Sitting of 24 June 1831

MINUTES.
Bills brought in. By Mr. PORTMAN, to Consolidate and Amend the Laws relating to Highways in England and Wales. By Mr. EVANS, to prevent the application of Corporate Property to the purpose of electing Members. By Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS, for regulating the Sale of Coals in London, and places adjacent. By Lord NUGENT, to abolish certain Oaths and Affirmations in Customs and Excise Departments. By Mr. S. RICE, to enable the King to make Leases, &c. of Lands in Cornwall. By Mr. R. GORDON, for regulating the Care and Treatment of Insane Persons in England.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. BURGE, Copies of the Laws passed by the Colonial Legislatures, for the relief of Catholics, Jews, and Free Persons of Colour; the Amount of the Civil, Ecclesiastical, and Military Establishments of Jamaica, the expenses of which are defrayed by the Island; and of the Ways and Means of raising Revenues for the last ten years, for such purpose; and similar Returns from the other West-India Islands; also, for Returns made by British Consuls, respecting the South American Trade, from October, 1823, to the latest date: — On the Motion of Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, the Official value of Goods Warehoused in London, from 1825 to 1830, inclusive; and account of Goods actually in Bonded Warehouse on the 5th January, 1831:—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, of the General Disbursements of Military Asylums at Chelsea, Isle of Wight, and Southampton, distinguishing each, for 1828,1829, and 1830; and for Accounts of Salaries and Allowances exceeding 750 l. a year; and for the average charge for each Child:—On the Motion of Mr. RUTHVEN, all Informations filed in the Irish Court of Exchequer, for the recovery of Penalties under the Excise Laws, specifying the Offence, Proceedings, and Costs.
Petitions presented. By Mr. O'CONNELL, against further Grants to the Kildare Street Society, from Tralee; and in favour of Reform, from Maglass, Ballamore, and other places:—By Mr. H. BULLER, from Cawston for Reform. By Mr. WYSE, from Inhabitants of Kilfien, for aid to Emi-grate, and from the said persons, against further Grants to the Kildare Street Society. By Mr. J. WILLIAMS, from Free-holders and Inhabitants of the County of Carmarthen, for additional Representatives. By Mr. HUME from the Working Classes of Aberdeen and Nairn, in favour of Re-form. By Mr. HUNT, from Inhabitants of Bolton-le-Moors, in favour of Election by Ballot; and from Stockport, for Repeal of the Corn Laws. By Mr. PORTMAN, from Broadway (Dorset), for a summary and less expensive mode for the recovery of Small Debts; from the Inhabitants of Gillingham, for the Abolition of Slavery; and from the Managers of the Blandford Savings' Bank, for alteration of the Act 9th Geo. 4th, c. 92, respecting the Amount allowed to be invested.

REFORM.—PETITIONS.
Mr. W. Bankespresented a Petition from the Mayor, Burgesses, and Householders of Marlborough, against the Reform Bill.
Mr. L. Wellesleysaid, he was instructed to state, that the petition did not speak the sentiments of the great body of respectable inhabitants of Marlborough; that it was got up by certain persons connected with the Corporation, on pretence of applying a charitable fund, existing in the town, to the benefit of those who signed it, and who were under the influence of the noble Marquis who was denominated the patron of the borough. The petition did not express the general sentiments of the inhabitants of Marlborough.
Mr. W. Bankesdeclared, that the statement was unfounded, and had originated in calumny.
Mr. L. Wellesleydefended his preceding observations, and repelled the charge of calumny.
Mr. W. Bankesdid not attribute calumny to the hon. Member, but to those from whom he had derived his information.
Mr. Estcourtpresented a Petition from the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Oxford, in which they set forth, that they understood that the present Parliament was especially assembled to pass a measure similar to that introduced in the last Parliament, for altering the Representation of the people; that they felt it to be their duty to express their decided and deliberate opinion, that several of the provisions of that measure were exceedingly dangerous; they thought that any corruption which existed in the election of Members of Parliament might be removed by wise and prudent measures; but they could not give their assent to such a bill as was formerly proposed, if it did not undergo very considerable modifications. The hon. Gentleman observed, that this petition was worthy of the serious attention of the House; that by the proposed measure the number of electors could be materially increased; that it came from a body of gentlemen not resident in any particular place, and that it expressed the sentiments of the large body of the Gentry of England.

CHOLERA MORBUS.
Mr. Baringmoved, that copies of all information or opinions communicated to the Government on the nature and extent of any infectious diseases prevalent in the eastern part of Europe, should be laid before the House. He understood that a Board of Health had been established, and he thought they should publish every thing that came to their knowledge as to the precautions to be taken towards warding off this scourge. He did not make this motion out of any suspicion that the Government had not taken adequate means to be informed of the nature of the evil, or to check its extending itself into these dominions, but from a conviction that the matter itself was of the greatest possible public importance, and that it would be advisable to lay, as soon as was convenient, all the information which had been obtained upon the subject before the people.
Mr. Warburtonseconded the Motion, and observed, that he should like to know whether any of those individuals who were to report their opinions to the Government were persons who had witnessed the progress of the disease in India.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonagreed, that it would be highly proper to lay the required information before the public at the earliest possible opportunity. He wished, however, that the hon. Member would so alter the words of his motion as not to require copies of all the information received upon the subject, for that included many Consular communications, which contained nothing worthy of the expense of publication with respect to this particular matter. If the hon. Member would adopt the words "extracts of all information," &c, he should have no objection to agree to the motion, the object of which would be fully attained by those words.
The motion as amended, agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM BILL FOR ENGLAND.
Lord John Russellmoved, that that portion of his Majesty's Speech which related to the question of Reform in Parliament should be read.
The Clerk then read the following sentence from the Speech:—
"Having had recourse to that measure, for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of my people on the expediency of a Reform in the Representation, I have now to recommend that important question to your earliest and most attentive consideration, confident, that in any measures which you may prepare for its adjustment, you will carefully adhere to the acknowledged principles of the Constitution, by which the prerogatives of the Crown, the authority of both Houses of Parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people, are equally secured."
Lord John Russell: I rise, Sir, for the purpose of moving, in the name of the Government, a measure which, in their opinion, is calculated to maintain unimpaired the prerogatives of the Crown, the authority of both Houses of Parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom. Sir, in rising to make this motion, I cannot but ask, recollecting what took place on this subject in the late Session of Parliament, that I may have the benefit of a patient attention during the explanation I shall endeavour to give of the general principles of the measure which

323
his Majesty's Ministers have thought it expedient to propose. I trust, that on this occasion Gentlemen will so far favour me as not to repeat the cheers and gestures with which they thought that this measure was at once to be driven out of the House, and scouted by the ridicule of the great party | that was here congregated and banded together against it. Whatever may be its reception, I feel strongly this, that his Majesty's Ministers have neither yielded nor a bated their endeavours in consequence of the opposition they have encountered; that neither the taunts nor the jeers with which the first proposition was met, in no measured manner, nor the libels with which the measure itself was disfigured, nor the fair and able opposition which was made to it in this House by men of weight and talent, nor those more dangerous weapons, unwarranted and slanderous as they were, which imputed to the Sovereign of these realms a will different from that of his constitutional advisers—I say, Sir, that none of those obstacles, powerful as they were felt to be at the time, have prevented the Sovereign, or his Ministers, or the People, from pursuing that object which has been considered as dear at once to those who wish to live according to the ancient rules of the Constitution, and to all those who are sincerely attached to the rights and liberties of the people of this empire. Of the conduct of the Sovereign, or of that of his Ministers, it would not become me to speak; but I cannot proceed further without saying in a few words, how much I admire, as worthy of all praise and glory, the conduct of the people of England; and I say this without any reference to the merits of the measure itself, which, however, has successfully undergone the great test of national approbation. If this measure was of that character which it has been untruly represented to be, the praise and glory due to the people of England would still be the same; for in the sacrifices made and the devotedness shown, by the humbler classes of the community in the pursuit of what they thought their duty to their country, they have set an example of which England may well be proud to the latest generations. It has been said, that the late elections were not governed by reason but by passion—that they were conducted under the influence of passion, I do not deny, but it was that noble passion the love of country, and under its influence, the whole population of this em-
324
pire has exhibited an animation and enthusiasm which led them to forget all their own petty interests wherever the public good was concerned. Nothing but a passion of this kind could have persuaded men, with only the income of a few shillings a day, to resist all the bribes that temptation offered to their acceptance—to give up, after all that was insinuated upon the subject, the possession of a privilege which they had enjoyed, and which they were told their children ought to enjoy after them—a valuable privilege too—for the sake of what? for the sake of a measure which was not for their benefit, but for the future benefit and welfare of millions of the inhabitants of this kingdom. This must have been a lesson to those who despise the people and who never speak but with disparagement and contempt of the lower classes; it is a lesson which I should have thought would have operated sooner and more powerfully than it has done, and would have taught such men not to speak of any classes of his Majesty's subjects in a manner from which the heart of his Majesty himself would recoil; for, whatever may be the situation of any man, be his gains what they may, if he is pursuing a course of honest industry, if he acts independently and conscientiously, even though he be mistaken, is he not as much worthy of respect as the proudest or the most opulent of those who justify by their conscientious opinion their opposition to the measure I have now the honour to bring before you. I shall now proceed to speak of the measure itself. The features and details of that measure I shall not think it necessary to enter this day particularly into, because they are the same as those of the Bill that was before the House during the late Parliament; and as the slight improvements which have been made are solely intended to carry into effect the principles of that Bill, I think it will be quite sufficient if I leave the consideration of all the details of the measure till the period when this House shall have sanctioned the Bill by a first and second reading, and shall be about to consider it in a Committee. But although I do not feel it necessary now to explain those particulars of the Bill, yet I do think, that when this House, having been called together for the purpose, of considering this great question—a question affecting deeply and entirely the constitution of the House itself—I do think, I

325
say, that it will be respectful to the House that I should perform the duty of endeavouring to lay before it, in some manner, a statement of what the principle of Representation has been, what it is under the present existing state of the law, and what it will be, generally and largely speaking, under the provisions of the measure which we now propose. If we go back to the origin of Representation, we shall find, without entering into the circumstances of Europe, which at that time were the cause of many changes, that the towns and cities of Europe grew into importance, that in some countries—as, for instance, in France and Spain—Representative Assemblies were formed: while in others—as in Germany and in Italy—many towns enjoyed an independent Constitution of their own. With respect to our own country, there was no regular or defined Representation of certain cities and boroughs in this House; but the Sheriffs received writs, directing them to send two citizens from every city, and two burgesses from every borough, within their bailiwick, and they interpreted these commands as they found the cities and boroughs were capable of bearing the expense of sending Members to Parliament, or of contributing to the revenue of the Kingdom. I hold in my hand the statement of several instances in which the returns varied from each other at different times on the account I have mentioned. In the reign of Henry 6th, York and Scarborough sent Members, and the Sheriff returned that there were "not any more cities or boroughs than these in Yorkshire," from whence Members could be sent to Parliament. In the same-reign, the same thing occurred with respect to Cornwall. The Sheriff returned Members from Launceston, Liskeard, Bodmin, Lostwithiel, Truro, and Helston, and then added to the return the words "there are no other cities or boroughs within my bailiwick" that could send Members. In Lancashire the case was still more remarkable. In the 19th of Edward 2nd, Lancaster was the only borough capable of returning Members. In the 1st Edward 3rd, Lancaster and Preston sent Members: in a later period of the same reign, Lancaster again was the only borough that sent a Member; and in the 34th year of Edward 3rd, the Duke of Lancaster, to whom the writs were directed, returned, that Lancaster was the only borough which in time past ap-
326
peared to have sent Members to Parliament. In the 38th year of that reign, a similar return was made, and the ground assigned was the poverty of the boroughs, the words being "propter debilitatem seu paupertatem." That was the manner, Sir, in which, for about 250 years, this House was constituted. Between 120 and 130 boroughs seem pretty constantly to have returned Members; thirty returned them from time to time only, and the Sheriff, in the manner I have described, took upon himself to enforce or dispense with their attendance. So that during this first period there was nothing more irregular or less settled than the right of boroughs to send Members to Parliament. The second period to which I shall refer, extends from the reign of Henry 6th, to that of the Tudors. During that period this House grew into importance and authority. It was then thought politic and useful, for the advantage of the Royal authority, that there should be summoned Members from a great number of other boroughs; and Members were accordingly summoned from places which had regularly sent them in former reigns, and from others that had since been discontinued. In looking over this list, Sir, it seems that the great proportion of the boroughs summoned within this period had not become large boroughs in the course of time, but, on the contrary, many of the small boroughs in Cornwall were called upon to send burgesses to Parliament for the first time in the reigns of the Tudors. Some of these returns prove, that of the fifty-five boroughs which we now propose to disfranchise, by inserting them in Schedule A of the Bill, no less than forty-five were created or restored during the reigns of the Tudors. I do not pretend to argue, Sir, that they are more in our power, for the purpose of disfranchisement, because they are more or less ancient; but I mention it as a remarkable fact, that the power of sending Members was given to these boroughs by the Tudors, apparently rather with the intention and object that the men sent should depend upon the Crown, than with any view of enlarging and improving the Representation of the country. During the whole of the time I have mentioned, the power of the King to summon Members was as unquestioned as it had been in former times. Especially deserving mention, as a proof of this fact, is the instance of the borough of East Looe, respecting which

327
the entry in the Journals is, that "the charter is not to be questioned in this place, but only that the persons returned shall prove whether they are burgesses of East Looe, and that they have been sent hither in obedience to her Majesty's command." So that, from the reign of Henry 6th, to the end of the reigns of the Tudors, the greatest irregularity existed in the return of Members to this House, its constitution was unsettled, and the power of the Crown enabled it to send Members hither at its pleasure. I mention this, as I wish to argue this question on this principle, that the Constitution of this House, intead of being a settled, perpetual, and invariable constitution—one which, as we were told, had never changed, and respecting which it was imputed to us as a great fault, that we, for the first time, with unhallowed hands, have ventured to violate its sanctity—a Constitution that never was, for any fifty consecutive years during a long period of time, settled and stationary, and that the Crown, which was the power that at that time possessed most influence, was able to effect changes as circumstances might require them. If the Representation of this House was not, as I have shown, settled in the time of the Tudors, it will not surely be maintained, that during the Civil Wars under the Stuarts, those wars which have been called by a foreign writer "a Revolution of fifty years," it will not surely be maintained, that in the midst of these changes it became settled. During that period of commotion, those precedents occurred which are mentioned with abhorrence—those changes effected by Cromwell — changes which, though referred to with horror by the anti-Reformers of this day, did not so affect the mind of Lord Clarendon, who, although a man not fond of revolutions, but rather an admirer of monarchical power and hereditary government, did yet think proper to say, that these alterations were fit to be made "with more warrantable authority, and in better times." In proposing changes now, we are not altogether liable to the blame thrown upon Cromwell for making them, but we may take Clarendon for our guide, and say that these changes are now proposed "with more warrant of authority, and in better times." And that we are authorised by his doctrine and opinion in making an attempt to effect those changes in the Representation,
328
changes which will make it more consonant with the present state and condition of the people. During the reign of Charles 2nd, whatever may have been the state of the Representation before that time, we are justified in saying, that then it was not what it is now; for, on a memorable question—namely, the Exclusion Bill—there was a difference of opinion between the Houses of Lords and Commons. The Commons generally were in favour of the measure, which, however, was rejected by a majority of two to one in the House of Lords. The King, in consequence of this, had recourse to the exertion of his Royal prerogative, in dissolving the Parliament. Had such a thing occurred in more recent times, we all know, however much the people might agree with their Representatives, notwithstanding the majority in the Peers, that 150 or 200 new Members would, upon the new election, have found their way into this House to vote against the sense of the people. It was not so then. One Minister was retained a Secretary of State; and when he proposed an Amendment to the Exclusion Bill, he could not find one Member to second him. That is a proof that the House of Commons of this day is not constituted as the House of Commons of that day was; for although we have the same name we have not the same influence, or the same degree of popular control which existed in the House on that day. I now come, Sir, to the glorious period of the Revolution, from which many Gentlemen date the Constitution itself—deeming that the time of political memory should extend back no further. What took place then? The first declaration made by the Parliament of that day was, that elections should be free; and one of the first Acts of the second Session of William 3rd, was the enactment of a law, that the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports should have no right to nominate two Barons for the same, as he unjustly and unlawfully had assumed to do. In the course of years that followed the Revolution, there never was any time at which this House did not declare and enact that the election of Members to serve in this House ought to be in the people of the country, and ought to be free. I will now read the preamble of the Act of the 8th George 2nd, which is framed in the same spirit:—"Whereas, by the ancient Common Law of this land,

329
all elections ought to be free: and whereas by an Act passed in the third year of the reign of King Edward 1st, of famous memory"—on a former occasion it was thought pedantry in me to quote a statute of Edward 1st, but I see that the legislature of George 2nd did not disdain that pedantry—"it is commanded, upon great forfeiture, that no man, by force of arms, nor by malice or menacing, shall disturb any to make free elections; forasmuch as the freedom of elections of Members to serve in Parliament is of the utmost consequence to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the kingdom." I have no hesitation in saying, that I think the elections ought to be free from force; and that when Parliament spoke of free elections, they did not mean elections by a gentleman's gardener, who followed the will and pleasure of his master, whether one man or another should be elected into this House. That was not their meaning; and it never can have been the meaning of those who passed this Act: but we are now told by a great authority, that such was the meaning, and a petition was presented to this House during the last Parliament, which went upon this ground, that a certain number of Members of this House ought to be nominated by individuals, and a certain number of others ought to sit here by virtue of 1,000 l. or 1,200 l. a year paid by them to a person on whose authority they are returned as Members. A right hon. friend of mine, the Judge Advocate, argued with great force and ability on this circumstance, that be the constitution of this House as excellent as it might, it would be impossible to persuade the people of this country to think it right, so long as they saw it carried into practice in a manner that was a defiance of all the laws and statutes now existing upon the subject. That argument it is impossible to controvert. If you mean to say it is right, that a certain number of men should sit in this House as mere nominees, and that others should sit here by virtue of the money which they have paid for this purpose, then, I ask, with what object have all the laws from the Revolution to this day been passed for securing free elections, and to what end have been enacted those which, with the same professed object, have directed punishments and penalties for bribery and corruption? Either one or the other must be wrong. I may be told, that
330
the people are wrong, and that we ought to teach them to be contented; but how is it possible they should be wrong, or that we should teach them to think otherwise, when Parliament declares, on the one hand, that it will maintain these laws, and this constitution of the House by free election of the people, and when it admits, on the other hand, Members into this House, in direct defiance of those very laws, and when, at the same time, the opponents of Reform say, they will not alter the practice, nor change the law, requiring the people to be contented under the contradiction, so that the more absurd the violence done to the understanding of the people, and the more dark and hidden the mystery with regard to the practice, the more worthy the matter is described to be of the admiration of the people. The hon. member for Oxford may think that this is quite right, but I can tell him that Parliament can no longer govern the country by the use of such contradictions. Neither do we intend to have recourse to them; on the contrary, we intend to appeal, our own Administration, to the plain sense of the people, and to ask for their obedience on grounds which are clear and intelligible. During the period when, as [have said, there has been a desire to maintain in force all the statutes and declarations providing for the perfect freedom of elections, that has taken place which is liable to take place under every constitution—the introduction of abuses the most fatal to that free choice which the laws and constitution of Parliament recommend. If I understand anything of the history of our Representation, I may assert, that a little more than a century ago, although there were elections in corporate towns by small numbers of individuals, yet, generally speaking, those small numbers did represent fairly enough the feelings and opinions of the towns from which the burgesses were to be sent. But as it was discovered, in the course of time, that it was a very valuable property to have an influence in the election of Members of Parliament, men who wished to establish a power of this kind, by means of their extensive possessions contrived so to pervert the letter and spirit of our institutions, that elections by a few persons, whether corporators or freeholders of the different boroughs, did become, in. fact and effect, elections made solely by individuals. I have looked, at the work,

331
the excellent work, of Browne Willis upon this subject; and the first instance I shall quote will certainly not be thought an unfair one—that of the borough of Tavistock. In that borough, according to the work I have named, in 1716 there were 110 persons who polled at elections. Looking at the returns from thence, it appears that the family to which I belong very often returned a Member, and the other Member seems usually to have been a gentleman of the county. At some period, I really cannot tell exactly when, the Duke of Bedford, having great property in the neighbourhood, bought up the freeholds, and in time the constituency was so diminished, that the electors varied between only twenty-seven and thirty-five. They are not persons entirely dependent; but still it will be seen, that so small a number was much more within the verge of the influence of a great proprietor than the 110 voters would be, who, a century earlier, assisted at elections. The next instance I shall notice is that of the borough of Cambridge. In 1716 there were about 200 electors at Cambridge; who seem to have been persons entirely belonging to the town, and the Representatives whom they sent to Parliament, judging from the names of Cotton and Bacon, were generally members of some of the principal families belonging to the county. Bacon is a name too familiar to every gentleman to require any remark, and the name of Cotton, particularly that of Sir Hyde Cotton, is well known to everybody acquainted with the parliamentary history of the country. I know not if the members of the University of Cambridge, in their speculations on Reform, have at all attended to what has taken place in the borough so immediately under their eyes; but I believe the fact to be, that a banker there, having considerable influence with his brother townsmen, gave the whole power of the Corporation into the hands of the Duke of Rutland, for which, it is said, the banker received a reward, to him quite satisfactory, in the possession and disposal of a considerable quantity of the patronage of Government. What is the result? The Duke of Rutland is, in fact and effect, the person who elects the representatives for the borough of Cambridge. He, therefore, sends the two Members to this House —one being a gentleman from Ireland, and the other a noble Lord of this country. I mention from whence they come, be-
332
cause it was an argument against us in the last Parliament, that we were about to break up and destroy the English Representation, and to give a preponderance to the Representatives of Ireland and Scotland. The new Members of this House will hardly believe, that we were charged with an intention to disturb the English Representation, and to rob England of her fair proportion of Members. The evident result of our measure, however, would be, and to attain that was our object, that whereas certain individuals have now got complete and absolute power over certain boroughs, and may, as they please, return gentlemen from Ireland, Scotland, or from the East or West Indies, we should restore the power of choosing Representatives to the towns of England which have been deprived of it by abuses of perhaps fifty or sixty years' standing. This might or might not be a wise plan; but to say, that it would rob England of its Members is one of the most monstrous abuses of language that was ever practised by the tongue of man. An argument of the same kind is used by an hon. Baronet (Sir John Walsh), in a pamphlet he has published, in which he says, that the effect of the Bill will be, to deprive small country gentlemen of their influence, and to give the whole of it to great landed proprietors, and to persons connected with the trade and manufactures of the places from whence Members are sent. I will venture to say, that the hon. Baronet must be entirely ignorant both of past history and of present times to make such an assertion. If he would just take the pains to look at the Returns made to Parliament in former years, he would find, that during a long course of time, various small boroughs were accustomed to send to this House small country gentlemen, and others of property, connected with the places, and that that practice has diminished, if not altogether ceased, by the changes that have more recently been introduced, and which have had the effect of returning for the greater number of these boroughs, gentlemen in nowise connected with them, they having purchased their seats from the patron of the borough. So, that whatever may be the faults of our Bill—whatever may be its errors— the last thing that can be imputed to it is, that it tends in any way to lessen the influence of country gentlemen. I will now refer to some other instances of

333
places in which the constituency has been diminished. Plymouth and Portsmouth may be mentioned, and in the last the voters have been reduced, since 1716, from 400 to fifty-nine. In short, it would be easy to point out many boroughs where, while the buildings, population, trade, manufactures, and wealth have been progressively augmented, the number of voters has been diminished. These changes, by which individuals gradually acquired the power of sending Members to represent them in this House, at length excited the attention of the country, and for nearly fifty years a debate has been carried on, with more or less animation, attracting more or less interest, upon the question, whether this House ought really to represent the people, as it professed to do, or whether nominations by individuals to seats in this House ought to be permitted as a wholesome innovation? In the course of this discussion great men have taken different sides. The part of Reform was taken by the great and vigorous mind of Lord Chatham, and by the liberal and manly understanding of Mr. Pitt. Mr. Pitt, not in his boyhood, but after he had been six years a Minister of this country, declared that he was still of opinion, that if the French Revolution were not raging, it would be desirable to make some change in the Representation, in order to provide an effectual security for the rights and liberties of the people. On the other side appeared Mr. Burke, who put his argument with that fancy and command of language for which he was remarkable; Mr. Canning, whose loss we have more recently had to deplore, and who for some time delayed that consummation which we should otherwise have attained—and I am bound to add, that at a later date Mr. Pitt himself—declared that such a change in the Representation was not fit to be adopted. I will not enter into a history of the debates; but the question has been very long under discussion, and now only is it probable that something will be done with it. I think I may fairly say, that a period of fifty years is sufficiently protracted, and that now, when his Majesty has called Parliament together to consider the matter, it is ripe for deliberation, and we may enter upon it without any imputation that we have undertaken it rashly, or that we are attempting to introduce a complete novelty in proposing the changes. But although the subject of Reform has been
334
so many years under discussion, without having made much progress in Parliament, the same cannot be said of the Representation of the two Sister Kingdoms, Scotland and Ireland. With reward to them no respect has been paid to vested rights—no such religious horror as we have seen recently evinced when we have endeavoured to obtain the return of Members according to the ancient and acknowledged principle of the Constitution. As to Scotland, let it be recollected, that it was under the advice and authority of Lord Somers, that the knights, citizens, and burgesses of that country were swept into the narrow compass of forty-five Members, about one-third of the original number. And here let me say one word on Lord Somers, because he is one of the persons whom the admirers of antiquity profess to quote and hold up as one of the great lights by which we are to be guided. Let us look at the course of the political life of Lord Somers. He began by writing a work, which he called "A just and modest Vindication of the late Parliament," a Parliament which had proposed to exclude the next heir from the Throne. His next great act was, to assist in the exclusion of one King and in the calling in of another. Afterwards he aided in invitating the House of Hanover to the Sovereignty of these Realms; and lastly came the Union with Scotland, which parcelled out and divided the Representation of that country. Whatever, therefore, may be said of Lord Somers, he cannot be quoted as unfriendly to innovation, and not prepared, when circumstances called for it, to put himself forward to make those changes he saw were necessary. It was asked on the occasion of the Scotch Union, as it is asked now—why make so great a change? I have in my hand the protest of certain Peers against that Union, containing words very similar to those we hear now employed. They protest against the Union, because the Constitution of the country is so very excellent, and, therefore, justly applauded by all our neighbours for so many ages, that they cannot conceive it prudent to change it; some of the alterations being likewise of such a nature that the inconvenience and danger of them was already but too obvious, while into other points it would be more proper and decent not to enter. This protest was subscribed Beaufort, Buckingham, and

335
Stawell. But was Lord Somers deterred because these Lords declared the state of things could not be altered but for the worse? On the contrary he has left a note of the speech in which he answered the objections. "Objection 1, That too sudden alterations are dangerous." That was one objection made to the Union, and Lord Somers's answer to it was in these terms;—" This is certainly true, unless where the most manifest danger arises from the delay itself." Let hon. Members then quote Lord Somers as their authority; I say we are following his footsteps. I assert, that there is greater danger from delaying Reform than from adopting our measure. And I call upon the House not to be influenced by any of these fears of touching the Constitution, seeing that it is a fear which has been entertained at every change, and which has been as regularly disproved within tea years after the change was made. The Constitution, which was to be utterly destroyed, on the contrary, has derived fresh force and vigour from the change deprecated by these ignorant worshippers of antiquity. Such was the case with Scotland: it was decided at once, without any very careful looking into particulars. They wished for a certain number of Members, but the Commissioners said, you shall have forty-five and no more. In this practical and sensible manner was this question of the Representation of Scotland at once settled. Let us now look at Ireland. Has the Representation of Ireland never been touched? And by whom was it touched? By some audacious Whig? By some Radical, the enemy of the Monarchy and of the House of Lords? By no means; it was parcelled out and changed, and a number of its boroughs utterly disfranchised, by the hand of Mr. Pitt, whose memory hon. Gentlemen opposite annually meet to celebrate, and whose name, strangely, indeed, they consider the token and talisman by which they are to oppose the progress of Reform. That change occurred not many years ago; but another change took place still more recently, which I quoted when I brought the present Bill before the late House of Commons. I said, at that time, that if it were a matter of right, the 40 s. freeholders of Ireland had as good a right to their franchise as the owners or voters of Beeralston or Gatton, and many other places which it is the object of this measure to
336
suppress. I never heard, I must say, any answer to that observation, and the right hon. Baronet opposite said very fairly, "Make out as good a case for the destruction of these franchises as for the abolition of the Irish 40 s. freeholders, and I will not refuse to support Reform." I hope I do not misrepresent his statement, and I ask, what was the ground upon which the House of Commons was called to disfranchise the 40 s. freeholders? Was it not, that they were dependent upon their landlords? Was it not, that they could not exercise a free choice? Was it not, that they were driven to the poll like cattle, that they were carried there in crowds by the agents of estates, without knowing for whom they were to vote? Hence the sacred trust was most improperly left in their hands. Then I maintain that those who vote in nomination boroughs are more completely dependent on the nod and beck of the proprietors than even the Irish 40 s. freeholders who were driven to the poll. But there was another reason for their disfranchisement. It was said, that even where they were not dependent, they were men so bigotted and ignorant, that they were guided and governed by their priests, and that they voted as the priests directed, because they thought it was necessary for their salvation. Therefore the position was, either that they were so dependent upon the landlord, or so controlled by the priest, that they were not in a condition to retain and exercise the franchise. I say, that in all the nomination boroughs the voters are either under the direct influence and absolute dominion of the proprietor, or they are what is called independent, which means, voting for a particular candidate on consideration of a bribe, the acceptance of which violates Acts of Parliament, and is an offence punishable in the Courts below. My position, then, is this—that all the boroughs we introduce into the Schedules afford causes of disfranchisement as strong as those which convinced Parliament in the instance of the 40 s. freeholders of Ireland. I contend, that the electors do not exercise a choice, because they are either not independent or corrupt; and I call upon you to destroy their franchise, to purify their corruptions, and to restore the Constitution to its word, letter, and spirit, and to what I hope before long will be its practice. A certain number of boroughs return Members at the will of individuals

337
—nine Peers return sixty-three Members to this House. In other boroughs the elections are carried on by the most notorious and shameful bribery. In some cities and large towns the elections are open and free; in some large counties the elections are fair, but the expenses to the candidates are so heavy, that men of small fortunes are ruined by them, and none will venture to become candidates who are not possessed of most extensive resources. I beg any Gentleman to recollect the elections of the year 1826, during which every kind of bribery was openly practised, and masses of corruption were exposed. In some cases, after many days of contest, electors were brought drunk to the poll— the wildest riots occurred, and men voted for one candidate in preference to another, because one party had given him five guineas more than his rival. Numbers went to the hustings without once thinking of the qualifications of the party for whom they appeared—price was all they cared about; and surely this cannot be considered a state of Representation fit for an enlightened nation. Looking at the Constitution, it shocks me to see, that a great majority of the Members of this House may be returned by a few individuals. Looking at the cause of morality, it offends me to see, that an election is an excuse and an occasion for every species of perjury, bribery, and drunkenness. Looking at the dictates of wisdom and policy, I am shocked to see—or I should rather say, I regret to see—that large populous places, where much wealth and intelligence are congregated, have no influence in the choice of Representatives. We propose to alter his system—we propose to substitute a different system for it, altering the original form as little as possible. We propose to preserve the elections in counties and in cities, and boroughs, where they exist, on the true principle of the Constitution. According to the amendment we recommend, about 150 Members will be sent by the counties, and the larger counties being divided, each division will have as much population and more wealth than the whole county possessed a hundred years ago. I have gone through the calculation, and I find that such will be the fact; and so far from the number of inhabitants being small, so as to open the door to individual influence, the population will vary, perhaps, from 70,000 to 120,000, Next, according to
338
our scheme, about 180 Members will be sent from great cities and towns, not omitting Manchester, Leeds, or Sheffield, and giving to all the great manufacturing interests, such as the woollen and cotton, the mining districts, the coal trade, and the potteries, the opportunity of having their claims duly regarded, by giving them a due share in the Representation. Putting politics aside—I mean putting aside the immediate contests of politics—will any man deny, that it will be a great advantage to places of great wealth and trade, instead of sending deputations to my noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to have Members in this House capable of watching over the interests committed to their charge, and capable of guarding them from any encroachment or injury? It is true the effect will be, to displace a certain number of Members (Representatives I cannot call them), well qualified to make speeches of great amusement, and sometimes of great eloquence, but whose presence does not, in my mind, compensate for the absence of those who are immediately connected with our commerce and manufactures. In the Representation, as we propose to leave it, there will still be a class which some may think a blot on our system, but the existence I think, will add to the permanence of Parliament, and to the welfare of the people—I mean that there will be a hundred or more Members from places of three, four, five, or six thousand inhabitants, who will not perhaps immediately represent any particular interest, and who may, therefore, be better qualified to speak and inform the House on great questions of general interest to the community. If we had proceeded as some recommended, viz., to destroy the existing system, and to allow none but Members from counties, and large cities and towns, although it would have been a Representation of the landed, commercial, and manufacturing interests, something would still have been wanting to its completeness. That something I find in a number of persons not connected either with the land, commerce, or manufactures, but who are certainly well worthy to enter these walls, and able to give advice and advance opinions important to the welfare of the community. When I say, that the smaller boroughs will have an opportunity of choosing such Members, I do not, of course, mean that they will return them

339
all in the way of nomination. By fair and free means, candidates may obtain the suffrages of such constituents without any infringement of the Constitution. Such are the improvements we propose with regard to places sending Members; but in addition, there will be an immense extension of suffrage in counties and in large towns; and that extension will in part be accomplished by the admission of copyholders and leaseholders. The latter species of qualification we propose to extend further than in the original state of the Bill, from which some were omitted—I mean those who had leases for a long term of years. I propose now, that instead of fourteen years, seven years shall be sufficient to entitle leaseholders, paying.50 l.a year to vote for the Members for counties. Such an alteration will establish a numerous constituency, and a very respectable constituency, for counties. With regard to towns, the suffrage will be vested in householders in dwellings of 10 l. a year rent or value. This, although not, perhaps, the ancient right, I must hold to be in the spirit of our Representative system. During the last half century towns have so increased, that all householders are not to be considered in the same light as householders in the reign of James 1st. I apprehend that we are acting in the spirit of the Constitution, and of the well-known Resolution of the House of Commons in the reign of James 1st, when I say, that householders of 10 l. a year will form an excellent constituency in cities and boroughs. I need not now explain that the Bill contains every provision for the registry of voters, which will tend to prevent the bribery that takes place at elections, and to check the taking of false votes, a practice known to be frequent in the heat of an election contest. The regulation for taking the poll in two days, I apprehend, will also prevent the disgraceful scenes we have so frequently witnessed, and lessen the possibility as well as the inducement to corruption. But, I think, we are bound, if possible, to go even further, and the attention of Government has been most seriously directed to those laws on our Statute-book which have for their object the prevention of bribery and treating. Although no plan is yet mature, yet I trust that, in the course of the present Session, I shall be enabled to present a bill to the House, which will make the existing laws in that
340
respect more effectual and executive. Let me, however, remark how much the measure I now propose to introduce will tend to the prevention of crimes of that description. One mode in which the due punishment of bribery and corruption under the existing law was interfered with was by that argument often put in this House, but never so strongly as by Mr. Fox, when he said, "How can you call to the Bar a wretched man, a poor labourer, earning only 10 s. a week, and send him to Newgate for receiving a bribe of ten guineas, when you know that there are Members sitting in every part of this House, who have been guilty of bribery on the largest scale, by giving three or four thousand pounds for the places they occupy among us?" I trust that hereafter that forcible rejoinder, quoted as a screen for bribery and corruption, will be taken away, and that we shall find reformers of all degrees ready to prevent and punish bribery, whether in the House or out of it. I know that some persons still think that such a Reform as would correct and punish this iniquitous practice would be sufficient to satisfy the nation; and upon this point I have seen a declaration by a noble Lord, who, among others, started as a reformer in a northern county. He says, that he shall be ready to disfranchise all boroughs convicted of bribery; but let me ask, is that the only corruption that ought to be punished, or could we fairly and honestly stop short there, while we allow men to sit here who have made a traffic of seats in Parliament, or for other objects, not computable, perhaps, in pounds, shillings and pence, have made Representation a matter of barter and exchange? I come now to speak of some few, and but few, of the objections urged to this measure in the various writings that have appeared from time to time. The first of these objections, and the most general is, that it is a plan far more extensive than is necessary or proper for the occasion. It is, of course, impossible to answer an assertion of that kind to the conviction of those who make it; but I beg to remark, that those who introduced this measure were not pledged by any previous promise — they were not bound by any previous declaration with regard to the nature and degree of their plan of Reform. Neither Lord Grey, nor the Lord Chancellor, nor other members of the Cabinet who were formerly advo-

341
cates for Reform, have laid down expressly to what point they would or would not go; and I think it fair to argue, that having been bound by no promise or pledge, and the course being evidently much easier to do less than to do more, establishes to conviction that they have brought forward this measure, because they are satisfied it is necessary, in order to lay a lasting foundation on which to erect the Representation of the people, to support the prerogatives of the Crown, and to preserve the authority of both Houses of Parliament. The House may remember that I myself have been an advocate for a less extensive and less thorough Reform. I have said, on former occasions, that if one Member were taken from each of the small boroughs, it would be a Reform sufficient and satisfactory; but when I came to a consideration of this kind—attached to and belonging to a Government—I was obliged to ask myself whether, if I propounded that the plan should go no further, I could say, that the change would not only be effectual but permanent. If upon my former plan of Reform, Gatton and Sarum preserved one Member each, would not the first motion in the reformed Parliament have been to do away with the remaining Representatives of those places? Had I wished it, it would have been impossible for me to have resisted such a motion, and what then would have been the state of things? We should have proposed and propounded a measure, as a satisfactory measure of Reform, when in fact it would be only laying the ground for fresh dissension. It would be exposing the country to a discussion on the minimum or maximum of Reform, at a time, perhaps, when her affairs could ill bear such disputes; and we should have lost the opportunity, which we hoped to have embraced, of giving a measure at once which exposed us, as it may and as it has, to the risk of obloquy and opposition, but which, if carried, will give such stability and security to the system, that we may then proceed to the discussion of other great and pressing interests without fear that the people will reproach, us with not having done what was sufficient for the protection of their rights and interests, or reproach ourselves with having brought forward a scheme of Reform which could not be final, and concealing or disguising that we thought other measures must be its necessary consequence. But
342
if this Bill be not too extensive, it is found, as the next argument against it, that it is very unequal—that, after all, it leaves such places as Halifax and Bradford with fewer members than Tavistock or Knaresborough. Our opinion is, that anomalies of this kind are not grievances that excite discontent. It is the practical evil which the country has felt which calls for redress, and by remedying that practical evil we trust we shall be able to defend anomaly, and stand out against those who wish to see a complete model of symmetrical Representation. But do they who object to the inequality of our Reform, object in the hope that the plan they advocate will be equal and perfect? On the contrary, they say—"God forbid that Tavistock or Knaresborough, with 5,000 or 6,000 inhabitants, should send as many members as Halifax or Bradford;" and I ask them how they will reconcile with that mode of reasoning their determination that Gatton or Sarum, or a place with 700 or 800 inhabitants, should send as many Members to Parliament as Halifax or Bradford? So that the defenders of the Constitution have much more to answer for on the score of inequality than we have: they would preserve a system more anomalous, more irregular, and still less agreeable to the correct measure of proportion. When I speak of the defenders of the Constitution, I am supposing that they propose to adopt some kind of Reform; and adopting some kind of Reform, they at once lose the benefit of the argument of inequality. Mr. Canning's argument was, that as we found Representation an anomaly, so we should leave it. But the strong ground taken by Mr. Canning and the Duke of Wellington, is abandoned by their less skilful associates. They have adopted a Reform—they admit its necessity, and their Reform is more anomalous and irregular than ours; so that the argument against inequality is that which destroys the very system they would erect, and at once convicts them of inconsistency and absurdity. We can wish for nothing better than that they should so continue to reason; and when I heard them take that line of argument I was disposed to say with Cromwell, when he saw the Scotch army descending from the hill into the plain, "The Lord has delivered our enemies into our hands." But, besides the charge of inequality interfering with symmetrical proportion, we are charged with having

343
taken an unfair basis, and with having thus endeavoured, by undue means, to favour particular interests. Our answer is, that we took our measure from a well known statistical book, as free from error and doubt as could be expected. Our adversaries say—"What an inconsistency you are guilty of when you take population as a test of the right to enjoy the franchise, and yet make the right of voting depend upon holding a house of 10 l. a year;" but I will call attention for a few moments to the consequence of adopting a different course. We thought that there was an unfairness in the returns to the Tax-office of the number of houses of 10 l. a year value, and we instituted some inquiries with a view to correct those returns, by sending persons into the neighbourhood of some of the boroughs who could inform us as to the real number of houses, which, according to our plan, would entitle the holder to the right of voting. The results vary so excessively from the returns to the Tax-office, as to establish that we were justified in suspecting that they ought not to be taken as the criterion. I will mention a few. At Agmondesham, according to the Tax-office, there are only twenty-five houses of the rent of 10 l. a year, yet the fact is, that there are 126 such houses. At Ashburton, the Tax-office returns gives fifty-four, when there are upwards of 227. At Christchurch, eighty, when there are certainly 300. At Grinstead, twenty-six, when there are perhaps 150. At Shaftesbury, seventy-five, when there are at least 150. At Thirsk, seventy-five, when the real number is 110. At Wilton, thirty-four, when there are 150. At Wycomb, 206, when there are 446. And at Westbury, only fourteen, when there are no less than 318. Also by the Tax-office returns, there were sixty-seven boroughs under 300, while according to the inquiries made, we find twenty-nine of these are above that number, and twenty-three of them above 200. In others the difference does not appear material, and in many places the collector values them at about two-thirds or three-fourths of the real rent. Now, in Tavistock, although, according to the tax-return, the number is 284, the real number is found to be at present no more than 277. Let me show what might be said if we had taken the Stamp-office returns as our guide. We should be told that we had adopted estimates which are well known
344
to vary according to the caprice of the tax-collectors, who have each their partial friends, with whom they make arrangements that the taxes upon those persons shall not be too heavy. It would be said that, disregarding population, which would have furnished a safe rule, and adopting those estimates which we ought to know, if we understood the task upon which we had entered, were inaccurate, and not to be relied on, we had disfranchised Tam-worth, a town having 6 or 7,000 inhabitants, and preserved Tavistock, which has no more than 2,692 inhabitants—we should be told that we had chosen those estimates, because they favoured our own partialities, although we could know nothing of their correctness. For these reasons, Sir, we have not taken so insecure a basis; which would have made us liable to such objections. It is quite clear to me, Sir, that there are two places which, according to the increase of their population, cannot be comprehended in the list on the score of population, and yet, as we cannot make up 300 voters, to leave the franchise with them would be giving the nomination to a few individuals. One of those places is Downlon—and it is but justice to Earl Radnor to say, that the noble Lord himself was the first to call our attention to the circumstances with regard to that town. Upon making the inquiry according to his suggestion, we found it to be our duty to except Downton from the rule which we had laid down, and to include it in the Schedule of disfranchisement. The other of those towns—St. Germain's—is merely a straggling village, principally inhabited by fishermen, and comes under the same exception as Down-ton. We shall, no doubt, be told that, in including those two boroughs in the list of the disfranchised, we are in some measure departing from our own rules. I grant, Sir, that in these cases we have done so. But I think it is impossible to devise any rule to which, upon investigation, some necessary exception must not be made. I believe, Sir, that I have now done with the exposition of our plan, and with the principal objections which may be brought against it. There is, indeed, one objection, Sir, and that a very comprehensive one, to which I have not yet alluded; that is, the question which may be put to us, as to what benefit we hope to confer upon the people by our plan of Reform? We may be asked, "Will you

345
relieve the distresses of the people by Reform; or will you not leave them precisely as they are?" But, Sir, I say, that such a question is totally irrelevant to the matter. Sir, it might just as well be objected to my noble friend's intentions to relieve the people by taking off the duty on coals, "Oh, what signifies your reduction? It does nothing whatever towards improving the Constitution." Any Gentleman might just as well arraign my noble friend in this way as tell me that this Bill will not improve the condition or increase the comforts of the people. Nor am I one of those who would debate the theory on which such exceptions are founded. I am not one of those, Sir, who would hold out to the people vain hopes of immediate benefit from this measure, which it could not realise. Neither am I one of those who maintain the opposite theory, such as is expressed in a well-known couplet, which I remember to have been once quoted by the late Lord Liverpool—
" How small, of all that human hearts endure,
That part which laws or kings can cause or cure."
Far am I from agreeing in the opinion which the poet has so well expressed in those lines. They are very pretty poetry, but they are not true in politics. When I look to one country as compared to another, at the different epochs of their history, I am forced to believe, that it is upon law and government, that the prosperity and morality, the power and intelligence, of every nation depend. When I compare Spain (in which the traveller is met by the stiletto in the streets, and by the carbine in the high roads) to England, in the poorest parts of which the traveller passes without fear, I think the difference is occasioned by the different governments under which the people live. At least, Sir, it cannot be denied, that the end attained by the two Governments of these respective countries, is essentially different. Is it possible, indeed, for any intelligent person to travel through countries and not trace the characters and conduct of the inhabitants to the nature of their institutions and Government? When I propose, therefore, a Reform of Parliament when I propose that the people shall send into this House real Representatives, to deliberate on their wants, and to consult for their interests— to consider their grievances, and attend to their desires—when I propose that they shall, in fact, as they hitherto have been said to do, in theory, possess the vast
346
power of holding the purse-strings of the monarch, I do it under the conviction that I am laying the foundation of the greatest improvement in the comforts and well-being of the people. Let what will be done, the laws of such an assembly will not be voted by men hurrying from the country, almost ignorant for what purpose, and arriving in this House at twelve o'clock at night, in time to give a vote upon a subject of which they have scarcely heard, and which they have never considered. In such an assembly, the Representatives of the people will consider, not with whom they are voting, but for what measure they vote. The measures of such an assembly will be deliberately weighed—and will be carefully designed to remedy the evils which may have been brought upon the country by bad laws, and to rescue it from their operation. When I am told, that the government of a country does not affect the condition of its people, I say, look to Ireland. What has caused the state of that country to be such as it now is? What, but the want of due, kind, paternal attention on the part of its government—a want of fellow-feeling in the Legislature with the great mass of the people? I say, then, that if we identify this House with the people of the three kingdoms, if we give England, Ireland, and Scotland, the right of having legitimate Representatives in Parliament, however slow may be our progress—however we may be reproached by the factious for the tardiness of our advance, in giving to the people all the rights and privileges they claim, we provide for carrying into effect the acknowledged principles of the Constitution, preserving undiminished the prerogatives of the Crown, the authority of Parliament, and the rights and liberties of the nation, guarded by the faithful Representatives of a free people and the loyal subjects of a generous King. I move, Sir, for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Representation of England and Wales.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that his sole object in rising on the present occasion was to make a few observations tending, as he thought, to promote the convenience of the House in this discussion. He trusted that his so limiting himself at present, would not prevent him from entering more fully into the subject on another occasion, on the ground that the strict forms of the House would not allow him to speak to the question twice. He thought the noble Lord wrong

347
in supposing that this Bill could be committed without a lengthened discussion, in which the sense of the House should be pronounced. The noble Lord, towards the conclusion of his speech, stated that he had answered the objections to which his Bill is liable. But he trusted, that the noble Lord would allow Gentlemen upon that side of the House to stale their objections themselves. At the same time he assured the noble Lord and the House, that he had no wish but that the measure should be fully and fairly discussed, both as to its principles and as to the manner in which it would involve the interests of this country. He was willing to have this discussion, and to take the sense of the House on the second reading of the Bill. He remembered that in the last Session leave was given to bring in the Bill without opposition; and although there was no apparent alteration made in the Bill, and he for one was prepared already to record his vote, yet he recollected that many Members of the present Parliament had not heard the former discussion upon the Bill. Nor could he but bear in mind also that the subject of Reform had been especially recommended to the careful attention of the House in the Speech from the Throne, which called on Parliament to give it an early and full deliberation. He was willing to waive all opposition to the first reading of the Bill, if that was the opinion of those around him. From the experience of the last Session he was of opinion, that a debate, on which it is understood that there shall be no division, was productive of great inconvenience, and, therefore, as there was not now to be a division, he thought it much better that there should not be a debate. If they were now to commence a discussion, it might be protracted for six or seven nights, as before without an object. Wishing the Bill, for these reasons, to be then read, and discussed on another night, he would forego even the temptation to reply which the noble Lord's sarcasms held out to him. He should allow all the sarcastic allusions of the noble Lord to pass without notice, as any reply to his speech would lead to a discussion. He wished only to request, that if he were silent respecting the Bill on that occasion, it should not be supposed that he concurred in any of the noble Lord's conclusions from his arguments, or adopted his inferences from history. He thought that one free and full discussion an the princi-
348
ple of the Bill would be sufficient previous to going into the Committee. He spoke as an individual; but he would say, that nothing should hinder him from taking the sense of the House upon the second reading. As he waived all opposition to the first reading, he hoped the noble Lord would allow a fair and sufficient interval to elapse before the second reading, so as to give hon. Gentlemen, who now first heard the principles of the Bill stated, time for full deliberation. The noble Lord had thought proper to make a speech of two hours' length; he (Sir R. Peel) did not complain of it; but he thought that it showed the subject to be one which called for grave deliberation. He, therefore, hoped the noble Lord would give the House an opportunity of complying with the recommendation of the Crown, by carefully considering the Reform upon which they should decide. He hoped, also, that before the House was called on to come to a decision upon the Bill to be read a first time that evening, they should be put in possession of the principal provisions of the Bill for reforming the Representation of Ireland. To that Bill the noble Lord, in his speech that evening, made no allusion. Although the Irish Bill was not brought in during the last Session till after the English Bill was read a second time, yet the House was made fully aware of the changes intended to be made in the Representation of that part of the kingdom. He did not mean to insist that all the details of the Bill should be minutely explained; but he at the same time, thought it essential that they should be informed of the chief points of the Irish and Scotch Bills, before they decided upon the English Bill, which was in fact but a part of one whole subject, to complete which the other Bills were necessary. The Speech of his Majesty had not particularly directed their attention to the Representation of England, but generally to that of the whole people, including of course, Ireland and Scotland. If, therefore, the House would keep the promise to which the Address now pledged it, to take the Representation of the whole people into its early and careful consideration, the English Bill could not be discussed until the House was in possession of the provisions of the Irish and Scotch Bills. He did not desire that those Bills should proceed pari passu with the English Bill; but that they should be known

349
to the House before it came to any conclusion or decision upon the latter. He concluded by expressing his hope that he had confined himself within the limits which he had prescribed at the commencement of his remarks, and by requesting the noble Lord to name a day for the second reading of the Bill, sufficiently distant to allow of full deliberation, and not too late for strict compliance with the King's recommendation, that they should give the subject their early attention.
Lord John Russellwas anxious to do what the House wished, and would therefore propose, that the Bill to be brought in should be read a second time on Thursday next. The principles of the Bill had been for a long time known to the whole country, and the hon. Gentlemen who were opposed to those principles must be as ready to maintain their opposition on Thursday next, as they could be on any day which might be named, consistently with following the recommendation to which the right hon. Baronet was so desirous the House should attend. As to the Bills for Ireland and Scotland, he did not think that it would be convenient to bring them in at present, considering the state of parliamentary business. The Bill for altering the Representation of Ireland would be submitted to the House by his right hon. friend the Secretary for Ireland, and that for Scotland by the Lord Advocate, giving due notice of their intentions; and whenever his Majesty's Ministers should see that the state of public business gave an opportunity for their introduction they would be brought in.
Sir Robert Peelhad not supposed, that he could give rise to so much difference of opinion, by proposing that which he considered an amicable arrangement. He thought that the first thing to be looked for respecting a measure making in the Constitution the important changes contemplated by his Majesty's Ministers, was a minute understanding of all its bearings. If, therefore, the majority of the House agreed with him, he should propose, firstly, that the Bill be read a second time on Monday se'n night. If they began on that day the discussion might be completed, uninterrupted by Saturday and Sunday. He would also repeat his hope that the Government, who must be themselves aware of their own intentions respecting Ireland, should not make them a secret to the House; because it was impossible
350
fully to judge of the English Bill, without knowing in what manner the Representation of Ireland and Scotland would be adjusted. He wished to assure the noble Lord, that when he made those remarks, he was prepared to enter upon the discussion without any preliminary acerbity of feeling.
Lord Althorpthought, that, after all the time that had been occupied in the consideration of the same Bill in the last Parliament, the interval between that night and Thursday next would be sufficient between the first and second reading; but if the majority of the House seemed to think that it would be better to fix the second reading for Monday, the 4th of July, he should have no objection to that day. As to the Bills for Ireland and Scotland, the inconvenience which was occasioned in the last Session by the attempt to carry them through the House pori passu with the English Bill, was such as to induce the Ministers to depart from that course in the present Session. Besides, as there was no material change in the English Bill, so there was no intention to make a material change in the Bills for Ireland and Scotland. At the same time no objection would be made to explain those Bills to the House, if the right hon. Gentleman should press his proposition.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that with respect to the Irish Bill, with which he was more intimately acquainted, he should not have the smallest objection to lay it upon the Table of the House previously to the second reading of the English Bill. He hoped, however, it was not asking too much of the spirit of compromise (of a compromise not dishonourable, or entered into for any unworthy purpose), especially as the right hon. Baronet had threatened the House with a seven nights' discussion, if he begged that the Irish and Scotch Bills might be treated in the same manner as the English Bill. The Irish Members were treated very ill when the Irish Bill was debated. Upon the English Bill, Irish Reform was discussed, but when the Irish Bill was before the House, Members took that opportunity, not to discuss Irish Reform, but to make long speeches upon Reform in general.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman answered every thing he had to desire. He had only to hope that the Lord-Advocate of Scotland would likewise lay his Bill on the Table.
The Speaker put the question, and leave was given to bring in the Bill.

CORN LAWS.
Lord Miltonmoved for Returns of all Reports on the subject of the Corn-trade, sent from the several British Consuls resident in foreign States which export corn, and which had not been laid before Parliament.
Mr. Huntgave notice, that he should, on the 15th of July, submit a motion to the House, for the repeal of all laws prohibiting the importation of foreign corn into this country.
Mr. Portmanhoped, that the noble Lord, and the hon. member for Preston, or such other hon. Members as were advocates of a free trade in corn, would, previously to agitating that subject again, institute a full inquiry into it in all its bearings, and come forward with some matured plan which would admit of a thorough discussion. It was, indeed, to be wished, that such inquiry should have been made before the noble Lord and the hon. member for Preston had announced their intention of bringing forward the subject at all, and that a new stimulus had not been added to the excitement which already too much prevailed in the agricultural districts, and which might lead to a renewal of the deplorable occurrences of last winter. If hon. Members would persist, under such circumstances in re-agitating the question, it must be on their own responsibility. At least they might state what course they meant to pursue—what better system of Corn-law than that in force they meant to propose—whether, for example, they meant to propose a plan like that of the hon. member for Middlesex, by which a fixed rate of duty should be imposed on all foreign corn entering our ports, instead of the present scale of average?
Mr. Humehad considered his plan again and again, and should be prepared to show at the proper time, that his plan of a fixed duty would be the safest and best for the home-grower as well as consumer of corn. If they were called upon to lay a duty at all, that duty ought to be invariable. He understood that within the last eighteen months the importation had been so great as would have produced a considerable revenue to the public, without the loss which farmers had experienced under the present state of things. Every month the agricultural interest was losing more and more, whereas, by adopting a fixed duty,
352
they would have the protection they so anxiously desired. No farmer was willing at present to take a lease, or enter into fixed engagements from the uncertain state of the law. He was glad, therefore, to hear, that it was intended to bring forward returns to complete the evidence as to the advantage of a fixed duty.
Lord Miltonwas not answerable for the intentions which the hon. member for Preston might have in bringing forward his proposed Motion for a repeal of the Corn-laws. For himself he was anxious that the House should be in possession of the fullest information on the subject previous to that thorough discussion which he thought it not expedient to provoke till next session. Such was the object of his present Motion.
Colonel Torrenswould endeavour to show, when the subject was before the House, that till the Corn-laws were placed on a sound and unfluctuating footing, the farmer would be exposed to all the vicissitudes of the present very vicious system. He was not an advocate for the admission of foreign corn without any protecting duty whatever; on the contrary, he desired to see it subject to such a duty as would be equivalent to the amount of the particular burthens on agriculture.
Mr. James Mr. James, in answer to the hon. member for Dorsetshire, thought it right to state, that the plan of the hon. member for Preston was not, to propose any new species of Corn-law, but to do away with all Corn-laws whatever, with the expediency of which plan he (Mr. James) entirely concurred.
Mr. Portman Mr. Portman, in that case, should feel it to be his duty to give the Motion of the hon. member for Preston every opposition in his power.
Mr. John Woodsaid, he believed there were certain taxes which peculiarly affected the landed interests of this country, and he thought that by the cost of production, raised by these taxes, should the rate of duty be regulated, and he therefore considered it incumbent on the House to be thoroughly acquainted with such taxes. If the agriculturist could prove that he was taxed unequally, the fair way would be, to remove those taxes, and let them be borne equally by the community, and then let corn be imported free of duty. If Poland produced corn more abundantly than this country (and such was the fact), it would be far better to receive the pro-

353
duce of the soil of Poland than obtain corn by cultivating barren land at home. As he had before said, if taxes were laid upon the landed interest, let them be removed, and placed on the country at large, and let corn be drawn from those countries which could supply it so much cheaper than it could be grown here. When the question was entered upon, the system of averages must be attended to, for the corn-dealers, by raising the price in a small degree, had it in their power to obtain larger gains.
Colonel Sibthorpdid not wish to prolong the discussion, but he could not hear such sentiments as those expressed by the hon. member for Preston without protesting against them. When the subject was regularly brought before the House, he should feel it his duty to state his opinions; and he was satisfied that no difficulty existed in showing that the agricultural interests were heavily taxed, and were entitled to have protecting duties imposed upon foreign corn brought hither for consumption.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonwas fully persuaded, that great injury was done to the agriculturist, as well as to the manufacturer, by the constant fluctuation in the prices of corn. If a protecting duty, equal to what the manufacturer possessed, were imposed, it would prove advantageous. He did not agree with those who thought it advisable to have a free importation of corn.
Mr. Warburtonconsidered it a great evil to be subject to the constant variations in the price of corn which took place under the present system of the Corn-laws. We never could hope, indeed, to keep the price quite steady, for corn was subject to variations in price occasioned by the seasons; but he thought means might be devised to render it less fluctuating than at present. That was a point which deserved consideration. He was clearly of opinion, with his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, that a fixed rate of duty was preferable to the present system; and he was glad to find that there was a growing objection to the mode of averages. If a fixed duty were agreed upon by the House, he thought that it ought to be a low one. The principle on which the hon. member for Preston proceeded was, that there should be a duty equivalent to the peculiar burthens which affected agriculturists, as compared with manufac-
354
turers, and not as to the cost of production in this and foreign countries. What the difference of those burthens was, he was not prepared to say, but he knew there were many changes which affected personal property to which a part of agricultural property was not liable.
Mr. J. Benettcontended, that there ought to be a duty upon corn imported, equal to the amount of tithes, taxes, and other charges affecting the corn-producer of this country, and he considered a fixed duty would be better for the farmer than the existing system. But, although he disliked the present law, this was not the time to agitate the question; it was calculated to produce a degree of excitement which it would be well to avoid. He regretted exceedingly that the conversation upon the subject had taken place, and he hoped that the question would not be introduced until the other great measure, which had been that evening brought I before the House, was completed. It was right, however, that the business should be finally settled, for the farmer would not take a lease, while the subject was under agitation, to qualify him to exercise the elective franchise, and might well complain of being deprived, in an indirect manner, of the privileges which he was told the Reform Bill would confer on him.
Mr. James Morrisonconcurred with those hon. Gentlemen who thought it much better, both for the farmer and the manufacturer, that the price of corn should be freed from the fluctuations which took place under the present system. He had lately been much in communication with farmers, and they were all against the sytem of taking the averages, as leading to inconvenience and frauds.
An Hon. Memberthought the mode of taking averages highly objectionable and faulty. He hoped that discussions on the Corn-laws would not be countenanced by the House; they were calculated to cause an alarm to the farmer without producing any beneficial result. He trusted, that the great, the vital, measure of Reform would be completed before that question was introduced. He agreed with the hon. member for Middlesex, that a fixed duty was much better than the present varying duties, but he again would express a hope that the subject altogether should be deferred until that other great measure had been disposed of.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonprotested against

355
the doctrine of those hon. Members who wished corn to be brought into this country free of duty. Was it desirable to have the English farmer's produce driven out of the market? If corn were so introduced, it would certainly have that effect; and he should be glad to know what would become of the agricultural labourer. If corn were brought from Poland in the way an hon. Member seemed anxious it should, the necessary consequence would be, that the agriculturist would be ruined, and the labourer employed by him would have no means of existence. Surely this was a state of things which no man could desire to see. He must protest against such doctrine as a free importation of corn; and again express his regret, that the subject was introduced; but he trusted that it would not go forth to the world that such opinions as those which he deprecated had been introduced into that House without being condemned. As to a fixed duty, he wished to ask how 10s. a quarter could be levied when the price rose to the famine level? The advantage of the present law was, that under such a circumstance it allowed corn to be imported, while under the circumstance of a low price, it levied a considerable duty on imported corn. The agriculturists ought to know, that the persons who in that House advocated an unrestricted corn-trade were extremely few.
Mr. Trantbegged hon. Members to consider in what a situation the country would be placed should it have to rely upon a foreign nation for its chief support in corn. Suppose we should be shut out from the Baltic by the cholera, or some such disease? [a laugh.] Hon. Members might laugh; but with respect to that disease he begged to say, that he spoke feelingly, having had it himself. It certainly was no laughing matter, for what should we do if we were shut out by pestilence from those places from which we derived the principal part of our supplies.
Mr. Irvingsaid, that, upon a subject of so much importance, some hon. Members appeared to jump to conclusions which the facts would not warrant. It would be well to look at the fiscal regulations of other countries, which were placed on a system of exclusion as regarded the produce of this country, before any change were meditated with a view of receiving: their produce without an imposition of duties.
Mr. Ruthvenbelieved the agricultural interest would be totally ruined, if foreign corn was imported ad libitum. In Ireland the whole property of the country would be revolutionized, and instead of Poor-laws being wanted for a portion of the people, they would be wanted for the whole. There would be a total cessation of taking and letting lands. Let. hon. Members consider how many thousands and tens of thousands of the industrious part of the population would he thrown out of employment were such a system adopted; for it was impossible, under the circumstances in which this country was placed, to compete with foreigners. With respect to the averages he was willing to admit, that some alteration was necessary. He trusted, that the House would never consent to a plan for a free trade in corn.
Mr. Jephsonbelieved, a free trade in corn, instead of benefitting, would starve the manufacturers: for he begged to remind the House, that foreign ships which brought corn to this country went away in ballast, and took none of our produce.
Returns ordered.

Preamble
MINUTES.) Bills brought in. By Viscount MELBOURNE, to Revive and Continue Expired Commissions, Appointments, Patents, and Grants in Ireland; and to Indemnify certain persons.
Petitions presented. By the Marquis of WESTMEATH, from the Inhabitants of Moate, for the revision of the Criminal Laws. By the Bishop of BRISTOL, for the Abolishment of Slavery, from the Inhabitants of Tipton Kirkby, Wharfe, Trowlesworth, Auchtergavin, Harling, Little Waldingfield, Town Malling, Farforth-cum-Maiden-well, Wrotham, Yaxham, and Welborne, Smarden and ltchen, and Alfeld. By the Earl of SHREWSBURY, for the regulation of Grants for Education in Ireland, from the Inhabitants of Graig, Ullard and Powerstown, Killameny, Windgap and Tullarkaright, Elmlafad, and Kilmargan, and nine or ten other places for Reform, from Lady Island, Came, Wexford, and several other places; and for the Repeal of the Subletting Acts, from Roman Catholics of Graig, Ullard, and Powerstown, and several others; from Roman Catholic Tradesmen and Day Labourers of Navan, for power to build places of Worship; from Magistrates of Galway, for protection of the Kelp Trade; from Inhabitants of Syddan Rush, and Castledermott, and two other places, for the restoration of the Parliament of Ireland; from Roman Catholics of Ballindooley, to extend the Elective Franchise to them.

REPEAL OF THE UNION WITH IRELAND.
The Earl of Shrewsburypresented several Petitions, for a Repeal of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland. From the tenor of these petitions, the noble Earl said, and from the letters which accompanied them, he was satisfied that the sole object of the petitioners was a redress of grievances. Were they allowed to enjoy their full share in the Representation of the country—were a larger pro-

281
portion of the wealth of Ireland expended in that country—were the religion of the State not placed in hostility to the religion of the people—had the peasant a legal right to employment and subsistence—he was quite certain petitions of that description would never again be sent to their Lordships. In touching upon the present melancholy condition of parts of Ireland, he was happy to say, he had learnt, with infinite satisfaction, by the King's Speech, that his Majesty's Ministers had determined to send supplies to the distressed districts, but he had also learnt, with deep regret, that those supplies were to be limited far within what he supposed was necessary. It was, however, a consolation to know, that measures were to be devised to prevent a recurrence of the evil. That was not the time to enter into details; but he hoped their Lordships would allow him to observe, that he thought the principal object should be, to introduce into Ireland the better portion of the Poor-laws, in order to assimilate as much as possible the condition of both countries; for never could he understand either the justice or policy of that law which abandoned the unfortunate and distressed of Ireland to utter destitution, without a hope or chance of redemption, while it imposed an imperative obligation on the English landholder to provide for the poor and indigent, from which even the absentee proprietor could not escape. It seemed to be forgotten that Ireland was an integral portion of this empire, subject to the same benevolent Monarch, and governed by the same wise and humane Legislature. Their Lordships were bound to take these unfortunate people under their immediate and efficient protection. The Almighty had created them with as high a destination and as beneficent a design as he had created the rest of mankind, and there could be no doubt of the moral obligation of doing justice to them. But, while political economists had been discussing the causes of the calamity, and the sources from whence relief was to flow, famine and disease had been suffered to seize upon their prey; the charity of the world had been appealed to to supply the place and perform the duty of those intrusted with authority, but the charity of the world was wholly inadequate to meet the exigencies of the case: for, with every effort (and the most laudable efforts had been made), a sum
282
not exceeding, he believed, 20,000 l. had been collected, whereas, he was informed that not less than 60,000 l. would be necessary to alleviate the distress. There was another circumstance, which in this case restrained the bounty of the public, and rendered it inefficient, and that was religious bigotry. Of this there was a striking and melancholy example the other day at a public meeting in Exeter Hall, in which men, who professed to assemble for purposes of charity, suffered themselves to be carried away by misguided zeal to utter the most bitter and false invectives against those whom they perhaps sincerely desired to relieve. In an age of religious fanaticism and acrimonious controversy, which it had been hoped an equality of civil rights would have terminated, or at least cooled, it seemed impossible that charity could duly exert her influence over the hearts of men. In reply to a deputation from the distressed districts, the Lord Lieutenant was reported to have said, that Ministers would willingly propose a grant of money, but they feared Parliament would refuse it,—but he could not believe that their Lordships would suffer such a state of misery to exist, when the remedy was within their power. Because the scene was distant, it surely was not the less real, nor less entitled to attention. In conclusion, he wished to press upon their Lordships' serious attention, an admirable and eloquent appeal which Dr. Doyle had made to the public, in the form of a letter to a distinguished Member of the Lower House. With, their Lordships' permission, he would read extracts from letters he had lately received. A Dr. M'Hale, writing to him and speaking of the condition of the poor, said, "It is a study to which, theoretically as well as practically, my attention is lately turned. Their condition in this country surpasses description; and if the Government do not interfere, thousands of the people will become the victims of starvation. This is not an assertion casually suggested by a reference to that part of your Lordship's letter which regards the poor. It is one, I am sorry to say, advisedly and deliberately made from a conviction of its truth, as your Lordship may see in this day's Freeman's Journal, in a letter to Earl Grey, a copy of which I directed the editor to transmit to your Lordship. Whoever is well acquainted with the condition of this country and its

283
people, cannot be surprised at the avidity with which they listen to any project of future good which may be set before them. It does not arise from a spirit of gratuitous agitation, but it springs from the deep consciousness of wretchedness which they think no change can aggravate; a feeling which, in every age, has furnished the most powerful spring to restlessness and agitation. Whilst, therefore, the people are left so, they will agitate the Repeal of the Union, or any other repeal, or any project whatever that promises hope of relief, which, if once obtained, they would be as indifferent to any of those political measures by which they are now stirred up, as they would be to the discovery of the longitude. I trust that the Reform, in all its fulness, will be extended to Ireland; whatever its extent may be at present, the Irish Members will not throw any obstacles in its way. On the contrary, they will support the King and the Ministry, and cheer them through the opposition they must encounter. But if the Representation of Ireland be not enlarged, and the plan here be not assimilated to that of England, no authority will prevent my countrymen from demanding loudly and perseveringly a Parliament of their own." Dr. Kelly, another Roman Catholic Bishop wrote to him thus. "I shall not now harrow up the feelings of your Lordship by attempting to describe the truly alarming distress which prevails along the western coast of Galway and Mayo. I shall only assure you, that the accounts given in the public prints are by no means exaggerated. So perfectly are the sentiments of the Members of this Committee in accordance with those expressed in your Lordship's letter, that a highly respectable deputation has been appointed to proceed to Dublin, to wait on the Lord Lieutenant, and lay before him such documents as must convince the most incredulous of the absolute necessity of the prompt and efficient interference of Government, otherwise thousands must inevitably perish before relief can reach them from the growing crops. These communications have been already made by the Committee in writing; but, strange to say, without effect. I hope the deputation may stir the hearts of those whose duty it surely is, to watch over the wants of the people, and relieve them from an unexampled state of destitution, to which they
284
have been reduced without any fault or folly of their own. What is still more heart-rending to the Clergy, the misery and starvation is not confined to the lower orders. Those who have seen better days, who are unable to procure subsistence, and ashamed to beg; make their moans in private to those who are ill qualified to relieve then. Many of our landlords are acting in the most heartless manner, and although they are mainly the cause of the misery of the people, by the severity with which they exact the rack rents, they now look on without emotion. There are some honourable exceptions; and when on this subject, I cannot refrain from mentioning Lord Sligo, who not only powerfully contributed out of his own property, but has been a most efficient and indefatigable co-operator in procuring aid, at the distribution of which he assists in the most exemplary manner. The poor of this country owe that Nobleman a debt of gratitude which cannot be easily forgotten, and has given an example which, if generally followed by landed proprietors, would not only contribute to alleviate distress, but would be a lesson to the poor to look up to and respect their superiors." The evidence and opinions of such men, who were constantly with their flocks, and well acquainted with their sufferings and their wants, was not to be despised, and he hoped that their Lordships would deem it worthy of their attention. The noble Earl concluded by presenting petitions praying for the Repeal of the Union from the Irish inhabitants of Manchester and forty-one other places.
The Earl of Limerickdid not venture often to trespass on their Lordships' attention but he must express his regret that the noble Earl should have read extracts from certain letters of Drs. Kelly and M'Hale, with a view to produce certain impressions on their Lordships' minds, and also that he should have quoted the authority of Dr. Doyle, who in advocating the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland, had made no unsparing remarks on the Established Church. He would not enter into details upon the question of Poor-laws, or the suggestions thrown out as to tithes; he only hoped the state of Ireland would meet the attention of their Lordships and the Government.

POOR-LAWS.
The Marquis of Salisburysaid, that since he understood it to be the

285
intention of Ministers to bring forward a measure relative to the employment of the agricultural population, he would not move for a revival of the Committee which sat last Session on the subject. He, however, would give notice, that on Tuesday next he would call upon the House to consider the propriety of revising the Poor-laws.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that he had not held out any confident expectation that Government would take up the question alluded to by the noble Marquis.
The Earl of Malmesburysaid, that the Lord Chancellor had specifically declared that he would next Session bring forward a measure on the subject. The noble and learned Lord had undertaken a Herculean task, and he would say, God speed him through it.

CHARGE AGAINST LOUD PLUNKETT.
Lord Plunkettsaid, that he begged again to call the attention of their Lordships to the subject which he mentioned yesterday. It was at all times painful for an individual to direct the attention of others to what might appear his own particular and individual concerns, but he was sure, that their Lordships would feel that he was wanting in what he owed to himself— that he had not a proper sense of what was due, either to the situation which he had the honour to fill, or to the House of which he was a member—if he could permit the attack which had been made upon him to pass without further observation than he had yet had an opportunity of bestowing upon it. He wished to have it expressly understood that he was not coining forward with apy complaint against a member of the other branch of the Legislature, or any publisher of a newspaper, but he only desired to claim for himself the privilege which belonged to any individual who conceived himself to be unjustly attacked,—that of vindicating himself, and stating his denial of the charge. He found the charge against him in a public newspaper, and it was stated to have been made in the other House of Parliament. The charge was this:—It was stated, that he had offered the situation of Assistant Barrister, or rather, that he had given a recommendation to Government to appoint a person to that office in consideration of electioneering services. That offer had, it was said, the effect of procuring Government thirty votes. That was the
286
first part of the charge. The second part was, that he, or some persons connected with him, had made offers of advancement in the Church to individuals, in consideration of their rendering electioneering services. He need not say to their Lordships that if he had been guilty of such— he would not call it misconduct, but such —gross abomination as that imputed to him, he should be unworthy to occupy a seat in that assembly, or to fill any situation of trust under the Government. He should not only be disabled as a public functionary, but disparaged as a gentleman, if he had been guilty for a moment of harbouring a thought of such conduct. He felt it necessary to recur to the charge against him, because it had not been lightly or cursorily stated,—it was not a matter growing out of any provocation on his part, uttered in the heat of debate, of advanced as a piece of gossip by an obscure individual. It was a charge which a newspaper stated to have been uttered by a gentleman, a representative of a county in Ireland. It was brought forward, not only as a ground of impeachment against him individually, but as an attack on the Government of the country, and as a particular instance of the unfairness of their conduct with respect to the measures which they had in contemplation. The charge against him was gross and untrue—it was a colourless falsehood. He treated it not only as a libel on himself individually, but as a part of the system which had been adopted by persons opposing the present measures of his Majesty's Government, and which evinced an utter disregard of truth and decency, and of the observance of the common courtesies of life. In the present infuriated state of public feeling, those courtesies appeared to be utterly overlooked. With respect to the charge against him, he had, in the first place, simply and clearly to give it his positive and absolute denial. To any person who knew him—to any one with whom he had the honour of being acquainted—such denial was, he trusted, totally unnecessary. He was yesterday utterly at a loss to conjecture what could be the grounds on which it had entered into the fancy of any individual to bring forward such a charge. The accusation was at first made, not doubtingly and with hesitation, but as a matter of positive charge, resting on the knowledge of the individual who advanced it. So much so,

287
that when the charge was made, the newspapers stated that it drew forth warm expressions of approbation of his imputed guilt from persons who, he thought, ought rather to have expressed some doubts on the subject. He was at the time ably vindicated by a right hon. Gentleman, in whose hands he would be content to leave his defence, were it not that no third person was so competent to speak to facts as himself. With respect to his interference in elections, he declared publicly in the face of their Lordships, and he defied any one to rise up and express a doubt of the truth of the fact which he now stated, that never since he had the honour of being appointed to a judicial situation had he in the slightest degree interfered with any election. His opinions were well-known with respect to the measure which Government had brought forward. He was anxious for the success of the friends of Government, and not unfrequently had been consulted with respect to particular elections; but he had uniformly, in every instance, declined to interfere. In more instances than one, individuals applied to him to know what he would wish them to do. His answer was, "My opinions are no secret, but you must form your own opinions." When these persons offered to vote in a particular manner, his answer was, that he would not accept their offer, that they must vote according to their judgment, and that it was utterly unbecoming his situation to give any recommendation on the subject. With respect to his having offered to recommend a person to a judicial situation, it was utterly and absolutely false. He had never done anything approaching the shadow of that on which such a charge could be founded. When the individual who made the charge was called upon to give up his authority, he replied, "Oh, I don't know anything of it myself, but I was told so." He appealed to the candour of any noble Lord, and would ask, whether an individual had a right to charge another with an abominable crime, and, when he was asked for the grounds of his accusation, to say, "I have been told it." If such conduct should be pursued, no man's character would be safe. It was trifling with the first feelings of propriety—with the common decencies of society. A noble Marquis (Londonderry) had, since yesterday evening, made a communication to him, of which, as he did not understand it to
288
be confidential, he would avail himself. The person who made the charge against him said, that he had been told of the facts at the Kildare-street Club-house. Some one at this club-house told the hon. Baronet, that a person, whose name he supposed he was at liberty to mention— [The Marquis of Londonderry said no, he considered that communication had been made in confidence.] As the noble Marquis considered the communication private, his lips were sealed. Since he had the honour of a seat on the Bench, he had never had any communication with any individual on the subject of the appointment of an Assistant Barrister. No such situation had been vacant since he had had a seat on the Bench, and if there had been, he was not the person to whom an application would have been made on the subject in the first instance. But he never had had any communication on such a subject, and never had given any promise of recommendation. After the interdiction of the noble Marquis, he would not mention the name of the individual who had been referred to, but he might say that he had not the honour of knowing him except by seeing him in the Court of Chancery. He did not think that individual was a person likely to trouble himself to obtain any recommendation of the nature alluded to. So far with respect to himself: now with respect to the members of his family. It would be rather a hard thing that persons connected with him should not be allowed to exert themselves on the part of Government. He had sons grown to the age of manhood. They were all anxious to promote the success of Government in the late elections, and they exerted themselves to the utmost. He believed that they were exceedingly popular. They had lived in Dublin many years, doing acts of kindness to individuals within their sphere. This naturally gave them influence, and he believed that they materially contributed to the success of the candidates who supported the Government, and he should have been much ashamed of them if they had not done so. He would, however, say of his sons, that they were as incapable as any of their Lordships of doing anything mean or dishonourable, and they would have acted meanly and dishonourably if they had held forth to any individual a promise of promotion for the purpose of swaying his conduct.

289
He knew that they would have felt an invincible repugnance to do anything which they thought would be unpleasing to him; and they were well aware that nothing could be more contrary to his sentiments than to promise that his influence should be used in the way which had been represented. What was the duty of the hon. Baronet who had brought forward the charge? Did the hon. Baronet at this moment believe, that the gossip which he had heard in a private society was a foundation for asserting that he had been guilty? If the hon. Baronet believed so, and thought he had the means of establishing his guilt, then it was the hon. Baronet's duty to impeach him. Let him come forward and discharge his duty like a man. If he did not believe that he had any grounds for prosecuting the charge, if he had a particle of candour in his nature—
Lord Ellenboroughrose to order. The noble and learned Lord was deviating from the course which he originally pursued, and was now speaking of what had fallen from a Member of the House of Commons, instead of what had appeared in a newspaper.
The Duke of Buckinghambegged pardon of his noble and learned friend for delaying him for a moment from proceeding with his address. He appealed to the House whether there was a single individual who could think that there was the slightest ground for the imputation which had been thrown upon his noble and learned friend? There was not an individual in that House or the country, who thought him capable of the act which had been attributed to him. His noble and learned friend had denied the accusation, and surely it was better to stop there.
Lord Plunkettsaid, that he had found it necessary to address their Lordships in his own vindication. To those who knew him, any vindication was unnecessary; but there was something in the nature of calumny so subtle, that individuals of the best-constituted minds could not always resist its influence. It would be said, that a charge had been made by an hon. Gentleman, and there must at least be some kind of foundation for it. It was under this impression that he had taken that public opportunity of vindicating himself. He had no motion to make, no charge to bring forward, against any Member of the
290
House of Commons; but he would state that any person who had anywhere made such a statement as that which was contained in the newspapers, had stated that which was absolutely destitute of the slightest approach to the colour of truth. He had some right to complain. The conduct natural to an ingenuous and plain-dealing man, when he heard a statement to the prejudice of another person of hitherto unspotted character, was, to feel a disinclination to believe it,—at all events he would not make himself the vehicle for circulating the slander, unless he had ascertained that there was some ground for it. If he found that there was serious ground for the accusation, he ought to bring it forward. If not, he ought to come forward and declare that he had been in error. He was led to believe, from what fell from the noble Marquis last night, that he might have received some communication, but he had hitherto obtained no explanation on the subject. He did not complain of the hon. Baronet on this account. The hon. Baronet had a right to act as he pleased; but, on the other hand, he (Lord Plunkett) was not bound to follow the slander through all its details, and to discover who had been the original author of it. All that he was bound to do was, as he had done, to declare on his honour as a gentleman and a peer, that in every particular, from beginning to end, the accusation was nothing but falsehood, slander, and calumny, of the most odious description. Having said thus much, he would let the matter rest where it was.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that nothing but a desire to defend his friend, the hon. Baronet, and to explain the course of his conduct, could have induced him to trouble their Lordships on this occasion, as he feared he must do at some length. He could not help thinking that the noble and learned Lord had exhibited an extraordinary degree of susceptibility on the subject. If the noble and learned Lord had carefully read the public journals, he would have found that an explanation was called for from the hon. Baronet; upon which he stated, most distinctly, that he brought no charge against the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; and that those who supposed that he did, had wholly misunderstood him. All the journals bore him out in asserting that that explanation was given. His hon. friend

291
stated, that he had heard the charge made, but he would not give up the name of the individual, lest the vengeance of the Government which the country was at present blessed with should fall on his head. The noble and learned Lord, notwithstanding his hon. friend said that he made no accusation against him, came down to the House, and said, that the statement was scandalous, false, libellous, and so forth. He would admit, that the noble and learned Lord might, in his conscience, know that there was no ground for the charge; but the question was, whether his hon. friend believed that he had grounds for what he stated. He had a high opinion of the honour of his friend, and without disparagement to the noble and learned Lord, he would say, that he thought as highly of his hon. friend as he did of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland or any Lord Chancellor.
The Earl of Eldon, as a ci-devant Lord Chancellor, begged to observe, that the discussion then going on was as disorderly as anything he ever remembered. The noble and learned Lord had done justice to his character, which indeed required no justification. The charges brought, were of very trifling importance compared with those he (Lord Eldon) had formerly had to bear.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, he would not press the defence of his friend further. His friend had brought no charge against the noble and learned Lord, but merely stated what had been told him, which he had a right to do. He was sure his friend had grounds to place confidence in what was told him. The noble and learned Lord must be aware, that though an individual might know a thing, it would be very difficult to bring forward persons to prove it. He was sure, that his friend would not have stated anything which had not been told him by other persons, and in his explanation he denied that he intended to make any charge against the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that nothing was more natural than that the noble and learned Lord should take the opportunity of stating most positively his denial of the accusation which had been brought against him, and he was sure that no one who had witnessed the public conduct of the noble Lord, could have the slightest doubt that what he had stated was the truth. It must be recollected, however, that the
292
noble Lord and the person from whom the accusation proceeded, stood in different situations. The noble Lord knew that what was stated was untrue of his own knowledge. It was impossible that the person from whom the accusation proceeded, could know any thing from his own knowledge; he only spoke from the information of others. He must, however, admit, that he did not think it consistent with the duty of any man to state facts which affected the character of others without the most strict inquiry beforehand. And he thought further, that after the declaration of the noble Lord, it was the bounden duty of the person from whom those charges proceeded, to investigate the matter, and after investigation, distinctly to state whether he did or did not adhere to the charges. If he should find that there were grounds for the charges, he was bound as a gentleman and a Member of Parliament, to bring them forward. Nothing less would satisfy public justice. He had to express his regret that the noble Lord should have characterized the report which proceeded from a Member of the House of Commons as part of a system of misrepresentation directed against the Government by those in opposition to it. He must say, not only for himself—for what concerned him was of little importance—but for all those opposed to the Government, and he thought justly opposed to it, in that House, that they had resorted to no misrepresentation whatever for the purpose of effecting any party object. Although he was very unwilling to adopt any strong expression, he would state confidently, that whoever asserted that those opposed to Government resorted to a system of misrepresentation in the words of the noble and learned Lord, asserted a colourless falsehood.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that the noble Baron was not warranted in prescribing the course of conduct which his friend ought to pursue. His friend was as good a judge of what he ought to do as the noble Baron, and perhaps a better.
Here the conversation ended.

TITHES.
The Archbishop of Canterburyintroduced three Bills; one to provide facilities for the Composition of Tithes, another to prevent the holding of Pluralities, unless under certain restrictions, and the third to extend an Act for perpetuating augmentations to small vicarages and cu-

293
racies. The right rev. Prelate stated, that he would defer explaining their provisions until they arrived at a second reading. The Bill for the Composition of Tithes he trusted would remedy many of the inconveniencies complained of as growing out of the mode of collecting tithe property.
On the motion that the first Bill be read a first time,
Lord Dacresaid, he begged leave to lay on their Lordships' Table a Bill for the Commutation of Tithes. He did not think the Bill of the right rev. Prelate would effect all the good that was wanted. He did not question the right of the Clergy to tithes, but he thought that their collection was attended with inconvenience, and that they ought to be commuted, both lay and ecclesiastical.
The Earl of Malmesburysuggested, whether it would not be advisable to see what would be the operation of the Composition Bill introduced by the right rev. Prelate, previous to introducing another bill on the same subject. Their Lordships ought to have an opportunity of trying how the Bill of the right rev. Prelate would work, before proceeding to so important a change in the tithe-system as commutation. Both measures were of such immense importance that ample time ought to be allowed to consider them. He also wished the noble Lord (Dacre) to consider whether he should be able to carry his bill through its different stages in the present Session of Parliament?
Earl Greyconsidered this question one of great difficulty, but also thought it of extreme importance to establish some arrangement with respect to tithes. The noble Lord (Dacre) said, he did not question the right to tithes, and he (Earl Grey) was certainly not inclined to dispute it; but it was highly desirable to devise some arrangement, if possible, to correct the evils which arose from the present system. With this view he promised to give the most attentive consideration to the Bills which had just been introduced. A commutation of tithes, if established, so as to settle the question Anally and for ever, he considered would be the more desirable measure; but reverting to the extreme difficulties that must oppose themselves to any such satisfactory arrangement, the bias of his mind was to the belief, that in the first instance it. would be better to adopt a plan similar to that of the right rev. Prelate, which went only to provide
294
facilities for the composition of tithes. By the working of such a measure, the way would be cleared for further improvement, and additional measures might afterwards be taken if their Lordships thought proper. With respect to the time, he doubted whether any measure on this important and difficult subject, requiring, of necessity, great complication in its arrangement, could be completed during the present Session; and therefore, perhaps, the best course that could be taken with respect to a subject of such magnitude, would be, after the right rev. Prelate and the noble Lord had stated to the House the provisions of their Bills on the second reading (on which occasion it would be much more convenient than at present to state their views on the subject, as the House would then be in possession of the Bills, and, therefore, better able to comprehend the whole nature and tendency of the proposed arrangements), to leave the matter for consideration during the interval which would elapse after the present, and before another Session of Parliament. He did not make this proposition for the purpose of delay, or to avoid the discussion of this difficult question, even during the present Session, when so many important matters were to be discussed; but under all the circumstances of the case, he thought that the most haste would not be the best speed, and time employed in consideration would enable their Lordships to come more satisfactorily, and even more expeditiously, to the conclusion which they all desired. The other bills which had been presented by the right rev. Prelate were also of great importance. One of them related to the present system of Church preferment, its object being to prevent the plurality of livings, the manner of disposing of which had caused a good deal of reflection to be cast on the Church. This Bill was well worthy the study which the right rev. Prelate had bestowed on it, and deserved the serious attention of the House. The other Bill, the purpose of which was to make addition to small livings, and perhaps create benefices of higher value, in order to prevent the holding of numerous livings together, was also entitled to their Lordships' deep consideration; and it gave him sincere pleasure to find these improvements in the administration of the system of the Established Church originate in that quarter, from which they proceeded with

295
the greatest propriety. He was glad that the present occasion showed, that there was no indisposition in the heads of the Church to make such reformations as could be justified, and might be required on principles consistent with the preservation of the Church itself. He felt, and he was sure their Lordships would also feel, much indebted to the right rev. Prelate for having taken this subject into consideration, and for having proposed such a measure to the House. He, for one, would give it his most attentive consideration, and should feel most happy if he could assist in bringing about an arrangement which he thought might be productive of incalculable benefits, not only to the interests of the Church itself, but also to the general interests of the kingdom.
Lord Dacresaid, that the Bill proposed by him was not introduced with any feeling of opposition towards the Bill of the right rev. Prelate. He thought both Bills might be concurrent. In reply to a noble Lord who had asked him whether he expected to carry his Bill in the present Session, he stated, that he considered the measure of such vast importance, that he should omit no opportunity of pressing the Bill forward, if agreeable to their Lordships.
The several Bills each read a first time.

SCOTCH DIVORCES.
The Earl of Eldonre-introduced the Bill to settle the law on (he subject of Scotch Divorces in cases of English marriages, which he had laid on the Table in the course of the last Parliament, in behalf of the Earl of Lauderdale. The two Bills were precisely the same. It was highly important, as he had before stated, that the law on this subject should be settled. At present, if a couple who had been married in England wanted to get divorced without delay, they went to Scotland, and on residing there for forty days, they became so far domiciled as to enable them to apply to the Scotch Commissary Court for a divorce; and the Scotch Court claimed the jurisdiction to grant a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. But it had been determined, in solemn argument, by all the Judges of England, that an English marriage could not be set aside except by Act of Parliament; and in one case where a man got a Scotch divorce in the way which he had mentioned, and then married again, he was indicted for bigamy, convicted, and
296
sentenced to seven years' transportation. It was highly desirable that such a conflicting state of law, on one of the most important of subjects, should not be allowed to exist any longer. He would enter more fully into the subject on the second reading of the Bill; and in the meantime he hoped their Lordships would allow it to be read a first time.
Bill read a first time.

FOREIGN POLICY.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that it had been his intention to avail himself of the opportunity afforded him yesterday by the reading of his Majesty's gracious answer to their Lordships' Address, to state a few observations on matters which had not previously come under their Lordships' consideration. But the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Councils not being present, he had thought proper to postpone addressing their Lordships until the noble Earl could attend in his place. He was aware, that it would have been more regular for him to have introduced the matters he was about to speak upon to the notice of the House on the night when the Address to his Majesty was debated; but he was prevented doing so by the introduction of topics which appeared to him wholly unconnected with his subject. He acknowledged, that it was perfectly natural for their Lordships, threatened as they were with extensive changes in the established institutions of the country, to have their attention mainly directed to those matters which were immediately connected with domestic policy. Still there were other points touching so nearly the honour, character, and interest of the country, that perhaps he should be considered as justified in bringing them under the notice of the House. Their Lordships could not have failed to observe that his Majesty's Ministers had not thought themselves justified in speaking with any degree of confidence respecting the prospect of the preservation of the peace of Europe; and, indeed, it was impossible to take into consideration all the events which had lately passed, likely to have an influence on the affairs of Europe, without entertaining very serious apprehensions. He did not doubt the sincere desire of Ministers to do their utmost to preserve the inestimable blessings of peace to this country. Indeed, their declarations on that subject, and the ostentatious manner in which a desire of

297
peace was announced as the fundamental principle of their Government, might almost have made their Lordships fancy themselves removed even from the chance of war. Whether the declarations so made were prudent, or calculated to accomplish the desire entertained by the noble Lords themselves, might perhaps be doubtful. At all events this was certain, and the noble Lords opposite must be conscious of the fact, that they could not have adopted a more pacific policy than that pursued by their immediate predecessors. In truth, among the various considerations which induced him to lament the want of the services of the noble Duke lately at the head of the Administration, if there was one of greater weight than another, it was because of the facilities which he possessed to preserve peace, owing to his influence abroad—facilities which were so peculiar to himself, and scarcely inferior to the advantages which belonged to him when at the head of the armies of his country. The question of peace and war mainly depended on the stability and conduct of the French Government. It was an idle chimera to suppose that any hostile notions were entertained by any State of Europe against that power. Peace or war would depend on the moderation or extravagance of those persons who were at the head of the French government. He, however, was disposed to believe that the present government of France, or at least the principal persons composing it, were sincerely desirous of preserving peace; and while they acted in that spirit they deserved, and ought to meet with, the support and good wishes of every man in that House. After the stability and moderation of the French government, the next point on which peace or war would turn was, the state of Belgium, and in this respect the agreement of the great Powers, parties to the Conference on the affairs of that country, undoubtedly afforded the best hope of preserving peace, or at least of removing one obvious cause of war. His Majesty's Government had not informed the House, or expressed any opinion, as to the time when those Conferences might be expected to terminate; but the principle upon which they were conducted had been declared, and that principle, it seemed, was non-interference. In his Majesty's Speech it was stated, that "the principle upon which those Conferences have been conducted has been that of not interfering
298
with the right of the people of Belgium to regulate their internal affairs, and to establish their government according to their own views of what may be most conducive to their future welfare and independence, under the sole condition, sanctioned by the practice of nations, and founded on the principles of public law, that in the exercise of that undoubted right, the security of neighbouring States should not be endangered." Now, in that principle he expressed his entire concurrence, but he was compelled to add, that no State in Europe, however arbitrary and despotic, need fear any obstacle being opposed to its views by the adoption of the principle of non-interference so explained and so limited. No State ever threatened to interfere in the internal affairs of another country without pretending apprehension for the security of itself, or of the neighbouring States. Those despotic Powers who interfered in the domestic affaire of other nations did no more than the parties to the Conferences at London had done—namely, constitute themselves the sole judges of the degree of danger which affected the security of other States. The truth was, that this principle of non-interference was of a very elastic nature, and had already received from the plenipotentiaries at London a very great latitude of interpretation. He asked the noble Lords opposite, whether the Belgians, if they had declared for a republic, would not have been considered as adopting a form of government injurious to the security of the neighbouring States; and whether, in point of fact, a communication to that effect had not been made to the Belgians? He further asked, whether the French Government, which had been most forward with professions of non-interference, did not, in concurrence with the other members of the Conference, prevent the nomination of a Prince as Sovereign of Belgium, under the pretence that the security of the neighbouring States required his rejection, though there appeared no other reason except his being the son of one of Buonaparte's generals? He also wished to know, whether, after the Belgian people had determined to elect another prince as their Sovereign, he was not rejected in consequence of the remonstrances of this very Conference, on the allegation that the assumption of that individual of the sovereign power of Belgium would be dangerous to the security

299
of other nations? He mentioned these circumstances for the purpose of showing that this principle of non-interference, which was supposed to be a discovery of modern clays, was one of a very accommodating: nature. If it was not, in fact, intervention, it was what our neighbours the French, who were very fond of new words, might very fairly call quasi intervention. He could not help entertaining serious apprehensions of what might be the result of these Conferences upon the interest and welfare of this country. It was true he had no official knowledge of the whole series of these transactions, but somehow or other, pretty regular communications had been published of them, and he believed that the whole of them had been laid before the public. He must say, that looking at what had passed, he could not help entertaining the most serious apprehensions for the result, particularly as to the effects on our future relations with foreign States, and even for the preservation of peace itself. He found by one of the decisions of the Conference, that the five Powers, acting in a summary and arbitrary manner, and assuming full jurisdiction, laid down articles of separation between Belgium and the States of Holland. These articles, nine in number, he believed, were declared fixed and irrefragable, and were proposed to the two parties for their unconditional adoption. The King of the Netherlands, anxious to comply with the desire of his Allies, and to preserve peace, accepted the conditions without exception. But how did the Belgians act? They did not accept the conditions, but returned them with insult. Now, he must say, that alter having fixed on these terms, and declared them irrefragable, and after the King of the Netherlands, who had no part or participation at all in the framing of those articles, by which he was to lose one half of his dominions, had unconditionally accepted them, he did think that the Conference was bound to observe good faith to that Sovereign, and, at least, to allow him to receive all the advantages possible for having unconditionally complied with the desire of his Allies. But it appeared by a subsequent Protocol of the Conference, that one of these irrefragable articles was revoked, and in consequence of the refusal of the Belgians to adopt it, again made the subject of debate. He had also to notice a most extraordinary proceeding on the part of the agent of the
300
Conference at Brussels. The conditions were afterwards returned, and a day at last positively fixed upon by the Conference for their adoption; and the Minister at Brussels was ordered to make a communication to that effect. Did he do so? He did not, to be sure, act exactly like the Belgians, and return an insulting answer, but he disobeyed the Conference, and made no communication. On the contrary, a letter was sent, professing to explain the views of the Conference, in which he not only promised further negotiations, but also undertook to promise the result of those negotiations. Against this transaction the King of the Netherlands entered his solemn protest. Now all these things showed that in the course of these transactions Ministers had not kept in view the advantage of preserving a friendly understanding with the kingdom of the Netherlands; and he thought great danger was to be apprehended from the notoriety of the fact, that an illustrious individual, connected with this country was destined to fill the Throne of Belgium when the difficulties which at present presented themselves were removed. What those difficulties were, he did not know; but if the Prince were placed on the Throne of Belgium coining from England, and supported by England, that would tend to increase the danger which he apprehended of injury to our future friendly relations with Holland; and if that illustrious individual were placed on the Throne without an entire and full acceptance of the proposed terms by the Belgians, that, too, must tend to separate us from the other Powers, and increase the chance of war, which he presumed was intended to be removed by the acceptance of the Belgian Crown by the individual in question. This matter he considered of very great importance to this country. He took this opportunity of saying, that while Ministers recognised the right of the people of Belgium to regulate their own affairs, it might have been as well if some notice had been taken of the undoubted rights of the King of the Netherlands. While they recognised the undoubted right of the revolted provinces, he did think that the undoubted rights of our Ally, might have received some notice and regard. He could conceive nothing more entitled to the sympathy of their Lordships and this country than the situation of Holland. When he saw the reli-

301
gious, industrious, and free people of that country uniting round their sovereign— making the severest sacrifices for the sake of their king, and performing acts scarcely paralleled in their own history, fertile as it was in deeds of heroism—he must declare that they deserved the admiration and sympathy of their Lordships, and might with propriety and justice have received some countenance and support from his Majesty's Ministers. He would now proceed to call the attention of the House to the manner in which his Majesty had been advised to speak of the occurrences connected with Portugal. He must complain that the words put into his Majesty's month by Ministers appeared to him to be disingenuous, and calculated to lead to an erroneous opinion of the facts. His Majesty was made to say—"A series of injuries and insults, for which, notwithstanding repeated remonstrances, all reparation was withheld, compelled me at last to order a squadron of my fleet to appear before Lisbon, with a peremptory demand of satisfaction." Now from that passage it would appear—first, that the injuries and insults complained of were committed by the Portuguese government, and then that reparation had been refused by that government. Such was not the fact in either case. The injuries and insults, so far from being committed by the Portuguese government, were always deprecated by it; and reparation, so far from having been refused, was never refused. He admitted that in some instances it had been culpably delayed; but so far from having been refused, it had actually, to a great degree, been granted before the squadron was sent to Lisbon. Therefore it was incorrect to say, that the Portuguese government had either permitted injuies, or refused reparation. That there had been vexatious delays in granting satisfaction, no person knew better than he did; but some allowance ought to be made for the state of that government, and the difficulties under which it was placed. At any rate the mention of the subject in the manner adopted in his Majesty's Speech, was but little suited to the dignity of this country, and not compatible with the nature of the alliance at the present moment existing with Portugal. His Majesty's Speech went on to say—"A prompt compliance with that demand prevented the necessity of further measures; but I have to regret, that I have not yet been enabled
302
to re-establish my diplomatic relations with the Portuguese government." Now, he asked the noble Lords opposite what course of proceeding they had in view, which would put an end to this difficulty? What means were they to adopt which would give his Majesty the consolation of being enabled to re-establish his diplomatic relations with Portugal? He should be glad to know what was prepared to put an end to this state of things? He was very far from being an apologist of the Prince upon the Throne of Portugal, who might deserve all the evil that was said of him, or even worse; but if he deserved infinitely more than the absurd exaggerations which were published respecting him, that was not matter for their Lordships to take into consideration. They had only lo look at the probable stability of his government, and his capacity to fulfil the engagements existing between the two countries; all the other considerations ought to be left to the Portuguese themselves. It was now three years since Don Miguel first ascended the Throne, and ever since he had been supported by the people, and seemed to have as little to fear from internal opposition and hostility as almost any Sovereign whatever. He was, therefore, at a loss to know what change was expected to entitle the government of this Prince, which had been established for three years, and possessed the affections and obedience of a great majority of the people, to recognition. To doubt that that government was supported bv the affections of the Portuguese was impossible, for no government could endure under the disadvantages in which Portugal had been placed, possessing no friendly relations with any other Powers except Spain, unless a vast majority of the population were attached to it; he was therefore at a loss to understand—especially when the principle of non-interference, which was at all times professed, was particularly insisted on at present—the reluctance to acknowledge the government of Portugal, and thereby put an end to a state of things injurious, not only to Portugal, but to the other Powers of Europe. But this was not the most important view of the subject. He begged to call the attention of the House to the nature of the relations existing between Portugal and France. Was there a war between France and Portugal, or was there not? Were there not formidable expeditions preparing in France to be sent i to the Tagus, and were not the denuncia-

303
tions of the French government conceived in the spirit of the greatest hostility? He wished to know what was the real nature of this important case; what were the actually existing relations between Portugal and France, and to direct their Lordships' attention to the very serious manner in which our interests might be affected by a war between those two Powers. The noble Karl opposite must be aware of the nature of our relations with Portugal; he must know the privileges enjoyed by British subjects in Portugal, were unheard of in any other part of the Continent; and he must know that the commercial advantages accorded to them by the Portuguese stood perfectly alone and unparalleled. And what was it that the Portuguese expected in return? Protection; for we had guaranteed by treaty to protect Portugal "as we would this land of England." Those were the words of the treaty. He did not, however, mean to say that England was bound to protect Portugal in an unjust war, but he asserted that Portugal could never have any difference with any foreign Power without its being a matter of great importance and serious consideration to this country. He did not mean to pronounce a decided opinion on the nature of the complaints of the French government; their Lordships might reasonably suppose that there was foundation for those complaints; whether there was or was not foundation for them he could not tell; but, at least, they appeared to be a very inadequate cause for war. There was a great difference between the circumstances complained of by France, and those for which this country insisted on reparation. We insisted upon obtaining redress for certain specific grievances, because we were entitled to it under specific articles of a treaty, of which those grievances were flagrant violations. But the French at the present moment had no treaty whatever with Portugal; and therefore had no other right but that derived from the common law of nations, to insist on satisfaction. Now, though there might possibly be reason enough for the French to demand explanation or redress, yet, from all that had appeared, it was difficult to discover it, and still less could he conceive on what grounds France could be justified in making war on Portugal. He would not give a decisive opinion on the subject, but, thinking there was no ground for war, and remembering the intimate connection
304
which had long existed between this country and Portugal, he thought the armaments and conduct of France should be looked at with some suspicion. Such being the state of the case, he trusted that his Majesty's Ministers were impressed with the necessity of giving the utmost consideration to the subject, and that they had not neglected to offer their mediation and good offices in order to accommodate existing differences; for, though we were not bound to protect Portugal in an unjust war, yet she had an undoubted right, from the close intimacy which had existed between the two countries, from the treaties made, and alliance formed, to expect that our friendly offices and mediation would be exerted on her behalf, and that we should always desire to protect the independence and honour of that country. Before he sat down, he would advert to another subject not unconnected with Portugal, which had lately been made known to the public; he alluded to certain transactions which took place at the Western Islands. It appeared that at that place, certain persons, calling themselves the Regency of Terceira, thought fit to seize and forcibly take possession of a British vessel; and the captain of the vessel, as well as the captains of three other vessels, were obliged to enter the service of this self-styled Regency, and were employed against their will and inclination by the Regency, in making hostile expeditions to neighbouring islands. He believed the captain of one of these vessels was in London, and that he had stated his case to the Government. However, the fact was undoubted, that an expedition sailed from Terceira on board of English Vessels forced into service, and made an attack on two Islands. In making an attempt upon one of the islands they were repulsed, but they took possession of the Island of St. George, and committed horrors and atrocities there far exceeding those which the greatest enemy of the Prince of Portugal ever laid to his charge; for a cold blooded massacre was committed by them. Such he was credibly informed was the truth; and he wished to know whether any reparation had been demanded for the insult offered to England by these people, calling themselves the Regency at Terceira, and professing to be an independent government? He should like to know what would have been said if the government of Don Miguel had, acted in

305
the same way? Was it to be permitted that these people should thus carry on a piratical war? He could not conceive why we should be exposed to such excesses, and such insults as these. Yet, as long as they remained in power in their present condition, such atrocities must be expected. It was therefore the duty of our Government to take steps to prevent a repetition of such outrages, at least as far as respected our own flag and our own commerce; and he should like to know what had been done in this respect. There were several other topics which suggested themselves to him, but he was unwilling to go, for the present, beyond those which were adverted to in the Speech from the Throne. He should be glad to hear from the noble Earl some explanation as to some of the points on which he had touched, more particularly he should like to be informed as to what was done with respect to the last circumstance to which he had called the attention of their Lordships.
Earl Greysaid, he was sorry that any consideration personal to himself had prevented the noble Earl from bringing forward those topics at an earlier period, though he must say, that as the noble Earl had not thought proper to introduce them in the Debate on the Address, he did not see how he could well have brought them forward yesterday, when the only thing that was to come before the House was his Majesty's answer to the Address—the only proceeding on which, according to the practice of the House, was, a motion that it be entered on the journals. He was not, however, disposed to complain that the noble Earl had not taken an earlier opportunity of entering into this discussion, but as the noble Earl had stated, that he deferred it from the first night, in consequence of the higher interest which existed with respect to matters of great local importance, he must observe, that giving to one of the matters which formed the chief subjects of discussion on the first night of the Session all the high importance it deserved, it appeared to him that the House would have consulted its dignity on that occasion, quite as much in discussing matters of foreign policy, as in occupying itself in Debates on Illuminations, Broken Windows, the Addresses of Members of Parliament to their constituents, or toasts given at Public Dinners; all of which,
306
their Lordships would recollect, had been introduced as subjects of comment, and had occupied some portion of their Lordships' time. Considering that these were some of the matters of local interest which were discussed on the first night, he thought that as good an opportunity had presented itself to the noble Earl then as on this evening. Before he entered into the questions introduced by the noble Earl, he would say a word as to the mode in which he had introduced them. He did not question the right of the noble Earl, or of any Peer of Parliament, to introduce to their Lordships' notice any topic of foreign or domestic policy which he might think proper, but on these occasions there was a discretion to be used as to the time of bringing it forward. We lived at a period when the public mind in almost every State in Europe was in a state of the highest excitement, and when premature disclosures, such as discussions like the present were calculated to bring forth, might have the most pernicious effects. Their Lordships should consider the difficulties in which Ministers had been left by the late government with respect to the several Governments of Europe—the state of excitement in which the minds of the people in nearly every country in Europe were at the present moment—some anxious to acquire rights which they considered withheld, and others jealous of any infringement on those they already possessed. In such a state of public feeling, the Government was engaged in negotiations of high importance and great difficulty, which an indiscreet discussion, or a premature disclosure, might not only break off, but have the effect of throwing Europe into a general conflagration. He did, therefore, entreat noble Lords to lay aside any party feeling on such an occasion, and not risk any disturbance by calling for any disclosures which could not be made without danger to the general tranquillity. A certain confidence must be reposed in every government, and if no confidence were placed in his Majesty's present Government, it was no longer fit to continue a Government. If the noble Earl did not think that such confidence should be reposed in the present Ministers, his Motion should be an Address for their removal. He did hope, however, that, as a Government, they should receive the support and confidence of Parliament, and of a generous

307
public; but if they possessed that confidence in such a degree as that the noble Earl did not feel called upon to submit an Address for their removal, he ought not, by the introduction of such a discussion as this, unacquainted as he must be with the particulars of some of the pending negotiations, to scatter poisoned arrows in the dark, which might wound this country, and through her endanger the peace of all Europe. As long as Parliament had confidence in Ministers, he hoped it would allow them to proceed with negotiations, without calling for those disclosures which might break them off for ever. The noble Earl had slated, that the present Ministers had entered into office with an ostentatious display of their determination to preserve the peace of Europe. He must admit, that the preservation of peace was one of the objects with which he had accepted the task that had been imposed on him, of forming an Administration; but he was not aware of any thing ostentatious in the display of his desire to do that which must be the desire of every friend to his country, when it could be done without any compromise of national honour. He had no objection to the panegyric bestowed by the noble Earl on the many advantages possessed by the noble Duke, lately at the head of the Government, for the preservation of peace. He admitted readily the advantages, and merits, and great public services, of the noble Duke; but he must say, without meaning to detract from the merits of his public services, that he was not as fortunate in his negotiations as in other parts of his public career. In carrying on many of those negotiations, he believed that the noble Duke was wholly mistaken in his political views; for in the treaties concluded by the noble Duke, which had for their object the settlement of Europe, were laid the seeds of those distractions and changes which had taken place every year since they were concluded, and which were still going on. This was no new opinion of his, for he had given it expression as often as he had publicly referred to those negotiations. It was perfectly true, as the noble Earl had stated, that peace had been one of the great objects of the present Government, and was so still; and though from the present state of Europe he was not entitled to speak of the preservation of peace with unlimited confidence, he looked to it
308
with hope. He would next proceed to the objections which the noble Earl had made to the Speech from the Throne. The noble Earl admitted the principles laid down in the first paragraph of the Speech, which he read, relating to the Conference, and to the principle of non-interference; but then the noble Earl turned round and said, "that this principle opposed no obstacle to the views of any State, however arbitrary." He should be sorry to misrepresent the opinions of the noble Earl, but to him it appeared as if the noble Earl said, "these are principles which any despotic sovereign may admit, and yet take advantage of them according to the construction he may put upon them;" but he must tell the noble Earl, that the construction to be put upon them, according to the law of nations was plain and simple, and would not admit of any such interpretation. The construction which he (Earl Grey) put on them was this—that no form of Government which a nation might choose would justify an interference in its choice, unless one of direct hostility or danger to the party interfering. Even the apprehension of danger to a country would not be a justifiable ground of interference. He would go farther, and say, in the particular case, that if the Belgians had adopted a republican instead of a monarchical form of government, he did not think that it would have been a justifiable ground for interference by other countries, He was aware of the inconvenience of such an admission on his part, but he was driven to it by the course pursued by the noble Earl. In the same way the principle of non-interference in the case of the choice of a sovereign was laid down and well understood. The choice of a sovereign was the undoubted right of a nation, but like all other civil rights it had its limitations— "Ita tuo uteris ut alieno non lœdas" It was to be construed in that sense in which it was not directly injurious to other States. For instance, the case which was alluded to on a former evening, the selection of one sovereign for France and Spain, would be one against which the other States of Europe would have a just ground of objection. This was so plain, that any farther illustration of it would be unnecessary. The principles to which he had referred were those on which Government had acted, and nothing had yet occurred to induce any violation of, or departure

309
from them. The noble Earl had alluded to certain publications of what passed in some of the Conferences, and to the manner in which those publications were made. With these circumstances he had nothing to do but to deplore them, though he looked upon them as adding to the difficulties which Ministers had had to contend with in these negotiations. The noble Earl would excuse him, if he did not enter into any explanation of the whole of these negotiations at this moment. When the whole of them should be laid before their Lordships, he should be ready to enter into any explanation or defence of the part taken by Government in them; but for the reasons he had already assigned, any discussion on them at present would be premature, and could produce only mischievous effects. When those negotiations were brought to a conclusion, whether they terminated, as he hoped they would, in complete success, establishing of the peace of Europe on a permanent basis, or whether they unhappily had a different result, he was bound to render an account of the proceedings of the Government, and would be prepared to explain, and to justify and defend the course it had pursued. There was, however, a point of objection taken by the noble Lord which he could not allow to pass without some observation. The noble Earl, in the course of his speech, intimated an opinion that the Government had not attended sufficiently to the interests of one of the Sovereigns of Europe, the noble Earl meant our ancient ally, the king of Holland. In compliance with the declaration he had already made, he would not follow the noble Earl into the question of whether the Powers represented in the Conferences had or had not attended sufficiently to the interests of the King of Holland in the negotiations between his Majesty and the Belgians; but he might state, that the perfect preservation of the rights and privileges, and independence of the kingdom of Holland was an object of the first importance to this country, not only on account of the long and intimate connexion which had subsisted between England and Holland, to the great advantage of both, but also, on account of the advantages which all Europe derived from the integrity and independence of Holland, as a State, in the maintenance of the general system which it had been found conducive to the general
310
welfare to support. Whatever form of government the Belgians might ultimately adopt, he believed that it would be found that the perfect security of the kingdom of Holland had occupied a full share of the attention of the other Powers of Europe; although he certainly did hope that neither party would continue to insist too strenuously on immaterial points which might stand in the way of a speedy and satisfactory arrangement of the matters in dispute. Some allusions had been made to the Prince, on whom it was, at present, contemplated to bestow the Crown of Belgium. On that point he would say a very few words. With that high sense which he entertained of the character of the illustrious individual alluded to; with that confidence which he felt in his good sense, his moderation, his strength of mind, his abilities for governing, and his enlightened views of policy—he was bound to declare, that if the negotiations terminated in the elevation of the Prince to the Throne of Belgium, it would be a most fortunate circumstance for the country which he was called on to govern. That course had been adopted by the Belgians, independently, however, of us, or any influence exercised by us. He thought that they had made a good choice when they elected the Prince; but the choice was made in perfect independence of the Government of England, or of any exertions on its part to bring about that result. And now one word as to the danger which might be apprehended from the feelings or prejudices of the Prince as the Sovereign of Belgium. These apprehensions of danger might in his opinion, be very safely discharged from the minds of the Belgians; for he was satisfied that the Prince, if circumstances enabled him to accept the Throne of Belgium, would prove himself neither a French nor an English, but a true Belgian Sovereign, anxious only to promote the welfare of Belgium, and sensible that he was charged with the duty of maintaining its interests, and supporting its power, importance and independence, in the general system of Europe. Some observations had been made with respect to the conduct of the British Plenipotentiary disobeying the instructions of the Powers of the Conference. On that subject he would not enter now, for the reasons he had already stated, as well as others; but thus much he would say, that the French Plenipotentiary had felt it

311
necessary and expedient to adopt the same course as the English; and he believed, when the matter came to be investigated at the proper time, that it would be most satisfactorily explained. He would add too that a more honourable, a more enlightened, a more gifted nobleman, or one who had proved himself better qualified to conduct a difficult and delicate negotiation, never was employed in the service of his country. He would say, moreover, that he and the Government were perfectly satisfied with his conduct in the matter to which the noble Earl referred; and if he had been guilty of a slight act of disobedience, he had taken the responsibility of that act on himself, under very difficult circumstances, and with the best possible motives; and he had acted in an emergency, which he thought rendered his assuming that responsibility justifiable, with that firmness and discretion which became the representative of a great Power on such a trying occasion. He would then proceed to what he must call the severer part of the charges of the noble Earl; he meant that part in which he introduced some comments on the declarations with respect to Portugal in his Majesty's Speech; and affirmed, according to his belief, that the assertions of the Speech were not true—that they were not borne out by the facts. The noble Earl said, that there were no series of insults and injuries received at the hands of the Government of Portugal which could justify the course adopted by the Government. He had heard the noble Earl say this with the more surprise, because, if he recollected right, some of the noble Earl's own despatches had spoken of both insults and injuries received from the Government of Portugal. Surely the many violations of Treaties— the imposition of duties contrary to express stipulations between the two nations—the inflicting; illegal fines on British subjects—and the arbitrary and oppressive conduct of the chief of the Police, who derived his authority directly from the Government—surely these and other outrages, with all demands of reparation or satisfaction successively refused, formed a sufficient justification for the measures at last adopted by the Government of this country. But then the noble Earl seemed to be of opinion that reparation was not refused. That was not, however, the expression used in the Speech. The word was withheld. [Lord Aberdeen said across
312
the Table, that he used the expression culpably delayed, but not refused]. He would take the expression of the noble Earl, he would admit, that no refusal in terms was given to our demands, but he was prepared to show that all satisfaction had been not only culpably delayed, but altogether withheld, until a peremptory demand for that purpose was sent out to Lisbon, with the means of enforcing it in the event of a refusal, and all further negotiation or complaint rendered thereby unnecessary. The noble Earl had expressed his surprise at the declaration that the British Government had not since that time been enabled to re-establish its friendly relations with that of Portugal; and he asked, if that event could not take place at present, when could they hope it would come to pass, when it was well known that the sovereignty of Don Miguel had been now for nearly-three years in existence, and was as secure as any other in Europe, affirming that it must be manifest to all, that the present ruler of Portugal could not have continued to maintain his authority if he did not possess the affections of his subjects? The noble Earl observed, it was true, that he did not stand forward as the advocate of Don Miguel; but it was something in his favour, when the noble Earl characterised this Prince as living and reigning in the hearts and affections of his subjects. The noble Earl called on the Government to recognise Miguel, and establish diplomatic relations with him; but although the late Ministers, of which the noble Earl was one, had been in communication with the Government of Don Miguel two years and a half, they did not establish diplomatic relations with Portugal. On the contrary, they distinctly stated they could not do so, but they looked forward to the time when Miguel might, by the passing of an Act of Amnesty for political offences, enable them to consult the interests of both countries by resuming friendly relations. He (Lord Grey) recollected well, having at the time this declaration was made, pointed out the inconvenience to which it would subject the Government in practice, if, after having recognised Miguel on such conditions, he should fail to fulfil them. He had pointed out the possibility of some of the refugees from Terceira returning under the guarantee of Great Britain, and being disappointed in their expectations. He had pointed out

313
the impossibility of insisting on the performance of conditions which were to be fulfilled in the jurisdiction of Miguel himself, and he had been answered by the noble Duke, as plainly as words could convey his meaning, that, under such circumstances, they could employ remonstrances and friendly advice, but would not be justified in doing anything more. Our Government was to be a sort of guarantee for the observance of that amnesty on the part of the Portuguese Government. But what happened? The amnesty was agreed to in the first instance by Don Miguel; but then there was a sort of second condition annexed—"I will do this thing, if you will do another; but then what I propose to do is to be dependent upon something else which has not yet occurred;" and in this way the amnesty was put off, and up to this hour had not passed: and from what did occur, it did not appear that Don Miguel was disposed to concede the amnesty required. He did not mean to contend that the very worst government—the Government of Don Miguel—might not be so established as that we should be justified in opening or continuing diplomatic relations with it. But how stood the case with the government of Portugal? The noble Earl might not approve, perhaps, of the mode in which the power of Don Miguel was acquired; but would he approve of what followed? Let their Lordships consider the number of his subjects who were thrown into gaol, and with whom the prisons of Portugal were yet filled; the sort of police established in Lisbon and other parts of the kingdom, such as no person had ever seen in any other country, certainly not in the country the sovereign of which reigned in the hearts and affections of his people. Could the noble Earl, after what had come to his own knowledge, be surprised that the government of Don Miguel had not yet been acknowledged? The noble Earl had asked him what was it that he expected which would make it a matter of congratulation on the part of his Majesty that the relations with Portugal should be renewed? He might as well ask the noble Earl, in his turn, what was it that he had expected which made him delay that acknowledgment for two years and a half? The same causes which induced the noble Earl to withhold the acknowledgment were still in operation. He would then say one word with respect
314
to the relations at present subsisting between Portugal and France. He was prepared to admit that there were treaties between England and Portugal, which did not subsist between Portugal and France; and that England was bound by these treaties to yield to Portugal her countenance and assistance when an emergency required it. He was ready, also, to admit the necessity of preserving, for the benefit of both countries, all our friendly relations with Portugal; but, at the same time, he denied that England was bound by any treaty to assist Portugal in a matter which plainly arose out of her own misconduct, in a gross denial of justice. England had demanded reparation for injuries, and when that reparation was, according to the noble Earl, culpably delayed, it had been enforced. Immediately afterwards complaints were made on the part of the French government of nearly similar outrages. Did the Portuguese government attempt to palliate those offences or explain them? No; on the contrary, the French Consul, who made remonstrances and demands on the part of his Government, was informed, that as his functions were wholly commercial, and his demands related to political matters, they could not be listened to, and no answer could, therefore, be given. The French then proceeded, as the Government of this country had done before it, to enforce its demands; and he would ask the noble Earl, whether he would have said to a government like that of France, and under the same circumstances, "You are proceeding to enforce your demands against Portugal, as we have done, but we prohibit you to do so, and will decide the matter for you?" Would that government, he would ask, acquiesce in such a course? Would the Government of this country listen for a moment to such a demand or prohibition or pretension on the part of France? This was the dangerous position in which Portugal was placed. The noble Earl, however, asked if there was war between France and Portugal? He (Lord Grey), in answer to that question, must say, that he did not consider an order for Reprisals a Declaration of War; but whether the course pursued by Portugal led to war or not, he was sure if an opportunity offered, that the Government of this country would lose no occasion of doing everything that could be done in the way of advice and mediation, in order to

315
bring about an amicable settlement. But then a difficulty intervened: we ourselves were not on terms of diplomatic intercourse with Portugal, and even if we were, there was a difficulty in interposing between nations, one demanding satisfaction from the other, when the government from which satisfaction was sought would not even give an answer to the demand. Whichever way the case was viewed, it was one of difficulty and delicacy. Thus much he would add, that the Government of this country never could look with indifference on any event which was likely to affect the integrity or independence of Portugal; and trusting that the Portuguese Government would speedily set itself right with France, by offering the reparation she was entitled to demand, he could assure their Lordships that the Government was at all times anxious to preserve the faith of treaties, and to secure the prosperity of Portugal. The noble Earl, passing to the question of Terceira, described the conduct of the Government established there, in terms on the justice of which he would not then pronounce an opinion; and complained of the attack made by it on the neighbouring islands, and of the manner in which it was carried on. Now, did the noble Earl mean to say, that the Government of this country was really bound to interfere for the purpose of preventing that attack? The noble Earl spoke as if the honour of England had been tarnished, by permitting the vessels of its subjects to be seized for the conveyance of the troops on that occasion; and he spoke of the government of Terceira deriving its support from piracy. If it were true that that government practised piracy, it was the duty of this and every other Government to put it down; but he confessed he was ignorant of the events mentioned by the noble Earl, until he heard them in that House; and having sent to the Foreign Office to inquire, he had just received the following answer:—"A Captain of a vessel has made representations on the subject to the Foreign Office, but many of the facts are positively denied; and the whole case is under consideration." He thought it could scarcely be denied, that there was nothing in this which showed that the honour and interests of England were not steadily maintained. He had now stated to their Lordships all that was in his power to communicate, without prematurely and
316
perniciously entering into the details of negotiations which were still pending, and the issue of which might be seriously affected by discussion in that House; but he repeated, that he would not shrink from the fullest investigation, when his duty to his Sovereign, and a due regard to the honour and interests of the country, permitted him to enter on it. He implored their Lordships, however, to consider the delicate and difficult situation in which the Government was placed, when it required this indulgence with the elements of revolution so spread around, that the slightest spark might kindle such a general conflagration as would involve the institutions of this country and of Europe in the greatest hazard of ultimate destruction. One word he would add with respect to France. He agreed with the noble Earl that it was of the greatest importance to the interests of the world that the present government of France should be settled on a secure foundation, for he believed, in common with the noble Earl, that it was sincerely desirous to fulfil its engagements with all other States—to promote the prosperity of France, and to preserve the peace of Europe. It was, therefore, extremely proper at the present moment, not to do or say anything through which that government might be either forced, by public opinion, to adopt a different course of policy, or overturned in its resistance to it; for in such a misfortune the balance of power could no longer, from the hands into which the government must then fall, be effectually preserved, and the consequence would probably be the commencing of a devastating and destructive war. Under such circumstances, these discussions were, in his opinion, most prejudicial, and ought, if the Government of this country was considered worthy of any confidence, to be carefully avoided.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, it was not his intention to prolong the discussion unnecessarily, but he did think the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government had not done his noble friend justice, nor had he done justice to the preceding Government. His noble friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) was perfectly consistent in joining in the unanimous vote on the Address the other evening, and in bringing forward the topics which he had this evening introduced to the House. There was nothing in what fell from his noble

317
friend this evening in any degree inconsistent with the vote he then gave. His noble friend admitted the correctness of the principles laid down with respect to the conferences. He took a review of the leading topics introduced in the Speech, and commented on them as he proceeded; but while he concurred in the principles laid down, as far as they went, he warned and properly warned, -Ministers of the consequence of a departure from those principles in any future negotiations. There was, then, ho repeated, nothing in this in any degree inconsistent with the vote his noble friend gave on the Address. But the defence of the course taken by his noble friend was not the only object with which he rose. He was anxious to say a few words as to some topics which had been introduced by the noble Earl. The noble Earl complained of the difficulties of the Government as he had found it on the retirement of the late Administration. Far be it from him to underrate any of the difficulties of office; all ho meant to contend for was, that those of which the noble Earl complained, were not produced by the conduct of the late Ministry. They arose out of the state of events which had recently occurred in Europe, over which the British Ministers did not and could not exercise any control. They arose out of the events which had occurred in France and Belgium, and which as far as he knew, could not be controlled by any human being unless by the Government of those countries. With the occurrence of these events they had had nothing to do, and whatever might be their results, his Majesty's late servants could not charge themselves with having applauded them. They foresaw the mischief they were likely to produce, and they acted on the plan on which, as far as he could see, the present Government now acted, with considerable success. He would beg of their Lordships to consider what had been the policy of this country for the last 150 years. It was, to keep Belgium out of the possession of France. This was the policy strenuously advocated by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) himself, and as strenuously by the noble Baron (Lord Holland). His noble friend who con- ducted the foreign relations of the country at the conclusion of the general peace (the late Lord Londonderry) had taken the same view of this question, and the whole of the negotiations which he entered into,
318
and of the treaties he took such pains to con-elude, had that object in view as necessary to the permanent repose of Europe. Consistently with that, by those negotiations he had endeavoured to strengthen Holland by uniting it with Belgium as a barrier towards that part of the north of Europe. On this, as on one great basis, were the negotiations at the peace founded; on this, in a great degree, that peace itself rested. And what was the consequence? Why, that this country and Europe have enjoyed since 1814, with the short interval of war caused by the invasion of Napoleon, a longer period of peace than it had known almost for centuries. That period of tranquillity was broken up by the events of July in France, and of August and September in Belgium. He did not seek to qualify his expressions with respect to these events. He would not qualify them further than by expressing his conviction that the situation of the countries which those events affected was, at that time, the best for the people themselves, as well as to preserve their internal tranquillity, and to maintain the peace of Europe. This Government, however, could not prevent what happened, and when his Majesty was called upon to interfere, so as to place things in the Netherlands in the same state as before, the Government declined the interference farther than proposing an armistice between the contending parties, for the purpose of seeing what could be done between them by mediation. The proposition was not wholly acceded to; but he thought that anything was better than a continued warfare between countries which had been so long united. He still adhered to the opinion that the former state of things would tend more to the security of Europe from war than any other political arrangement that could be made. With respect to the negotiations that had been carried on for the settlement of Belgium, he approved of all the steps the noble Lord had taken, to give that security to other Powers which they had a right to require with respect to the State of Belgium. He gave the noble Lord full credit for all he had done on this subject, and was ready to believe that he had acted in full accord with France and our other allies. Having done so, he entreated the noble Lord not to depart from the course he had hitherto pursued, but to persevere till the last moment to act in cordial alliance with France and our allies, and

319
let the noble Lord rely upon it, whatever difficulties might exist, he would get, the better of them, and would do himself and the country immortal honour. In respect to Portugal, the treaties which bound us to that country and our own interests lay in the same direction. It became his Majesty's Government to look at the serious situation in which not only Portugal but all Europe might be placed if a proper course were not taken. They would do well to consider how important it was, that all questions of disputed Sovereignty should be put an end to without loss of time, more particularly this question relating to Don Miguel; for if it caused the invasion of Portugal by France, the consequence would be, to involve the whole peninsula in one conflagration. Such an occurrence was to be deprecated at all times, more particularly now, when Spain was in a state of complete tranquillity, and, as far as he understood, in a state of prosperity. The question of the disputed succession of Don Miguel was no longer a question between this country and Brazil. Some time had elapsed since Don Pedro could assert the claims of his daughter, and it was evident that he could now give no assistance (being in need of assistance himself) in placing her upon the Throne of Portugal. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought it incumbent on us to endeavour to settle the question, and take steps to get out of the difficulty in which we and our Allies found ourselves placed with respect to Portugal. With this view, we should endeavour to bring Portugal once more into the society of nations, in order to render it available to the general purposes of Europe if required. He did not wish the noble Lord to interfere unnecessarily between France and Portugal, but he repeated that he ought to endeavour to bring Portugal back into the society of nations, by acknowledging Miguel, and inducing other nations to follow our example. In conclusion, the noble Duke observed, that the state of things in the Western Isles was such as could not be contemplated with satisfaction, and that considerable apprehensions must be entertained from its continuance.