Sitting of 18 April 1831

MINUTES.
The Gallery was this day opened at one o'clock, and in the course of a few minutes every seat was occupied with gentlemen anxious to hear the Debate on the House going into a Committee on the Reform Bill. The Members themselves seemed to participate in the general anxiety: every seat in the lower part of the House was speedily labelled with the name of the Member who claimed it for the evening, and even several of the Benches in the Galleries were appropriated in the same manner. At three o'clock, when the Speaker took the Chair, there were more than three hundred Members assembled.
Bills. Corporate Funds, read a third time.
Petitions presented. In favour of Reform, by Mr. PHILLPOTTS, from Berkeley, Gloucestershire:—By Mr. MAC NAMARA, from Tulla (Clare), and from the County of Clare:—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Monaghan, Macroom, Carrick on Suir, and Enniscorthy:—By Mr. GISBORNE, from the Burgesses and Householders of Stafford:—By Mr. LAWLEY, from Warwick: — By Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY, from Newcastle:—By Mr. D. BOUVERIE, from Downton:—By Mr. SPRING RICE, from St. Paul's, Shadwell, and Hackney. Against being Disfranchised, by the Earl of DARLINGTON, from Saltash. For an alteration in the Beer Bill, by Mr. PHILLPOTTS, from Gloucester. By Lord EASTNOR, from Hereford, for an alteration in the Savings Banks Acts:—By Mr. MUNDY, from the Officers of the High Peak Savings Bank; and from the Hundred of Scarsdale, against the Registry of Deeds Bill. By Mr. PRINGLE, from the Bible Society of Edinburgh, against allowing the patent of King's Printer to infringe their privilege of printing Bibles. Against the Cotton Factories Bill, by Mr. JOHN WOOD, from owners of Mills at Wigan and Buglawton. By Mr. G. MOORE, from the Coal Meters of Dublin, praying for compensation.

SALE OF BEER BILL.
Mr. C. Dundaspresented a Petition from Newbury, in Berkshire, in favour of Emigration; and a Petition from the Magistrates assembled
1494
at Newbury, praying an alteration of the Beer Bill.
Mr. R. Palmersupported the prayer of this latter petition, and said, there was a general opinion in the county of Berks, that the drinking of Beer should not be allowed in houses which were rated at less than 20 l. a year. The Meeting from which the petition emanated, was called in consequence of a circular from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the petition expressed the unanimous opinion of all the Magistrates present. It had been said elsewhere, by a noble Lord, that he was favourable to a restrictive clause being introduced into the Bill; and he (Mr. Palmer) regretted much that the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) had not proposed such a clause when he was a Member of the House.
Mr. F. Palmersaid, that beer was now cheaper and better than it was before the ill of last Session passed, and he could not think that any mischief had arisen from the manner in which it was sold. He said this as a Magistrate, and he should be prepared to state the grounds on which he formed that opinion when the question came regularly before the House.
Petition to be printed.

REFORM PETITIONS.
Mr. John Smithrose to present a Petition, which he considered to be one of the highest importance at the present moment. It was a petition signed by 9,690 persons —Merchants, Bankers, and Traders of the City of London; and he believed there were not twenty names appended to the petition, which did not come under one of these three denominations. This petition was agreed to at one of the most numerous and respectable meetings ever convened in the City of London; and those who attended it might be said to have been unanimous, for only two persons opposed the Resolutions, and only one held up his hand against them, for the other finding the meeting to be decidedly against him, quitted the room. He might say, therefore, with great truth that the petition expressed the sentiments of the great body of the merchants of the metropolis. It had been said, in the course of their discussions, that the Reform measure had a tendency to produce revolution. He hoped the House would allow him to remind them that those who

1495
signed the petition were men engaged in peaceable pursuits, who must be the first victims of revolution, and they, one and all, agreed with him that the Reform Bill which his Majesty's Ministers had introduced would, instead of producing revolution, be a means of protecting their property, and securing to them the fruits of their industry. They prayed, therefore, that it might pass into a law.
Mr. Alderman Woodsupported the prayer of the petition, and bore testimony to the respectability of the meeting at which it was agreed to be presented to that House. He had never seen a more numerous and respectable meeting.
Petition to be printed.
Mr. Hodgespresented similar Petitions from Hythe and Whitstable.
Mr. Philip Howardtook that opportunity of expressing to the House, that the assurance given by the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, that the rights of those claiming their freedom by birth or by servitude, should be duly considered, had given great satisfaction to the electors of Carlisle, and the freemen in towns generally. It was on no light grounds that our forefathers held out the elective franchise as the reward of those who, by seven years of patient industry, had given to the State a pledge of their fitness steadily to exercise the duties of a freeman. By preserving the rights of apprenticeship, by making industry, in a limited sense, as well as property, the basis of Representation, all the advantages arising from a mixed Representation, from that "Concordia discors" in the elective body, on which the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, on a former night enlarged, will be retained; without making that further admission, so repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution, to the privileges and standing Resolutions of the House, that nomination is a necessary part of the system. It should be his business to support the noble Lord and the Administration in their efforts to remedy imperfect, and to do away with that "ideal" Representation, which had been so long the bane of this country.
Mr. Hodgespresented a similar Petition from the Clergy, Gentry, and Freeholders of the county of Sussex.
Mr. Alderman Winchester.—As one of the freeholders of the county of Sussex, from whom the petition just now presented by the hon. member for the county of Kent
1496
purports to be, I am desirous of ascertaining to what parts of the noble Paymaster's Bill for the Reform in Parliament its prayer particularly alludes; for, if I understood the noble Lord rightly the other night, he declared his readiness to abandon a great part of the principle of the Bill now before the House [No, no!]. Some honourable Members say No, no; but I beg to state, that such is the fact, and am not alone in that impression, both as regards the opinion in this House and out of doors. I shall now express my dissent from the prayer of the petition, for as it mentions freeholders generally, it might not, otherwise, be understood that I was not at all concerned in forwarding, or in promoting the petition.
Mr. Curteissaid, that the petition was agreed to at a large meeting of the county. The freeholders of Sussex were most decidedly in favour of the measure his Majesty's Ministers had brought forward. He also approved of the Reform measure, and hoped that Ministers would stand firmly by the Bill, and dissolve Parliament immediately if they could not carry it. He did not mean to say, that the meeting was attended by all the freeholders of the county of Sussex, for, from the size of the county, it was difficult to procure a meeting of that description. This fact, however, he thought, afforded an additional argument for the Reform which the Government contemplated, and he again implored them to persevere.
Mr. Shelleywas bound to say, that the meeting of the county of Sussex, at which the petition was agreed to, were nearly unanimous with respect to the Reform Bill; but he must take leave to say, that the meeting could not be very well said to express the opinions of the freeholders, for he did not think there were forty freeholders present. He mentioned this, without wishing to found any argument on it, but merely as a fact worthy of notice. With respect to the Bill itself, he would merely say, that he still continued to think it would be productive of the most disastrous consequences; and he repeated his opinion, that the freeholders of the county of Sussex were not favourable to it. A person at the meeting, in reply to some comments of his on the Ministerial Budget of Blunders, had used a couplet in their defence, which he was then happy to repeat for their benefit to the House—
"If to their share some fiscal errors fall,
Look at their Bill, and you'll forget them all."
Lord George Lennoxwas confident that the great majority of the people of Sussex were favourable to Reform; and as an instance of the unanimity of the opinions of the freeholders on the subject, he had seen upwards of 400 assembled in the room where the meeting was held.
Mr. Cressett Pelhamalso denied, that the freeholders of that county were unanimous in their approbation of the Reform measure. He was now a freeholder of that county; but if the Bill passed, he should become a dependant on the vile menials of the Government.
Petition to be printed.
Mr. E. S. Cooperpresented a Petition from the inhabitants of Taunagh, county of Sligo, against the Reform Bill. The petitioners complained of the injury that had been already done to the Protestant Church of Ireland, by passing the measure of Catholic Emancipation, and they implored the Members of that House to stay their hands and search their hearts before they now passed that Bill falsely called the Reform Bill; for if they did so, it would produce the final ruin of the Protestants.
Mr. O' Connellsaid, that this petition was got up under the influence of one family, and was principally signed by Orangemen, and persons connected with them. He thought it a strange argument of the hon. Member and the petitioners, that the prosperity of the Protestant Church depended on corruption and the continuance of the rotten boroughs, for that was the plain construction of what they prayed. For his part, he knew that the inhabitants of the whole of the county of Sligo, particularly the Dissenters were favourable to Reform. The meeting at which the petition was agreed to was a packed and a private one, but if there was a public and an open meeting, and he challenged the hon. Member to call one, the result would be very different.
Sir J. Yorkedid not think that the boroughmongering system was necessary to support Protestantism in Ireland—and the petitioners did not say so; but he thought that if sixty-two Members were taken from England, and five added to Ireland, the effect would, by lessening the proportions of the Members for England, compared with Ireland, have a tendency to make the Catholic interest predominate in the latter country.
Mr. E. S. Coopersaid, that not being an
1498
Orangeman he did not know whether the petition was signed by Orangemen or not, but he knew it was most respectably and numerously signed, and he believed it expressed the opinions of the great majority of the inhabitants of the town it came from.
Mr. George Dawsonwould repeat the opinion he had before given, viz., that if the Bill passed into a law, it would completely overthrow the Protestant interests in Ireland. The hon. member for Waterford (Mr. O'Connell) might delude himself with the belief that the Protestants were not adverse to the measure, but they were now roused, and before a fortnight he would have an opportunity of seeing an expression of their sentiments. The hon. member for Waterford had spoken of Sligo as being a rotten borough, because it returned as its Member a person connected with a family in its neighbourhood. He (Mr. Dawson) thought that the county of Waterford, which sent to that House a person unconnected with it by any tie of birth or property—by any tie except that agitation of which he was the supporter, must be considered much more a rotten borough than the town of Sligo. If, then, comparative claims were considered, he thought that the hon. Member who sat for Sligo was much less open to the charge of being a boroughmonger than the member for Waterford. He would repeat, that the more he considered the Bill, the stronger were his objections to it, and he was determined to oppose it in every stage.
Mr. Chapman Mr. Chapman, as one of the Protestant Members who had voted in favour of the Bill, was satisfied that it would support, rather than injure, the Protestant Church. The objection to the present system was not that the family of the member for Sligo influenced the return of the Member for that borough, because there was no reason why his influence should not be as good after the Bill passed as it was now. What the Bill destroyed was, the power to nominate the Member, and to sell that nomination to the highest bidder.
Mr. George Dawsonconsidered it disorderly in any hon. Member to speak of any borough as bought and sold.
Sir J. Newportwas not of opinion, that the hon. member for Westmeath had been guilty of any disorder. It was but too notorious that many boroughs were bought and sold; and he could bring proof that

1499
this identical borough had been bought and sold. If his right hon. friend, the member for Harwich, thought the security of the Church rested on such grounds as those which he had stated, the security of that Church must be frail indeed.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonobserved, that unless boroughs were bought and sold, he should like to know what that House was lately debating upon for seven successive nights. It was on that occasion argued by the opponents of the Bill, that it would shut the monied interest, or, in other words, those who could purchase boroughs, out of the House.
Mr. O'Connell Mr. O'Connell, in answer to the remarks of the right hon. member for Harwich, on the nature of his connection with the county of Waterford said, that he had that very day received a letter, signed by twenty-one Magistrates of the county of Waterford, expressive of their opinion that his services in Parliament entitled him to be again returned the Representative of that county.
Mr. G. Dawsonobserved, that with respect to the general assertion that boroughs were to be bought and sold, that was a fact of which he knew nothing. If, however, the hon. Baronet could prove that the borough of Sligo had been bought and sold, he had neglected his duty by not proving it at the bar of that House.
Mr. Callaghansaid, that as the Protestant mind in Ireland had been so much referred to, he would take the opportunity of stating, that from what he knew of it, there were none of his Protestant constituents that did not agree in the propriety of Reform. None of them had any sympathy for the rottenness of the system of boroughs in England, which by the Reform Bill were to be disfranchised; nor were they against that part of the measure which the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir J. Yorke) had referred to, by which the number of Members from Ireland was to bear a greater proportion than they had heretofore to the whole force of the House; but their objection to the measure was to that part of it affecting Ireland, which would, they thought, give a greater number of Catholic electors than now existed in towns and cities, by giving the franchise to householders of so low a scale as occupied 10 l. houses. He was warranted in stating this, because the Protestants of Cork had a public meeting on the subject, and the House would see,
1500
when the hon. Baronet, the late Secretary of State, should have the opportunity of. presenting their petition, that this was their feeling.
Petition to lie on the Table.
Mr. Pearsepresented a Petition from the Corporation of Devizes, against the Parliamentary Reform Bill.
Mr. Watson Taylorsupported the petition, and said, that although he was aware that he risked popularity by opposing the Bill, he had opposed it, and should continue to oppose it. There was not a more independent borough in England, and though he saw no reason to believe that he should not be returned for it under the proposed Bill that could not make him regard the Bill otherwise than as most mischievous.
Mr. Long Wellesleyexpressed his conviction that the petition which he had presented from Devizes spoke the real sense of the Corporation. Whether the borough were independent or not; it appeared that the patronage of Lord Sid-mouth was very successfully used in it.
Mr. Watson Taylorobserved, that the petition which had been presented by his hon. colleague was unanimously agreed to. It was signed by every member of the Corporation.
Mr. Long Wellesleystated, that nine members of the Corporation had signed the former petition.
Mr. Estcourtdenied that Devizes was under the patronage of any human being. It was true, that it had been formerly represented by Lord Sidmouth, whose virtues and merits would never be forgotten; but no undue influence of any description was exercised in the borough.
Mr. Bayntunhad no intention of addressing the House upon the petition which had been presented from Devizes, had it not been observed by one of the hon. Members that the petition had been unanimously signed and agreed to. Now he felt himself in a particular position; he had the honour of belonging to that Corporation, and although he had received no intimation of the meeting — much more, had not attended it—he had heard, and heard with satisfaction, that many of that very corporate body were friendly to the Reform Bill brought forward by his Majesty's Government; and that in the very Corporation itself, he might be borne out in stating, that a very strong feeling existed in its favour. With reference to

1501
the town, he knew that the measure was hailed with the greatest satisfaction by all its inhabitants, and as a member of that corporate body, he should be very unwilling to withhold the elective franchise from his fellow-townsmen, many of whom were of the highest respectability, though unconnected with the Corporation. The petition, therefore, could not be considered as expressing the unanimous opinion of the Corporation.
Mr. Humesaid, that it was very natural that a corporate body, having a monopoly of the election for their borough, should wish to keep it. It was not, however, on the petition which had just been presented that he rose to speak. But it having been stated, and generally circulated, that a large class of persons in Lancashire were opposed to the Parliamentary Reform Bill, he rose to say, that he was authorised to state, that so far from any opposition to that measure, there was a unanimous feeling throughout Lancashire in favour of the Bill, which was hailed as a great and important boon to the people. At every public dinner, even at those of which the hon. member for Preston partook, the health of his Majesty's Ministers, and success to the plan, were toasted. If there was a single individual present opposed to the measure, it was, perhaps, the hon. member for Preston. It was of the utmost consequence that that important body, the operatives of Lancashire and elsewhere, should not be supposed averse from the plan because they did not immediately participate in its provisions. They felt that their character was affected by the imputation; they were anxious that it should be known that such was their feeling, and if it were necessary to prove the fact, meetings would be held for that purpose from one end of Lancashire to the other. It was true, that attempts had been made to dissatisfy them with the measure. Questions had been asked—if the Bill contained all they wanted?—if they would not rather have Universal Suffrage? Why, let that question be put to him, and his answer would be, that he would rather have Universal Suffrage. But was he to set up his opinion on that point against the united opinions of that House and the country? That would indeed be dictation. But, although the Bill did not comprehend Universal Suffrage, it was so valuable and important a measure, that he should be most unworthy of his seat in
1502
that House if he did not support it. He believed it could be proved to demonstration, that the statement which had been made by the hon. member for Preston, and at which the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen under him were so rejoiced, of the disinclination of the working classes in Lancashire and elsewhere to the Bill, was exceedingly unfair towards them. It was his duty to state that, as far as he was informed, they had no feeling whatever of the kind.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that he also had been desired to give the flattest contradiction to the assertion that the working-classes were not, to a man, favourable to the Reform Bill. He believed that on no occasion had a greater feeling of unanimity existed among them. It was impossible that what passed there (in the House of Commons) should not find its way out of doors. With reference to the statement which had been made in the House by the hon. member for Preston, of what had taken place at Durlaston, he had received a letter from a highly respectable Magistrate and Clergyman, parts of which he would take the liberty of reading to the House. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to read to the following effect:—"I saw yesterday, by appointment, several very respectable inhabitants of Durlaston, who heard what Mr. Hunt said there. They declared that they did not hear from any one any thing like opposition to the Bill, nor did they believe that one inhabitant of Durlaston objected to the Bill. On the contrary, they stated that the members of the Political Union at Durlaston (the hon. Gentleman said he regretted to use the expression) were disgusted with Mr. Hunt's proceedings. Mr. Hunt asked some of the inhabitants, 'Do you return any Members near here?' They answered, 'At Coventry and Tamworth.' 'How far are you from Coventry?' — 'Thirty miles.' 'How far from Tamworth?'—'Twenty miles.' 'Go, then,' said Mr. Hunt, 'twenty thousand in a body, and do not let those places return the same Members that they returned at the last election, but make them return such as will second me in the House. Take hold of the Electors, and try to persuade them. If that will not do, squeeze them hard; if that will not do, apply the tourniquet to them, and see if that will have any effect'" ["No, no!" from Mr. Hunt]. He would not positively assert that the hon. member for

1503
Preston said what he had just read, but he was authorised to declare that he had said it, and he should believe the statement until he heard it flatly contradicted. The letter proceeded to say, that the writer had been at Birmingham the day before, and that he had there received a similar contradiction of the statements of the hon. member for Preston with respect to that place. He (Mr. Littleton) had received three or four other letters, all to the same effect. The fact of the feeling of the Political Union at Durlaston being the reverse of what it had been alleged to be by the hon. member for Preston, was proved by the hand-bill preparatory to their dinner. It was to the following effect:— "Full, free, and fair Representation, the birth-right of Englishmen. The members of the Durlaston Political Union will dine together at the King's Head on Monday, April 4th, to celebrate the triumph of the glorious cause of Reform in the hands of our beloved Sovereign and of his enlightened Ministers."
Mr. Huntsaid, that in the first place, as to what had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex, he could, perhaps, in some measure confirm it. But as to what had been stated by the hon. member for Staffordshire, he had no hesitation in declaring that it was mainly unfounded. The manner in which he happened to be at the Durlaston meeting was this. Being at Birmingham, on his way to Preston, he was invited to go to the Meeting of the county at Warwick; but having no property in that county he declined the invitation, and determined to stay at Birmingham. Two of the members of the Political Union of that place — Mr. Weston, a highly-respectable individual, and another —told him that they were going to Durlaston, and that if he liked, they would take him thither in their carriage, and bring him back. Accordingly, he went; and in consequence of his presence, instead of fifty, the number for which the dinner was ordered, three hundred attended. This accession of numbers certainly occasioned rather short commons. He was invited to address the party, which, after there had been a discussion of about two hours in length, on the Bill, he did. He certainly put questions to the persons present; they being principally working men, and not persons having houses of 10 l. a year, qualifying them to vote under the new measure. He admitted that he put
1504
leading questions to them; and he appealed to the hon. member for Staffordshire, whether it was not usual, even in Courts of Justice, to put leading questions for the purpose of eliciting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He asked them if they were contented with the proposed system of Representation? A large proportion of them said, they were not. He asked them whether, as they were not to be allowed to choose their own Representatives, they were satisfied with delegating that power to individuals holding houses of 10 l. a year? They said, certainly not. After dinner he was invited to address a great multitude, assembled partly to hear the members of the Political Union of Birmingham, and partly to hear him. He was told that they amounted to 10,000 persons. He had formerly stated to the House, that in the first instance the meetings of the people were unanimous in favour of the Bill. He had even said that they were running mad upon it. The hon. and learned member for Borough-bridge had called the Bill the Russell Purge. That might be the name for it as respected the boroughmongers, but it must have another name as it respected the people. The noble Lord had knocked off 120 Members for boroughs, had put them in an oven, and had converted them into powder, which he had administered to the people, and which should be called Boroughmongering and Love Powder. By that powder the people had been deluded. But now, as far as he had had an opportunity of ascertaining the opinions of the people of Lancashire, there were many parts of the Bill of which they did not approve. For himself, he approved of knocking off the boroughs; but he always contended for giving the right of Representation to the whole people; and he had given notice that, when the Bill went into the Committee, it was his intention to move that those who were excluded from the elective franchise should be exempted from paying taxes, and from serving in the militia. He had merely put the question to the people, if they gained any thing by the Bill? their answer was, No. On asking them what they expected to gain by it? they said, nothing whatever. It was the same at Manchester. The hon. member for Middlesex said, that wherever he (Mr. Hunt) had dined at public meetings in Lancashire, the health of his Majesty's Ministers was drunk. In no instance had

1505
he dined at any of the public meetings alluded to by the hon. Gentleman. He had been invited to an evening party, where there was nothing to eat, and there certainly the health of his Majesty's Ministers had been drunk. "Here, said he, is a petition signed by 4,000 out of the 7,000 electors of Preston in three days, and this confirms every part of my statement." He then stated that he had letters from all parts of the country, as well as the hon. member for Staffordshire, and all these letters denounced the measure. Of these he would read one, which came from Paisley, notwithstanding the assertion of the hon. member for Kircudbright, that all Scotland was in favour of the Bill. This letter came from the Chairman of a Reform Meeting held in Paisley, and stated that the feeling of the country might be appreciated from the fact of the proportion between the number of qualified and unqualified householders. Throughout Scotland the proportion of the qualified to the unqualified was as 1 to 10½ or 11; in Edinburgh it was as 1 to 3; in Glasgow as 1 to 4½; in Aberdeen as 1 to 7; in Paisley as 1 to 14; in Dundee as 1 to 6; and in Leith as 1 to 4½. Was this, he asked, the free and equal Representation which they were told the people was to have? For the hon. member for Middlesex he entertained a very great respect; but he did not consider him half so useful as he was formerly, since he had become a Ministerial Member. He was now content with recording his objection to a vote, whereas, formerly, he would have insisted upon a division. In fact, he was much better as an Opposition than as a Ministerial Member. Still, however, he thought the Ministry had gained a great deal in having so industrious, and laborious, and honest a supporter. There was a speech of his to which allusion had been made—he meant that which had given so much displeasure at one side of the House, and given such satisfaction on the other—that he understood the hon. Members on his side had had it printed. This speech, too, had been received with great disapprobation by the Press. He had got a great trouncing from the Press. And what he would call the politicians of London were very much displeased with him. It was, he was well informed, up to the last fortnight, the custom at all the public-houses, smoking-rooms, and other places of nightly meeting, frequently to drink his health; but since he made that
1506
speech, in every instance, and in every house, a vote of censure had been passed upon him. But though these votes had been recorded against him, and although the Press had attacked him, should he, as the Representative of a free people, be afraid to express his conscientious opinion? —No! As for the Press, he asserted there had been a conspiracy of the Papers in favour of the Bill. He hoped hon. Members and the Press would understand him. He said there was a conspiracy—not of the Papers with the Ministry—but of the Papers amongst themselves. Such was the popularity of the measure among the buyers of Newspapers, that they could not have been sold if they had not advocated Reform. Now he received cheers from the other side of the House. It was said, that he had sold himself—and this not to those who were in favour and place, but to those who had no longer any thing to give. He should be glad to know to whom it was said he did sell himself! And he could tell the House and all the hon. Members of it, there was but one price by which he could be bought—there was that one, and but that one way of gaining him—it was by giving Representation to the whole people. He hoped that more time would have been allowed for the presentation of petitions; as he had several to present, but as he could not present them, he begged leave to read a short extract from one in his possession. There was in this petition authority which would bear him out. He wished the House and the Press to understand, that when he spoke of the people he spoke of the whole people, and not of those merely who were to be represented; and he had no hesitation in declaring it to be his honest and decided opinion, that the unrepresented portion of the community were dissatisfied, and would be still more so when they had time for reflection. He would read an extract from The Leeds Patriot, which afforded an honourable exception to the conduct of the Press in general towards him. The hon. Member then reverted to Preston, and said, he was bound to admit that another petition had been got up in Preston, and was in the hands of his colleague; but the Meeting from which it emanated was held in a room that could not hold more than 600 persons, and not one-fifth of the electors were present. He added, that the Chairman refused to put a motion adverse to the Bill. He then read

1507
the extract from The Leeds Patriot, which stated, that the hon. member for Preston had done honour to himself and his constituents by expressing the genuine opinion of the working classes, now that they had had time to consider that the Bill was decidedly not popular amongst the producers of the country's wealth, and that it was evident the Press had combined to misrepresent or suppress the opinion of the hon. member for Preston, in the same manner as formerly complained of upon the part of Mr. O' Connell. For his part, he did not complain of the Press. Every tiling could not be printed, and he had his fair share. But it was not the first time he had had the whole Press against him. even without one bare exception, because he advocated the same principles which he did then. In conclusion, he repeated his assertions respecting the unpopularity of the Bill with the working-classes, adding at the same time, that he had no doubt it would be carried.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, that a deputation of the Spitalfields weavers had waited upon him, and they stated that they had read with astonishment the report of Mr. Hunt's speech in the House of Commons.
The Speakercalled the hon. Member to order. It was irregular to refer to the report of any hon. Member's speech.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanwished it to be understood by the House, that the Spitalfields weavers disclaimed with indignation the sentiments which had been attributed to them by the hon. member for Preston. The deputation stated, that the Spitalfields weavers, in common with the rest of the country, approved of the plan of Reform, and that they had prepared a petition, signed by 5,500 operative weavers, expressing their approval of the Bill. He had heard the hon. member for Preston called the worst enemy of Reform, but he considered the hon. Member its best friend. His manner of proceeding had opened the eyes of the public, and they were surprised to see united the advocate of Universal Suffrage and the defenders of the system under which Gatton was bought and sold. ["No, no."] Hon. Members might cry out "No," but the fact was notorious.
Lord Stanleysaid, he rose to remark, that the hon. member for Preston had returned no answer to the question put by the hon. member for Staffordshire. He
1508
had himself asked the question in private to-day, whether Mr. Hunt had, at Manchester, used the language attributed to him respecting the Wigan election; and he was told that Mr. Hunt had not used exactly the words printed in the papers, but something very like them. The words attributed to the hon. Member, about the Wigan election, were as follows: —"The first day of the Wigan election, let every man in Manchester, between the ages of fifteen and forty-five, march over to Wigan, to accompany Mr. Potter, to the number of 20,000 or 30,000 men, and he would have them go and exercise what he called a constitutional influence over the electors of Wigan. 'If you meet a voter (said Mr. Hunt), say to some ten or twelve of you, take care of him, and see if you can't persuade him to vote for Potter. Use kind entreaties; and if these fail, I would advise you to take him by the arm, and give him a gentle squeeze, and let one take hold of his other arm (and I know you Lancashire men give something like a feeling squeeze when you like), and if he still refuses, I would not say I would pull his arms off, but I would very near do it. That is what you are called upon to do, and my opinion is, that if you don't do it, you will never get this Reform or any other.'" — He asked if this, or anything like it, was fit language to be used by a Member of that House? Again, about the expected election at Manchester, the hon. Member had been reported to say—"He had been asked, supposing the Reform Bill should pass, who were the people of Manchester going to send? [A voice from the crowd: 'Hugh Birley,' accompanied by groans and cries of 'No, no.'] He had been told of him before, hut on his expressing a desire to know who he was, 'don't you know,' said some one, 'that's Captain Birley, who came up to the hustings in August, 1819.'—'What!' exclaimed Mr. Hunt, will the people of Manchester send a master butcher of Peterloo to represent them in Parliament [no, never]? Those who were not ten-pounders would, he thought, take care of that. If they could be guilty of such an atrocity, he would retire from public life, and never enter Lancashire again; and he would tell them that, were he a Manchester man, rather than submit to it, he would lay half Manchester in ruins. Instead of having fourteen lives lost, he would have half

1509
the blood in Manchester spilt before he would submit to such a degradation." He had asked the hon. Member if he had used this language, and he replied, that, generally speaking, it was much exaggerated; but, in answer to a particular question, respecting the portion of his speech which referred to Manchester, he acknowledged that he had said something very like it. He declared that if the hon. Member had said anything like it, he had disgraced himself and his country. He begged pardon for wasting the time of the House with reference to a speech delivered out of doors, but he felt it his duty to do so. The noble Lord then proceeded to allude to a Turnpike Bill, upon the conduct of which Mr. Hunt had commented in one of his speeches, and affirmed, that upon a small foundation of truth, the hon. Member had raised a huge structure of misrepresentation, which he could not attribute either to mistake or misunderstanding. He farther stated, that he was informed, that when a person asked in the crowd where was Wood, Mr. Hunt, shrugging his shoulders, replied, "Ay, indeed, where was Wood when he ought to be attending to your interests?" when the hon. Member well knew that Mr. Wood had attended on the Committee.
Mr. Huntstated, that he had told the noble Lord the expressions in the paper from which he had quoted were much exaggerated, but that he might see something very like what he had said in The Manchester Times. He had omitted to answer the hon. member for Staffordshire's question. He had now to say, that the statement in the Clergyman's Letter was a gross exaggeration. He did ask the people if they would not go in great bodies and exercise a constitutional influence, by endeavouring to prevail on the electors to vote for the friend of the people, and he had spoken of a gentle squeeze, but all that about the tourniquet and taking off their arms, was gross exaggeration. He denied that he had ever spoken of Mr. Wood except in terms of the utmost respect.
Mr. Littletonaffirmed, that he was authorized by the gentleman who wrote to him to state, that a number of respectable tradesmen were willing to verify the statement on oath.
Petition laid on the Table.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM BILL— COMMITTEE.
Mr. Speakercalled on Lord John Russell—his Lordship rose; but
Mr. W. Duncombepresented himself, and claimed the attention of the House, stating that he had four petitions, which he had been particularly requested to present before the Bill proceeded further.
Mr. Speakersaid, that the time for presenting petitions having passed by, unless the hon. Member was quite sure the course he was pursuing was perfectly consonant with the feeling of the House he was not in a situation to make a Motion.
The hon. Member gave way to
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell, who said, that at that time of the evening he felt it impossible, if he consulted his duty, to accede to the request of the hon. Member. If, indeed, that hon. Member alone had been desirous of presenting petitions, he should certainly yield to the hon. Member's wishes; but he felt that if at that moment he gave way, and consented to the further presentation and discussion of petitions, considerable time would be employed, which had better be devoted to the discussion of the measure itself. Being then in possession of the House, and it being the desire of the House that he should proceed, he would go on to move the Order of the Day for the House to go into a Committee on the Reform Bill. The House was then ready to enter into the consideration, in Committee, of the Bill for the amendment of the Representation. As he had before stated, that there were certain alterations which the Government intended to propose, and as his announcement of that circumstance had led to much observation and remark, which he felt he could not pass by without answer, he thought it incumbent on him to explain these alterations, which he supposed would satisfy the House, both that the original principle on which the Government had acted, had been adopted fairly and impartially, and that in the proposition for making the alterations which they now offered to the consideration of the House, they did not abandon but carry into effect the principle on which the Bill was founded. Before he entered on this matter, however, he could not avoid comparing the situation in which he had stood in the former and on the present occasion. When he first announced the measure of Parliamentary Reform, he did

1511
it in the hope and the belief that it would be found adapted to the wants and wishes of the country. Whatever anxiety he might still feel upon the subject was mixed with pride and satisfaction, that the measure then proposed by his Majesty's Ministers had since been stamped and sealed by the approbation of the people, for whose advantage it was solely intended. As a proof that it was so, he might quote the somewhat curious statement of the hon. member for Preston, who had said that it was impossible but that the Press should advocate the Reform Bill, for if they did otherwise they would be left without readers. The approbation of the people had been further shown by the petitions sent up to that House in favour of the Bill from the Corporations, on which they were accused of committing robbery, and from the boroughs, towards which they were said to be guilty of spoliation. He would not say what the number of petitions on both sides was, but those in favour of it from Corporations and boroughs, which they were told were to be robbed, were more numerous than those against it. At the head of the Corporations in favour of the Bill were London, Canterbury, Portsmouth, Gloucester, Lincoln, Derby, and Bedford. They were well aware that they held their privileges by law, but they thought they would not be acting for the good of the country if they opposed the measure, and they were ready to give up an exclusive power when they saw it was for the advantage of their fellow-subjects. He should, as a still greater proof the popularity of the Bill, have recourse to of a calculation which, he confessed, he bad made in imitation of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel). The right hon. Baronet was very fond of quoting speeches which had been delivered on former occasions. He could not, therefore, complain if another followed the example which he had set when he brought forward the Catholic Relief bill. On that occasion the right hon. Baronet, when defending himself against the attacks made on him for introducing the Catholic measure as a Cabinet measure, pleaded the growing force of public opinion, and proved that plea by a reference to the opinions of the largest portion of the constituency of the country. Among other reasons then stated by the right hon. Baronet for supporting that question, he gave the following: He took, as a test of the public feeling upon it,
1512
seventeen counties and twenty-two towns. The right hon. Baronet, according to the speech sanctioned and corrected by himself, said that this was a practical and constitutional way of ascertaining the sense of the people. He was now going to adopt the same course, and he should go over the very same counties and towns referred to by the right hon. Baronet on the Catholic Question. To take, for instance, the Members for seventeen counties who voted on the second reading of this Bill, there were twenty-seven in favour of it, and only nine against it. This list of counties included Yorkshire, Middlesex, Devonshire, Kent, Lancashire, Surrey, Somerset, Norfolk, Dorset, Stafford, Essex, Hampshire, Lincolnshire, Suffolk, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, and Warwickshire. In the list of the Members for the large towns he had the same reason to be satisfied with the result. He took the same twenty-two large towns as the right hon. Baronet, one of which (Colchester) had only one Member in the House at the time the votes were taken, and out of that list, containing forty-five Members, he found that thirty-nine had voted for the measure, and only six against it. Among these towns were London, three for, and one against the Bill; Westminster, two for, Southwark, two for, Liverpool, Bristol, Norwich, Nottingham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Leicester, Preston, Exeter, Hull, Coventry, York, Chester, and Colchester. Of eighty-one Members to whose opinion the right hon. Gentleman, with somewhat of a reforming eye, had looked for protection as expressing the sense of the people, sixty-six had voted in favour of the measure, and only fifteen against it. They had not been the supporters of Reform while Reform was only a vague word not explained and defined, but when a distinct plan of Reform had been proposed; and by that plan their real opinions were to be tried and decided. The principles on which that plan of Reform was produced were, to give Representatives to large manufacturing towns, to prevent the sale of seats, and to extend the elective franchise; and these principles had been supported by the Representatives for counties and large towns, in the manner he had before described. With respect to the borough Members, a majority had indeed voted against the measure; but as the measure was directly calculated to injure the personal interests of all the Members for such places, it was

1513
not to be wondered at that they were opposed to it, since in matters of interest it was universally admitted, that men who were personally affected were not of all others the most impartial judges. If, therefore, out of such a body of persons, one-third were in favour of the measure which seemed to threaten their personal interests, it was, indeed, a strong proof of what was the general feeling of the people, and of the impression which had been made on men of cultivated understanding and of great property and high station, by the arguments that powerful minds had, during past years, so strongly urged on the great principle of Parliamentary Reform. He would then advert to the manner in which the Bill had been considered by the King's Ministers during the Recess, and in doing so he should show that throughout they had kept in view, in their alterations, the basis on which this measure was originally founded. To that they had adhered. He had said, on bringing in the Bill, that in the present day, absolute nomination was no longer to continue. That was to be put an end to, by creating a more numerous constituency. Thus, in Bath and Cambridge, the present number of electors, but subject, at least to a certain extent, to a particular influence, would be merged in a still greater number of persons. With a view to the same principle, the elective franchise, where it could not be extended among a greater number of persons and where it was now corruptly exercised, was to be taken away. There were various means by which the Ministers might have obtained information necessary to enable them to frame the details of the measure; they might have called for the number of houses paying taxes to the amount of 10 l. or the number of houses rated at 10 l. and upwards, but upon this subject they found as every body knew, that the taxes were an uncertain criterion, because the houses were in many cases rated far below their value. That, therefore, would have been a test liable to error. If they had taken the houses rated at 10 l. they would have had also to institute an examination into each borough, so as to ascertain the exact number of houses contained within its limits. In determining what boroughs should be disfranchised or retain their franchise by the criterion of the number of rented houses of the annual value of 10 l. they had felt also that if they took that
1514
part of the population of the boroughs only within the limits of these boroughs, they should subject themselves to many difficulties; that if persons were sent to examine into these limits, doubts would arise, and partialities might be exhibited, or, at least, the inquiries would be so extensive that they should be involved in innumerable petty details that might, for a year at least, prevent them from introducing any effective measures, and that, even after all this, they might find that they had not obtained a proper criterion by which they could be guided. In many cases it would happen that the borough might be small, at least so far as regarded its ascertained legal limits, while the town which really belonged to it might be very large. An instance of this he could give in the borough of Bridgewater, where the parish was divided into three parts, all of which were under the same jurisdiction—all of which formed but one parish—but only one of which, according to a decision of that House, founded probably on some party motive, and called exclusively the borough, had any influence in sending Members to Parliament. Under these circumstances, they had taken the population returns as documents not made up to favour any particular interest, and as likely to exhibit, in the most correct manner, the population of the different towns and boroughs throughout the kingdom. They had, therefore, taken the returns as given in the office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and they found, as they had anticipated, that, generally speaking, these returns were correctly made up. The statements they had since deemed it their duty to obtain were not so much corrections as explanations of these returns. The right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, had called the attention of the House to the fact, that these subsequent statements differed from the population-returns, and had alluded to the case of Tamworth, to show that these returns were not correct. The fact was, that Tamworth, like Bridge-water, was composed of more than one locality, and it appeared that there, as in the cases of Calne and Tavistock, there were parishes attached to, and, in fact, forming part of, the borough itself. They had, with a view of ascertaining the fact, sent letters from the office of the. Secretary of State for the Home Department to the Returning Officers of different

1515
places; among the rest, to the returning Officer of Agmondesham, who stated in reply, that the limits of the borough only comprehended a small part of that which was known by that name—the return of houses and inhabitants, however, made under the last census, covered the whole of the parish. The returns, therefore, were not inaccurate, as had been insinuated, but merely required explanation, and the papers which the Government had in January and February last laid upon the Table of the House, afforded those explanations, and gave collateral information on the subject of the returns, but did not correct them. The borough of Aldborough, in Yorkshire, was stated in the note to contain in its entire parish 735 inhabitants. That statement was not so given in the population returns; but with Boroughbridge, which was in its immediate neighbourhood, and with one or two other parishes, the number was altogether made up to 2,000. In considering the claims of these boroughs, he was not disposed to say, that because they now returned four Members—a number exceeding that to which they would be properly entitled—he would treat them as separate places, and in that manner prevent them from returning any Member at all; for that would be exercising a severe mode of justice. He would unite the population of all these places as in one, and would give them the right of returning one Member. He should therefore propose, that they should be placed in schedule B. He next came to the borough of Buckingham, the parish of which contained 2,485 inhabitants, and which for that reason he should propose to put also in the list of boroughs in schedule B. In the same manner Malmesbury, the population of which was 2,145, and Oakhampton, the population of which was only 1,807 within the borough, but which, by the union of the places immediately adjoining it, possessed a population of more than 2,000, were now proposed to be placed in schedule B. Reigate was one of those places which were in a somewhat doubtful situation. The borough itself contained only 1,328 inhabitants; but the foreigners, as the inhabitants without the limits of the borough were technically called, amounted to 1,603, making together 2,961. That number would entitle it to be placed in schedule B; but at the same time that he said this, it was but fair that
1516
he should read to the House what the re-turning-officer had said, and when he had done so, he thought he should have shown, that if they did grant a Member to Reigate, they must be considered to have done complete and ample justice to that borough. The returning-officer said, that the borough itself and the adjoining town were in all respects as distinct as two several parishes. These were the boroughs that he proposed to take from schedule A, and transfer to schedule B. There was a greater number which he proposed to strike out of schedule B, and to permit them to retain their present number of Members. The first of these was the borough of Leominster, which possessed a population of 4,646; the next was the borough of Morpeth, the population of which was 4,291; then followed the borough of Northallerton, with a population of 4,431; and the borough of Tamworth, having a population of nearly 7,000. That borough was like Reigate. The returning officer stated, that the parish of Tamworth was very extensive, consisting of towns and hamlets distinct from each other all maintaining their own poor separately, but all united in the assessment of the Church-rates. This separation, in particular points, had not been deemed sufficient ground for legislating upon, and therefore the borough was proposed to be permitted to retain its present number of Members. The borough of Truro, according to the population returns, possessed a large number of inhabitants. The town was larger than the borough. Looking at all the petitions and memorials that had been sent into that House, it clearly appeared that in 1821 the borough contained more than 6,000 inhabitants. It ought, consequently, to retain its present number of Members. The borough of Westbury contained a population of 2,846, and Chipping Wycombe had 2,559 inhabitants. These two amounted together to a population sufficiently large to justify the Ministers in taking those boroughs out of schedule B, and allowing them to return their present number of Members. In all cases of disfranchisement there must be a limit of some sort, and whatever might be the line adopted, there would be persons who would discover that there were places just on one side of the limit to which in literal strictness the rule might be applied, but which ought to be more favourably treated. The line which Ministers had

1517
adopted was one which they had determined on after mature consideration, and from that line they would not depart. With respect to boroughs, they had determined that where the township was part of the borough and depended on it, both ought to form but one place for the return of Representatives. Where, however, the nature of these relations between two places was in doubt, they could not be expected to depart from the population. In all such cases as these the question had been considered to be the same as where a house was partly in one county and partly in another. In cases where it was clear that the township, which might have raised its population to the amount required, consisted of and was a part of the borough, the whole of such population was to be taken as constituting the criterion by which its proportion of the franchise was to be allotted and regulated. In such a case as that of Clitheroe, however, which had a population of 3,000 persons, but which was in the parish of Waley, with a greater population, without, at the same time having any connection with that parish, he had not felt himself authorized to give the borough and that parish a connection which they really had not hitherto, so as to allow the borough a right on account of that connection which it would not otherwise possess. The case of Beeralston was one involved in some degree of doubt. It was not properly stated in the population returns. It had been said, that Beeralston ought to betaken with the parish of Beerferries, but they did not think that they could make that change, for Beerferries was a county parish, and did not contain more than one house let at a rent of 10 l. a yean. Than such places there were none, in his opinion, more deserving of being swept away from the list of represented boroughs. The right hon. Gentleman had, the other night, compared that place with the borough of Calne, with which it certainly had no one point of resemblance. Calne was composed of a borough and parish, but the parish comprised the town. The borough was small, but the parish was a town parish. As they had not adopted the rule of confining the borough always to its own limits, it would be most unjust to Calne to apply such a rule exclusively to it. There were many cases of a similar kind, such as Cirencester and Newport, in which the limits of the borough and the parish were not identical. It was easy to charge par-
1518
tiality against those who produced this measure, but the fact was, that they took the returns as they came. It was easy to say that Calne, Tavistock, and Knaresborough, ought to have their elective franchise taken away. If such a proceeding was just, nothing would be more satisfactory than for him to do so if he could even get five votes by such proceeding. The point to which they objected was, the power to nominate. That power would be taken away by this Bill, though the influence of property would remain, and in that way, of course, the influence of the Marquis of Lansdown and of the Dukes of Devonshire and Bedford would still continue. The Marquis of Lansdown had very little influence from direct property in the borough of Calne. Of the houses let at 10 l. a year in that borough only three belonged to him. If the right of returning Members should be taken away from the borough and given to the county of Wilts, the noble Marquis would obtain more influence than he now possessed. The principle of that Bill was, to take away the power of nomination, not the influence of properly, nor that of character; and if they totally disfranchised Calne, Lord Lansdown would have that influence which was properly due to a man enjoying nobility alike by his origin and talents, his high title, his vast possessions, and his great ability—an ability for public affairs united with a moderation of ambition rarely joined to such powers, and integrity, on which no spot had ever been cast—even in the utmost heat and bitterness of political contention. They might disfranchise Calne, but they could never deprive Lord Lansdown of the influence which his talents and character gave him. That was beyond their power! So long as he enjoyed his extensive possessions—his great ability, and his high character, it would be impossible for legislation to reach him, or for party malice to affect his interests; and this would, and must be so, as long as a virtuous aristocracy was held in respect in this country. Having mentioned the places which were to be transferred from one schedule to the other, or removed altogether from the operation of the Bill, he should proceed to mention those places to which Members were to be assigned as an equivalent for those that were taken off. It had been complained of by hon. Members opposite that the largest places, and that all the

1519
places containing more than 10,000 inhabitants, in conformity to the standard proposed by the Bill, had not received Members. It should be recollected that, although the Bill was founded, to a certain extent, upon the principle of population, yet they did not look to population alone as the test of capacity for voting. Where there was commercial enterprise and commercial capital, combined with population, or where the same interests were represented in other parts, the proposers of the measure had thought it better to make a selection than to adhere punctiliously to a specific number of persons giving a right to return Members to that House. At present there were many small boroughs to be saved from disfranchisement, and it was therefore not advisable to give all the towns with 10,000 inhabitants a Member. Although population in the inferior boroughs had been taken as the rule for disfranchisement, it was not that alone which had guided them in all cases in determining what towns should receive Representatives. They had also been governed with a view to particular interests. They proposed as a counterbalance to the pure principle of population, to give Representatives to large towns possessed of manufacturing capital and skill, such as Bury, in Lancashire, Oldham, and Rochdale, and in addition to the towns already endowed with the right of sending Members by the Bill, he therefore proposed that these towns should each send one Member. Salford, which, with Pendleton and Broughton, contained above 50,000 inhabitants, and had commercial interests distinct from Manchester, was also to send one. For that part of Staffordshire, known by the name of the Potteries, and situated at Stoke-upon-Trent, he proposed there should be one Member. For Wakefield, which, in the original schedule, was omitted by mistake, and for Whitby, there was also to be one Member each. Instead of the parish of Halifax, which contained much poor and wild land, he proposed that the right of voting should be confined to the township of Halifax, which should only return one Member. All these he proposed should be added to schedule B. Having thus added to the number of Members for the manufacturing towns, and met, he hoped, the objections of those Gentlemen who had complained that several of these towns were not included in the Bill, it was necessary to give some additional Members to
1520
the counties. It had been thought hard that some counties should have four Members, and others, not much inferior in extent and population, should only have two. To remedy this, he proposed, that such of them as possessed a population of above 100,000 should receive one additional Member. These counties were Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Dorsetshire, Hertfordshire, Herefordshire, Oxfordshire, and Glamorganshire. There were seven of these counties which would thus send three Members to Parliament, and Glamorganshire, which had hitherto had only one, would be thenceforward allowed two. What he had now said would correct a misapprehension that had prevailed on the provisions of the Bill as they related to counties. He had now gone through the intended alterations as they affected the schedules, and it would probably be convenient if he recapitulated them. It was proposed, then, that Aid-borough, Buckingham, Malmesbury, Okehampton, and Reigate, should be transferred from schedule A, and put into schedule B; that Leominster, Morpeth, Northallerton, Tamworth, Truro, West-bury, and Chipping Wycombe, should be taken out of schedule B, that is, that they should be allowed to return the present number of their Representatives. Further, it was proposed that Bury, in Lancashire, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, the Potteries of Staffordshire, Wakefield, Whitby, and Halifax, should be admitted to the right of returning one Member each; and that the counties of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Dorsetshire, Hertfordshire, Herefordshire, Oxfordshire, and Glamorganshire, should each return an additional Member. The whole effect of the alterations proposed he had brought into one view in a paper which he had intended to read, but which he unluckily had mislaid. He could, however, state from memory, that suppose five new Members given to Ireland, and five to Scotland, the whole number of Representatives for the United Kingdom would be 627, making a diminution of the present number of thirty-one Members. There were twelve towns which were to send two Representatives, including parts of the metropolis; twenty-six towns which were to send one Member; and sixty-one additional Members for counties in England; and one for a borough and one for a county in Wales. In addition to these were five new

1521
Members for Ireland and five for Scotland. The number thus given was to be subtracted from the total diminution, which, he thought, was 154 Members, and it would leave the diminution of the present number of the House thirty-one Members. This was certainly a less diminution than was originally contemplated. He would then proceed to notice some other and minor alterations in the Bill. In the first place, with regard to the right of voting for counties. Some complaints had been made—and he admitted, naturally—that while leaseholders of a certain annual value, and copyholders, were allowed the franchise, it was withheld from those who, perhaps, had a much longer term, and greater interest, for 99, or 999 years. It was therefore intended that persons having leases of the value of 10 l. a year and upwards for any term exceeding sixty years should be entitled to vote for counties. There was another description of leaseholders whom it was also designed as an act of fairness to include: he meant those who had paid large fines upon leases where the rent was small, but where the interest in truth was greater than that of a tenant for twenty-one years at 50 l. a year. With regard to the qualification for voting in towns occupation had, in general, been taken as the test of residence; but it was wished to give the franchise not only to the occupiers of houses, but to the occupiers of warehouses and counting-houses. But the arrangement, as it before stood, construed strictly, would exclude all the great merchants of Manchester, Liverpool, and other large commercial towns, who did not reside within the limits, although much of their property was deposited in the town. He was satisfied that this amendment, instead of being disapproved, would be cordially accepted. Another change carried a little farther the principle of keeping alive existing rights in the persons of those who now held them. It had been very strongly urged by persons connected with cities, where the right of voting was in the freemen, that admitting the principle of saving the rights of those who were now alive, it ought to include the inchoate rights of the sons of freemen, and of apprentices not yet out of their time. This change would not make any difference in the principle of the Bill, and it had, therefore, been agreed to admit to the right of voting the children and apprentices of freemen, who at present would be entitled to it, on coming of age,
1522
or on arriving at the expiration of their articles of apprenticeship. With another alteration he apprehended the hon. and learned member for Preston (Mr. J. Wood) would be well contented. It would conserve expressly the rights of all who at present voted by reason of inheritancy. This was merely carrying more completely into effect the original intentions of the framers of the measure, and he (Lord J. Russell) had in fact stated it on the former occasion, but the hon. and learned member for Preston having mentioned his apprehensions that a large body of his constituents would be disfranchised, the alteration he had just referred to, was especially meant to guard against that. As to the returning officers, an alteration had likewise been adopted, for it was found, that in some instances it would not be possible to insert in the Bill an exact description of the proper individual. It had been thought, therefore, that the better mode would be to adopt a general clause giving the Sheriff of the county the power, on the 1st of March of every year, to name the returning officer for places within his jurisdiction. Some improvement had also been made in registration: it was to be provided that the Christian and surname with the place of abode should be distinctly stated, so that the register should be a complete index of the voters enrolled in it; it was meant that this register should be kept in a book to which reference could be readily made, and as the Churchwardens might find it in some cases a burthen to make it out, it was provided that they might employ such clerks as were necessary to complete the lists, the expense to be paid by the parish to which they related. Some difficulty, it was thought, might arise out of extra parochial places, and they were therefore to be joined to the smallest parish by which they were bounded. Another amendment applied to polling: instead of the polling always taking place in cities and boroughs in one situation, it was thought that the chance of much tumult and confusion might be avoided, if power were given to the returning officer to direct that the voters should tender their suffrages at different places, according to his discretion. It was also provided, that persons residing near contributory boroughs in Wales should be able to vote at that contributory borough nearest to which they dwelt. To these alterations would be added a clause, declaring that any person guilty of false

1523
swearing at an election, should be liable to the penalties of perjury. A further clause would be similar to that found in some of the Acts brought in by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, providing for cages of misnomer, that the words should be taken and construed in their popular and intelligible sense. "I have now (continued Lord John Russell) gone through all the principal alterations we propose to make; the House will be able to see them more distinctly, and to understand them more completely to-morrow, as I have taken care that the bill should be accurately reprinted and speedily delivered. By the time we have gone through the two schedules, hon. Members will be prepared to enter into the discussion of the amended measure. We may then examine the Bill clause by clause, and those who object to particular provisions, will have a full opportunity of settling and stating their objections. If it be thought proper to raise again the question of the principle of this plan, I shall be quite ready to enter into it—to defend it—and to show that it is entitled to the most favourable consideration of the House. Whatever verbal changes and local improvements may be made in the Committee as to the mode in which this great arrangement is to be carried into effect, I am prepared to argue that this House will only properly represent the people, and consult the interests of the people, by passing the Bill with as little general alteration as possible. An hon. and gallant Member, whom I see in his place, is about to propose some Resolution, by which he means to bind the House to keep up? a certain number of Members for particular parts of the empire. I will not now enter into a question which can be more properly debated when the motion is made; but I cannot help saying that the course seems to me most invidious, and likely to promote that jealousy which we ought to endeavour to allay. It is calculated to raise prejudices which I hoped were extinguished, by declaring on this occasion that there is one part, or that there are two parts of the United Kingdom which ought to have a particular number of Members, to the exclusion of the rest. As I have said, it is not my business now to enter into the discussion, as I cannot hope that my authority will prevail upon the hon. and gallant Member to relinquish his Motion. I way, however, take the
1524
liberty of reading to him a passage in one of Mr. Pitt's speeches on the Union, which seems to me to have been delivered in the true spirit of a Statesman, anxious to make that Union real and effectual. It was judged proper, looking at the population and taxes of Ireland, to allow her 100 Members; and upon the question whether that number should be more or less, Mr. Pitt spoke as follows:—"Upon a full consideration of the subject, the Parliament of Ireland are of opinion that the number of Representatives for Ireland in the House of Commons ought to be 100. Upon this subject, the first question to which I have to call the attention of Gentlemen (supposing that they adhere to the Resolutions of last Session) is, whether the number so mentioned by the Parliament of Ireland is so reasonable, and funded in such fair proportions, that we ought to agree to it? For my own part, Sir, I will fairly confess, that upon this part of the subject it does appear to me extremely difficult to find any precise ground upon which to form a correct calculation, or to entertain a positive preference for any one specific number of Members rather than another: but I am the less anxious about it, because I do not consider the consequences as very important. In my view of Representation, founded upon the experience of our Constitution, I think we are entitled to say, that, if a nation becomes united with us in interests and in affection, it is a matter of but small importance whether the number of Representatives from one part of the United Empire be greater or less."✶ That was the view taken of the subject by a great practical Statesman, and I leave it to the consideration of hon. Members, satisfied that they will not hastily throw by such an authority. It has been my business to explain the alterations it is proposed to make in the Committee in this bill for amending the Representation. The House will perceive that the alteration as to the number of Members is considerable: that number is increased more than thirty above the amount I stated when first I introduced the proposition; but, I think, if hon. Gentlemen will consider the reasons for this change— the fitness of taking certain places out of the two first schedules—they will be satisfied of the justice of that course, and that in no instance and in no manner is it a de-
✶ Hansard's Parl. Hist. vol. xxxv. p 42–3

1525
parture from the original principle of the Bill. It was brought forward, and was received, under circumstances which can- not but be gratifying to those who were concerned in its original formation. It was the result of great consideration, and this is the Bill—the very Bill brought for- ward by the Cabinet, which was allowed by his Majesty to take the whole subject under its view. It is the Bill which the House, after a length of debate unexampled in this country, sanctioned by its deliberate vote upon the second reading. It is the Bill which those who, the right hon. Gentleman contends, duly represent the feelings and interests of the inhabitants of the empire, approved by a majority. It is the Bill which the House notwithstanding the presence in it of 200 Members for boroughs, directly, or indirectly, affected by it, adopted, although I admit, by the very smallest majority. Be it remembered also, that this House was chosen under the auspices of a different Government, and that in it were marshalled in hostile array all those whom it was thought necessary to retain for the sake of keeping up the influence of the Crown, and who recently occupied official situations. I say, then, that the sanction of such a House is an extraordinary testimony in favour of the justice and equity of the measure. I am quite satisfied that this question ought to receive, before long, its final decision. This House will ill discharge its duty to its constituents, if it keep the topic of Reform in debate for the period of another year. Even were it to be continued for three or four months, I should say that the consequent agitation would be highly injurious. For that reason I desire to see the House, in its present shape, and with its present Constitution, sanction the principle of this Bill. I see two great authorities in opposition to each other upon this vast question—Earl, Grey on the one side, and the Duke of Wellington on the other. The noble Earl at the head of the Government is of opinion that a measure of this kind ought to be conceded to the wishes of the people. The noble Duke, who, on so many accounts, is entitled to the gratitude and reverence of his country, thinks that there should be no alteration whatever in the Constitution of Parliament. If that were a possible course, it might perhaps be a wise one; but I think that the Members of this House have made up their minds
1526
that even if the course were wise, it is no longer possible. I ask hon. Gentlemen, then, to consider whether, from particular views, and for private reasons, they will endeavour to alter and fritter away this great substantial measure? We who proposed it are bound by its principles, and by its principles we will abide—yes, I repeat it, by its principles we will abide. Whatever may be the course which the noble Lord at the head of the Government with the other members of the Cabinet may think it their duty to take on other subjects—whatever opinions they may deliver in Parliament, and whatever advice they may give their Sovereign—be assured of this, they are united firmly for the purpose of carrying this Bill. Having been brought forward in Parliament, and announced to the people; by Parliament it has been sanctioned, and by the people it has been universally approved. If you are now to alter, to break in upon, or to fritter it away, you will only be preparing a vexatious and a useless contest, at a time when you might not have to deal with the people in their present temper and spirit of moderation; then, too, you might be called upon to discuss Reform in a state of much less comparative prosperity than the nation now enjoys. I am ready to allow, that those who bring forward and press forward this Bill, have some claim to the reputation of boldness. But I, for one, confess that I am not so bold but that I should look with great apprehension to the consequences of a continued resistance by those who have property in boroughs, with the chance, that, in the course of that resistance, new distresses or new feelings of agitation, may manifest themselves among the people. If the Bill be now passed, it will be passed in perfect tranquillity— without interrupting the union and harmony of all classes; but if you will not listen to this advice, which I very humbly offer —if you do not think it worthy of being followed—I beg you to remember that those who shall undertake the conduct of a majority of the House of Commons against this measure will have difficulties to encounter with which no Minister in the country has yet been able successfully to contend. If there ever was a Prime Minister, powerful from his authority—from the services he had rendered his country— it was the Duke of Wellington—
"Exuvias veteres populi, sacrataque gestans, Dona ducum:"

1527
He was on every account entitled to power —from the victories he had won both in peace and in war, for
"Peace has her victories as well as war;"
but he found it impossible to resist the majority of this House. Armed with almost unlimited power, granted by one Sovereign and confirmed by another, his authority was broken and shivered by the storm to which he would not bend. If a man like the Duke of Wellington, with strength of character to sustain, and talents to unite, all parties, could not oppose the pronounced decision of this House, and the general, indisputable, and enthusiastic, voice of the people, who shall hope to resist it. I beg leave to move the Order of the Day "that the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider the provisions of the Bill for the Amendment of the Re- presentation of England and Wales."
General Gascoyneobserved, that the Bill then before the House differed essentially from that first proposed by Ministers,—the Bill, by which they had pledged themselves to "stand or fall:—the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." That measure and the present differed as perfectly as any two possibly could; and from what had fallen from the noble Lord, he expected still further changes. The noble Lord ought to withdraw the Bill for the present, so as to afford sufficient time for its consideration, if not withdraw it altogether, as indeed would be his best course, for it was so new in its provisions, that it could not be expected that they should be then able to discuss it. If the noble Lord should thus postpone the Bill, he would also postpone his motion, pledging himself, however, to bring it forward whenever the noble Lord again brought his measure under their notice. Though he was willing to act thus, if the sense of the House was in favour of delay, he him- self saw no reason why he should not at once submit his Motion, and therefore,— [The. hon. Member became inaudible in consequence of the noise of hon. Members on the floor.] He could not but regret this interruption, and wished hon. Members would go to dinner at once, and not thus interrupt the public business. His Motion was directed against the proposed reduction of the Members of that House, and was not founded on any superstitious attachment to a particular number, but to the principle of such a reduction. He repeated his wish that the Bill should be
1528
withdrawn; for it was so altered from its original character, that no person could recognize any similarity. The Session was not so advanced but that sufficient time might be afforded for bringing in a more matured measure. If, then, Ministers would persist, he had no alternative but to press his Motion—not, he wished it to be understood, in a spirit of hostility to the Irish Representation, but from an anxiety to prevent the aggrandizement of the Irish and Scotch, at the expense of the English Representation. He contended that the spoliation of the English Representation was indefensible on any principle of justice or expediency. It could not be defended on the ground of the population of Ireland having increased so much as to warrant such an increase of the relative number of its Representatives in that House; for if population, concerning which, by the way, they had very exaggerated statements, were taken as the basis of the Irish Representation, it ought also to be taken as the basis of the Irish taxation. That it was not so was plain, and this circumstance had been urged as an argument in favour of the Legislative Union with Ireland by Mr. Pitt. At that time the population of Ireland amounted to 4,200,000 persons—the taxation was 4,600,000 l.; while the population of England was 10,700,000, and the taxation 27,700,000 l. At present Ireland did not contribute more than one-tenth of taxes in proportion to its population as compared with this country; so that if population were taken as the ground for adding to the Representatives of that country, it ought also to be made the basis of a more equal taxation. It was proposed at the time of the Union, by the present head of the Government, to reduce the number of the Members of that House, on the ground that a great inconvenience would ensue from the influx of 100 Irish Members. Now, admitting the correctness of this objection, he would ask, was it not an odd panacea of an evil to increase its cause, as would be the case by the present Bill with respect to the Irish Representation? He had no objection, he begged it to be understood, to the people of Ireland and of Scotland receiving a due share of Representation, but he must protest against their number of Representatives being increased at the expense of the Representation of this country. Ireland might obtain her five additional Members, and Scotland hers; but

1529
let it not be at the expense of the people of England. What would be the feelings of the people of those countries if the Bill proposed to add to the English Representation at the expense of the Representation of Ireland and Scotland? Would they ever hear the end of the charges of unfairness, and injustice, and violation of the Articles of Union? And was England to be stripped of her relative share without remonstrance'? Were they blind to the unanimity with which the Representatives of Scotland and Ireland resisted every plan, emanate from where it might, which tended to equalize the burthens of the State in all parts of the United Kingdom? In the divisions on the property-tax, on the assessed taxes, on the spirit-duties—in fact, on every new impost whatever, the Irish and Scotch Members always voted so as to throw the weight of the taxes off their own shoulders on the people of England; and yet the noble Lord came forward with a proposition which took from the English Representation, and added to that of Scotland and Ireland. Did they forget that Ministers were compelled to exempt Scotland and Ireland from the operation of the Small-note Prohibition bill, in consequence of the opposition of the Members of those countries?—that eighty-three out of 100 Irish Members came to a resolution to oppose Ministers altogether if they persisted in depriving Ireland of its small-note currency, and that they succeeded in their object? Look how the Irish Members contrived to throw the burthen of supporting their own poor on this country, as indeed they would every other burthen, if the relative superiority of the Representation of this country were destroyed according to the Bill. On the other hand, let them consider the dangerous influence which the Irish Representation placed in the hands of any Ministers who chose to court it at the expense of this country. By conciliating it they might carry any measure they pleased, no matter how it might affect the interests of the people of England, and such a conciliation was the boon held out to Ireland by the present Bill. It was on this ground, therefore, that he proposed that the number of English Members should not be reduced. Ireland might, if the House so pleased, receive an increase of Members, but let them not therefore diminish the number of English Members. If the Bill were altered so as to transfer the franchise of
1530
the boroughs in the schedule A, to places in England, he should not object to it; but if it were retained in its present form, he would offer it every opposition in his power. The hon. Member concluded by moving the following Resolution as an amendment—"That it is the opinion of this House, that the total number of Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, returned to Parliament for that part of the United Kingdom called England and Wales, ought not to be diminished."
Mr. Sadler roseand said:—In seconding the Motion of my gallant friend, the member for Liverpool, I feel it quite unnecessary to advance any additional argument in its favour. What he has said on proposing it is perfectly unanswerable; and has proved beyond controversy the necessity of its adoption. But had the Resolution submitted by him been introduced without the recommendation of a single argument, that necessity would have been sufficiently apparent. The proposition of the Reform Bill, as it is called, which goes to deprive of a considerable portion of its Representation this part of the United Kingdom, which is of such transcendent importance, whether in reference to its wealth, its population, or its position— which is the seat of its principal manufactures, and the centre not only of its domestic empire, but of those vast and populous colonial possessions which extend round the world, and connect this country with all others—is, as an abstract proposition, one of the most impolitic and indefensible ever submitted to the House. But when it is recollected that questions of vital importance to the integrity and existence of the empire, different sides of which are warmly espoused in different divisions of the United Kingdom, questions which the noble Lord opposite contemplates may not have to be decided by the House merely, but by an appeal to the sword; when it is recollected, that questions of the utmost importance likely to be so decided are to come before us: to diminish the number of the Representatives for one part of the empire, at the same time that those in another are proposed to be increased, is to give great legislative advantages to that portion of the community which the noble Lord thus anticipates the possibility of resisting, and would be a species of infatuation of the most fatal kind in my opinion. The noble member for Tavistock has indeed read a pas-

1531
sage from Mr. Pitt's speech, from which he meant to show, that the numerical proportion awarded to different divisions of the empire, in the Representative branch of the Legislature, is a consideration of little importance—a doctrine which I think is hardly consistent with his notions on the subject, founded as that doctrine was on the principle of virtual Representation, a principle which it is the purpose of his Bill to repudiate from the Constitution. But in the circumstances under which the country is now' placed, I repeat, nothing-can be more absurd, nothing more dangerous, than the proposed diminution. I can, however, confidently leave this proposition to the determination of the House and will therefore address myself to the general measure of which this forms only a part, though an important one. And in so doing I shall but follow the example of the noble Lord, who has not only argued the general question, but endeavoured by anticipation to answer my gallant friend before he, had even moved his Resolution. Nor shall I make any apology for pursuing this course. Having on a preceding occasion, when I gave my vote against the Bill, been prevented from addressing the House by the eagerness of many other hon. Members to obtain its attention, I shall now justify my opposition to that measure by stating those arguments which have determined my judgment. But I feel the difficulty of my attempt increased by the alterations which have been just made in the measure by the noble Lord, who has dealt with this political budget of the Ministry, as the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer has done with his financial one, of which I am not aware that there is any thing left but steam; in like manner the new Constitution, if it is to be thus altered from to time, it is quite as certain will at length end in fume and smoke. But I shall attempt to adapt my observations to this second and amended edition of the new Constitution; the alterations proposed this evening, have indeed deprived me of some of the examples of the ignorance and injustice of the measure which I should have pointed out, had I found the opportunity I sought for, on a preceding occasion, but the objections to its main principle remain unabated, or rather, indeed, as it will be seen, are on the whole, aggravated. In proceeding to show the unconstitutional and dangerous nature of the entire scheme, and how widely different it
1532
is from any thing that could have been some time ago contemplated by his Majesty's Ministers, I shall take leave to quote the recorded declaration of two of them—one made in this House, by a distinguished Member of it, now at the head of the law; and the other by the noble Earl at the head of the Government. These declarations will show, I think, how widely different are the spirit and objects of the present measure compared with that which they originally contemplated; and will warn us, I hope, from acceding to their present propositions, as utterly inconsistent with their late professions. Early in November last, Mr. (now Lord) Brougham gave notice of his intention, in a speech in this House, of which the following is an extract:—"It has been said, that I am a friend to a radical, sweeping, and innovating, and I may add—for I conscientiously believe that it would prove so—revolutionary Reform. This imputation I wish most distinctly to deny. I stand on the ancient way of the Constitution; and without entering into details, which would be now extremely irregular as well as inconvenient, I beg leave to state, that whatever plan of Reform I may propose will have for its object, in the first place, to conciliate the opinions and support of all the friends of Reform.—Such, Sir, will be the object of the great measure of change, which I intend to submit to the House. I shall only add, that my motion will be founded on a principle which I trust will ever be held sacred in this House. My object in bringing forward the measure is not revolution, but restoration,—to repair the Constitution, and not to pull it down."✶ Precisely similar in import, and not very different in terms, were the expressions of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, a short time afterwards, in reference to the contemplated measure. "I wish," said he, "to stand as much as I can upon the fixed and settled institutions of the country." The Reform he intended was, he added, "to be guarded and limited, by a prudent care not to disturb too violently, by any extreme changes, the established principles and practices of the Constitution." These declarations, Sir, will not only authorise me in appealing to the original principle of the Constitution, but they seem, indeed, to demand that it should be tried by that test. Let us then
✶ Hansard's Debates, vol. i. 3rd Series p. 54.

1533
shortly refer to that ancient model, in order to determine how far they have kept their word of promise; and we shall find, Sir, that they have not only deserted the practice; they have poured contempt upon the main principles of our venerated Constitution. The Constitution of England, especially the representative branch of it, now sought to be mutilated or destroyed, is, like the eventful history of the people who have achieved it, of ancient and obscure original. Like them, also, it has attained to its present state of unrivalled efficiency by slow and irregular advances, and by the incorporation of many seemingly discordant accessions, which time has at length amalgamated into one general mass of union, consistency, and strength, to which, had it been constituted of any one single element, it could never have attained. Virtual Representation, however founded upon property, much as it may be the fashion for ignorance to deny its antiquity, is doubtless the original basis of that Constitution. To this was at length added a more direct form, something like that of delegation; and yet later, distinct communities and separate interests were admitted, though still with little observance of any numerical proportion. The original Constitution thus successively adopted its several modifications as necessity dictated, and experience sanctioned them, which have rendered it a mixed, indeed, though not a complicated system; while those reciprocal influences now sought to be destroyed have cemented its several parts, and conferred on the whole that without which the happiest form of Government ever projected would be utterly worthless—perpetuity. Even the differences, or, as many regard them, imperfections, in this system, have had the practical effect, whether contemplated or not, of securing a more complete representation of this diversified community than any more uniform method, however theoretically perfect, could have produced. It has on the one hand admitted among the represented part of the community, bodies of the people which must otherwise have been totally excluded, and which the projected measure, indeed, coolly proposes, finally, and for ever, to disfranchise; on the other, it has called to this House a class of persons who have been the glory of the country and the benefactors of mankind; but which the present scheme would have necessarily
1534
excluded. As to its general effects, these may be best read in the perfect freedom, unrivalled greatness, and continued prosperity of this mighty empire. I have said that our Constitution originally recognised virtual Representation only, and it seems necessary to repeat this obvious fact when so many attempts are made to represent that principle as one of those corruptions which have crept in among us in later times. Alfred, whom this country is proud to claim as the father of its monarchy, and the founder of its liberties, founded his Wittenagemote on that principle only: which he also engrafted on that institution, which is of infinitely more importance to the mass of the community than the form of its Legislature—the administration of justice; hence the British subject, whose property, character, or life, is at stake, is still tried by his country, which country his Jury constitutionally represents, not indeed by election or delegation, but virtually. I hardly need observe, that during the Norman period of our history, down at least to nearly the close of the reign of Henry 3rd, nothing but virtual Representation is to be found in the Magnum Concilium Regni of those days. And, even in the latter period, when the rudiments of our present representative system were sketched, till that of the Revolution, when our ancestors deemed it perfect, virtual, rather than geographical or numerical Representation, remained the groundwork of the Constitution. A single moment's reflection sufficiently decides this point. Those who are not too much disposed to respect the intelligence of our forefathers, will nevertheless hardly doubt but that they knew Yorkshire, for instance, to be forty times as large as Rutland shire; and again, that the ancient capital of that great province was at least ten times as populous, and far more than so many times as opulent as some of the parliamentary boroughs in its neighbourhood (a fact which I have taken some time and pains to ascertain), and yet they gave alike two representatives in every such instance. But a nearer view of the borough Representation, as originally established, will serve to convince us, that it was not only virtual with regard to these vast differences in population, but that it was equally so with respect to those various interests, and especially to the influence of large masses of property which it al ways retained. And as this last point is

1535
the one principally in dispute, it may be proper to observe, that if there be the least truth and reality in the idea of a balance of power in the three co-ordinate and independent branches of the Legislature (and it is difficult to conceive that they could so long exist without it), then it follows, that as the Commons became more powerful, which they did, (especially when, among other causes, the Knights of the shires were added to their body, whereas, at first, they were representatives of the tenants in capite, and belonged to the higher order, their whole constituency not exceeding in number 3,000); I say, then, it became necessary, (and necessity is the mother of political as well as mechanical invention) that the Crown, as well as some of its more powerful subjects, should also extend, or rather preserve their influence, by the creation of additional boroughs, which I find some of the great Barons were permitted to do, obtaining for them the privilege of Representation. Thus was it that the larger masses of property preserved an influence in the representative branch of the Legislature, essential, I conceive, to its preservation, and thus have they retained it. The necessity of this inequality of influence, where there is an inequality of property, is held, I think, by all the great authorities, both of ancient and modern times. Aristotle maintains the principle as that of distributive justice, and I need not say, that it was fully recognized by the ancient constitution of Rome. Grotius also contends that it is highly consistent with natural equity; and says, that the number of votes in any community should be so regulated;— that is,mensoriâ proportione. But, not to appeal to foreign or ancient jurists; as profound a Judge of the original Constitution of this country, as enthusiastic an assertor of its liberties, and as daring a reformer as ever lived in it—I mean Home Tooke—fully establishes this principle. "All men," says he, "have an equal right to representation, but all men have not a right to be equally represented." But, Sir, I shall lastly avail myself of an authority on this occasion still more decisive—I mean that of the noble member for Tavistock himself. He speaks of borough nomination as effectuating the object to which I have been alluding. "Theoretically, indeed," says he," it would be better if the Members sent by single persons were elected by a
1536
body of rich constituents;" but he proceeds to show that the present mode is practically preferable; and for reasons which I think are unanswerable. And, Sir, it cannot be denied but that any scheme which should invest with distinct privileges, or award a plurality of votes to any particular class of electors, would be a far more unconstitutional, and certainly a more galling distinction, than the ancient and less offensive practice which the noble Lord now terms nomination. It suffices, however, for me to have shown that, with every other profound writer on the subject, he clearly acknowledges the necessity of that which the present measure wholly repudiates. Take away the influence thus possessed by the great masses of property (I make no distinction as to that property being held by Commoners or Peers—it were ridiculous so to do), and, looked upon, as such accumulations always have been and still are, with envious eyes by many, which rest for their security on ancient gifts and transfers; upon "inky blots and rotten parchment bonds;" take away that influence and you will tear the seals off their title deeds, as you propose to do by those of the corporation charters. The consequences are then certain, and they are at hand. Prepare, in some form or other, for those Agrarian struggles which long disturbed and at length destroyed Rome: for similar spoliations to those which have recently been witnessed in a neighbouring country, where property, bereft of its political influence, lost its rights, and only served to mark out its possessors to certain destruction. But the maligners of our existing Constitution, who thus err in supposing that the influence of the aristocracy in Parliament is a corruption of the ancient system of Representation, are equally in error in imputing the same charge to those parliamentary cities and boroughs which are under no such influence, but whose constituency is restricted to a select body of the people. Now no one fact is more clear and certain to the political antiquary than that which Hume asserts, namely, that the election of the Members for such places was made, not by "the residents, as such, of whatever rank, but by the Aldermen and Common Council." Proofs of this fact might be readily adduced which it would be impossible to withstand; it will be, however, unnecessary to advance one of them. This part of the subject has been already

1537
under the grasp of one of the most vigorous intellects of the age, and who, if he can be suspected of any bias whew in the search of truth, it would certainly be on the side of what is called liberality.—In a number of the Edinburgh Review, of no old date, usually, and I believe correctly attributed to the pen of the noble Lord now at the head of the law, the real question regarding the original law of election in these parliamentary corporations, is thus decided: — "There is reason to believe that originally the right of election in boroughs was vested in the governing portion of the burgesses, and that in the progress of the House of Commons to power and importance, the tendency has been in general to render the elections more popular." It follows, then, if there be truth in history, as understood by the ablest among us, that the terms corrupt and rotten, now applied to many parliamentary boroughs, are used either in utter ignorance, or thorough disregard, of the truth. According to the doctrines of those who hold such language, all such boroughs were decayed from their very origin, and intentionally rotten. The motive of this strange misrepresentation of historical facts is but too obvious. Machiavelli earnestly recommends those who seek to subvert the institutions of their country, to disguise their design as much as possible by these references to ancient privileges; and "if," says he, "they would change the power, the number, or duration, of Magistrates (Parliaments he would have written in this country), it would be convenient to continue the name." The projectors and supporters of this "sweeping measure," as they justly call it, follow his political morality. Respecting the borough Representation, under the hollow pretence of lopping-off decay, they propose utter destruction; and, as to what is to remain, they talk indeed of restoration—but, by altering and equalizing the entire constituency, they mean revolution. I shall not now touch upon the entire system thus sought to be changed, the very discrepancies in which, according to such authorities as Paley, and Burke, and Fox, including the noble member for Tavistock himself, have had the effect of giving to this House, the country, and the world, many of the brightest names which have adorned the page of history; the destruction of which system would henceforth close these doors against that intellectual superiority which, without accidental ad-
1538
vantages, is long in making itself widely known; and which, were it to put forth its pretensions, would be rejected in favour of those declaiming demagogues, or lofty patricians, whose admission it alone secures; while it would expel from these seats any one, however elevated by talent or distinguished by virtue, who should not bow down his conscience and surrender his judgment to the popular opinion of the day,—a plan, in short, which would deprive henceforth the country of its ablest advocates, and posterity of its best guides. But I shall not touch upon these topics, important as they are; they have been the subject of exultation with our most enlightened patriots ever since freedom has been established among us; nor have they been forgotten by those who have preceded me in this debate. I will, however, venture to advert shortly to the practical effects of that part of our Constitution now sought to be destroyed, and they have been of such a nature as to demand our notice, and excite, I think, our warmest gratitude. Leaving, then, the proofs of the superiority of the new scheme in its future operation, to our political quacks and soothsayers, let us examine by the lights of experience what the effect has been of retaining the close and rotten parts of our system, as they are called, now threatened with destruction. Take, then, two or three of the most striking events which have recently occurred in our constitutional history, either as indicative of the national will, or productive of the most important results. And first, after some examination, I will venture to assert that the Revolution would never have been achieved, at least as it now remains, had it not been for the direct effect of this part of the representative system, of which more anon. Twice the guarantee of that great event was resisted, and the succession of the House of Brunswick opposed; on each of which occasions that security of the liberty of the country was obtained by a majority of one vote only. The division on the first occasion I have not met with; that on the second is in my possession, and by accurately examining it, I find that of the county Members more than two for one voted against the House of Brunswick; the Representatives of the open towns and boroughs were more nearly equal. But it was the close boroughs, and those which this Bill regards as decayed and rotten, and which were at

1539
least as much decayed and rotten then as at the present day—I say it was these that decided that momentous national event. Sixty-five of these against forty-nine, stood between a misguided populace and tyranny, and gave to this country the illustrious House which still happily rules over us, and sways the destinies of half the world. But it is not even patriotism, however disinterested, that is alone sufficient to promote the interests and secure the institutions of a great people. Talents also are required. And how stands this matter in reference to these condemned boroughs? With regard to the influence under consideration, while it can hardly be conceived that it would be otherwise exercised, intentionally at least, than in the selection of those who appeared best calculated to promote the public good; so it is quite obvious that after certain other considerations should have been regarded, it would be also exerted in returning those whose talents would best enable them to realize that design. So reason dictates; but what says experience? Who were selected to draw up the Bill of Rights? The choice of this House fell by a great majority on those Members who would not have had an existence in it, had the new and improved system been adopted; namely, upon the Members of the close boroughs which you propose to us to open, and of the rotten and decayed ones as you call them, which you wish us to sacrifice. Again, who were the managers appointed to conduct the free conference with the Lords, which demanded, either in reference to the importance of the subject, or the known state of the public mind, the greatest talents and learning, as well as the most unsullied patriotism? Of the twenty-three selected by the House of Commons, two were Members for counties, three for open boroughs, and eighteen for those places you propose to disfranchise. Look at the list, and see the names which this wretched scheme would have excluded; and with them the Constitution which they perfected. It is idle to say that they would have been returned under the new system; the facts I refer to, demonstrate the contrary. Once more: on an occasion, concerning which I differ, I am aware, with many, in deeming it to have been, at the time, of the deepest import; namely, at the trial of that personification of bigotry and tyranny, Sacheverell, when, had the Houses acted and
1540
judged differently, the freedom so recently achieved would, I am convinced, have been long suspended, if not finally destroyed—whom did the House again choose at that period of public infatuation as the champion of the civil and religious liberty of this country, then its only asylum? A Committee of Management, consisting of fifteen of its most able and distinguished Members. Of these, two sat for counties, two for open boroughs, and eleven for those which we are asked to deprive of their right of sending such men to this Assembly, including, however, three which it is proposed to open—open so as to stuff with a new constituency. I might continue these historical illustrations of the practical necessity of that part of the system now gravely proposed to be destroyed. In particular, I might show, in a similar manner, that not only has it produced the most distinguished patriots, the greatest orators, but the most efficient servants of the Crown and of the public in the most important offices of State, during a long period of time past; and that it is hardly possible to see how any Ministry could be formed or preserved, or the business of the country efficiently conducted, without retaining it, at least, consistently with the established principles of the Constitution. Nor is it the least important objection to this new Constitution, that it would of necessity leave the immense colonial possessions of this extensive empire, with the scores of millions of our fellow-subjects which they contain, wholly unrepresented. Direct Representation is out of the question, and this sweeping measure would destroy that virtual one which has till now existed, except after having poured the utmost contempt upon the very idea of virtual Representation, we are all at once, and in this particular case, to sanction and apply the principle in a wider sense than the firmest friends of the existing Constitution have ever dreamt of doing. To these topics, however, I shall not further advert; it has been sufficient for me to show that those parts of the Representative system which you propose to mutilate or destroy, are precisely those to which the nation is the most indebted. In a word, had schedule A and schedule B of this Bill been dealt with at the period of the Revolution as now proposed, the Bill of Rights would not have been in the schedule of our chartered privileges, nor the illustrious House of Brunswick in the

1541
schedule of British Monarchs. Hitherto I have been attempting to defend and show the necessity of what may perhaps be deemed the uncomely parts of our system —for such there are in this as well as in all other human performances, at least, as far as we are acquainted with them. Nor need I enter upon the other and more inviting parts of the subject: the excellencies of our happy Constitution have been pourtrayed in terms which will live as long as the language itself, and will, I trust, be echoed down to the remotest posterity with increasing exultation and gratitude. One thing, however, I may notice in its favour to those who are perhaps more bent upon improvement than preservation, namely, that the British Constitution, beyond every other, possesses an inherent power of rectifying its own abuses, and consequently of perpetuating its existence, and improving its character. And this power has been in constant exercise for a scries of ages; hence, contrary to the assertions of those who are constantly making disparaging and irritating appeals to some past period of our history, as that of superior purity and freedom, directly the reverse of what they assert or assume is the undoubted fact. The Constitution of this country, and especially the representative branch of it, instead of having gradually decayed and become rotten, has acquired greater purity and strength; and more faithfully represents at this moment the real voice of the people, than it ever did at any preceding period of its history. That system has, by the operation of time, and the force of circumstances—by the diffusion of knowledge and the increase of wealth—by the multiplication of freeholders in counties in consequence of the minuter divisions of property; and of voters in large; represented towns by the growth of population; together with the transfer of the franchises of really corrupt and convicted boroughs to larger masses of the people—by these, I say, and similar means still in constant operation, this House has kept continually reforming without being revolutionised. A contrary opinion regarding the advance of popular privileges in this House is sometimes held, but I might appeal to the deliberate opinion of no mean authority, and one who has been already referred to during the agitation of this important question, Swift,—who asserts the growing power and popularity of this House, and warns the friends of liberty and the Con-
1542
stitution against its further encroachments, as threatening the destruction of the entire system. But I shall not fatigue the House by reading the passages from him, which I hold in my hand, decisive as they are on this most important point. Thus, Sir, among the other excellencies of our Constitution, is that principle of improvement, and consequently of perpetuity, which it obviously embodies, and which has been in constant operation. Hence, Sir, at the present moment, that Constitution is more popular and efficient than it ever was, at any previous period of its history.—What a moment, then, has been chosen for this work of. demolition! Is it now that this Constitution, the admiration of surrounding nations, the model of all the free institutions in the world, the just pride of all true Britons, is to be destroyed? Not at a time when it has yielded to decay, and sunk into corruption, but at the period of its greatest purity and vigour! Is it to fall, not when it has become weak and rotten, but when, like its native oak, it has braved unshaken the tempest which has swept and desolated all around, and stands the monarch of surrounding nature? That there are striking anomalies in our Constitution has not been denied; but they are of such a nature as to have been as clearly apparent at the period of the Revolution as they can be at present; and when, therefore, incomparably the most favourable moment occurred for remedying them, had that been deemed a safe or desirable course. But the difficulty of extensive changes has ever appeared the greatest to the strongest and most elevated minds. These projects were entertained (says an author to whom I have previously referred with the highest satisfaction, the noble member for Tavistock); but by whom? By the most violent. They wished to remodel the House of Commons, compared with whom he describes as "more reasonable those who desired to abolish the monarchy and constitute a republic." But the great authors of the Revolution, says the same authority, "unambitious of the fame of founding a new form of government, obtained for the nation the full benefit of those rights and liberties for which their ancestors and themselves had toiled and suffered." Even Locke, whose principles are sometimes thought to have run into extremes, especially on the subject of liberty, and when a voluntary exile, just previous to the Revolution, and when, therefore, his feelings

1543
were doubtless much excited against the Government of his country, nevertheless, thus expresses himself as to the difficulty, which he puts in a single case, and in the strongest possible point of view. "It often comes to pass, that in Governments where part of the legislative consists of Representatives chosen by the people, in track of time this Representation becomes very unequal and disproportionate to the reasons it was first established upon. To what gross absurdity the following of custom, when reason has left it, may lead, we may be satisfied, when we see the bare name of a town, of which there remains not so much as the ruins, when scarce so much housing as a sheep-cote is to be found, or inhabitants than a shepherd, sends as many Representatives to the grand assembly of law-makers, as a whole county numerous in people and powerful in riches. This strangers stand amazed at, and every one must confess needs a remedy, though most think it hard to find one; because the constitution of the legislative being the original and supreme act of the society, antecedent to all positive laws in it, and depending wholly on the people, no inferior power can alter it. And therefore the people, when the Legislature is once constituted, having, in such a Government as we have been speaking of, no power to act as long as the Government stands, this inconvenience is thought incapable of remedy." Such were the difficulties which presented themselves as to the remedying a single, and that the most glaring, inequality that could be selected, to this powerful mind, as little influenced, perhaps, by prejudice, or shackled by forms, as any that ever existed. Others, however, feel not the least hesitation in disposing at once of many scores of cases, against which no such objections lie, concerning which no decay can be proved, no corruption alleged; and the disfranchisement of which involves at once the greatest possible personal injury, and the utmost degree of public danger; thus it is that
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread;"
or, if this language appear too strong, let me still express myself as to this rash and unprincipled demolition, in the language of the noble Lord so often quoted, but somewhat differently applied; "it is thus that, when the statues of the gods and heroes are thrown down, snakes and reptiles are obtruded into light." In neither
1544
instance do I apply these quotations personally, nor even to the party I oppose, in their literal signification, though the noble Lord has set me the example of so doing. In thus expressing myself, let it not be supposed that I am arguing against remedying any real abuses, or reforming any known corruptions, or supplying any obvious defects of the present system—quite the contrary. I am averse to no real amendments of which it may be thought susceptible, consistently with its original form and structure. But in attempting these matters, I would obey the injunctions of a great authority often quoted here, and especially by a noble successor of his now on the Woolsack, I mean Bacon. It is true he does say, as is constantly cited from him, that "Time is the great innovator;" but he adds likewise, what is always suppressed, "It were good that men in their innovations would follow the example of time itself, which indeed innovateth greatly, but quietly, and by degrees scarcely to be perceived." This, I conceive, is consistent with the soundest principles of good sense, as well as of political philosophy. If, then, any part of our system is really found to be corrupt and decayed, restore it to its first state of purity and efficiency, but do it so as to harmonize with, and not disfigure, the whole structure. Act as you have recently done regarding the sacred fabric close at hand, which contains the venerated ashes of many of those patriots who perfected, and heroes who have bled for, the Constitution you are now called upon to destroy. You found that the touch of time was here and there upon it, effacing its ancient beauties; did you therefore demolish the whole structure, and "break down the carved work thereof, with axes and with hammers," in order that a knot of combined architects might exhibit their crude ideas of beauty and proportion on its majestic ruins? No, Sir, you disturbed, you destroyed nothing; while the pealing organ and the daily hymn were heard within, stone by stone you repaired the sacred edifice, and it stands majestic and beautiful, as it did in days of yore, a monument of the genius' of your ancestors, and shaming the trumpery attempts by which, in these days of the march of intellect, it is surrounded. But what is it that our political projectors propose? Why, to raze much, and remodel the whole of the Constitution; and they excite the people to the work of demoli-

1545
tion, as though it were another Bastile—a dungeon of slavery instead of the temple of freedom. But let us coolly examine the plan which our State architects ask leave to execute, in order to see whether, as might be hoped, that will be gained in justness and conveniency of proportion, which will be lost in grandeur and antiquity. Let us, then, wipe off, with rude and unrelenting hand, as dust and defilement, the hoar of antiquity which has gathered upon our venerated institutions for a succession of ages, in order coolly to compare its several parts with the Cabinet model which these united artificers have produced. A very little examination will suffice to convince us, that the new Constitution is founded upon no principles which will bear the light, and that its whole structure involves a series of the grossest errors and disproportions. Like the unhappy French constitution-mongers, the dupes and victims of their own delusive systems, the present projectors seem to have rejected the idea of virtual Representation, and to have established their new system on the tri-form basis of geography, population, and finance. But they have so jumbled these principles, that by no happy chance is any one single part of the whole reconcileable with the remainder. Now, in projecting a new representative Constitution, the first thing that a wise and patriotic statesman, who should find himself in the position of a lawgiver, would do would be, to determine concerning the nature of the constituency which he would select. And in casting his eyes on any community, he would find it presented in two grand divisions, namely, the town and country population. The former, from their close association, union of feelings and interests, and from their facility of acting at once and in a mass, exercise, in proportion to their numbers, a degree of political influence and power which the scattered inhabitants of the country can never possess. If, therefore, the legislator did not govern himself by numerical proportions merely, he would attempt, perhaps, to counterbalance, in some way or other, the political disadvantages under which the latter are necessarily placed. This, I apprehend, he could do, without reference to any moral differences which he might suppose to exist between them. If he attended much to the latter, and concurred, for instance, with the publicly expressed opinions of the noble Lord who has brought
1546
forward this measure, namely, that "the worst of all hands in which the Government can be placed are those of the population of great cities," then, perhaps, he would still further lean to the giving of a certain preponderancy to the rural Representation. But, Sir, in proceeding to consider the Constitution now presented to us, all observations of this nature, however important in themselves, are wholly unnecessary. The measure propounded regards none of them: it seems indeed to proceed upon an utter disregard of every principle of political justice and equity, by whomsoever expounded. In overturning our present system, it reverses the very basis on which it professes itself to be founded; exhibiting, I will venture to assert, a greater mass of absurdities, a more naked and disgusting violation of all arithmetic, as well as reason and justice, than any previous proposition submitted to this House since its foundation. Now, Sir, let us fairly examine this notable Constitution on the noble Lord's own principles, I do not mean those principles which he expounded when he was wandering in the mazes of fancy, but since, to continue his distich, he has recently "stooped to truth, and moralized his song;" and we shall speedily find that we must have a new code of truth and morality before we can reconcile ourselves to this new Constitution. The noble Lord, as far as I can understand his prospectus, professes to base his national Representation on property, with reference also to population. We shall submit his scheme to both tests, in regard to the two great and essentially distinct masses of society among us, the town and country inhabitants; attending first to that criterion to which he and others have appealed with such visible complacency—property. Having done away with all that influence which he has deemed corrupt, and established a more direct system of Representation, what is the nature of the proportions he seeks to establish? Adverting to the last parliamentary returns which give the particular items of the Property-tax of England, which were those of 1810, I find the rental of the houses, warehouses, factories, &c., in both town and country, given at 13,010,546 l. Now it is quite obvious that no inconsiderable part of this sum belongs to the country, many, and among these the most valuable houses in the

1547
kingdom, being certainly in the country districts. But to let that pass. What was the rental of the lands and other profits appertaining to them at that period, exclusive of the tenants' tax? 32,589,303 l. It is clear, then, that were the value of the houses and warehouses situate in the country parts deducted from the former sum, and added to the latter, that the property of the country districts would appear, as it certainly is, more than thrice in amount that of the towns. Then as to population. In the cities and towns given separately in the census of 1820, the inhabitants amounted to 2,920,095; those in the remaining or country districts, to 8,341,342, very nearly three times the number. I am aware that there are in large towns and places not separately given in the abstracts, a population to the amount perhaps, of an additional 500,000; but a rectification of a contrary nature will render any calculations on that ground wholly unnecessary: the unrepresented towns having precisely the same share in the county Representation as the rest of the freeholders, and being proportionably more numerous. Now, then, let us see how the noble Lord, in his new scheme, proposes to represent these two great classes of the community. Why, to less than one-third of the wealth—to about one-third of the numbers—he actually proposes to give within three of double the number of Representatives! In round numbers to 30,000,000 l. of rental, and to 9,000,000 of people, he allots, including the addition of this evening, 149 Members of Parliament; while, to about 10,000,000 l. of rental, and 3,000,000 of people—being a sort of constituency also of which he professes his dislike—he allots 295 Members; giving, as I calculate, individually, six times as much influence to him that happens to live in a town as to him that lives in the country. Nor, Sir, is this all. The distinction this Bill attempts to establish between the nature and amount of the qualification demanded from an elector in the country, coin-pared with one that lives in the town, is, if possible, still more objectionable. The former regulation might possibly be construed into negligence,—this amounts to positive insult. Not to allude to the grievous mistake into which the noble Lord has fallen in taking the rated value of the houses in towns as their actual rental, a mistake which will silence all his
1548
boastings as to the middle classes, in which he professes to have placed the franchise—let us inquire why, while the townsman renting a house of 10 l. by the year, has his vote given to him, a countryman who rents ten times or a hundred times that amount for the same term, is to have none? Sir, if we are to debate about new Constitutions, regulations like these would be better laughed at than argued against, only they are of too insulting a nature to be made matter of mirth, and too unjust to be endured. Sir, the noble Lord who has expressed himself so strongly as to city constituency, and who drew, not long ago, a somewhat exulting comparison between the farmer of Norfolk and the elector of Devizes, will find it difficult, I think, to convince the former that he is very sincere in his preference when he gives the latter a vole and allows the former none, though he may have ten times over the amount of the qualification required from the townsman. I regret that the noble Lord has been prevailed upon to be the instrument of propounding a scheme so utterly irreconcileable with his better principles, which he had so well expressed; in so doing, I fear his distich may be reversed,—he seems to me to have "stooped from truth and demoralized his song." When it is considered how little the inventors of this new Constitution have been restrained by any of those considerations which have been more or less respected by all previous Reformers, with one exception alone; and hence that they have converted rights of property into mere trusts, and again have seized upon these trusts when it suited them, without any alleged breach what so ever on the part of their ancient pos- sessors—I say it is difficult to imagine how a system so utterly irreconcileable with sense or justice could have been projected, I have alluded to one exception among Reformers as little swayed by scruples of the kind adverted to, as these have been, and one who was the other evening eulogized in no very measured strains by his Majesty's Attorney-General,—I mean, Oliver Cromwell. Now I ask that learned eulogist of Cromwell, whether he will stand forth and defend the Constitution now proposed, by the one that great individual put forth? I tell him that he cannot. Cromwell really did in that act what these Constitution-mongers have professed to do; he conformed to the basis of property and

1549
population, which he evidently laid down for his guide. On a rather close examination of his plan, and comparing it with other documents, especially those which give, in a very few years after, the relative values of the respective counties, I have been surprised how nearly he conformed to that rule. These have, notwithstanding their boasts on the subject, actually reversed it. He gave 237 Members to the counties of England, and 143 to the towns. These give, as I have before observed, 149 Members to the counties, and 295 to the towns. The masculine mind of the Protector could not produce anything so false and incoherent as this attempt; nor, tyrant as he was, stoop to anything so partial and selfish as I shall speedily prove this to be. It may, however, be, and is argued, that the aristocracy will obtain that influence under the projected Constitution which they possess in the present one, by representing the towns and boroughs in their respective neighbourhoods, when thus opened; and that, consequently the agricultural interest will still have, though indirectly, its fair share of influence. Those who thus argue must know little of the constituency which they are creating. The qualification of a 10 l. rental is demanded from a town voter; and I can tell you what the qualification will be that a town-voter will, in a great majority of instances, demand of his Representative; it will not be that which will exactly comport with the views and interests of the latter. But, Sir, if the neighboring gentlemen will not promise largely enough, or bid sufficiently high at the auction of popularity, those will speedily be found who will. And the idea of the fair balance of influence between the town and country interest, destroyed by this Bill, being thus restored, would turn out to be, like the rest of its provisions, a mere delusion. If we examine the two grand divisions of this scheme, that relating to the counties, and that relating to the towns, separately, and without the slightest reference to each other, we shall still find our astonishment, not to say indignation, increased. I shall add nothing to what was so admirably advanced by the hon. and learned member for Weymouth, as to the monstrous and unconstitutional power claimed for the Crown, and consequently for Ministers, in empowering certain Privy Councillors itinerant, to go forth as politi-
1550
cal engineers and draftsmen, to cut up and parcel out the ancient divisions of the empire, as settled since the time of Alfred. This departmental scheme also is, like most other of the provisions of this Bill, borrowed from the revolutionary movements of France; but, waiving this consideration, let us consider its effect. I know enough of several of these counties myself, to be certain, that in many cases this partitioning will, in point of fact, either constitute much of what is meant to be county Representation, to all intents and purposes town Representation—the town freeholds in populous districts preponderating so greatly—or otherwise it will render the Representation what is now called close, placing it under the complete control of some great proprietor of the distinct section. I am aware, that the latter observation may be turned against my general argument by the advocates of this Bill, who in the same breath satisfy the people that it will deliver them from the influence of the aristocracy, and the aristocracy that it will deliver the people into their power; who try to convince the country population that it will gain upon the town, and the town again that it will gain upon the country, by this new system of borough representation, and this distribution of these demi-semi-county Members. The fact is, new influences would be created throughout, inconsistent with each other, and ruinous in their conflicting effects to the interests of the entire community. But a closer inspection of the new arrangement will show us more clearly its gross injustice, not to say its disgusting partiality. It is proposed, I think, to afford, on the average, one county Member to about every 60,000 of the country population, excluding the inhabitants of those towns which are to be directly represented. I include in this calculation those small counties, such as Rutland, which it is not proposed to touch. But then this average is made up by the most glaring violations of every recognised rule, whether of property or numbers. It is difficult to guess on what principle the united Cabinet can have proceeded, in framing the measure and settling its details; perhaps some of them can explain. For instance, the Lord Privy Seal perhaps can tell us the reason why the county whose name he bears, the population of which being only about one-sixth as large as that of the bordering county

1551
of York, is to have five additional Members; the latter, on the balance, only two, I think, according to the new version of this evening. Not on any very just principle, I fear; for while four Members are to be allotted to the county constituency of Durham, two to each prospective division, still two only are to be given in the whole to the West Riding; that is, about one Representative to every 34,000 of the former constituency; one in 303,000 only to the latter! If the noble Lord has any reason not personal to himself, and which may therefore be given to the public, it seems necessary to advance it, as well as for a similar liberality in regard to the town Representation of his favoured district, to which I shall shortly advert by-and-by. What can be the reason for this course in Durham applies equally, as it appears, to Northumberland; and the noble Lord at the head of his Majesty's Government can doubtless clearly explain why that county also should be carved up, and two additional Members given to its rural population, while those of the North Riding of the province of York, should have two only among them, exceeding as they do the former in number by 30,000 souls, or, giving a Representative to Whitby (which it is marvellous could have been previously neglected by those who were so occupied) larger by about 15,000. As good a reason, doubtless, may be advanced by the First Lord of the Admiralty, why the same united Cabinet have unanimously determined that it was proper for Cumberland to have two additional county Members, and Lancashire no more; the county constituency in the latter being, when compared with that in the former, six times as large, if calculated even on mere numbers; twenty times more numerous if property, so much boasted of, be made the basis. A similar necessity must have been also seen, and doubtless one as capable of explanation, why Northamptonshire should be equally favoured. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose office demands that he should be clear and accurate at calculations, can make good this division and multiplication regarding that particular county, while the unity of several of the neighbouring counties has not been invaded. Some line has in these cases been doubtless drawn as fine as that which decides that Malton shall have two Members and Bedwin none. The broad fact, however, is the same as
1552
noticed in the preceding instances. The Representation of Northamptonshire has been amended, as the Bill expresses it, so that one Member is given to every 36,000 of its country population, while the next county, that of Buckingham (to instance no other at present), is left, or at least was till this evening, with one only for every 61,000. This was a fortunate affair, as the house of Buckingham might, at some future period, interfere — that of Spencer never. It is, however, it must be confessed, a happy chapter of accidents which thus plays into the hands of a particular party in the country, not only as to those whose franchises have to be annihilated, but those which have to be created by this famous Bill Accidents? Can that be supposed accident, which could thus propose to portion out even the county Representation in almost a twofold measure to those particular districts with which its framers are connected? Turn we then to the Attorney General's favourite hero once more; let us see what Cromwell did in this case. Already have I shown the proportion of Representatives he awarded to the town and county Representation; let us now examine how he regulated the latter. Did he jumble in either instance as the framers of this measure have done? His character stands absolved from such folly and inconsistency at all events. Take the two bases which they have professed to adopt, but which they have so miserably violated, and let us see how Cromwell respected them. Within four years from the date of his ordinance which regulates his Representative system, the values of the counties were estimated, in order to apportion their respective quotas to a monthly assessment of 120,000 l., authorised by Government. In the year 1690 the number of hearths assessed, or otherwise, was also ascertained, which enables us to arrive at the ratio of population in the different counties at the preceding date, nearly enough for our present purpose. Now Cromwell's respect to the principles of distributive justice was as manifest in his Constitution, as the contempt of that, or indeed any regular principle, is obvious in that of our present legislators. As to the basis of property, his scheme, when accurately examined, runs thus: those counties which contributed less than l,000 l. monthly, had on the average three Members in the whole; those which con-

1553
tributed from 1,000 l. to 2,000 l. monthly, seven; from 2,000 l. to 3,000 l., eleven; from 3,000 l. to 4,000 l., fourteen; from 4,000 l. to 5,000 l., sixteen; from 5,000 l. and upwards (the last class), twenty-one. But, Sir, his plan, as a new Constitution, was popular as well as just. Thus he gave to those counties, in which it subsequently appeared there were 20,000 hearths and under, three Representatives in the whole; to those in which there were from 20,000 to 40,000, six; in those which contained 40,000 to 60,000, nine; 60,000 to 80,000, eleven; 80,000 to 100,000, fourteen; 100,000 to 120,000, seventeen; 120,000 to 140,000, twenty; from 140,000 and upwards, twenty-two Members each. So much for the Protector's Constitution. Now, Sir, I have in my hand a similar calculation regarding the present measure, but I shall not trouble the House by reading it; suffice it to say, that so great a mass of absurdities and contradictions has rarely been exhibited by any schemers on any subject as it presents. Thus, those counties the population of which is from 200,000 to 250,000, will have just as many Members as those where the population is double, and the values nearly in the same excess. Durham, for example, with about 200,000 inhabitants, is to have ten Members; Surrey, with 400,000, nine; the income, in 1810, in the former having amounted to less than 1,500,000 l., in the latter to above double that sum. I shall forbear continuing to exhibit these anomalies, of which the new scheme is full: I cannot, however, but observe, that amidst all its irreconcilable confusion and contradictions, there is a dexterity apparent, which however is, as I take it, any thing rather than a redeeming point. Much more might be advanced against the scheme of county Representation now proposed to us, but I fear I should trespass too long upon the time of the House were I to pursue this part of the subject any farther. I shall, therefore, proceed to make some observations upon the plan of town Representation developed in this Bill, which is still more partial and incongruous than the other parts of the measure. "God made the country, and man made the town," says one of our best poets, after Bacon; but as the noble Lord, notwithstanding his written opinions to the contrary, has lavished his principal attentions on municipal or town Representation, let us fol-
1554
low his proposition into this part of its details. And if in the constituency of the county districts, and the towns, comparatively considered, the most opposite principles have been adopted, respecting the latter, none whatever seem to have been regarded. The claims founded on ancient right; on amount of population; on important avocations and pursuits; seem alternately to be respected and insulted: while the most arbitrary and yet ridiculous rules have been adopted, which have received the previous condemnation of the advocates of this measure, and which it is impossible to justify upon any known and recognised principles of justice or equity. The noble Lord who has previously written on the difficulty of disfranchisement, now proposes to disfranchise wholly, and at once, sixty parliamentary boroughs; and to deprive of half their ancient privileges forty or fifty others. Of the 159 seats thus obtained, not indeed by surrender, but by legislative force, he proposes to give eight additional to the metropolis, twenty-six to thirteen large towns and parishes, and eighteen to as many other places. At least this was his scheme, till somewhat altered this evening. I need not pursue the detail further than to say, that England was to be deprived of seventy-one Representatives, Wales is to have one or two, Scotland five, and Ireland three additional Members; the House being thinned by the total extinction of sixty-two seats, and that wholly at the expense of England. Some alteration has, it is true, been now proposed, but not so as to rectify the general principle. And first, Sir, one word as to this addition to the Members for the metropolis. Without again calling in aid of the argument the opinion of the noble Lord, as to the quality of the constituency of large cities, I shall mention one objection, which I think, admits of little dispute. The circumstance of the Parliament of this country being in later times, constantly holden in the metropolis, gives an advantage to its population infinitely exceeding that possessed by any other portion of the community, even supposing that it were totally unrepresented. In these days more especially, when public opinion is so much urged on the one hand, and yielded to on the other, the facility and effect with which this opinion is made to act on the Legislature, individually and collectively, give, I repeat, the

1555
population of the city which happens to be the seat of legislation an advantage which it is not easy to over-rate. If you add to this advantage a corresponding share of direct influence, you run the risk of rendering it overwhelming. When you draw around the seat of legislation a circumvallation, if I may so speak, of a constituency thus accumulated, directed as in all probability it must be, the consequence is easily predicted. London will become the Paris of England; than which a greater curse could never befall the peace, liberty, and property, of the country. But to attend to the other features of this notable scheme. I have already remarked, what I defy any one to disprove, that the original foundation of the right proposed to be destroyed in so many cases, was not placed upon mere numbers. To determine therefore regarding that right, upon any such principle, is unconstitutional as well as unjust; but if such were made the test of its validity, it would in almost every case be found as strong as at the first; —stronger indeed; the population of most of the boroughs now selected for extinction being more populous now, both positively and relatively, than they were at their creation. But to determine concerning the ancient rights of Corporations and boroughs by an arbitrary scale of population, and to attempt to disfranchise a freeman or his children, because he has not a given number of neighbours, is quite as unjust, and not a whit less absurd, than were you to determine any other of his legal claims by the same evidence. Besides, the rule proposed for our adoption is most objectionable in another point of view —in attempting to establish, for the first time, as a scale of Representation, mere numbers; a standard, which is in its very nature constantly and necessarily changeable. Nor will I leave out of the case the gross and palpable injustice, never previously contemplated by our greatest and most enlightened reformers (at least of the monarchical school), of depriving property of its ancient influence, which I have already attempted to show is held as beneficially, as regards the public interest, as it is in reference to those of the individual possessors. You may talk of this privilege being a trust, so is all property, so is the Crown, as the noble member for Tavistock writes; and still further to quote him — "We ought to have as good, and as strong, and as
1556
cogent reasons for disfranchising Old Sarum, as we had for expelling James 2nd." Every thing possessed, if traced to its abstract title, is in the nature of a trust, for which its possessors are, doubtless, accountable to God and man. But to spoliate this property, to destroy these trusts, for no other reason but because we think proper to produce a new system, and to plead our power to do so, is the most fatal impolicy, as well as the grossest injustice. This is to admit a principle of a most dangerous character, and one which can never rest with such an act. If you scrutinise the pedigree of property thus, and determine that the ancient rights of the owner of Callington, for instance, are spurious, I will answer for it that those of Tavistock will be as certainly investigated. And, as to the latter, it is not the sanctity of their well-remembered origin, or their having been once devoted to the cause of piety and charity, or the circumstance of their having been since secularised, I will not say by what means, or for what purpose, which will long protect them. How, then, are we to begin the work of reformation? asks the same author I have quoted so frequently. "It is," he answers, "extremely difficult, if not impossible, to cut off some boroughs on account of their size, without drawing an arbitrary line. If a borough with 500 votes is to be disfranchised, what is to save the borough with 560? Any Reform of this kind leads to the general reconstruction of the whole building, the plan we wish to avoid." This very plan has, however, been voluntarily and exultingly adopted; the same honourable individual who scrupled about the rights of Old Sarum, now proposes to annihilate every borough in England, however ancient or incorrupt, the inhabitants of which are under 2,000. The number of these is or was sixty; forty or fifty others are to be half disfranchised, the population of which happens to be below 4,000. But when all this is done, will the system exhibit any degree of proportion or regularity? On the contrary. Previously to this night's emendation, there were towns of 2,000 inhabitants with one Member each; towns of 20,000, with none; towns of 4,000 with two; of 40,000, with one, or none, as it happened. Many similar differences will still remain. To talk of throwing antiquity into the scale, as a sort of political make-weight, when de-

1557
termining on those rights which you retain, when it has been held as nothing regarding those which you destroy, is only adding insult to injury. In a word your new scheme manifests all the confusion and irregularity which has ever been charged upon the ancient one, without any of its apologies or justifications, founded on utility and right. Have, then, our constitution-mongers been led into these irregularities, by giving a preference to those places which are the principal seats of some of the important manufactures of the country, which is one of the professed objects of their whole scheme? No, they could not have been guided by this principle either; though they might have occasionally stumbled upon it. For instance, they have allowed Malton, with its 4005 inhabitants (oh, happy five!) — a neat little town, I confess, but not particularly noted, excepting for the learned persons it sends here —two Members; but to a neighbouring town, now one of the first places for naval architecture in the kingdom, at least long unrivalled in that pursuit, and distinguished for its respectability and opulence, Whitby, which with its strand, contained in 1821, 14,916 inhabitants, they have given none. Peterborough, belonging to the same noble Peer as the former place (Malton), had, at the same same period, 4,598 inhabitants, and Peterborough, therefore, is to retain two Members in a reformed Parliament; but the Potteries, as the continued townships of the parish of Stoke, in Staffordshire, are appropriately called, containing (even exclusive of Burslem, which has about 10,000 inhabitants) above 30,000 people, and being the seat of one of the most extensive and profitable manufactures of the country, was to have no Representation. Calne keeps two Members still, for, either by a fortunate chance, or a happy management, it has, including its parish, and also Bow-wood, above the privileged number; but the parish of Old-ham, the principal seat of the hat manufacture of England, with 52,490 inhabitants, was to have none. Tavistock puts forth a bolder claim: it had in 1821 actually 5,483 inhabitants, for whose future political purity and independence a noble Marquis has stood sponsor in this House; I say Tavistock, which I never heard was famed for any particular pursuit of national industry, is to retain two; but Rochdale, the centre of the flannel manufacture of the country, with its 47,109 inhabit-
1558
ants, was to have none. Bedford, according to the new scale, will be still entitled to two; but Barnsley, with the parish to which it belongs, having about 14,000 souls, and being the place where the British linen manufacture has grown up, and where it now flourishes, is to have no direct voice. It is true, that some of these glaring violations of their own rules have been this night partially rectified by Ministers, but how came they originally into the Bill? With the Pandect of the Population Abstracts before them, and with many weeks of consideration in which to concoct and perfect their scheme, how was it that such gross errors could have been made? Sir, it is my opinion that they have been shamed into these rectifications. It would have appeared too monstrously unjust and disgustingly partial to have retained the Representations of Malton and Peterborough, Tavistock and Calne, with their handful of inhabitants, and to have left unrepresented, in a system which scouts the idea of virtual Representation, towns comprising so vast a mass of population. Some places, it is true, have been from the first far more fortunate. For instance, not only has Newcastle-upon-Tyne its two Members, but, including its suburb, Gateshead, it is to have three. Gateshead being fortunately situated on the Durham side of the water, and close to the Lord Privy Seal's abode, is therefore selected to have one also, though the Ministers half disfranchised Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, simply on account of their contiguity. But, Sir, half-a-score other places in the next county (York, which I cannot but think our constitution-makers have much slighted in their arrangements) are left unrepresented. The same patron of Durham, whoever he may be, has also stuck into the lists South Shields and a place called Westoe, which he also wishes should have a Member, in contempt of the claims of at least another half-score places in the next county, Lancashire —all of which have a greater, some twice and thrice as great, a population as those united places. But I will particularize no further. It would indeed be an endless task to exhibit the strange and irreconcileable elements this Bill attempts to incorporate; the glaring inconsistencies from which, as a paper constitution, one would have thought it might have been free. I shall no longer dwell upon the unfairness with which it has

1559
overlooked some great interests, and the injustice with which it has destroyed others. Among the last, I cannot refrain from noticing the prospective and total annihilation of the political privileges long exercised by many of the humbler classes of society —a regret which I put not on as a garnish to my present argument; on the contrary, it has been always a matter of exultation with me, that the Constitution of England, while securing the rights of the Crown and the interests of the higher orders, made room also in its Representative system for the humblest rank above that of paupers; for those who, to use the metaphor of the learned Lord Advocate, are beneath the firmament of a ten-pound rent, which he deems to be in a state of Stygian corruption and darkness. A better insight into the structure of society would, I think, have convinced him that in that despised and repudiated class, for such it now seems to be by many of our modern liberals, there is often as much patriotism, and always as. much purity, as in any above his "firmament," even though he mounted to it as high as the stars and garters of society. Deeply should I regret the hour which should deprive those honest and industrious artizans, who contribute to the comfort and support of every other class, and who furnish their full quota to the service of the State, of all political existence, and leave them as totally without a voice in the councils of the country as the slaves in our colonies. Sir, I regard these new and revolutionary schemes with more apprehension and dislike the more I consider them, and turn to the ancient Constitution of my country with increasing attachment. But, when I contemplate that Constitution, the object of my early reverence, and which all I have since read and observed in my passage through life has still more endeared to me, I confess I am hurried away with feelings not perhaps quite consistent with calm deliberation; but when I "awake my senses that I may the better judge," I find that reason itself heightens my enthusiasm; while all those unrivalled names that have arisen among us, formed to correct the past and influence the future opinions of their country and of mankind, have given immutability to those views on this most important subject, which I shall ever be proud to cherish, let who will be their impugners. Still more do I feel assured when I find the greatest authorities
1560
of other countries, wholly unbiassed, therefore, by national partialities, loud and unanimous in their admiration of our venerated form of government. Above all, when I consider, that experience, far above all other authority, and whose voice is truth itself, has long confirmed the superiority of our Constitution however compared; I say, when I consult my own understanding, or am recumbent upon that of infinitely more powerful minds, or open my eyes to simple facts, I feel resolved to cherish and defend to the utmost of my power, and to the last, our happy Constitution, and to resist every attempt of those who would destroy it to place in its stead a scheme and invention of their own, though it were, far unlike this, theoretically just and perfect. Sir, a comparison of the very names of those whose wisdom and patriotism formed and perfected our Constitution —of those who have eulogised and defended it — with those of the united Cabinet who now seek to revolutionize and destroy it, would, I think, shame the attempt, and expose to just derision the self-sufficiency and temerity of their designs. In patriotism are they superior? That is impossible. In genius, in wisdom, in knowledge, are they equal? The keenest sarcasm which could be launched at them would be so to compare, or rather contrast them, one by one. It would then be found of each of them that he was not
— twentieth part the tithe
Of his precedent lord.
The former, indeed, established their lasting fame by erecting upon its ancient foundation, and by careful and slow degrees perfecting, the fabric of the Constitution; these place their hopes upon mutilating and destroying it. I am not aware that they have any other claims upon the recollection of posterity but what rest upon the present attempt. If, however, they succeed in destroying this wonder of the world, they will be as certain of immortality as those who founded it. The memory of Erostratus is as secure as that of Ctesiphon. But, Sir, much as I venerate the founders and assertors of the British Constitution, I cannot dare to attribute to human wisdom or human power merely what I believe to be of still higher original. It may seem, indeed, that what man calls accident did much, that necessity prompted and experience adopted those several provisions, and formed those various adaptations which constitute the system, which

1561
wisdom and patriotism at length perfected. But if ever there was an occasion in which we are justified in appealing to a higher power as overruling those events which produced that system which has been the blessing of this country and of the civilized world, it was that of the establishment of the free institutions of England. May not we exclaim with far greater emphasis than could the Roman orator, "Non est humano consilio, ne mediocri quidem, judices, deorum immortalium curâ, res illa perfecta?" The very origin of Englishmen was favourable to the institution of freedom; and every event in our changeful history contributed ultimately to its slow, indeed, but hardy growth. The gradual, but constant increase of knowledge had been for centuries ameliorating the condition of the people, and remedying successively the grosser defects in our institutions, when the Press poured forth a torrent of divine and humanising truth, and the Reformation broke the chains of despotism, civil as well as religious, and genius and eloquence went forth unmanacled to their great task of elevating the intellect and purifying the feelings of the people. The almost unbounded property of the ecclesiastic establishments, though infamously seized and disgustingly appropriated, became beneficially divided. Commerce multiplied the wealth of the nation, and mingled society into a more undistinguishable mass, infusing through the whole a portion of its own spirit of enterprise and independence. Then was it, that the dreadful struggle between arbitrary monarchy and unbridled democracy commenced, and was pursued with varying success, but with unabated fury, till military despotism, as it ever does, became the arbiter, and settled itself upon the subjugation of both; thus inflicting upon the wearied and desolated nation, the bitter experience of tyranny in every different form, till its liberties were established, and I hope perpetuated, at the glorious Revolution—a Revolution so little like any other the world had previously seen, or has since witnessed; undesecrated by human blood; uninfluenced by lawless force; when the wisest and the greatest of our countrymen in the brightest age of England, utterly rejecting those theoretical changes, which were as obviously suggested to them as to our more rash and ignorant innovators, established and completed that form of government which had no arche-
1562
type in the history of the nations, and which had existed but indistinctly in the theories of former philosophers and politicians —which, embracing the wants and wishes of preceding times, provided for the freedom and happiness of future ones. And thus, while its founders have been the means of elevating this country to its unrivalled pinnacle of greatness, they have, by furnishing the model of the noblest system of government ever witnessed, laid all other countries and every succeeding generation under an eternal debt of gratitude and admiration. Something, perhaps, I might have added, regarding the character of the Representative branch of this Constitution which it is now the fashion with many to decry. But it is unnecessary, nor is this the proper place, to do so. Its eloquence will excite the admiration, as its acts will demand the gratitude, of posterity. It has been the nurse of freedom; the champion of the rights of nature; and, above all, the protector of the friendless and the poor. It is identified with whatever is great or patriotic in the annals of the country. In a word, it is a fit personification of the great and noblest community upon earth. But if it should be objected that these observations on the excellency of our present Constitution, which our reformers stigmatize as so corrupt and rotten, are mere declamation —a short and ready way of evading what is often unanswerable,— let us no longer advert to opinions and authorities, of what order, but turn our eyes to undeniable facts. "The tree is known by its fruits," is a maxim as true in politics as in religion. What, then, are the fruits this system has produced? And in this case the fruits must be of too general a character to be overlooked, and too plain to be mistaken. In adverting to them, I am not about to contend that the Constitution we enjoy is theoretically perfect, or that practically it has been always administered in the best possible manner; still I think experience decides that the proud boast of successive generations of our patriots —that England possesses the most free, happy, and efficient form of Government existing on the face of the earth, is just; and that it has been productive of the happiest effects, is fully substantiated. Can we forbear, on an occasion like this, casting our eyes on the present condition of the empire, and tracing that measure of prosperity which we

1563
have, under Divine Providence, long enjoyed, to its true source? A territory placed almost at the northern extremity of the civilized world; so confined in extent as to justify the language of one of its poets —
— "a spot
Not quickly found, if negligently sought;"
with no peculiar advantages of soil or climate; with no wealth but what its people have created; where, under the encouragement and guarantee of her free institutions, industry, directed by intellect, and supplied by capital, has made the mightiest and most triumphant efforts ever witnessed in the history of man; a country which, while accumulating its internal resources, has spread its dominion like a zone round the habitable world, and gathered under its sway a greater mass of human beings than ever bowed to the sceptre of any of its ancient and vaunted universal monarchies; a country where, for ages past, no hostile foot has dared to tread; no slave has breathed; where impartial justice has constantly presided; and which religion and humanity have made their own. The nurse of heroism and valour, the school of genius and science, and the seat of that moral empire which her literature has established throughout the world, she seems still destined to nobler tasks than those she has yet achieved, and to be visibly selected by Providence as the great instrument of benefitting and blessing the universal family of mankind. But I will not indulge in these topics of exultation and gratitude, however justly they may suggest themselves to my mind. Let me only ask whether all these great and glorious results, which fill our past history, which crowd the present era, and which extend to the remotest verge of the earth, comport with the idea of a weak, corrupt, and decayed Constitution —rotten at its very heart! The idea is preposterous. So long as political philosophy shall acknowledge that effects so great and stupendous as these are produced alone by adequate causes, so long will the vituperations against our present institutions be as inconsistent with possibility and truth, as they are insulting to the country. Nor is the excellency of our Constitution to be estimated alone by the blessings it has conferred upon us, but also by the calamities from which it has been equally the means of protecting us. It has preserved
1564
this country in security and internal peace, amidst the ruin of empires and the fall of thrones —in freedom, amidst surrounding tyranny. Can such a system justify the illustration applied to it, more than once, during this discussion, that of a rotten and sinking vessel? No! its soundness and strength have been too recently tried. When the foundations of the social system of Europe were broken up, and the lawless floods of democracy rose and overwhelmed the proudest elevations of society under one wide and stormy abyss; when all seemed darkness above and tempestuousness around, then was the British Constitution seen like a sacred ark, mounting triumphant in the storm, and preserving for a world restored to peace and order the elements of loyalty, liberty, and law. Again, Sir, the same portents seem returning; the cloud appears gathering and darkening in the distance, and the roar of the desolating floods is heard from afar! And this is the very moment that we are urged to quit the ark of our safety, and trust ourselves for preservation to the shapeless raft which an inexperienced crew have suddenly provided for us. Such, then, is the Constitution which we are exhorted to desert and deliver over to destruction, in order that another system may be erected on its ruins. But what an experiment! If it succeed, it would be difficult to suppose that the country could become greater, and grow more prosperous than it has under the Constitution bequeathed to us by our ancestors; if it fail, dreadful indeed must be the consequences. The history of the world presents but few and doubtful instances of free communities surrendering their institutions in hope of an undefined advantage to their liberty and happiness by some great and sudden change; but it is crowded with cases where such a course has led to their degradation, slavery, and ruin. At all times such attempts have been found dangerous; at the present moment, when almost every government of Europe seems shaken to its very base, and many have already tottered to their fall, the present attempt appears presumptuous in a tenfold degree. It might have been hoped that the events of the last fifty years would have instructed us as to the value of our settled institutions, and united us all, hand and heart, in their preservation. The scenes of confusion, confiscation, and blood, had, we hoped,

1565
closed. Is the same fearful drama to be again enacted —the character and catastrophe the same — the scene only changed, and changed, alas! to our own country? May God forbid! I regard, it may be perceived, the condition proposed to us by the present Bill, as only one of transition; it is impossible to view it otherwise. A proposition which is, on the part of its promulgators, one of compromise, and, on that of its most zealous supporters, accepted only as a first and large step to their ultimate designs, can only be the precursor of further and indefinite changes —
Through what variety of untried being, [pass,
Through what new scenes and changes it must
I shall not attempt to prognosticate; but as to its final result, should it be adopted, few rational men can entertain much doubt. The catalogue of compliances which must be made, and of changes which must ensue, should this measure pass, are, I should think, sufficiently apparer in the minds of those who hear me. The steps by which we must descend to the catastrophe may not be precisely seen, but the termination is certain, nor can it be remote. Had we no examples, too recent to be forgotten, and too similar in their nature to these meditated changes, to be overlooked, it would be most easy, from their very nature, to divine their issue. The representative part of our system — already, if we must confess the fact, so powerful as to leave the other branches of the Legislature barely independent, were the influence which the aristocracy exercises in this House, and the connexion of this House with the aristocracy dissolved — would, literally speaking, become omnipotent. If there be any the least utility in the other branches of the Legislature, the royal and aristocratic power of the State, the present constitution of this House can alone preserve it. I will not attempt to prove by laboured arguments what must be abundantly clear without any; but if any doubt remain on the mind of any one who hears me, I will resolve that doubt by an authority, second in point of information to none now among us, and the more to be attended to, inasmuch as ho composes one of the members of his Majesty's present Government. The author of that admired work, the Vindiciœ Gallicœ, when advocating Parliamentary Reform upon the direct, in contradistinction to the virtual, principle of Representation, thus delivers himself
1566
upon this momentous point: — "The powers of the King and Lords (says Sir J. Mackintosh) have never been formidable in England, but from discords between the House of Commons and its pretended constituents. Were the House really to become the vehicle of the popular voice, the privileges of the other bodies, in opposition to the sense of the people and their representatives, would become as dust in the balance." If, then, in this new system, not only the Lords Temporal, with all their power and privileges, and the hierarchy of the Church, representing as they do their own order, but the Sovereign himself, would become as dust in the balance when weighed against this reformed House of Commons, can we suppose that such unwieldy and expensive parts of the system would be retained, their functions having become totally superseded, and their very existence useless? That the monarchy itself, expensive as it must necessarily be, would in these days of rigid frugality and retrenchment be retained, its power being as dust in the balance, and its office therefore useless, it were folly and infatuation to suppose. No, Sir, with a House of Commons thus "reformed," on the authority of the hon. member of his Majesty's Government I have just quoted, the fate of the peerage and of the monarch would be sealed. The next sweeping Reform, and it could not be far distant, would wipe away this expensive dust, and give to the Government of the country, not the essence merely, that it would have the moment this Bill should pass —but the very name of democracy. Let, then, his Majesty's present advisers, supposing (which God forbid) this measure should pass, approach their Sovereign with this Bill, and practising on his generous and unsuspecting nature, obtain his assent — at the moment his royal hand shall inscribe the fatal act, it will require no peculiar strength of mental vision to perceive the image of another hand, shadowy indeed, but darkening into reality, and inscribing in portentous characters upon the tablets of the history of this ancient monarchy, Mene — "Thy kingdom is departed from thee!" Sir, I must have exhausted the patience of the House, and cannot but be grateful for its continued attention, on which I will no longer trespass, though some parts of the subject, to which I fully meant to have addressed myself, and those not the least important, I shall leave un-

1567
touched. Should it be imputed to me, in order to weaken the arguments I have used, that I have engaged in the defence of certain parts of our representative system, merely because I am more or less connected with them, I will deny that imputation. I entertained the views which I have now advanced before I entered Parliament, and had acted the part of an humble indeed, but public defender of the character of this House, long before I anticipated sharing in the honour it confers. My opinions are those of sincere conviction; and if, in these days of change and tergiversation, I may assert so much, they have been consistent throughout. They are such as I think are conducive to the general good, and the liberty and happiness of my fellow-subjects. But this revolutionary scheme, I cannot but believe, is fraught with present danger, and future destruction to the country. The unanimity with which it is said to be received, when the various objects of its promoters are considered, is of itself portentous, and is like the boding calm which is the precursor of elemental warfare. The consequences of adopting this measure will be soon apparent. When you shall have seized upon the rights and franchises you purpose to destroy, other interests than those which you thus unsparingly attack will next await their fate. The ecclesiastical establishment will probably be the first of the ensuing victims. Other spoliations will follow, and of quite as justifiable a character. When vested rights shall no longer be favourably regarded, will vested wrongs be respected? No. I would ask the noble Lord whether the immense spoliations of the funds of piety and charity, which have been perpetrated at a much later period than that of the origin of the rights which he thus unceremoniously treats, and all of which are as accurately known at this moment as they were when the act was perpetrated, will these be much longer respected? It is not the franchises alone which will be seized, it is the property with which they are connected, which some hardly more daring, certainly not more unjust, reformers will treat also as a trust, unjustly acquired and injuriously retained. For myself, though in an humble rank, 1 have ever been and shall always remain, to the utmost of my power, a defender of the rights of property, as well as I trust those of poverty; both of which I think are threatened by this mea-
1568
sure. But acts like these endanger the whole social system. The noble Lord has urged us in a threatening tone to proceed with this Bill; I conjure him as earnestly himself to desist. He appeals to the momentary excitement which has been suddenly and intentionally raised, and which is as rapidly subsiding. The people of England like not sweeping changes nor dangerous experiments; their sober judgment is in favour of their ancient and happy institutions, which they may indeed wish to have improved and perpetuated, but which they will never consent to see mutilated and destroyed. The projectors of this sweeping and revolutionary change assure us they will stand or fall by their Constitution. Let them! For myself, I will stand or fall by the Constitution of England. I second the Motion of the gallant General.
On the Amendment being put by the Speaker —
Lord Althorpsaid, he could assure the House that in rising to address them he had no intention of following the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down through the very discursive speech with which he had favoured the House. He was quite sure that the object of the Amendment which had been proposed was to destroy the Bill; and, considering that such was the object of it, he need not say, that the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, was irrelevant to the matter immediately before them. The proposition now made was not merely that the numbers of the House should be kept as they were, but that the Members of the House should either be increased, or that Ireland and Scotland should be deprived of a part of their Representatives. The hon. Gentleman who had proposed this Amendment, had very wrongly and unjustly accused the Government of having made such changes in the Bill as rendered the Bill an entirely new one. With that accusation he would presently deal; but he must observe at once, that the changes would be extraordinary changes indeed, if, when they proposed to decrease the numbers of the House, they were to accede to a motion for increasing them. It was impossible to misunderstand the nature of this Amendment. It was the first of that series of motions by which it was intended to interfere with the progress of the Committee; and which, if agreed to, would be fatal to the Bill, or, at least, so detrimental

1569
to it, as to render it impossible that it should be proceeded with. Yet the hon. mover of this Amendment had told the House, that he could not believe the Ministers would seriously oppose his proposition. Now he begged to assure that hon. Member, that he never was more serious in his life than he was now in his opposition to this Amendment. They had heard a good deal about the injustice of spoliating England for the sake of Scotland and Ireland; but the hon. Member who had introduced that topic might as well have talked about the injustice of spoliating Cornwall for the sake of the United Kingdom. Next, the hon. Member had made an appeal to the feelings of the English Representatives, and had endeavoured to persuade them that their interests, and the interests of their constituents, would be endangered by the proposed arrangement. But what was the fact? Why, the Members for Great Britain would be as five to one to the Members for Ireland, and yet this was the proportion which the hon. Gentleman pretended would endanger Great Britain. They had all along stated the mode in which they had proceeded. Finding it desirable to disfranchise a certain number of the smaller boroughs, the next point they had looked to was, to find out places on which they should confer the franchises thus acquired. It was in the first instance proposed that these franchises should be given to a certain number of large towns, and by the amendments which they intended to bring forward in the Committee, this number of large towns would be increased; so that he believed it would be seen that no place of proper magnitude would require farther Representation. With regard to the proposed additions to the Representation of Ireland and Scotland, they had added Representatives to flourishing places in both. This was the principle which had guided them, — this was the only principle on which they had acted —and they had applied it in the same way to both countries. But the hon. Member had accused them of having made such alterations in the Bill, that the Bill was, in fact, an entirely new one. This was a strange accusation, when it was considered that the hon. Gentleman had admitted the principle to be the same: and to put this forward as an objection was still more extraordinary when the hon. Gentleman at the same time admitted that the Bill had been much improved by
1570
the changes. Yet, in the very same speech, the hon. Gentleman had told them that very little of the original Bill remained. Now he should have thought the arrangements, with regard to the boroughs in schedule A, and schedule B, were amongst the most important parts of the Bill. Certainly the Gentlemen opposite had appeared to think so. And what alterations had been made in those schedules? Why, fifty-five boroughs out of the sixty in the first, and forty-one out of the forty-seven in the second, still remained in them. Now he contended, that the alterations which it was proposed to make in the Bill were only such as were constantly made in measures of importance: the principle, and all the great features of the measure, remained untouched, and the cheers with which the statement of his noble friend had been hailed, proved to him that the alterations were considered in that light by the friends of the Bill. The manner, too, in which that statement had been received by the Gentlemen opposite, proved that they also did not consider, that the principle of the Bill had been departed from. Let them depend upon it, that the time had now arrived, at which no system of Representation could stand which was not defensible by reason. Let them depend upon it, that they could no longer go on with a system of Representation which was defensible only by prescription; and that if they were desirous of preserving the institutions of the country, and of securing the attachment of the people, they must make such changes in the system of Representation as would prove to the people that they were really, and not merely virtually, represented. But the hon. Gentleman had said, that he (Lord Althorp) had admitted that this measure was a compromise. His opinions, God knew, were sufficiently notorious upon one point of Reform —that point to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded; but he begged to remind the hon. Gentleman, that he had never made that a sine qua non; and although he had supported a mode of voting which had appeared to him the preferable mode, still he had never pretended that no Reform would be effectual which did not include the Vote by Ballot. He thought that the plan now proposed would be satisfactory to the people. Indeed, that was no longer a matter of opinion; for the voice of the people had already been raised in favour of the plan, and it

1571
had been hailed, too, as satisfactory by much warmer advocates of the Ballot than he had ever been. The hon. Gentleman had talked of the indirect influence of property being exercised by means of these boroughs; but it was not the indirect influence, but the direct power of property, which was exercised by means of these boroughs, and that was his objection to them. He admitted, that the indirect influence of property was a good thing, but he contended that the direct power of property, as exercised in returning Members to Parliament, was the worst possible thing for this country. The one made a man cultivate popularity and respect by his virtues and his good conduct, and this was most beneficial; whereas the other — the direct power of property —was actual compulsion, independent of, and distinct from, all considerations of good conduct. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and whose elaborate speech did great credit to his industry, had referred back to parts of the history of this country, in order to show that if the people's voice had always been predominant, we should never have acquired many of the greatest blessings which we now enjoyed. He was not there to say, that the aristocracy had not been the supporters of the liberties of the country; they had been so on many occasions, and he hoped they would always be so. Did it follow, however, from that fact, that when commerce and wealth had spread throughout the country, and when education and intelligence had become so generally diffused —did it follow, he said, that such a new state of things was not to be considered, or that measures which in former times, and under different circumstances, might not have been suited to the country, were now to be withheld, when the people were prepared and anxious for the reception of them? Mr. Locke had been quoted, and he must confess, that he was surprised that Mr. Locke should have been quoted upon this question, because Mr. Locke had declared, that the existence of boroughs was a great evil; he doubted, indeed, whether it could be cured. But Ministers hoped that the present measure would cure it, and therefore they called upon the House to adopt the remedy. A great part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and a great part of the speeches of other hon. Members, had turned upon former speeches of those who supported the Bill; the argumentum
1572
ad hominem was almost always resorted to. This course might be satisfactory to some, but he could not say, that because a man some years ago had expressed a certain opinion, it was to be contended that his present opinion was wrong. Then some hon. Gentlemen complained of the gross iniquity, as they called it, of the Bill, because, in the distribution of Members, more favour had been shown to towns; whereas, the number of Members for them was decreased, whilst the number of Representatives for counties was augmented. Then the danger of revolution was again brought forward. Now, he could not understand the grounds of this danger of a revolution. If the class of persons who were to return Members under the Bill were revolutionists, we should have a revolution without the Bill. If the larger class in the country were discontented with the existing institutions of the country, make what law you will, they would he discontented still. But this Bill would make them more contented. If they were discontented, it would afford them reason for contentment. So far from creating the danger of a revolution, the measure would have a directly contrary effect; it would tend to preserve us from revolution. The hon. Gentleman had attacked him (Lord Althorp) because there was to be an addition to the representatives of Northamptonshire. If the hon. Member knew as much of Northamptonshire as he did, the hon. Member would hardly conceive that any alteration should not diminish his influence there. But really, when Gentlemen brought forward suspicions of this kind they did not give to Ministers the ordinary credit for a sense of honour in their conduct of a measure which would have such most important consequences. "Thinking as we do," said the noble Lord, "that this measure is one of such great importance, and so highly beneficial to the country, that we might rest our hopes of present fame and of reputation with posterity upon it, is it to be supposed, that any private motives of personal interest would make us swerve from the just line of impartiality? The hon. Member, I hope, said it in the heat of debate; I cannot conceive that he could intend to impute to us such motives; if he does, I can only say, I do not envy him his mind." He begged all those who were friendly to the measure not to be deceived as to the consequences of the proposition now sub-

1573
mitted to the House, nor to think it of small importance to the great object. If it were carried, it would effect such damage to the Bill, it would be such a blow to it, that it must be fatal to the success of the measure. He appealed, therefore, to all who were friendly to the Bill to join in opposing the proposition of the hon. Member.
Viscount Stormontdesignated the Bill introduced by his Majesty's Ministers as a tissue of errors and absurdities. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill confessed, that he had discovered numerous errors in it; but yet he contended that it was not a new Bill —the alterations were merely addenda. The new Bill was printed, and it had increased from thirteen pages to twenty-five —nearly double —and yet they were told that it was the same Bill. Were they to believe it was now the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill? or was it hot, rather, a different Bill? The noble Lord (the member for Tavistock) contended that it was the same Bill, and that the principle was still the same. That assertion reminded him (Lord Stormont) of an anecdote to be found in that well-known compiler Mr. Joseph Miller. A person passing through a turnpike said to the man at the gate, "Have you seen a short, thick-set fellow, with broad shoulders and a red face, riding through this gate?"—"No," replied the turnpike man, "but I saw a long, thin man, with narrow shoulders and a paleface, riding through." "Oh," rejoined the querist "it is all the same; that must be my friend.'' The noble Lord had proceeded on a similar principle. He altered the measure in every respect, and then talked of its being the same measure. The noble Lord talked of direct and indirect Representation; but his observations on that point had been well met by the hon. member for Newark (Mr. Sadler), who observed, that men would endeavour to get into Parliament by courting popularity, and however high a man might bid for popularity, he would find ten others to out-bid him. It was seeking for popularity, and men's fearing to act on their own opinion, that had decided the fate of the Bill. If that influence had not operated, the House would never have been called upon to consider the Bill in Committee. Men who courted popularity might rest on it as long as they truckled for it; but it would not subsist longer. He believed that many of the
1574
ancestors of those he addressed would not have supported such a course. They would hare said, "This Bill is in its principle vicious, and we will not entertain it." There were many, however, who had said, that, though they should vote for the second reading of the Bill, they could not support its details; and the measure had now arrived at the stage when those persons were bound to act. He acknowledged that there were discrepancies of opinion as to what part of the Bill ought to be supported, and what part opposed. The hon. and gallant General had done him (Lord Stormont) the honour to consult him as to the expediency of bringing forward a motion, which was to the effect that it was desirable to retain the relative proportions in the Representation of England, Scotland, and Ireland; but it was thought, on mature consideration, that such a proposition might be deemed invidious. The hon. and gallant General, however, was strongly of opinion that, as so many Roman Catholics had entered the House, the number of English Members ought not to be diminished; and he was also one of those who thought that large constituencies should return Representatives. The present Motion was framed with these views; and he might add, that it was not brought forward to throw out the Bill. He admitted, that the Motion was not brought forward with friendly motives, but he denied that it was brought forward as a trial of strength. The Motion did not affect the principle of the Bill. He denied, that the number of Members now belonging to the House was found inconvenient on ordinary occasions, and many who were not unfavourable to the Bill generally would be glad to get rid of so much of it as reduced the total number of Members in that House. He called upon those who voted for the Bill, as well as those who voted against it, therefore, to support the proposition of the hon. and gallant General. Ireland was in a dreadful state: and if this measure was carried, what power would it not give the hon. member for Waterford (Mr. O'Connell) in pursuing his favourite measure —the dissolution of the Union. If this measure was carried, they would have in that House persons not possessing the same reverence or love for the Constitution, nor the same station and character in the country, as those he had now the honour to address. He was sure, if the Bill was

1575
carried, the hon. member for Waterford would return thirty Members from Ireland, all of whom would be at his beck, and ready to support every proposition made by him, however detrimental it might be to the general interest of the country. As the hon. and gallant General meant to take the sense of the House on his Motion, he hoped the House would support him, and he trusted, the noble Lord would distinctly inform the House what time he meant to go into Committee on the Bill, for the House should have some time to consider the new propositions now submitted to them.
General Duffsaid, he should certainly support the proposition of the hon. and gallant member for Liverpool. He was by no means an enemy to Reform; but the Reform he was friendly to, was one that would be wholesome and salutary, and consistent with the feelings of the country.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonsaid, that this question was of vital importance to his country. It was to be determined that night whether any addition was to be made to the Representation of Scotland? If there was one Representative of Scotland in that House who thought the large towns of Scotland should be represented, that individual would fail in his duty if he did not vote against the gallant General's Motion. The Representation of Scotland and Ireland could be increased only either by transferring the elective franchise from some of those by whom it was at present enjoyed, or by increasing the number of the Members of that House —not by ten, but at least by sixty. If they adopted the latter, they must give to England a proportion of four times more than to Ireland and Scotland. Instead of 658 Members, the House must be made to consist of 720. Now, there was not a Member of that House who would consent to that. There were no means, therefore, by which the Representation of Scotland could be improved unless the gallant General's Motion were negatived. The gallant General seemed to object to the addition of any Irish Members, not so much on the score of religious considerations, as on the ground of the obstruction to public business which the frequent addresses of the Irish Members occasioned. Now it appeared to him that there was not one of the hon. Members for Ireland who addressed the House so frequently as the
1576
gallant General did. But if the Irish Members spoke much, the Scotch did not speak at all. If the gallant General thought, that the Presbyterians of Scotland would join the Catholics of Ireland, he was mistaken. On the contrary, he might consider the former as a set-off against the latter; and look to them as his allies against any attack of the Catholics, come when it might. It was said that the Church was in danger. Was it ever in danger from Scotch Members? When the Test and Corporation Act was repealed, the Scotch Members divided thirteen to seven against the repeal. It ought to be recollected, that, at the time of the Union with Scotland, when forty-five Members were allowed to that country, the revenue of Scotland was only 120,000 l. It was now 4,000,000 l. The present population of Scotland, as compared with the population of England, was as one to four; the revenue as one to eight. And yet the effect of adopting the gallant General's Motion would be, that not a single additional Member could be given to Scotland. On that ground he should oppose the gallant General's Motion, if on no other. The friends of Scotland must reject the Motion. No Scotch Member who voted for the Motion would dare to go back to his constituents and hope to find favour with them. If he thought that what he asked for Scotland, or the Irish Members for Ireland, were contrary to the principles of sound Representation, he would not advocate it; but what was asked would only do away with the rotten part of the Representation. They were told that Glasgow, having 148,000 inhabitants, was to have two Members, the number which Gatton at present had. In the Bill his Majesty's Ministers had dealt severely with Scotland. Forty-seven boroughs were still to have one Member each; yet the whole population of those forty-seven boroughs did not amount to within 10,000 of the population of Glasgow alone. He would not detain the House on the general question. There was one view which he took of it which he had not yet seen touched upon. For fifty years the popular complaint had been, of the influence of the Crown in that House. That influence was now dead and gone. The last finishing to it was given by the Duke of Wellington; not with the view of reducing the influence of the Crown, but with the view to retrenchment. By

1577
that retrenchment the influence of the Crown in that House had been annihilated. There existed, however, an influence much more base and degrading —the influence of the owners of boroughs; an influence base and degrading, and frequently turned against the Crown. He had seen Administrations formed —not on the ground of the confidence which the country or the Crown had in its members, but from the reply to the question, whether the Members of it could gain the assistance of this Duke, or that Marquis, who had Representatives in the House of Commons. Even the possession of the Treasury boroughs was now of no use; for, on a change of Ministry, their possessors immediately went into Opposition. Among the other objections which had been urged to the Bill, it was stated, that it would prevent lawyers from getting into the House. He should like to see the popular assembly into which lawyers would not get. There never had been any Parliament in which there were not many lawyers, except that of Henry 4th, to which the Sheriffs were instructed not to return any lawyers; a circumstance of which Lord Coke spoke with great indignation — calling that Parliament, Parliamentum indoctum. He believed, that the proposed Reform would effect the greatest possible change in the Representation. He believed, and he hoped and wished, that that change would be greatly beneficial. It had been said to those who talked of restoring the Constitution —show us what the Constitution was which you wish to restore. That Constitution declared, that Parliament should be composed of the Earls, Barons, Burgesses, and Freemen of the Realm. A commission, composed of the most learned men, in the reign of James 1st, declared that the ancient Constitution, established by the law of the land, was, that the elective franchise was vested in every man paying scot and lot. The present measure did not go so far as that declaration, but it was an approximation to it. He hoped that no attempt would go beyond it; for it was sufficiently sweeping. It was a vital measure as considered with reference to the Representation of the country to which he had the honour to belong; and as such he should cordially support it.
Lord Loughboroughsaid, that if he thought it possible that the Motion of the gallant General could be in any way in-
1578
jurious to Scotland, he should, as one of the Representatives of that country, pause before he gave it his support. But, being of opinion that the House, as at present constituted, was not too numerous to attend to the various questions and important interests upon which it had to determine, he should certainly vote for the gallant General's Motion. With respect to the noble Lord's Bill, it appeared to him to alter, not only the constituency of that House, but the Constitution of the country. If population were to be the criterion of Representation, why make such a distinction between England and Scotland? Why adopt one principle on one side of the Tweed, and another principle on the other side? Why give twelve Scotch counties, with a population of 1,521,000, only one Member each, and give twelve English counties, with a population of 1,175,000, three Members each? It was in vain, after that fact, to talk of the principle of the Bill. In truth, there was no principle in it but the principle of Revolution [hear, hear!]. He was aware of the meaning of that ironical cheer; and that the word Revolution was considered an objectionable one. The member for Preston, and other Members, voted for the Bill, because it would lead to Annual Parliaments, Vote by Ballot, and Universal Suffrage. He therefore would resist the measure. He would not only do his duty as an individual, but his duty to his country as a Member of Parliament. He meant to vote for the recommendation of the hon. member for Liverpool, and he would do so because a change would be a violation of the Union. It would infringe the eighteenth Article of the Union. It would increase the Representation of one part of the empire without increasing that of the other. He would oppose all the changes, unless they were made on the basis of the present proportion of the Representatives of the different parts of the empire.
On the hon. Member taking his seat, there was a cry of "Adjourn," but after some time,
Colonel Woodobtained possession of the House, and went on to say, that as he voted for the second reading of the Bill, he was anxious to explain the reason of the vote he meant to give. He felt it his duty to vote for the Motion of the gallant General, but in doing so he did not give that vote for the purpose of destroying the

1579
Bill. The time was arrived when some Reform was necessary, and the Bill, with certain amendments might effect that Reform; but if it were to pass into a law, it must be with many amendments. The instruction moved by the gallant General, related, in his opinion, to a point which was open to discussion; and if it was not, it was of no use for them to go into the Committee. As he understood the gallant General's proposition, it said nothing of the proportion of Members for the different parts of the empire. The gallant General said, indeed, and so he (Colonel Wood) thought, that the relative proportion of Members for the different parts of the empire was a point of great importance, and it had been solemnly settled at the Union of Scotland, and the Union of Ireland, and ought not to be disturbed. He wished to say nothing unpleasant to his Irish friends; but when it was said, that they were not sufficient to protect Irish interests, he was bound to say, that, at least, he heard as great a number of eloquent appeals from Members of that part of the empire as from any other. The Bill, as it was at first drawn, went to extinguish seventy of the Members for England; and now it would extinguish forty-one [some voice called out "forty."] As that was the case, when he found Irish and Scotch Members standing up for their countries, he thought it his duty, as an English Member, to stand up for the proper proportion of Representatives for England. He should, at a future opportunity, explain what amendments he thought necessary in the Bill,
On the hon. Member resuming his seat, there was a mingled call to "adjourn" and "go on." After the calls had continued some time,
Mr. Lytton Bulwermoved the adjournment of the Debate, as there were yet several Members who desired to speak.
Lord Althorpsaid, as it was evident that the Debate must be adjourned, he did not see any use in continuing it any longer.
Debate adjourned.

LONDON COAL TRADE BILL.
Mr. Frankland Lewismoved the second reading of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman observed, that there was no objection whatever to the principle of the measure. He had communicated with several coal merchants of London on the subject, and
1580
none of them had any objections to make to the principle of the Bill; the objections to its details might be discussed in the Committee. He hoped, therefore, that nobody would object to the second reading.
Bill read a second time.

MINUTES.
Bill. Civil List, read a second time.
Petitions presented. In favour of Reform, by his Royal Highness the Duke of SUSSEX, from Hammersmith, Kensington, Halifax, and St. Luke's, Middlesex:— By the Earl of CARLISLE, from Banf:—By Lord DURHAM, from the Ward of Bridge:—By the Earl of FIFE, from Stannington. By the Earl of HAREWOOD, from two places in Yorkshire, against the Register Bill; from Kingston-upon-Hull, against the monopoly of the East India Company; and from the Worsted Spinners of Yorkshire, against part of the Bill for Regulating the Hours of Working in Factories. By Lord SUFFIELD, from several places in Norfolk, against Slavery.

MINISTERIAL PLAN OF REFORM.
Viscount Hoodpresented a Petition from the county of Warwick in favour of the Reform Bill.
The Earl of Warwickhad no objection to receive the petition; but he wished it to be understood that it was signed only by the High Sheriff, and did not represent the sentiments of the whole county of Warwick.
The Earl of Eldonrose to say a few words; but gave way to
Lord Calthorpe Lord Calthorpe, who expressed his regret that a measure of such importance, casting a stigma on both Houses of Parliament should have been brought forward without due deliberation. It was a measure requiring the most patient attention and the greatest care—and this measure, it appeared, had received neither. He regretted, too, that any allusion should ever have been made to the will of the Sovereign, to promote a measure that demanded the greatest coolness. He lamented, also, that it should have been propounded to the people when in a state of excitement, so that they were prevented from forming a cool opinion on

1471
the subject. He begged it might be understood, that in making these remarks, he had no hostility to the Ministers; but he wished their scheme, which to him appeared wild and bewildering, to lie over for another Session.
The Earl of Eldonwas not going to discuss the Reform Bill, when the only question before the House was, whether or not the petition should be received. He wished then to observe, that the whole of their Lordships proceedings, in relation to the Bill then before the other House, had been more irregular than anything he had ever known in the whole course of his parliamentary life. He would not enter into any arguments on the subject; he would only say, that he hoped their Lordships would take care how such irregular conduct was drawn in to establish a precedent; and to prevent this, when the present motion was disposed of, he would submit a proposition to their Lordships.
The Earl of Walsinghamdeclared himself opposed to every kind and species of disfranchisement.
The Earl of Harewooddid not mean to discuss the subject to which the petition related; but there were some matters connected with the conduct held with regard to that Bill, which he thought it his duty, as a Peer and a subject, to advert to. The Bill had been proposed to the House of Commons by the Government in a complete state of excitement, and when the people were also in a state of excitement; and means had been used to make them come to a conclusion on these important matters which they would not have formed under the influence of a calm judgment. That House, too, had heard—and very sorry he was that it ever had heard— something in the nature of a threat directed against both Houses of Parliament. The other House of Parliament had been threatened with a dissolution, and that House, though not threatened with a dissolution and re-election, had had intimated to it that there was danger to that House in refusing its consent to the measure. He did think that, for any purpose, to make use of such threats was very disrespectful. It was impossible also for the Government to carry on a business of that nature, and not be acquainted with the proceedings of the Press. That Press he respected in common with other men; but, at the same time, if he were a member of the Government, and found that Press
1472
advocating his cause in a manner that threatened the existence of the Parliament, and almost the safety of the Crown, could he allow the Press so to proceed? He would not say that he would stop it by coming into collision with its proceedings; but he should think it his duty, in that situation, at least, to disclaim the arguments by which the Press was supporting his cause. A measure of that nature, perhaps, ought not to be brought forward at a time of such discontent; and it was the duty of the Government not to have proposed such a measure, when the country was in a state of excitement from causes external to the country; but they ought to have waited till the country was restored to a state of satisfaction. He was old enough to remember former times. In looking at the subject now moved, he found himself carried back to former times, and general principles. He was old enough to remember what passed after the first French Revolution, and there were many circumstances now in connexion with this Bill, not dissimilar to those of that period. Another remark which he considered it his serious duty to make was this:—he could not conceive that any person except one willing to risk the great injury to the country which the present opportunity of the excited state of the public mind,. from extraordinary circumstances afforded, would bring forward a measure of that kind which had not been sufficiently considered. Was this a time to take advantage of that excitement? The noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) knew the transactions which had occurred in a county with which they were both then connected. He admired that noble Lord's great ability, and knew the great extent of his general information, and he had been anxious to hear his explanation, and know what plan of Reform he recommended. He was pleased then to hear the noble and learned Lord propose a plan which he conceived went to remedy the defects of the Representation. The noble and learned Lord described himself as the champion of Reform, and he had stated, that he would be ready to give one Member to such a number of voters as would enable the elections to be concluded within a reasonable time, and avoid the expense and inconvenience that now accrued from a protracted contest. He spoke, too, of doing away out-voters, and giving votes to copyholders. Those were,

1473
he believed, the chief alterations then proposed by the noble and learned Lord. He wished to ask why the noble and learned Lord now agreed to a measure so different from the one he had formerly recommended? Whether that noble and learned Lord had changed his former opinion or not was not for him to say. Such a Bill, though received favourably by the public, had created great confusion throughout the country, and seemed to him a premature and unprepared measure. The more he examined it, the more he was confirmed in this opinion. He begged pardon for saying one word on the subject, but it excited in him great interest, and weighed upon his mind. He believed, that discussion would throw light upon it, and make the people better understand it. He was not an enemy to alterations, if made at suitable times, but he could not support the Reform Bill. The noble Lord concluded by declaring that his opinions were not, either on that or on any other subject formed with a view to popularity.
Earl Greyentirely agreed with the noble Earl opposite in one of his remarks, in thinking that the discussion of the question of Reform could not be attended with any disadvantage, because he considered that the measure would gain much by discussion; therefore it was, that to discussion at a proper time he had never shown himself adverse; nay, even at irregular opportunities, although the noble Lord on the cross-bench deprecated discussions on such occasions as unusual and irregular, he did not feel himself called on to oppose their Lordships' entering into a Debate, as there was a disposition in the House to entertain the subject; neither did he think himself precluded from taking the opportunity to vindicate that measure, for which he, in common with his colleagues, stood responsible; and to endeavour to remove, as far as he could, the misapprehensions with which it had been received by some individuals. He was the last man to impute to the noble Lord any desire of popularity, nor did he know any thing that had passed on the present occasion, either by sign or look, that could have induced the noble Earl to enter into a vindication of his own motives in relation to this question. Undoubtedly popularity was not the course which the noble Lord could be justly accused of pursuing; but he must congratulate the noble Earl and the pub-
1474
lic on at least one good effect of the Reform measure—namely, that the noble Lord, who on every occasion that this question of Reform had presented itself— Reform, either extensive or limited—Reform even confined to the transfer of the abused franchise of a decayed borough to a great and opulent town—that he whom, till this night's Debate, no man in the House or in the country had ever heard acknowledge that under any circumstances, at any time, or in any degree, should any proposition for the amendment of the Representation be assented to, had at length learnt from these discussions that some Reform was necessary, and now professed himself ready to agree to some changes. Amidst all the imputations cast upon his Majesty's Ministers—amidst all the objections offered to their measure—the proposition was at least entitled to the credit of this good effect, that it had produced in the noble Lord's mind at last a conviction that some Reform was indispensable. And even to. that Reform intended to be brought forward by his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack (and which he regretted that his noble friend had not been able to propose in the House of Commons, were it only for the sake of seeing the votes upon it), the noble Earl, it seemed, would have consented, although till this moment nobody had ever heard any thing from him but the most violent declarations against Reform generally. He did not intend to go into a refutation of all the noble Lord's observations, but there were one or two things which the noble Earl had stated, that he could not suffer to pass without remark. By the way, the noble Lord had shown by what he stated, that he was not present during the Debates on this question; for if he had attended the discussions, it would have been impossible for him to have stated that any threat or intimidation had been used upon the Ministerial side of the House. With respect to one particular threat alluded to by the noble Lord, he himself, so far from resorting to, had disclaimed it, stating that he neither possessed the inclination, nor was armed with the authority, to use it; at the same time he stated, that he felt fully committed to the measure of Reform brought forward by himself and his colleagues, and that he was prepared to advise the adoption of whatever means could be resorted to in a constitutional way for its accomplishment. With respect to the

1475
other more general threat, he wished to know to what extent the noble Lord wished to carry it. He said, that not only had the other House been threatened with a dissolution, but their Lordships had been menaced with the consequences that might ensue from the rejection of the measure. Was it to be described as a threat, if taking all the bearings of the question and arguing upon them, different persons on one side or the other chose to point out the dangers that might result from a decision contrary to that which they believed to be advantageous to the country? If this species of argument were to be objected to as involving a menace, it would preclude the use of an important branch of consideration in the hands of any statesman, and in relation to many subjects where the question was—what did the circumstances of the country require; and what were the consequences likely to arise from the adoption or rejection of any given measure? Was it possible to discuss public measures and avoid mentioning such topics? Was the noble Duke opposite (Wellington) accused of threatening the Legislature, when he stated, three Sessions ago, as one of the chief grounds of the Catholic Relief Bill, the evil effects that had resulted, and were likely to result, from the measure not being granted, and when he held up to their Lordships the dangerous state of Ireland, present and prospective, in the event of its failure? Was the noble Duke accused of menace because he declared that, should that bill fail it would be impossible for the Government to be conducted as heretofore, and that, knowing the evils of war, he deprecated as more distressing than any other the evils of a civil war? These sentiments were not considered as threats, but as fair and legitimate statements, calculated to justify the noble Duke's motives in bringing forward the measure. He was not aware of any thing different from this in principle being said on the present occasion. He did think that there was a strong feeling in the public mind on this question, as indeed the noble Lord expressly acknowledged when he talked of excitement; and certainly every man who considered the state of popular feeling must also take into consideration the effects which the rejection or accomplishment of the measure was likely to produce. Disclaiming any thing like the use of threats in support of the measure, or any thing
1476
beyond a fair and constitutional line of argument, and looking at the general state of the country, he contended that it was wise and politic to look to consequences. If danger had been stated on one side as likely to result from the rejection, was not danger asserted by the other to be the consequence of the adoption of the measure? He did not complain of this mode of arguing in the opponents of Reform as involving threats, but was it not as like a threat as the same species of reasoning when employed by the supporters of the Bill? If the noble Lord's complaint applied to the friends of the measure, it was at least equally applicable to its enemies. "But," said the noble Lord, "it was improper in his Majesty's Government to introduce this question at a period of excitement." Now, that some such measure was generally looked for—that the country was calling for it, he certainly thought. He had stated this fact before he came into office, and he had repeated it since. Further, he had stated his firm conviction, that compliance with the public wish in this respect would be of the greatest importance to the public tranquillity; he had stated this, and on this principle he had recommended the measure to his Majesty. The question he proposed was, whether the strong excitement that so generally prevailed was more likely to be increased, and made more dangerous, by attending to the wishes of the people, than by pertinaciously withholding those changes, to which they looked forward as a source of positive and incalculable benefit as well as a relief from their grievances. It was upon this consideration that he had to make up his mind, and feeling that the balance preponderated infinitely in favour of the former alternative, it was on this ground that he and his colleagues had proposed the measure of Reform, and not with a view to increase, but, on the contrary, to diminish the existing excitement, as well as to prevent its recurrence. He had never taken any step to promote the getting up of petitions upon the subject, and whatever endeavours might have been used by persons on the other side of the question, he would say, that there never was a more spontaneous expression of feeling on the part of the people. On no occasion had there been so fervent and unanimous a popular feeling in favour of any public measure. He would now briefly allude to what had been said respecting the Reform

1477
Bill being a hasty and an ill-prepared measure. Whether this were the case or not, would appear when the measure came before the House; all that he could say was, that he had been convinced of the necessity of proposing some measure upon the subject, and both he and his colleagues had given their most anxious attention to the best means of carrying such a measure into effect. The Bill might be appealed to in defence of his conduct; but it was not a hasty measure, it was not brought forward without consideration; nor was it without the most careful examination that the plan had been proposed to Parliament. If he had failed in producing a good measure, it must be attributed to his want of ability, and certainly not to his want of care. The noble Lord had then asked, whether he was aware of the state of the public Press. He had asked whether he read the daily libels, the violent attacks upon all persons opposed to the measure, and the vehement addresses made to the passions of the people in order to excite them. The noble Lord had hardly uttered these expressions, before it was evident that he felt the impropriety of them. Could any man ask him how he could put down the publication of the articles that appeared in the Press? He never had had much communication with the Press at any period of his life, and he now knew no person whatever that conducted a public paper. He must confess, that he had seen much to disapprove of in the public journals, but he had likewise seen much which excited his admiration, and which he believed to be calculated to produce great public benefit. At the present moment the daily Press of the country displayed more ability than it ever had done at any former period. But was he to be called upon to disavow or discountenance what appeared in the newspapers? Really he found that he had a great deal to do, both in that House and out of it—much more than he found it convenient to perform—and if he were to have added to his duties that of coming down to that House and following the noble Lord into all the publications of which he might disapprove, he should say that it was a duty that never had been imposed upon any Minister, and one which he should feel himself unable to discharge. But he would ask, were the libels only on one side—was intemperance, was violence, was abuse, confined to only one side of this question? Could not the noble
1478
Lord lay his hands upon newspapers that poured out the most intemperate violence and rancorous abuse upon all persons who advocated the cause of Reform? Were they not vituperated as enemies to the country, as traitors to the Sovereign, and as persons actuated solely by desires to promote their own views? He (Lord Grey) had often been the subject of such attacks, but he had trusted his defence to the good sense, the intelligence, and probity of the public. He had heard other persons complain of being libelled by the Press, and he had been at the same time as much as any man exposed to such libellous attacks, but he thought he had done much better in not interfering. He had trusted his public conduct to public opinion, well knowing that no evil would arise from such a confidence, for truth would ultimately prevail, and compensate for any temporary confusion or inconvenience. He could not but deprecate the most inconvenient mode that was now pursued of getting into long debates when petitions were presented to the House, and he hoped the example of that night would not be drawn into a precedent. He was, however, anxious to discuss the question of Reform upon every possible opportunity, believing that the measure was founded upon the known and established principles of the Constitution, and that the more it was discussed the more it would gain upon the sober and temperate conviction of all men; and this alone was necessary to the complete success of the measure.
The Earl of Harewoodexplained that, in his opinion, there was a difference between opposing a particular measure, and being a party for or against Reform in the bulk. He did not require the noble Lord to control the public Press, but he thought it would be prudent on the part of Government to disavow some of the arguments which the Press advanced in favour of the measure.
The Petition to lie on the Table.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE,—CASE OF "THE TIMES."
The Earl of Limericksaid, that he did not rise to prolong the discussion upon the previous question before the House, but he felt himself compelled to get up and address their Lordships in order to rescue a single individual Member of that House, one who had long had the honour of sitting in it—from an attempt

1479
to cast a public odium upon his character. The question he was about to address their Lordships upon had nothing to do with a Reform of Parliament, but it had much to do with the privileges of that House, and with the freedom of Debate in both Houses of Parliament; which would be quite a farce if their Lordships were to be called to account every morning by the lords of the Press for what did not meet with their approbation. Was it to be allowed, that a newspaper should publish the Debates, not for the purpose of letting the world know what passed in that House, but of dealing out its abuse and threats against any Member who did not agree with that paper in opinion? For himself, he had only to say, that if any paper used threats against those Members of the Legislature who did not agree in the measure which it advocated, so far as he was concerned, he was determined to resist it. He never rose with greater reluctance or more unpleasant feelings than he then did, and nothing-should have induced him to address their Lordships upon the subject if he did not think that his personal character and honour were involved in the question he was about to bring before the House, for the calumny which had been cast upon him by the Press would continue to produce its effect until he took the mode he was about to adopt in order to answer it. Their Lordships might recollect a discussion that had taken place in that House on Friday last, when a noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Rosebery) had presented a petition, praying for the introduction of a system of Poor-laws into Ireland. It would be remembered that he (Lord Limerick) had addressed their Lordships upon the subject of the petition, and that he had differed from some of their Lordships on that occasion. The discussion in the first instance had not been brought on by him, but he had felt it his duty to address a few observations to their Lordships, not only on account of the nature and object of the petition, but because of the observations that had fallen from the noble Lord who had presented it. What he had said on that occasion was reported in a morning newspaper of the following day, and there appeared in the same paper an article or paragraph which reprobated him in the strongest terms—not, it was true, by name, but it described him so that it was impossible for any person to doubt to whom the writer intended to apply his
1480
attack. He was the last person in the United Kingdom who would wish to fetter the liberties of the public Press. He had always been favourable to the freedom of the Press, persuaded that it was the great promoter and preserver of the liberties of the country. He would repeat, that he was an advocate of the freedom of the press, and for that very reason he was an enemy to as licentiousness. He would ask noble Lords, what could be more mischievous than the license of the Press that sported with private character, that wounded the feelings of individuals by the basest insinuations or the most insidious calumnies? A great statesman of the last century, when speaking of the Press, had applied to it the terms of a "chartered libertine." If that statesman could now return to life, and see the Press in its present state, in what terms would he not describe it? He would describe it as a chartered tyrant—a tyrant that ruled all things—that pressed every thing under its feet. The newspaper to which he alluded was The Times of Saturday last. The article he had to complain of, and for which he should move that the editor of the paper be called to the bar of the House, began by describing him as a "thing," and it proceeded to accuse him of using brutal ridicule and impious scorn. He would put it to their Lordships, whether he should have been allowed to proceed for one moment in addressing that House if his conduct had been such as had been described, or such as to warrant the comments that the writer in the newspaper had passed upon it. It was well known, however, that he had not been interrupted in what he had addressed to their Lordships. The next point he should call the attention of the House to was, the writer in question attacking him as an Irish absentee. The writer said, "Will any man credit that an Irish absentee Lord could say what he is reported to have uttered in the House of Peers last night?" It was a novel doctrine, that because a gentleman refused to reside on one part of his property, and preferred residing on another, he should be accused of betraying the rights of the people, and of being unworthy of any consideration. How many of their Lordships who now heard him had estates in different parts of the kingdom, and they must either be absent from one or the other, or be divided and in different places at once. He was sorry

1481
to say, that that part of the south of Ireland in which his property was situated had got from bad to worse. The riotous conduct of the people in the county of Clare had spread into the county of Limerick, and bodies of 600 or 700 men went out in different directions, doing all the mischief they could, and committing every possible outrage. He would tell those who railed against absentees, that it was not so very pleasant as they might imagine for a person to reside amidst a population in such a state of disorder and excitement. It was not very pleasant to live in a country where a man's house must assume all the appearances of a garrison besieged—where the doors must be barricadoed and the windows barred—where a watch must be kept, and a man could not put his foot out at night if he had not an escort of armed policemen, or the protection of a body of troops, and even with this defence he could not be secure from attacks. When a country was in such a state as he had described, some apology might be made for absentees, and men might be allowed to live on other estates than those they possessed in such disturbed districts. He would beg their Lordships' attention whilst he read to them the whole of the paragraph he complained of, in The Times newspaper of Saturday: — "Yet mean, cruel, and atrocious as every civilized mind must consider the doctrine that Ireland has no need of Poor-laws, or some equivalent for them—hateful and abominable as is such a screen for inhumanity—there are men, or things with human pretensions, nay, with lofty privileges, who do not blush to treat the mere proposal of establishing a fund for the relief of the diseased or helpless Irish with brutal ridicule, or almost impious scorn. Will any man credit that an Irish absentee Lord could say what he is reported to have uttered in the House of Peers last night, when Lord Rosebery presented a petition, praying that a compulsory tax on land might be introduced into Ireland towards alleviating her poor? We shall not name him, because the House of Lords is armed with a thing called a bar, and other disagreeable appendages. But there are Members of that House who surprise nobody by declaring their indifference to popular odium, especially when they are at such a distance from Ireland as to ensure the safety of their persons." This was
1482
the paragraph which had appeared in The Times, and that paragraph he treated with the most sovereign contempt. He was well known in Ireland; he had had the misfortune to serve in that country during the Rebellion of 1798, and all such imputations as those now attempted to be cast upon him he could treat, and did treat, with the highest scorn. He apologized for having occupied the attention of the House so long; but he must say, that he hoped he should not be considered to have wasted the precious time of their Lordships, for the case was not merely personal to himself, as it involved the breach of their Lordships' highest and most valuable privileges—the freedom of discussion. He had endeavoured to abstain from all partial and personal statements. He had endeavoured to bring forward the question which concerned the privileges of free Debate, and he trusted that the House would call to the bar the person guilty of writing what he was sure their Lordships could not justify.
The Lord Chancellorreminded the noble Earl, that the course to be taken in such a case, where a complaint was made of a breach of the privileges of the House, was for the complainant to give in the paper complained of. Their Lordships would then have the paper read by the proper officer of the House, and it was then that the noble Earl might make what motion he might think fit.
The Earl of Limerickthen put in a copy of The Times newspaper of Saturday the 16th inst.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor, put the question, whether it was their Lordships' pleasure that the part of the paper complained of be now read. The question being followed by a cry of "read, read," the part of the article, as quoted above in Lord Limerick's speech, was read by the Clerk of the House.
The Earl of Limericksaid, that there could be no question that the paragraph alluded to him, for he was the only Peer that spoke upon the subject that night, except the noble Lord who presented the petition, and to whose observations the article in The Times did not apply.
Several Peers cried "Move, move, move;" and
The Earl of Limerickthen moved, "That the editor of The Times newspaper be ordered to attend at the bar of that House to-morrow."
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that before proceeding to move that the editor of the Paper should attend at the bar of the House, it was necessary that their Lordships should determine whether the paragraph in question were a libel or a breach of privilege.
The question was then put from the woolsack.
The Lord Chancellorperfectly agreed with the noble Earl that it was absolutely necessary for the House to protect its rights and privileges against all persons whatever, who, by conduct or speaking, or who, by writing or in printed papers, should make those privileges the subject of attack. At the same time he would deliver one humble observation, — an observation uttered to their Lordships in the way of very earnest and not injudicious and, he trusted, not unacceptable, advice— that the subject of all such conferences as that on the brink of which they now stood, brought their Lordships into very painful dilemmas, and ended in regrets that they had ever been embraced. The whole result of all his experience whilst he had held a seat in another place,—a place in which complaints of a similar description were much more frequent than in their Lordships' House,—was, that without any one exception to a speaker, or to what he might call a private person or private Member of the House, in no case did they ever get into a conference of such a description as that now proposed without afterwards repenting of it. He did not see any occasion to strengthen the privileges of the House in the way now proposed. If there were a clear and undoubted case of offence,—if there were a plain and manifest infringement of the privileges of their Lordships' House—if there were an indisputable outrage—an outrage manifest to the House itself—no man could doubt that it was a fit subject of investigation at their Lordships' bar, and no man could hesitate to say, that it was in their Lordships' power to deal with such an offence as they might think necessary for the defence of their privileges, and the support of their dignity. If, however, the conduct of a noble Lord was made the subject of an attack by the Press or otherwise, he could only observe that in citing the offender to the bar, he got into great difficulties by the rules of proceeding, and by the privileges of the House in their strict letter as they now stood. The privileges of the
1484
House were part of the law of the land, for they were given to the Houses of Parliament for the sake of the subject, and not for the convenience of the Member. The bare publication of the debates of either House was a breach of privilege, and no man could deny, that it was a breach of privilege to make observations upon the discussions of the House, even if such observations were not unfavourable to the noble Lord to whose speech they applied. Even the saying out of that House that a noble Peer, in the course of a discussion, had said so and so, was a breach of privilege; and to advert even in the most decorous language, and in the most respectful terms, to what any noble Lord had uttered in his seat was, past all controversy or contradiction, a decided breach of privilege. In point of fact, it was notorious that the privileges of that House were so extraordinary, that the very excess of the law, prevented its being put into practice. The privileges of Parliament were excessively cumbrous—they were excessively embarrassing in their application and in their operation; and the consequence was, that whenever a Member of either House called a person to the bar for a breach of privilege, he was obliged to he content at best with an ample submission and a complete apology. The printer of a Paper was the only person legally liable in such cases, and as it was impossible to avoid voting such a publication as that just read to be a breach of privilege, the case would be like a hundred others:—after a long debate upon the subject, every man, and most of all he who originated the proceeding, would wish to get rid of the difficulties, and be anxious that the whole affair should end. This was the result of all experience, not only of his own, but of all others with whom he had talked upon the subject. In his own mind this formed the most sound and exigent reason for inducing their Lordships to be extremely slow to interfere in any case except where the dignity of the House rendered interference absolutely unavoidable. He could not be suspected of approving of the paragraph which the noble Earl had read to the House, The expressions were coarse and indecent; but for his part he had no means of knowing to whom they applied, though the noble Earl had attributed them to himself. He was bound in truth and fairness to confess, that he had daily and weekly seen paragraphs and articles in newspapers ten thousand times

1485
worse than that now complained of. Ever since he had come into Parliament, he had seen articles in the Papers ten thousand times worse than this, and yet no Member of the House ever took any notice of them. What person had ever been twenty-five years in Parliament, taking an active part in political discussions, and had not been attacked in a manner that involved a breach of the privileges of the House. He was sure that the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Wellington), as well as himself, about two years ago had been the object of constant attacks, and compared to which, the article now complained of might be considered as the language of panegyric. The present attack was nothing compared to what the noble Duke and himself, as well as many noble Lords who now heard him, had weathered in their political course through the last few years. He had always disregarded these things, both upon principle, and from an experience of the extreme difficulties of meeting them by any parliamentary proceedings at the Bar of the House. He had always made it a rule to live upon his acts, to proceed upon his principles steadily and firmly, and to trust to the country for the defence of his reputation, being convinced that in the end truth would prevail: even if there were very little charity in the world, truth in such cases would always prevail, and prevail with an efficacy proportioned to the time and manner in which she had been suppressed. But he would call the attention of their Lordships to the words of this paragraph—"Will any man credit that an Irish absentee Lord could say what he is reported to have uttered." But where was he reported to have uttered this? To what report did this allude? If the proceeding were persevered in, it would be necessary that their Lordships should have before them not only this newspaper, The Times of Saturday last, but all other newspapers, or how could their Lordships ascertain what had been reported of the noble Earl and of his speech upon that occasion? In the situation in which he stood, he certainly should not think himself justified in dividing the House, if the noble Earl should think fit to press to a division; but he, for one, did not deem it right, that after such an abundant opportunity of clearing himself, and which was not at all necessary, the noble Earl should go to such an extreme. He trusted that the noble Earl would not do wrong in listening to
1486
him (Lord Brougham), and to his other friends, who advised him not to press the subject further. There never was a time when, in a period of political heat—at a period of great conflict,—and of much animosity,—he spoke of the daily Press— for he saw little more, and not much of that,—but there never was a time, when, under such circumstances of excitement, the daily Press was conducted with more ability or with greater purity. There were two modes by which the Press might attack individuals: there was the public attack, an attack against public conduct, guided upon public principles, and directed to a public object; and there was the method of assailing persons by private slander. He would say, and without fear of contradiction, that the daily Press did not deal half so much in personal private slander, as it had done even so recently as when he had first come into public life. It was of the highest utility to keep this great organ of communicating public discussion to the people as pure as possible; and if their Lordships showed a little tenderness to persons who it was evident had wholly moved upon public grounds, they would not be doing a little service to the community.
Lord Eldonrose and spoke in a low tone of voice, but just as he was becoming audible,
Lord Rolleexclaimed, "Silence at the bar! if silence is not obtained at the bar, I will—"
After a little confusion occasioned by this sudden interruption,
Lord Eldonproceeded. He maintained, that no man living could deny that the publication which had been read to the House was a libel, and the noble Earl (Limerick) was the only person in that! House to whom such a paragraph could apply. The paragraph not only attacked him on public grounds, but it charged him with inhumanity to the poor. This was a libel beyond all question, and it was for their Lordships to say, as the case had come before them, whether they would pass it over or not. He regretted to hear it asserted by so high an authority of that House, that when a complaint of a breach of privilege was made by a Member, the House was so weak that it would have to regret if it interfered. This declaration would amount to an absolute fiat to all publications whatever. If the noble Lord pressed his motion to a division, it would

1487
be impossible for him to do otherwise than vote for it.
The Earl of Haddingtonperfectly concurred with what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down. It was unquestionably a matter of discretion with the noble Earl whether he would bring forward the question or not, and he was not in the least surprised at his having brought it forward as he had done, for in so doing, he had performed what was not only beneficial to himself but useful to the privileges of their Lordships' House. What had fallen from the noble Lord on the Woolsack was however well worthy of their Lordships' consideration. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had told the House that for many years he had been the object of the attacks of the public Press, and that he had thought it right to pass them over unresented and unnoticed. In the very preeminent situation in which he stood he no doubt had done wisely, and had exercised a sound discretion. If, however, the noble and learned Lord had brought forward the case of an attack on himself, which involved the privileges of that House (for many personal attacks did not affect the privileges of Parliament), it still would have been equally possible for him not to have taken up the subject, and in not bringing the offender forward, the noble and learned Lord would in all probability have acted judiciously and wisely. But it was obvious that a good deal of difference existed between the noble and learned Lord, who was always before the public, and a private person who in either House of Parliament might take a part in the debate, and afterwards find that a newspaper had made his speech and his opinions the subject of such scurrilous and infamous attacks. The noble Earl had been held up to public odium for having delivered opinions which were designated as detestable. The noble Earl was held up to public hate, not by name or title, but, nevertheless, he was so designated that it was impossible for any rational man to doubt to whom the language was meant to apply. This was a real and strong infringement of the liberties and privileges of their Lordships, and since the noble Earl had brought it forward, it was utterly impossible for their Lordships to pass the case over, unless they were content to abandon their established rights and most essential privileges of debate. The noble
1488
and learned Lord on the Woolsack had said, that there never had been any period of equal excitement, in which the daily Press was so pure, and so free from private slander and from private malevolence. This was the praise that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had thought proper to bestow upon the public Press in its present condition. He would take the liberty of telling the noble and learned Lord, that the present being a period of great political excitement—a period when the passions of men were roused, and the strongest opinions were in violent collision—there were attacks made against individuals by the Press every day. It was notorious that the most virulent and vindictive attacks were daily made by the newspapers against those public characters that took a part against Reform, or who displeased the editors or writers of the Journals. It had become, in his opinion, necessary to show that there must be some limit, not to the liberty, but to the license of the Press. He had seen with the utmost indignation, — he would not say attacks, because they were so covered with artful language, which practised and experienced writers knew how to use, that they could not be called attacks, but he had seen insinuations by which there had been held up to public odium, the highest and most illustrious female in the country—a person whose sex whose indubitable virtues, and whose royal situation ought to have protected her from insinuations of such a nature. Perhaps he ought to apologise for having mentioned the subject, as it had no immediate or direct reference to the matter before the House. He trusted, that since his noble friend had brought the subject forward, he would persevere in his motion.
Lord Rolledeclared, that the noble Earl's proceeding was most proper, and if he persevered in it he should have his most cordial support.
The Lord Chancellorwould not protract a discussion that had already gone to such a length. All that he had done was to address his counsel to the noble Earl, but it must be in the recollection of every person who heard him, that at the same time that he had expressed his opinion, or had given his advice, he had added, that if the noble Earl thought proper, after what he (the Lord Chancellor) had said, to persist in his Motion, he (the Lord Chancellor) considered that in his situation he had no choice, and he should not think of oppos-

1489
ing the noble Earl's Motion, or of dividing the House. He regretted that the Motion had been made, but now that it was made, he did trust that it would be carried without one single dissentient voice. He heartily wished that more prudence had been observed, and that the House had not been dragged into the case; but since the noble Earl had dragged the House into such a proceeding, all that was left to him (the Lord Chancellor) was, to hope that their Lordships would adopt a prudent moderate, and temperate course. The attacks on an illustrious female that had been alluded to gave him the most unfeigned pain. He was not aware of them, and had never heard of them before. He should feel that he was wanting in his duty, both to his Sovereign and to the public, if he refrained from expressing his censure of such attacks, knowing, as he did, that they were totally unworthy of credit.
Lord Rollesaid, that no person in public or in private life could be of a more exalted character than the illustrious female who had been so calumniated by the public Press.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that in the very Paper that had contained the attack now before their Lordships, had appeared an attack upon the illustrious person alluded to. The case, therefore, that had been brought before the House was a very aggravated one; and it was the more necessary to visit it with the displeasure of their Lordships. He thought if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had done his duty he would have ordered the Attorney General to prosecute the Paper in question for the libel on the illustrious Lady. He should like to know why he had not. It was not only however on these occasions that such attacks had appeared in the Paper in question, for repeatedly upon former occasions there had been similar attacks, and four or five weeks ago he had observed libellous passages in that Newspaper; and since that, there had been a repetition of the course which the writer well knew must be offensive. He gave thanks to the noble Earl who had brought forward the Motion, and had called the attention of their Lordships to the publication. He was not of opinion that it would have been better to have avoided the subject. He could not agree with the noble Lord on the Woolsack, that the question should not have
1490
been mentioned. He thought quite otherwise. Noble Lords, in the libel before them, had been called "things," and he would put it to their Lordships to say whether it was pleasant for any Lord to be called a "thing," in a public Newspaper. This was not all, for not only had their Lordships been called "things," but they were designated as "things with human pretensions." No person could hesitate to say, that the calling of a Peer of that House "a thing," and "a thing with human pretensions," was a libel and a breach of privilege. What? because a noble Lord made a speech upon a public question of great interest, was he to be called "a thing with human pretensions?" This was an outrage from which the public would relieve the Parliament of this country. He would defy any man to read the paragraph and not to direct it to the noble Earl (Limerick.) When he heard the noble Lord on the Woolsack deliver himself on the case, he was so surprised at what he said, that he could hardly help thinking that the noble Lord was himself the writer of the article in The Times. He hoped in his conscience that such an apology would be exacted from the person to be brought to the Bar of the House, as would occasion the Press of the country to know that it was not to attack the sacred personages of the monarchy, and that the Parliament of England was not to be brought forward in such an indecent and abominable manner as to call a Peer a "thing with human pretensions."
The Earl of Limericksaid, that he should not have troubled their Lordships further on this occasion, but for one word which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had used in reference to the Motion which he (the Earl of Limerick) had felt it his duty now to bring forward. The noble and learned Lord had spoken of their Lordships having been "dragged into this proceeding." He wished to "drag" no one into this proceeding. He considered himself as the guardian of his own honour, he was determined to protect his honour, and he conceived it his duty to bring before the House that which he looked upon as an insult on their Lordships. The noble and learned Lord had referred to the first part of the paragraph as the worst; now he (the Earl of Limerick) as an Irishman, would refer to the concluding sentence of it, in which it was meant to be conveyed that he had hazarded in that House an

1491
opinion which he would be afraid to express elsewhere. He, as an Irishman, disdained ever to deny any thing that he had said, and he should be always ready to express in one place what he had said in another. He should, without any further observations on this occasion, press his Motion,
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had not used the word "drag" in reference to the conduct of the noble Earl on this occasion. What he meant was, that such was the nature of their Lordships' privileges, that when once the motion of the noble Lord was brought forward, the House must take it up as a matter of privilege; and he had instanced the reports of the proceedings in that House as a Breach of Privilege, to demonstrate the severe nature of them if they should be strictly acted upon. That was the sense, and in no other sense, in which he spoke, when he talked of their Lordships being necessarily dragged into a proceeding on this matter, when once it was brought under their notice. He should only add, in reference to what had fallen from the noble Marquis (Londonderry), that he never heard a more extraordinary charge than that which had been preferred against him by that noble Lord. The noble Marquis had asked him why he did not order the Attorney General to prosecute the libels which he stated had appeared in the public prints against an illustrious personage. The noble Lord's charge was a curious illustration of the non sequitur principle. He (the Lord Chancellor) having said, that he had never heard, up to that moment of such attacks, up started the noble Marquis, and asked him why he had not ordered the Attorney General to prosecute them? Now, he must repeat, that, having been out of town, he had never before heard of those attacks to which the noble Marquis appeared to allude.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that if the noble and learned Lord had not heard of those attacks before, he had heard of them now, and he trusted that the noble Lord would act upon that information.
Lord Teynhamsaid, that having been present at the discussion on Friday, to which the paragraph complained of had reference, he felt it but an act of justice to the noble Earl (Limerick) to say, that nothing which fell from him on that occa-
1492
sion at all justified the attack made upon him in that paragraph. Though he was opposed in opinion to the noble Lord on the subject to which the discussion of that evening related, and though he thought that some description of Poor-laws was necessary in Ireland, he could not refrain from stating, that the noble Lord said nothing then to call down such an attack upon him. He hoped that this matter would afford to their Lordships a solemn warning on the subject of newspaper attacks. It was an evidence of the direction in which the waters flowed. They had seen what had happened in France—they had seen what the newspaper press had done in France, and they should take warning from that. After what they had seen, and after what had been done in France, he thought his Majesty's Government were bound to prosecute the calumnious attacks which proceeded from the public Press in this country.
Lord Rollesaid, that there were also other attacks proceeding from another quarter, which seriously deserved the attention of the Government. He wished to ask the noble Earl (Grey) whether representations had not been made to him of what had taken place at the Rotunda, and whether his attention had not been directed to publications proceeding from that place, containing the most scandalous attacks upon several of the most illustrious characters in the country, and whether he had not been called upon to put down the proceedings there by the intervention of a police force? Would the noble Earl state whether he had not received the papers containing the attacks to which he alluded?
Earl Greysaid, that certainly the meetings at the Rotunda, and the accounts of the proceedings there, had been mentioned to him. He reprobated such proceedings quite as much as the noble Lord did. The matter had not escaped the consideration of his Majesty's Ministers, but whether any measures would be adopted on the subject, he did not think himself called upon to state.
Lord Rollewished to know, whether, in the papers which had been laid before the noble Earl, there was one containing an attack upon the Archbishop of Canterbury? He meant to speak out; he never would flinch from his opinion, and he thought it his duty to call the attention,

1493
of his Majesty's Government to this subject.
Earl Greysaid, that certainly such papers had been laid before him, and that certainly there was one of them in which there was a representation made of the character of the Archbishop of Canterbury quite different from the real character of that venerable and esteemed Prelate.
Lord Rollewished to know, for he had a public duty to perform which he would discharge, whether these publications had been referred to his Majesty's Attorney General?
Earl Greysaid, that the papers were transmitted to the Attorney General; and that having thus discharged his duty, he had nothing further to communicate on the subject.
The question, "That the Printer of The Times be ordered to attend at the Bar of this House to-morrow," was then put, and carried.