Sitting of 14 April 1831

MINUTES.
Sir JOHN MALCOLM took his seat for Launceston.
Bills committed. The Corporation Fund; the Elections (Ireland), read a third time. The Growth of Tobacco (Ireland); Deputy Lieutenants (Scotland) Indemnity,
Mr. R. GRANT'S Motion relative to the Emancipation of the Jews, was postponed till May 5th.
Petitions presented. For the Abolition of Slavery, by Lord STANLEY, from Warrington:—By Mr. HUGHES HUGHES, from Dissenters at Oxford:—By Mr. BENETT, from Dissenters at West Lavington, and other places in Wiltshire:—By Mr. JOHN WOOD, from Dissenters at Guisborough, and other places:—By Mr. JOHN JOHNSTONE, from Pollok-shaws, and other places. In favour of the Cotton Factories Bill, by Mr. FYSHE PALMER, from Maidenhead:—By Mr. JOHN JOHXSTONE, from the Incorporation of Weavers, Dunfermline. Against the Bill, by Mr. STRUTT, from Silk Throwsters of Derby:—By Lord STANLEY, from Cotton Spinners at Heywood; also from the Clergy, &c. of Bolton-le-moor, against the Beer Bill. For Promoting the Building of Churches, by Mr. HUGHES HUGHES, from the Clergy of Docking, and of Kendal. In favour of the Kildare Street Society, by Mr. J. WYNNE, from Calny Sligo. Against the Duty on Steam Vessels, by Sir GEORGE MURRAY, from Owners of Steam Vessels at Leith:—By Lord WILLIAM GRAHAM, from Dumbarton:—By Mr. MARRYATT from Margate and Broadstairs. For Reform, by Lord STANLEY, from Broughton, Denton, and Houghton:—By Mr. HUNT, from Miles Platting. Against the Reform Bill, by Lord EASTNOR, from the Mayor and Corporation of Hereford:—By Mr. BENETT, from Westbury, complaining that that Borough was to be disfranchised, though it contained more than 6,000 inhabitants. By Sir GEORGE MURRAY, for the Repeal of the Post-horse Duty, from Coach-masters of Perth and Forfar shires. For the Repeal of the Duty on Printed Cottons, from Cotton Manufacturers at Perth.

REPRESENTATION OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Sir G. Murraypresented a Petition from the Presbytery of Dunblane, praying that in the Reform Bill provision should be made that the Ministers of the Church of Scotland might have the power of voting for a Representative in Parliament. He was himself not favourable to

1349
giving the elective franchise to the clergymen of the Church of Scotland, because doing so would bring them into collision with the people at elections, and thus lower their character, which at present stood very high, owing to the fact, that in no instance was any opportunity afforded of bringing them into unpleasant collision with their parishioners. He could not support the prayer of the petition. If, however, the clergymen of the Church of Scotland thought that they ought to be represented, and were desirous to be so, he should wish to see them represented as the Church of England was —in the House of Peers by means of her dignitaries, and in the Commons, by the Members for her Universities. He did not advocate change, but as the Ministers were about to make a great change, that ought to be made as perfect as possible. On this principle he must contend, that Scotch cities and towns with upwards of 20,000 inhabitants, which by the new Bill would be left unrepresented, ought to have Members given to them. As he perceived that another Member was to be given to the University of Dublin, he recommended Ministers to give the same advantage to the Universities of Scotland.
Sir Alexander Hopecordially agreed with his right hon. friend. To take the clergy of Scotland from the exclusive performance of their clerical duties, would be a great injury to them and their flocks. At the same time he wished to see their interests represented and taken care of in Parliament.
Mr. Hart Davisthought some of the observations of the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Murray) was levelled at the clergymen of the Church of England, who, he was persuaded, formed as zealous a body of clergymen as were to be found in the world.
Mr. Robert Grantsaid, that the Representation of the Scotch Church was a question still open; and he might also state, that the plan of giving a Member to the Scotch Universities was under the consideration of his Majesty's Ministers.
Petition to be printed.

REFORM. — PERSONALITIES OF MR. HUNT AND MR. O'CONSELL.
Mr. Huntpresented a Petition from the inhabitants of the suburbs of Manchester, in which they stated, that though they thought no Reform would be effectual without Vote by
1350
Ballot, yet they were favourable to the Ministerial plan, and hoped it would be carried without being suffered to be impaired by those parties who were interested in the existence of the abuses of the country. In presenting another Petition from New Lanark, complaining of Distress, of Taxation without Representation, and praying for a repeal of the Corn Laws, the hon. Member expressed his regret at the absence of the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, and of the hon. member for Waterford, both of whom had attacked him last night, as the present petition would have shown them, that he was correct in his observations. The present petitioners prayed for the abolition of the restrictions on the importation of corn, and also that the people might not be called upon to serve in the militia, or to pay taxes, until every kind of retrenchment was adopted, their grievances redressed, and a full Reform granted in the Commons House of Parliament. He had, however, been attacked by those hon. Members, so that between Sawney and Blarney he had enough upon his hands.
Mr. O' Connell,Mr. O' Connell, who had just then entered the House, said, that he could easily reply to the charges made against him by the hon. member for Preston. He begged to congratulate the hon. Member on becoming the oracle of the Tories, who now continually quoted him on all important occasions. The hon. member for Preston represented the people of England as if they were like the dog with the meat crossing a brook, and anxious to throw it aside in order to catch hold of that which was impracticable —the shadow. The hon. Member was certainly urging the people of England to look after the shadow and forget the substance. He was, in fact, a mock reformer, and not a real one. He was not a substantial corrector of abuses, but appeared to be rather anxious to pull down all the establishments of the country — while, on the contrary, he (Mr. O'Connell) was quite willing, when an opportunity offered of correcting abuses, to sacrifice the theory of Reform to its practice, and to accept the benefit. Nay, more —when he found that that Government, which had commenced prosecutions against him, were about to concede Reform to the country, instead of compromising with them, as had been charged against him, he made no compromise, but he did sacrifice his personal feelings to lend them

1351
his support in conferring a benefit on the country. As, however, the hon. member for Preston was thus injuring the cause of Reform, he would make a present of him to the Tories altogether. He mistook what had fallen from him (Mr. O'Connell), and misrepresented him accordingly; and, without accusing him of selling himself to the Tories, he must say that he had also mistaken and misrepresented in like manner the people of England. He did not mean to say, that he had been bought, for he did not think that he would sell himself to the Tories, or that they would buy him; but he had certainly shown them that he was a lumping pennyworth if they were disposed to purchase.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, that, in the absence of the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, he would say, that he entirely concurred in every thing which had fallen from him on the previous evening. He would not charge the hon. member for Preston with having sold himself, for he was incapable of doing so, but, notwithstanding his respect for him, he must say that his conduct was suspicious. He believed, that the hon. Member had elicited the opinions of the few hundred thousand persons of whom he spoke on a former evening, by putting leading questions to them, such as "Would you not rather have no Reform than such a Reform as this?" to which a multitude like that would naturally reply in the affirmative. The sentiments the hon. Member stated were not the sentiments of the people of England.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, that he had never known any measure give so much satisfaction as the present. There were not, in the whole kingdom, 5,000 persons who would be found to disapprove of the measure. He thought it a remedy for all present evils, and he had no doubt that in any future House there would be individuals fully competent to carry on the business of the country. He merely rose, in consequence of his connection with large bodies of men, to give his contradiction to the statements which had been made.
Sir Henry Hardingeobserved, that as the hon. member for Waterford had complimented the hon. member for Preston in having gone over to the Tories, the hon. member for Preston might compliment the hon. member for Waterford in having gone over to the Whigs. The hon. Baronet, the member for Lewes, had stated, that when
1352
he went to his constituents, there were only one or two who approved of the Bill. He (Sir H. Hardinge) understood from undoubted authority that the freemen of Lewes were persuaded that the Bill would not answer its objects, and that they had come to a resolution, in the event of a dissolution, of again returning their present Representative, who opposed the Bill, to Parliament. In Northamptonshire there was any thing but a universal feeling in favour of Reform. He rather believed that an anti-Reform feeling had been expressed not only by the property of the county, but by a large majority in point of numbers.
Mr. Kennedysaid, that the persons in Scotland from whom this petition emanated were peculiarly satisfied with the Reform Bill. In Paisley there was a universal feeling of satisfaction. He was sure that no hon. Member could contradict the statement that at a meeting at Paisley, unexampled for numbers and respectability, a universal feeling of satisfaction was expressed.
Mr. Hunthoped, that the House would bear with him for a short time, having been attacked in the way that he had been. How often had he said, that the people were run wild in favour of this cause? He was heard at the Common Hall of the City of London with great complacency in favour of the Bill, but the moment he endeavoured to say any thing to show, that it would not have the effect which was expected, he was no longer favoured with a hearing. He had stated, that the whole country were running wild with such a degree of unanimity as he had never before beheld in this country. There was, however, a reaction beginning; and he would observe, in answer to what had fallen from the worthy Alderman, that he had had today two deputations from the City of London (he had had one yesterday), to invite him to take the chair at a meeting of the operatives, to express their disapprobation of the Reform Bill; but he had declined, having otherwise more business than he could manage. Situated as he was, between Caledonia and Hibernia, he had quite enough to do. He was ready however to face the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, either there or elsewhere. What he had said was, that he was about to present a petition from new Lanark, praying to be relieved from taxation, unless they were represented in Parliament. That was all that he had said. The hon. mem-

1353
ber for Waterford talked something about Paddy. He had said nothing about Paddy. What he had said was, that he had been attacked by Hibernia, on one side, overpowering him with tears, and Caledonia threatening great heat and fire on the other; and that between "Sawney" and "Blarney" he was very nearly overwhelmed. Everyone would think, after the speech of the hon. member for Waterford, that "Blarney" was applicable to him. The hon. member for Waterford had said that he (Mr. Hunt) had made an attack upon him. Attack! what attack did he make on the hon. and learned Member? He should not have said a word, unless he had been previously attacked. The hon. Member did not charge him openly with any thing, but he insinuated something in the same way as he had accused the hon. member for Weymouth. "Now Sir (said Mr. Hunt), I do not insinuate, but I boldly and plainly tell him, in the face of this House, and in the face of the country, that he trafficked with the Marquis of Anglesey for the very office which Mr. Doherty now holds. There would have been no agitation about the Union, if Mr. Doherty had not got the situation instead of him. Mr. Bennett was the go-between in the negotiation. The hon. and learned Member accused him of having sold himself to the Tories — let him prove that. Whatever the hon. and learned Member for Waterford might say about his being no Reformer, and about the hon. and learned Member himself being a real Reformer, he knew that he had shown himself a Reformer. He appealed to the House —he would not appeal to the hon. and learned Member —yes, he would appeal to the hon. Member whether he had a double way of shooting? He would appeal to the country whether he had expressed one sentiment to-day and another to-morrow? He had always been the advocate of Universal Suffrage and Vote by Ballot. The hon. member stated at Clare that he was in favour of Vote by Ballot and Universal Suffrage. It was the hon. and learned Member, therefore, that was the shifter and not he. The hon. and learned Member had declared at the election for Clare, that he was the advocate of Universal Suffrage and Vote by Ballot; and it was therefore, the hon. Member that had shifted his ground. The hon. and learned Member agreed with the Ministers —so did he to a certain extent —but he was not
1354
satisfied that their measure was an unmixed good, and, therefore, he could not say so. He could not change his sentiments because the hon. member for Waterford did. There was a discussion last night. on the discontent which existed in Clare. Did that hon. and learned Member not think, that a great part of the discontent in Clare arose from his having broken his promises? He had promised them, that when he was in Parliament he would move for a Repeal of the Act for disfranchising the 40 s. freeholders. The hon. Member had not done any such thing. For his own part he had never consented to disfranchise any man. He must unequivocally say, that the people of England, who had been running wild in favour of the Reform Bill, were recovering their senses, and that the seven millions of adults who were not to receive any share of the franchise by this Bill, were no further in favour of it than, as he had before stated, because it would make an inroad into that system which was disgraceful to the whole country. With regard to the measure itself, though what he might say of it would be said to be a proof that he had joined the Tories, he must observe, that alterations in it were necessary, and alterations had been announced. The noble Lord who announced them gave one version of those alterations, the hon. Secretary for Ireland had given another, and the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had given a third, which was different from the two others. Probably all these Gentlemen meant the same, but, from want of consulting with each other, they did not agree in their stories. He begged to ask, then, what they did mean? A petition had been presented from Warwick for the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill —yet now the Bill was to be altered. Nothing of that which he had always contended for was to be granted by the Bill, and he, therefore, was not content with the measure. He had attended a meeting in Somersetshire a fortnight ago, and at the close of that meeting the people had come to an unanimous resolution in favour of Vote by Ballot. The members for Somersetshire were not then attending their duty in the House, as they had not attended their duty at the meeting, he would not, therefore, present the petition. As to his constituents, he was not afraid to meet them —he was not afraid of the threat held out in The Times of this

1355
morning, of a dissolution; he did not object to a dissolution, and was not afraid of his seat. If his constituents objected to his conduct, let them only say so, and he would accept the Chiltern Hundreds. What did he gain by sitting there till two o'clock in the morning, or what could he gain? Neither the Tories nor the Whigs had anything to give him which he would accept of. If ever he should accept anything, let the House and the country form such an opinion of him as he had of the hon. member for Waterford.
Mr. Cutlar Ferguson,Mr. Cutlar Ferguson, in reference to his statement on the former evening, explained, that he had said the whole population of Scotland were, he believed, in favour of the principle of the Bill, but they did not agree in all its details and in all its provisions. Two or three counties with which he was connected had declared in favour of the principle of Reform, but they did not like the sweeping nature of the Bill. One county in which the people had declared m favour of the Bill, objected to reducing the rate for voting so low as was intended, but that was not the case with the majority of his constituents, and he believed with the majority of the people of Scotland. There was one occasion on which the hon. member for Preston must have been, he believed, much misreported. He had been made to say at a meeting of the people in Manchester, that "he would let them into a secret which they could not learn from the news-papers, because there was a conspiracy between the Ministers and the Reporters to carry the Bill. The Ministers had openly avowed in the House that they had called in one million of the middle classes to take a share in the Representation, in order to keep down the lower classes, that they meant to raise the volunteers again, that they might keep their hands in the pockets of the people, and that the people might not escape their present work" [hear, hear! from Mr. Hunt]. He was sorry to suppose, that the hon. Member meant to justify such language. Did he mean to say, that Ministers had avowed that they introduced a million of voters to keep down and crush the lower classes? He denied, that such language had ever been used in that House by the Ministers. If the hon. Member avowed such language, he must justify it. He supposed that what he had said was not a fair report of what the hon. Member
1356
had spoken, and he mentioned it, that the hon. Member might contradict it. He could not conceive anything more mischievous, anything more likely to hold up that House to the contempt and even to the indignation, of the people. The hon. Member had stated, that the Ministers had done nothing to reduce the price of bread. or diminish the hours of labour. Could it be expected of any Reform Bill that it should reduce the price of bread or diminish the hours of labour? He expected nothing of that kind from Reform. He expected that Reform would make that House a more faithful guardian of the public purse. Wars would not have been so frequent, so wasteful, and so expensive, and would sooner have been put an end to; the nation would not have been so heavily taxed, nor have groaned under its present load of debt, had the people been fully and fairly represented. But to say that Reform would reduce the price of bread or diminish the necessity for labour, was absurd. He could not wish his greatest enemy a greater evil than to propound a plan of Reform, of Universal Suffrage and Vote by Ballot, on the ground that it would make bread cheap and labour light, and afterwards to meet the disappointed people. Such language was extremely dangerous, and he was astonished that the hon. Member had not disavowed it.
Major Macnamarasaid, that he was on the hustings at Clare, at the election of 1829, and then the hon. member for Waterford had made no such promises as had been stated by the hon. member for Preston.
Mr. Francis Baringsaid, that the petition could afford no evidence of what were the feelings of the people of Scotland as to the Reform Bill; for it was dated March the 4th, before the people who had signed it could have known the contents of that Bill.
Mr. O'Connellwould not have taken any notice of the observations of the hon. member for Preston, had he not introduced the names of the Marquis of Anglesey and of Mr. Bennett. As he was quite sure that, as to them, the charge was unfounded, as far as Mr. Bennett was concerned, he said, unequivocally, that it was totally without foundation. As to the Marquis of Anglesey, the hon. Member probably knew nothing more of him, than that he had seen him ride about the streets on

1357
horseback; and be was sure, that as to him the charge was also unfounded. As to himself, he would assert, that since that House had been constituted, a charge more completely unfounded never had been made. The hon. Member must now shift his ground.
Mr. Huntrose to say, that the report alluded to by the hon. member for Kirkcudbright was a false report. He had stated nothing at Manchester that he had not staled in that House. He had stated in that House, that what fell from the member for Calne was, that in the opinion of Ministers the Bill was calculated to unite the middle classes to the higher classes and the Government, and keep down the rabble. That was stated by the hon. member for Calne. He had repeated it; and it was placed on record in The Times. The principle he had stated was, that with the proposed Reform there would be a perpetual Corn-law, and therefore bread would be no cheaper; but that, with a properly reformed Parliament, the Corn-laws would be abolished, and bread would be cheaper. A reformed Parliament would get rid of the Corn-laws, but a Parliament reformed by the Bill, would only make the Corn-laws perpetual. A Parliament reformed as it ought to be, would make corn cheap, clothing cheap, and labour less. He had stated that; and he had stated that, with a reformed Parliament, it would not be necessary to work sixteen hours a day. A reformed Parliament would relieve the people from pensions and taxes. A reformed Parliament would not have voted away the money of the people as the present Parliament did last night when the Civil List was before them; and, therefore, he was friendly to Reform of any kind. He meant nothing offensive to either party, but he must say he was neither Whig nor Tory, and he expected nothing, and would take nothing which it was in the power of either party to give. He required no protection from any one, for he hoped, as long as he had a seat in that House, that he should be able to protect himself. With regard to the hon. member for Waterford (Mr. O'Connell), he repeated, that there had been propositions to give a place to that hon. and learned Member sent to Lord Anglesey by that hon. Member, not only once, but twice or three times; and he was satisfied, that if they had been successful, there would have been no agita-
1358
tion in Ireland. He did not know this of his own knowledge, but he had seen Mr. Bennett, who was acquainted with the whole proceedings. The member for Waterford called on the hon. member for Weymouth to allow his case to be brought before Parliament. Was the member for Waterford ready to allow these proceedings of his to be brought before the House? Let him call for an inquiry, and he (Mr. Hunt) should be able, he thought, to produce abundant evidence of the transactions to which he alluded. He could name two Members of that House who were present with him at the time when Mr. Bennett told the whole of the story. The member for Waterford accused him of a desire to get place; let him answer now for himself. He (Mr. Hunt) had never asked for any thing in his life, nor had he ever desired to have any thing offered to him; for, he repeated, he could not, and would not accept it.
Petition laid on the Table.
Mr. Humesaid, he had a Petition to present from 700 Shipwrights of the Thames, in favour of the Reform Bill. He particularly wished to direct the attention of the House to this petition, because it gave an answer to those who asserted, that the lower classes were adverse to the Bill. These petitioners declared, that they expected the advantage of good Government from the progress of Reform. They were satisfied that their condition would be improved by it; and he very much doubted whether there were 200,000 persons in the country who did not believe that the Bill would be advantageous, and that a great boon was given to them by the measures of the Government.
Mr. O'Connell Mr. O'Connell, on the question that the petition be laid on the Table, begged to say a few words in explanation; and it would be really few. The hon. member for Preston had charged him with having negociated with the Government for a place, but he had not pretended to say, that he (Mr. O'Connell) was a party to any of these negotiations. If Mr. Bennett said, that he (Mr. O'Connell) had any knowledge of, or any connection with, negotiations of that kind, all he could say then was, that Mr. Bennett had given utterance to that which was totally untrue. He believed, however, that Mr. Bennett, when he heard of the assertions of the hon. member for Preston on this subject — and hear of them he should on the first

1359
moment when his present residence was ascertained, so that a letter could reach him —he believed, he repeated, that Mr. Bennett would be quite ready to contradict what had been attributed to him by the member for Preston. He did not believe that Mr. Bennett had made such a statement; but if he had, then all that he could say was, that Mr. Bennett, and not the member for Preston, had calumniated him.
Petition to be printed.

PETITIONS FROM SCOTLAND.
Lord William Graham Lord William Graham, in presenting a Petition against the Reform Bill from the county of Dumbarton, complained of the sweeping nature of the plan proposed by the Government, and observed, that Ministers had drawn their line with a very impolitic hand, for, by the present arrangement, the influence of many counties would be totally absorbed by that of others.
The Lord Advocatesaid, the petition presented by the noble Lord was agreed to at a meeting, which was not numerously attended, and on a division, thirty-six persons voted against, and twenty-five in favour of, the Reform Bill. The petition, therefore, emanated from a very small majority. A meeting of a different description —a meeting of the landholders, and including a great portion of the wealth and respectability of the county — was about, however, to be convened, and he was confident that the result of their decision would show a very different feeling with respect to the Reform.
Lord William Grahamreminded the noble Lord, that the majority which decided at the late meeting against the Reform Bill, was composed of men who had twice the amount of landed property in the county which could be claimed by the minority.
Mr. Charles Douglassaid, that the county of Dumbarton contained 27,000 inhabitants, according to the Census of 1821, and under a new system, of which population was one of the bases, it was certainly entitled to a larger number of Members than that allotted to it by the Bill.
Mr. Kennedywas surprised to hear so much importance attached to the petitions from the counties of Scotland. A few gentlemen assembled in a room in Edinburgh, and determined to oppose Reform, presented a petition from the city of Edin-
1360
burgh. Then they got up another petition, which they called the petition of the county of Edinburgh, and, being Magistrates of various counties, they proceeded afterwards to them for the purpose of swelling the majorities in favour of petitions of the same description. He entreated the House to look at the divisions which had taken place in different counties on the subject of the Bill, and to take into their consideration the number of persons who decided the fate of the petitions compared with the real amount of the inhabitants. In Banffshire, where there were 43,000 inhabitants, a petition was agreed to against the Bill, at a meeting where there were thirteen persons, four of whom were in favour of Reform, and nine against it. In Berwickshire, with 33,000 inhabitants, thirty-three persons met, and there certainly they were unanimous against the Bill. Then came Dumbartonshire, in which the petition against Reform was carried, as stated by the Lord Advocate, by thirty-six to twenty-five. He admitted there was a majority of persons of property against the Bill, but the members of the minority had greater property elsewhere. Then came the county of Elgin, with 31,000 inhabitants, in which there was a meeting of nine persons. Haddington, with 35,000, in which there were eight in favour and four against; and Roxburghshire, in which the petition was carried by forty-seven to twenty-three. In that county, however, there was a real meeting of the landholders and inhabitants on the next day, and they were unanimous in favour of the Bill. In fact, wherever the real opinions of the people could be collected, apart from those of the voters for the rotten borough system of Scotland, they were unanimous in favour of the Bill. It appeared, indeed, to him most extraordinary that, under such a system, so many persons of property should be found to vote at county meetings in favour of the plan of Reform.
Sir George Murraydeprecated the use of such language with reference to the county votes of Scotland. The hon. Member, sitting as he did for a set of close boroughs, had been decrying the counties of Scotland, and applying to them, most improperly, the same language which he would use with respect to the rotten boroughs of England. If the hon. member for Preston had used such language with respect to Scotland, he could have under-

1361
stood him, for it was consistent with his avowed opinions on the subject of Universal Suffrage; but it certainly appeared strange that an hon. Member, well acquainted with the nature of the mode of election in Scotland, should characterise the county voters in such terms as those used by the hon. member for Ayr, and decry property, while he cried up the influence of numbers. The hon. Member, in his attempt to prove that all Scotland was in favour of the Bill, had alluded to the county of Roxburgh. Now he happened, by accident, to have in his pocket a letter from Sir Thomas Brisbane, the gentleman who presided at the second county meeting, to which the hon. Member alluded. Great importance had been attached to the opinions of that second meeting, and he would therefore, with the permission of the House, read a short extract from the letter. Sir Thomas said in it, "When I attended the meeting of the county of Roxburgh, to petition in favour of Reform, it was because I believed it to be a Government measure, and before the introduction of the Bill which, I must say now, I consider far too sweeping in its provisions." This was a specimen of that re-action among a higher class, which the member for Preston had already described as having taken place among a lower. That change had taken place among men of education and property, as well as among the lower classes. He never denied that some amendment could be made in the system of Representation in Scotland; but he was satisfied that the plan of substituting for the old a totally new system of Representation would be productive of very injurious consequences. He applied himself particularly to Scotland, because he was better acquainted with that country than any other. He could say of it with sincerity, that its county Representation was as pure and independent as any to be found in England. For himself, he could declare that he was as free to act according to his judgment as any Member of that House. When he was solicited to stand for his native county, for which he had now been returned four times, and the honour of representing which he prized above all other honors, he had expressly stated, that he would connect himself with no party, and bind himself to follow no course of political conduct, save that which appeared best calculated to promote the interests of his country.
Mr. Kennedy Mr. Kennedy, in explanation, denied that he had decried the influence of property, and said, he used the term "rotten" with reference to those voters who possessed franchises for counties without any property whatever in those counties.
Sir James Mackintoshobserved, that the fact of Sir Thomas Brisbane having presided at a second meeting, after attending the first, proved beyond question, that he did not think the first meeting expressed the true opinion of the county of Roxburgh. If the right hon. Baronet spoke of the freeholders of Scotland as being properly represented, or as not desiring some better Representation, he laid himself open to a total contradiction. In some cases they did agree with the opinions of the people of property against the Bill, as other persons agreed with its opponents; but the great majority were decidedly in its favour. The reason why Scotland had increased in prosperity and wealth under the present system, was not because it was a sound one, but because the Constitution of England protected her, and the Representation of England was spread over her as a shield, to guard her from the consequences which might have followed the defects of her own.
Sir G. Clerkwas not a little surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman extol the merits of the English Constitution, and speak of the Representation of England as forming a shield for the protection of Scotland, at the very moment when he was using his utmost exertions in support of the Bill which totally changed the nature of that Constitution, and the Representative system which was connected with it. How, he would ask, could the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his praises in the one case with his censure in the other, and say, that system of Representation should be destroyed which he at the same moment admitted to have formed the protection of Scotland from the abuses of the system which prevailed in that country. He contended that those who were opposed to the Scotch Reform Bill formed a vast majority of the men of property of that country; and although the Bill was drawn by the Lord Advocate, and the Government declared they would have that Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, he believed that not a single individual in Scotland was fully satisfied with its details, and he suspected that the noble Lord himself contemplated many

1363
alterations and modifications of its provisions in the Committee. If the Bill passed in its present shape, every person in the country saw that it would be impossible to refuse any, even the most extensive changes which might afterwards be demanded from them.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusondefended the Representation of Scotland, and contended that its Members were returned by a constituency as pure and incorruptible as any in the empire. The counties of Scotland, although they had few voters, were never bought and sold like the boroughs of England. No man ever came into the market to dispose of the Representation of a Scotch county. The voters were men of integrity and independence, and their property secured them from all improper influence.
Sir G. Warrender Sir G. Warrender, after the best consideration he could give the subject, and after attentively examining the opinions of the country, was compelled to come to the conclusion that popular elections must take place in Scotland, and that the present system would not be much longer preserved. All he hoped, and all he asked, from the learned Lord was, that he would give the recommendations contained in the petitions laid on the Table their due attention, and avail himself of their recommendations to improve the details of the Pill. He approved of the principle of the measure, but he objected to that part of it which went to the disfranchisement of some of the boroughs; although he had no objection to a more popular election at counties.
Colonel Lindsayremarked on the inconsistency of the hon. Baronet, who said he approved of the principle of the Bill, while at the same time he disapproved of the disfranchisement of the boroughs. For himself, he was strongly opposed to the measure. The people of Scotland were in the enjoyment of property, intelligence, and happiness; but the learned Lord was not satisfied, he wished to give them politics.
Mr. John Bailliegave his cordial support to the Scotch Bill. He was opposed to the English Bill, which took a great deal away, and gave very little; but the Bill for Scotland took little or nothing away, and gave a great deal. As an instance of the absurdity of the present system, he stated, that in one of the counties of Scotland he had what was called a Superiority,
1364
the value of which was only a few shillings, but which gave him a vote; while in the same county he had an estate worth a thousand a year, in right of which he had no vote at all.
Mr. Henry Scottsaid, that among the landed proprietors of Scotland, there was undoubtedly a strong feeling against the measure which the Government had introduced. They looked upon it as violent and sweeping, and calculated to place the whole power of the elections in the hands of persons of little or no property.
Mr. John Campbellstated, that a large majority of the county of Fife was in favour of the measure. There had been no meeting of that county, because the convener, by whom alone a meeting could be called, being hostile to the Reform Bill, resolutely refused to call a meeting.
General Gascoyne General Gascoyne, with reference to the statement of the hon. member for Middlesex, that there was only one opinion in Scotland with respect to the Bill, and that that was in favour of it, remarked, that it now appeared that no fewer than seven counties in that country had petitioned against it. All that had taken place with respect to the Bill proved how inconvenient it was that a Cabinet Minister did not bring forward a Cabinet measure. There certainly was a general understanding that the noble member for Tavistock had on Tuesday abandoned an important part of the Bill; although yesterday the members of his Majesty's Government appeared to be enraged at the supposition. The noble member for Tavistock certainly did say one thing on one night, and another thing on another. With respect to the instruction to the Committee on the subject of maintaining the proportion in the Representation of the three kingdoms of which he (General Gascoyne) had given notice, he had hoped that the necessity of his interference on the subject would have been obviated; but as that was not the case, he should certainly feel it his duty to persevere. As it was quite impossible that the House could be called upon to pronounce at once upon Monday on the new propositions which the noble member for Tavistock intended to submit, it would be convenient to know what previous time would be allowed for consideration; and he begged to ask the noble Lord what course he intended to pursue?
Lord J. Russellsaid, that it was evi-

1365
dent the gallant General wished to avail himself of his (Lord J. Russell's) answer to his question, as an assistance to him in his plan of defeating the Bill. On Monday he would state explicitly what were the alterations which it was proposed to make in the Bill; and when the House had heard that statement, they would be better able to say what course of proceeding ought to be adopted.
Mr. Henry Faneobserved, that if his Majesty's Ministers had made up their minds with respect to the alteration which they intended to propose, it was their duty at once to state it; if, however, they were merely watching the shifting of every blast of public opinion, they were adopting a wise course. On a subject of such vast importance, it was surely not too much to ask for a few days' deliberation. In his opinion, the real principle of the proposed Bill was, to traffic in the suffrages of the people of England; to sell one man and buy another; to sell one country and buy another; to induce Scotland and Ireland to support the Bill by reducing the Representation of England. He begged to put these distinct questions to the noble Lord —whether it was in contemplation to propose any alterations in the Bill? and, if so, whether they were to be absolute, or to depend on contingent circumstances?

PROVISION FOR THE QUEEN.
Lord Althorpbrought down a Message from his Majesty, which was read by the Speaker, and which was to the following effect: —
"W. R. —His Majesty, trusting to the affectionate regard of his faithful Commons, both for his Majesty and for the Queen, recommends to them the immediate consideration of a provision for maintaining her Majesty in her Royal dignity, in case she should survive his Majesty."
On the Motion of Lord Althorp, it was ordered that his Majesty's most gracious Message should be referred to-morrow to the consideration of a Committee of the whole House.

AMENDMENTS IN REAL PROPERTY LAWS.
Mr. John Campbellmoved for leave to bring in Bills to amend the law respecting Inheritance and Descent, respecting Dower, the Courtesy of England, Fines and Recoveries, and Limitations of Actions. The hon. and learned Member
1366
said, that the measures he was about to submit to the House were the results of the inquiries of the Commissioners appointed to investigate the laws as to Real Property. He did not expect, therefore, that they would meet with any opposition. The first Bill to which he wished to call the attention of Members respected the law of Inheritance and Descent. He did not propose to touch the law of primogeniture, which, as it prevailed in this country, was infinitely to be preferred to the law of equal participation, now prevailing in France, where its unfavourable effects upon agriculture were already making themselves felt. But some anomalies connected with that law it was desirable to remove. A father, for example, could not inherit from his child; so that, if a son died without a will, his estate would rather vest in the Crown than go to the father, pursuant to the maxim of law, that land cannot lineally ascend. He proposed to remove that anomaly, and allow a father to be the heir of his own child. Another anomaly was the exclusion of the half-blood; so that if there were two sons by different marriages, and the estate went to the eldest, and he died the second son could not inherit of him, and the estate would rather vest in the Crown. He proposed that the half-blood, under, such circumstances, should be entitled to inherit, with this restriction, that the full-blood of the first possessor should be preferred. Thus, if three sons, the eldest by one marriage, and the two others by another, one of the younger children should have an estate, and die intestate, the father should in the first instance inherit, and afterwards the descent should be, not to the eldest son, but to the youngest, so that the full-blood of the first possessor might have the preference. The next point was, the law of Dower, by which a widow was at present entitled for her life to one-third of any land of which her husband was seised at any time during the coverture. That, perhaps, was a convenient rule in ancient times, when land was the only property: but now it was most inconvenient, being always evaded by conveyances and limitations to trustees to bar dower. Such proceedings to evade a bad law were, however, productive of great delay, inconvenience, and expense. He proposed, that the widow should only be entitled to a life-interest in one-third of the real property of which her husband was

1367
seised at his death, undisposed of by will, thereby assimilating this part of the law to the law of copyhold property. He should propose that a widow should be entitled to dower out of the trust estates of which the husband dies seised, which she is not at present; and which would be an ample compensation for any loss widows might sustain by the other part of his proposition. The next subject to which he wished to call the attention of the House was that of Courtesy; —that is, the right the husband has to the lands of his wife on her death. At present he was entitled to the whole of her land for his life, if he has had issue by her, and although her children by a former husband might be wholly unprovided for. He proposed that the husband should be entitled to the whole of the wife's lands for his life, whether there were issue or not. Such was the disposition of the property naturally prompted by affection, and it was absurd to say, that it should depend upon there being issue of the marriage, a rule founded in the customs of feudal times. But children by a former marriage ought to have some provision from the mother's land; and he, therefore, proposed in such cases that the husband should have a life-interest only in one half, the other half going at once to such children. Fines and Recoveries were the next subject to which he should allude, and it was most marvellous, that such barbarous modes of conveying property should have so long held their ground. It could only be accounted for, by lawyers, like other people, being reconciled to anything, however absurd and extravagant, to which they had been long accustomed; by many persons, having a private interest in preventing a reformation in the law; and by a number of officers depending for fees on Fines and Recoveries. Many persons in the profession were attached to the present system, and he had heard of one who said, he would rather suffer death than consent to its abolition. He meant to propose a mode of conveyance, by means of which a person would be able to accomplish in a few hours that which it required a considerable time to do by fine or recovery, and which was accompanied with great expense. There was another subject, respecting Property and Estates, he alluded to the limitation of right, upon which the law was most ineffective. Nominally, there was a limitation in the right of possession for
1368
sixty years, which was considered to give a good right; but, in consequence of the state of the law, even after sixty years' possession, a claimant might start up and deprive a man of his property. In case an alienation had taken place, or in case of lunacy on the part of a possessor, this period was held to be not sufficient. Thus, in every transfer of property, it was necessary to look into the title for a long series of years; which was attended with great expense, and great anxiety. He meant to propose, that the period of limitation should be twenty years, and that the undisputed possession of property for that time should, with some exceptions in cases of disabilities, give a complete legal title. Under some circumstances of dispute, this term was to be extended to forty years, but at the end of that period the title was to be unassailable. The hon. and learned Member, after complimenting Lord Tenterden for having brought in a Bill to settle the time of prescription as to Church Property, and after expressing his regret that the heads of the Church were opposed, as he had heard, to the noble and learned Lord's Bill, who was a firm and warm friend to the Church of England, concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the Descent of Real Property.
Sir Edward Sugdenseconded the Motion. He expressed his satisfaction at the measure taken by his hon. friend, no man being more satisfied than he was, that these anomalies required to be removed, and no one was more willing than he was, that these unnecessary and antiquated forms should be removed. He was not quite certain considering that fines and recoveries were invented by lawyers to prevent property changing hands, that they ought to be wholly done away with. There were also certain persons who had vested rights under the present law which could not be taken away without compensation, and he wished, therefore, to learn from his hon. and learned friend whether he had calculated the expense of his proposed alterations.
Sir Robert Peelstated, that he had the greatest confidence in the recommendations of the Commissioners, but he hoped that by none of these Bills would any patent places be created which it would be necessary hereafter for the public to buy up. He was afraid, that most of the Bills lately introduced to reform the law

1369
might be attended with some such effect. He alluded particularly to the Fraudulent Debtors' Bill which came from the other House under which receivers were appointed who in any future alteration of the law might demand compensation. He trusted that the noble Lord (Lord Al-thorp) would take care that no such places were made by any of these Bills. He saw much to approve of in the measures proposed, but he wished to reserve his opinion as to their details.
Sir Charles Wetherellalso expressed his general approbation of the measures, but suggested whether fines might not be advantageously retained. He would also take the liberty of saying, in reference to one remark which fell from his learned friend at the close of his speech, that he was one of those who thought like the heads of the Church, that the Bill introduced into the other House relative to prescription as far as it regarded Church property, might be productive of mischief. He had the highest opinion of the Law Commissioners, but he did not think himself bound to assent to their recommendations, and should therefore examine the Bills closely before he pledged himself either to support or oppose them.
Mr. Cramptonapproved most highly of the proposed, measures, and hoped that they might be extended with some necessary modifications to Ireland. He must at the same time say, that all the details of the measures would require to be maturely weighed, and the greatest caution ought to be used in adopting them.
Mr. O'Connellalso expressed his approbation of the measures, and in particular of the other Bill brought in by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the General Register Act, which he thought would greatly enhance the value of landed property. He could only attribute the opposition which had been got up out of doors to that Bill to interested motives, and trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would persevere in his plan and bring forward the Bill as soon as possible.
Mr. Campbell Mr. Campbell, in reply to Mr. Crampton, said, he must leave the project of extending these Bills, should they pass, to Ireland, to some of the learned Gentlemen connected with that country. He should be content if he could accomplish his object as to England. With reference to an observation of the hon. member for Water-ford, he had to observe, that he should
1370
consider it his duty to the people of England to press for the second reading of his Registry Bill to-morrow—the day for which it was fixed. If it were not read a second time to-morrow, he could not hope to see it passed this Session.
Mr. Keith Douglasssaid, that it would be extremely unfair to the hon. member for Weymouth (Mr. F. Buxton), if any thing were permitted to take precedence of the Slavery Question to-morrow. He therefore trusted the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would use his utmost influence, to postpone the second reading of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill. Unless the Slavery Question had precedence, it would be impossible to discuss it to-morrow.
Lord Althorpdeclared, that certainly no exertion should be wanting on his part to endeavour to induce the hon. and learned Gentleman to postpone his Motion. He felt himself bound in honour to the hon. member for Weymouth to do his best to secure him the precedence.
Mr. Campbellwas not aware of the difference in the privilege of Government, and of individual Members; nor did he know whether Government had or had not authority in such matters [none, none.!]. But he certainly did still feel disposed to press for the second reading of the Bill.
Leave given to bring in a Bill to amend the law respecting Inheritance and Descent and to allow parents to succeed as heirs to their children; and collateral relations to succeed as heirs to each other, though of the half blood; also a Bill to amend the law respecting Dower, Estates by Courtesy, and the law respecting Entails, Remainders, and Reversions.
Mr. Keith Douglassrequested to know what course was to be pursued as to the Slavery Question?
Mr. Campbellsaid, that the importance of the measures he wished to bring under the consideration of the House was so great, that nothing but force should compel him to yield precedence to any other; and he reminded the noble Lord near him, that he had been before disappointed in his endeavours to procure a night for the discussion.
Lord Althorpobserved, that as the Reform Bill stood for discussion in the early part of next week, it would be impossible for him to promise that any particular day should be afforded to the hon. and learned Gentleman; but as the hon. and learned

1371
Gentleman was aware that the Ministers viewed the Bills he wished to introduce in a favourable manner, he might rest assured that they would do what they could to facilitate the object he had in view.
Mr. Campbellknew so well the candour of the noble Lord, that he should feel perfectly easy at putting himself into his hands.
The second reading of the Registry Bill postponed to Wednesday next.

CIVIL LIST.
Lord Althorpmoved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Civil List Bill. He stated, that he had drawn up a clause according to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which he should now lay before the House, proposing to add it as a rider to the Bill. He saw no necessity for it but as it could do no harm he had complied with the suggestion.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that, as far as he was able to observe, he did not see any objection to such a clause. With respect to the Bill itself, he must say, that it seemed to him to differ from every one that had preceded it. This Bill, for the first time, dissociated the expenses of the Civil Government of the country from those that were required to maintain the dignity of the Crown. When he proposed the bill uniting both these objects, he had not done it merely because he desired not to depart from former precedents, though he certainly had no wish to depart from them, but because he thought that the welfare of the country would be best consulted by uniting both. In his opinion both reason and good sense required that union, for he did not think it advisable to present the Monarch of this country to the people for grants merely for his personal dignity and comfort, but as dispensing favours and offices, and as dispensing rewards for the performance of the business of the country. As this bill had presented the King in the former light only, it appeared to him objectionable. It might, indeed, be thought that at first it would be supposed the Crown had given up 400,000 l. of its expenditure, but in the present state of the information of the public upon this subject, it must be clear that no one in or out of the House could suppose for a moment that such a saving had been effected. The present arrangement of the Civil List had been made at the desire of those who said they wished
1372
to be able to compare the charges of the present Civil List with those of the Civil Lists of former periods; but he believed that when the present Civil List came to be examined, those who had desired the new arrangement would have little reason to view it with approbation. So far was it from being simplified, that he would venture to assert, it was more complicated and involved than it had ever been before. In a Paper, which he unfortunately had not seen till this morning, he found that arrangements had been made for those sums which had not been provided for in the Civil List; and that circumstance alone was sufficient to show that no simplification had taken place. He would give some examples of this. In the first instance, it was intended in the present Civil List that the Crown should retain the power of superintending not only the business but the sports of the country. The Crown, therefore, had the disposal of sums of money for plate to be run for at races, and 4,500 l. were annually expended in that manner, in order to encourage the breed of horses. Now that sum was made up in the following manner:—The larger portion, or sum of 2,400 l., was taken from the Civil List, 1,880 l. were to be voted in the Committee of Supply, and 220 l. were fixed as a charge upon the Consolidated Fund; so that on one item alone, which was, strictly speaking, an item of royal expenditure, there were no less than three different sources from which the gross amount was drawn. With respect to the Yeomen Guard in Ireland, the arrangement of the payment to that body had been made for the convenience of the House, as the annual discussions on that branch of expenditure had been found highly inconvenient, yet the present Civil List Bill proposed to go back to the old system which had before been given up at the desire of the House itself. The same was the case with respect to the Royal Palaces, for which a sum of 51,400 l. was to be given from the Civil List, and 1,300 l. was charged upon the Consolidated Fund. With respect to charitable donations, the confusion was very great—13,200 l. were to be taken from the Civil List, 4,500 l. were to be voted in the Committee of Supply, and 2,250 l. were charged upon the Consolidated Fund. He should ask those who were the advocates of simplification, whether these instances exhibited any improvement in that respect? It might be supposed

1373
that the expenses for the offices of the several Orders of the Garter, the Bath, and St. Patrick might be all put upon the same footing—but that was not the case; for while some were charged upon the Civil List, others were fixed upon the Consolidated Fund. Me thought, therefore, that under these circumstances those who looked for a simplified expenditure would find themselves much mistaken. The real amount of the Civil List was what it had been before. The provision for the King was much the same as that which he had proposed. He felt numerous objections to the present Bill; but, as he thought that the grant to the Crown ought to be made in as gracious and considerate a manner as possible, he should offer no objection to it; and, therefore, he cordially gave his approbation to the Bill notwithstanding its many defects.
Mr. Humesaid, that if he had expected the right hon. Gentleman would have made this charge, he would have brought down papers that would have answered it. The whole of the last Civil List Bill was one mass of incongruities. He wondered that the right hon. Gentleman could stand up in his place and defend such a plan of the Civil List, against one which was founded on a plain and intelligible principle. The former mode of conducting the public accounts had been one mass of mystification, so that he did not wonder the right hon. Gentleman should feel regret that the plan was now so altered, that any man out of doors could understand what had formerly been quite unintelligible to the greater number of Members of that House. The right hon. Gentleman was in a dilemma, for no man could take up the present Bill without knowing what was the amount of that branch of the expenditure of the country, but if he had looked at former Civil Lists, or at that which had been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman in the beginning of last November, he would find that it was impossible to discover any one principle of classification. He (Mr. Hume) bad never been able to understand the principle of the distinction made with respect to various public officers, some of whose salaries were charged upon the Civil List, while others were differently provided for. He was so far from agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman as to the impropriety of the present principle of the Civil List, that he thought it was for the honour and interest
1374
of the Monarchy that all the items of the Civil List should be fairly laid before the public, so that the people should not attribute to the King an expenditure with which his Majesty had really nothing to do. Under the old system the public saw 1,057,000 l. voted for the Civil List, and great numbers among them believed that all that amount was required for the personal expenses of the Monarch, for his Majesty and his household. The change effected was calculated to put an end to this error. The right hon. Gentleman was the only man in the country who thought that the change was not beneficial. The late Pension List was not, as it affected to be, the Pension List of the Crown, but of the creatures of the Ministry; and pensions were granted to ladies among the rest, most of which pensions, he would venture to say, were unknown to his Majesty. He regretted that the present Civil List so far imitated the old as to retain the Pension List. He had wished to get rid of it, and was sorry to say, that he had been left in a miserable minority on the point. He was, however, so thoroughly convinced of the necessity of removing this Pension List from the other items of the Civil List, that when the opportunity occurred he should move to reduce the amount of the sum to be granted to his Majesty by the whole amount required for these pensions. He trusted, that the House would then show that they wished to conform to the opinion of the country on that point. He thought that the present Government was entitled to the thanks of that House and of the people, for the reduction they had effected in the hitherto overwhelming amount of money paid for our Embassies to Foreign Courts. The expenditure on that head had never been in the least degree diminished during the two last reigns, and the salaries, by being fixed in the Civil List, could not be interfered with by that House, which could not review a grant for the Civil List after it had been once made. He thanked the present Ministers, therefore, for having so far adopted the recommendation of the Committee, as to put the salaries of Ambassadors on a footing that would enable that House to regulate them in future. The salaries of the present Ministers were about to' be reduced, and the Ministers would take care that the salaries of other men should be brought under the review of that House, which never could

1375
have taken place under the old system. The next item to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) objected, was the taking of 100,000 l. from the Irish establishment; and it was very true, that if the Civil List of the right hon. Gentleman had been carried, the House would have had no control over that part of the expenditure. After that, the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to the hereditary payments in Scotland, 51,000 l.; but he (Mr. Hume) should be glad to know why any of them should be placed out of the cognizance of Parliament? The present arrangement, by which the Civil List beyond the control of Parliament was reduced from 970,000 l. to 510,000 l., was a most important advantage to the community; and he hoped,. therefore, that the House would sanction the change. He hardly knew how to notice seriously the remarks to which the right hon. Gentleman had been driven, when he lamented so bitterly 4,000 l. hitherto given, as he contended, for the encouragement of the breed of horses, should be taken from the Civil List. The Civil List, as it formerly existed, was certainly well calculated for the encouragement of the breed of another and an inferior description of animal? but, under the new system, he (Mr. Hume) saw no sufficient reason for retaining even the plates for running horses. It was not it that the public money should be so spent, while the people were starving; and if country gentlemen liked to have sport, it ought to be at their own expense. After lamenting over the decay in the breed of horses, the right hon. Gentleman very naturally descended to the Board of Works, and bemoaned the change that was to be made in this department.
Mr. Goulburninterposed to save time; he had not bemoaned the Board of Works, but merely expressed an opinion that the new arrangement would not simplify the matter. His remark regarding the breed of horses was of the same nature.
Mr. Humewas very glad to find, that he was mistaken on the point, but really the right hon. Gentleman had no very extraordinary talent at rendering himself intelligible. Perhaps he (Mr. Hume) was in error also as to the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's positions; he had understood him to bemoan the departure from the good old sinecure system of our ancestors; but, after all, he might be well satisfied
1376
with its abolition; and he (Mr. Hume) should sit down in the expectation that the vote in favour of the third reading of the Bill would be unanimous.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, that if hon. Members would so condescend, it would be easy at any time to obtain such a triumph as had been just achieved by the hon. member for Middlesex. The cheers of the three or four hon. Gentlemen round him were certainly an ample recompense, and worthy of his ambition. He was not aware that he had made any admission in favour of the alteration in the Civil List, which, among others, was open to the great leading objection, that the money was to be paid out of three funds instead of one. This change was anything but a simplification.
Lord Althorpadmitted, that the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward two or three instances of want of simplicity in the present plan, but he had studiously omitted the enormous confusion of his own miscalled arrangement. To show the doubt that was thus created, he would mention, that when he (Lord Althorp) came into office, he did not know the amount of his own salary—a point upon which, probably, the right hon. Gentleman was not equally in the dark. He had thought that it was something more than 3,358 l. a year, but to his great surprise he found that it was 5,000 l. a year. The difficulty arose out of the complication of accounts. It had been thought right to separate from the Civil List all that related to the general government of the country, and this point had been gradually approached ever since the passing of Mr. Burke's bill. The five heads into which the Civil List was divided were these— first, Privy Purse; second, Salaries of the Household; third, Expenses of the Household; fourth, Special Services; fifth, Pensions; and what had been done regarding running horses was merely this— to remove from the Civil List the sums paid for this purpose in Ireland and Scotland. It would be for the House to decide whether it would continue this arrangement, for it was one of the benefits of the proposed change, that if it were hereafter found disadvantageous, a different course might be adopted. One principle on which Ministers had proceeded was, to let the people see that the enormous sum hitherto supposed to be expended by the King, was not in fact all

1377
for the support of royalty. For this reason, the sum for charities in Ireland and Scotland had been removed from the Civil List, and the salaries of the Board of Works would also be voted in Supply. He did not mean to say, that the accounts were now as simple as they might be rendered, but he contended that they were a great improvement upon those which the right hon. Gentleman had laid upon the Table.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the noble Lord might have readily ascertained what his salary was, through the patents in his office. The noble Lord, in addition to being Chancellor of the Exchequer, held an appointment as a Lord of the Treasury; and thus the salary was enhanced to the amount the noble Lord had mentioned.
Sir M. W. Ridleyobserved, that in the country, nothing was less understood than the payments for the Civil List; it was generally supposed that the King had, hitherto, had the uncontrolled command of 1,200,000 l. per annum. Such, in future, would not be the fact, even with regard to the much smaller sum of 510,000 l.; but of this he was sure—that the people of England would think the benefit of a Kingly Government cheaply purchased at that expense.
Mr. Courtenaygave notice, that after the Bill had been read a third time, and before it was passed, he would move an Amendment, to render it more precisely what it pretended to be.
Mr. Maberlywas astonished that even the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) should be so bigotted to his own plan as not to admit at once the superior advantages of that by which it was superseded. The Monarch was thus relieved from a degree of odium that hitherto had been most unjustly attached to him. It was true that in the Committee he (Mr. Maberly) had supported the proposition of the hon. member for Middlesex, for discontinuing pensions even to the reduced amount of 75,000 l. upon the Civil List. He still adhered to that opinion; but he saw, nevertheless, the clear benefits of the other parts of the measure of the noble Lord, and he was ready also to admit the impossibility of making calculations on this subject with nicety so as to avoid the necessity of a contingent account to the amount of 5,000 l. or even 10,000 l. If the present Government had proposed a plan for the Civil List much more ob-
1378
jectionable than that in the Bill, he should have felt himself called upon to support them, as the servants of a Monarch who had already done so much for his people, and who, by the great measure now pending, was about to confer on the country one of the greatest blessings it had received from the hands of a Monarch, since the era of Magna Charta. No Government had ever stood so well, or deserved to stand so well, with the public, or had redeemed its pledges so fully and so faithfully.
The Bill read a third time.
Lord Althorpproposed a Clause, to provide expressly that the charges in Schedules 2, 3, and 8, and no others, should be chargeable upon the Civil List.
Mr. T. P. Courtenayproposed a short clause, by way of rider, to the effect that no branch of the Civil Government was to be provided for by the Bill.
Mr. D. W. Harveyreferred to a motion he had formerly made regarding the department of the Woods and Forests, and stated his intention hereafter to renew it. His principal object in rising was, however, that it might not be supposed by his silence that he concurred in the arrangement made in the Bill regarding the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. He thought himself at liberty, though he assented to the Bill, to bring forward any motion he might think proper hereafter on the subject of Crown Lands.
Colonel Davieswas afraid that, under this new Bill, part of the sum of 510,000 l. a-year might be applied to swell the salaries of the great Officers of State, instead of being devoted, as it was intended, to support the dignity and provide for the" comfort of the Crown. He must also complain of the disrespectful mode in which Ministers had treated the Report of the Select Committee on the Civil List; they had, in fact, thrown it in the face of the Members, and had declared that they would not be bound by any of its recommendations.
Lord Althorpsaid, his hon. friend was in error. The excess in any branch of the Civil List might be appropriated to make good the deficiencies on any other. It was quite a mistake to represent the Government as flinging the report of the Committee in the face of the Members.
Mr. Briscoealso regretted that Ministers had not attended to the recommendation of retrenchment contained in

1379
the Report of the Select Committee. The country had a right to expect that every practicable saving, however small, should be made. Nevertheless, he supported the measure, for the reason stated by the hon. member for Abingdon (Mr. Maberly), that Ministers deserved well of their country for the great improvement they were about to effect in the Representation.
The Clause agreed to, and ordered to be inserted in the Bill.
Mr. Humerose for the purpose of proposing that something be struck out of the Bill, the effect of which would be, to take from 510,000 l. the whole proposed amount of the Civil List, the sum of 75,000 l. allowed for pensions. This reduction would leave 435,000 l. per annum Nott, at the disposal of the King, and would relieve him from a degree of painful responsibility in the distribution of the Royal bounty. He held in his hand a paper shewing the individuals to whom George 4th had granted pensions, and hence it appeared that many had been given to persons whose services had deserved no reward. Did hon. Members consider how much the pensions had increased the National Debt? In the late reign the amount of the sums granted in the way of pensions in England was 890,000 l.., in Ireland 194,000 l., and in Scotland 349,000 l.; making altogether 1,939,000 l. paid in pensions, not one in ten of which was merited. Notwithstanding all the pledges which various Administrations had made of economy, here was nearly two millions of the public money thrown to the dogs, for scarcely one of these pensions was merited. The pensions, instead of being rewards for services, were given for other purposes; for the instances were few in which any services whatever had been performed. He altogether reprobated the system of giving pensions, except for great services and meritorious conduct; and it would be far better to pay people liberal salaries, and compel them to provide, out of those salaries, for their maintenance in their old age. In America they gave no pensions to public servants, and yet public business was as efficiently performed as in any other country whatever. He should, therefore, move that the sum of 435,000 l. be inserted in the Bill instead of the sum of 510,000 l. thus excluding the sum of 75,000 l. appropriated for pensions.
Mr. Huntseconded the amendment,
1380
and said, that he was induced to do so because he had presented no less than sixty petitions to that House, praying for a reduction in the public expenditure; and he thought few items called for reduction more loudly than those on the Pension-list. He should divide the House upon the amendment of the hon. member for Middlesex; for he was aware that out of doors those discussions were called sham debates in which no division took place.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he had so often stated his opinions upon this matter, that he should decline, at the present time, to enter into any arguments on the subject. He should only remind the House, that the present amount of pensions was only about half what had been formerly proposed, and he trusted, therefore, that, it would be considered that a sufficient reduction had been made.
Mr. Alderman Woodregretted that he should be under the necessity of voting against Ministers on the present occasion. He could not avoid doing so, however, when he witnessed the distress of the country. No less than 300 persons had recently been summoned before him, for the purpose of being compelled to pay the taxes; and their poverty was such that they were wholly unable to do so, unless indulgence was granted to them. He was obliged to give them fourteen days' time, or else to send them to prison or seize their goods. When he had witnessed all this so recently, he felt bound to vote against the application of money, wrung from such persons, to persons who had no right to it, and who were wholly undeserving of it.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, he understood the hon. member for Middlesex to contend that no pensions should be granted until they were, in the first instance, submitted to the consideration of that House. He was opposed to his proposition, for there would be no economy in it. On the contrary, if every pension were to be submitted to party discussion from time to time in that House, it would be found in the end that the Pension-list would be far greater in amount than the sum now proposed. The amendment involved a most important principle. If it was meant to be contended that the Crown should be stripped altogether of the power of re- warding merit by means of a pension, without applying to that House, he must say

1381
that he could not consent to such a proposition. At present these pensions were not beyond the control of Parliament, for any Member might call for a return of the manner in which the funds had been distributed. He gave this explanation lest a silent vote should be misconstrued; and he meant to oppose the amendment on principle.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that he could not agree with the argument of the hon. member for Colchester, that submitting pensions to be canvassed by that House, as guardians of the public purse, before they were granted, could have the effect of increasing their amount. To hold such a doctrine was actually a libel on the Parliament, for, imperfect as it was in its formation, it still could not be said that it would so wholly abandon its duty. It should be remembered that it was more than probable, at least it was the general expectation, that we should have a new Parliament within the year. Now these pensions were granted for the life of the King; and as every one must expect, as well as hope, that his Majesty would live much longer than a year, it would be far better to establish the Civil List without the pensions and leave them to be dealt with by the new Parliament called under a new and a better system, in which Parliament they would doubtless meet with proper investigation.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that he should feel it his duty, as a guardian of the public purse, to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Middlesex. He felt confident that if the matter were to be submitted to Parliament, though the pensioners would be liberally dealt with where pensions were merited, yet a stop would be put to the wasteful and unwarrantable expenditure which had been carried on under the present system.
The House divided on the Question that the sum of 510,000 l.. stand part of the Bill; when there appeared, for the Motion 72; Against it 17; Majority for the original grant 55.
Mr. Humethen called the attention of the House to the vote of 45,000 l. for three Princes of the Royal Blood. He wished that this vote had been contained in another Bill, for he did not see how it was connected with the Civil List. He should be glad if all the items which were clearly exclusive of the Civil List had been kept out of it. The three items to which he al-
1382
luded were 15,000 l. to the Duke of Cumberland, over and above the sum of 6,000 l. to Prince George; 15,000 l.. to the Duke of Cambridge; and 15,000 l. to the Duke of Sussex. Three times he had known resolutions passed in Committees to the effect that it was necessary to bring back all these allowances in a degree proportionate to the old value of the currency. When prices were very high, in the year 1806, the House of Commons, expressly on that ground, granted an addition of 6,000 l. a year to the salaries of each of the Princes of the Blood, and the state of the country at that time gave those Princes a fair claim to such increase of their salaries. In 1822 that House had moved an Address to the Crown, that all salaries might be reduced as he had stated. A Committee which had recently sat had reduced the salaries of Ministers; and, upon similar grounds, he thought the House was called upon to reduce also the salaries of Royal Dukes, now that prices were below what they were in 1806. He thought they ought to be dealt with in the same manner as other individuals. The hon. Member then moved that the salaries of the three Royal Princes I whom he had named should be reduced in j the sum of 5,000 l. each. They had been j raised in 1806 from 12,000 l. to 18,000 l.,! but he now moved, that they should be brought back to 13,000 l. each.
Lord Althorpadmitted, that it was the province of the House to reduce salaries; but, in this instance, the House had not the power to do it. These particular allowances were by Act of Parliament, the 18th of George 3rd, which empowered him to divide 60,000/. amongst his younger children; the grant not to take effect till after his death. This was part of the hereditary revenues which it was not in the power of his present Majesty to give up to the public; and it was on that ground only that this particular charge came into the Civil List.
Sir George Warrenderagreed that the reduction could not take place without repealing an Act of Parliament. He should be sorry to take away a moderate allowance granted by Act of Parliament. He thought his Majesty's Ministers had distinctly redeemed all the pledges they had given to the country; he knew that further measures of economy were in progress, and he had the greatest confidence in Ministers.
Colonel Sibthorpwould vote against the

1383
hon. member for Middlesex, as he did not think the sum granted too much.
Mr. Huntsaid, that these salaries, as he well remembered, had been increased in the year 1806 or 1807, on account of the high price of provisions, and ought now to be reduced.
Mr. Humeobserved, that as his motion could not effect his object, he would withdraw it.
Colonel Daviesmoved an Amendment, that the second class be reduced to 118,700 l., and that there should be added to the third class the sum deducted from the second class, 11,300 l. He could not do otherwise than complain of the conduct of Government, who in the course they were pursuing with respect to the Civil List, were doing precisely the same thing which lost the former Ministers their places. They were acting in direct opposition to the recommendation of the Select Committee, who called for a certain reduction, though a small one. In wishing to take from the second, and to add to the third class, he was anxious to provide for the splendor and dignity of the Crown, instead of making a large provision for noblemen whose incomes were already very large.
The Speakersuggested that the Motion ought to stand as follows: — "That 130,300 l. be omitted, and 118,700 l. be inserted in its stead."
Lord Althorpsaid, that the Motion was not, in fact, diminishing the amount of the grant. The object of the Motion was, to prevent his Majesty granting salaries to household officers as they hitherto had been granted. The Bill, as it stood, did not prevent his Majesty from doing it, nor did it compel him to do it. He certainly never had pledged himself one way or the other that salaries should be reduced, or kept to what they were. He wished it to be left to the discretion of his Majesty. If his Majesty chose to reduce the salaries, there would be a surplus to be applied to the Third Class.
Sir M. W. Ridleywas surprised that the gallant Colonel had made a proposition so unbecoming in the House to adopt, and so insulting to his Majesty—viz. to take it out of the power of his Majesty to make such disbursements as he might please. The House, he was sure, would not approve of any proposal of the kind. It was, in fact, saying, "We will give you so much, but we will restrict you from the
1384
absolute disposal of that sum of money, which must be expended as we think fit."
Sir Robert Batesonsaid, that as the late Ministers had gone out upon this question, he thought his Majesty's present Government would be acting a most inconvenient part if they did not uphold the decision of the Committee. He would move that a sum of 12,000 l. be deducted from the Second Class of 119,000 l., and he should not think of transferring it to any other class. He should not be deterred from dividing on the question now, because the Reform measure was coming on next week. He concluded by moving, as an amendment, that 11,500 l. be deducted from the Second Class.
Mr. Huntsaid, that although the sum was small, it would be great in the eyes of the people. He hoped his Majesty's Ministers would not let it go forth to the country that on this occasion they had resisted this small economy.
Mr. Fylersaid, the proposition of the gallant Officer would not benefit the country at large, as it would only shift the expense from the second to the third class, at the same time that it would appear most ungracious to his Majesty.
Mr. Charles Douglassaid, he would vote for the original proposition.
Mr. Humesaid, that as the proposition of the hon. member for Londonderry went to remove entirely the sum of 11,500 l. from the aggregate of the Civil List, and not merely to shift it from Class Two to Class Three he should support it, because he would never sanction the principle on which Ministers were acting—that of opposing the recommendation of a Select Committee.
The Speakerwished, before the discussion proceeded further, to explain to the House the situation in which it was placed. The first proposition was, to take 11,500 l. from the Second Class, and add it to the Third Class, and this they could do. But then came the second proposition, which was, to take away altogether the sum of 11,500 l. Now, as the whole amount of the Civil List was voted, if this amendment were agreed to, it would have the effect of leaving that sum wholly unappropriated.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, that on the principles of economy and reform, which he had always maintained in and out of the House, he must support the amendment of his hon. friend, the member for Londonderry.

1385
In supporting his amendment, he did not conceive he was in any degree restricting the comforts or conveniences of the Royal person. If he did, he would not support it.
Mr. George Robinsonthought it not derogatory from the dignity of the Monarch, or in any manner lessening those comforts which the people of this country were disposed to allow him, to give a vote in support of the recommendation of the Select Committee,—that 11,529 l. should be reduced from the salaries of the officers of the Second Class. The House, he admitted, was not bound by the recommendation of the Select Committee, but he thought some cogent reason should be given why it should not be attended to; and he, not having heard any such reasons, would give his vote in favour of the amendment.
The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place, the amendments were negatived, and the Bill passed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Annual Indemnity brought up from the Commons, and read a first time.
Petitions presented. For the Abolition of Slavery, by the Archbishop of YORK, fifty from Rippon, Harrowgate, and other places in Yorkshire.

THE BEER BILL.
The Earl of Malmesburysaid, that the Magistracy of the country had had some opportunity of ascertaining the effects of the Beer Bill which had been passed in the last Session, and he thought it proper that the attention of the House should be called to the subject. He should at present content himself with moving for certain Returns which would enable their Lordships to form an accurate judgment of what the effect of the Bill had been throughout the country, and particularly in the agricultural districts. He wished the House to be put in possession of information on the subject, for it was his opinion, that the Bill had, in its operation, been of a pernicious tendency, and in saying this he par-
1310
ticularly alluded to the agricultural districts. He wished to ascertain the number of licenses that had been taken out under the new Act, and he should move, that there be laid before this House a Return of the number of Licenses for the sale of Beer that had been taken out under the Act of 10th George 4th, c. 64, to the latest period to which the account can be made out, distinguishing the several counties in which such Licenses had been granted.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that it was not his intention to trespass upon the time of their Lordships, but he wished to take the present opportunity of merely saying a few words, lest it should otherwise go forth to the public, and particularly to those who had an interest in the Bill, that his Majesty's Ministers felt themselves averse from the measure that had been passed in the last Session of Parliament. The fact was not so; and his Majesty's Government, in applying for information on this subject, had no other object in view than to make themselves acquainted with the truth, and to ascertain if the charges made out against the Bill, were well grounded or not. When he proposed, on two occasions, in the other House, a Bill of this nature, it was a special object with him that beer should not be allowed to be drunk on the premises where it was sold; but his Majesty's late Government, having made particular inquiries on the subject, and having availed themselves of the evidence taken before the Committee, decided against his clause; and he, perhaps, though his mind was unchanged on the subject, was inclined to admit that they were justified in doing so. He would acknowledge that he was aware that great evils had arisen from the Bill, in one or two districts, and he particularly alluded to the counties of Hants, Wilts, and Somerset. The same effects, however, had not been produced in the northern counties, where he had the best opportunity of being acquainted with its effects. Neither the Clergy, the Dissenters, nor the landlords in the north, had made any complaints of the operation of the Bill, or of its effects upon the habits of the poorer classes. It was proper to examine into the subject carefully, and to scrutinize the nature of the proposed changes, for the mischiefs which might have arisen from the measure might be only temporary, and consequent upon a sudden change of system; for though all changes did occa-

1311
sionally produce evils, they were in some cases of a temporary nature, and were compensated by the ultimate working of the new system. Until the House were in possession of full information upon the subject, and until every precaution had been taken, he could not see the propriety of making changes in a law, under which so many vested interests had already been formed.
The Earl of Malmesburysaid, that inquiry into the subject was all he at present wanted, and he did not know that a better way of obtaining information could be devised, than that of granting a Committee.
The Earl of Carnarvonconceived, that the Bill, in its effects, had turned out to be a pernicious measure, and as vested interests were daily growing up under its protection, he thought that investigation ought not to be delayed.
Lord Skelmersdalethought, that the House ought to be put into possession of the answers which the Magistrates of the country had written to the circular letter which the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had sent throughout the country.
The Lord Chancellorexplained, that the evidence already produced upon the subject was sufficient to satisfy the minds of most persons. He was far from insinuating any thing against those Magistrates, that had reported against the Beer Bill, but at the same time he could not shut his eyes to the infirmities of nature, nor could he forget what was likely to be produced by the fact, that the Bill took from the Magistrates the only patronage possessed by a Justice of the Peace—the power of granting licenses. As long as nature was nature, as long as man was man, there was a frailty within him, which would bias his judgment, and one person would see an object in a very different point of view from another, according as their interests were differently affected by it. He was far from impugning the Magistrates, but nevertheless, from the causes he had stated, their reports must be considered in some instances, and to a certain degree, as drawn up under a bias of the judgment.
The Earl of Malmesburysaid, that he felt some surprise that the noble Lord upon the Woolsack should impugn the whole Magistracy of the country, and declare that every Magistrate was capable of mak-
1312
ing an official report under the influence of a bias produced by his personal interests. He believed, on the contrary, that the Magistrates were incapable, from any such motives, of giving incorrect information to the Executive Government. It was, in point of fact, quite ridiculous, that the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department should address the circular he had addressed to the Magistrates of the country, if his Majesty's Ministers had entertained of them such opinions as had been that night uttered by the noble Lord on the Woolsack. He had no desire to press his Motion; but he certainly did wish to know what was the number of houses that had been licensed under the present Bill.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that it was indifferent to him whether the Returns were pressed for or not, and in that particular the noble Earl might take the course which he thought best; but it was not a matter of indifference to him to be held up to the public as having made an attack upon the Magistracy of the country which he never had made, and which it had never been his intention to make. He appealed to their Lordships whether what he had said, could bear the shadow of a shade—the show of a semblance—of an attack upon the Magistrates? He had always admitted, that the Justices of the Peace were a useful body of men—useful professionally, judicially, and in every respect, and he was far from impugning them, or impeaching their conduct. All that he had done was, to suppose them not exempt from the general laws of our common nature, and to state that Ministers ought to bear this in mind when they were called upon to judge, not of the evidence, but of the opinions of the Magistrates. He would defy any man, or body of men, to be exempt from what was the common lot of all men, and all men would have their opinions biassed by a system under which they enjoy power, and be inclined against a change by which that power was to be taken from them. If he had not taken this opportunity of meeting the noble Earl's accusation in the way he had done, the charge of his having attacked the Magistrates of the country would have been repeated here and in other places; and it would have gone forth that his Majesty's Ministers were adverse to the whole body of the Magistracy. The observations which he had made were not

1313
in favour of any measure which had been introduced by himself or his friends, for the Bill in question had been brought forward by their predecessors in office.
The Marquis of Salisburymaintained that the Bill had not worked well as far as the morals of the lower orders were concerned; but yet it had not been found to have all the bad effects which had been attributed to it.
Lord Melbournecould state, on the part of the Ministers, that they had not made up their minds with respect to the Bill. He was desirous of having the best information upon the subject, and he thought that longer time ought to be taken to ascertain how the Bill actually worked. Measures of this sort, undertaken by Ministers, were always attended by the inconvenience of disturbing the public mind; but complaints had become so extremely numerous, that he should have thought he neglected his duty if he had not taken steps to obtain full and clear information upon the subject. He entertained great respect for the Magistrates, and he considered that their replies had afforded him very full information upon the effects and operations of the Bill; but being at the same time well aware that the imputations which had been now urged against them would be cast upon the Magistrates, he had also directed a circular to other bodies of men. He had felt, that the subject was of great and permanent importance to the morals and well-being of the country, and that the closest attention should be given to it. He hoped that the Bill would ultimately be found beneficial.
Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS AGAINST REFORM.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that he rose to present to their Lordships a Petition from the important county of Edinburgh, against the Bill which a noble Lord had introduced into the other House, for the object of Reforming the Representation in Parliament. So many occasions had lately been taken to depreciate county petitions, that he felt himself called upon to vindicate the rights of the landed interests to speak their opinions, without being misrepresented, upon matters of such high importance. The meeting from which the petition had proceeded was not what was commonly called a hole-and-corner meeting. It was a meeting called by a public requisition, and it was openly held in the
1314
county hall. Some persons were not inclined to pay much attention to county petitions unless they were numerously signed; but if the property and rank of those who attended a meeting gave any consequence to a petition, he should claim the utmost deference to that which he had then to present. He could take upon himself to say, that there were few persons at the meeting in question who were not the representatives of landed property. A difference of opinion had prevailed at the meeting, but it had subsided, and the result was, the voting of a petition praying, that the Reform Bill now before the House of Commons should not pass into a law. The petition stated, that the petitioners, though against the Reform Bills, were not averse to such a Reform as would be consistent with the established Constitution of the country. This, he must confess, was a new feature in petitions from that part of the United Kingdom from which this petition came (Scotland), shewing that the question of Reform was no longer one of principle, but a question of degree. What degree of Reform the petitioners might be pleased with, it was not for him to say, and perhaps they might not go so far as he was inclined to go; for he thought it essential for the safety of the institutions of the country that the measure of Reform should go far enough to conciliate the opinions of the great bulk of the intellect and respectability of the country. The petitioners prayed that the right of voting should be continued to all places at present possessed of it, and in this prayer he cordially agreed. The principle of disfranchisement was dangerous in itself, and fraught with the most evil consequences, and the qualification of 10 l. was not founded in any established principle whatever. The petitioners next speak of the manner in which the Reform Bill would affect the interests of their own county. They did not object to the granting of Representatives to large manufacturing towns, nor to the general regulation of elections; but they protested against dividing the Representation of counties, and thus depriving them of the privileges they had enjoyed for many centuries, and which had been confirmed to them by the treaty of the Union. If this alluded to what was proposed with respect to the counties of Selkirk and Peebles, he had no hesitation in saying, that in this particular the Bill ought to be altered. In his opinion, the

1315
time was come that the principle of popular elections must be introduced into Scotland. The petitioners stated, that the proposed plan of Reform would have the effect of subverting the due influence of property, and of giving the privilege of returning Members to persons of small possessions. If the Bill were to remain in its present state, he should certainly concur in the views of the petitioners. It was established by the returns before the House, that the people inhabiting towns would have the preponderance in returning Members who ought to be returned by the landed interest. The inhabited houses in Scotland amounted to 851,000 odd hundreds. The inhabited house-tax upon such of these as were rated at above 10 l. a year, amounted to 35,700 l. Of this 25,036 l. was levied upon houses rated at between 10 l. and 20 l. a year. The whole constituency of Scotland was calculated by the noble Lord who had introduced the Bill at about 60,000 and by the inhabited house-tax it would appear that more than one half of this constituency would consist of householders, and of these, 25,000 would consist of very small householders. He did not know, that the inhabited house-tax was any criterion, for taxation by the present Bill was not referred to. It was enacted, that the Sheriffs of counties were to decide the value of the houses, and if the owners thought themselves aggrieved, the appeal lay from the Sheriff alone, to the Sheriff and a Jury: and lastly, the appeal might be carried even to the House of Lords. The people of Scotland, therefore, dreaded the introduction of such a system of endless litigation, with all its consequences of fraud and perjury. He did not know upon what principle at present the house-tax was laid, for to his knowledge a great many houses worth more than 10 l. a year escaped taxation. By the clause in the present Bill, a house and land might be valued together, so that small houses rated at only 5l. a year, if they had a little land attached to them, would be valued at 10 l., and acquire the right of voting. The country would be overwhelmed by voters of this petty description. He was certain that very mistaken notions prevailed amongst people in England on this point, owing to the different manner in which buildings were managed in Scotland from the mode in which they were managed in this country. The Bill provided, that building
1316
leases should not give a right to vote unless where they were for 50 l. a year, but in Scotland, where buildings were leased out in perpetuity, the Bill would confer the right of voting. He was sure that it would be extremely difficult to strike out a proper mode for establishing a constituency in populous towns in Scotland; but in towns where there was a large population, his Majesty's Ministers, by carefully attending to all the suggestions which might be made to them from competently informed quarters, and by proceeding with due caution and deliberation, might be able to furnish a good system of popular election in Scotland, which would be understood there, which would lead to no chicanery, and which would be quite satisfactory. With regard to the whole measure of Reform, he trusted that when it came to be discussed, it would be recollected, both in that House and in the other House of Parliament, that while that measure introduced a great and important change into the existing state of the Representation, even in England, the change which it went to introduce into Scotland would be a complete and entire novelty; for in that country, during the last 300 or 400 years, except in some of the borough towns, nothing like a popular election had been known. In making that statement he only stated an undoubted fact, and it was one which rendered necessary the application of great caution and deliberation to the consideration of a measure which was intended to introduce a popular system of election into that country. There was no country in the world where all the relations and dependencies of social life were in a happier state than they were and had been in Scotland for many years, and he hoped sincerely and anxiously that nothing would come from Parliament which would tend to impair or endanger such a state of things. He would not take upon himself to say, that any thing which Parliament would do upon this subject would have such an effect; but nevertheless, it was impossible to contemplate the great change which it was proposed to introduce into Scotland, without anxiety as to its result; and he should be grieved indeed, if that result should be to disorganize the social relations at present existing in that country, for at such a rate political franchises would certainly be dearly purchased. He should not, on this occasion, go further into the general question, but would con-

1317
clude by stating, that the prayer of the petition was, that the Bill now before Parliament should not pass into a law.
The Earl of Roseberysaid, that as one of the largest landed proprietors in the county of Edinburgh, he felt called upon to make a few remarks on this occasion, both upon the petition which had been presented, and the statement which had been made by his noble friend who had just sat down. He was ready at once to admit, that several of the names attached to the petition were those of gentlemen of rank, of ancient family, and considerable property, in the county of Edinburgh. He would also say, that many others of the petitioners were known to him, either personally or by reputation,—that they were valued for their character and property, and that, in fact, all those who had signed this petition were men of respectability, whose opinions were undoubtedly worthy of attention. But there were two points connected with this and all other county petitions which had been or which would be presented from Scotland on the subject of Reform, which should never be forgotten when the value and importance of such petitions were to be duly and fairly estimated. The first point was, that county meetings in Scotland in no respect or degree whatever resembled county meetings in England. The county meetings in Scotland were not constituted, as in this country, of every description of persons of property and intelligence in the county. The county meetings in Scotland comprised a particular class of persons, many of whom had no property in the county in which the meeting took place. The second point to which he wished to direct the attention of their Lordships, as connected with those county petitions from Scotland, was, that the great majority of the individuals who attended those meetings were personally and directly interested in the opposing the change which it was proposed to make in the Representation of that county. He was not prepared to go into an analysis of this petition on this occasion, to demonstrate that it completely came under the class of petitions which he had just described; but, looking at the petition, he saw appended to it the names of several persons who had no property in the county of Edinburgh; and he was sure of this fact also, that several persons who were possessed of property in that county were debarred from attending the
1318
meeting at which this petition was adopted, because, owing to the peculiar constitution of county meetings in Scotland, they would have no voice there. The number of persons who had signed the petition was sixty-two, in a county the population of which, after deducting the population both of the City of Edinburgh and the town of Leith, amounted to 53,000. He begged further to remark, that it appeared from a return which had been laid upon their Lordships' Table, that in the county of Edinburgh there were 464 proprietors rated at 10 l. and upwards. Now he would contend, that until a meeting of the county of Edinburgh should be held, at which those 464 persons could attend and have a voice, their Lordships would not be able to ascertain the real feelings of that county with regard to the measure of Reform; and he was convinced that if such a meeting should be called, the petition which would be adopted at it would be of a very different character from that which had emanated from those sixty-two individuals. The observations which he had made on this petition applied also to the other petitions which were in progress from the other counties in Scotland. He had made out a list of the number of persons who had attended four or five county meetings in Scotland at which petitions had been adopted, and the English Peers in that House would be somewhat disappointed when they found what was the character of such county meetings. In the county of Perth—the largest in Scotland—a very opulent county, with a population amounting to 140,000, and containing, according to a return on their Table, between 700 and 800 persons rated for a property of 10 l. and upwards, the number that voted at a county meeting, convened to consider the question of Reform, consisted of a majority of fifty-eight against it, and a minority of thirty-six in favour of it, and that was what was called a large county meeting in Scotland. In the county of Banff, which contained a considerable population and a great number of landowners, the amount of persons that attended a county meeting, at which a petition had been adopted in favour of the measure, consisted of thirteen who voted for the petition, and four who voted against it. In the county of Moray, eight persons attended the county meeting, five of whom voted against Reform, and three in favour of it. In Selkirk, which was undoubtedly a small county, six persons

1319
attended the county meeting three of whom voted for, and three against the measure of Reform. In the county of Haddington, which was an opulent and wealthy county, the meeting was composed of twenty persons; no petition was adopted at that county meeting, but several speeches were made, and a variety of resolutions were passed, and twelve of the persons present voted against the measure and eight in favour of it. These details would show to their Lordships what was the real nature of Scotch county meetings —how they were constituted, as regarded those who could attend and vote at them; and having laid those details before their Lordships, he would leave them to judge whether petitions from such meetings could he considered as justly expressing the opinions of the landed proprietors of Scotland on this subject. For his part he would say, that neither the petition from the county of Edinburgh, nor the petitions from the other counties in Scotland, at all, in his mind, afforded an evidence, either as regarded property or as regarded population, of the feeling which existed in Scotland upon the subject of Reform. He hoped that under this qualification and reservation all those county petitions from Scotland on the subject of Reform would be for the future received in that House. He should not go further into a discussion of the general principle of the measure on this occasion than to state, that all who entertained the opinion that Reform was necessary in the southern parts of the kingdom, must be of opinion, notwithstanding the extreme novelty to which his noble friend had alluded, as applicable to such a measure, that Reform was doubly necessary in Scotland. In a country like Scotland, where every part of the Representative system required amendment, he was ready to admit, that the question ought to be entertained with caution and wisdom, but, he would also add, with sincerity, efficiency, and in good earnest. If the present opportunity for amending that system should be allowed to pass by, it might happen that no opportunity would hereafter present itself for effecting it. By introducing such a Reform into Scotland, they would at once elevate the character of the people of Scotland, and the character of their Representatives, rendering them more worthy of their confidence, and better calculated to discharge the important duties which devolved upon them as Mem-
1320
bers of Parliament. By introducing such a Reform there, they would demonstrate that there could not be a greater fallacy than that which had been advanced by many persons, and which he had often heard propounded with no lack of boldness but with an entire lack of argument,— namely, that the extraordinary prosperity of Scotland was attributable to the state of its Representation. He was of opinion that many persons who made that statement did not themselves believe it, and that those who did believe it had mistaken the means by which a great and beneficial end had been achieved. He should reserve what he had further to say until the time for discussing the Bill regarding Scotland should arrive, when he hoped to be able to point out some improvements, the introduction of which into the Bill would render it more perfect and efficient, and more analogous to the particular institutions of that country which it was intended to ameliorate. In conclusion, he begged to disclaim any want of courtesy or respect towards those petitioners, for to both his courtesy and his respect he felt that they were fully entitled: at the same time he had felt it his duty to exercise that freedom which, as a member of that House he possessed, in examining the distinct merits of this petition, and in pointing out to their Lordships the real weight which ought to be attached to it.
The Duke of Buccleughdid not deny the statement of the noble Earl who had just sat down, that this petition had emanated from but a small number of persons in the county of Edinburgh, but the majority of them were persons who had large properties there. He had no doubt that if they held out to the 464 persons to whom the noble Earl had alluded, the option of having a vote or not, that they would be for a measure which would give them the right of voting. It was a fact that the most mistaken notions were abroad in Scotland regarding this Bill, and he believed that by far the greater portion of the lower classes in that country were not aware of its real nature, or of what it would give them, and that they were totally mistaken as to the advantages which they expected to derive from it. He could inform their Lordships, that the prevailing impression amongst those classes in Scotland was, that this Bill would give them a right to vote in the counties; that after it passed there would be no more excisemen,—no

1321
more gaugers: that they should have a free trade; that whiskey would be cheap, &c. He was aware of the fact that such an impression had been created amongst the lower classes of the people in Scotland by persons who were going about the country there, exciting the most absurd expectations amongst the people, and industriously promoting an agitation, the fruits of which were witnessed in the riots that had lately occurred in Edinburgh. He could not understand why Selkirk should be disfranchised, or why it should be joined to Peeblesshire. But he should defer stating his reasons for objecting to the Bill altogether, until it had come regularly before them.
The Earl of Haddingtonpresented a similar Petition from certain persons who had not been able to attend the meeting at which the petition he had previously presented had been adopted. In doing so he begged to say, that he did not deny, that those petitions came from a small number of persons, but he only claimed for them that weight and attention to which their respectability entitled them. He only asked that respect for their petition, which would be given to the petition of the gentry of Hampshire or any other English county.
The Duke of Wellingtonpresented a Petition from the Noblemen, freeholders, Justices of the Peace, and Commissioners of Supply of the county of Dumbarton, complaining of the extensive and sweeping Reform which was contemplated by the Reform Bill as regarded Scotland. He observed that there was no part of the country which, during the last fifty years, had been more progressively and uniformly prosperous than Scotland; that was a fact which could not be disputed, and he remembered, with particular satisfaction, a remark which had been made once by a noble friend of his, whose loss at present he every day saw more reason to deplore, —he meant the late Earl of Liverpool,— that Scotland was in every respect the best-conditioned country in the world; yet this was the country into which his Majesty's Ministers proposed to introduce what the petitioners called "a sweeping Reform." He begged to say, that whatever might be the difference between the county Meetings in Scotland, and the county Meetings held in England and elsewhere, it was the duty of his Majesty's Ministers, particularly when they were
1322
about to propose a change which went to alter that which had been settled by the act of Union and by a solemn treaty between the two countries, to have consulted the opinions and wishes of the great landed proprietors in Scotland, before they brought forward a measure of that description.
Petition laid on the Table.
Lord Kingremarked, that seeing the importance which the noble Duke was anxious to attach to this petition, he supposed the noble Duke thought that the county Meeting at which it had been adopted was at least no farce.

PETITION IN FAVOUR OF REFORM.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that he rose to present a Petition on the subject of Reform, to which, notwithstanding the number of petitions which had been presented on that question, he felt it his duty to call the attention of their Lordships, not only on account of the number of signatures appended to it, but on account of the great respectability of the parties from whom the petition emanated. It was adopted at a public Meeting convened in the city of London, and held in the Egyptian-hall, consisting of the merchants, bankers, and other traders of the Metropolis; and when he stated that eight or nine tenths of those persons who came fairly under that description had signed this petition, —that in point of fact it had been signed by almost all the respectable merchants of London, and that altogether it had attached to it the names of about 9,000 persons, filling the rank of traders in London—he was sure that their Lordships would see that it was highly deserving of their attention. He was not desirous on this occasion to revive in that House the irregular, though certainly not useless discussion, upon the general subject of the measure which had taken place there previous to the late recess; but he could not avoid calling the attention of the House to the peculiar value of the opinions of that class of persons from whom this petition emanated. Having been one of those who had given their assent to this measure of Reform, solely on the ground that they thought it calculated to strengthen and render permanent the invaluable establishments under which we had the happiness to live, he was glad to find the opinions of persons who were most deeply interested not only in the permanency of our establishments, but in the continuance of the peace and the tran-

1323
quillity of the country, thus expressed in favour of the measure of Reform which had been brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers. He was rejoiced to find persons whose most valuable interests were closely interwoven with the existence of those institutions, and with the peace of the country, thus coming forward, after having maturely considered the details of the Reform Bill, and expressing their conviction that the adoption of such a measure by Parliament would tend most effectually to preserve the institutions, and the peace and quiet of the country, upon the preservation of which their interests so vitally depended. The proprietors of land were interested in the preservation of that tranquillity, but perhaps not so much as those who were engaged in trade and commerce. Should a storm arise, whenever it passed away real property would regain its value; but it was totally a different case with those whose wealth consisted in the circulating capital of the country. Even a temporary interruption of the public tranquillity might extinguish all their hopes, and destroy all their property. He therefore regarded this petition, coming as it did from such an important class of persons, as affording a strong argument in favour of the Reform which had been proposed by his Majesty's Government. The noble Marquis concluded by presenting the petition, which was ordered to lie on the Table.
The Marquis of Londonderrywas anxious to obtain some information from the noble Earl at the head of the Government, explanatory of his declaration on a former occasion, so far as that declaration was contravened by a more recent statement on the part of Ministers elsewhere. It might be remembered that the noble Earl had pledged himself to stand or fall by the Reform Bill now on the table of the other House of Parliament, and not to abate a jot of its provisions. Since that declaration, however, Ministers had seen reason to depart from their measure in several important particulars—of which it would be sufficient to cite their having renounced their intention of reducing the number of the Members of the House of Commons. The noble Marquis was proceeding to read extracts from Lord John Russell's speech, in order to show that that noble Lord had laid great stress on the necessity of a reduction of the number of the Members of the other House, when—
The Earl of Mansfieldrose to order It was irregular, he said, and contrary to the usages of Parliament, to make the alleged reports of what might have occurred elsewhere the subject of discussion in that House.
The Marquis of Londonderrywould not persist in discussing the speech of the noble Mover of the Reform Bill, though he could not see any impropriety or inconvenience in his doing so; and should therefore confine himself to a simple question— namely, whether Ministers meant to reduce the number of the House of Commons from 658 to 596 as they had originally proposed, or not? How they meant, in case they did not reduce them, to fill up the deficiency which their disfranchising clause, and the schedules A and B, would occasion? Whether, in fact, they meant to retain these disfranchisements like so many old bad notes to be issued at convenience.
Earl Greyconcurred entirely with the noble Earl opposite, who had risen to order, as to the inconvenience and irregularity of discussions founded on newspaper reports, however accurate, and on the merits of a measure which had not yet come before them substantially. He, however, would answer the noble Marquis briefly, but, he trusted, satisfactorily. The noble Marquis had reminded their Lordships of his (Earl Grey's) pledge delivered on a former occasion, to the effect that he would not consent to compromise the principle of the Reform measure, but would stand or fall by it as originally planned. The noble Marquis had correctly stated his declaration. He had said, that he would stand or fall by the principle of the Bill now in progress in the other House of Parliament; and for the satisfaction of the noble Marquis would then repeat his declaration, that he would not consent for himself or his colleagues to abandon a single principle of that Bill, but would stand or fall by it as it succeeded or otherwise. When he had, however, expressed his determination to thus stand or fall by the Reform Bill, he had also explicitly stated, that it was the principle of that Bill which he would not for a moment consent to compromise—for he was not presumptuous enough to imagine that there might not be defects of detail susceptible of improvement. The principle which Ministers had in view in bringing forward the measure was, to effect such improvements in

1325
the Representation of the people as the well-being of the country required,—in fact, to adapt the Representation to the institutions, to the wants, property, and intelligence of the country; and he would not consent to any alteration in the provisions—not to say the principle—of that measure, which was at all likely to interfere with this its great object. As a means to this end, and not as an end in itself, Ministers proposed to disfranchise certain boroughs incompatible with a pure system of Representation, and therefore they would not assent to any modifications of the means which might defeat the end they had in view. With respect to what the noble Marquis had observed touching a reduction of the Members of the other House of Parliament, he begged their Lordships to bear in mind, that that reduction formed no essential portion of the measure—that it was a question the merits of which were not involved in the success or merits of the Reform Bill. It was true that he and his colleagues did entertain an opinion that such a reduction would be advantageous to the public weal, and that a fewer number would contribute to the despatch of public business; but that opinion formed, he repeated, no essential element of their plan of Reform; and therefore not to insist on its enforcement could not in fairness be construed into a compromise of the principle by which he pledged himself to stand or fall. This opinion of the inconvenience of the present large number of the House of Commons' Members was not a new one of his. He had often asserted it, more particularly when the act of legislative Union with Ireland was under the consideration of the other House of Parliament. On that occasion he moved, as an amendment to the Bill, that 100 Members be taken off the Representation of England, to make room for the 100 new Members which Ireland was to send under its provisions, and the feelings of the majority of the House, and the then Government, were far from being-hostile to his proposition, the chief obstacle to the success of which arose from the principle of compensation to certain borough proprietors in Ireland having been recognised by the Government. His opinion, then, as to the advantages of a reduction of the number of the Commons, he repeated, formed no essential part of the Reform Bill, and was to be judged of on other grounds. Then as to some alter-
1326
ations which it was proposed to make in the details of the Bill, he wished it to be borne in mind, that they were so far from being opposed to its principle, that they only went to carry it into effect, and were only such improvements as more correct information suggested. Since the plan and objects of the Bill had been first announced to Parliament, Ministers had obtained more correct returns of the population of the boroughs and towns which it would affect; and the result would be a modification, in two or three instances, of the schedules A and B; but, as he had before said, no departure from the principle of the measure. The noble Marquis asked whether Ministers meant to propose that the number of the Commons should be kept up to 658, the present number; and if so, how they meant to fill up the deficiency which the disfranchising clauses would occasion. His answer was, that Ministers would not originate any proposition to make good this deficiency. Their individual opinions were, as he had stated, in favour of a reduction of the number; but if the House of Commons should, contrary to this opinion, agree that the full complement of 658 Members was expedient, he and his colleagues did not feel that they should therefore abandon the Bill of which this reduction was not an essential feature. If a deficiency should thus require to be filled up, he was not called upon to say how it might be done with advantage to the public. All he would say was, that he would not consent to its being filled up from schedule A, that is, from the boroughs proposed to be disfranchised altogether. Nor from schedule B, that is, from those boroughs which the bill would deprive of the power of returning more than one Member, but only in such a way as would conduce to the great object of the measure —the giving to the property and intelligence of the country their due share of Representation. The Government had no power or intention of doling out the right of sending Representatives like bank notes, as the noble Marquis thought fit to describe it. Their Lordships knew well what situation Ministers were in, and that they could not dole out the right of Representation as they thought fit. Ministers had no such power. It depended upon the House of Commons, and on that House to determine how the Representation should be apportioned. Any alterations that were proposed by Ministers should be on the

1327
principle he had stated. It was in strict accordance with the principle of the measure, to correct any errors into which the framers of the Bill had fallen from the errors in the population returns. There had been, and there should be, no alteration proposed or consented to by him or his colleagues, which was inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. He felt himself pledged to the character and efficiency of the measure, and to its principles, and from those principles he would not depart—and upon those principles, when carried into effect, he once more repeated, that he was prepared to stand or fall.
The Earl of Carnarvonhad, since he last addressed their Lordships, minutely examined the noble Earl's Bill, and could safely say, that one more extraordinary in itself, and more extravagantly mischievous, it had never been his fortune to peruse. The noble Earl said, he would stand or fall by its principle; but as yet they had to learn what that principle was. He really could not say what it was, unless, indeed, he could call it the principle of confiscation. Indeed, its leading principle was so difficult to discover, that its proposers had the right to claim the power of amending it The noble Earl who had just spoken, said the Bill was intended to make the Representation more consistent with the institutions of the country. He had looked through the Bill, and he could not find that principle in any part of it. Upon the proposed Bill, the whole power of the country was given to one description of voters. He undertook to say, that under the new Bill a great majority of the voters would be found amongst the lower classes. All house holders of 10 l. were to vote, and the amount was not to be estimated according to the assessment, but according to the value of the houses. Every one knew, that the assessment was considerably lower than the value, and therefore if noble Lords looked to 10 l. as assessed, and the sum giving the right of voting, they mistook the provisions of the Bill. Looking to other parts of the Bill they were greatly objectionable. Not less than eighty boroughs were to be left to the discretion of the Privy Council, because they did not furnish what was considered a sufficient number of voters. Thirty-nine, or nearly half that number of boroughs, did not contain a majority of the freemen within their precincts, and therefore all
1328
those boroughs might be said to be at the disposal of the Privy Council. After full, due, and mature consideration, such was the plan his Majesty's Ministers had brought forward for providing a new and a better constitution, and for preserving the settled institutions of the country, which were amongst the greatest works of man, and had given wealth, character, and reputation to Great Britain, and placed her at the head of all the nations of the world. The institutions of this country had also been proved to contain a principle of stability beyond those of any other country. The reason of this was, because the institutions of Great Britain had not been devised by any man, but had grown up with the habits of the people, and the country had prospered under them. He was not one of those who thought that, because the institutions of this country were good, they might not be improved and amended. Those whose eyes were suddenly opened, and who had become all at once Radicals, might ridicule his idea, that a Bill of Reform might become better by calm consideration, and that its details should be considered seriatim. If caution and deliberation were not used in any measure of Reform, it would not only tend to unsettle the Constitution, but to unsettle men's minds. In an article which appeared in the "Edinburgh Review," some years since, and which was forcibly and eloquently written, of which a person intimately connected with the present Government was generally known to be the author, it was justly stated, that the great practical excellence of the British Constitution arose from the immense variety of the rights of election which existed. The proposed Bill got rid of that variety, by extending the franchise to the householders in towns; so that popular clamour must always prevail, however it might be opposed to the good of the people, or the safety of the Crown. It had been thrown in his teeth that he had toiled through many unprofitable nights in that House, attending to the Bills for disfranchising corrupt boroughs. In the East Retford case, which was brought before the House last year, the voters were brought to the bar seriatim, to fix the guilt on themselves. Now, to the best of his recollection, the greater number of those who were brought to the bar of their Lordships' House, and confessed themselves guilty of bribery, were little tradesmen in small towns, men to whom the

1329
franchise was given under this Bill, as they were generally persons who occupied houses valued above 10 l. The boroughs, too, to which those voters belonged—such boroughs as Penryn and Retford—containing from 350 to 550 voters, were precisely the boroughs which were now to be established under this Bill. If the Bill, by establishing such a description of boroughs, and giving the right of voting to small tradesmen, secured the purity of election, and put an end to bribery, it would act contrary to all the facts derived from experience. One of the principles of this Bill rested on the basis of population. Now, upon that point he would only observe, that though Ministers had laid down that principle in theory, they had by no means followed it in practice; for if they had, they would have found that the basis of population would have hurried them on from one step to another, until every vestige of the Constitution had been destroyed. He looked upon this Bill as the most unprincipled measure that he had ever heard of; and by the term "unprincipled" he merely meant destitute of any fixed principle. It was a measure which had evidently been got up in a hurry by the present Ministry. Their friends had made foolish speeches to their constituents out of doors, and, to make good those extravagant speeches, Ministers had brought in a measure quite as extravagant. He was certain that this Bill was not the production of his noble friend at the head of the Government; it bore no mark of his master-hand—it displayed no trace of his genius, of his talent, or of his experience. He must have assigned the task of drawing up a new Constitution for the country to a committee of superannuated school-boys, just as he had assigned the task of drawing up his budget to some young statesmen of precocious experience, for in both cases the Ministers were equally unsuccessful. They brought forward a plan of finance for the year, which they were obliged to abandon within a week of their first proposing it. He trusted that they would have the good sense to abandon in the same way their Reform Bill, which had been brought forward with as little consideration as their Budget. That Bill confiscated vested rights by wholesale, and sacrificed to mere theory privileges which had long existed in all classes of the community. It was now only the middle of April, and it was not until the 1st of March that the secret of
1330
this Bill was communicated to the public. He thought that they ought to have more than six weeks to judge of the merits of a Bill which would destroy the present Constitution of England so far as related to the Representation of the people in the House of Commons, after it had lasted for as many as six centuries. They were proceeding not with calm deliberation, but with breathless haste, to pass a Bill which might place their Lordships in the greatest jeopardy. He contended, that more time ought to be granted for deliberation; for the country had been taken by surprise, and had been deluded into a sudden burst of approbation of this measure by the clap-traps which it contained for all sorts of men. The fact was, that the more men looked into its details the more they disliked it; and doubts as to its eligibility and its expediency were rising up in the mind of every liberal and thinking man in the country. He wished that his noble friend at the head of the Government would consider, before he proceeded further with this Bill, who were the allies who supported him in it. His noble friend knew enough of the motives of men to be aware of the causes which had induced so many discordant parties to unite in approbation of his Bill. All the violent agitations of the country, all its covert treasons, were arrayed in support of it. They had determined to give his noble friend a temporary respite from the agitation of the Ballot, and of the Repeal of the Union. But they had let out their reason for so doing—they had avowed their belief that his noble friend would unintentionally do more for them in a single Session by this Bill of his, than they could ever hope to do for themselves in a long series of years by all their discussions. Yes, the Irish agitators were all his noble friend's own! and he wished his noble friend much joy of his possession. The Birmingham Union, too, was all his own—that Union which had told the highest authorities of the country that they had funds and men to furnish two armies, each equal to that which fought at Waterloo, if it should be necessary to take up arms against the oligarchy. That was a phrase which of late had become fashionable: but, for his own part, he must say, that he did not know who the persons were who were branded under the title of the oligarchy. Did the reformers of Birmingham mean by the oligarchy the gentry of the country? Did they mean

1331
that they would burn a few of their houses? Did they mean, that at their bidding the King was likely to become the greatest rebel in all his dominions? Then the two penny trash all supported his noble friend; so that, with this great confederate array, his noble friend marched against the old institutions of the country, supported by all the blasphemy and sedition which it contained. Did his noble friend think, that because the property of the country was silent, because those who held it, being accustomed to place confidence in the Government, from never having seen their flanks turned by Government on the one side, and by sedition on the other, had not expressed themselves clamorously against this measure—did his noble friend think, that they did not feel the deepest alarm at its uncalled-for magnitude, and its probable risk? They were inclined to give his noble friend all credit for honest and pure intention; but they believed that on this occasion he had been led away by the counsels of others. The magic wand of Comus, and the enchanted cup of Circe, were very potential; and he really believed that his noble friend must have been struck by the one or have been intoxicated by the other, before he changed his nature so far as to give his consent to the innovations which this Bill was calculated to make upon the Constitution. He was sorry to hear his noble friend opposite— he meant the noble Marquis (Lansdown)— avowing that within the last three months he had seen grounds for altering all his former opinions. [The noble Marquis expressed his dissent.] If his noble friend had altered them for good and sufficient reasons, he had done wisely; but if there was any thing that had given him more pain than another in the course of these discussions, it was the belief that his noble friend, on whose talents he had been accustomed to rely for the salvation of the country, had been induced to drink of the same Circeian cup with his noble colleague at the head of the Government. What effect had been produced on the public mind by the manner in which his noble friend had brought forward this vaunted Reform Bill? The effect of it had been this—that all discreet, and prudent, and thinking men looked upon his noble friend as the Neckar of the French Revolution. They believed him to be guiding the country, unknowingly, to the brink of a precipice—they believed, that when his
1332
eyes should be opened, and he should look down upon the dreadful abyss which was yawning to ingulf it, he would recoil from his own act, and, with a hand too powerless to save and too virtuous to immolate his country, he would leave it to some ruthless ruffian arm to hurl it down to irretrievable destruction. That was the opinion of thousands who were deeply interested in the commercial welfare and prosperity of the country. They were convinced that confidence, which was the life and soul of commerce, would be destroyed by the passing of this Bill; that capital would be driven from the country; that the same species of agitation which had driven manufactures from France in the time of Louis 14th, would drive them from our shores; and that then, like Virtue, when she fled the earth, they would never re-appear in their ancient resting-place. If Ministers had taken time to provide for the safety of the different interests of the country in this Bill, they might have had the benefit of his vote, such as it was, in its favour; but they had cut that question short; for in their scramble to disfranchise totally all boroughs with less than 2,000, and partially all boroughs with less than 4,000 inhabitants, and in their determination to base their Bill on a principle of population which they did not always carry into practice, they had lost sight of all those great interests which it was their bounden duty to have protected and preserved. He begged it might be understood that he was not enamoured of the anomalies of the Constitution. If any Bill had been introduced, founded on a moderate principle, it should have had his support. The measure intended to have been introduced by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in the other House of Parliament, would have deserved his support. It proceeded on an intelligible principle, whilst the Bill now before Parliament proceeded on an unknown principle, and could not be adopted without getting rid of those mighty interests on which the wealth and power of the country were founded. If they altered the institutions of the country, and adopted new institutions, it should be done with caution and deliberation. He was himself a friend to moderate Reform; and he believed that, in the present state of the country, they must concede to Reform something more than in their own calm and deliberate judgment

1333
they might think prudent. But, to concede every thing to Reform, as was proposed in this Bill—to advance blindly, perhaps to salvation, but more probably to inevitable destruction—was that which no sensible man could ever think of doing. He therefore called upon the House and upon the country to pause before they gave their consent to a measure, which might plunge the country into a dangerous abyss, from which no human councils could ever withdraw it. The noble Earl concluded by observing, that their Lordships might not perhaps pay much attention to his boding voice, but that would not prevent him from raising it, whenever any measure was proposed to them which he thought likely to inflict injury on the laws and constitution of his country.
The Bishop of Bristol The Bishop of Bristol, though not unfriendly to rational Reform, could not give his consent to the measure which was at present before the other House of Parliament. Though the petitions in behalf of that measure were very numerous, he knew enough of the modes by which such petitions were got up, to induce him to believe that they did not express the sentiments of the majority of the people. If the Bill had contained any provisions calculated to check that corruption and bribery at elections which all good men deplored, if it had gone no further than shortening the duration of the poll and limiting the expenses of election, he might have been inclined to support it: but, extensive as it now was, he could not look upon it as any thing else than a dangerous innovation upon the Constitution of the country. He objected to the Bill for another reason—it was a dangerous infringement on the rights of property; and if Parliament once commenced a course of spoliation on one species of property, there was no telling what species of property would long continue safe. He was of opinion, that even the boasted omnipotence of Parliament was not competent to deprive individuals, without their consent, of a species of property which they had long enjoyed. Individuals should not even be called on to forfeit property to which they had an undoubted right. He likewise contended, that this Bill was indefensible, inasmuch as it deprived the different corporations of the country of privileges which had long been vested in them. If Birmingham and Manchester were desirous of being represented in Parliament, let
1334
them, with the large funds which were at their disposal, compensate the decayed boroughs which they deprived of the elective franchise. Though no man was more willing than he was, to correct any real abuses, he could not help deprecating this measure, which he believed to be pregnant with mischief of every description to all the different interests of the country. He hoped that, if the Bill should come before their Lordships, the noble Earl at the head of the Government would modify it as much as possible. He was fully aware of the responsibility which he incurred by this declaration of his opinion, and he was anxious to have it understood that, in making it, he was merely expressing his own individual opinions, and not those of the honourable profession to which he belonged.
The Lord Chancellor.—"My Lords, I assure you, most unaffectedly, that I rise with great reluctance to prolong this unusual, and I believe I must say irregular, and I am sure that we all feel, greatly inconvenient, discussion into which my noble friend has so unexpectedly dragged the House. [Cries of "no, no."] Then if I must not say dragged your Lordships, I will borrow one of my noble friend's metaphors, which I will endeavour to keep unmixed,— though in the myriad of metaphors which he employed he always mixed them in the most inexplicable confusion, —I will say, that if your Lordships were not dragged, you were seduced and beguiled into this discussion by my noble friend most needlessly and unexpectedly; for my noble friend who presented the petition, confined himself most closely to that which, according to the strictest rules of your Lordships' House, is most in order: he did not enter into the whole merits of the whole question, but limited himself to making a comment on the persons from whom the petition proceeded, on the importance of the prayer of the petition, and on the manner and on the occasion on which the petitioners had congregated together. These were the topics, and these were the only topics, on which my noble friend entered; but my noble friend near me, who cautiously abstained from joining in the Debate when the question was not raised irregularly, or unusually, or incidentally upon a petition, but when it was brought forward expressly, and avowedly for the purpose of forcing a Debate on the merits of the Reform Bill—

1335
my noble friend, who was silent when we all were prepared for Debate, comes down when a petition is to be presented, and we are all unprepared, and drags us,—no I will not say drag, for that implies force, but seduces us, for that implies consent— into a discussion, to which he brings a speech of great rhetoric, exuberant fancy, multitudinous metaphor, and long premeditation, and filled with great, if not always successful, attempts to instruct and amuse us; but a speech, of which, what-ever may be its other rare and exalted merit, conciseness is not that merit which I would venture to predicate as its distinguishing characteristic. With all deference to my noble friend, I must say, that he took us all a little by surprise. My noble friend commenced his oration by saying that he had only a word or two to say regarding this petition. Then I thought to myself, ' Oh, there is nothing here but what is right and regular.' But then he said that which, from the long experience I have had of this and the other House of Parliament, gave me strange misgivings, —he said—and it is always an ominous introduction to a professedly short statement—'far be it from me upon this occasion to enter into the merits of the general question.' As soon as my noble friend had uttered those words, my experience led me to expect a long, elaborate, and premeditated disquisition on all the merits of the Reform Bill, and on every other topic which by any artifice of rhetoric my noble friend could connect with it, not excepting that which was the real cause of his speech,—a general, a virulent, and not a very candid or even amicable attack on the character and persons of those who at this moment constitute the Cabinet. I should only be running the risk of verifying my own remark were I to begin the defence of my noble colleagues and myself by abjuring any intention to enter into it at any great length. I have reason to know that my noble friend came down here fortified by good sleep and an excellent dinner,—I have not had the same benefit of either bed or board. I have undergone the fatigues of a long day without refreshment, and therefore your Lordships have some pledge that I shall not detain you longer than is absolutely necessary. My noble friend and the right rev. Prelate who followed him,—and here I will observe, that I could wish that my noble friend had imitated the right rev.
1336
Prelate, whose speech was distinguished by straightforwardness of purpose and undeviating liberality and candour,—my noble friend and the right rev. Prelate both state that they are Reformers, and that they will not stand up for acknowledged abuses. ' Only prove to us,' says the right rev. Prelate, echoing the words of my noble friend, ' only prove to us that these things are abuses, and we will be among the first to lop them off.' Is it then, in the opinion of my noble friend, who advertises himself as a reformer in one of the most anti-Reform speeches that I ever heard in the whole course of my life, and whose advertisement contains as correct an account of his reforming propensities as the advertisements in the daily journals do of the wares advertised by them for sale —is it in the eye of such a Reformer as my noble friend no abuse that the most populous, the most opulent, the most enterprising, and the most intelligent cities in this empire should be wholly unrepresented, whilst the mouldering mounds of Old Sarum, and the barren walls of Mid-hurst each send two Members to Parliament? 'Oh, but then,' says he, 'if your plan had been confined to that, Birmingham and Manchester might have been permitted to return Members to the House of Commons.' Be it so. But then, is it no abuse,—mind, I am addressing myself all this time to a sincere thoroughgoing Reformer, for such my noble friend professes himself to be,—is it no abuse, I ask, in the eyes of my noble friend, that the power of giving laws to a great empire, with millions of subjects at home, and tens of millions of subjects abroad,—the power of giving laws to this great and intelligent country, and of all but giving laws, as my noble friend said, through this country to all the world besides,—is it no abuse, I say, that the power of making such laws should be vested as property in private individuals? Is it no abuse in his eyes that the power should be given, not by the choice of the people, but according to the caprice, inclination, or good-will of a peer or other powerful patron? Is it no abuse in his eyes that this power should be set up to auction in our public marts;—that it should be sold as notoriously as the beasts in Smithfield;—that it should be let for a term of years, like a stall or a stable;—and that it should be so openly treated as an article of traffic, that when a question arose, as I stated the other

1337
night, regarding the prompt, the discount was allowed, not in money, but in returning a Member—I speak from my own knowledge—to the Parliament now assembled?" The noble Lord then proceeded to ask—had not the buying and selling of seats been proved to be as common as that of cattle in the market? And was it in the face of acknowledged abuses such as those—abuses which, in the words of a former Speaker of the House of Commons, would have caused our ancestors to startle —that the friends of rational Reform, who would lop off these abuses, were to be denominated innovators, and to be accused of tearing up the Constitution by the roots? But there was an outcry made in favour of corporations and bodies which had come by usurpation to have a monopoly of the Representation. In his mind it was no small recommendation of the measure to say, that such abuses and anomalies would in future be got rid of by means of it. Nothing could be more degrading to him who sold, and to him who purchased, than the existing traffic in votes at elections; its effect was more prejudicial to the morals of the people, and worse for the country generally, than the evil of nomination boroughs. This barter and sale of men's voices and consciences was debasing to him who came into Parliament by means of it, and destructive of the character of those by whom he was returned; and no where was the base traffic more remarkable than in towns where freemen possessed a right of voting, particularly non-resident freemen. It was proposed by the Bill, as the best mode of lopping-off abuses, to take the right of election out of hands by which it had been invariably abused/ and to place it in the property of the country. At the same time let the noble Lord bear in mind, that the Bill did not disfranchise existing freemen. He had himself witnessed a contested election in a great rotten borough—for he would so denominate Liverpool, and place it at the head of all the rest,—and although for many months afterwards the candidates had no notion of any corrupt or undue practices, the cost of the election amounted to upwards of 40,000 l. He had been told that three times 40,000 l. would not be sufficient to pay the expenses of the last election that had disgraced the town of Liverpool—he hoped the last in every sense of the word; for if this Bill were torn to shivers, another
1338
and a local Bill would be necessary to deprive parties of a franchise which they had abused. The noble Lord complained of the measure having been brought forward without due deliberation, although three months had been suffered to elapse before it was introduced. But if Ministers had delayed the Bill till another Session, he rather suspected there would have been found some friend to Reform like the noble Lord, to complain of the delay. What had been said of the fair sex appeared to be applicable in the present instance:—
"We men have many faults: poor women have but two,
There's nothing right they say,—there's nothing right they do."
So the noble Lord thought with respect to his Majesty's Ministers: like the ladies, they had only two faults in his opinion— they said and did nothing right. But this opinion of the noble Lord was of recent birth: up to a late period he had expressed no distrust or disapprobation of Ministers. He was sure that his noble friend was the last man in the world to be guilty of a wilful misrepresentation of any well-known fact; he was convinced, therefore, that he did not mean to make any wilful misrepresentation, and that he had said what he did not precisely intend to say. He had cast imputations upon those in whom, as he had already observed, up to a very late period, he professed to have the most unbounded confidence. His noble friend appeared to deny it:— when he said a late period he meant a period before Christmas, he would not even say Christmas; but an earlier period, about the 22nd of November; up to that period his noble friend at least appeared to entertain no distrust of his Majesty's present Ministers. He was neither afraid of new inroads on the fabric of the Constitution, nor of their bringing forward ridiculous measures; and, least of all, did he ever indulge in such observations as he had favoured their Lordships with in his gambols that night—he alluded to his calling them overgrown, superannuated school-boys. He was not aware what sort of beings superannuated school-boys might be: his Majesty's Ministers were not mere tyros in political affairs, nor novices in point of experience or resolution, yet such was the magic influence of the Bill —so much had it disturbed his noble friend's powers of reasoning—so great a

1339
change had it produced in his opinion— that he could discover nothing but superannuated school-boy blunderers, bunglers, or what not, in men in whom, up to a very late period, comparatively speaking, he had nothing but confidence to place—of whom he had but praise to speak. That Bill appeared indeed to be one of fascination, as regarded the noble Lord, for it had beguiled him of his better feeling, and deprived him of his better sense. As an instance of which latter effect, take the noble Lord's famous sentence beginning with Comus, ending with Circe, and containing every thing dreadful and seductive but Scylla and Charybdis. He could not undertake to follow the noble Lord through all the inconsistencies of his speech. The noble Lord declared he would have supported the measure if he did not believe it to be pregnant with mischief to the commercial, monied, and manufacturing interests of the country. Would not the noble Lord allow the bankers and monied men of London, and the manufacturers of Manchester, Leeds, and Sheffield, to know something of those interests? He would not accuse his noble friend of an overweening appreciation of his own intelligence, in the opinions he had expressed as to the interest of the manufacturing and monied classes in the proposed Reform; but yet he thought it rather too much that his noble friend should give himself more credit than he would allow to the London bankers, for a correct estimation of the true interests of the monied classes, and that he should consider himself better acquainted with what concerns the manufacturing interests of the country than the manufacturers themselves; and further, he thought it rather too much that his noble friend should pronounce that measure to be unpalatable and injurious to the people, which almost all England had concurred in approving. Ill-fated, unhappy England! which has not only a Government determined to destroy the institutions of the State, and a people bent upon the annihilation of popular rights, but the whole body of her manufacturers combined to ruin her manufacturers; the bankers to compromise the monied, and the merchants to barter the commercial interest. Having ventured to trespass so far upon the attention of their Lordships, in answer to his noble friend, he should reserve, until other opportunities might arise, his defence of himself and his colleagues, in
1340
respect to the details of the Bill. He had then risen only to show that his noble friend had in fact argued nothing against the measure, and to repel the imputation which had been cast upon him, that in some number of a certain Periodical, he had demonstrated that a piebald Representation was indispensable according to the Constitution. He knew, that such things were often said, but he was sure that he had not expressed any such opinion. [The Earl of Carnarvon intimated, that he did not impute the article to which he had alluded to the noble Lord, but to a right hon. Gentleman connected with the Government.] It was, also, a gross perversion to assert, that population was the basis on which the Reform Bill proceeded. He contended that the Bill made property really and in effect the basis of Representation; and he denied that the present Representation of the freemen in Corporations was a representation of property. He knew, indeed, that it was possible for a man so to pass his life in inconsistency, as to make his last inconsistencies seem consistent with themselves; and he therefore was the less surprised, when he heard it at the same time asserted that the great principle of Representation, according to the Constitution, was the Representation of property; and that the present state of the Corporations afforded the Representation contemplated by the Constitution. But could it be said for a moment that property was the basis of the suffrage in the Corporations? Was it not the fact that the freeman might be a pauper in the pairish workhouse, and might transmit to the pauper issue of his loins the privilege of making laws for the disposal of property, and for the control of the Peerage. Did his noble friend find fault with the present Administration for their endeavours to abolish that privilege as far as was consistent with existing rights? The utmost that a respect for existing rights could require of them, they had done. They had not interfered with the present freemen, who were to be allowed to retain the suffrage for life. The Representation at present was totally disconnected with property, whereas the measure of the Government was based solely upon property. When he heard those objections from the declared friends of Reform, he was reminded of the proverb, "Save me from my friends." He, for his part, would prefer to meet the honest, uncom-

1341
promising, avowed, intelligible, and unvirulent opposition of the noble Duke, lately at the head of his Majesty's Government, than to fall into the arms of the fastidious friends of the present Ministers. Although he had, at first, felt some unwillingness to disfranchise all the boroughs included in one schedule of the Reform Bill, yet, when he came to consider the case in all its bearings, he was convinced that there was no safe mode of proceeding otherwise. He never had stated on a former occasion his doubts on the subject of these boroughs. He never had been, and never should be, ashamed to own, that he entertained those doubts be they as unpopular as they might. But when he came narrowly to inspect the subject, he found, that if the Legislature once trenched on the confines, it would not be consistent with any principle of expediency or safety, to stop short of taking all that could be got. He concurred in the present measure, which embraced a large view of the case, because, being in office, and having the support of the Government, he thought it likely to be carried; and he formerly brought forward a more confined measure, because he thought that what he then proposed was the utmost of what he should then get: he had since, however, overcome his first reluctance, and had been induced to give, and cheerfully to give, his support and assistance to a measure which he approved of, because he considered it consistent, intelligible, and effectual, and well calculated to produce, he would not say a change in,—but a restoration of, the purity of the Constitution. He felt assured, however, that, on a future opportunity, he should be able to show his noble friend that, under no circumstances, could it be fit that a Representative of the people, having the power to vote away their property and rights, should be deputed from a pig-stye, or from a ruined wall, or an enclosed mound, having no inhabitants, except for about five minutes in every seven years. There was no man less liable to the charge of having rashly attempted to overthrow the institutions which had nursed the prosperity of this country than the man who was then addressing their Lordships; but he was also incapable of confounding the rust with the pure metal, or the abuses with the original purposes of our institutions. His admiration of the theoretical excellence of the Constitution did not cause him to resist
1342
the removal of those practical perversions of it, on account of which Mr. Pitt, who at all events was no reformer, said, that it was impossible for an honest Minister to conduct the affairs of the country. He was desirous to answer the question of his noble friend as to "Who were the allies of the Government in their enterprise of Reform?" For his part, he would not judge of any man by that perverted adage, according to which a man's character was to be estimated, not by the truth of his opinions, or the uprightness of his conduct, but by his company. It was broken charity to inquire, not whether a man pursued himself a straight path, but by whom was he accidentally accompanied? He thought the measure of Reform pursued by the Ministers, sound in principle, consistent with itself and with the Constitution. Proceeding, therefore, with an anxious wish to improve, not to destroy, our institutions, were they to be condemned because their measure had this additional quality, or, as he ought rather to call it, this additional advantage, that it had received the general approbation of all classes of the people? Was it a reproach to say, that those persons called agitators were the allies of the Ministry, when, by the same accident, they had the approbation of the whole body of the people? He would repeat, was a measure, which, being consistent with its own principles, and with the principles of the Constitution, having, moreover, the accident of the universal favour of the people, to be condemned, because it had the additional accident, he would not call it merit, of pacifying that small portion of his Majesty's subjects who had avowed their own despair that anything which it was in human power to effect could ever pacify them. He did not assert that the general approbation the measure had met with was of itself a sufficient ground to justify it, and induce their Lordships to pass it, but it was surely a most extraordinary objection to the Bill to say that it had pacified the country and met the wishes of all classes of his Majesty's subjects. He had good grounds for hoping that they who now slighted that Bill would find amongst its results the pacification even of Ireland. For he could pledge his word, that in parts of that country where the Repeal of the Union had engrossed men's thoughts a few weeks ago, dissatisfaction had ceased, and all

1343
were reconciled to the legislative Union by the announcement of the Ministerial plan of Reform. He did not fear that their Lordships would be alarmed into a disapproval of such a Bill by the exaggerations of his noble friend. When the whole of the United Kingdom, from the extremity of Cornwall to the most northern point of Scotland, and from the Isle of Ely to the Coast of Galway, rested their content upon the consummation of that measure, he was sure their Lordships would not be persuaded by the representations of his noble friend to bring the tranquillity of these realms into jeopardy by its rejection. He did not mean to use the language of intimidation (into which the warning of foreseeing wisdom was too often interpreted) when he reminded their Lordships of those predictions of the great Chatham, which their severer ancestors had listened to with respect and honour, though unhappily they neglected his advice, on this question of Reform. Although the counsels of that great man were not followed, his warnings were heard without displeasure, and he (the Lord Chancellor) would venture to say, in later times, that he thought the thunders of Heaven might sometimes roll in the voice of a united people.
Lord Wynfordwas happy to find that the noble and learned Lord who had just addressed their Lordships, was not one of the projectors of that which he (Lord Wynford) regarded as the most scandalous part of the Ministerial project of Reform, and which involved the annihilation of vested rights. The cutting off the nomination boroughs was, in his opinion, a most sweeping confiscation, without being justified by any offence. When an offence was proved, it might justly lead to forfeiture. Liverpool was an apposite case to illustrate what he meant, and which would justify such a course of proceeding, [n such a course he would cordially concur, and would consent to confiscation when the guilt had been proved, but not before. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had talked a good deal about thunder —was there no thunder in Heaven, then, for injustice? Injustice, he believed, whether practised by a nation or classes of men, never passed unpunished. He hoped that their Lordships would attend to the opinion which the noble and learned Lord had formerly professed, and not follow his present opinion, which might
1344
lead to a confiscation of all property. He knew what Mr. Pitt's opinions were as well as that noble and learned Lord; and he recollected well, that though Mr. Pitt admitted the imperfections of our Constitution, he had always contended that they were imperfections we must still carry about us, and could not get rid of them without destroying the Constitution. They were like excrescences on the body, which could not be removed with safety. He took it for granted, as nothing had been proved against the boroughs which were to be disfranchised, that they had done nothing wrong; and yet, though no guilt had been brought home to them, sixty-two of them were to be disfranchised at once. But he wished their Lordships to recollect that confiscation did not stop here. It touched another and an important part of the Constitution; and let them take care that they did not hold a doctrine to-day which might be abused against themselves to-morrow. The freemen of towns—those who held their rights by burg age tenure—were to be disfranchised, and their rights were to be confiscated.. It might be said, perhaps, that the Bill did not touch the present possessors, but it did their children; and if they touched the freemen to-day, what security could any man have that to-morrow the freeholders would not be attacked? The children of those freemen who were to be disfranchised, bad as much right to their franchise as their Lordships had to their seats in that House, or to their estates. He would caution their Lordships to beware of that argument! they laid claim to their titles, as freemen claimed their freedom,— by birth. Suppose any one were to say, "We do not like the peerage of England; just let it remain as it is at present, and after the deaths of the present Peers, do away with it altogether." What answer could their Lordships make to such an argument if they on the very same principle, confiscated the rights of freemen, freeholders, and burg age tenants? He remembered to have heard a noble Duke, he would excuse the allusion, talk about the right of 40 s. freeholders to return Members to sit in Parliament. He was bound to take it for granted that, in the case to which he alluded, Parliament did what was right. It was not for him, knowing nothing of what was passing at that time—indeed, it would be unconstitutional in him, to form any other pre-

1345
sumption. He conceived that the ground on which the Legislature acted was, that they were not genuine freeholders, and that they were only upheld for certain purposes. Admitting that their Lordships were not to deprive existing freemen of their privileges, how could their Lordships answer for taking away the rights from their children? Let it be recollected that the rights of freeholders in towns, and of burg age tenants, descended like property to their children. The 40 s. freeholders were an abuse; that could not be said of the freemen of the ancient boroughs of England. He put it gravely to their Lordships, therefore, what answer could they give, if they took away the rights of the children, should any person hereafter come forward and say, that the present Peers ought to be allowed to retain their titles, but that, instead of descending to their children, they must be given up? He could not see any distinction between the two cases. He therefore entreated their Lordships maturely to reflect and consider how far the principles on which they might act could be extended to their Lordships, and their families. The noble and learned Lord declared, that property was the basis of the Bill: and yet it took the right of voting from men of character, property, and respectable situation in life, and conferred it on men who might actually be reduced to a state of pauperism. He had examined this Bill, clause by clause, from one end to the other, and he could not understand on what principle it was framed, nor did he find that any two of its advocates, in the statements they had made, had given the same, account of it. He understood the noble Earl to say, the other day, that the principle of the Bill was population; that was now disclaimed; the principle of the Bill was not population, although it gave the right of voting to about 170,000 people. The noble and learned Lord said, the principle of the Bill was property. How did the noble Lord prove that? "Oh," said he, "we give the freeholders votes!"—Why they, your Lordships know, had votes before; and, instead of giving them votes, they are to be mixed up with paupers, or something very like it. The Bill, then, deprived the freeholders of their rights, by sharing those rights with paupers. They were to be mingled with, leaseholders of 50 l. a-year, while the holders of Church pro-
1346
perty, the lease of which was generally renewed every two or three years, were excluded. In the cities that were counties within themselves, like Bristol, the freeholders were very hardly treated. In general, the voters who paid only 10 l. rent, would far out number those who had 30 l., 40 l., or, 50 l. a year, and thus the Bill would throw the elections altogether into the hands of paupers. He was entitled to say that on the authority of the Liverpool Poor Bill, in which it was stated, that the leaseholders paying 10 l. a-year, could not pay their poor-rates. The Reform Bill would throw down all those interests which had grown up by time, and which gave every class a share in the Representation, and would throw that Representation entirely into the hands of one class only. The poorer and lowest classes would be able to return a majority of the House of Commons. The landed interest would, under this Bill, as he had calculated, have only 136 Members, while the Representatives of the pauper class would be 298. The fear, therefore, which some persons had pretended to feel for the predominancy of the landed interest, was very idle, and destitute of foundation. In fact, the scheme would take away the Representation from the great mass of the property in the country, and give it to an oligarchy of wealth. He considered Universal Suffrage to be only another name for universal plunder, but he was not sure that it would not be as bad under this Bill. He was certain that property would neither be represented nor protected under it. He did not deny, that under it talents would find their way into Parliament, but they would be not the talents which would benefit the country—they would destroy its institutions. The talents would be those of men who had nothing to lose and everything to gain, and who would make themselves the willing instruments of terror. They would be demagogues, and their talents would be employed to the worst purposes. Property would no longer be protected. It would be made the subject of a general scramble, and general confusion must be the result. In conclusion, the noble Lord called on their Lordships rather to follow the former opinions of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, than his present opinions, for he seemed not to go cordially along with his colleagues in their plan.
Lord Farnhamcould not allow the

1347
assertion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that this Bill had pacified Ireland, to pass uncontradicted. There was not the slightest foundation for believing that it had, or would have, any such effect. Instead of becoming pacified, that country was going forward in a very different direction. He had rather expected, such was the state of that country, to have heard the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, come down to the House, and ask for further powers to tranquillize it; but he was happy to find, that there was no necessity to have recourse to such unconstitutional means. The noble and learned Lord had said, that the Bill had removed the desire for the Repeal of the Union. The fact was, that the people were under the influence of demagogues, and by them they had been instructed to forbear from pressing the question of the Repeal of the Union. An address, however, of the hon. member for Waterford to the people of the Queen's County had been published, which showed that the Secretary of War came into Parliament under the protection of that hon. Member.
The Lord Chancellor explained The Lord Chancellor explained, that he had never supposed, or said, that the Bill could pacify Ireland; that it could get rid of poverty, misery, and crime; but he said that, in some parts of Ireland, it had been productive of the best possible effects; and, with respect to this, he must refer their Lordships to an extract from a document which had already been referred to in another place, and which contained these words, with reference to Ireland:—"The Reform measure has put a stop, in some places, to a system of agitation for a repeal of the Union, which has so long-prevailed." He was afraid, certainly, that measures of coercion might be necessary, as well as remedial measures; he hoped not, but he was afraid; and he mentioned that, to show that he could never suppose that a measure of that kind would pacify Ireland. If it were necessary, Ministers certainly would apply to Parliament for additional powers; but that necessity might, he hoped, be averted.
Petition to lie on the Table.

IRISH SUBLETTING ACT.
Lord Melbournehaving proposed to postpone the second reading of this Bill,
The Earl of Wicklowreally could not consent to the noble Viscount's postponing
1348
this important Bill so frequently without assigning any reason for his doing so, or giving any notice of his intention.
Lord Melbournesaid, his object in postponing the Bill was, to introduce some very extensive amendments, which he hoped would meet the approbation of the House and satisfy the noble Earl himself. The Bill was of too much importance to be hastily disposed of.
The Earl of Wicklowsuggested, if these amendments affected the principle of the. Bill, that the noble Viscount should withdraw it, and bring in a new one.
Viscount Melbournesaid, the amendments did not affect the principle, nor were they yet fully matured. He intended to propose them in the Committee.
Second reading postponed.