Lords Sitting of 30 March 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the Sugar Duties Bill, the Population (Ireland) Bill, the Witnesses' Examination Bill, the Prohibition and Mandamus Bill, the Canada Timber Bill, and thirty-two private Bills.
Petitions presented. In favour of Reform, by Earl GREY, from the Inhabitants of Aylesbury; and similar petitions from the Inhabitants of Leicester, Limerick, Waterford, Oldham, Dover, and from the Burgesses of Newcastle-upon-Tyne:—By the Marquis of CLEVELAND, from Wrington, Somersetshire:—By the Earl of RADNOR, from a Parish in Berkshire:—By Lord MELBOURNE, from Oldham, and other Parishes in Lancashire:—By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Ballymeath; also from the Inhabitants of Calcutta, for relief from the unequal local Taxation by which they were oppressed; from the Chamber of Commerce at Glasgow, against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter; from the Cordwainers of Dundalk, for the Repeal of the Union; and several for the Abolition of Colonial Slavery. By the Earl of GLASGOW, from certain Residents at Irving, that compensation might be given if Slavery were abolished.

REFORM PETITIONS.
Lord Duncanpresented a Petition from the Chamber of
1154
Commerce of Dundee, in favour of the Ministerial plan of Reform. He took that opportunity, in concurrence with the Petitioners, to express his thanks and gratitude to his Majesty's Ministers for that most excellent measure, which possessed the two important advantages of being safe and being efficient, and which had in a most unexampled degree united conflicting opinions, and given almost universal satisfaction, consolidating the Representation in Parliament, and placing it on the clearest and surest footing. But that part of the country from which he came was under peculiar obligations to his Majesty's Ministers, and there the measure was, as might well be expected, hailed not merely with approbation, but with enthusiasm. In England, however bad the system had become, there was always some real popular Representation; but in Scotland there was none, and his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack was well warranted in saying, as he did the other night, that in Scotland, even the counties were closer than English close Boroughs, and the members for the close Boroughs in Scotland were elected by close bodies, who elected each other; so that there was nothing like popular Representation. It was no wonder, therefore, that this measure was there hailed with enthusiasm; and it was remarkable that at Glasgow, when they heard of it, there was an illumination, under the direction of the Magistrates, whose monopoly it went to destroy. There might be some trifling alterations required, in order to render the details of the Bill as conformable as possible to its principle, but he hoped that Ministers would persevere in a determined resistance to any alteration that might detract from the efficiency of the measure; and in adopting that course, they would secure to themselves the almost unanimous support of a grateful people.
Lord Farnhamwished to take that occasion to observe, that not having been so fortunate as to obtain a hearing last Monday night, he should now state the grounds on which he objected to the measure proposed by his Majesty's Ministers. The first question to be considered was, whether any Reform at all in the Representation was wanted; and supposing that question to be answered in the affirmative, then the next question was, whether this measure was the fit and proper one? He admitted that, through length of time, the Repre-

1155
sentation had got into such a state that there was need for some Reform. But if the theory of the Constitution were to be acted on as a rigid rule, admitting of no relaxation, it would be impossible to carry on the Government. There were, however, some anomalies in the practical part of the Constitution, and in the state of the Representation, which enabled the Government to carry on the public business smoothly. One of the most important of these anomalies was the Borough interest, which prevented a too violent collision between the different parts of the system, as that was the manner in which this House and the Crown were in some degree represented in the House of Commons. He considered that the Bill would operate in a manner peculiarly disadvantageous in that part of the United Kingdom (Ireland) with which he was more especially connected. His great and chief objection to this measure was, that it destroyed the close Boroughs in Ireland. These Boroughs were established in the reign of James the 1st, for the purpose of protecting the settlers from Great Britain and the Protestant interest. They had not decayed but were still efficient, and were still required to answer the great purpose for which they were established. If in these Boroughs they extended the elective franchise to every householder paying 10 l. a-year rent, they would create a very inferior class of voters —a class which would depend on popular opinion for their existence. There was an attempt during the heat of the agitation on the Catholic Question to ruin that description of people in case they did not support the measure of what was called Emancipation, and many of them had been ruined. The summons of coercion might be used to compel them to support the Repeal of the Union, and it might be taken for a certainty, that that use of it would be made. The consequence would be, that thirty or forty of their nominees would be returned to Parliament; and they all knew that thirty or forty agitators in the House of Commons, acting as one united body for a particular purpose, might be so troublesome as to prevent the public business being carried on by the Government. They all knew that the Catholics of Ireland, wished the destruction of the Protestant Church Establishment in that country, and so many Members leagued and banded for that purpose, would be too much for any Government.
1156
The noble Earl at present at the head of his Majesty's Government had said, in reply, he believed, to a speech of his (Lord Farnham's) in the debate on the Catholic Question, that while he should deprecate the Establishment of the Catholic Church or hierarchy in Ireland, he did not think even if such a thing should happen, that it would lead to a dissolution of the two countries. He however was convinced that the effect of the Establishment of Catholic ascendancy in Ireland would be a dissolution of that Union. The proposed measure was peculiarly calculated to affect the Protestant interest in Ireland; and he could assure their Lordships that it was to the Protestants of Ireland they must look for the continuance of the Legislative Union between the two countries. If the Protestants of Ireland saw that their interests were deserted and neglected, he believed their attachment to the Union would not continue: and, if the Protestants united with the Catholics, to obtain the Repeal of the Union, they might laugh at all resistance to that measure. In case of such an event happening, he hesitated not to assert that the whole force of England would never be able to resist the united efforts of a brave and determined people. There was not one of their Lordships who would more deprecate such an occurrence, or go farther to avert it, than he would, but he felt that he should not do his duty to their Lordships or to the country, when he saw that the tendency of the measure introduced by his Majesty's Ministers was to lead to such a result, if he did not warn them against it. If pushed to the extent of the provisions of the Bill, he believed the proposed measure would lead to such a result. The measure of the Union had now his most cordial support, though he had been one of those who, with the noble and learned Lord, the present Chancellor of Ireland, had thought that the Legislature of Ireland exceeded its powers in passing such a measure. Many years, however, had elapsed, since the Union was accomplished; and he thought that thirty years' acquiescence had given that measure a kind of prescription, and that no man could properly dispute its legality, or attempt to set it aside. It was a seducing consideration, however, to many in Ireland, to induce them to attempt the Repeal of the Union, that it would ensure the residence of the nobility and gentry. He had heard, no doubt, that many of the Pro-

1157
testants of Ireland might be induced, on this ground, to support the Repeal of the Union, though no portion of the Protestants, he was convinced, would ever assent to the dissolution of the connection between the two countries. Whether the dissolution of the connection between the two countries would necessarily result from a Repeal of the Union, was a question which admitted of argument; but he (Lord Farnham) believed that it would. He further believed that no man who had the slightest regard for the future interests and prosperity of Great Britain or Ireland, would wish for a dissolution of the connection between those countries. Such being his sentiments, he felt that he should not have acted as an honest man, and should, in fact, have deserved the character of a traitor to his country, if he did not warn their Lordships of what he considered the probable result of the Bill that had been brought forward, as it would affect that part of the kingdom with which he was connected.
The Lord Chancellorregretted that the noble Lord should have gone into such subjects upon the presentation of a petition, and would not follow the noble Lord through all the topics upon which he had touched. He must however say, that he deeply lamented that the noble Lord should have indulged in that House in such language as had fallen from the noble Lord. Suppose now that he had said only one-tenth part in support of the Bill of what the noble Lord had said in opposition to it. Suppose he had said, "Beware how you reject the prayers of the people, beware how you offend Tories and Whigs, and Radicals and Jacobins, for they will be a brave, and united, and determined people; beware how you raise the people from one end of the empire to the other, by refusing to pass this measure, for if you do, you will raise a flame which will defy the whole force of Government to extinguish it." If he had said only this, if he had only said one-tenth part of what the noble Lord had said, he should in vain have attempted to defend himself from the wrath and censure of his noble opponents, who would have told him that it was altogether unjustifiable to threaten the House and the Government with physical force. Others might use this language, it seemed, without censure, but those who were advocates for Reform must weigh every word they uttered. It
1158
would have been in vain for him to have deprecated the wrath of their Lordships, if he had threatened them with lawless resistance to an act of a lawful Legislature.
Lord Farnham.—I made no such threat: all I said was, that under the circumstances, I supposed the people of Ireland would laugh at being menaced with the force of England.
The Lord Chancellorwas very glad to find, that he had misunderstood the noble Lord: but he certainly thought he had heard the noble Lord say, that if this measure passed, it would unite the Catholics and Protestants together for the Repeal of the Union,; and that if it did so unite them, not all the force of England could put them down —for that they would be a united, a brave, and a determined people. Then what had laughing to do with the matter? Did men unite in order to laugh? Was it necessary that men should be brave before they could laugh? Was it essential that men should be determined for the purpose of laughing? He repeated that he should be glad to find he had misunderstood the noble Lord, though he feared he had not; but at all events he was certain that the observations to which he alluded must have fallen from the noble Lord in the heat of debate.
Lord Farnhamsaid, that he had never said what the noble and learned Baron had attributed to him, nor any thing like it. He had never said that the people of Ireland would offer lawless resistance to any lawful act of the Legislature; but he had said, this measure of Reform would lead the Protestants of Ireland to unite, or rather, that it was probable the measure would lead them to unite with the Catholics, if the results which he foresaw — namely, the prostration of the Protestant interest —should follow the passing of the Bill; that then the dread which was now felt at the Repeal of the Union would pass away; and that if those who were now against the Repeal of the Union, were to unite with the Repealers, then it would be impossible for the Government to resist their united wishes.
Earl Greyregretted that this discussion had arisen, and he must say that if he had ever heard a speech of pernicious tendency —if he had ever heard a speech which was eminently calculated to produce those results which the noble Baron professed to deprecate —if, he said, he had ever heard a speech of that character, that

1159
speech was the speech of the noble Baron. He was glad, however, that the noble Lord had found an opportunity of putting some water into his wine, and of in some measure correcting and controlling the effects which his first speech was so likely to produce; for if his ears had not strangely deceived him —if the impression upon his mind was not as erroneous as it was strong, he had understood the noble Lord to say, that in consequence of the Reform measure, the Protestant interest of Ireland would consider itself deserted; and he did entreat the noble Lord to consider what effect was likely to be produced by such an authority declaring publicly in his place in Parliament, that by a certain act of the Legislature, the Protestants of Ireland might consider themselves as deserted by the Legislature. He called upon the noble Baron to consider whether, as a friend of peace, as a friend of security, as a friend of tranquillity, and as a friend of the Union, whether,— although he professed himself desirous of preserving that peace, that security, and that tranquillity, and that Union,— he was holding language which was at all calculated to secure the object he professed to have in view, when he told them that the Catholics being leagued together to obtain the ascendancy of their own religion, were likely to be joined by the Protestants in the endeavour to procure the Repeal of the Union, because the Protestants would have a right to consider themselves as deserted if a certain Act were passed by the Legislature. He could have no doubt that the noble Baron was a friend of the Union, because the noble Baron had declared that he was so; but he must take the liberty of saying, that if the noble Baron had been the bitterest enemy of the Union, he could not, at a time when great discontent prevailed in Ireland, have held language that had a more direct tendency to inflame and irritate the minds of those who still retained their loyalty, or language which savoured more of a disposition to effect the dissolution of that Union, which, if dissolved, he believed must end in a dissolution of all connexion between the two countries. He confessed that he hoped better things from Ireland, and in particular he hoped better things from the Protestants of Ireland. He hoped that the Protestants would view this measure in its proper light, as a measure which would give to the people in all parts of he empire a more fair and equal
1160
Representation; and allow him to say, that, if his information had not greatly failed him, this measure, which the noble Lord foretold would lead to such pernicious consequences, had been hailed in the northern parts of Ireland, where the Protestant interest was most prevalent and most firmly established, as a measure altogether satisfactory, and as one which was likely to promote the best interests of Ireland. But the noble Lord had told them, that if this measure passed, it would cause the destruction of all those feelings and opinions which now supported the Union; that the Protestants and Catholics would unite together; that, so united, they would form a brave and resolute people, who would laugh at the whole combined force of England, and who, in spite of that force, would effect the dissolution of that union which he, in common with the noble Baron, had at first opposed, but which he and the noble Baron were now alike anxious to retain. He could not believe that in thus dealing with these topics the noble Baron could have any of those objects in view, which others, who adopted no very dissimilar course, professed they wished to attain; but he must say, that this was not the fairest or the most prudent mode of stating objections to a measure under the consideration of Parliament; for nothing could be more calculated to inflame the prejudices and to excite the feelings of the people, upon whose obedience to the Government the security of the Government must depend. Having said thus much upon the observations of the noble Baron, he should reserve all other remarks upon the measure until the Bill came before their Lordships, considering, as he did, that this was a most improper and inconvenient mode of discussing the merits of it. But the noble Baron had told them, that the boroughs were a part of the Constitution. Now this he was prepared to deny most unequivocally. He contended that the boroughs were not only not a part of the Constitution, but that they were derogatory from the principles of the Constitution,— nay, contrary to the principles of the Constitution. The Constitution was founded upon Representation, not on Nomination; and this he should be prepared to support by argument when the measure came before them. But the noble Lord had told them why the boroughs in Ireland were given. According to the noble Lord, they were given by

1161
James 1st to secure the Protestant interest in that country. Be it so; but if these boroughs were in the hands of regular traffickers, who sold them to the highest bidders, without reference to the religion, the politics, the feelings, or the opinions of the purchasers; if they were brought into the market and offered to him who would give most for them, so that the Catholic, if he outbid the Protestant, might have them, what, in the name of common sense, became of the security of the Protestant interest? His firm belief was, that this measure, if it passed into a law, would, so far from weakening the power of the Government in Ireland, considerably increase it, and place it upon such a foundation of security and strength, that no lawless attempts could prevail against or shake it. The noble Lord had been pleased to allude to what he had said in the discussion upon the Catholic Question. It was true that he had said, upon the occasion alluded to, that even if it should unfortunately happen that the Catholic Church should prove triumphant in Ireland, still he did not see why that should cause a dissolution of the connection between the two countries. Their Lordships, however, would, he was sure, recollect that he had stated this with great qualifications, — that he had accompanied it with the expression of his wish, —a wish, in which he was sure their Lordships would believe him to have been sincere, that the Protestant Establishment in Ireland might flourish and prevail; and that he had said, at the same time, that whatever danger there might be in concession, there was, in his opinion, far greater danger in refusing to concede; that if there were danger on the one hand, there was the certainty of destruction on the other. He heartily hoped and trusted that the Protestant Establishment would grow and thrive in Ireland; and when it should be improved by the reformation of abuses which had crept into it, and when it should be so exhibited to the people in the full purity and splendor of the true religion, he had no doubt that it would flourish and prevail, if men's minds were not inflamed and excited. Still, however, if that Church should perish, and God forbid that such a misfortune should ever befall them, he repeated that he did not see why the two countries should not continue united. When he looked to Scotland, and saw there a Church differing almost as much from the Anglican Establishment as the
1162
Romish Church differed from it,— when. he knew that in Canada the Catholic was the prevalent religion; when he saw that in the most despotic countries in the world there were distinct Churches established, and yet all went on together in good-will towards the general support of the Government, he could not, he confessed, tell why, if that, which he admitted would be a very great misfortune, were to happen in Ireland, the Union between the two countries, upon which the prosperity of both alike depended, should be dissolved. He had gone further into this subject than he had meant to go; but after the language of the noble Lord, and with the consequences which that language was likely to produce before his eyes, he could not help rising to answer the noble Lord, and to protest against the measure of Reform being held up as a proof that the Protestant interest was betrayed or deserted by the Legislature, for in his mind that measure was calculated in an eminent degree to support, to strengthen, and to confirm that interest.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that no man deprecated discussions which were not regularly brought forward, more than he did. That House ought always to set an example of order in its proceedings; and if their Lordships meant to support the station which they held in the Constitution, and in the estimation of the country, they ought strictly to observe the rules and principles of the Constitution, and not to interfere with measures which were not properly before them. It was impossible, however, that these discussions could be permitted at one side, and not at the other. The noble Lord (Duncan) who brought forward the petition, stated his concurrence in the prayer, and added, that the measure was hailed with satisfaction in Scotland. It was the most natural thing on earth, therefore, that a person connected with Ireland, should rise, as his noble friend (Lord Farnham) had done, and state his view of the effects of the measure in Ireland. His noble friend had explained what he stated. It was not for him to pretend to a knowledge of their Lordships' rules, as he had only been a short time a Member of that House, but he had been many years a Member of the other House, and always thought that when a noble Lord corrected his expressions and explained his meaning, that statement ought to be received. His noble friend said, he

1163
did not mean that physical force would be appealed to, if the measure passed, nor did he (Lord Wynford) understand him to say so. What he understood his noble friend to say was, that the effect of the measure would be such, from the preponderance of Catholics in Ireland, that it would reasonably lead the Protestants to conclude that their interests were not duly attended to. The effect of such a feeling, his noble friend argued, would be, that the Protestants of Ireland might be disposed to give up their present connections, and that they would be driven into the arms of the Roman Catholics, many of whom were now seeking a Repeal of the Union. If that measure was granted, his noble friend further inferred, that it would lead to a separation of the two countries, and perhaps the establishment of Ireland as an independent monarchy. In his own opinion, to suppose that such was likely to be the effect of the measure proposed by his Majesty's Ministers did not require the knowledge which his noble friend possessed of Ireland. The Protestants were in such a fearful minority that great alarm must naturally arise from any measure giving greater power to the Roman Catholics in that country. The noble Earl (Grey) said, that the language of intimidation was used by his noble friend. He could wish that there had been as great an abstinence from the use of intimidation on the other side. He wished that the friends of the measure had practised that sort of abstinence which they recommended to those hostile to it. True, they had not yet heard any threat of the separation of England from Ireland, but they were told that anarchy and confusion would arise from the rejection of the measure. That was the tone used on this subject by those who now deprecated anything like an expression of apprehension as to the consequences of this measure. He was sure that such statements could have no effect on their Lordships' minds. They were placed above the influence of so base a passion as fear, and would decide on this question uninfluenced by fear or hope, and in such a way, he had no doubt, as would secure to this country a continuation of those advantages which had arisen from the present calumniated system of Representation — a system which had raised this country to a greater height of prosperity than was ever before heard of. For his own part he had made up his mind on
1164
this question, but he had refrained from expressing that opinion, as the measure had not come fairly before their Lordships. He trusted, whilst those who concurred with him abstained from exercising an improper or unconstitutional influence on this subject, that the same course would be adopted by those on the other side, not only in that House but also out of doors. When the measure came regularly before their Lordships, he should be prepared to state his opinions on it fearlessly and honestly. His opinion, doubtless, could have but little weight with their Lordships, but it would have the merit, at all events, of being a candid opinion, uninfluenced by personal motives. He had no influence in boroughs, and very little property, compared with many of their Lordships; but he was very anxious that they should not give up what they knew they possessed, for the purpose of obtaining what was out of their power. If his noble friend used the language of intimidation, he was the last, and not the first, who had used it; but he must freely admit, that language of that sort ought not to be used in that place, of all others, upon a question of such magnitude.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, that if a stranger had heard only the speech of the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, he might have supposed that some one bad stood up in the course of the evening for the profligate practice of selling places in Parliament, and trafficking in corrupt boroughs. He begged to ask their Lordships, however, whether any one, in the course of the discussion, had maintained that such practices were constitutional? He was sure that none of their Lordships had. So little was he from defending such practices, that his principal objection to the proposed measure was, that it provided no remedy against them. The preamble set forth that great abuses had arisen in the Representation of the people in the Commons House of Parliament. What were those abuses? The corruption and bribery practised at elections, and the sale of boroughs. These were the only abuses, he maintained, and yet these were the only things for which no remedy was to be found in the Bill. There was not a word in the Bill to prevent the sale of boroughs; there was nothing to check corruption, or to render it more difficult to be practised —nothing to reader the evidence of corruption less

1165
difficult. If any thing was done by the Bill, it was to render those practices more easy of execution. The Bill went to extend the principle of corruption instead of checking it. Bribery, he maintained, would exist to a greater extent, and be more difficult of proof, under the proposed than under the present law. He certainly should not enter into the details and objects of such a bill upon a desultory discussion. One objection which he had to entering into the discussion was, that their Lordships had no means of knowing in what shape the measure would come before them, if, indeed, it ever came before them. He did not believe, for his own part, that the Bill could come before them. He had no idea that such a difficulty would be placed before their Lordships. The principle of the proposed measure was all that had hitherto been discussed; the other House of Parliament had not yet entered into the details of the measure, and therefore it would be premature for him, or for any of their Lordships, to come to a direct and positive conclusion. From all which he had seen or heard of the measure proposed by his Majesty's Ministers, however, he could not suppose that he could ever give it his concurrence. He looked upon it as a measure overturning the oldest and best establishments of the country. It was neither more nor less than a public and private robbery; tending to throw the Representation into the bands of those in whom the Constitution never intended it should be placed. He agreed with his noble friend (Lord Farnham), that the effect produced, particularly in Ireland, might be the placing; the whole Representation in the hands of those who had much practice in obtaining influence by agitation alone. He did not differ from his noble friend materially in any of those points from which his noble friend apprehended great danger as arising from this measure, and if those who brought forward a measure calculated to produce such fatal effects had learned somewhat sooner the lesson they now endeavoured to teach to others —of not using exciting language, the country would have been in a much better situation, and this measure might have created less apprehension. If those who supported this measure, and others, had not called upon Ireland, and said "Agitate, agitate, agitate!"— if language, not only tending to produce, but actually encouraging ex-
1166
citement and agitation, had not been used, he should not have felt the alarm he now did at the proposed measure. He had stated his intention of not entering further into its merits at that time, and he should therefore not trespass longer on their Lordships. In the measure now before the other House of Parliament, he repeated that he did not think he could ever concur. If any other measure of Reform, however, should be brought hereafter before Parliament, he should consider it on its own merits and decide on it with a reference to its own principles. He did not say that no measure of Reform would meet his approbation and support. In these times he admitted that no public man should say, on any question, "Here I take my stand, and nothing shall move me." He should decide on any measure that might be brought forward according to times and circumstances, to the merits of the bill, and the feelings of the people. He trusted that a measure of Reform might yet be proposed to which, as an honest man, he might give his approbation. On its own merits, however, he should decide whether any measure that might be proposed should have his approbation or disapprobation. He was bound in candour to state, however, that he did not see how the measure now proposed could be modified in such a manner as would entitle it to his approbation.
Lord Goderichsaid, that he had heard the last part of the noble Duke's speech with surprise and with satisfaction. With surprise, because, from the first part of the noble Duke's speech, he had not expected to hear that the noble Duke was prepared to discuss the measure with respect to the time and circumstances; and with satisfaction at learning, that the noble Duke would allow the feelings and the situation of the country to weigh with him in coming to a decision. He hoped that he should have the benefit of his noble friend's vote in favour of this Bill, for never was there a moment in which such a concurrence of public opinion in favour of any measure had been witnessed, as existed in favour of the Bill now before the other House of Parliament. He hoped that he should have the benefit of the noble Duke's vote on this occasion, as he had upon other occasions, notwithstanding his positive declarations to the contrary. His noble friend, in alluding to the objections to this measure, had observed, that

1167
nobody had been profligate enough to state that there had been any persons who had contended for the propriety of the practice of the purchase and the sale of boroughs. His noble friend was indeed ignorant of what had transpired elsewhere, if he did not know that great advantages had been ascribed to that practice,— that it had been eulogized as the most independent mode of obtaining a seat in Parliament,— and that it had been urged as an argument against the Bill, that if the practice were prohibited, it would stop up a constitutional way of returning the Representatives of peculiar interests to the House of Commons. Nay more, this practice had been panegyrized as one of the most valuable attributes of the Constitution by those who cherished every kind of prejudice in favour of the existing order of things, totally forgetting, as they did when they used so preposterous an argument, that it was denounced by the law of the land as a violent outrage upon the Constitution. He recollected that when this subject was under the consideration of the House of Commons, many years ago, and when it was proposed to pass an Act expressly against the practice, a most ingenious, independent, and eloquent gentleman, to whom the noble Duke was much attached, the late Mr. Windham, had vindicated the practice with great skill and ingenuity. He recollected that it was stated upon that occasion, that the practice was as notorious as the sun at noon-day, and that it was an inevitable incident to the possession of the borough property. He recollected likewise the language used on the occasion by the illustrious individual, who then filled the chair of Speaker in the other House, and who was afterwards elevated into this House, under the title of Lord Colchester; he recollected that noble Lord saying, that notorious as the practice might be, it was a practice against which our ancestors would have started with indignation. He recollected also that that language was ridiculed at the time, as being too figurative, and that the sincerity of the Speaker in using it was questioned, and that it was even considered as nothing else but a clap-trap. But if the noble Lord did not speak the language of his own heart, what was the language which he had spoken? The language of the Constitution; and he could have had no other motive for using it than the knowledge
1168
that it was congenial to the principles of the Constitution. The Act of Parliament was passed, and the practice of buying and selling seats, which he believed to be an innovation recently introduced into Parliament, and unknown till the last century, was denounced by every branch of the Legislature. It was still, however, so notorious, that you could not go into the higher classes of society without hearing one man talking of how much he gave, and another of how much he got, for his seat in Parliament. That practice, however, which some persons now cherished as a mode of uniting together the different interests of these realms, was denounced in the Statute-book as contrary to the usage, the rights, and the freedom of Parliament, and as a direct violation of the laws of the land. His noble friend evidently entertained the same feelings respecting it as was displayed in the laws of the land; and thus all the grounds of his argument were completely drawn from under him. For his own part, he did not think these rotten boroughs necessary parts of the Constitution; and seeing how great an abuse had arisen from their existence, he saw no means of remedying it except by that total excision which was proposed in the present Bill.
Petition laid on the Table.

SITTING ON GOOD FRIDAY.
The Archbishop of Canterburywished to put a question to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in order to correct a misrepresentation which had gone abroad respecting the days which his Lordship had fixed for the sittings of this House on private business. He understood that it had gone forth that their Lordships were to sit on Good Friday,— was that so or not?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that it was not so. He knew, however, the origin of the error. He had said, that he should sit on Saturday and Monday next, which days happened to be Easter eve and Easter Monday. He had mentioned that the Judges of Assize, when on their circuits, were accustomed to sit on Good Friday, after attending divine service. He had mentioned that fact to show, that there would have been nothing contrary to the orders of the Church, if their Lordships had determined to meet on that day. But he had no intention of sitting then; he only intended to sit upon Saturday and Monday.

THE BISHOP OF ELY.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that he now rose for the purpose of doing justice to a right rev. Prelate, who, though he might be in an infirm state of body, was, beyond all question, in a sound state of mind. The right rev. Prelate read two letters to the House, one from a Dr. Clerk, physician to the Bishop of Ely, stating that his patient was at present fully capable of understanding any business that might be communicated to him; and the other from a Mr. Pickering, stating, in reply to a note from one of the Bishop's sons, requesting him to give an opinion as to the Bishop's ability to transact business since his attack in May last, that since the second week in June, he considered the Bishop, not only competent to transact any ordinary business, but also to direct any business connected with the administration of his See. He had thought it necessary to read these letters, as a doubt had been thrown out by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to the soundness of the right rev. Prelate's mind. Their Lordships were aware that a charge had been made against the Bishop of Ely, for accumulating his patronage on the members of his own family; but out of nine only two preferments had been bestowed upon the members of his Lordship's family in the course of several years, and that circumstance might tend to show how much exaggeration there was in the reports which had reached their Lordship's ears.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he was sure that the right rev. Prelate who had just sat down would do him the justice to recollect, that the observations which he had made on a former evening, respecting the right rev. Prelate, were in reply to an attack which had been made upon himself individually for an improper disposal of the Church patronage belonging to the Great Seal. He had heard certain reports respecting the bodily infirmities of the right rev. Prelate, and those reports, fortified by the circumstance of his having received a letter, bearing the signature, but evidently not in the writing, of the rev. Prelate, giving one account of his right to the presentation of a certain living, and of his subsequently receiving another letter, giving quite a different account of it, under the idea that he had not received the first letter, led him to suppose that the right rev. Prelate was in such a
1170
weak state of bodily health as might also impair the faculties of his mind. He had now no doubt that the right rev. Prelate was in a sound state of mind. He contended, however, that it was quite clear that the right rev. Prelate had not written both the letters which he had received.