HC Deb 23 February 1830 vol 22 cc858-915
Lord John Russell

said, that before he proceeded with the Motion of which he had given notice, he wished to lay before the House a Petition which had been committed to his care from the inhabitants of the extensive and important town of Sheffield. The Petitioners complained, that several large, populous, and wealthy towns were at present excluded from the exercise of the Elective Franchise, whilst in very many instances that privilege was enjoyed by the inhabitants of small places of no importance, and was often exercised in an unworthy manner. The Petitioners therefore prayed that the Franchise might be extended to their town, and to such other populous, wealthy, and intelligent places.

Mr. Marshall

expressed his cordial concurrence in the prayer of the petition.

Mr. Stuart Wortley

said a that he would not interpose any delay to the Motion of his noble friend by any remarks on the subject of the petition, if he had not been particularly requested to give it his support. He would not attempt to canvass the Question about to be submitted by his noble friend, as no doubt it would be amply discussed in the course of the evening. All that he would say respecting it was this—that if Parliament should extend the principle of direct representation to Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds, he thought it ought likewise to be extended to the town of Sheffield. Indeed, in the selection of important towns for representation, he did not see why Sheffield, a wealthy manufacturing town, containing a population of eighty thousand souls, should be omitted. If, therefore, he repeated, the Legislature should deem it advisable to extend the Elective Franchise to the towns he had named, he would support its extension also to Sheffield.

The petition was then brought up and read, and ordered to be printed.

Lord John Russell

moved that the three Orders of the Day, of March 19th, 1821, June 22nd, 1827, and 31st March, 1828, relative to Bills to transfer the Elective Franchise from Boroughs convicted of corruption, to Leeds, to Birmingham, and Manchester, should be entered as read. This was done, and his Lordship then addressed the House as follows:—Although I feel not, Sir, the smallest doubt both as to the justice and as to the expediency of the propositions which I am this night about to submit to the House, yet I do feel a considerable degree of apprehension that these propositions may not meet with that success which I should wish to see conferred upon them by a majority of this House. I am aware that there are many persons who are actuated by perfectly conscientious motives, but who have such a dread of Reform, to which the old and accustomed epithets of "wild and visionary," have often been attached, that they view with suspicion any Motion which has Reform for its object. To them I will only say, that if ever there was a proposition for Reform that was not wild and visionary, but that was practicable in its object, practicable in the grounds on which it went, and practicable in its results, it is that which I am about this night to propose to the House. [hear, hear.] I likewise fear that some objections may be blade to this Motion in the minds of those who are connected with the landed interest of the country. I am aware that of late years there has been a strong degree of suspicion and jealousy unwisely and foolishly encouraged between the landed and the commercial interests. I hope that on this night, if not entirely laid aside, these jealousies will be suspended, and that we shall come to the consideration of this Question neither with a view to the exclusive advantage of the commercial nor of the landed interest, but of both; the more especially at a time like this, of great public distress, when it is more than ever expedient to unite, as much as possible, persons representing every kind of property, and connected with every kind of interest, in order to remedy the evils that now oppress us, and to avert the dangers that may hereafter threaten the country. I have, Sir, likewise another apprehension that this Motion will be opposed, as others of a similar kind have been, by the influence of the Government in this House. I confess I cannot but think, that if some Members of his Majesty's Government feel an objection to my Motion, it would yet be wiser on the whole, if they were not to array themselves as a body against a proposition of this nature. It is a proposition that will tend to bring into this House persons representing large classes of the population, and bearing a large proportion of the public burthens; and I cannot help thinking that it would be highly imprudent to array the whole army of Ministerial influence against so seasonable a proposal. There is an old quotation from Lord Bacon's works, which has often been heard within the walls of this House on subjects of this kind, and which says that "Time is a great innovator." If Lord Bacon had lived to the present day, he might have changed his maxim, and have said "Taxation is a great innovator." Persons who bear great burthens are apt to look into them to demand their causes, and to satisfy themselves that the Government which imposes them is carried on with the strictest integrity, and with a large and liberal purpose, which, perhaps, if they were less heavily taxed, they would not think of requiring. The people now look with more suspicion to the motives of this House than in any former times. They always do, in fact, look with suspicion on the acts of the Government when its burthens weigh heavily on them, and their suspicions are great in proportion as they have no voice in the imposition of taxes. With this notice of the reasons that induce me to bring it forward, I will now go to the Motion I have to make, and state its nature and extent. The Motion is for leave to bring in a Bill to enable the towns of Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds, to send Representatives to this House. I do not intend that the Representatives thus sent shall form a permanent, but only a temporary, addition to the number of Members of this House. I intend to insert a clause in the Bill, if the House will allow me to bring it in, by which, if any borough is hereafter disfranchised on account of corrupt practices, the prerogative vested in the Crown may be suspended till three boroughs have been disfranchised, and the number of Members in this House be reduced to the same amount as at present. Such, Sir, is a simple statement of the Bill I mean to introduce. With regard to the amount of qualification I shall propose that it should be somewhere between ten and twenty pounds a-year, and I would not allow non-resident voters to exercise their franchise at the election. I should recommend this in order that elections may be as short as possible, and that the elections of Members for these towns may be in contrast rather than in conformation to the established practices of bribery and corruption that prevail so much elsewhere. The grounds on which I propose this Bill are not very difficult for the House to understand. It is perfectly well known and universally acknowledged that it was an admitted principle of the Constitution in former times that when there were any towns which did not send Representatives to Parliament, and which were yet entitled to do so on account of the property they possessed and the interest they represented, Parliament interfered, and by several Acts conferred the right on these particular places, in order (as it was said with respect to Durham the statute regulating which I have now before me)—to represent the condition of their county to Parliament. It is, therefore, evident that with respect to places totally unrepresented, Parliament has allowed the creation of new Elective Franchises whenever those places have been in a condition to call for such an Act. But there is another point to which I wish to call the attention of the House; and that is, that the Bills of which I required the entries to be read have, in fact, admitted the declaration to be true—that Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham are not sufficiently represented in this House; and that it is desirable whenever a vacancy shall occur to give Representatives to these places. I have, therefore, established two points. The one is, that where counties and places have been totally unrepresented, it is in our power, and it is our duty to give them Representatives; the other, that in case of those places being disfranchised, the House of Commons has already decided that these towns have a good right to be represented, and that when any vacancy happens it ought to be given to one of them. It will, therefore, be seen that the want of Representatives for these towns is so great, that Parliament ought to admit them at once, without waiting for the vacancy; and till we do admit them in this manner there is little hope that they will have Representatives in this House. It is now more than ten years since I proposed, that when any Borough was disfranchised on account of corruption, its place should be filled up in this House by Representatives from some of the larger Towns. That proposition was met by the Ministers of the Crown in the fairest manner, but though ten years have since elapsed, and several Boroughs have since forfeited the Franchise, not a single step has been taken for the accomplishment of that object; and on any future occasion of this kind let the House consider what are th© difficulties that stand in the way of transferring the Franchise in this manner. The first difficulty is in giving proof of the corruption sufficient to satisfy the Members of the House; and when that has been done, we are met with the conundrum of the right hon. Gentleman, that when a particular county has not more than eight Representatives, we must not transfer the Franchise from that county to any other place. But suppose we have been fortunate enough to get over the difficulties in this House, and that we are able to carry up our Bill to the other, we shall find in that House numberless suspicions and fears of any measure of this kind, which, it is almost impossible to conquer. The Bill having a double object, the one to punish former delinquency, and the other to fill up a vacancy by sending Members from large towns,—those who object to the latter, as many noble Lords always do, can lay their fingers on the former and say they are not satisfied with the proof of corruption, and throw out the Bill without the appearance of opposing it on the general principle of Reform. This has already been the case; and thus that plan which I once hoped would amend the state of this House, has proved to be one which does but perpetuate the evil. Such, then, are the difficulties, almost insuperable, placed in the way of this or any other species of Reform. I look in vain for any other mode; and I therefore lay before the House humbly, but strenuously, the question, whether the claims of these large towns recently grown into opulence and power do not press so urgently upon us as to call on us to go up to the House of Lords, not with a mixed Bill of penalty and investiture, but with one in which we shall make our stand on the broad principles of general Representation which, if allowed, our object will be gained; if denied, it will appear on what ground the dispute between the two Houses really rests, [hear, hear.] I am afraid that in going into proof of the changes which the different great towns have undergone, I shall be obliged to trouble the House at some length, but the importance of the subject must be my excuse. I will begin with calling the attention of the House to the great increase in the population of these towns since the commencement of the last century. The population of Manchester, in 1708, was eight thousand; in 17.53, it was twenty-seven thousand; in 1791, it was seventy thousand; and in 1821, it was one hundred and thirty-three thousand. That part of the environs of Manchester which I included as part of the Borough in my Bill for transferring the Franchise from Penryn to that town, if added to the other portion, will make up a population of one hundred and eighty six thousand souls. The increase in Leeds and Birmingham has gone on in a similar manner. The population of Leeds in 1774, was seventeen thousand; in 1801, it was fifty-three thousand; and in 1821, it had risen to eighty-three thousand. The population of Birmingham at the time of the Restoration was five thousand; in 1700, it was fifteen thousand; in 1781, it amounted to fifty thousand; in 1791, it had reached seventy-three thousand; and in 1821, it was as high as one hundred and six thousand. I ask, Sir, whether this great increase in the population does not lead the House to acknowledge that some change ought to take place with respect to the manner in which the interests of these towns are represented here? But I will go on yet a little further with respect to Manchester. Having inquired into the rental of Manchester, I have found that the county rate is raised upon a rental of 750,000l. I asked several gentlemen whose opportunities of information are extremely good, whether the amount of property in and about Manchester might be safely estimated at thirty millions, and I was told that that estimate would be below the real amount. Of the extent of trade and population in this town of Manchester, some idea may be formed from the annual amount of the poor-rates—that amount being not less than 54,000l. The sum annually paid for freight on the canal is not less than 300,000l. These two facts of themselves afford the strongest proof, the most conclusive evidence, of the wealth and resources of Manchester. Then we come to the rail-road between that town and Liverpool; on which there is annually expended the sum of 55,000l.; and it is estimated that the whole amount required for completing that great work will be about 800,000l. To make that a good speculation—and no one has any doubts of its being so—the trade between the two towns must be of an amount such as ought to entitle both to the highest consideration of the Legislature. But the rate at which it has been deemed advantageous to convey goods along this road, is in itself a matter of just surprise and congratulation. Sir, goods are to be conveyed along the road with three times the expedition used in the conveyance of letters by the mail. Of the science and skill with which it has been executed, it is needless for me to trouble the House.—One remarkable and interesting point about it is, that within a mile and a half of Liverpool it proceeds through a subterraneous passage; and that in other parts of it various physical difficulties have been overcome, making it altogether one of the most stupendous private undertakings of which this country has to boast. Manchester, too, has long been famous for its philosophical institutions; some most important discoveries have been made there by Dr. Bostock (we believe) in bleaching. He was a member of the Manchester Philosophical Society, and through the agency of that body were the discoveries made known, and carried into practical operation. Thus do we see how advantage- ously the course of philosophical discovery is made available to the purposes and conveniences of ordinary life, when the general enlightenment which belongs to large manufacturing communities is acted on by the concentrated force of minds devoted exclusively to science. Mr. Dalton, also an inhabitant of Manchester, is a name well known to science, and with many others, which it would take too much time to enumerate—add to the already strong claims of Manchester to be represented in this House. But Manchester is the centre of a great extent of country, peopled by a great commercial and manufacturing community, engaged in the most important and flourishing of the manufactures of this country, and is, therefore, the district which most wants, and is best entitled to send, Representatives into this House. I have said that the goods of Manchester are the most important of our manufactures; the goods of Manchester are seen in every part of the globe to which a ship or any other mode of conveyance can penetrate. Yes—its goods are seen everywhere; but in this House to represent it Members have never appeared. The time has at length come when I hope that reproach to our Legislature shall be removed. After having so long occupied the House with details respecting Manchester, which, as I conceive, entitle it to be represented in Parliament, as the grounds on which I desire to apply for the same privilege on behalf of Birmingham and Leeds are pretty nearly similar, though applying to a different species of manufacture, I shall not trouble the House by entering into any such particulars relative to those towns as I have thought it necessary to state in the case of Manchester. They each carry on a great and important manufacture—they are the centres and the capitals of those manufactures respectively—they are the seats of great property and of considerable intelligence. I know I shall be told that those places, though not specially represented, are still sufficiently and practically represented in this House by the County Members. beg of the House to consider a little before it allows such an argument to have any weight with it. It is pretty well known that the County Members are generally persons of large landed property, and are returned by the Landed Interest; therefore they at least can never be said to hold their seats as the Representatives of any Manufacturing Interest, and are independent of any such. Besides they are not very dependent even upon those who return them. When once a Gentleman becomes a County Member, he generally remains so for many Parliaments; and even though he be not able to attend his duties here, he does not in consequence lose his seat, as we have an example in the case of the Member for Lancashire. Butt suppose the County Member had the fullest, inclination to do all in his power for the Manufacturing Interests of the place he represented, how could he, and he alone, do all that might be required for his Landed Constituents, and at the same time attend to the numerous and complex interests of a large Manufacturing and Commercial Community? In practice it is seen that the County Members are never able to attend to both; and what is the consequence?—that when any great question is likely to come before the Legislature materially affecting their interests, or when they desire to bring forward anything of themselves, instead of making known through their Representatives in this House—the natural, legitimate, and constitutional mode of communicating with the Legislature—a body of delegates are appointed, who come up to town and have interviews with his Majesty's Ministers; and conferences are held upon the wool, and cotton, and iron trades, and efforts are employed to make the Ministers comprehend the interests of those parties, and bring forward such measures in Parliament as the interests or rights of the applicants require. How infinitely better would it be, that the people of those districts should be regularly and constitutionally represented in this House, that Birmingham, Leeds, and Manchester, should return Members capable of advocating their interests, and explaining their views. A due Representation of those districts would also be attended with this beneficial effect, that it would prevent the alienation of the public mind of those districts from the House of Commons—it might naturally be expected to excite a feeling of confidence, and make them in times of difficulty and distress look to the calm and temperate deliberations of Parliament, rather than to any proceedings of their own. Even in the present Session there are questions likely to come on in which Trading and Commercial Towns are peculiarly interested—that concerning the renewal of the Charter of the East India Company, for example. Could a question like that be soundly discussed or wisely decided without reference to the information which the Representatives of our Trading Communities could alone supply, and without reference to those feelings of which alone such Representatives are the proper organs? How could the question of the trade with India and with China be ever properly considered without those aids? Then came the Banking question: who so fit to be heard on such a question as the Representatives of Leeds, of Birmingham, and Manchester?—who so qualified to assist the House in deciding whether the Charter of the Bank of England ought or ought not to be renewed? Having laid before the House what has appeared to my mind the chief grounds upon which I think this change in our Representation should be made, I come now to some of the chief objections which may possibly be urged against the change, with the proposal of which I intend to conclude. I possibly may be told, in the first place, that previous to the Union with Scotland and Ireland, the number of English Representatives was fixed; and that now, to increase that number, by introducing Representatives for the three towns in question, would be an infraction of the compacts formed between those countries and this. I conceive that in all questions of compact, the first thing we have to do is to inquire whether the alteration we propose to effect will do any real injury? Now I cannot conceive what injury Ireland or Scotland could sustain from the introduction into this House of six Representatives for the three towns I have mentioned. There can be no practical evil; and, in the end, I think there must be great advantage to them from such a change; for if in Scotland or in Ireland it could hereafter be shown that any great town in either country required Representation, the precedent would be in their favour. But it is absurd to talk of too scrupulous an observance of the compact with those countries; the compacts have been broken more than once, and a further infraction of their letter for the general good, and for the contingent advantage of the weaker countries, ought not to form any insuperable impediment in the way of a Legislature which has broken through them so freely in some cases that I can name. For example, the heritable jurisdictions—they have been abolished since the Scotch Union, and Catholic Members may now sit for Scotland, though for long after the Union none but Protestants were eligible. In adopting that measure Parliament was governed I conceive by the soundest considerations of expediency. I do not know whether I am at liberty to allude to what was said in another place on the discussion of the Catholic Relief Bill; but I hope I may be allowed to call the attention of the House to a speech made by Earl Grey on that occasion, in which he completely overset the whole of this argument, so far as Scotland was concerned. I never remember any thing more conclusive and satisfactory than was his reasoning; nor do I ever remember to have heard a more able, luminous and powerful speech than that of which the reasoning I allude to formed a part. I think it is impossible to bear the observations of the noble Earl in mind, and doubt for a moment that we are at perfect liberty to commit any infraction of the letter of those compacts which may be for the benefit of the whole community, as it never could be the intention of those parties by whom the compacts were framed, to enter into any obligations inconsistent with the true interests of the population of the United Kingdom at large. I shall now come to another objection—it will be said, that the admission of six new Members has the effect of sanctioning a principle which would let in thirty or forty new Members as readily as six, and that other great towns are as well entitled to be represented as Birmingham, or Leeds, or Manchester—that the line has been already drawn, and that if once passed, none can foretel the remote consequences— that the very petition presented this night from Sheffield affords the fullest evidence that the communities desiring Representation, and as well entitled to it as those I have mentioned, will not be limited to those three. Let this be examined—it deserves to be looked into, for it has something of a logical appearance though no real foundation in truth; for be it remembered, that the three towns for which I claim Representatives are under peculiar circumstances; they are the capitals of three great branches of our manufacture; and Sheffield, though the seat, is not the capital of any great branch. Thus, the House will see, that though that objection sounds plausibly, it has no real foundation in truth; for the principle which admits Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds, is not capable of extension to any other place. Not that I mean to say that either now or at some future time Representation may not be further extended; but what I contend for is, that my particular motion does not in its principle let in any but the three towns to which it particularly refers, and does not let in any others beyond that number. If Sheffield should, at any future period, attain the same rank, I see no reason for withholding from it a similar privilege. On like grounds, I would advocate the extension of this principle to any town in Ireland or Scotland which might reach such an eminence as has long since been attained by Manchester, Birmingham, or Leeds; but it is not probable that it could ever be applied, with propriety, to more than four or five towns in our whole dominions at the utmost. But looking to its former acts, I do not perceive that Parliament has been governed by such considerations of principle as those of which I have just been speaking. It was not restrained from disfranchising the Irish Forty-shilling Freeholders, from any consideration that future Parliaments would find in that proceeding a precedent for hereafter raising the qualification to 50l. or 100l. Excessively strict adherence to precedents must produce a practice of legislating for the maintenance of grievances, not for their abolition. Having thus briefly answered what I consider the chief objections to my motion, I have little more to add, except, perhaps, to advert to the supposed danger of this innovation—it will probably be denounced, as an extremely dangerous innovation. I think the danger lies on the other side, [hear] I think the true spirit of the Constitution is in danger chiefly from those who, in their absurd apprehension of innovation, would resist all wholesome and salutary change—who are so wedded to ancient institutions, that they overlook their unsuitableness to modern times, and the altered condition of society. It is in prejudices such as these that I think the real danger will be found, I am not one of those who look upon the Constitution as a Grecian temple, perfect in all its pro- portions — a model of symmetry and grace, which additions would deform, and diminution destroy. I rather regard it as a Gothic structure, from which many excrescences may be advantageously removed, and many additions made, which would improve its proportions and add to the security of its inhabitants', [hear, hear.] But there is also danger if we do not in a wise and liberal spirit meet the augmenting disposition to regard us with distrust which prevails put of doors. One of the true modes of meeting the evil will be to collect within the walls of this House, as many as possible of the real Representatives of the people. It is then, and not until then, that we can be regarded as the true representation and image of a great and powerful and free country. The more I consider this question, the more am I persuaded that the real danger is not. in the change which I propose, and which some would call innovation; but in adhering to our ancient scheme of representation and thus excluding from all those in it the wealthier and commercial towns of the country which are continually increasing in opulence and population. When I look abroad to other countries— when I see in a neighbouring country the collision going on between the royal authority on the one hand, and popular resistance on the other; and when I see here institutions which temper those heats and animosities which confidence in a true representative government can alone fully allay, I cannot bring myself to believe that the danger is to be found in any quarter, other than that which I have indicated. It is upon grounds such as these, that I intend to submit to the House a proposition for enfranchising Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham—and this I do, being, as I trust I ever shall be, an enemy to disorder, though a friend to liberty — opposed to slavery, though an advocate for peace—deeply sensible of the delicate machinery of a representative government, I am anxious to assist in procuring for this country a Legislature and Administration worthy of the respect, and deserving the affection of the people. I beg to move for leave to bring in a Bill to enable the towns of Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham, to return Representatives to serve in Parliament.

Mr. Wilbraham

seconded the Motion. He said, that he considered those who im- proved the constitution as the best friends of their country. His noble friend had been engaged in that laudable pursuit for many years, particularly in improving the Representation, and he hoped to witness his triumph. He would not repeat the arguments of his noble friend, but confine his observations to answering a few of the objections which might be urged against the present Motion. Of those hon. Members who were determined to oppose every species of Reform, whatever shape it might be presented in, he would say, that if they thought their duty consisted in transmitting to posterity every institution of the country in the exact state in which they found it, they might be said to perform that duty extremely well; but let the House inquire into the ground upon which that opinion of duty rested. He confessed, he was at a loss to perceive it. If the world, both intellectually and physically, stood still, there might then be some excuse for those Gentlemen; but not only was nature and the mind of man undergoing perpetual change, but any resistance to that change was every hour turning out the most fruitless labour in which any human mind could by any possibility engage. He was much at a loss to understand the consistency of those who, having proposed and carried a change of the Jury system, could now come forward to resist a change in the Representation, on the ground that innovation was not to be tolerated. The Jury system was a most important part of the Constitution, and that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not scrupled to change — most beneficially, he would admit — but still to change. The Representation was not a whit a more important portion of the Constitution than that which all Jurists agreed was an integral part of it, and at once the pride and the glory of the British Law. It was an institution as important, though not more important, than the Representative portion of our Government; yet the reformers at the other side of the House had not scrupled to lay their hands upon it, and to remodel it according to their own notions. The alterations so made were improvements, unquestionably; but those by whom they were made could not deny that they were Reformers. Let them act on the same principle with regard to the Representation; let them reform it, and he had no doubt that similar beneficial results would arise. The Gentlemen, called the landed interest, no doubt, were fully aware of the defects in the present state of the Representation; but it was observable, that whenever any change was proposed, they immediately endeavoured to turn that change to their own advantage, by proposing increased Representation of their own body. Every change was to be in their favour, and against their rivals and opponents. He was perfectly aware that the authority of Lord Chatham might be cited against his opposition to an increase, of the Representatives of the landed interest; certainly the opinion of that noble Lord was, that the number of county representatives ought to be increased; but that was because he thought them, and justly thought them, less venal than the representatives of the boroughs; not because he did not think the commercial and manufacturing towns inadequately represented, but because he considered that the numbers opposed to the corrupt borough interest ought to be as great as possible. He (Mr. W.) was perfectly aware of the defects in the County Representation, and he should be perfectly ready to support any measure for its improvement. No measure could possibly do a greater service to the country than one having for its object to improve the state of the County Representation in various ways; for instance, in shortening the duration of elections, by improving the manner of taking the polls, and by putting an end to the infamous riot and debauchery which prevailed at almost all county elections. The effect of the present system of County Representation was to place it all in the hands of the higher aristocracy, thereby excluding many men of good education, and otherwise well qualified to represent their country in that House. It was a matter of perfect notoriety, that the landed interest was better represented than any other; and the object of wise legislation should be, to restore equality, and to put the Representation of the country upon such a footing as would make the relative situation of each interest more equable and just. It was alleged, that the towns mentioned by the noble Lord did not manifest that anxiety for the possession of Representatives which would make them worthy of possessing that advantage —nothing could be more contrary to the fact. At a meeting held at one of these towns (Birmingham), at which every class and description of persons—Radical and High Churchman, Whig and Tory—assembled and acted with the most cordial and complete unanimity, the cry was for a Representation. But whether they desired it or not, it ought to be conferred upon them—for the power of sending Members to Parliament was not only a right and a privilege, but a sacred duty. As matters at present stood, elections were but opportunities for septennial riot, venality, and every species of abomination; whereas, means ought to be adopted for persuading the people that they had an interest in discharging conscientiously the duty which the Constitution imposed upon them. He wished, then, to say a few words to those who would have nothing but a complete and sweeping Reform. Now he was content, for the time being, with accepting what could be obtained, never at the same time foregoing what might hereafter be acquired. He would put it to the advocates of a sweeping and general Reform, whether they had advanced a single step by rejecting the practical though partial improvements which were within their reach; did they not, on the contrary, rather retrograde? What his noble friend proposed he did not accept as the full measure of Reform—as the full payment and discharge of the debt which the Legislature owed the country; but he accepted it as an act of simple justice and good policy—as one grand step in practical Reform, infinitely more valuable than the most brilliant theories in which the mind of a visionary could indulge; it was not a payment in full, but it was a first instalment, and as such he accepted it—he took it as an earnest of good intentions, as a means of averting the shock which some Members apprehended—or, at least, of diminishing its force, if it should come. He called upon the House to support the Motion of his noble friend, as they regarded the great and important duties which they were called on to perform. They were there, not alone to vote supplies to the Crown, but to maintain the principles of that Constitution, unimpaired which they had received from their ancestors, and which they were bound to transmit to posterity without that strict observance of its letter which was calculated to destroy its spirit; and, above all things, they were bound to preserve that liberty which ought to pass from generation to generation in all its original strength and vigour, in order to insure which, the first step should be to restore to the people the power of nominating their Representatives.

Lord Sandon

said, that he was embarrassed by the Motion of the noble Lord, for while he admitted that some Reform was desirable, he thought the means taken to obtain it by the present Motion not very safe, the question then proposed for them was second in importance to none which had come before the House, since the great question of Catholic Emancipation. He could never suppose that our ancestors who were anxious to see every town represented would have been contented to allow towns superior to the London of their day, to be without a voice in Parliament. He admitted too that any measure extending the basis of Representation, was planting the Constitution more firmly in the minds of the people. Still he did not think the measure proposed by the noble Lord a safe one. It had been observed by an hon. Member "that all Reform should be founded on such principles as to present a distinct and visible limit to its operation, and be so planned as carefully to avoid leading by any necessary consequence to the adoption of other measures, and leaving all future questions of a similar nature to be discussed on their own intrinsic merits." The condition announced in this observation he should have desired to find in the Motion of his noble friend, he wished to see in it some principle of limitation beyond which it would not force the Legislature to proceed. He found in it, however, an unlimited principle of augmentation. His noble friend proposed to augment the present number of Members of the House of Commons by six, and if once the Legislature departed from the limited number established by solemn treaties, those of the Union with Ireland and Scotland, where was it to stop? Granting the Franchise to the three towns included in the Motion of his noble friend, on what grounds could the House refuse a similar privilege to many other Towns that had almost an equal claim? Looking at the Motion as tending indefinitely to augment the number of Members of that House, and as altering, if carried, the proportions now established between the Representatives of different parts of the country, he was bound though with great pain to resist the Motion of his noble friend. He would fain adopt a middle course, and in his wish to find one, he had met with the resolutions formerly moved by his noble friend, which appeared satisfactory to him, and by them he was willing to abide. Those resolutions were not indeed agreed to which he regretted, for, he thought, if they had been, they would have put a stop to, that unconstitutional innovation, giving the Elective Franchise to the Hundred, which dating only from the time of Lord North was both useless and expensive. He wished to keep alive the hopes of the unrepresented towns, and yet not allow a principle to be sanctioned, which, were it once adopted, would leave him at a loss to know where to stop. Under these impressions he should beg leave to move as an Amendment the following Resolution. "That it is expedient that all Boroughs in which gross and notorious corruption shall be proved to prevail extensively, shall cease to return Members to serve in Parliament; that the right of returning Members to serve in Parliament so taken from any Borough which shall have been proved to have been guilty of bribery and corruption, shall be given to some great unrepresented Town, or to some one of the largest Counties; and that it is the duty of this House to consider of further means to detect and prevent corruption in the election of Members of Parliament."

Mr. Twiss

said, he could not agree either to the Motion or the Amendment that, had been presented to the House, not that he was disposed to set himself in opposition to every species of reform, but because he felt that he could not adopt either of the courses proposed without compromising his own judgment. With respect to the Amendment that had been offered to the notice of the House, it was not pretended by any of the hon. Members who had preceded him, that there was any great or crying grievance to be met at this moment, and he therefore did not see why that House should pledge itself to any particular course in future. As the law of England now stood, there was not any one in this country who could not have the privilege of the Elective Franchise if he chose; and, therefore, he did not see hat this question presented the great difficulties which had been attendant upon the Catholic Question. According to the arrangement which had been made at the end of the seventeenth century, it appeared to him that the Crown could not increase the number of Members in that House; and if this were the case, it became a serious question for their consideration, how far the House of Commons had any right to interfere. It was true that it was within the province of Parliament to do anything; but he very much doubted how far it would be justified in meddling with what he strongly suspected ought to be looked upon as the prerogative of the Crown, in something beyond a mere matter of form. Besides which, if the principle laid down by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) were once admitted, they would never be able to tell where it was to stop. If Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham, were to receive the Elective Franchise, why was it not to be extended to Sheffield, Glasgow, Wolverhampton, and other places which he could name? If an assembly of sixty thousand manufacturers had a right to claim the privilege of being represented, why were not bodies of fifteen thousand or of twelve thousand manufacturers to lay claim to the same privilege? Or why, if the small county of Rutland still returned two Members, were not the more populous counties of Lancashire, Staffordshire, or Middlesex, to demand the right of returning a greater number? Well, then, might the noble Lord dread that the Sheffield Petition which he presented with one hand, was giving a blow to the Bill which he held in the other He therefore thought that the House was bound modestly, but firmly, to refuse compliance with a demand which appeared likely to be endless. The 40s. Freeholders of Ireland had been mentioned; but that it appeared to him was not a case in point, for the depriving men with so low a Franchise of their vote, did not necessarily include the carrying the step any higher, or any further. What he was most surprised at in the speeches which he had heard delivered that evening was, that no mention had been made of any evil or grievance that called for the proposed alteration. If, then, there were none of these, what, danger could there be in leaving the Constitution the same as at present? He knew that it had lately been stated, and he supposed that they should hear it again that night, that the House of Commons was inadequate to express the opinions of the people. If by that was to be understood the expression of all opinions that might arise in all seasons, he was driven to admit that the House was not adequate for that; but at the same time he would contend that it was reasonable to doubt whether it had ever been meant to express those opinions in their extreme popular sense, [hear] In his opinion it was not only excusable in, but incumbent upon, Parliament to vote sometimes on the unpopular side of a question; they were not there so much to represent the opinions of the people, as to watch over the welfare of the country; and it was no crime in any Member of Parliament to believe that his constituents were sometimes more prone to change and vacillation than he was bound to be. Did it then follow, that if the people and the Parliament disagreed, the Parliament must be corrupt? He did not mean to dispute that the opinions settled by the consent of many generations were not correct; but he believed that it would be found that when points were so settled, they were generally invested in the Constitution. He fully concurred in the opinions that had so often been stated, that the great amount of our taxes arose from war; but, said some hon. Gentlemen, if the Representation of the country were made entirely popular, all this would have been avoided. Now this he entirely denied; and he believed if more popular feeling were introduced into that House, the chances of war would be greatly increased. He would not, however, waste the time of the House with arguments of his own, as he could quote to them an opinion which was at all times entitled to weight, but which on this subject, and among certain hon. Members, ought to be particularly attended to. It was the opinion of the noble Lord himself (Lord J. Russell), who, in the month of December, 1819, had expressed himself on this point to the following effect:'—" I do not pretend to say (said the noble Lord on that occasion) that Reform would make our Government less inclined to war, which, it must be remembered, is the cause of our chief burthens. A fondness for war is not the fault of a monarchical, but of a popular Government." The noble Lord then went on to describe the number of popular Governments that had evinced this feeling, and added, "Such a system could hardly continue even in the most despotic State; and it is only by carrying the feelings of the people with, them that a free Government can lay on greater taxes than an ar- bitrary King." He (Mr. Twiss), therefore, trusted, that the House would be very cautious how they voted for a popular Reform in the expectation of taxation being thereby reduced. He did not deny that it would be desirable in itself to have the larger towns of the kingdom specifically represented in Parliament; and when, a suitable occasion should occur for promoting that object without a sacrifice of judgment on the one hand, or of the principle of proportion on the other, he had no hesitation in saying, that it would be the inclination of his mind to give the Elective Franchise to such towns. But though this were desirable in itself, he thought that, practically speaking, the manufacturers of the country were already fully represented. Every Member of the House considered himself as the Representative not merely of the place for which he was returned, but of the nation generally. Of the forty-two Members returned for Cornwall, only six he believed were residents in the county, and several of the remainder were connected with the manufacturing or commercial interests. For those who thought as he did, that all alterations ought to be made so as to suit the alterations that took place among the people generally, it would not be an easy task to define the particular cases or parts to which Reform might be applied without danger. It appeared to him that the cases, to be justly considered, must be taken as they arose; and he had no doubt, that when such opportunities presented themselves, they would be dealt with by Parliament as they deserved. Before the House voted for the Motion of the noble Lord, they should remember the grounds upon which many hon. Gentlemen proposed to support that Resolution. They did so— not because they were satisfied with the extent of the Motion— but because, as the Seconder of the Motion had candidly stated—he looked upon it as the first instalment of a debt, which ought long ago to have been paid by the Legislature. He thanked that hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilbraham) for that statement; and he trusted that the House would afford it its due weight, before they came to the decision of voting in favour of a Motion so supported. The hon. Member concluded by observing, that he knew well the prejudices entertained against all those who opposed themselves to what were called popular opinions; but he yielded to no man in that House in anxiety to promote the prosperity of his country, or in sympathy for its distresses; and as he did not think the propositions of the noble Lord were calculated to advance the one or to remove the other, he should feel that he did not do his duty honestly and conscientiously, if he shrunk from the avowal of his sentiments, even although it might subject him to the severest animadversions of the friends of Reform.

Lord Morpeth

said, the hon. Member for Wootton-Basset (Mr. Twiss) began by declaring that he thought the Government and the House were fully justified in making concessions to the Roman Catholics, because great danger was to be apprehended from refusing them; and that he was not disposed to make the concessions now required by the Reformers, because the same danger did not demand the same sacrifices. Now he (Lord Morpeth) was quite prepared to admit that the same danger was not to be apprehended from a refusal of the noble Lord's Motion; but he really must contend that there might be very great danger in refusing to take the claims of the people into consideration. The state of the country had undergone a great change within the last few years. The people were every day acquiring intelligence, and with that intelligence they obtained moral power; but it was the misfortune of the time, that while a great portion of the country was thus advancing in moral power, it was retrograding in physical power. The people were becoming more enlightened, but they were at the same time becoming more distressed; and when the House saw the population of Sheffield petitioning, and the inhabitants of Birmingham associating, he thought these were signs of times in which it was not quite safe to resist the just wishes and reasonable remonstrances of those who, being numerous and possessing wealth and Influence, now claimed a participation in the advantages of a free Representation. A noble relation of his had proposed an Amendment to the same effect as that which had been carried in the year 1819. But the moment he heard those Resolutions mentioned he felt satisfied that they presented in themselves an insuperable objection to their being adopted. Since the time they; were passed, the Legislature had disfranchised Gram pound and Penryn, and was tardily proceeding to legislate With respect to East Retford; but ten years had passed away in the interval, and he would ask, where were the Representatives of Leeds, of Manchester, and of Birmingham? In his opinion the adoption of the Amendment of his noble relation would lead to fresh delays and fresh disappointments; and the great question of a Reform of the Representation which in the present instance— In decimum vestigia rettulit annum, would probably be allowed to rest altogether, or return under their consideration in the course of another ten years. For his part, he was satisfied that the propositions of his noble friend involved nothing new in principle, or inconvenient in practice, and he was determined to give them his entire concurrence. No honest man could lay his hand on his heart, and, looking at the amount of Taxation in the fifteenth year of peace, and the manner in which all reductions were resisted, declare sincerely that such things could have taken place, if the Representation had been reformed. The character of that House, it should be recollected, did not stand very high in the opinions of the people. There was nothing in its principles or conduct which could justify a refusal of the claims of the Petitioners; and, in his opinion, a temperate and timely reform of the Representation, while it formed a safeguard against any virulent expression of popular feeling, was at the same time recommended by every consideration of justice, policy, and prudence. For these reasons he gave his cordial support to the noble Lord's Resolution.

Lord Valletort

began by observing, that he looked at men as well as measures [hear, and a laugh]; and, when he saw the noble Mover of the Resolution vote only three days ago for a general measure of Reform, he could not avoid having some suspicion of the proposition the House was then considering. He looked, indeed, on the Motion of the noble Lord, as the advanced guard of those Reformers, who had with very little address made a violent and ill-directed assault on a former evening, against all the political institutions of the country, [some impatience was manifested on the Opposition side of the House.] He perceived that the advocates of free discussion were at all times disposed to exhibit their love of it, by silencing all those who were disposed to differ with them; but he was not to be put down in that manner, and the attempt, he could tell his opponents, would fail. Those who came there as the Representatives of the people, required a something to tickle the ears of their constituents, and if they had not this question they must get some other. He did not mean to say that there would be no benefit derived from satisfying men's minds; but he would contend, notwithstanding all the fine-spun arguments they had heard, that Reform would produce no practical good. They had heard the sufferings of the people of Birmingham and Manchester ascribed to a defective Representation; but he would ask, what difference was there between the condition of the manufacturers of Nottingham and Norwich, which had been represented from time immemorial, and those workmen and manufacturers of towns which were not represented? In his opinion, individual interests were sufficiently represented by the general mass of the Representatives; and looking at the House as a body, he could not but think it presented an union of interests quite sufficient for the discharge of all the duties of the Representatives of a great people. Adverting to the declaration of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Hobhouse), that he liked a weak Government, he must say that he liked a strong one, although those who wished to sail on the popular stream might have no objection to a weak Government which they might bear along with them in their course. He repeated, however, that he liked a strong Government, and he liked equally well a strong and consistent Opposition, and he hoped to see the House return to that state, instead of being divided into a number of parties, each party pursuing a different object. The noble Lord concluded by observing, it was the duty of the House to choose a good Government, and which they considered well calculated to carry on the public business. When they found such a Government, it was equally their duty to support it. Such a Government he thought the present one to be; and although there might be blots in the Representation, [hear] they were blots which after ages would confirm, and for which we were more than compensated by the advantage of an energetic and efficient Administration.

Dr. Lushington

said, that an experience of twenty-four years in that House had strengthened all his early impressions respecting the propriety of Parliamentary Reform, Let any man look at the miserable condition in which the Government of this country was placed—with a House of Commons constituted like the present one. Whether it were convinced of the propriety of conceding the Catholic Claims, or disposed to yield to the necessity of economy, it was obliged to rely, not on the reasons or arguments which could carry conviction, but on the number of Borough holders whom they could by any means induce to lend them support. The time, however, was come when no man could assert the antiquity of an abuse as a reason for its continuance. Alterations had been made in the whole system of our laws; and was the House to be told that a system of Representation, framed three hundred years ago—that abuses which had been acknowledged in the time of James and the two Charleses—and when at the same time not a borough or city remained the same it was then, was to remain untouched and unaltered? It must be admitted either that the Representation was then or is now inefficient, if it be contended that it should remain as it is at present; for how could it suit two periods so different? The hon. Member for Winchelsea (Mr. Brougham) had told them in one word, more powerful than thirty sentences, that the schoolmaster was abroad. Could they send him home again? Could they blind the people now? His course was as certain as that of the arrow from the bow, and as irrevocable. It had been said in favour of our system of virtual representation that it had sent many able men to Parliament, but it had also sent thither a horde of needy adventurers ready to prostitute the little talent which God had given them to purposes of corruption. There was no greater evil in the present state of the Representation, than that it had deprived the great landholders of the country of the just and legitimate influence which they ought to possess in proportion to their property, and had driven them to corrupt boroughs. Were it not for that, they would have the influence which they ought to have. Although they would not return mere nominees to the House, their recommendation in the representation of Counties would have the weight to which it was entitled. The noble Lord had referred to the influence possessed by Government in that House during the Administration of Lord North. But let it be recollected to what a dreadful state of de- gradation and ruin the Administration of Lord North, by the aid of that influence, brought the country. It was true, that the means by which corruption was effected had been changed. Formerly it was effected by payments in cash; of late years it had been effected by payments in places. It had been asserted that no practical inconvenience had ever been suffered by any great town, from its not being specifically represented in Parliament. But was that true? Was it true that neither Birmingham, nor Manchester, nor Leeds, had ever suffered any inconvenience from not being represented in that House? He was old enough to remember the time when the town of Birmingham suffered a great and direct inconvenience from not having any Representative in that House. He alluded to the year 1812, when, in consequence of the Government measure of the Orders in Council, the trade of Birmingham was reduced to the last stage of degradation and suffering. Of the Members who represented the county of Warwick, he wished to speak with the greatest respect; but they were wholly incapable of comprehending the real merits of the question. One of them, indeed, distinctly said in the House, that while he was anxious to state the distress which Birmingham was suffering, he was utterly incapable of explaining the cause of that distress. But it was not Birmingham alone. Any town in England having an hundred thousand inhabitants had a right to have some individual in that House on whom they would have a just claim to attend to their complaints, and endeavour to obtain for them redress. It was well known that the inhabitants of populous but unrepresented towns were frequently compelled to go from one Member to another, and beg that he would take up their cause; well knowing that although the Member for the county might lay their petition on the Table, he would be unable to explain their wants and wishes to the House. After all the consideration which he had been able to give to the subject, he was persuaded that the House would not be able long to withhold a reform of the Representation, in some shape or other; gradual, if they pleased—guarded, if they liked—limited at first to such cases as those under consideration, but proceeding on the same principle as that which was the principle of his noble friend's Motion, and applying equally to every town in the country entitled by its population to the privilege of the Elective Franchise. There could be no better criterion of the right to that privilege than large numbers and great wealth. "Sir," continued the hon. and learned Gentleman, "I am in my conscience convinced—and I do not speak it in hostility to his Majesty's Ministers—to whom, on the contrary, I am deeply grateful for more than I expected from them—but I am in my conscience convinced that a pressing time is rapidly coming upon us. What was once an inconvenience, has now become so grindingly oppressive to the people that measures more efficacious, taking a wider range, and of much severer character than any hitherto proposed, must speedily be adopted. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite wishes to assume a bold and defying aspect in the midst of the difficulties which are approaching-, he must appeal by his conduct to the intelligent, to the well-educated, to the moral portion of the community to support him in his necessity; and if, divesting himself of all ancient and inveterate prejudices, he will look the truth in the face, and, disregarding all other considerations, will make the good of the country at large the sole guide of his actions, he may retain his place in his Majesty's Councils with infinite advantage to the people, and with infinite honour to himself; and notwithstanding all the obstacles which may present themselves in his way, and in the greatest extremity to which he may be reduced, he may rely in perfect safety and confidence that the intelligent part of the community will bear him up triumphantly against all the efforts of disappointed corruption and iniquitous ambition; and enable him to confer the most inestimable advantages on the land whose destiny is intrusted to him." [hear.]

Lord Valletort

said, in explanation, that words had been put into his mouth, which he had not used, and that he meant to impute no improper motives to the noble Lord.

Sir George Murray

said, he would not detain the House long. He was sure they would agree with him that, however various opinions might be with regard to the principles advocated by the noble Lord whose Motion was under consideration, the tone and temper with which the noble Lord had brought the subject forward could not be too highly praised, nor too frequently imitated. He was obliged, however, to differ from the noble Lord's conclusions, The noble Lord had said that the British Constitution was not a Grecian temple—perfect at once in all its proportions, and incapable, therefore, of improvement,—but a Gothic structure, to which additions and improvements might at any time be made with advantage. He (Sir G. Murray) rejoiced that it was a Gothic structure; he rejoiced that it was in the style of architecture which was the favourite of our ancestors. He was no great admirer of modern edifices; and he rather believed that the noble Lord himself had been as disgusted as himself at the efforts of a neighbouring nation to erect a Grecian temple, which, however, when completed, was found to be far inferior in beauty and durability to the old English Constitution, [hear] He was no enemy whatever to legitimate Reform. He opposed no barrier against real improvement of any kind; nor did he draw a line of demarcation between any two points which he haád sworn never to pass. On the contrary, he was quite willing to admit that, from time to time, some amendment was necessary—some repair of the Gothic structure. It was upon that principle that he supported the measure of the last Session, by which a body of men were brought back within the pale of the Constitution who were pushed out of it in unfortunate times. He was quite ready to admit the justice of the principle of the noble Lord, that it was expedient to give Representatives to the great towns of the kingdom; but he could not agree to carry that object into execution in the way which the noble Lord proposed. He was perfectly ready, on the occasional disfranchisement of any corrupt borough, to transfer the right of Representation to a great town; but he haád a great objection to augment the number of Members of that House, and thereby to destroy the proportion which existed between the different interests which it represented. It had been said that there was a disinclination in another place to disfranchise boroughs. Whether that were the case or not he did not know; but he was satisfied that if any such disinclination did exist, it would be increased in the event of the adoption of the noble Lord's proposition; and on this ground—that having increased the number of the Representatives of great towns, the Representatives of boroughs must be retained, in order to serve as a counterbalance. As to popular opinion, he had a great respect for it; he believed that the people were generally, if not always, disposed to do right; but they sometimes fell into bad hands, and then, what was called popular opinion was, in fact, only individual opinion, and that not of the most praiseworthy character. He was at a loss to understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant by the recommendations with which he had concluded his speech. He was at a loss to see what complaint the hon. and learned Gentleman could make against his right hon. friend. His right hon. friend had but a few nights ago brought forward a measure for improving the judicature of the country, by which, however, a large sacrifice was made of Government patronage. The expressions of the hon. and learned Gentleman would imply, that his right hon. friend was not pursuing the course of public benefit. But the conduct of his right hon. friend, both in the last and in the present Session of Parliament, was precisely that which the hon. and learned Gentleman had recommended.

General Gascoyne

said, that he had, last Session, voted for a proposition, similar to the one then before the House, and he had not heard anything since that time to induce him to alter his opinion. He certainly did not agree with the proposition to confer the Elective Franchise at once upon the towns in question; but if the Bill were introduced in the Committee, the Franchise of East Retford might be given to one of the proposed towns, and the others might obtain the Franchise, as boroughs, against which corruption was proved were disfranchised. He was quite opposed to the principles which the hon. Member for Aberdeen and other hon. Members had broached, with respect to Universal Suffrage and Radical Reform; but were it only to avoid such rash innovations, he would recommend a concurrence in the noble Lord's Motion. It was undoubtedly notorious that if any interest in the country were worse represented in that House than any other, it was the manufacturing. Large towns ought unquestionably to have distinct Representatives. In the thirteen years during which he had been returned for the place which he had the honour to represent, he had brought in and carried above two hundred local Bills. He might confidently refer to his right hon. colleague that the representation of a populous town was no sinecure. All the great questions which his Majesty's Government had adopted for some time, among which were the question; of Free Trade, the Currency question, and the Catholic question, had originated on his (General Gascoyne's) side of the: House. He trusted they would persevere in that course of adoption, or the right hon. Gentleman opposite might be assured that his (General Gascoyne's) prediction that after Catholic Emancipation was disposed: of, the right hon. Gentleman would find but lukewarm friends on his side of the House, would be verified. He strongly recommended to the noble Lord by whom the Amendment to the Motion had been proposed, to withdraw it.

Lord Sandon

observed, that the recommendations to him to withdraw his Amendment, had proceeded on such inconsistent grounds, that he did not feel it to be his duty to concede to the recommendations.

General Gascoyne

said, he merely gave his opinion but the noble Lord must use his own discretion.

Sir G. Murray

explained, that he by no means pretended to depreciate the objects either of the noble Mover, or the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment.

Mr. Wynn

regretted, that notwithstanding the temper and moderation with which the noble Lord had brought forward his Motion, he must vote against it. He was obliged to look not only at the immediate object of the Motion, but at its remote and inevitable consequence, and if he consented to it, he did not know how much further he might be obliged to go. If he acceded to the Motion, he should accede to a Motion for increasing the number of Members in that House without limit. Such a measure would be highly dangerous. The country might never be satisfied, and never convinced that the House of Commons should not consist of as many Members as any Gentleman should choose. He thought, therefore, that it would be less inconvenient to postpone the introduction of additional Members for these populous places, than to open the door to an indefinite increase of the number of Members of that House. The actual increase proposed was only six Members added to six hundred and fifty eight, and was not in itself important; but how could he, how could the House, resist the next Session any Gentleman who might propose that Sheffield or Halifax, which was more populous than Leeds, should be represented—how could he then resist such a Motion? If it afterwards were to be proposed to extend the principle to Huddersfield, to Stockport, to Rochdale, to Wakefield, or to any other of the large towns of the neighbour hood, on what principle could he oppose such a proposition should he concede the present question? Could the House resist such a proposition? It would always be asked what evil could result from adding two Members to the Representation? and to add only two would not be an evil; but the indefinite increase occasioned by adding two for every town would be an intolerable evil. Let the House look at what had happened since the Union with Ireland. Ready as he was to do justice, at all times, to the talents, ability, and eloquence of the Gentlemen who represented that part of the empire, he must say that since that augmentation the House was much less adapted to carry on business than before its numbers were extended. He had sat in the House before the Union with Ireland, and he never had given any vote that he regretted more than the vote he gave against Lord Grey's Motion when that event took place, to withdraw from that House as many Members as would be equal to the number added for Ireland, and to make room for them by disfranchising boroughs when an opportunity offered. He regretted much that he had opposed the Motion of the noble Lord, for much more benefit would have accrued from his proposed arrangement than the one which had been followed. The towns he had alluded to had as many claims to be represented as the towns to which it was now proposed to give Representatives. He did not mean to argue that the provisions of the National Union with Scotland might not be revised by the Legislature, but it was part of that Union that no change should be made in the Scotch Burghs, as secured at the Union. If any thing was sacred in that Union it was that the proportion of Representatives then established should be maintained in favour of the weaker party, which had merged its own Parliament in the general Representation of the country. The proportion of Representatives for Scotland then fixed was settled by a reference to the proportion of taxes then paid by the two countries, and the proportion of their respective population and wealth. Had not, then, the progress of Scotland in wealth, in population, in trade, in the amount of its contributions to the public, and intelligence, been as great as the progress of England since the Union? He thought that it had, or even greater than that of England; and if he looked at the towns of Scotland he should find them as deserving of additional Representatives as the towns of England. There was Glasgow with only the fifth of a Representative, and Paisley, with other towns, that had stronger claims than Leeds. He could not, therefore, accede to the proposition of the noble Lord At the same time he felt a difficulty in voting for the Amendment. He saw no objection to the House recognizing the principle in the first instance, that great towns suffered under a grievance from wanting Representatives, and stating that the House would take the earliest opportunity of remedying it. He knew that no resolution of theirs could bind a future Parliament but he thought if some such resolution were come to, it might in future strengthen the hands of those who contended that great towns should be represented. He should approve of a resolution of that description; but he should feel it necessary to vote against the Motion of the noble Lord, particularly on the ground stated by the gallant General opposite. He would oppose it, because he thought it would add to the tumultuousness of the House.

Mr. Huskisson

said, he would detain the House for a very short time on this occasion. He did not wish to go at length into the discussion of the question; at the same time he could not give a silent vote on the Motion. His noble friend who proposed the Amendment had said, that he had come to the view which he had taken on the subject, with considerable difficulty and after much consultation with his friends. He (Mr. Huskisson) would also say, that in like manner he had come to the view which he had taken on the subject after considerable deliberation and reflection, and he was sorry that he did not take the same view of it as that adopted by his noble friend the mover of the Amendment. His noble friend's Amendment, if he (Mr. Huskisson) understood it, went, in the first place to state that it was most desirable that these great manufacturing districts should have a direct Representation in this House. His noble friend thus commenced by admitting the existence of the grievance; and so far he (Mr. Huskisson) went along with him in his view of the case. But he next found that his noble friend instead of applying a remedy to this great practical and acknowledged evil, came forward with the proposition, that whenever three boroughs should be guilty of a great crime, 'their Franchise should be transferred to those large manufacturing towns. The remedy, therefore, which the noble Lord proposed for this great evil depended upon the detection of a great crime. He would beg to remind the noble Lord, that upon this very question, as to the detection of guilt in a borough, and which he made anterior to the application of a remedy to the existing evil,— that upon that very question this and the other branch of the Legislature had never been able to agree. Therefore, if the House should vote that the non-representation of those great towns was a great practical evil, and that the remedy was to be found in the detection of guilt on the part of delinquent boroughs, it would be hopeless for the House ever to seek for a remedy. It was proved by the cases of East Retford and Penryn, that this mode never would enable the noble Lord to remove the practical grievance which he acknowledged to exist. It was upon these grounds that he, (Mr. Huskisson) could not go with the Amendment proposed by his noble friend. He did not think the observations of his hon. friend below him (Mr. Wynn) possessed much weight; for the principle on which he insisted would prevent the House from exercising its judgment and discretion in all future time. He did not conceive it necessary to go into the details which had been dwelt upon by his hon. and learned friend the under Secretary of State (Mr. Twiss) in his very elaborate speech, which were grounded principally upon the great danger of innovation, and which consisted of arguments that might be found in any speech made of late years, either against Reform in Parliament or upon the Catholic question. Neither did he conceive it necessary on that occasion to travel into the wide question of Parliamentary Reform. He could not avoid observing in reference to the arguments which had been drawn from the Union with Scotland against the Motion of the noble Lord opposite, that such arguments were deserving of but little notice; recollecting, as he did, that upon every occasion, when it was obviously necessary for the good of the country and for the essential interests of the State, to depart from the mere letter of the Act of Union, Parliament always did so, and it would indeed be contrary to common sense to follow a different line of conduct. The same arguments had been applied to the great measure of last Session, which was charged as a departure from the Act of Union with Scotland, and they had been then triumphantly refuted. His right hon. friend, when he laid so much stress upon the arguments drawn from the Union with Scotland, should bear in mind that that Act would not be near so much departed from by the proposition of the noble Lord to night, as it had been long since, by the introduction of one hundred new Members into that House in consequence of the legislative Union with Ireland. This question, then, ought to be determined by its justice and fitness, and he should say that the House in deciding it ought to ask itself what injury or injustice it could inflict upon Scotland by conferring benefit upon England. By the admission of the noble Mover of the Amendment, and of all who had spoken in support of it, the House was called on to deal not with a fanciful and imaginary, but with a real and ascertained evil. Now, by giving Representatives to those great manufacturing districts, the House would at once provide for the evil under which they were at present suffering, and which materially affected their interests, and concerns, and pursuits. To such a measure of Reform he (Mr. Huskisson) should give his cordial support. As to a more extensive Parliamentary Reform,—a measure founded upon the principle of a general revision, reconstruction, and remodeling of our present constitution,—to such a general revision, and change of our Constitution he (Mr. Huskisson) had been always opposed; and while he had a seat in that House, he should give it his most decided opposition. He conceived, that if such an extensive Reform were effected, they might go on for two or three Sessions in good and easy times, and such a Reformed Parliament might adapt itself to our mode of Government, and the ordinary concerns of the country; but if such an extensive change were effected in the Constitution of Parliament, sure he was that whenever an occasion arose of great popular excitement or reaction, the consequence would be a total subversion of our Constitution, followed by complete confusion and anarchy, terminating first in the tyranny of a fierce democracy, and then in that of a military despotism, these two great calamities maintaining that natural order of succession which they have been always hitherto seen to observe. He was therefore, opposed to such an extensive change and revision of our representative system. It might be easy to raise objections to the boroughs, and by separating the representative system into its various constituent parts, to point out evils and abuses in several of them: but it was a waste of time, and a perversion of common sense, to look at it in that way. He would take it as a whole, and, regarding our present system as one aggregate, he was opposed to any material change in it. It might be easy to take to pieces all the parts of such a complicated system, but he doubted that it would be equally possible for human skill to unite its component parts again; and it appeared to him still more doubtful, even if put together again, that it would ever work as well for the country as it had hitherto done, [hear, hear.] He therefore wished not to be misunderstood when he gave his vote in support of the Motion of the noble Lord opposite, and he wished to be understood as being opposed to the substitution of any system of Representation in lieu of the present system. He should be better pleased to commence if that were possible with the transfer of the Franchise of East Retford to Birmingham, and he should have been glad if the decision of the House on a late occasion had enabled them to do that. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when that subject was before the House on a former evening, had represented that as a measure full of danger, and had kindly advised him (Mr. Huskisson) not to stand in the swamp and rotten hollow of East Retford, but to arise out of it by extending the Franchise to the neighbouring hundred of Bassetlaw; he was sorry that he could not adopt the view of his right hon. friend, who had prevented the noble Lord from having it in his power then to move for the transfer of the Franchise to Birmingham, by bringing up his regular troop on the former occasion, and by defeating the Motion then brought forward had rendered it necessary on the part of the noble Lord to bring the question before the House in its present shape. The question was, whether greater danger would accrue to the Constitution and to the existence of a good feeling on the part of the people of this country towards the House of Commons, by giving the Representative Franchise to these extensive manufacturing districts, than by withholding it. Would any one contend that the want of Representatives, with whom they could be in daily communication, and who would effectually watch over and protect their important interests in the Legislature, was not a great hardship upon the population of those districts? Surely the granting such a necessary privilege to them could in no way endanger our liberties or our Constitution. To say that the interests of these important districts were better attended to in Parliament in consequence of their not having Representatives in this House, was a paradox which he was sure no hon. Gentleman would propose or defend. His right hon. friend near him (Mr. Wynn) was opposed to the transferring the Franchise to these three great towns, the capitals of their respective manufacturing districts, until we should have the same number of corrupt boroughs disfranchised; and he said the district of Halifax was superior in amount of population to any of those towns; and he asked, why should not a call be made for a Representative for Sheffield upon the same principle as that upon which this Motion was founded? But it should be recollected that Leeds was the capital of the woollen manufacture, and therefore might be justly taken as the Representative of that interest; that Sheffield, though with a large population, and an extensive hardware manufacture, would be fully represented by Birmingham, which was the head of all that manufacture; and that Manchester was, in a certain degree, justly regarded as the capital of the cotton manufacture. Thus, by giving the Franchise to these three great towns, all those different interests would be represented in that House. His right hon. friend the Secretary of State had given the House to understand, upon a former evening, that upon some future occasion, he might acquiesce in granting the Franchise to these towns. He conceived that if they were to give Representatives to these manufacturing districts at any time, it should be done now: this was the occasion for giving them that privilege, if the Legislature were to give it to them at all. But he was afraid, that whatever this House might do, it would be disappointed in its efforts by an opposition in another place. He fully concurred in the opinion expressed by a noble friend of his (Earl Dudley) who was well acquainted with the manufacturing districts, who had been once Secretary of State, and who was no Reformer but who, whená'a Member of that House, said that the greatest blot in the history of this country in the eyes of all intelligent and well-informed persons was, that such an important class of persons as the great manufacturing population of this country should be almost completely without Representatives in Parliament. In the same manner Lord Liverpool, when a Bill was sent up from that House, transferring the Elective Franchise from Gram pound to Leeds, stated that it would be desirable that the words "Leeds and Yorkshire" should be omitted in the Bill, and the selection of the place left to the prerogative of the Crown; and what did his noble friend, (the noble Earl) add upon that occasion? He said, that if it were left to the prerogative of the Crown to select the place, it would be understood that the Franchise should be given to some large and populous town. It was upon such principles that he then supported the noble Lord's Motion. They should not allow technicalities to stand in the way of real practical improvements. He did not think it very sate for Government never to come down with important measures to Parliament until they had been driven to do so by overpowering majorities in that House. The noble Lord who proposed the Amendment was young, and he would yet live to see the day when the Representative Franchise must be granted to the great manufacturing districts. He (Mr. Huskisson) candidly confessed he thought that such a time was fast approaching, and that one day or other, his Majesty's Ministers would come down to that House to propose such a measure, as necessary for the salvation and safety of the country. He thought there was little chance of extending the Franchise to these towns by the disfranchisement of rotten boroughs, and he would 'recommend the noble Lord, if he should obtain leave to bring in a Bill, to provide by it that a Committee of this House would be competent to decide the question in future; and that whenever it had sufficient evidence laid before it that a borough had been guilty of corruption, it should report the same to the House; that the subject should then be referred to a second Committee, as a Committee of Appeal, which should again take all the facts of the case into consideration; and if that second Committee should confirm the conviction made by the first, the disfranchisement of the borough should forthwith take place, without rendering it necessary to submit the privileges or rights of the Commons of England, to the judicature of any tribunal elsewhere. That would be the best way to proceed, instead of going before an unwilling-jury, and before parties who would thwart all the efforts of the Commons to assert their privileges. There was nothing new in this principle; it was acted upon by every Election Committee in that House. He would only mention the instance of the Bath Election Committee, which when corruption was proved against the corporation, decided that every person paying scot and lot in that city were entitled to vote; thus establishing a principle which, if acted upon in other places in England, would introduce a far greater change in the representative system than ever could be effected by the measure which he recommended. He despaired of ever seeing the Representative Franchise transferred from a rotten borough to a populous manufacturing district, unless in some such way as that he had mentioned. He was anxious that the fair claims of these great towns to have Representatives should be strongly impressed upon the Legislature. It was upon such grounds that he supported the Motion of the noble Lord. The noble Lord's Motion would certainly have been more satisfactory to him if it had gone, as he (Mr. Huskisson) had the other night recommended the House to do, to transfer at once the Franchise from East Retford to the populous and important town of Birmingham: but he hoped that however he and the noble Lord might differ in some details on the road, they might arrive together at the end of their journey.

Lord W. Powlett

said, that having always voted against Reform, he was anxious to state the reasons why he should vote for the Motion of his noble friend. A distinct grievance had been brought before the House for which a remedy was proposed that was at once safe and in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. Mr. Justice Blackstone stated, that as trade is of a fluctuating nature and not long fixed in a place so pro re nata it was formerly left to the Crown to summon the most flourishing towns to send Representatives. While he was on that account disposed to admit the claims of Birmingham, Leeds, and Manchester, they being the three chief seats of the three great manufactures of iron, wool and cotton, he did not think that a valid reason for conceding a similar privilege to other towns nearly as wealthy and populous perhaps as these, but having with them an identical interest. Thinking, too, with Lord Chatham, that the corruption of boroughs was the infirmity of our Constitution to which there was a necessity to submit, he, for one, was not disposed to deform the Constitution by the abolition of a single borough. He was afraid that, by attempting to amputate this limb though he admitted it was mortified, he might be the death of the patient. The House of Commons was destined to represent all classes, and he knew not how the members of the Law and of the Army and Navy could ever find their way into that House unless by means of the boroughs. But for them he was afraid the Representation would become a conflict between the popular and the aristocratic interests, and the middle classes possessing much of the wealth of society though diffused among many individuals, would be excluded from all share of the Representation. Thinking it right that the great trading towns it was proposed to admit into the Representation deserved that favour, seeing, too, that they had grown into existence since the scheme of Representation was formed, protesting however, against the admission of their being made a precedent for admitting any other towns to the same favour, he would heartily support the Motion of his noble friend, as a means of staying all plans of wild and visionary Reform.

Mr. Bright

said, that though he had always opposed every project of general Reform, he had always felt that when any case of practical grievance in the representative system was brought under the notice of the House, it was the duty of the House to endeavour to apply a remedy to it. He contended that the plan of amending the Representation, which had that, night been proposed by the noble Lord, was no innovation on the Constitution, but in strict conformity with the plan upon which the House of Commons had been formed, and by which the number of its Members had been gradually increased until it had become what he honestly believed it to be—the real representation of the people. After taking an historical review of the mode in which the Representative system had sprung up in counties, cities, and boroughs, and showing its consistency with the project of Reform proposed by the noble Lord, he proceeded to express his regret that the noble Lord who had proposed the Amendment should have introduced any division of opinion on a Question where unanimity was so desirable. He hoped that those Members who had influence with that noble Lord would exert it in inducing him to with draw his Amendment. As to the assertion: that the large manufacturing towns were adequately represented by the county Members, he could by no means agree to it. The education of county Members was not in general directed to those minute details of commerce with which it was incumbent that the Representatives of manufacturing towns should be intimately acquainted. The argument that if they granted the Elective Franchise to those three large towns they could not refuse to grant it to other unrepresented towns of equal population was, in his opinion, deserving of little attention. When such towns rose up in the country, the proper time would arise for considering the propriety of extending the Elective Franchise to them also. Let the House, by the experiment of that night, try whether it could not gain the confidence of the manufacturing population, by giving to these three large manufacturing towns the right of electing representatives, who should at once know their feelings, and be able to make known their wants and wishes.

Mr. Secretary Peel

said, that he should follow the example of the noble Lord in that path in which alone he knew that he should be able to follow it successfully— he meant the moderation with which the noble Lord had approached the discussion of this important Question. The noble Lord had brought it forward with a temperance and ability which were calculated to conciliate assent to a doubtful proposition in as great a degree as it was possible to conciliate it. Long as he had been in Parliament, and frequently as he had been present at discussions upon Parliamentary Reform, it so happened that it had never been his lot upon any occasion to take any part in the great debates to which he had listened upon it. He had felt the subject to be so completely exhausted on both sides by the preeminent ability which had been devoted to it, that he had always contented himself with giving a silent vote, and thus he approached the present discussion unfettered by any opinions except such as had been expressed by the votes which he had uniformly given against Parliamentary Reform. Though he had not taken any active part in prior debates, he had maturely weighed the arguments which had been advanced both in favour of and in opposition to Reform, in the spirit of a witness of the contest rather than in that of a partisan; and having maturely weighed those powerful arguments which were first brought forward by Mr. Burke, and afterwards no less ably by his late right hon. friend Mr. Canning, he confessed that they had established to his mind conclusive proof of the great danger that there was in tampering on slight grounds with the Constitution. He thought that the argument of those two great men, that we were not to seek the principles of the Representation of the House of Commons, either in any fine-spun theories of democracy, or in any of the institutions of the free republics of ancient times, and that we could not find, in any portion of the history of England, any trace of any principle of democratic representation to serve as a model for a reconstruction of the Representative system; he thought, he said, that those arguments were decisive upon the points for which they were advanced. His late right hon. friend, Mr. Canning, had argued that the constitution of the House of Commons was founded on prescription—that we lived under a limited Monarchy—that we had a House of Lords, and a King—that the House of Commons was only one branch of the Legislature—and that if we admitted a democratic principle of Reform we should give to the House of Commons that overwhelming power which would render it inconsistent with the existence of the House of Lords or of a limited Monarchy. As to the effects produced by the House of Commons, and the operation of that assembly upon the country, he must say that he saw nothing in either which led him to think that an alteration in the mode of its construction was necessary. For his own part, he completely distrusted the prophecies which had been uttered respecting the beneficial results of such an alteration. It had been said that the adoption of a scheme of Reform would, by the infusion of a greater portion of the popular voice into that assembly, discourage the expenditure of public money and the embarkation of the country into improvident votes for war. He believed that the doctrine of Universal Suffrage would find but few advocates in that place; but if hon. Members were to be rendered infinitely more subservient to the will of the people than they were at present, he doubted much whether the House would be a whit the less inclined to war than it had hitherto shown itself. The examples of the ancient republics of Rome and Athens, and also those of the republics of more modern times—he meant Genoa and France,—-which all for a time had possessed popular governments, would not by any means favour the inference, that because the Government was popular there was a disinclination in the people to involve their country in war and its concomitant expenditure. Looking at the history of our own country, he must say, that he did not think that the commencement of the various wars which England had waged during the last century, had ever been against the inclination of the people. He knew that in many cases the ratification of peace had been unpopular; but in no case that he was acquainted with, had the commencement of the war been unpopular. That there had been periods in which the people had shown themselves tired of the continuance of the war, he readily admitted; but nothing was more different, as the House would agree, than the commencement of a war and the bringing of it to a conclusion. He had lately had occasion to read the able and eloquent speech which Mr. Burke made in the year 1780 to the electors at Bristol, —on the occasion of an election, of which the result as every body knew, was unfavourable to his wishes. What was the cause of his unpopularity? One of them undoubtedly was his attempt to dissuade the House of Commons, first, from embarking in the American war, and afterwards from continuing it. At the commencement of the speech Mr. Burke stated manfully to his constituents that he had done all he could to persuade the Legislature not to sanction the war. He recollected that Mr. Burke said, that at the first out breaking of the war Bristol was divided in opinion as to its fitness and propriety; that the unfortunate victory, which we obtained at Long Island, altered the state of that opinion; that the whole nation was excited by it to almost universal phrenzy; and that being so excited, he was unwilling to present himself to his constituents, so unpopular was he aware that he had become. With regard to the war which commenced in 1793, it was impossible to contend that its commencement was adverse to public feeling. He recollected that almost immediately after it broke out, Mr. Fox moved in that House a resolution condemnatory of it. He found only forty-six members of the House inclined to support that resolution; whilst the number of' those who declared themselves in favour of the war was two hundred and seventy eight. It might be said that, at that time, no more than at the present, was the House of Commons the Representative of the people. To meet that argument, he had taken the trouble of dissecting the division, and so far was it from being the fact that the Representatives of the most populous places all voted with Mr. Fox, that in Mr. Fox's minority there were only to be found six county Members, and thirteen Members representing any towns which deserved to be called populous. He therefore inferred that if the Representative system had been more popular than it was, there would not have been any disposition, either in the House or in the people of whom it was the Representative, to discourage war. Neither could he come to the conclusion that it was necessary to make a Reform in the construction of the House of Commons to encourage hon. Members to make useful Reforms in our civil institutions; and if any thing had been wanted to confirm him in that opinion, he had found it in the speech which had that evening been delivered by an hon. and learned Gentleman. The greater part of that hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was founded on the assumption that there was an improper control exercised over the House by the Minister of the day, and a want of the proper control which ought to be exercised over it by the people. And yet what did the hon. and learned Gentleman say? "Matters," said he, "are very different now from what they were in the years 1806 or 1807. Then we should have been unable to carry any species of Reform in any branch of the public service. We should have been met with the cry of innovation, and have been borne clown by large majorities; but the case is not so now; let any useful reform be proposed, either in the Army, or in the Navy, or in the law, and that reform is sure to be adopted." If, then, the House of Commons were so constituted as to adopt all useful reforms which were proposed to it in other cases, surely the hon. and learned Gentleman had not established the existence of a necessity for its reforming itself, because upon all occasions it had come to the conclusion that a reform of itself was neither useful nor necessary, The very circumstance which the hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted as a proof that a Reform of the House of Commons was necessary, was to his (Mr. Peel's) mind a convincing proof that it was not necessary. He did not believe that, under any other constitution of the House of Commons, there would be a greater desire than there was under the present calumniated system to do every thing to promote the happiness and to secure the true glory of the country. The adoption of the wild scheme of Universal Suffrage would not, in his opinion, incline the House more than it was inclined at present to protect the people from oppression, and to give every facility to the exertion of their energies and industry. Speaking of Universal Suffrage, he could not help being struck by a circumstance which had come to his knowledge in consequence of a question which had been put to him on a former evening by the hon. and learned Member for Clare, respecting the law of a; country, which had the benefit, if benefit it were, of acting on the system of Universal Suffrage. He was anxious at all times to speak of the United States with respect, and it. was not from any feeling of ill-will or dislike that he was now going to draw a contrast between their institutions and our own, which was not very favourable to the former. It would be in the recollection of the House, that the hon. and learned Member for Clare had asked him whether he had heard of a law which had been passed by the Legislature of one of the United States—he meant Georgia— by which, under pretence of erecting a guard against infection, all vessels coming into the ports of that State having a man of colour on board were put under quarantine for forty days, and which otherwise contained some strange enactments against men of colour. Since that question had been put to him, he had had an opportunity of referring to the law of which that enactment undoubtedly formed a part. In Georgia, where the plan of Universal Suffrage was in full perfection—

Mr. O'Connell

.—No, no; there is in that country a slave population.

Mr. Peel

apprehended that every freeman in Georgia had a right of voting, and there fore, as far as the whites were concerned, the Legislative Assembly of Georgia owed its origin to Universal Suffrage. Now, making all allowances for the feelings which were naturally generated by the possession of slaves, he did not think that any House of Commons elected under the present system would, even if it had possessed a slave population, have passed an Act which contained two such clauses as were now in the Act passed by the Georgian legislature. It was enacted, "That if any slave or free person of colour should circulate, or cause to be circulated, or should aid in circulating or in causing to be circulated in the State of Georgia, any written paper exciting slaves to insurrection, that person should be punished with death." That enactment was extraordinary enough; but the second enactment was still more extraordinary. It enacted, "That if any negro, free person of colour, or white person, should teach any negro to read or write any character, either printed or written, the said negro, free person of colour, or while person, should be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour, and punished by fine and whipping, or by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of the Court, the fine not to exceed 500 dollars, but the imprisonment to be at. (he discretion of the Court." Making every allowance, he repeated, for the feeling which in Georgia must naturally he excited by the possession of a slave population, he must again repeat that he did not think that we, with our election system, and without any system of Universal Suffrage, should ever have passed a law which would sentence to fine and whipping those who might have been kind hearted enough to teach a negro to read. No; that, could never be the case, even in our own West-Indian Islands. On these grounds, looking both at the "ancient constitution of the House and at the practical effects produced upon the country by our existing Representative system, he could find no reason for running the risk of losing the actual advantages which we enjoyed, for the hypothetical and contingent good which some hon. Members anticipated, he thought without sufficient foundation, from the accomplishment of Reform.

With respect to the proposition of the noble Lord, he could not help remarking that it appeared to him that great objections existed against the adoption of his limited plan. Some of those objections had been ably pointed out by the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment; and here he would remark, that nothing could be more unfounded than the hon. and gallant General's insinuation, that the noble Lord, in proposing it, had acted in concert with his Majesty's Government. For his own part, he could safely affirm, that until he heard it that evening in the House, he had not received the slightest intimation that any such Amendment would be moved. To return, however to the consideration of the original Motion. The noble Lord who brought it forward, proposed that they should add to the House of Commons six fresh Representatives, who were to represent three large towns, whose names he had mentioned: and in order to get rid of the objection which naturally arose to his plan of adding to the numbers of the House, the noble Lord further proposed to get rid of the additional number which he thus created, by cutting it off whenever any dereliction of duty should hereafter be proved against any corrupt boroughs. The noble Lord's proposition had been met by the objection that it was contrary to the Articles of Union with Scotland and also with Ireland, to make any addition to the representation of any part of the United empire; and though he (Mr. Peel) had listened to the various answers which had been given in the course of the debate to that objection, he had not found any of them to deserve any weight. He believed that the House, by acceding to the noble Lord's proposition, would commit an infraction of the Act of Union with Scotland,—an infraction which there was nothing in the Act of last Session to justify. Every Member who had yet spoken had taken it for granted that the Act of last Session was a violation of the Act of Union. He had contended last Session that it was no such thing, and if so, it could be no justification for the Motion of the noble Lord. As forty-five Members were fixed by treaty as the number of Representatives for Scotland, with reference to the number for England, he held that to add six Members to the number of Representatives for England, without making a proportionate addition for Scotland, would be a direct infraction of that, treaty. He agreed with the noble Lord that they were not compelled to go back to Acts passed in the year 1706 to control their deliberations, or even their Act for the present benefit of the country; but what answer, he would ask the noble Lord, could he make to Scotland, if she were to ask him, "Why, when you are adding to the representation of England, do you not make a corresponding addition to my representation?" It would shake the confidence which the people of Scotland felt in the House, if the House agreed to this proposition [cries of "Oh no!" and laughter]. He maintained that it would shake that confidence. Scotland, he admitted, had no right to deprive us of any benefit on account of the Act of Union; but then Scotland had a right to demand that the same measure of justice which we meted out to ourselves should at the same time be meted out to her. The noble Lord's proposition was therefore objectionable, not merely because it would add six additional Members to the representation, but also because it would render it necessary to add a proportionate number to keep up the comparative equality of the representation for Scotland and Ireland. He had also another objection to it. The number six, which the noble Lord had selected as his limit of additional Members, was an arbitrary number. It proceeded on no fixed principle, and if the House consented that night to adopt it, they would soon have similar applications to the present, showing that Sheffield and Halifax had as good a right to be represented as Manchester and Leeds; and having given up the principle, they would have great difficulty in returning a proper answer to such applications. It likewise appeared to him that the proposition of the noble Lord was not altogether consistent with the dignity of one branch of the Legislature. He had heard of supernumerary knights of the Bath, and of supernumerary commissioners at some public boards; but he had never before heard of that which it was now proposed to give to the House, six supernumerary Members of Parliament, to be provided for, according to the phrase of his hon. and gallant friend, as casualties might arise,—a plan which was novel in principle, and have no benefit to countervail the evil to which it might give rise. Look at any public establishment in which supernumeraries were allowed, and see what was the consequence. Where the number of commissioners was fixed, it was only necessary to state that fact, and there was an end to applications; but if the Board admitted supernumeraries, each applicant thought that he had particular grounds on which he ought to be appointed, and thus applications were made without end. Thus it would be with regard to the Representation if the House should assent to the noble Lord's proposition. Why fix on six supernumerary Members? Why not have more? With respect to the operation of the Elective Franchise as a safety-valve, he did not think that those places which were not represented were more open to disturb acnes than those which were represented, —that Manchester and Leeds, for example, were less tranquil than Nottingham and other places, which possessed this safety valve. The noble Lord had stated that nothing could be more extraordinary than the growth in wealth and importance of Man Chester; but whilst he (Mr. Peel) admitted as a general principle that popular representation was necessary, Manchester and the other towns had not suffered by the absence of it. Again, although Sheffield had not been perhaps quite so prosperous as Leeds and Birmingham, that was no reason why it should be excluded. Although he dissented from the Motion of the noble Mover, he could not vote for the Amendment of the other noble Lord, because the assumption of six additional Members would be inconsistent with the Act of Union of England and Ireland, and because it opened the door to constant inroads. He would also remind the noble Lord, that one of the first appeals that would be made, after the adoption of the measure, would be for an addition to the landed interest in the House. Because if in the number of Members there were forty commercial Members to sixty county Members, and therefore six to four, if the noble Lord now added a proportion of six to nothing, the proportion was not equal. On these grounds he opposed the Motion; and he thought the Amendment open to objection. The noble Lord (Sandon) proposed that the House should punish corruption and bribery wherever it should be found to exist. But it was the duty of the House to do so, and he was prepared to co-operate with the noble Lord in so doing. But before the House had a case to consider, why should it tie up its hands as to the appropriation of the vacant Franchise? How did the House know what might be the circumstances of the next case? The noble Lord proposed that the House should pledge itself as to its future intentions, either to give the privilege to counties or to large towns. The Motion was exceedingly vague, and he (Mr. Peel) saw no object that could be gained by it; but he did see a great objection in principle, in the House tying itself down to a measure, without a knowledge of the circumstances of the case. Bribery might exist in a small borough, which might be properly punished by throwing the votes into the hundreds. But before the privilege was transferred to a county or a great city, the proof of the crime should be entire and complete. At all events it was exceedingly inconvenient", for the House to tie down its hands by a measure of this kind; and on this ground he must oppose the Amendment. The course he should take would be the same as on the other night. If the Motion of the noble Mover were negatived, the noble Lord might propose his Amendment as a substantive Motion. One word in reply to what fell from the hon. and gallant General (Gascoyne), who stated that the Government had not the confidence of the country, and that he differed from Ministers not only on the Catholic Question, but on other points; and the hon. and gallant General had been severe upon his (Mr. Peel's) political conduct. But cuique suum; when the hon. and gallant General taunted him with deserting his former course, he should have selected some better occasion of doing it, than when he was about to desert his own previously avowed principles in supporting the Motion of the noble Lord (Russell). With respect to the remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Lushington), he agreed with him that it was not right or consistent with the duty of a Minister of the Crown, so to tie himself down to a party as to be a mere instrument for effecting the objects they had in view. It was utterly inconsistent with the duty of a Minister thus to act; and whatever temporary sacrifice he might be called on to make, he (Mr. Peel) should continue to act rather as his conscience dictated than as either the populace or a party demanded. When the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of pursuing that line of conduct which should scorn popular applause, whilst it promoted the interests of the country, he must say that there were temptations on the other side, which were to be guarded against—he meant deferring too much to the applause of the populace. He believed that the true course was the medium,—that the Ministers should not be the servants of a party, nor, by consulting popular applause, lose sight of the interests of the country.

Mr. Brougham

commenced by declaring himself highly gratified by the candid and manly manner in which the right hon. Secretary had addressed himself to the discussion of the Question. He hailed it with delight, as a circumstance auspicious to the great cause he had so long advocated, that he had heard a Minister of the Crown give his sentiments with a degree of candour and temper which he had never before witnessed coming from that quarter on such a question, [hear .] He trusted, therefore, that in the few observations with which he proposed to trouble the House, he should not deviate from that course which it had given him such high satisfaction to see pursued by the right hon. Gentleman, or stray from that feeling he (Mr. Peel) had expressed, in the hope he might not lose sight of the moderation observed by the noble Lord who had introduced the Question, if he (Mr. Brougham) stated his objections to the opinions which were so ably and temperately supported by the right hon. Secretary. And if, in following the right hon. Gentleman through the line of argument he had adduced, he (Mr. Brougham) should advert to the grounds upon which that right hon. Gentleman had fixed their foundation, if he should find it necessary to advert, to the general question of Parliamentary Reform, instead of confining himself to the question immediately before the House, he begged to be considered as doing so unwillingly. The noble Lord, who brought forward a Motion confined and specific in its object, had yet deviated into that general question of Parliamentary Reform; but he would rather a great deal that he had confined himself to the specific proposition, which a man might support, although he were opposed to the general question; of Parliamentary Reform, as he believed was the case with the hon. Member oppo- site and the noble Lord the Member for Durham, who had declared their adhesion to the present Motion because they were opposed to a sweeping alteration. But since the question had been broached in its generality, he could not refrain from following the right hon. Gentleman. He was not one of those who believed that if a larger portion of popular opinion had been infused into the councils of that House by means of a more popular representation, that a perfect security would be afforded against that most enormous of all calamities — that calamity which was boundless in its extent, and immeasurable in the evils it entailed—that calamity, in short, which involved every form, degree, and species of public injury—he meant a state of war. [hear] But if he could for a moment be led to believe that bringing a greater quantity of popular feeling to bear upon that House would have the effect, by making even that slender alteration, which was all it could produce, of weakening the security now possessed against that most horrible of all calamities, he would not say that he would decide by that against the measure of Reform, but it certainly would make him pause and review that which had been the opinion of his life. He freely confessed that this security might not be increased by the change contemplated, but he contended that principles and practice alike might satisfy them, as they had satisfied him, that this security would not be lessened. He agreed that the American war and the French war were not simply and merely the work of the then existing Parliament. He said not this so much in praise of those who had preceded them, as out of common justice. No; he allowed that that criminal love of the false phantom which was worshipped by its silly votaries under the title of National Glory, then pervaded all classes of the people. He allowed that all men then looked with a feverish anxiety for those trophies which were to be purchased by the tears, and blood, and treasures of their country, and by the enduring woes of the existing generation, while those miseries which know no end—those curses which never die—were inflicted upon their children, who were now in sorrow, in sadness—in all but hopelessness—reaping the bitter fruits which had been bequeathed to them by the folly, or madness, or criminality of their ancestors, [loud cheers] He acknowledged that the crimes of both these wars—the American and the French war—were not confined to the Parliament; but were shared by those who returned the Members to that House, and by those who were neither representatives nor constituents. The common cry and the general feeling urged them on, and so forsooth, the community was implicated in the crime and folly of those wars. But there was a remark to be made upon this subject; why did not the representatives of the people, though they were not the sole originators of these wars, impose some restraint upon the delusion of the nation? Why did not they, in whom such pure wisdom was presumed to reside, look with a more philosophic eye upon the state of things? Why did not they, who were influenced by no popular feelings or opinions, who, as they were told, were the representatives of the talent and learning of the nation, why did not they interfere to check the delusion of the day, and convince the unfortunate people of their error? [hear, hear] In the various panegyrics which he had read upon the House of Commons, if he remembered rightly, there was one which applauded it as being partly composed of popular Members, who were returned by the voice of the multitude; and of others not so chosen, who represented the wisdom, the knowledge, and the intelligence of the country. Why, then, he would ask, did they not check that irregular motion upon the part of the people— that motion which in their infallible wisdom they ought to have seen must have entailed upon them the most direful effects? But did they do so? No, all that could be urged in their favour was, that the people were as bad as the parliament; but they could not deny that the parliament was as bad as the people. There was another point on which he wished to touch—a point which, to his great surprise, had escaped the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. and learned friend. In the beginning he freely confessed that the parliament was backed and incited by the people, and that therefore there must have been a war whether the parliament fancied it or not. Now the assertion was at least a hundred years old, that in some cases the rabble were right, and in some cases they were wrong; here they were wrong It was true that in the years 1776 and 1777, the people were wild for war—it was also true that Mr. Burke had fallen into some disgrace with his constituents for advocating contrary measures; but this, he wished to observe, arose in a great measure out of local circumstances; without meaning to offer any offence to the hon. Member for Bristol, he might take leave to remark that the good city of Bristol was particularly interested in the question [hear, and laughter]: but the people in general, after the French had taken part in the American war—whatever might have been the feeling of certain contractors and jobbers in particular parts—did certainly see their error; and he could decidedly say that, generally speaking, the American war had outlived its popularity—that the French war had also outlived its popularity was a proposition so clear that it could not be denied. The people who suffer from the calamities of a war were always those who first wished to have an end of it, rather than their rulers, who, in the discharge of their splendid duties, and in the compromise of their high honour, were too apt to forget the sufferings of those beneath them; therefore, though both wars might have been produced under a more popular representation of the people, yet would they have been brought, to a more speedy conclusion. The right hon. Secretary, in all hiding to the Americans, (and he (Mr. B.) was disposed to concur in that feeling of respect, and even to add, esteem and friendship -for that people, so far as their conduct would allow); the sentiments, however, of the right hon. Secretary were not always those which he had heard from that Bench—he, therefore, hailed them, with much pleasure; he regretted with the right hon. Secretary that so disgraceful a set of regulations should exist upon the Statute-book of any country; but he denied, as strongly as possible, that they proved anything against the great question of Parliamentary Reform. Now, he maintained that they would not afford the slightest iota of a reason even against that species of reform which was usually designated Universal Suffrage, and proceeded to an extent he had never advocated. No, the cruel, the disgraceful, the inhuman statute of Georgia did not afford the shadow of a shade of argument against; reform. He said, on the contrary, that if he were disposed to maintain the expediency of Universal Suffrage, he should rest his foot on that disgraceful page, and declare that it was because the Representation was restricted—because there was not in the whole body that law affected, one single voice raised in the choice of the Legislature; and for this reason was it that the page referred to blackened and condemned; the code of Georgia—Was it true that they had there enacted the most cruel and revolting penalties — against themselves? against their constituents? against the Members of the Legislature?—No; but against those whom they never once allowed to raise their voice in the choice of a representative. These were cruel statutes enacted against those who were there the coloured population, wherein one made it a capital offence against any one who should teach a slave to read or write—a law which it was quite clear could never have been passed, had these slaves been capable of admission to the Legislature or Representation. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the House would not do so—that the Legislature of this country would never enact such statutes. He had a very high respect for that House, and should be extremely loth to offer it the least offence, but he doubted if he could trust it were such a proposition laid before it in the regular way, and if it were in the same situation with respect to the people as the legislature of Georgia; for it was most specially to be taken into consideration that in Georgia there was a race stamped with a marked difference, and that by a municipal law, coexistent with the very law of nature itself, and prohibited from all interference in the Legislature and Government of the country, that House, were it placed under such circumstances, it might be inferred, would act as he could show it had done on other occasions. Let the House only remember Ireland; he was reluctant, however, to rake up recollections that might be better forgotten, or to state anything bordering upon a personal allusion. He wished merely to refer to matters of history, and looking thus, what law did he find in our oldest English Colony — in Barbadoes, which was called Little England? The law was this—that if any white person should by inadvertence or so forth (enumerating all the varieties of chance-medley and manslaughter) kill a person of colour, he should go free, but if he should kill him under those circumstances which constituted a murder, that he should be fined in the sum of 11l. 6s. 2d. [hear, and laughter.] Now he should boldly take upon himself to say, that in all the North American States no such law disgraced their Statute Books—a law produced under those most unfortunate of all circumstances, when a passion of fear mastered deliberative legislation. He felt that it might be tiresome to the House to argue those questions which had been so often discussed before; but he could not avoid feeling that they had acquired a sort of fresh interest from the temperate manner in which they had been that night considered. One of the last points on which the right hon. Secretary had dwelt was, the excessive influence which would be given to the House of Commons by a truly popular Representation. The argument was one, which, if not originally Mr. Burke's, had at least been rendered his by the genius with which it was applied; and it went to this:—the influence of the people over the Commons would become so great, and the strength of the House, from its being really as well as nominally a representation of the people, would be so excessive, that there would be no security for the House of Lords, or even for Majesty itself. But he would ask, what was it that really supported the Crown and the Aristocracy, but the circumstance that the majority of the people preferred a Government composed of King, Lords, and Commons? What security was there even with the corrupt boroughs in their present state; even if no popular voice could be heard in that assembly, what was in fact, practically, soberly, and calmly speaking, that which gave security for the permanency of the present institutions, not only of the Aristocracy and of the Crown, but of that House itself, except that the great bulk of the people, however they might be for the moment discontented and dissatisfied, were a loyal and orderly people; and, if even tolerably well treated, were not desirous of revolutions? In his conscience he believed that that was their best security; and he had no desire to see a people so attached to kingly government—so attached to the aristocracy that he would venture to say no man who might have seen all the world besides, would ever have seen any people under the sun more attached to them—he said he had no desire to see such people treated with indifference. Those who were in favour of reform hoped to see not these institutions attacked, or their influence diminished, but the influence of the people more regarded. They wished to substitute influence by force, love for fear, and confidence for distrust; and by so doing they should confirm the stability of existing institutions, but weaken the popular attachment to them. He felt that in thus going into the general question he had been drawn away from the proper topic of the discussion, which was, whether the three great towns mentioned by the noble Lord should have the privilege of sending representatives to Parliament. He would not deny that popular opinion and feeling had found their way into that House, but his objection was, that they were too long in getting there; and in proof of this he would mention, not a recent subject—for he wished to avoid creating uneasiness in the minds of any men—but one which had long gone by, and which remained long enough to be the greatest disgrace upon the Legislature — he meant the African Slave Trade, which had been condemned by the whole country twenty years before it was abolished by Parliament. His honourable friend, the Member for Tregony, had alluded to the practical evils felt by the country in consequence of Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham, having no Representatives in that House. He would refer them to one strong instance of these evils. During the discussions in late years upon commercial distress — discussions in which these towns were so deeply interested— they sent up deputations, who held a sort of Parliament of their own on the other side of Palace-yard, and were obliged, as they had no representatives of their own, to apply to Members for other towns, and to intrust to them the task of laying their opinions and wishes before Parliament, They were obliged to rely on strangers for that which should have been done by their own Representatives. These towns felt the pressure of this evil, and that single circumstance made them change their opinions on Parliamentary Reform; and from the friends of things as they were, and the opponents of any change, they swerved round to the other side, and were now in the van of those who called for a temperate but a practical Reform, This Motion seemed to him to be almost without objection. It was not, as it had been supposed, an infringement of the Treaty of Union with Scotland; for he did not hesitate to assert that that Treaty, while it asserted the right of Scotland to send a certain number of Peers and Commoners to Parliament, did not limit the number that England was to have. But the Treaty did affect to protect heritable jurisdictions; yet in 1746 they were abolished, the argument being the salus populi, to the conviction of which the Scotch Peers and Commoners had yielded, and the heritable jurisdictions, for the safety of England and the well-being of Scotland, were abolished. But after that, what was the Union with Ireland but a Parliamentary Revolution, not a Reform; it added one hundred Commoners, and he did not know how many Peers, to the Parliament—and yet, though that Union was strongly debated in Ireland and gravely discussed here, the Scotch Representatives did not object to it as an infraction of the Treaty of Union with Scotland. From the terms of that Treaty and the practice of both countries, there was certainly no objection to the present Motion, which was a restoration of, not an innovation upon, the Constitution. There was one topic more against which he hoped the House would be on its guard. It was included in the question, "Where will this end?" Such an answer to a Motion would preclude all improvement. Arm him with that topic, and find him men simple enough to be misled by it; and then, if he had no other principle or doctrine, provided he were backed by men timid or thoughtless enough to be scared by such a maxim, he would desire no better security for things as they were, the whole of things as they were, and nothing but things as they were. They I would never see improvements of any kind —never see Reform—nor would abuses ever be attacked with the slightest prospect of success. He hoped and trusted better things, both from the right hon. Gentleman and from the House. He said, with the right, hon. Gentleman, let the Ministers proceed on their own principles, and towards their own good purpose—let them not be deterred, on the one hand, by fears of the doctrines which that right hon. Gentleman had already proscribed and repudiated; but let them not, on the other hand, be attracted by the silly, groundless, chances of that popularity which had no charms, when it was not founded upon reason, information, and sound principles—let them indeed love that popularity which ever followed good deeds when it was not sought after—and, let that right hon. Gentleman respect the feelings of the people when they coincided with the dictates of reason and of his own good judgment; if he did that there was no doubt that he would be found among the warmest and most sincere supporters of the Motion; and he would find that the confidence and approbation of the country would ever follow the adoption of measures such as that now proposed, [loud cheering.]

As soon as the honourable and learned Gentleman had resumed his seat, the cry; of "Reply!" arose; but it was quickly drowned in the still stronger cry of "Divide, withdraw!" and the Gallery aging been cleared, the House divided,; when there appeared—

For the Motion 140; Against it 188; Majority 48;—Adjourned.

List of the Majority and also of the Minority.
Alexander, J. Clive, hon. R.
Alexander, H. Clive, H.
A'Court, Captain Cotterell, Sir J.
Astley, Lord Calcraft, hon. J.
Astley, Sir J. Corry, Hon. H.
Apsley, Lord Corry, Lord
Antrobus, G. Campbell, A.
Atkins, Alderman Campbell, J.
Arbuthnot, hon. C. L. Cole, Sir C.
Arbuthnot, Colonel Cartwright, W.
Acland, Sir T. Cocks, J.
Belfast, Lord Chaplain, Colonel
Bankes, H. Chaplin, C.
Bankes, W. Chandos, Marquis
Bankes, G. Croker, J. W.
Beresford, Sir J. Cooper, H. B.
Beresford, M. Downie, R.
Balfour, J. Dundas, Hon. W.
Bastard, Captain Douglas, W. K.
Bastard, E. Doherty, J.
Beckett, Sir J. Darlington, Lord
Byron, T. Dick, H.
Baillie, Colonel Dowdeswell, J. E.
Burrell, W. Downes, Lord
Barnes, Col. M. Dalrymple, Colonel
Brudenell, Lord Dottin, A. It.
Bell, M. Drummond, H.
Barclay, D. Dawkins, H.
Boyle, hon. J. Daly, J.
Baker, E. Eastnor, Lord
Bridges, Sir J. East, Sir E. H.
Castlereagh, Lord Eliot, Lord
Cholmondeley, Ld. H. Encombe, Lord
Courtenay, rt. hn. F. P. Estcourt, T. H.
Cecil, Lord W. Estcourt, T.
Clerk, Sir G. Ellison, C.
Cockburn, Sir G. Egerton, W.
Calvert, J. Fane, J.
Carrington, Sir E, Farquhar, J.
Capel, J. Freemantle, Sir T.
Foster, L. Peel, W.
Fane, General Perceval, S.
Fleming, J. Petit, L.
Graham, Marquis Philipps, R. B.
Graham, Colonel Phipps, hon. Gen.
Goulburn, hon. H. Powell, Colonel
Gilbert, D. Prendergast, M. G.
Grant, Sir A. Pringle, Sir W. H.
Gower, Lord L. Palmer, R.
Hardinge, hn. Sir H. Rae, Sir W.
Hastings, Sir C. Rogers, E.
Hay, Lord J. Ross, C.
Hay, A. St. Paul, Sir H.
Merries, rt. Hon. J. C. Sanderson, R.
Hill, Lord A. Sandon, Viscount.
Hill, Sir R. Scott, H.
Hill, hon. Sir G. Seymour, hon. —
Hodgson, F. Spottiswoode, A.
Holmes, W. Shirley, J. E.
Hope, H. T. Sidney, P. C.
Hulse, Sir C. Somerset, Lord G.
Innes, Sir W. Somerset, Lord It. E.
Irving, John Sotheron, Admiral
Jones, J. Stewart, J.
King, Sir J. D. Stopford, Lord
King, hon. R. Sugden, Sir E.
Knox, hon. T, Thompson, G. L.
Knox, hon. J. Thynne, Lord J.
Leake, W. Thynne, Lord W.
Lindsay, Colonel Thynne, Lord H.
Lowther, Viscount Townshend, hn. J. R.
Lucy, G. Trench, Col. F.
Lushington, Col. J. Twiss, H.
Lygon, hon. Colonel Ure, M.
M'Kenzie, Sir J. Valletort, Lord
M'Cleod, J. N. Van Homrigh, P.
Maitland, hon. Capt. Vernon, G. G.
Manners, Lord C. Wallace, T.
Manners, Lord R. Walpole, hon. Col.
Martin, Sir T. B. Walrond, B.
Moore, G. Ward, W.
Morland, Sir S. B. Warrender, rt. hon. G.
Mundy, F. Wigram, W.
Murray, hon. Sir G. Williams, T. C.
Meynell, Captain Willoughby, H.
Noel, Sir G. Wilson, Col. J.
North, J. H. Worcester, Marquis of
Norton, G. C. Wortley, hon. J.
Northcote, H. S. Wynn, Sir W.
O'Brien, L. Wynn, rt. hon. C.
O'Hara, J. Wood, Colonel
Owen, Sir J.
Peachy, General W. Dawson, G. R.
Peel, rt. hon. R. Planta, J.
For Against
Harvey, D. W. Fane, J.
Cruden, hn. Col. Arkwright, R.
Lushington, Dr. Nicholl, Sir J.
Western, C. C. Peel, Colonel
Baring, A. Smith, Alderman
Rickford, W. Cust, E.
Manning, W. Newport, Sir J.
Macqueen, T. Portman, E,
Whitbread, S. Trevor, R.
Althorp, Lord Huskisson, rt. hon. W.
Batley, C. H. Hume, Joseph
Baring, Sir T. Hoye, J. B.
Baring, B. Hutchinson, hn. C. H.
Baring, F. Howick, Lord
Birch, J. Jephson, C. D. O.
Bright, H. Kemp, T. R.
Bradshaw, Capt. Kekewich, S.
Brownlow, C. Langston, J. H.
Blandford, Marquis Leslie, B.
Burdett, Sir F. Littleton, E.
Beaumont, T. W. Labouchere, H.
Byng, G. Lennard, T. B.
Brougham, H. Lambert, J. S.
Brougham, J. Lamb, hon. G.
Bentinck, Lord G. Martin, J.
Benett, J. Morpeth, Lord
Blake, Sir F. Maberly, J.
Buller, C. Macdonald, Sir J.
Bernal, R. Macauley, T. B.
Callaghan, G. Marshall, J.
Clive, E. Marshall, Wm.
Carew, R. Marjoribanks, S.
Corbett, P. Marryat, J.
Colborne, R. Milbank, M.
Crompton, S. Monck, J. B.
Cradock, Col. Nugent, Lord
Calthorpe, Col. A. O'Connell, D.
Calvert, N. Old, W.
Calvert, C. Pendarvis, K. W.
Carter, B. Protheroe, E.
Cavendish, Henry Palmerston, Lord
Cavendish, Wm. Ponsonby, hon. G.
Davenport, E. Ponsonby, W. F.
Denison, W. J. Philips, G. R.
Dundas, hon. Sir R. Poyntz, W. S.
Dundas, hon. G. Palmer, C. F.
Duncombe, T. Pallmer, C. N.
Davies, Colonel Powlett, Lord W.
Dawson, A. Robinson, Sir G.
Ewart, W. Rice, T. S.
Easthope, J. Ramsbottom, J.
Ebrington, Lord Robarts, A. W.
Euston, Lord Robinson, G.
Fazakerley, J. N. Rumbold, C. E.
Fortescue, hon. G. M. Stewart, Sir M. S.
Fergusson, Sir R. Smith, hon. R.
Fergusson, C. Sefton, Earl of
Fitzgerald, M. Sykes, D.
Fitzgibbon, hon. R. Slaney, R. A.
Tyler, T. B. Smith, W.
Gascoyne, General Smith, V.
Greene, T. G. Sebright, Sir J.
Gordon, Robert St. Paul, H.
Guest, J. J. Stanley, Lord
Grant, rt. hon. C. Stanley, E.
Grant, R. Tennyson, C.
Guise, Sir W. Thomson, C. P.
Graham, Sir J. Thompson, Aid.
Heneage, G. F. Townshend, Lord C
Hobhouse, J. C. Vernon, G. R.
Heron, Sir It. Villiers, T. H.
Howard, R. Waithman, Ald.
Howard, H. Williams, J.
Honywood, W. P. Westenra, hon. H.
Wall, B. Wells, J.
Whitbread, W. Wilson, Sir R.
Whitmore, W. W. Warburton, H.
Wrottesley, Sir J.
Wood, Ald. TELLERS.
Wood, J. Russell, Lord J.
Wood, C. Wilbraham, G.
Wyvill, M.