. The mo- tives, however, that sent men into it would be totally different. Let Parliament be reformed—let it be restored to its ancient constitutional
principle, by the plan now proposed ; they would still have the best men 112 that House that constituents could find, for the support of their in- terests and the defence of their rights. He would beg those who dis- puted this to tell him whether they really thought that there was any peculiar and egregious ignorance in the people of England, to disqualify them to judge who were best able to serve them. Wherever there was a popular constituency, there would be adequacy to the great duties it called forth ; and the first and most indispensable of all qualities in such cases was honesty,—a quality that appeared to have been entirely forgotten or lost sight of by those who talked so much of introducing clever men into that House. It was scarcely possible to believe that any gentleman was sincere when he expressed an apprehension that a system of public rectitude and intelligence in electors would givevice and ignorance an ascendency in the choice of representa- tives, and that a system of perjury, and bribery, and corruption, was essential to the success of virtue and knowledge. Why should such a feverish anxiety upon this subject be expressed With respect to men of talents, doubtless capacity was one of the necessary qualifications of a member of Parliament ; but he had seen as many instances since he had been in Parliament of capacity being used in a wrong ES in a right direction. Who. in the name of wonder, would approve of any system or scheme thatsent men of talent into that House, if these gentlemen of talent were placed there under circumstances that rendered it probable that they would do more of harm to the country than good ? (Cheers.) If he ran over the list of the clever men, he could show the House that the necessity was to make men speals ho- nestly the sentiments of their constituents, or to retire from the representation. If a member of Parliament differed from his patron, he thought It necessary to take off !Ittkhafl make its etivs, and retire from his seat. There was no such thing as virtual representation with a patron. 'The patron must be listened to—he must and would
be-obeyed : he would hear of no ncia.senite about virtual representation. •
Speaking of the apprehensions of revolution and danger, Mr. Hob. house said there was no danger, except from those who opposed Reform:
The danger proceeded from that cold, blunted, selfish sect of politicians—lf poll. Helens they could be called—who, in spite of all past experience, when Troth pressed
her light upon the whole nation, were still left in ignorance and sunk in corruption. They would rather that the whole state should be lost for ever, than that they should resign one of their petty interests, or forego one of their much-cherished prejudices. (Hear, hear!) If any cues of alarm were spread, they would be the organs of that alarm ; but he trusted that there was in the country a good sense as well as a tem- perate feeling, which would not permit any use to be made of snch fears. An appeal bad been made, by the worst of artifices, to the fears and selfish passions of the Aristocracy of the country. Mr. Horace Twiss had advised gentlemen to look after their rents ; another gentleman had sounded an alarm upon the security of tithes ; and another had exclaimed, that if the Reform were carried, there would no longer be any security for property of any sort. When such gentlemen talked to him of appealing to the fears of the people, he had a right to taunt them of appealing to the fears of that class which seemed to think that they possessed their property without tiny relation to the rights and feelings of the people at large. The people of England had no interest to benefit, and no purpose to serve by disorder.
In allusion to insinuations thrown out in the course of the debate, that the people generally would not be satisfied by the measure, Mr. Hobhouse would warn the people against being led away by them.
He begged to say, from the communications which had already reached him from various quarters, (although it was true only forty-eight hours had elapsed since the plan was made known), that the people generally would be satisfied, and, he might add, ought to be satisfied, with the measure. Taunts had been thrown out against Ministers, but the people of England cared nothing about such taunts,—they cared only about the measure. It might be a very good joke to mix up comments upon a little mistake in the Budget, or on suspected divisions In the Cabinet, with the dis- cussion of the noble Lord's proposition ; but the people only eared to ascertain whether this measure would give them what they had a right to expect, and what they had loudly raised their voices to obtain.
Mr. Hobhouse entertained the House with a critical dissection of Sir Charles Wetherell's jokes—which he proved to be old jokes. He con- eluded with an eulogy upon Sir Robert Peel, for his conduct on the Catholic question ; and expressed a hope to see him united in office with the present Ministers when the measure of Parliamentary Reform had been carried.
Mr. BARING thought every body would be sensible that the House had now before it no ordinary act of legislation, or even a mere altera- tion in the construction of the House of Commons, but a measure which, in point of fact, amounted to a new constitution. (Loud cheering Irons the Opposition.) Gentlemen on the Treasury bench might declare that our old constitution was worn out—that it had lost the affections of the people—that it was found to work so Ill, and cause misery among the people to such an extent, it behoved us to re- model it. Still, they would at least admit that the effect of the proposition of the noble Lord went in substance to produce a new constitution. The only constitu- tion that had ever been tried with success for the purpose of mixing up a popular form of government with a monarchy and aristocracy, was that which had been adopted In this country ; and which, he did sot say by the wisdom of our ancestors, but through the fortuitous occurrence of events, or perhaps he might with greater propriety say, by the gift of Providence, bad brought us to that state of prosperity and security which had hitherto bee& the envy of the world, and which till of late years he thought was also the pride and satisfaction of Englishmen. It had been held that the constitution of the country consisted in three estates—Sing, Lords, and Commons; but he feared that if this measure were adopted, we should reverse the order of these estates (supposing that they all remained in existence), and that in future It would be no longer King, Lords, and Commons, but Commons, Lords, and King, (Tremendous cheers from the Opposition.) He might be told that the system was corrupt and rotten ; but it ap- peared to him, that the state of things which had long been established in this country had secured to it a degree of prosperity and freedom, not to be found in any other part of the world. Here was a popular body slightly subjected to the influence of the Crown, con- nected also with the influence of the Aristocracy, representing much of the pro- perty of the nation, and providing for all those various compounds which entered into the composition of society. The question then was, whether a body so com- posed was calculated to forward the welfare of the country, and had done so 1 In his opinion both questions must be answered in the affirmative. (Cheers.) When he considered this, and heard the member for Middlesex tell them, that it the people were left to themselves they would establish a different House of Com- mons, he could not help considering it as an argument against giving them an op- portunity of effecting a change, which, in his opinion, would be any thing but be- neficial. (Cheers.) He thought his honourable friend seemed to lean to the opinion, that the House of Commons was not quite so unworthy of confidence as some in- dividuals asserted. In his view of the case, the state of the representation was not so corrupt, or so defective, as it had been described, although ignorant and perhaps unthinking people endeavoured to find fault with It. If all the constitution-mon- gers in the world exerted their abilities for that purpose, they would not be able to frame a form of government under which the same extent of population would be blessed with the same extent of rational liberty. (Cheers.) What had been effected under that constitution, afforded some proof that the wit of man could not go be- yond the skill which was manifested in its formation ; and If they threw that jewel in the dirt for the purpose of adopting a theoretic plan he thought they must be considered as the wildest visionaries that ever existed. (Loud cheers.)
The supporters of this measure had said, "Let the King stand by himself, the Lords stand by themselves, and let the people stand by themselves." Such was then. doctrine. It was not the constitution of the country. What was the practical grievance of which they had to complain?
Had the other powers which formed part of the constitution interfered with the people in anyway? Had they interfered with the fullest freedom of action and of speech in that House—the fullest, he would say, that was allowed in any country in the world ? No such attempt had ever been made ; and, if they extended the popular branch of the constitution with a view to the diffusion of popular liberty, his fear was (being himself a friend of freedom) that the alteration would end in the destruc- tion of those liberties which he was anxious to preserve. What grievance did any man suffer from the conduct of the other House of Parliament ? Did they find the Peers pressing on them in any way ? Did they find them making laws directed against the popular branch of the Legislature ? Did they, in the courts of law, as- sume any superiority ? He knew of no such interference; he was not aware of any such interposition ; and he was firmly of opinion, that the mixture of different powers and interests in that House had been the great protector and promoter of public liberty. (Cheers.) That mixture tended to check and to resist those errone- ous feelings which were occasionally visible in that House. There was sufficient popular feeling in that House. The feeling which was manifested out of doors was responded there, as evidently appeared from the lively expression of popular opinion on this occasion. There was muchrestlessness out of doors ; hut he felt no appre- hension on that account. The people did not much know what they wanted, neither did the House of Commons seem to know exactly what they desired. They had turned out one Administration and put in another, and appeared to feel nu great disposition to support either.
The House of Commons was always ready to inquire into the d is.
tresses of the country.
No branch of trade got out of joint—no body of the people was thrown out of em- ployment—no general grievance was complained of, without causing the formation of committees to investigate the facts. On all occasions the most parental. care was manifested for the wellbeing of the country; and he thought that those who main- tained a contrary position were either guilty of a gross misrepreeentation of facts, or else were !about:hag under the illusion of most perverted judgments.
(Cheers.) .
But new lights had now broken in upon us, and what was the conse. quence
Why, in obedience te these novel views, the whole Aristocracy of the country was to be swept away. (Noises.) The principle which these Reformers thought proper to set up was, that the influence of the Aristocracy in that House was illegal,—that it was a great evil, and ought to be removed altogether. Their opinion was, that the influence. of Peers in the nomination of members—that the influence of landed proprietors with respect to seats in Parliament—was productive of great mischie f, and ought to be got rid of. Ile should be as sorry as any man to see the lower classes, even the lowest classes of this country, without considerable influence in that House. They had considerable influence ; and therefore it was right that there should be a countervailing influence ; because it was the influence of the one side that enabled them to bear the pressure of influence upon the other.
The proposed qualification was too low. •
In France, where there were 32,000,000 of people, the constituency was something short of 90,000. The qualification was about 12/. sterling, or the one-fifth Man income of 601. a year ; which, considering the difference in the value of money, was equal to about 100l. ; what was recently proposed there was to reduce it from 601. to 401. Hav- ing gained that immortal victory, in the achievement of which be rejoiced as much as any person, yet amidst all those circumstances of popular excitement which that event was calculated to produce, no man dreamt of going beyond that qualification. He admitted that it was desirable that the class who returned him to Parliament should be represented in that House. To them it must be a source of great satisfaction to have their views explained and their grievances stated in Parliament. It was cer- tainly rightthat such great popular bodies should be so represented—but could the House allow that principle without having something to counterbalance it The keeping up of an even and steady balance between all Interests was the constitution of England. Those who looked at it otherwise, took a shallow and narrow view of the question. It had become 'fashionable to abuse that House, as unfaithful to the interests of the people. He believed, that if the acts of that House were examined, they would justify a very different kind of feeling. If those acts were looked to without excitement and agitation, they would be found perfectly in accordance with the public interests.
He would never vote for a general sweeping reform, which would have the effect of altering the whole frame of the Constitution ; but he thought it would be useful to grant the right of representation to great manufacturing towns, and he thought that Scotland should have a more extensive representation. At the same time, he believed Scotland to be at present virtually and beneficially represented in that House; he had never seen or heard of any Scotch question which was not earnestly at- tended to.
He hinted that the proposed measure was unequal and partial.
.Be should like to know on what ground it was that his noble Friend left the right of representation to certain sweet-scented places 1 His noble Friend had gene on a reforming tour, but he had taken care to make no stay at Tavistock. (Loud cheer- ing.) With respect to the borough which he himself represented, he thought it right to declare, that as to corruption it was perfectly immaculate compared with fifty or sixty places which his noble Friend had not interfered with. (Hear, hear.) In his election for that borough, he had not spent one shilling that he was not will- ing to submit to the greatest purist, with respect to elections, that sat in the House. 'There was not any ono item of expeose which he was not ready to produce. It had cost him 1501., and ;le would willingly publish every item of which it consisted at Charing Cross. Shaftesbury and Sudbury, and many other places, were, it appeared, to be retained, notwithstanding all their impurity, while many other boroughs were, without any sufficient cause, to be disfranchised. It would be impossible under the new system, for many merchants to procure seats in Parliament. If they attempted to fix themselves on any of those very populous places, the chances were that their exertions would terminate in bankruptcy and the Gazette. By this plan, boroughs containing less than 2000 Inhabitants were to be disfranchised, and forty-seven boroughs, having 4000 inhabitants, were to be allowed one member each. Now he would ask the persons who were acquainted with those in some degree favoured places, whether the alteration was likely to introduce a greater degree of purity than existed there at present ? Was it to be supposed that the electors would make in- quiry as to the purity of the motives of a candidate ? They would do no such thing. The inquiry would be confined to the length of his purse. The candidate must not indeed have committed any great offence ; but, independent of that, if he .acted liberally and generously, he would be well received. No man who was ac- quainted with the facts, could listen without disgust to this cant about purity. In- stead of improved morality and purity, an effect directly the contrary would be pro- duced. When it was stated, in exemplifying the impartiality of the new system, that because Tavistock was on one side of the proposed line of distinction,and Calling- Ion on the other, the former should be continued, and the latter disfranchised, he. should be glad to know who it was that drew the line. (Tremendous ehecring for several minutes.) It was true, that the one was a larger place than the other, but both were small towns ; and, with respect to purity, he would only say, that the election for Callington, where there were two hundred voters, cost him only We., Out one sixpence of which was improperly expended. Ion on the other, the former should be continued, and the latter disfranchised, he. should be glad to know who it was that drew the line. (Tremendous ehecring for several minutes.) It was true, that the one was a larger place than the other, but both were small towns ; and, with respect to purity, he would only say, that the election for Callington, where there were two hundred voters, cost him only We., Out one sixpence of which was improperly expended.
The real question was whether the bill did not destroy one important interest in order to create another—whether it did not cut off the in- terests of the lower classes of society.
Be said this, not as an advocate for universal suffrage ; but he thought that opportunities, such as now existed, elmould be given to represent bodies of the humbler classes of society. He was waited upon a few days ago by some of the potwalloppers, and he told them that there could be no extensive plan of reform which would not sweep away their boroughs. They might be assured that the in- telligence of this kind of reform would not give satisfaction amongst the humbler classes. The country shopkeeper might be pleased, but his poorer neighbour would be greatly dissatisfied, for it was certain that his interests would be greatly injured by it. To that part of the plan which cut off outlying voters, he had no objection ; hut he thought the proposition of continuing the votes in the boroughs which remained during the lives of the present voters, was inconsistent with the general principle advocated by the bill. He admitted the general principle that prima facie every man in the kingdom, being a natural-born subject, had a right to a vote, unless it could be shown that its exercise would prove Injurious to himself, or to the general interests of the community. If the person having this right could be convinced that he ought not to be permitted to exercise it, well and good ; but by what sort of argument could you convince him, that he might exercise it without injury to the general welfare for twenty years, but that after that time the exercise of it would be greatly detrimental to the state ? 'I he 10/. qualification named in the bill was, be took it for granted, the lowest that could be mentioned consistently with safety, for Ministers were bound to go lower if they could do so with safety. Were they then for the next twenty years, during a period which it was probable would be one of no ordinary difficulty, to have the existing voters in boroughs with much lower qualifications—with qualifications which were declared by the bill itself, to be too low for the safety of the state,— were they, he asked, to have this lower and more dangerous, because lower quali- fication of existing freemen to continue in full operation? Ile thought it would have been more consistent to say, the political atmosphere looks cloudy at present, let us make the qualification as high as 151. for the next twenty years, and after that we-shall see-if we can go on with a lower qualification.
He proceeded to show the effect of the measure on the future repre- sentatives; and to describe its consequences and reception out of doors.
As independent members, the class would not be improved; for, considering the class of men who nosy represented some of those close boroughs as they were called, the temptations to abuse their trust would be much less than in the case of those returned in a Parliament chosen under the new plan. In his opinion, then, this plan would destroy the constitution. It would be an entire change by taking away those influences which had so long existed, and which had worked so well. Be feared it might go forth to the country, that in rejecting this plan they were not attending to the interests of the people. That was a difficulty he felt ; but the mea- sure was brought forward by those who, no doubt, had weighed well its conse- .cluences, and on them must fall the responsibility of having raised the difficulty. (Cheers from the Opposition.) The difficulty was incurred by the Measure having -been brought forward by the King's Government, and being advocated by the press and the public. However, great as this was, he felt that he could not venture to .commit this proposed suicide. If great changes must be made, he should regret it; and the intelligent portion of the country would view its progress with time :greatest toncern. If the plan were proposed at the market-place of a great town, it would probably hays the approval of a large body of supporters ; but the mune parties would also support universal suffrage; and if that voice were to be listened to, they might as well sweep away all institutions at once. If they wished to con- sult the interests of those who were most likely to suffer by it, they should censule those who had most intelligence, and were best acquainted with those iatereats. If they wanted an example of complete anarchy, let them look to Belgium, and see how the effects of a revolution for a legitimate purpose had fallen ort the great body of the lower classes. In conversations out of dour' on this subject, he had not met with a single person who was not apprehensive as to how it would work. It was said it came from the King's Go- vernment, and that Government must be wise in bringing it forward ; but each and every person seemed to be in doubt as to what should be done. They said, " What can be done 1 If it be not carried, the minds of the people are so much excited, that it may lead to a revolution." But he did not see why his honourable friends near him should not take some means to quiet the minds of the people. (Cheers from the Opposition benches.) Much of the excitement was caused by this being an- nounced as coming from the Crown; but he felt satisfied that but for such announce- ment, the people would be satisfied with a much less sweeping, and much more moderate plan of reform. For his own part, when he first heard of the plan, he expected that it would be one of moderate reform ; but he was greatly surprised when he heard the plan of the ministry for the first time, as expounded in Lord John Russell's speech : it had even exceeded the expectations of Mr. Hunt, and he did not know what to think of it.
Time Marquis of TAVISTOCIC said, it seemed that Mr. Baring had cast a reflection on Ministers for not having included the borough of Tavi- stock as well as Callington amongst the boroughs to be disfranchised. Now, if the honourable member would move to include Tavistock among them, he should have his support. The population of that place was 6000, whilst Callington contained only 1320. He could answer, too, for the Duke of Bedford's not interfering to influence his tenants in their votes. On the question itself, he should offer one word of observation.
It appeared to him, that the Government of this country had for years been conducted on principles of most unjustifiable and wasteful extravagance ; that patronage had been kept up for the purpose of maintaining the influence of the Crown ; and that which was known as Parliamentary influence, for the purpose of carrying on measures against the sense of the country.- The people felt now. more fully than at any former period, that they had not theirjust influence in the Legisla- tive councils of the nation, and they naturally sought for that change which would' give it to them. He sincerely hoped and believed that the measure now before the House would have that effect—that it would give them all they could reasonably - desire. He hoped it would curb the monopoly so long maintained by the higher orders, and give a fair expression of the sense of the middling classes. In this view he hailed the measure with delight.
Lord PALMERSTON contended that the people of this country sought for a change, because the state of the country demanded it. Among the many instances which he could cite in proof of that fact, he would for the present only mention one,—that they (the Ministers) were now seated on those benches which had been so recently occupied by honourable gentlemen opposite. (Cheers from the Ministerial benches, echoed by those of the Opposition.) Gentlemen might say what they pleased, but it was not the difference about the civil list—it was not the reduction of the salaries of some half-dozen offices—which caused the overthrow of the late Administration. The rock which they split upon was their defiance of public opinion. They went on spreading wide the canvass of patronage' as they proceeded ; but that patronage, and the use they made of it to accelerate their progress and increase their power, proved their ruin. He would again repeat it, the besetting sin of the last Administration was a disregard of public opinion—of public opinion at home—of public opinion abroad. The error of the course they pursued did notunfortunately end with their power : it had become the means of setting Europe in flames. (Loud cheers.) It was the duty of Government, when public opinion was so strong in favour of a changes, to concede it in such a manner as not to impair the advantages we possess. In looking at the proposed change, let the House consider some of the evils which it was intended to remedy. What had for years produced so much misgovernment—so much of disregard to public opinion 1 The gross bribery and corruption practised, and undue influence at elections, by means of which so many of them came in either without constituents, or only with those whom they had purchased and might sell again. When, then, by such practices the people were driven tutees aside the veil of sanctity with which he- reditary respect had invested even the imperfections of the constitution, it was im- possible that they whose limited propositions of reform had been rejected, should not be led to demand wider and more extensive changes. There were many men in that House who wished things to remain as they were, and who would be willing to bear the faults of the constitution for the sake of its mammy excellences. He would tell th.em, that ifithey were now compelled to choose between a change which they feared, and the evil consequences of the refusal of that Change, the blame must rest on those who three years ago refused to make even the smallest concession to public feeling. (Cheers.) If, three years ago, advantage had been taken of the conviction of corrupt boroughs to bring gradually into connexion with that House the great unrepresented towns,—if, instead of drawing nice equations between the manufac- turing and the agricultural interests, they had turned Reformers on ever so mode- rate a scale, the House would not now have been discussing the plan of general Re- form proposed by his noble friend. (Hear!) He had supported all those proposals for limited reform, because he thought them good in themselves, and because he clearly saw, that if they, were refused, we should be obliged to have recourse to wider and more extensive changes ; but his predictions had been condemned and disreearded. For reasons similar to those for which lie then supported those limited propositions of reform, he was now prepared to support the more extensive measure.
He vindicated himself from the taunt of inconsistency flung that evening from the opposite side ; and assured the House, that had Mr. Canning himself lived to these times, he would have been a Reformer. Any one who looked at the constitution of the representation of this House, could not fail to be struck by five prominent defects,—the nomi- nation boroughs ; the gross, general, and barefaced corruption which prevailed, not only in small, but also in large places ; the want of members for some of the greatest and most important manufacturing towns ; the expenses of elections ; and the unequal distribution among different classes of society of that power which resulted from the exercise of the elective franchise. To all these defects the plan of Govern- ment applied sound and wholesome remedies. At the same time lie maintained that the proposed measure would not destroy the whole- some influence of the Aristocracy—that influence which was obtained by eminent worth, by moral and intellectual distinction, and by exercising towards their inferiors those qualities which secured the affections and gained the admiration of men. The plan would introduce to a share in the government of the country the great bulk of the middle classes of the kingdom. Mr.Twiss had chosen to make himself merry at the expense of the middle classes. He was pleased to say, that shopkeepers, small at- tornies, innkeepers, and publicans, were totally unfit to enjoy any share in the repre- sentation. (No, no!) lie could assure honourable members that he was not speaking from memory, for he had taken down the gentleman's words. But he would ask him in what respect were time potwallopers more fitted to choose representatives than respectable shopkeepers and even small attornies Mr. Baring had asked why, if it were dangeroue to trust the potwallopers with the elective franchise beyond twenty years, not disfranchise them now ! The answer was, that though the Government thought that description of voters should be extin- guished, they did not see such danger in continuing the elective franchise as to induce them to take it away during the lives of those who now possessed it. He be- lieved that the proposition would prove satisfactory to the country ; and notwith- standing the taunts which' bad been thrown on the middle classes, there did not eiist in any country a body of men more entitled to respect and confidence. (Hear !) Sir ROBERT PEEL began by assuring Lord Palmerston, that he did not join in the taunts against him, for .'changing his opinions, or the emrse which he deemed it his duty to follow on the -present occasion. Sir Robert himself had been plaoed in the same sitettion . he had found it necessary, from a due regard to the principli which had always regu-
lated his conduct, to adopt a different enurse from that which he had formerly advocated ; and he therefore ought to be the last man to refuse the indulgence of which he had stood in need to pu blic men who were placed in a similar situation. He never would believe that public men did not look to higher motives than a desire to retain their places, when they were induced to change their opinions ; and the character, the views, and the conduct of his noble friend afforded a sufficient guarantee for the purity of his motives. Having thus imitated the generous custom which prevailed in less dignified and more deadly encounters,—having, as he might say, shaken hands with his noble friend, by relieving himself from any suspicion of personal hostility in what he should say, the noble Lord would not be displeased, if, with perfect freedom of discussion, he subjected his speech to some observation and comment.
" At a time when the House had been expecting that some member of his Ma- jesty's Government would give some explanation of this measure,—at a moment when the House wished to know, not what was the public opinion of it, but what practical ground could be alleged for the adoption of a new constitution—at this moment the noble Lord thought fit to enter into a comparison of the merits of the late and the present Administrations ; and the greater part of his speech was com- posed—not of the arguments which the House so much desiderated on the necessity of the Reform, but of sarcastk allusions to the conduct and opinions of the late Administration, connected with an attempt, and not a very successful one, to mag- nify the deeds of the present Government at the expense of that Government which was lately honoured with his Majesty's confidence. My noble friend says that if there had not been a change in the Government, the same results would not have taken place. In that opinion I am much disposed to concur. No party hostility shall ever prevent me from doing justice whenever justice should be done, or be- stowing praise wherever praise ought to be bestowed. The conduct of the noble Earl at the bead of the Administration, with reference to Ireland, and the conduct of the noble Marquis to whom have been intrusted the reins of the Irish Govern- ment, are entitled to unequivocal commendation ; and there is certainly some truth In the stateznent of my noble friend, that had we remained in office we might not have been able to effect what the present Government have effected. But should we have had the same assistance ? (Cheers.; Should we, if, at a period of great excitement, produced by a general demand for retrenchment, we had produced estimates of increased extent, have found all party considerations yield to a gene- rous feeling for the public service 1 Should we have found a united and generous disposition in all parts of the House to supply the Executive Government with the means of defeating whatever efforts might be made to disturb the public tranquil- lity ? Sir, I will not enter into any comparison of the merits of the two Adminis- trations. But let my noble friend recollect that the instrument of which the noble Marquis at the head of the Irish Government availed himself with his character- istic vigour arid success, was an instrument placed in his hands by his Majesty's late Government, and which was constructed against the opinion and vote of some of the present Ministers. If we found it difficult to preserve peace in Ireland for want of a legal and constitutional force, let it be remembered that It was not by the late Government that the reduction of the yeomanry was commenced." (Cheers.)
Sir Robert thought the allusion to East Retford unfortunate as an argument in favour of the present bill. Himself and Lord Palmerston, on the fatal night which led to the first breaking up of the late Government, entered the House with the intention of voting on the same side ; and it was an accident of the debate which induced Mr. IIuskisson to vote against the general opinion of the Government, and in consequence of this to resign.
"But, to pass from that topic, my noble friend says, that if in 1818 we had consented to transfer the elective franchise from the borough of East Retford to the
town of Birmingham, there would not have been the least necessity for agitating
at the present moment the question of Parliamentary Reform, for that that would have satisfied the whole country. (No,no,no !) What! would my noble friend himself have rested satisfied with the existing state of the representation, notwithstanding the five grand defects which he has described as existing in it? 'Would my noble friend have rested satisfied to let so gross a system of corruption continue, without any attempt to rescue the country from its baleful influence ?" (Cheers.)
Sir Robert ridiculed, very successfully, the notion that Mr. Canning would have supported such a bill as this—he who had refused even to transfer the franchise of Penryn to Manchester.
He now came to the tremendous question before the House ; but be- fore he approached the consideration of it, he must confess that he was afflicted with great pain and humiliation beyond any thing he had ever experienced in considering a question of Lis description.
"I am asked, I will not say to make a revolution in the country, but to substitute for the present system a different constitution ; and I am not invitedto do this after a calm and dispassionate inquiry, but to take this hasty step by an appeal to motives, which if I were toad t upon, I should not be subjecting my fears to my judgment, but
any judgment to my fears. (Loud cheers.) Before I proceed further, I would ask, why has the King's name been introduced in this discussion 1 Is it necessary, day after day, in both Houses of Parliament, and in the public press, to state that this measure has been brought forward with the express and peculiar sanction of the King I hold it to be no imputation upon my respect and loyalty to the Crown, if I disregard the intimation that the King has sanctioned this measure, and if, as a Member of Parliament, I exercise my judgment on the merits of the question as un- reservedly, as if no such intimation had been given. (Loud cheers.) But I regret, on other grounds, that the name of the King should be thus obtruded day after day. I cannot dismiss from my mind doubts as to thejustice and expediency of this ex- treme measure ofdisfranchisement ; but granting that they do exist, it is still a harsh Measure towards the loyal bodies who are called upon to sacrifice privileges which they have long exercised ; and even if it was justly introduced, why should the Ring, the fountain of grace and favour, be held out as the special author of the plan "Then the House has been menaced with dissolution. (Noise.) The chances of dissolution are as strong if the measure be carried as if it fail. I care not if the }louse be dissolved or not ; nor should I be fit for the performance of a single legis- lative duty if I permitted any such menace to influence me ; I care not whether I am returned again or not ; but if I felt any anxiety about it, I should go to my con- stituents with this bill in my hand, and place my special ground to their renewed confidence upon my determined opposition to it. (Cheers.) I would go to a corn- nlunity whose numbers, by the return of 1821, were not more than 4000 inhabitants, and tell them that this billhas been brought in without any allegation of necessity, or suithout any case being made oat against them, and that I opposed it. I know that they never abused their rights—that the humblest man amongst them never received or asked a bribe for the vote they gave. They received me when subjected to the indignity of expulsion for what I conceived to be a special act of duty, even to that Church !of which I am a humble member. They returned me as their representa. Live; and till the necessity ofthe measure be established by more cogent arguments than I have yet heard, twill not consent to deprive them of their right."
The House was told that the members who rejected the bill would be responsible for the consequences.
ire would say to Ministers—" Don't shift from your own shoulders the weight of responsibility which attaches to the proposal of such a measure ; don't say we will prove our capacity to govern, but boast rather of your ability to destroy." (Cheers.) fle at least had not been one who industriously excited the stormy wave of the mul- titude—who employed all his faculties to create dissatisfaction and discontent. He at least had never uttered the language of a noble Lord in 1927, who found the people peaceful, quiet, and contented, and complained that he could not rouse their indignation against the constitution of the House of Commons—who grieved that they were so apathetic as to prove "deaf to the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely." He at least had never called for a list of the names of one hun- dred and thirteen Privy councillors, in order to direct against them the full torrent of popular displeasure and resentment, on account of the remuneration afforded to their services. Neither had he ever instituted any invidious comparisons between the great naval commanders and the civilians who presided over the Admiralty. Neither had he instigated and encouraged anybody of men to display, under the very windows of the seat of Government, a foreign emblem of revolution. He had never been the person to excite the people to a pitch of phrensy, to spur their lazy Indifference to an emulation in revolutionary clamour. If, therefore, this measure, which common prudence would have forborne .introducing at such a crisis in our foreign and domestic relations, when fresh causes of excitement ought to be cau- tiously avoided—if, he said, this extraordinary measure should be defeated, he would never allow that the responsibility of the disappointment could attach to him or to any other individual member of that House. (Loud cheers.) Particular panegyrics on the Constitution had been exhausted. He had heard quotations from Mr. Burke, Mr. Canning, and other great men, now no more, in assertion of the excellence of the British Consti- tution. But he had higher and living authority on the subject. He would read to the House the most complete and beautiful panegyric by the noble member for Tavistock. In quoting it he begged the noble member who now proposed to lay violent hands on what was once the object of his warmest admiration, not to imagine that he intended to bring any charge against him for change of opinion. It may be that he has not changed his opimion ; or that having done so, the change is jus- tifiable, and therefore a matter of duty. Sir Robert Peel then read, in a most emphatic manner, amid the reiterated cheers of the House, the lowing passage of a speech delivered by Lord John Russell in 1819 :— " The question is, why not disfranchise the unconvicted birroughs ? To this I answer, that I do not by any means maintain that the Resolutions I now propose comprise all the amendments that can be made in the frame of this House. When- ever a specific proposition is made I shall be ready to give it all my attention, anctif I can approve of it to adopt it. But I do not, at present, I confess, see any rule by which any unconvicted boroughs can be disfranchised without disfranchising the whole. We then arrive at what is called a Reform upon a principle, or the recon- struction of the entire House of Commons. Now, Sir, I will not dwell upon the ar- guments which aregenerally used to repel such a proposition ; arguments resting chiefly upon the advantage of admitting men of talent into this House, by means of the close boroughs ; and on the danger that an assembly of popular delegates would overthrow the two other branches of the Legislature. But I cannot forget that these arguments have been urged, not, as some out of doors endeavour to persuade the people, by boroughmongers anxious to defend their own vile interests, but by some of the greatest, the brightest, and the most virtuous men whom this country ever produced. I cannot say, however, that I give entire credit to these arguments, be- cause I think that in political speculation the hazard of error is immense, and the result of the best formed seherne often different from that which has been antici- pated. But for this very reason I cannot wee to the wholesale plans of Reform that are laid before us. We have no experience to guide us in the alterations which are proposed, at least none that is encouraging. There is, indeed, the example of Spain. Spain was formerly in the enjoyment of a free Constitution; but in the course of the fifteenth century many of the towns fell into the hands of the nobility, who, instead of influencing the elections of members to Cortes (the practice so much reprobated in this House), prevented their sending members at all. The conse- quence was, that when a struggle took place between the King and Cortes, the aristocracy, feeling no common interest with the representative body, joined the Crown, and destroyed for ever the liberties of their vountry. There is also the example of the present French Constitution, but that is of toomcent a date, not to say atm) precarious a nature, to make a rule for us to go by ; must come back then to our own laws. The Constitution of this country is not written down like that of some of our neighbours. I know not where to look for it, except in the division into King, Lords, and Commons, and in the composition of this liouse, which has long been the supreme body in the State. The composition of this House, by representatives of counties, cities, and boroughs, I take to be an intimate part of our Constitution. The House was so formed when they passed the Habeas Corpus Act—a law which, together with other wise laws, Mr. Cobbett himself de- sires to preserve, although, with strange inconsistency, whilst he cherishes the fruit he would cut down the tree. This House was constituted on the same principle of counties, cities, and boroughs, when monteseuieu pronounced it to be the most perfect in the world. Old Sarum existed when Somers and the great men of the Revolution established our Government. Rutland sent as many members as York- shire when Hampden lost his life in defence of the Constitution. Are we, then, to conclude that Montesquieu praised a corrupt oligarchy ? that Somers and the great men of that day expelled a King, in order to set up a many-headed tyranny ? that Hampden sacrificed his life for the interests of a boroughmongering faction 1 No I the principles of the construction of this House are pure and worthy. If we should endeavour to change them altogether, we should commit the folly of the servant in the story of 'Aladdin,' who is deceived by the cry of • New lamps for old.' Our lamp is covered with dirt and rubbish, but it has a magical power. It has raised up a smiling land, not bestrode with overgrown palaces, but covered with thickset dwellings, every one of which holds a freeman, enjoying equal privileges and equal protection with the proudest subjeet in the land. It has called into life all the busy creations of commercial prosperity. Nor, when men were wanting to illustrate and defend their country, have such men been deficient. When the fate of the nation depended upon the line of policy she should adopt, there were orators of the highest degree placing in the strongest light the arguments for peace and war. When we were engaged in war, we had warriors ready to gain us laurels in the field, orto wield our thunders on the sea. When, again, we returned to peace, the questions of In- ternal policy, of education of the poor, and of criminal law, found men ready to devote the most splendid abilities to the welfare of the most indigent class of the community I And, Sir, shall we change an instrument which has produced effects so wonderful for a burnished and tinsel article of modern manufacture 1 No I small as the remaining treasure of the Constitution is, I cannot consent to it throw into the wheel for the chance of obtaining a prize in the lottery of constitutions."
Sir Robert went on to say, that he regarded the present measure as the expedient of men endeavouring to retell' power. (No, no.) He begged pardon if in error, but they all know how prone people were to re. ceive disclaimers of anxiety to possess power with suspicion. And this allusion to office led him to another topic not disconnected with his subject. It had been industriously circulated, that with a view to outbid, or, rather underbid the noble lord in his measure for reform, and with a view to effecting a restoration to office, some member, of this side of the House would come forward with some plan of moderate reform of his own. He knew not really how to meet this absurd asser- tion. The fact was, that there is a class of newspaper writers who seem to think that the summum born= of human felicity, the sole object of all our exertionsi and ambition, is the opportunity of wasting our time and health on the treasury bench opposite. For his part he was actuated by no such idle ambition. He might if such were his object, have proposed a plan of moderate reform ; but as he had not done so, he persuaded himself that he afforded a proof that he had no ambition of office through such a channel. And this he might have done with the less hesita- tion, as he had never taken a decided violent part against the reform measures which had been discussed of late years in that House ; so that he was not barred on the score of consistency, if the estimable blessing of sitting on the bench opposite, to be night after night badgered, were the object of his ambition. (Cheers and laughter.) After, indeed, he had lost the confidence of the House, and thence office, if Ministers had felt it necessary to propose a safe and moderate measure of reform of some branches of our representation, he would most probably have acted on the views taken by Mr. Macauley, of the overwhelming danger to be apprehended from all resistance to change, and have given it his support as a private individual, though he might not have thought it fit to originate it in an official capacity. He repeated, be would not have objected to a measure for extending the elective franchise to some places not at „present possessing it. The right honourable gentleman opposite smiled. Ile could assure him, with all truth and sincerity, and upon his honour as a gentleman, that he never had a conference with any individual on the subject. (Hear.) He spoke then wholly uninfluenced by personal or party considerations, in his individual capacity,—as a man who had a far deeper stake in maintaining the integrity of existing institutions, than he could derive from the possession of any office. (Hear.) Feeling thus deeply interested in the well-being of the constitu- tion, he could not consent to a measure which, in the words of the noble lord, went to reconstruct the very forms of that House ; and, be the consequences what they may, so wholly did he despair of being able to modify the noble lord's bill into a kind of moderate measureless objectionable, that he would oppose the plan of the noble lord altogether. (Immense cheering by the Opposition.) ° And why would he act thus ? Because, having attentively listened to the noble mover's statement, and to all that had been subsequently said for and against it, he telt convinced that if the
noble lord's argument was good for anything, the measure which be then proposed Could not be a final one, Met a mere precedent to still more dangerous innovations.
Sir Robert then turned to the arguments adduced against the close borough system.
He was content to judge by the tendency and not accident of the close borough system, and would maintain that that tendency was essentially favourable to the entrance of men of ability into that House. He had that morning tamed over the names of from twenty to twenty-five of the most distinguished men that had graced that House for the last thirty or forty years ; and he found that, with three exceptions, they were all returned for boroughs, which the noble Lord's bill 'Would wholly disfranchise. There was Mr. Gunning, Lord North, J. Townsend, Mr. Burke, Mr. Flood, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, Lord Grenville, the Marquis Wellesley, Mr. Perceval, Lord Plunket, Mr. Canning, Mr. Wyndham, Mr. Horne, Mr. Hus- hisson, Mr. Brougham, 8 ir S. Romilly, hoed Castlereagh, Mr. Tierney, Sir W. Grant, Lord Grey, and the late Lord Liverpool, all first returned for close boroughs, and but three of them ever members for counties. Nor was the mere facility of admission the only benefit. The introduction, by affording them an opportunity—the essential condition of successful talent—for displaying their legislative ability on a large scale, recommended them to a more extensive fran- chie.e at a more mature ag,e ; and again, when they, by caprice or want of money, or otherwise were deprived of their larger seats, those close boroughs, which the noble Lord's bill would destroy altogether, received them, and secured their in- valuable labours to their country. Such was the case when Mr. Sheridan was defeated at Stafford—he found shelter in Ilchester ; Mr. Wyndham having failed at Norwich, took refuge at Higham Ferrers ; Lord Castlereagh, in like manner, having lost his election in the dounty of Down, was returned for Oxford ; Mr. Tierney, when he lost Southwark, was returned for Knaresborough ; and Lord Grey for Tavistock, when defeated in Northumberland. All this proved that the tendency, and not the mere accident of the close borough system was to facilitate the entrance of men of ability who otherwise could not obtain a seat in that House.
Was this system, working so advantageously for the public weal—so fostering of talent and statesman-like ability—to be destroyed ?
During a hundred and fifty years the constitution in its present form was in force, and he would ask any man who heardhim to declare whether the experience of his- tory had produced any form of government so calculated to promote the happiness and secure the rights and liberties of a free and enlightened people? (('heers.) Brany other experiments bad been tried to ingmft democratical upon monarchical institutions, but how had they succeeded I In France, in Spain, in Portugal, in the Netherlands, in every country on the face of the earth, with the exception of the United States, had the experiment of forming a popular representative government, and of uniting it with a monarchy, been tried; and bow, he would again ask. had it succeeded ? In America, the House had been told that the most beneficial effects of a representative form of government were plainly visible. But he begged to remind the House that there was a wide difference, indeed, between the circumstances of this country and of America. In the United States the constitution had not been in existence more than forty years. It was not till the year 1779 that the representative part of the American system of government had been established ; and since that time, many important changes, as every body knew, hadleeni made respecting the mode of electing their President. As yet every thing Avis in uncertainty, for ever since the first establishment of the government of the United States it had been un- dergoing a change.
Sir Robert proceeded to comment upon the inutility of Reform, as a means of retrenchment and of preventing the influence of the Crown in the House.
We used to be told that retrenchment of the public expenditure would be the first measure of a reformed Perliament. But a reforming Government bad declared al- ready that all further retrenchment was impossible. We used also to be told that the influence of the Crown in that House was so enormous that reform was neces- sary as a check upon it. The influence of the Crown in that House I Would any man rise up in his place and state that any influence could contend successfully in that House with the influence of public opinion? (Hear, hear.) Persons were in the habit of saying that the Crown could now influence more members than at any former period of our history, and that the aristocracy could, by their support, establish or overthrow any government. Yes, gentlemen were in the habit of saying this, although, since the death of Lord Liverpool, in 1827, the country had had live different prime Minister, and live different administrations. (Loud cheers.) Such was the influence of the Crown—such was the influence of the Adstocracy ! He contended that neither ef these influences had any existence.
He deprecated the period at which the proposition was brought forward.
It was a period of great excitement, and if gentlemen would but give themselves the trouble of looking at the history of reform, they would find that it was almost
flourishing when there was either a pressure of great difficulty on the country, or some revolution on the Continent, which misled the people of England by the de- lusive hopes which it held out to them of the attainment of greater liberty than that which they then enjoyed. (Cheers.) Look at the question of Reform—look at • the Parliamentary debates, and they would see that, whenever the question of Re- form was frequently agitated, some dire misfortune lurked behind. It was brought forward with great pomp of circumstance in the year of the rebellion of 1745; it was
brought prominently forward during the American war ; it was brought forward at the commencement of the French war ; and, to come to our own times, it was brought prominently forward in the years 1817, 1819, and 1822,—in a word, at every
period when there was either great commercial or great agricultural distress in the country. It was brought forward, too, at periods when the excitement of foreign
revolutions misled the judgment of the British public, and deluding them with a false love of liberty, rendered them discontented with the moderate free- dom which they enjoyed. Mr. Pitt was its advocate and champion in 1780, when the establishment of American independence, after a successful straggle with this country, had deluded the enthusiastic lovers of freedom in this country with notions of liberty which it was difficult to comprehend. From the year 1783 to the year 1790, the question of Reform slept in lethargy like
that of the grave: but in the latter year the appalling events of the French Revolution again recalled it into life, and inspired it with new powers of existence. In the year 1821, when the question of Reform was brought forward by Lord Dur- ham, he also appealed to the events which had just before taken place upon the Continent, and hailed them as the auspicious dawn of liberty upon this country. His language was—. Where its power and justice are acknowledged, as in Spain, the prospect is most cheering. Wesee disaffection instantaneously quelled—vene-
rableand rotten abuses reformed—superstition eradicated—and the monarch and the people united under a constitution, which alike secures the privileges of the
one, and the liberties of the other. May I not then consistently hail the rising of
this star, in what was once the most gloomy portion of the European horizon, as a light to show us the way through all our dangers and difficulties—as a splendid memorial of the all-conquering power of public opinion ?" Was that star of liberty, he would ask, which then appeared in Spain, a steady light to show the people of England the way to an improved state of freedom, or was it the periodical return
of an eccentric comet, which sheds disastrous light and perplexes nations with fear of change ? (Cheers.) Again, with the events of the French revolution fresh in the recollection of the country, he had no hesitation in saying that the same experiment was again in agitation, and the country was again expecting that it could improve its own liberty from the example of what had recently passed in France.
Sir Robert Peel thus concluded his- speech, which was admirably deli- vered, and made an extraordinary impression on the House- " Oh ! let us wait until we see more of the results of that experiment, for ft is proper that we should pause before weraake it in our own happy country. Let us feel assured, that the liberty, which now exists in France, if it be the offspring of a just revolution, is that liberty which has virtue and justice as its compa- nions, and peace and prosperity as its attendants. I see at present no reasons for expecting to see such consequences from the late revolution in France; and I deprecate above all things makiug the revolution in France a precedent for a revo. lution in this country. Let us therefore remain content with the nell.tempered freedom which we now enjoy, and which we have the means of sei using, if we act with ordinary discretion. I lament exceedingly that Government should have determined to agitate such a question as that of Reform at this particular crisis : It would have been wiser in my opinion to have avoided these new causes of excite- ment, for depend upon it that by this process throughout this land the first seeds of discontentand disunion are sown. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) In every town there will be a conflict—a moral conflict, I mean—between the possessors of existing authority, and existing privileges, and those to whom the existing authority and the existing privileges are to be transferred. Oh ! Sir, I lament, beyond measure, that Government had not the prudence to adhere to that temperate course of policy which they have pursued elsewhere. I lament that if they did think it necessary to propose a plan of reform In this excited state Of the public mind, they did not confine it within those narrow limits which are consistent with the safety of the country and the dignity of their own characters. They have thought proper, however, to adopt another course ; they have sent through the land the firebrand of agitation ; and it is easy so far to imitate the giant enemy of the Philistines, as to send three hundred firebrands through the country, carrying danger and dismay in all quarters ; but it is not easy, when the mischief is done, to Sada remedy for it. In the present difficulties of your situation, you should have the powers of summoning all the energies of life, and should take care that you do not signalize your own destruction by bowing down the pillars of the edifice of your liberty, which, with all its imperfection, still contains the noblest society of freemen known tothe habitable world." (Long continued cheering and cads fir ad- journment.)
Mr. GisnoirsE moved the:adjournment on Thursday, and opened the debate on Friday. Ile began by pointing out a fallacy which had emi- nently characterized the speeches of the preceding night.
Sir Robert Peel had, throughout his speech, assumed as an axiom, that we were really in a state of the greatest prosperity,—that we had the happiness and the glory of living under a constitution which bad borne this country to a pinnacle of power and prosperity—that, in a word, we were as well off as mortals could expect to be and that if we did not know it, we ought to know it. (Cheers and laughter.) He had also assumed, that the Parliament performed its functions properly. Now this was assuming a great deal too much. The merits of this question greatly depended upon whether the Parliament performed its functions ill or well. This was a point open to discussion at least, and therefore not to be assumed as settled. To take it for granted that the Parliament performed its functions well, and then to indulge in mere declamation upon the excellence of the constitution, was but to divert the attention of' the House from the real question before them. (Hear, hear.) Gentle- men who took the same side of the question that he did, had great difficulties to contend with. If they spoke of danger, they were called intimidators—if they whispered that there were grievances, they were called exciters—if they remon- strated, they were told that they assumed too high a tone—if they used the lan- guage of complaint they were accused of a desire to inflame the people with a sense of imaginary wrongs. (Cheers.)
Mr. Gisborne held that the most important function of Parliament was the imposition of taxes ; and in considering whether the House ought to be reformed, it was essential to inquire whether the House had exercised its power of taxation, and regulated the expenditure of the country, so as to conduce to the happiness and welfare of the people.
Now he had no hesitation in saying, that this question must be answered in the negative, nod that hence had [arisen that clamour in the country for Reform, or which some members complained. That this clamour. however, was perfectly jus- tifiable, might be easily demonstrated. tie would take in proof of this position, only two of the books that were lying on the table. These were the book of sala- ries and the book of pensions. Would any one tell him, that if they had bad a re- formed Parliament, it would have been possible that the salaries of their officers would have amounted to Ille),(Hof., and that their civil pensions, independent of military pensions, could have amouiited to 250,0001. ? (llear, hear !) Sir Robert Peel had denied that there were any symptoms, from which it could be inferred that the country took a great interest in Par- liamentary- Reform. Had they not, in spite of the late hours to which the House usually sat, been compelled to devote a day, which was usu- ally a day of adjournment, to the mere business of receiving petitions on the subject of refinm ? (Cheers.) What did Sir Robert Peel call symptoms ? The Opposition members had described the proposed measure as revolutionary. Mr. Gisborne did not believe they thought so, for their acts contradicted their assertion.
If they really thought that this was a revolutionary measure, why did they not throw themselves in the ditch, and oppose It in theee—why did they not resist it with all their might, even in the very first stage—why did they not, instead of letting it be considered by the Commons House of Parliament, stop it there on the prin- ciple that they would have no compromise—that they would have nothing to do with revolution 1 (Hear, hear.) With a strange inconsistency, though those gen- tlemen spoke in such violent terms of the measure, they were willing, it seemed, to allow the bill to be brought in and laid upon the table of that House.
Honourable members had talked of Corporation robbery.
What was it proposed to take ? Not a property like goods, or chattels, or land, but which that House had itself over and over again declared to be a high crimeand misdemeanour to buy or sell—a mere trust placed in their hands for the public good, to be resumed again by Parliament whenever it should appear that it was not exercised for the beneficial purposes originally intended. If that could be termed a robbery. lie avowed himself an accessory before the fact; and instead of sham; he took pride from the avowal. (Cheers.) Mr. FRESHFIELD said, that if the able anti convincing speech of Sir Robert Peel were in all its parts and details placed in juxtaposition with the speeches of the friends of reform, he did not doubt the public would be against the measure. He assigned a reason for not exam. guishing the proposal at once. He thought that it would be most indiscreet on their part if they ventured to stop— as he believed in his conscience they could stop—this measure in the first instance; for if they did so, would it not be said that they were opposed to all and every spa.. des of reform ? They saw in the speech of the noble Lord who had introduced this measure so many things to surprise, and alarm, and astonish them, that they doubted exceedingly whether the bill itself contained so many startling propost- does ; and in order to see whether it contained less, and lest it might contain more, they were anxious to have it printed and laid on the table of the House, and totake the sense hereafter upon its principle. There were many things which the noble Lord might propose to dein this measure, and which were not at present well understood. He was not opposed to all Reform, and was ready to entertain any practical question consist-init. with the constitution. He thought the proposition of the Marquis of Chandos for the disfranchisement of Eve- sham a practical measure of thaedekription.
Mr. W. DUNCOMBE felt it necessary to place himself in a position of direct hostility to the Ministers ca this question. The Government, he would maintain, were inconsistent with their own principles, and he would contend that the average population of the small boroughs was not taken fairly. Many large towns ' Mr. JOHN SUITH said, he happened to be one of those who had an in- terest in a borough, and he was perfectly convinced that the power in his hands had been improperly placed. He had a right to say this, for he had possessed the power for twenty-nine years of putting a member into that Hem for the borough of Maihurst ; and he could say that .h-f; areceived one single shilling from any person for his right, nor ' had it been of the slightest importance to him in point of self-interest, nor in any respect, except that it enabled him to do what was delightful to him 7— that was, to put one or two Whigs into the House of Commons. • Some parts of the present measure he entertained • great difficulties about, though, when he heard it, it had the effect of taking away his breath, so surprised and delighted was he. (Cheers.) It could not be denied that there existed a great degree of anxiety among an immense number of people on the subject of Parliamentary Reform. It was not unreasonable that the people should demand Reform when it was considered how much they had suffered from the conduct of Parliament. They felt the weight of taxation, and attributed the burden to the inconsiderate and extravagant proceedings of the Legislature. An independent and intelligent House of Commons would not have run into the last Frenchwar ; and had this and similar injudicious acts been avoided, there was not a man in the country but would have reaped advantage. He called upon the noble lord to persevere in his plan and told him that the people of England • Were with him. (Cheering from the Treasury benches.) Although the noble lord might not be the individual to succeed on this occasion, his • scheme, or something like it, must be adopted. Mr. CALCRAFT declared himself friendly to Reform, and that he had come down to the House on Tuesday to support the Ministers, but was prevented from doing so by the extravagance of their plans. He was ready to admit that some small boroughs ought to be cut off in order to furnish members for the large towns, but could not see why Wareham should be included in the number. Mr. STANLEY ridiculed the notion that an act was revolutionary which was submitted to the Legislature in the regular and constitutional way. With respect to Wareham, he would only repeat what its zealous mem- ber had himself told him—his right honourable friend near him need not feel any alarm—he was not going to divulge any secrets. His ho- nourable friend informed him, that on the occasion of his being chaired as one of the members for the borough of Wareham, he heard one elector saying to another, " Pray who is the new member ?" " Why," answered the person interrogated, " Calcraft is one, and a friend of his is the other ; but I never saw him before, and I don't know who he is." Doubt- less any person recommended by his honourable friend would be highly respectable ; but he was elected without being at all known by the voters. This was not much in favour of Wareham. Mr. WYNN declared his hostility to the measure. He knew what that declaration amounted to—it was a virtual resignation of the office he held (Secretary at War) ' • but he conscientiously felt that he could not in this instance go along with his colleagues. Mr. JeniennY, the Lord Advocate, addressed the House. He began by assuming, from the general silence of the Scotch Members, that the part of the general measure which concerned Scotland was not disap- proved by them. He should therefore apply his remarks to the great ge- neral topics which the debate presented. " I think the topics on both sides that have been most frequently alluded to and most forcibly pressed on our attention, are, first, the undoubted prosperity of the people of both ends of the island at the present moment—a prosperity which the argument of any necessity for the present motion goes to impeach ; secondly, the want of any showing of a direct evil in the situation of the people, or of any injury to their national interests, which can be directly traced to the state of the repre- eentation ; and, thirdly, of the want of any specification of the particular benefits which the changes now proposed are likely to confer on us. If I were diseoeed to be declamatory rather than attempt to be argumentative, I might, perhaps, add to these the grievances which an honourable and learned member characterized so Eullyantl so fancifully as a corp oration robbery, and that othergraver and more serious charge put forward by an honourable Baronet, of a tendency to promote a revolution. I might, too, dwell on the insi nuatio ns, that the ultimate consequences of these changes must be to remove the Crown from the brow of the Sovereign, and that Monarchy and all its branches and institutions will be speedily rooted out of this country. I might enumerate among these the assertion, that no reason has been shown for these unprecedented changes ; that the people themselves do not desire, and have mot really caned for them ; and that although they are now exceedingly clamorous, end insist on the fulfilment of their wishes with menaces of force in the event of a refusal, still that all this clamour and all these menaces were originally raised, and teive been sedulously fostered, by those who are now pleading them as aaustification oi that measure which they are endeavouring to prevail on this House to adopt. I may be permitted to add finally, to all this, what has been put forth confidently no( li in and out of doors, that notwithstanding these manceuvres the present system of representation is at the bottom extremely popular with all whose opinions can be considered important, and that as the country prospered eminently, and attained the higheet rank among nations with that representation, it would be rash and un- wise to change what we possess for that which was less known, and may be less beneficial." ((heers.) Mr. Jeffrey went on to argue these points. He thus dispose' of the latter- " Looking back through the last two or three hundred years, we • our present system we have gone on increasing in glory ax' d th oubtedly it is so. In e days of the Tudors and the in re prosperity. tuunauer. Even then our wealth and splendour and high degree ...tarts we were prosperous. palish us from the nations around ; and I would of cultivation began to..distion (ace empires of Europe, we bad even thee add, too, that, compared with the the attainment of domestic liberty. A e . made a very considerable progress in a great extent of political liberty, ..0 if we had thus easily gained possession of i.ve been an argument again.' .ad increasing wealth and opulence, might t ;Led the.Stuarts, that they " „ the prudence of those who lived under the _e o Tudors le.ice they ahead,: poe- ,liould have rested satisfied with the liberty and the pu.. lteeause theneU nes-sed, and that they ought not to have struggled for more, Clear 110 ..mgered the safety of that which they had already achieved In ozder in truth, is the argument which is now put forward against e us. t", ...egree of political freedom is found necessary. Every despot who, eiltether.frornrya ni attain a very great measure of public and national prosper regard for his own interests, or from indifference or easiness of temper, may to industry ow a limited degree of political freedom to his people, gives an encouragement end enterprise ; from that arise manufactures and commerce. The result of these is the growth of ease, wealth, and opulence, and the fruit of the tree is liberty! Ender that moderate protection which even a tyrant may, for the sake of his late rest, give the honey-bees, they obtain wealth. In the language of the Son of Sired', who seem, in hie Ecclesiasticus. to have been a commentator on the beauties of the English Constitution, they attend to handicraft ; but when their Industy has given s wealth, they demand liberty, which is the daughter, and not the mother,of.pro- sperity. Thus rose the Italian Republics—thus rose the f,. ee German ton ns thus rose the cities of Flanders—thus rose the seeds of our own towns and puilds, which, under the power of accumulated wealth, obtained that municipal end civil freedom which formed the groundwork of our present liberties. quired little consideration to understand that of which all history gives us testimony—that as the accumulation of wealth leads to the desire of freedom ter its protection andenjoyment, so the multiplication of that wealth , of the chan- nels through which e it flows, and of the hands which possess it—the very 'stresses, in truth, which accompany the possession of capital and of the means of employing it, demand greater extensions of liberty. and an increase of the number of tho_se to whom the regulation of public affairs Is intrusted, and who ought to be found ac quainted with the peculiar wants and interest* of_ 1l4,13e departments-into which .societyeis then divided. t must then ionow11 thinr, as an absolute necessity for governing safely and.wieely, that as long as nations. continue to. make progressions in wealth and civilization, the political institutioim to Wbich they are subjected must be adapted to the change of circumstances in proportion as their interests demand the attention of men who are Capable of accommodating themselves to the business of the State and the increasing difficulties of society." What, accordingly, had been the progress of the political institutions of England ? " All knew that the greater portion of property commenced under the concessions made by the,Barons to their serfs; and that, as their serfs became rich and free, they either extorted rights from the Barons, or received charters and privileges in towns from the Sovereign, who, cunningly for his own day, but unwisely for his successors, granted these privileges to counteract the influence of his rebellious Nobles. Thus rose the Corporations, then the Burghs, and following them gradually, but surely, all the liberties and immunities we now enjoy. And what Is the conse- quence 1 Why, that at this moment the great mass of the population of this country possess a quantity of mind, a capacity of understanding, and an extent of Information that enables them to trample under foot the sophistries with which princes were deluded some two hundrecl years ago, and to make a matter of ridicule of the absurdities and superstitions which were then delivered from the pulpits." But then it was said, that we should stop where we axe, because we now enjoy such a high pitch of prosperity. But who was to be the judge of the standard of improvement ? Mr. Jeffrey knew of no limits to the progress of improvement, or to the continually increasing desires of intelligent men, save the absence of reason in the arguments by which the.cravings of their desires are to be supported. " Now what is the fact here ?—for I apprehend that we are, in this case, to deter- mine more from facts than arguments. Let us suppose that there is no other boon demanded from us, at the present moment, than that we should admit to a share of the privileges of the representation a large proportion of the wealthy, the intelli- gent, and the middle classes of the country ; those who are at Leeds and Manches- ter, and in a large portion of the metropolis itself, wholly excluded from the right of returning members to Parliament. Is it true, then, I ask, that those persons are dis- contented, dissatisfied, and soured, from being placed under an exclusion, andfrom being deprived of a right which they see exercised elsewhere by others placed in a much humbler condition of society 1 (Cheers mixed with erres No I') You say no. I ask, what are we to say to the innumerable petitions-eon the table of the House Pe- titions coming by InIndreds and thousands, not from;the middle or the lower classes, but from the bankers, the merchants, and the lawyers, and men moving in the most. elevated circles in the country. If this be the case, and if these petitions be as nu- merous as I understand they are, how is it we have not one to the contrary ? No external document has yet appeared on the table of this House to give evidence of the existence of these feelings, with the exception of that petition frora Bristol which contained an argument on the subject that might be expressed somewhat in the language of the dissenting barons of old, that they were unwilling the laws of England should be changed." (Cheers and laughter.) With respect to the franchiso- Can it be said that any bad effects would arise from giving representatives to Man- chester, Leeds, and Sheffield ; or that any injury would be inflicted on property, or any pernicious consequences flow to the other classes of society, if the large counties, each of which might be divided into sections equal to some of those of the ordinary size, were permitted to return members for each section 1 How could this demo- ralize the people, or injure the power of the Throne and the Aristocracy ? But then it was contended that the franchise was merely the consequence of some pro- vidential kind of luck in those towns which had formerly emerged from insigni- ficance—that it was necessary now to continue the franchise to those towns, although they had fallen into a state of decay, because it produced a happy com- mingling of the middle classes with the people of property and the aristocracy, and that, if the system was changed, the people of property and the aristocracy would be wholly excluded from their share in the representation. Sir, I am not bound to say that the union of interests is defeated by the means which are taken to preserve it ; but I ask how the system answers at present, and bow it is possible Co agree with the arguments founded on those high-strained hypothetical grounds, which interest has dragged in to favour its views, but which it is utterly impossible to feel tho- roughly borne out by the facts? It was contended that it was a good thing to continue the connexion of the Peers with that House, lest they should be driven to exercise their naked influence to a dangerous extent in the affairs of the country. Now, it happened that the Lords. fortunately for themselves had in England no voice or power except as hereditary possessors of property. Their political influence wits of the most limited kind, except they were able to exercise it by the management of a part of the members of the House of Commons. In every other point of view, they are merely rich pro. prietors, possessing no higher political advantages than other men of property ; and therefore, the idea of the danger to be apprehended from a disunion of interests wholly fails when it is subjected to examination. (Chem.) Then it was said that the Aristocracy of wealth generally should, have its connexion with the House supported- " I would say so also. I would allow property a large and liberal influence in elections ; but I am prepared to contend that the present system, so far from giving that influence produces much less than it will possess if this measure is carried into full effect. The member for Callington, indeed, admitted this him- self, when, in alluding to the Parliamentary influence of the Bedford family, he said, in spite of the disfranchisement, I'll wager you hall' a crown that the Duke of Bed- ford's interest in Tavistock will be quite as great as it was before." It was said that the British constitution consisted of King, Lords, and Commons, and that the proposed measure would give an improper pre- ponderance to the democracy. How ? The new qualification is in a five-fold ratio greater than that which has long existed with reference to the voters in counties. How, then, can it be justly said that a pre- ponderance is to be given to the lower orders by this measure ? And, besides, the opponents of the Bill argue as if the qualification for voters in towns was never to be above teu pounds ; forgetting that that is to be the lowest qualification. Then see the addition that is to be made to the County Members. "Looking at all these circumstances, I am at a loss to conceive why any honourable member, in the spirit of prophecy, or in the spirit of conjecture, should declare that by what we now propose to do, we are about to give to the House of Commons a much more demo, cratical character than that which it at present possesses." (Hear, hear.) Mr. Jeffrey went on—" The sanctity of property is established by the law. But will you say that the poor man, who labours for all that he has, is less likely to preserve that sanctity inviolable—is less likely to obey the law by which that sanctity is protected, than the rich man who spends his days in idleness and ennui? It has always appeared to me, that the man who acquires by his own exertions just enough to secure to himself a comfortable existence—the man, for instance, who lives on his freehold of forty shillings a year, is the man who is most likely to be the true guardian of property, and to rally round the stan- dard of its defenders. (Hear, hear.) Just lifted above thC gulph of poverty, such a man feels the real value of that asylum which his own hands have constructed. Proud of the comforts which he has obtained, he looks down, but with a feeling of affectionate consideration, on those who are struggling to acquire a similar station. Such is the person whom a wise and provident Legislature would wish to attach, and on whom they may place the firmest reliance to aid them in resisting those, if any such there be, who are disposed -to set the laws at defiance, and to declare war against property. (Hear, hear, hear.) Ile admitted the existence of a very considerable number of discon- tented individuals. "There are, no doubt, persons in this country who are opposed to all law, who despise all authority, Whose only object is to evade the one' and to destroy the other.. But will anybody tell me that such persons form the great body of the petitioners to this House for Parliamentary Reform ? (Hear, hear, hear.) They do not care for forty. shilling freeholds, or for any other qualifications. They care not for King, or Lords, or Commons. Their maxim is " every man for him- self, and God, or some other being, for us all." ("I laugh.) But the real danger to the state did not arise from these, but from the respect- - able and influential classes which the continuance of the present system tended to combine with them and which the bill would infallibly sepa. rate from them. Mr. Jeffrey concluded a long and admirable speech by adverting to the argument urged against the measure, that Ministers in proposing it had yielded to their fears rather than their reason. " It is said," he exclaimed, " that we do not submit our fears to argument, but our arguments to our fear—that we take counsel of the alarm we have ourselves raised— and that we have rushed on desperate, afraid of the 'sounds our- selves have made.' I wish that the House bad been told the difference between our intimidation and that which is proposed by the opponents of the measure. We are afraid to refuse the just prayer of the people as expressed in their petitions—they are afraid to do an act of justice, for fear the concessions of just. rights may, by the perversion of all moral feelings, be made the ground for unjust demands. i(Hear, hear, hear.) It certainly comes to this, and this alone, which as the ultimate ground of their refusal—namely, the right honourable ,gentleman says, in fact, at least, I am afraid of the dangers and evils that, by some indescribable and unexplained process, will ensue from the granting of just rights,' for the rights are just, and no man pretends to deny their justice. The people claim these rights, and the only -answer proposed to be afforded them is, I will not move from the .position in which I am now,' and that answer will produce the -,greatest of evils, the curse of popular disaffection. The right honour, able gentleman said, I am afraid that an indication of firmness in the allowance of a just desire will compel me afterwards to ac- .cede to the wishes of unjust men.' The distinction between us, Sir, is that we are afraid to refuse an act of justice, they are afraid to grant it." (Cheers.) Mr. CROKER, in answering the Lord Advocate, said that the learned Lord's recipe for quieting the people was akin to his who, finding a mob 'breaking into his wine-cellar, would give them brandy to make them peaceable. The learned Lord and the mover of the bill took their stand on the petitions offered to the House, which they contended did not pro- ceed from the dangerous but from the peaceable classes of the people. What did the petitions pray for ? There were not more than two or .three so worded as to justify the conclusion that had been drawn from them. He would cite but one, as a specimen—it prayed for the exclu- sion of placemen from the House, annual or at least triennial Parlia- ments, the franchise to all persons who paid direct or indirect taxes the extension of elective rights to large towns. This was the only particular in which it or almost any of them agreed with the Ministerial plan. So far would that plan he from giving satisfaction, it would give increase of dissatisfaction. It was only substituting brandy for wine. The fer- vour in behalf of Reform was new-born, and its birth was not unknown. In the year 1821, 19 petitions only were presented in favour of Reform. In the year 1822, the number was reduced to 12. In the year 1823, the number was 29. In the year 1824, there was no petition at all in favour of Reform. The same was the case in the years 1825, 1826, 1827, 1828, and 1829. In the session of 1830 there were 14. Then conic the dissolution of Parliament. The noble Lord and his political friends then sat on the side of the House from which he was addressing the Chair ; and they went from that House to the elections, little dream- ing that they would so soon change their situation to the other side of -the House. They looked about for a political lever to move the Govern- ment of the day from its place, and then, from hustings and bow-windows, and their different places of abode, they made addresses about Reform to the people ; and the country at length responded to their call. The result of that appeal had been 650 petitions. ; Mr. Croker went on to contend, that there must be great danger to the constitution from a plan which of necessity threw all the influence into the bands of the lower order of householders. It might he possible that a single Minister might get in under the new system, or if he did not, it mattered little ; but suppose a necessity for a whole Ministry to bel changed, how would they be returned to Parliament, at a period of general panic or excitement ? He was as little satisfied with the details as the principle of the Ministerial plan. He had narrowly inspected the line of the noble proposer; and he suspected that it had not been drawn without a little partiality for his own side of the House. First, all bo- roughs below 2000 were to be cut off, next all boroughs above 4000 were to be preserved intact. " Let them see, then, where the line of 4000 directed its course. Why, the borough which just passed the bridge as the fiend was ready to catch it,—the fortunate borough which escaped into the Elysium of undiminished patronage,—was the borough of Mahon, in Yorkshire. (Cheers from the Opposition benches.) And how had this borough con- trived to escape ? Oh! fortunate Mahon! it had 4005 inhabitants, and therefore it escaped, whilst all the rest of the country, except a few manufacturing counties, were disfranchised, or mutilated of parts of their franchise." Then there was Calne—" The number of its inhabitants appeared to be 4612, the population of Tavistock was 5482, and that of Knaresho. rough and Bedford, which were .to return four members, was 19,400; and these boroughs, with so inconsiderable an aggregate population, were to be permitted to send eight members to Parliament. What if they should all fall into the hands of one person ? for let it be remembered, that it would require no very large property to give an individual a complete command over the entire. Then the important and opulent town of Blackburn was to return but one member, although five times larger than Tavistock, which would be suffered to send two. Bolton, in Lancashire, would have but one member, while its population could not be taken at less than 22,000. Furthermore, Bedford was to be given two, while Brighton, with 30,000 inhabitants, would only be favoured 10-the extent of one; and yet Newport was to be allowed two. " .111r. Croker, after reading a long quotation from the Edinburgh Review, to show that the opinions of Its learned edittir had not been always in accordance with his present sentiments, concluded by calling on the House to reject the measure. At one o'clock this morning, the House adjourned. Colonel SIB. THORPE, having moved the adjournment, will open the debate on Monday. There still remain, among a host of smaller men, Sir JA sits MACKINTOSH, Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, and Sir JANES GRAHAM, to speak on the question.
