Sitting of 3 March 1831

POPULATION RETURNS OF CITIES AND BOROUGHS.
Lord John Russellmoved for "a return of the population in each borough in England and Wales, returning Members to serve in Parliament, of which the population in the year 1821 did not exceed 2,000 souls,— of the number of electors in those boroughs who had polled at the election for those boroughs during the last thirty years, and of the number of persons in them who were rated in 1830 to the inhabited house duty above 10 l/ annually."
Sir C. Wetherellwished to know the noble Lord's object in moving for those returns? Was his motion made with reference to his Parliamentary Reform Bill?
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell, in answer, said, that the object of his Motion was, to put the House in possession of the fullest information with respect to the actual population of the boroughs and towns which his Bill would affect.
Sir C. Wetherellmust say, that the course of proceeding adopted by the Cabinet and its Deputy was, from the beginning to the end, most extraordinary, to say the least of it. They brought forward a measure involving the very integrity of the Constitution, in which it menaced the most flagrant breach,—and contrary to all precedent, in the teeth of

1265
common sense, instead of obtaining the necessary preliminary information, first getting knowledge and then acting on it, they, it appeared, asked the House to legislate on what he might call, posthumous information. Why presume to bring in a bill without having first obtained the information necessary to its thorough elucidation?
Mr. O'Connellbegged leave to remind the hon. and learned Member, first, that the Bill was not yet brought in, and that in the next place, the information was not intended so much to satisfy the minds of the advocates of the measure, as to preclude all random assertions on the part of its opponents.
Lord Althorphad not the least expectation that any Gentleman would make any opposition to the present motion. The returns for which his noble friend moved would give no additional information to the House, but they would supply a concise and useful abstract of that which was already upon the Table. The object of his noble friend's motion was, to facilitate the researches of hon. Members, and enable them to ascertain at a glance the population and number of voters in particular places.
Lord F. L. Gowersaid, that if this information were already on the Table of the House, he could see no occasion why the noble Lord should move for its production in another shape.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell, in reply to the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge, said, that if he had moved for the production of this information before he had brought in his Bill, he should have let hon. Gentlemen into the whole secret of his measure.
Mr. Calcraftobjected to the course which the noble Lord was then taking, and asserted, that it appeared to him, that the noble Lord did not know what his plan of Reform was to be twenty-four hours before he submitted it to the House of Commons.
Sir C. Wetherellagain protested against the singular conduct of the noble Paymaster, who, after his Bill was brought in, called for information to elucidate it.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge, and his noble friend near him—the Achilles and Patroclus of the opposite benches, for they now fought under the same shield, and displayed the same banner—might be among the very few Members of that
1266
House who wished this question to be discussed without sufficient information, but there might be others, not quite so learned, either in law or in statistics, who might be anxious to receive the information which the noble Lord now wished to lay on the Table, in a compendious form. He was convinced, that whatever object the hon. and learned Member, and his noble ally, might, have in preventing the House from receiving the information now tendered to it, the House would feel, that the more information it received on this subject, the more able would it be to form a judgment on the merits of the Bill of his noble friend, and he would add, to see the beneficial results which must ensue to the country from carrying it into effect.
Lord Nugentknew that considerable misapprehension had gone abroad as to the reasons why the boroughs of Calne or Tavistock, and of Knaresborough, were not among the number of boroughs to be disfranchised. The reason why they had not been disfranchised was distinctly stated on the first night of this Debate, by his noble friend near him, and last night by the hon. member for Yorkshire. The returns which were now moved for would set that misapprehension at rest for ever.
Mr. Goulburn.—These returns, then, are moved for as an answer to the speech of my hon. and learned friend, the member for Boroughbridge. An observation caused by the speech of the noble Paymaster of the Forces is to be answered and refuted by the production of returns, which but for that observation would never have been produced. The information which these returns arc to furnish ought to have been submitted to the House before the Bill was brought in.
Lord Nugentsaid, his observations had been misrepresented by the right hon. Gentleman. He assured him that the returns were not moved for on the grounds which he alleged, but for the purpose of convincing the House and the country that the changes proposed in his noble friend's Bill were founded in justice, and would be a great improvement.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the motion for the production of these returns was not made to answer the observation of the hon. and learned Member as to Calne, Tavistock, and Knaresborough, but simply to place the information already on the Table of the House before the Members in a more accessible form. He begged leave to be

1267
permitted to tell the hon. member for Wareham, that, so far was he from being correct in his assertion that he did not know what his plan of Reform was to be, twenty-four hours before he introduced it, that he was acquainted with it, in all its great outlines, which remained unchanged, so early as the middle of the month of January.
Mr. Crokerdid not rise to object to the Motion. On the contrary, he thought that not only this information, but much more, should be afforded to the House before it ventured to legislate on so important a question. He wished to ask the noble Lord, whether he had any objection to put in a short form upon paper, for the information of hon. Members, the details of the proposition which he had brought into the House? His reason for asking the noble Lord this question was, that he had asked the noble Lord, before he came into the House, for an explanation of one part of his speech, of which there had appeared two versions, and his Lordship, in answer to that question, had told him, that he could not say whether he had stated the matter either in one way or in the other.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite would only have the patience to wait eight-and-forty hours, he would have the details for which he then asked, in the most authentic shape, namely, in the shape of a printed bill. If the Gentlemen opposite did not oppose the introduction of the Bill, it would be printed as matter of course; and if they did oppose it, then he had no doubt that the House would put down their opposition by a large majority: and in that case, too, the Bill would be printed.
Mr. Croker.—I appeal to the House whether that is not a very improper mode of answering my question; and I say thererefore—[cries of "Spoke."]
Lord Howicksaid, the only opposition hitherto made, or which could be made, to it, was on general principles, and the returns moved for by his noble friend were intended to elucidate the details, which could not yet come under discussion.
Sir H. Hardingehoped, that the noble Lord would afford the House much additional information on the population of the borough towns of England, before he called upon it to give a solemn decision upon this Bill. He wished to have a return of the number of towns now unrepresented, of which the population exceeded the popu-
1268
lation of Gateshead, South Shields, North Shields, and Sunderland. He observed that six new Representatives were given to the county of Durham, in addition to the four which it returned at present. He therefore hoped to have some information respecting the grounds which existed for making these revolutionary changes. He wished to know whether there were not manufacturing towns of which the population exceeded that of the towns of Gateshead, South Shields, and Sunderland. If so, the House ought to have information on the point, for it appeared to him to be a little too much, that a small county like Durham should have six additional Members.
Mr. Sadlerwas anxious that upon this, as well as upon all other questions which came before the House, the fullest information should be afforded by the production of returns. It was his opinion, that partial information was worse than none. He would therefore have the returns proposed by the noble Lord extend to those boroughs of which the population exceeded 5,000 inhabitants.
Lord John Russell.—Those returns have been moved for already, and they are now on the Table of the House, and will be shortly printed.
Mr. W. Duncombewished that a return of the number of electors polled during the last thirty-years for all the cities and boroughs in the kingdom should be laid before the House.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell, in reply to the last speaker, said that the returns which would be before the House when his motion was granted would, with those already on the Table, comprise all the details which related to the different cities and boroughs in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Humewas surprised at the very extraordinary turn which this discussion had taken. He would acquaint the hon. Gentlemen below him, that the usual rule was, that, if the information given by Government to explain any plan which it brought forward was not sufficient, hon. Members, who wanted further information, moved for it. From what he knew of the noble Lord opposite, and of the strength of the cause which the noble Lord had to advocate, he was quite convinced, that if the hon. member for Boroughbridge, or any other hon. Member should want further information, no objection would be made to affording it.
Sir C. Wetherellsaid, that he had not objected to the production of these returns. On the contrary, he wanted more information, for he was prepared to charge Government directly with having evinced gross partiality, according to the information which it had already given.
An hon. Member, on the Opposition benches, said, that he rose to congratulate the House on one circumstance, which gave an air of novelty to this discussion —he meant the appearance of a Cabinet Minister to take part in it. He could not help thinking, that the motion for these returns, after the Bill had been brought in, emanated from the same spirit which had displayed itself in the Budget, and which laid it down as a principle, that men ought to legislate first and inquire afterwards. He contended that the noble Lord in moving for these returns now, was acting in perfect consistency with the Government of which he formed a part. He had no objection to the noble Lord's motion.
Mr. Slaneytrusted that the House and the country would mark the spirit in which this opposition was made by the hon. members for Aldborough, for Borough-bridge, and for Newark, to the production of returns calculated to elucidate the Bill of the noble Lord, which, be it observed, was not yet brought into Parliament. From the tone and temper which those hon. Members and their friends had exhibited on this occasion, the House might judge of the feelings by which they were actuated. [Loud cries of "No," from the Opposition, and cheers from the ministerial benches.] They were objecting to the production of information—to the production of intelligence—and why? Because they feared the light. He hoped that the country would watch closely the manner in which these Gentlemen might hereafter conduct their opposition to the Bill.
Mr. Crokerrose, he said, in strict explanation. He must tell the hon. Member who spoke last, that so far from opposing, he had approved the motion of the noble Lord. He had even wanted more information than the noble Lord was inclined to give. He had asked the noble Lord to give him, out of courtesy, some information as to his Bill, and to that request the noble Lord had not acceded.
Mr. Sadlerasserted, that he had never objected to the production of further information; on the contrary, it was the very thing he called for.
Mr. John Campbelldid not know why the right hon. Member for St. German's (Sir H. Hardinge) should object to the increase of Members for Durham. Each of the towns to which an additional Member was to be given, was an important town and had important interests to defend.
Sir H. Hardingeasserted, that he had not given any opinion as to whether it would be just or unjust to give six new Members to the county of Durham. All that he wanted to see was, whether the increase added to the representation of that county was in proportion to the number of other towns and boroughs not represented.
Sir M. W. Ridleywished to call the attention of the House to the question from which it had wandered, which was simply, whether the returns moved for by his noble friend should be laid on the Table or not. If hon. Gentlemen had looked to the votes of yesterday morning, they would have found that the returns as to the population of each city and borough in England and Scotland, now returning Members to Parliament, and of each city and borough not now returning Members, and of each county in England and Scotland, had been laid upon the Table, and been ordered to be printed. If, then hon. Gentlemen, having waited till they were printed, should find that they did not contain all the information which they wanted, they had only to move for such returns as they wanted, and Government, he had no doubt, would not refuse to grant them. He entreated the House not to continue any longer so desultory a conversation, which could not lead to any practical result, and which might be concluded at once by reference to the papers then on the Table.
Mr. Percevaldenied, that those who opposed the measure were the enemies as was said by the hon. member for Shrewsbury, of knowledge and information. That side of the House wanted information, and it was the Ministers who were acting before they possessed it. He would venture to affirm, that the more light was thrown on the measure, the more it would be scouted by all intelligent men in the country.
An hon. Member said, that he would appeal to the recollection of the House, and would ask hon. Members whether the hon. and learned member for Borough-bridge had not risen to object to the production of the information which these

1271
returns would give. What else was to be understood by his sneer at this return as a return which was to produce posthumous information? Ministers, he was sure, were ready to give the hon. Gentlemen opposite every information they might require; for they were willing that the merits of their measure should be fully understood and fairly tried by the country. It was, therefore," a little too bad that the hon. Gentleman opposite, who knew that a measure of Parliamentary Reform was in agitation, and had not asked for any information to explain the extent of our unrepresented population, previously to its being proposed to the House, should now come forward to complain that information had been refused to them for which they had never asked.
Mr. Hobhousecould not help culling the attention of the House, to an obiter dictum of the late right hon. Secretary for Ireland, who had denounced this Bill as introducing into the Constitution revolutionary changes. Though the right hon. Gentleman might think that the Bill had a tendency to produce such changes, unless he was prepared to prove that the changes were revolutionary, he had employed a phrase which ought not to have been used against a measure which was supported by more than half the aristocracy, and the whole of the people in this empire. He thought that more cautious terms ought to have been employed by a Gentleman who enjoyed so much of the personal respect and esteem of the House, on account of his high character. Language, coming from him, produced an effect, which it would not produce coming from an ordinary person, for every one knew that the sentiments which the right hon. Gentleman expressed he also felt. He was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have used language which in his cooler moments he must condemn.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that after the personal allusion which had been made to him by the hon. member for Westminster, for his use of the term revolutionary changes, he trusted that the House would bear with him for a. few minutes. He would now deliberately repeat, that this measure, in its tendency, was most revolutionary, and he would further add, that when it suited the convenience of the House, and it pleased the House to listen to him, he should be prepared with proof to make good his assertion, that it was
1272
most revolutionary. "I say," continued the gallant Member, "that it is calculated to pull the Crown off the King's head, and I do hope that, if leave should be given to introduce this Bill, the noble Lord will, before we come to the second reading of it, introduce a clause by which the House of Lords may be passed by, in order that the Peers may not irritate the country by the rejection of it."
Sir George Warrenderobjected to this measure as much as any man, but thought that all intemperate language should be avoided in opposing it. Intemperance of language would not produce in the public mind that resistance to this measure which he still hoped to sec generated against it. As to the noble Lord's Motion, it seemed to him a matter of course, and he was not prepared to oppose it.
The question was then put, when
Mr. W. Duncomberose to move an Amendment, when the Speaker told him, that as he had already spoken, he was not competent to do so.
Mr. Baringrose to move an Amendment, of which the substance was for similar returns of the Population, &c. of all Boroughs containing more than 4,000 inhabitants.
Sir C. Wetherellseconded the Amendment, because he wished to promote every means for gaining information on this important subject.
Mr. W. Duncombewished to have 7,000 substituted in the Amendment, instead of 4,000.
Mr. Keith Douglassaid, that he should move for the production of returns of each of the boroughs in the southern parts of Scotland.
Lord John Russellsaid, that if such a motion were made, no objection would be offered to it on his side of the House. As to the Amendment moved by the hon. member for Taunton, the information which it called for was already before the House. If he wished to have it in the same paper with the returns for which he (Lord John Russell) had moved, to that also there would be no objection.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that he hoped that the noble Lord would have no objection to state the population of the different boroughs to which the elective franchise was to be transferred, and the population of those towns, if any, which exceeded them.
Lord John Russellsaid, that if the gal-

1273
lant officer would bring clown his Motion in writing,—for at present he did not perfectly understand it,—he had no doubt that it would not be opposed.
Mr. K. Douglasbegged to move as an Amendment the following words—"And a similar return respecting all boroughs in Scotland."
Mr. Kennedydid not rise to oppose the Amendment, but he thought it would be necessary to alter the words of it. In Scotland the word "borough" often meant only a small part of the town, and would frequently include only one-third of the population of the town.
Mr. F. Baringsaid, that that observation was equally applicable to many English boroughs, and he trusted that the noble Lord would not overlook that fact in wording his Motion.
Mr. S. Wortleymust suggest to hon. Members the propriety of their taking the trouble to put their motions into writing. The time of the House, especially at this moment, might be much more profitably employed than in discussing in what terms returns ought to be made out.
Mr. K. Douglaswould alter his Amendment thus:—"And a similar return respecting all royal burghs in Scotland."
The Motion, with the several Amendments, above proposed, was then put and agreed to.

MINISTERIAL PLAN OF PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—ADJOURNED DEBATE, THIRD DAY.
The Order of the Day for resuming this Debate having been read,
Mr. G. Bankesaddressed the House. He could not help observing to what a singular situation the Ministers had reduced themselves, the House, and the country, by the inviolable secrecy which they had so unaccountably thought it their duly to observe with regard to this measure. If the measure were so popular as they asserted it to be, wherein could have consisted the necessity of this inviolable secrecy? If the measure were so popular, what had they seen to fear? What danger did they expect to avoid, what object did they propose to serve, what advantage did they hope to gain, that they had had recourse to this unusual contrivance of secrecy? After two days' discussion, the noble Lord who had introduced the measure came forward to call for other information, thereby clearly demonstrating that he had not even provided
1274
himself with those materials which were to guide the judgment of the House. In doing this, the noble Lord had, he thought, behaved rather ungratefully to the noble Lord, the member for Aylesbury (Lord Nugent). That noble Lord offered almost the only excuse that could be offered for the demand for this information, by saying, that the able speech of the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge had touched upon points which required an answer, and that the returns now moved for were to be part of that answer. But "No," said the noble Lord, the member for Tavistock (Lord J. Russell), "that's a mistake; my noble friend is wrong:
'Non tali auxilio, non defensoribus istis'—
I do not call for the returns for any such purpose, but for another purpose; and I did not ask for them before, because, if I had, I should have let out part of my secret." Now this, he must say, struck him as being a little ungrateful, and he thought that the noble Lord, the member for Aylesbury, would be careful how he again lent a helping hand to a friend in a scrape. The noble Lord (the member for Tavistock) had said,—"I know that neither you nor I had the necessary information; but then it was necessary that we should keep our secret." Their secret! What, he would ask, did the people care about their secret? A right hon. friend of his, on his side the House, had attempted another excuse for the noble Lord in this matter; but here again mark the ingratitude of human nature. His right hon. friend had said — "Perhaps the noble Lord had not been long acquainted with the nature of this plan of Reform;" but the noble Lord, scorning to accept assistance either from friend or foe, replied, "That's not (he case; I have been acquainted with the plan ever since January last." Now the House had not objected to grant these returns; but the complaint—not a very unreasonable one—was, that the noble Lord had called for them too late, so late, indeed, that the discussion of the measure must be very far proceeded with before they could be procured. He repealed, that this was not a very unreasonable complaint, and he did, therefore, think it very hard that they should have been taunted by the First Lord of the Admiralty in language which meant neither more nor less than that they were irrational and absurd for complaining of the want of such information as was necessary to facilitate their under-

1275
standing a measure which had taken the House and the country by surprise, and which had been intended to take them by surprise. With the exception of the speeches of two noble Lords opposite, they had heard no speech in support of this measure, the basis and the argument of which had not been intimidation. Now, although he was one of the proscribed Members under this uncompromising plan, still he felt that he should be no better than a coward if he were deterred from the expression of his opinions by menaces like these. The speech of the learned Attorney General, who, rising at so late an hour, was not listened to with that attention which his eloquence ought always to command, was, he must say, as nothing when compared with the able and excel- lent speech of the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge. The learned Attorney General had professed, that he felt himself called upon to answer the vigorous and manly speech of the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge; but making every allowance for the confusion which prevailed in the House during parts of the Attorney General's speech, still, in his opinion, that speech was no answer to the speech which it professed to refute. Be- fore he noticed the arguments of the Attorney General, he would, with the permission of the House, glance at those of the hon. members for Middlesex (Mr. Hume) and for Preston (Mr. Hunt). The hon. member for Middlesex had said, that he was a professed and uncompromising radical reformer; and that, as such, he hailed and received this measure in his own name, and in that of other radical reformers, who either were or ought to be satisfied with it, because it went far beyond the expectations of all of them. But the hon. member for Middlesex had, in another part of his speech, clearly indicated that he was satisfied with this measure only for the present, and that he thought Reform ought to be carried further. The hon. Member would hardly repudiate his paraphrase of the hon. Member's expressions, when he said, that the hon. Member had given them to understand, that he looked upon the proposed measure as only the beginning of Reform; that he received it as a first instalment, or payment on account. The hon. member for Preston, too, was astonished at the measure: it had gone far beyond his expectations, though he also was a radical re-
1276
former. Between Members of all parties and sects there would always be some difference, and between the hon. member for Middlesex and the hon. member for Preston, though both radical reformers, he thought he saw the difference between the aristocracy and the democracy of radicalism. Thus the hon. member for Preston had said, "I don't approve of the measure: oh no! I can't go quite so far as that; but, considering that it comes from Ministers of the Crown, I do confess that it is a very astonishing measure, and far surpasses all my expectations." The hon. member for Preston said, that he had always been used to speak out, and certainly, to do the hon. Member justice, he did not depart from his custom last night. The hon. Member had told them, that as to such a measure of Reform, without other measures, stopping bloodshed and revolution, it would do no such thing; and, therefore, observed the hon. member for Preston, addressing himself to the hon. member for Calne (Mr. Macauley), "your speech is nothing to me." Now he must be allowed to say, that, in choosing between the opinion of the hon. member for Middlesex, and that of the hon. member for Preston, he preferred the latter; because the hon. member for Preston had mixed more with a certain class of the people. Depending, therefore, upon the authority of the hon. member for Preston, he begged to congratulate some hon. Members, and to remind others that they were not now legislating upon this subject with bludgeons and knives at their throats. This the hon. member for Preston had admitted. Now, although some of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite might not have departed from their former opinions, yet the opinions of others of them had undergone so remarkable a change on the subject of Reform, that it seemed impossible that that change could have been produced by anything short of the fear of imminent and impending danger. It was a consolation, therefore, to hear from the hon. member for Preston, that they had time for deliberation; it was a consolation to receive from him, who called himself the Member for the people, the assurance that the danger was not so imminent now as it was seventeen years ago. There was another power which had been alluded to, a power which he admitted was a very formidable one; and which he admitted also to be a weapon in the hands

1277
of Reformers, which was gaining force and importance every day, he meant the power of the Press. He was aware that there was no avoiding that power; he was aware that whatever the Members said or did, even in the most privileged places, they were all, from the highest to the lowest, amenable to that tremendous power. He did not complain of that power, he acknowledged it; and all that he would say in seeming rebellion to it was, that he would not succumb to it where his conscience told him he ought to resist it, and that he would not abandon at its dictation those opinions which his duty taught him to adhere to. Tremendous as that power was, wide and fearful as he acknowledged its influence to be, still he would not shrink from the expression of his opinions through the fear of it. Reverting to the measure under discussion, allow him to observe, that it had not only been introduced under the extraordinary circumstances to which he had already alluded, but that it had been accompanied also by another equally extraordinary. In a manner the most unconstitutional they had been told that the measure had been introduced with the sanction of the Sovereign. The noble Lord (Ebrington) who had introduced that topic last night, had been told by the Speaker, not only that it was improper, but that it was unnecessary, for that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite being Ministers of the Crown, and as Ministers of the Crown might be dismissed at the Royal pleasure, it must be taken for granted that any measure introduced by them was introduced with the sanction of the Sovereign.
The Speaker.—No; I did not say with the "sanction," but with the "cognizance," of the Sovereign.
Mr. G. Bankescontinued. Besides his introduction of the name of the Sovereign, they had been threatened with a dissolution; so that, in fact, by coupling the two, this plain inference came out—"The King says you must pass it; for he approves it; and if you refuse it, he will dissolve you." He did not mean to say that it was intended to hold this language; but he must contend, that what they had been told amounted in effect to nothing short of it. The noble Lord, who had been called to order last night, had excused himself on the ground that a Minister of the Crown, in another place, had said, that the measure had received the sanction of the Sovereign;
1278
but then the noble Lord should have recollected that that Minister did not accompany that intimation with the threat of a dissolution. He contended that the precedent was a most unfortunate one, for the present Government to introduce a Bill of this description, and then to state the consequences which would follow its rejection. The arguments which had been so effectually urged last night by his hon. and learned friend, the member for Boroughbridge, regarding the taking away of corporate rights, had been received by the House with that attention which they deserved, and he had not heard from the Attorney General, who had attempted to answer that learned Member, a single argument against the position which his hon. and learned friend had taken upon that point. He had not heard a single precedent, bad or good, produced for this spoliation of corporate rights, except that which had been mentioned by the hon. member for Newport, who had spoken on that side of the House, and who had alluded to the taking away of the charters of the corporations in the time of James 2nd, as the only analogous precedent which our history furnished for such a measure as this. The learned Attorney General had said, that that was not a case in point; but it was not described exactly as such. It was spoken of in the Bill of Rights as one of the greatest abuses, and one of those which had called for the intervention of the Legislature to save the Constitution of the country, by taking the Crown from the head of an unworthy King. The objection to the proposition with regard to the corporations did not lie against the opening of corporations, but against the taking away one or two Members from them. Did not such a proposition as that deserve the epithets which had been applied to it, and was it not truly described when characterized as a spoliation and robbery? The learned Attorney General had referred to the plan of Reform which had been introduced into Parliament by Oliver Cromwell, and had stated, that Lord Clarendon had given it as his opinion, that it was one which was well worthy of imitation by other parties. Now let them but just see how that plan of Reform had worked. It was only two years since that part of our Parliamentary Debates had been recovered, and they had been since published, giving us an account of what had occurred in this

1279
reformed Parliament of Cromwell. A perusal of them would satisfy any one that their loss altogether would not have been a very great one, for everything that was absurd, and futile, and ridiculous, it would appear from those Debates, had taken place in this reformed Parliament. As a test, however, of the merits of this reformed Parliament, he should quote to the House the opinion of the parent of the measure, after he had tried it by experiment. He should read a short extract from the speech of the Protector Cromwell, on dissolving this Parliament. His words were as follow:—"My Lords, and Gentlemen of the House of Commons, I had very comfortable expectations that God would make the meeting of this Parliament a blessing; and the Lord be my witness, I desired the carrying on the affairs of the nation to these ends. Having proceeded upon these terms, and finding such a spirit as is too much predominant, every thing being too high or too low, where virtue, honesty, piety and justice are omitted, I thought I had been doing that which was my duty, and thought it would have satisfied you; but if every thing must be too high or too low, you are not to be satisfied. You have not only disjointed yourselves, but the whole nation, which is in the likelihood of running into more confusion in these fifteen or sixteen days that you have sat, than it hath been from the rising of the last session to this day. And if this be the end of your sitting, and if this be your carriage, I think it high time that an end be put to your sitting, and I do dissolve this Parliament, and let God judge between me and you." That was the Parliament which had been reformed and amended on the plan which had been praised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Attorney General. Cromwell had given that Parliament two trials—in the first instance of five months, and in the second of sixteen days, at the end of which he dissolved it, with the speech from which he had read those extracts, conveying the opinion which the Protector entertained of a Parliament which had been formed upon what had been called by the Attorney-General" the best conservative principle." He was ready to maintain the justice of the epithet which had been applied to this measure by the gallant Member on his side of the House, who had properly called it a "revolutionary" measure. He would quote, in support of that opinion,
1280
an authority which he was sure would be received with respect in that House,—he meant the authority of the late Mr. Huskisson. He would read to the House an extract from a speech of that able man, delivered in that House in the course of the last session of Parliament, and in doing so he begged particularly for the attention of the noble Lord, the member for the University of Cambridge, and of the hon. member for Montgomery. In alluding to those general and sweeping measures of Reform, resembling that which had now been brought forward by the noble Lord opposite, Mr. Huskisson delivered his sentiments in the following emphatic terms. He would quote from Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, the following passage from a speech delivered by the late Mr. Huskisson, in the House of Commons, on the 23rd of February, 1830:—"As to a more extensive Parliamentary Reform, a measure founded upon the principle of a general revision, reconstruction, and remodelling, of our present Constitution,—to such a general revision and change of our Constitution, he (Mr. Huskisson) had been always opposed; and while he had a seat in that House, he should give it his most decided opposition. He conceived, that if such an extensive Reform were effected, they might go on for two or three sessions, in good and easy times, and such a reformed Parliament might adapt itself to our mode of government, and the ordinary concerns of the country; but if such an extensive change were effected in the constitution of Parliament, sure he was, that whenever an occasion arose of great popular excitement or reaction, the consequence would be, a total subversion of our Constitution, followed by complete confusion and anarchy, terminating first in the tyranny of a fierce democracy, and then in that of a military despotism, these two great calamities maintaining that natural order of succession which they have been always hitherto seen to observe."✶ That authority sufficiently bore out his gallant friend in designating this as a revolutionary measure. Not more than twelve months ago, Mr. Huskisson had denounced, in the strong and emphatic language to which he had referred, any measure of such a description. Such
Hansard's Parl. Deb., New Series, vol. xxii, p. 891.

1281
measures were so denounced by a man who belonged not to the aristocracy of the country, who had sprung himself from the people, and who felt with them and for them. With the weight of such an authority against them, even those who had been always friendly to such measures should pause and reflect before they urged them forward; but. that the political associates of Mr. Huskisson—that the men who had been bred up under him, and who held the principles which had been held by him—should, so soon after his death, be parties to the introduction of such a measure as the present, was certainly a most extraordinary and unaccountable fact. The learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney General) had referred to the early speeches of Mr. Pitt for opinions which he had expressed in favour of Parliamentary Reform, but he (Mr. Bankes) would prefer to quote from the latter speeches of that powerful and eloquent man, at a period when his judgment was matured by age and experience. He would refer the House to the speech which Mr. Pitt made upon the Irish Union. If there were one measure more than another upon which that illustrious statesman desired to rest his fame, and which he was anxious should be his memorial with posterity, it was the great and difficult measure of the legislative union between the two countries. They would see how, upon that occasion, he expressed himself with regard to Reform. Having been taunted in the course of the debate with the opinions which ho. had held in his early days upon that question, Mr. Pitt delivered the sentiments which he would then read to the House. "It would not, perhaps, be necessary for me to say anything more upon this topic (Reform); yet knowing, Sir, how strong some opinions arc on the subject, and knowing the share I formerly had myself in sentiments of that nature, I must declare that I do not wish to avoid the discussion, I rather desire to disclose my most secret thoughts upon the question of Reform, as I do not think myself authorised, from a firm conviction of their purity and justice, to decline any investigation upon that topic, respecting which I did once entertain a different opinion."— "As I do not wish to have the least reserve with the House, I must say, that if anything could throw a doubt upon the question of Union—if anything could, in my mind, counterbalance the advantages that must
1282
result from it—it would be the necessity of disturbing the Representation of England; but that necessity fortunately does not exist. Seeing all that I have seen since the period when I entertained a different opinion—seeing, that where the greatest changes have taken place, the most dreadful consequences have ensued, and which have not been confined to that country where the change took place, but have spread their malignant influence in almost every quarter of the globe, and shaken the fabric of every Government; seeing that, in this general shock, the Constitution of Great Britain has alone remained pure and untouched in its vital principles: when I see, that it has resisted all the efforts of Jacobinism, sheltering itself under the pretence of a love of liberty: when I see, that it has supported itself against the open attacks of its enemies, and against the more dangerous Reforms of its professed friends;—I say, Sir, when I consider all these circumstances, I should be ashamed of myself if any former opinions of mine could now induce me to think that the form of Representation which, in such times as the present, has been found amply sufficient for the purpose of protecting the interests and securing the happiness of the people, should be disturbed from any love of experiment, or any predilection for theory. Upon this subject, Sir, I think it right to state the in most thoughts of my mind; I think it right to declare my most decided opinion, that even if the times were proper for experiments, any change in such a Constitution must be considered as an evil."✶ He trusted that he had said enough to satisfy the hon. member for Westminster that he was not unable to fulfil his promise to bring forward great authorities for the principles which he advocated on this question, and that he was therefore justified, without incurring the censure of that hon. Member in considering and describing this as a revolutionary measure.
Mr. Hobhousethought, that after the personal call which had been made upon him by his learned friend, he was somewhat justified in taking the first opportunity to address the House. Notwithstanding the able address which had been just delivered by his learned friend, and notwithstanding the confident and powerful tone in which he had addressed himself to
✶ Pitt's Speeches, vol. iii, p. 76. 77.

1283
the House, and in the latter part of his speech to him, he thought that he should be able to show, from as good an authority as his hon. and learned friend's—for the authority to. which he meant to refer was the same as had been referred to by his hon. friend, namely, the authority of Mr. Pitt,—he thought he should be able, he said, to show from that authority, that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Hardinge) was not justified in calling the measure which had been brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers a revolutionary measure. When the present measure was I first brought forward by the noble Lord opposite on Tuesday night, sitting as he did in that region of the House [the Opposition benches], which had been his abode from his first entrance into Parliament up to the present moment, he could not help observing, with astonishment, (and in making the disclosure he supposed he did not commit any breach of confidence, or violate what was due to proper privacy) not the indignation, but the delight, with which the proposition of the noble Lord, as he unfolded it to the House, was received by the hon. Members who sat around him. Those hon. Members well knew what were dangerous subjects to propose; they had themselves experience in that way, and they viewed the proposition of the noble Lord as one calculated to drive out the present Ministers, and replace themselves in their former situations. They appeared then to think that the day was not distant when they were to regain their old places, and when his friends opposite would be sent back to that side of the House, to advocate still, but with less chance of success, the rights of the people. In the conversations which passed amongst those hon. Members, while the noble Lord (John Russell) was explaining the features of the Bill, he (Mr. Hobhouse) heard nothing about the measure being a revolutionary one; he heard nothing from any one of them but the language of congratulation. Since, however, that measure had been denounced by his hon. friend, the member for Corfe Castle, as a revolutionary measure, it had been also denounced by the hon. and learned member for Borough-bridge; and the hon. Baronet, the Representative for the University of Oxford, had shadowed it out as something almost as bad as the murder of Charles 1st. He had heard much abuse levelled against this measure, but he begged to remark, that
1284
in the way of argument, or proofs, or documents, he had heard nothing urged against the proposition of his noble friend opposite. Nothing had been adduced to prove that if this Bill passed, the people of England would lose their constitutional rights,—that the Monarchy would be destroyed,—and that the three estates of the realm—the King, Lords, and Commons— would cease to exist. To listen to the language which had been employed by some of those who opposed this measure, one would think that these, if not more dreadful consequences, would result from this Bill; but where were the proofs to substantiate such absurd assertions? His hon. friend, the member for Corfe Castle, had adverted to the authority of Mr. Huskisson. He did not mean to undervalue the authority of Mr. Huskisson, and, indeed, for some time previous to the death of that Statesman, he believed that he was more inclined to pay attention to the authority of Mr. Huskisson in his parliamentary proceedings, than his hon. and learned friend was. In Mr. Huskisson's opinions, however, upon Parliamentary Reform, he had never participated. He had never been the disciple of Mr. Huskisson; and if his hon. friend meant to convey a sarcasm in turning towards him, when he quoted the authority of Mr. Huskisson, it was a rather waggish mode of attacking some of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. As to the authority of Mr. Huskisson, therefore, on this subject, he (Mr. Hobhouse) begged to say, with all due respect, that it was no authority for him. His hon. friend had also quoted the authority of Mr. Pitt; he had quoted from one of the most distinguished speeches that that marvellous man had ever made—he alluded to the speech pronounced by Mr. Pitt on the 31st of January, 1799. on the subject of the Legislative Union. Now, in answering his hon. friend, he thought, that he could also produce a most complete answer from the lips of that same great. man, to the learning as well as the law with which the House had been favoured by the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge. What did Mr. Pitt say as to the right of the Parliament of Eng- land and Ireland, to take away corporate rights, and to disfranchise such boroughs as it might think fit? Let the House mark the masterly and overpowering manner in which he disposed of the trumpery precedent which was then set up as it had

1285
been now, that the Parliament of the country had no right to alter the Representation of the country,— that it was a fundamental principle of the Constitution, that the Legislature could not entertain the question as to the disfranchisement of boroughs, and the taking away of corporate rights, unless in cases where delinquency had been proved. What was Mr. Pitt's answer on that occasion to such arguments? He should read it to the House from his speech upon the Union. He might, in passing, remark that he could not possibly divine, while looking into Mr. Pitt's speeches, that morning, for the extract which he was about to read, that he and his hon. friend, the member for Corfe Castle, should be poaching on the same manor, and that they should have cone to the same speeches for their authority. The decisive passage which he should quote from Mr. Pitt would settle, as far as authority could settle any thing, the arguments which had been put forward last night by the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge on this point, and which, indeed, had been already tolerably well disposed of by the Attorney General. And in quoting that passage he would beg to say, that though Mr. Pitt might not have been as learned in the subtleties and difficulties of the law, as the hon. member for Borough bridge, he was at least as high an authority in a matter connected with English history and the principles of constitutional government. The following was the opinion of Mr. Pitt on this subject:—"If this principle, of the incompetency of Parliament to the decision of the measure, be admitted, or if it be contended that Parliament has no legitimate authority to discuss and decide upon it, you will be driven to the necessity of recognizing a principle, the most dangerous that ever was adopted in any civilized state. I mean the principle, that Parliament cannot adopt any measure new in its nature, and of great importance, without appealing; to the constituent and delegating authority for directions. If that doctrine be true, look to what an extent it will carry you. If such an argument could be set up and maintained, you acted without any legitimate authority when you created the Representation of the Principality of Wales, or of either of the counties palatine of England. Every law that Parliament ever made, without that appeal, either as to its own
1286
frame and constitution, as to the qualification of the electors or the elected, as to the great and fundamental point of the succession to the Crown, was a breach of treaty, and an act of usurpation. If we turn to Ireland itself, what do Gentlemen think of the power of that Parliament which, without any fresh delegation from its Protestant constituents, associates to itself all the Catholic electors, and thus destroys a fundamental distinction on which it. was formed? God forbid that I should object to or blame any of these measures. I am only stating the extent to which the principle, that Parliament has no authority to decide upon the present measure, will lead; and if it be admitted in one case, it must be admitted in all. Will any man say, that (although a Protestant Parliament in Ireland, chosen exclusively by Protestant constituents, has, by its own inherent power, and without consulting those constituents, admitted and comprehended the Catholics who were till then, in fact, a separate community) that Parliament cannot associate itself with another Protestant community, represented by a Protestant Parliament, having one interest with itself, and similar in its laws, its constitution, and its established religion? What must be said by those who have at any time been friends to any plan of Parliamentary Reform, and particularly such as have been most recently brought forward, either in Great Britain or Ireland? Whatever may have been thought of the propriety of the measure, I never heard any doubt of the competency of Parliament to consider and discuss it. Yet I defy any man to maintain the principle of those plans, without contending that, as a Member of Parliament, he possesses a right to concur in disfranchising those who sent him to Parliament, and to select others, by whom he was not elected, in their stead." ✶ Having read that extract, he should suppose that they had now completely done with the arguments about corporation robbery, and about the incompetency of Parliament to deal with corporate franchises. There was authority for the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge, and he hoped that the House would hear no more of the present measure being a corporation robbery, and opposed to the law of the land. Mr. Pitt was not, indeed, a Special Pleader
✶ Hansard's Parl. Hist. vol. xxxiv, pp. 280— 283.

1287
he was not the first man at the Chancery Bar: with respect to the details of Chancery practice, he would not place the authority of Mr. Pitt in competition with that of the hon. member for Borough-bridge; but Mr. Pitt knew something of constitutional law, and did not think that there was any thing illegal in the disfranchisement of corporate boroughs, or that such a proceeding on the part of Parliament could be looked upon as an act of spoliation and robbery. Mr. Pitt still more strongly expressed himself against the principle insisted upon by the learned member for Boroughbridge, in the passage immediately succeeding that which he (Mr. Hobhouse) had quoted. "I am sure," continued Mr. Pitt "that no sufficient distinction, in point of principle, can be successfully maintained for a single moment; nor should I deem it necessary to dwell upon this point in the manner I do, were I not convinced that it is connected, in part, with all those false and dangerous notions on the subject of government which have lately become too prevalent in the world. It may, in fact, be traced to that gross perversion of the principles of all political society which rests on the supposition that there exists continually in every government a sovereignty in abeyance (as it were) on the part of the people; ready to be called forth on every occasion, or rather on every pretence, when it may suit the purposes of party or faction, who are the advocates of this doctrine, to support an occasion for its exertion." Mr. Pitt further said, "that this false and dangerous mockery of the sovereignty of the people is in truth one of the chief elements of Jacobinism, one of the most favourite impostures to mislead the understanding, and to flatter and inflame the passions of the mass of mankind." It was thus that Mr. Pitt disposed of the principle, that Parliament was not authorised to touch the charters of towns or the representation of the people under the idea that they had an authority superior to that of Parliament, so that it would be found that he was travelling to the same constitutional end as his hon. friend, only it happened that they were going by different roads. His learned and hon. friend had fallen into the unfortunate trap that had been laid for him by the hon. member for Boroughbridge, with respect to the Parliament in the days of Oliver Cromwell. He had warned the
1288
learned ex-Attorney-general last night of his error, but there were some Gentlemen that would not take advice, and least of all from an enemy. If his learned friend had only extended his reading of Mr. Pitt's speech, he would not have quoted a portion of that celebrated harangue; so if the hon. and learned ex-Attorney-general had only consulted history before he quoted it, he would hardly have referred to the conduct of Cromwell. If he had only looked into a page of Hume, — certainly a very popular and commonly read author, — he would have found a full and accurate statement, why Oliver Cromwell dismissed the Parliament after the short space of eighteen days. So far from the learned and hon. Gentleman's assertion being founded in truth, he would have learned from the historian, that Cromwell dismissed that Parliament for the very reasons for which some of those who heard him would wish to have just such a Parliament now. It was because he found by their proceedings that the Parliament completely represented the people of England, and was swayed by the public voice, and influenced by the good of the country. What was it that Parliament did? As Hume said, these very intemperate popular gentlemen did not want to flatter the government of the Protector, but they wished to begin to pull to pieces the instrument of government, and Cromwell in his Privy Council said, that although they were called together to consult for the good of the country, they forgot the authority by which they were called together, and that therefore they should sit no longer. This was because they really were the Representatives of the people of England, and had the good of the people at heart—they were the Representatives whom Lord Clarendon said, were worthy of more warrantable authority, and deserving of better times—they were, in fact, Representatives whom Cromwell's sagacity at once saw were totally incompatible with tyranny. No man better knew how to speak lucidly and forcibly than Cromwell, when he found it necessary, and wished to be understood; and, on the contrary, no man knew better how to involve a speech or perplex a subject—not even the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge, when he had any thing to conceal. This was the declared and open reason why Cromwell dissolved this Parliament, and this was the reason

1289
of Clarendon's giving such an opinion of that assembly. The Parliament was fit for the people of England, but not fit for the purposes of Cromwell. That it was a popular Parliament, a Parliament solely and entirely for the people, Cromwell soon found out; and in eighteen days he pronounced it to be an unmanageable assembly. It was just such a Parliament as the bill proposed by the noble Lord was intended to create. Had Cromwell lived in these times, it would have been quite another thing. He would have found out the modern secret of managing a Parliament. He would have gone on allowing the pleasing contention of parties, with sometimes one set of gentlemen in office, and sometimes another set of gentlemen out of office, whilst the people and their interests were left out of consideration. The learned and hon. member for Borough bridge was excessively jocose on the preceding evening, and possessing a due admiration of the learned Member's talents, he must say, that he had never passed a happier hour in his life than during the learned Gentleman's speech. The learned Gentleman had talked to the House about Oliver Cromwell's and Pride's purge, and tried to saddle the term upon the present noble Lord, the Paymaster of his Majesty's Forces. It had not, however, been convenient to the learned Gentleman to consider what the Parliament really was that Pride had applied his medicine to, and he had talked of it. as the regicide Parliament. The hon. member for Oxford (Sir H. Inglis), had claimed a sort of privilege of making an ex officio blunder upon the occasion, and had indulged himself in a mutilation of the History of England, as the University of Oxford itself had done before now. The hon. member for Oxford had said, that if ever the country had had a popular Parliament, a popular House of Commons, it was that which ended in murdering the King. Now this, he conceived was not the time to talk thus of crowned heads, dead or living, for they had enough to do to keep their stations without further endangering their position. [cheers.] He spoke advisedly. He was fully aware of what he had said. The reason why he had objected to the words of the hon. Member was, because he thought that the error ought to be contradicted, and it might be contradicted with all the good humour of the hon. member for Boroughbridge, who
1290
at another time might, without great mischief, enter again into the discussion. If he had been aware of the cheer, he should say the same thing again. It was not the time when it was necessary to slur over what tended to detract from those unfortunate men who were placed by birth, or other circumstances, upon thrones. He might, had he been disposed to quibble or be captious, have quarrelled with the hon. Member's phrase of "murdering the king." The hon. member for Oxford perfectly well knew, and he, being acquainted with that hon. member's extensive learning, could assert that for him, that the unfortunate and ill-advised monarch, Charles 1st., was not put to death in consequence of any determination of the democracy to put him to death. It was very well known by this time, — and it was not a very modern discovery,—who it was that put the king to death. So thoroughly were understood all the circumstances that led to that event, so well were known the motives, views, and objects of those who influenced or were concerned in the transaction, that he felt astonished that the hon. member for Oxford should commit himself by such a misstatement before the House, and in the eyes of the country. Was it not known to every body the hast acquainted with history, that when attempts were made to come to terms with Charles 1st, it was unfortunately discovered that, at. the very time that the treaty was pending, the king was preparing to sign the compact, with a mental reservation that when he should be placed upon the throne by these means he did not intend to stand by his bargain? He was therefore put to death on a principle of self-defence, and by those who were guided by the paramount consideration of their own safety. The monarch was brought to the scaffold by an usurper, and not by a democracy; and well did the hon. member for Oxford know the fact. But did not the hon. Member likewise know, that the Parliament was not what he had termed it—a popular Parliament? It was in every respect a borough Parliament. It was a Parliament composed of only sixteen Members for counties, six Members for cities, and all the remaining Members were for boroughs: only eighty four Members composed the Parliament that condemned Charles to death, and more than sixty of them represented boroughs. The

1291
learned Member, therefore, was wrong, entirely wrong, in asserting that it was a popular party or a popular Parliament that brought the King to the block. If he travelled from ancient to modern times, the hon. member for Oxford would be found equally wrong in all his facts, and equally confused and mistaken in his view of them. He had said, that wherever democratic or popular assemblies had been tried, they had been found in practice to be utterly inconsistent with a monarchy. "What were the two instances he had quoted to make out such an extraordinary opinion? First, the hon. Member had quoted the recent political history of Spain. He (Mr. Hobhouse) would ask, whether it was the Cortes of Spain that dethroned Ferdinand 7th. He was dethroned, not by popular violence, but because the French army, in violation of all the treaties of Europe, entered Spain, not being prevented by this country, as, unquestionably, it ought to have been. The power of the monarchy and of the democracy were not found incompatible; and until the French invaded the country, the kingly functions and the rights of the popular assembly had been found perfectly consistent, as the Constitution of England had long shown them in every respect to be. Next, the hon. Member referred to Sicily, and had triumphantly asked, why "the experiment had succeeded there." He would answer,—for the best of all reasons, because Lord Castlereagh's settlement of Europe (of which Europe was still enjoying, and likely for some time to enjoy, the fruits) had not tended to any settlement, but to revolution. This was the reason why popular assemblies had not recently been found compatible with monarchy. Till that Debate began he had thought that the merits of the French revolution of 1830 had been settled in every man's mind, and that all parties in that House had acknowledged that it was an experiment which the French people were not only justified in making, but were imperiously called upon to make, and he was extremely sorry that any individual could now be found capable of blaming it. If that experiment had not succeeded, and if France were not now tranquil, it was not because the Parliament of France was too much the representative of the people, but because the people were dissatisfied with the very reverse. This was the cause, and the sole cause, why there were likely
1292
to be any disturbances in France. He had listened to all that had been said upon the subject of the present Debate with attention, and he had not heard one single argument, or anything worthy the name of argument, to show that there was any danger whatever that could arise, or was likely to arise, from adopting the project of the noble Lord. The hon. member for Newport, who had been member for Wootton Basset (Mr. Horace Twiss) had expressed himself very much alarmed lest the present plan of Reform should throw the elective franchise into the hands of shop-keepers and attornies. He should like to know where the elective franchise tested at the present moment. Were there any individuals in the country that now exercised so much power at elections, as this proscribed class, the attornies? Some people were very nice, but he did not see why that Gentleman, of all others, the hon. member for Newport, should be so nice respecting attornies. Of all men, the hon. Gentleman had least reason to object to the middle classes and particularly to the class of attornies. By the Bill of the noble Lord, the elective franchise would be thrown into the hands of people of a certain degree of property, and of those who had the greatest hold upon the higher classes and the most influence over the lower, and if these ought not to possess the franchise he did not know what class was worthy of it. This was, in his opinion, as good and as proper a basis of Representation us could be proposed. He could not understand why so many hon. Members had expressed their surprise when the measure was expounded. Did those who heard him know what the plan of Reform had been which Mr. Pitt had proposed to that House? Were they who were to decide on that question ignorant of all that had ever been done before with a view to reform the Parliament? Mr. Pitt proposed to cut off 100 Members from the House, and to take away or disfranchise thirty-six boroughs; and nobody had objected to his scheme upon the ground of its being a revolutionary measure. After Mr. Pitt had changed his opinions as to Parliamentary Reform, and when Mr. Grey, the present Prime Minister in the year 1797, brought forward in that House his project of reforming the Representation of the people, Mr. Pitt did not object to that scheme, or to any part of it, upon the ground of its being revo-

1293
lutionary. All he had said was, that it would not do, just at that time, to make such an important change, but his own opinions were too well known for him to object to the motion on the ground of its being inconsistent with the Constitution. The learned and hon. member for Boroughbridge had even quoted Mr. Fox in support of his opinion. Mr. Fox, in speaking of the procession of the Goddess of Reason at Nottingham, had merely-said, that had he been there, he should have looked to the security of the skirts of his coat; and he objected to the people of Nottingham being deprived of their rights on account of the disturbances that had taken place in that town. This opinion was perfectly compatible with any scheme that should give the franchise of Nottingham to the adjoining hundred, or take it away from it. But if Mr. Fox's opinion were an authority with the hon. and learned Gentleman, he would state that opinion on the question of Reform. In speaking of Mr. Grey's plan in 1797, Mr. Fox said, that the plan might be called a Radical Reform—that it changed without the destruction of any established right, it restored what had been injured by abuse, and reinstated what time had mouldered away. No man could complain of genuine property being assailed, and he used the expression genuine property to distinguish it from what was called property, but which was not genuine. As far, then, as Mr. Fox's opinions went as authority, he had shown that they were directly opposed to those of the hon. and learned member for Borough-bridge. He could excuse a little warmth upon such an occasion, and he should even say with a French author, that he never knew a kingdom lost so gaily. He must, however, be permitted to observe, that if the measure of Parliamentary Re-form be now rejected by this House, in his humble opinion, soon or late, and rather soon than late, that catastrophe would come, which some hon. Gentlemen thought Reform must hasten, but which, in his judgment, it was the only means of averting. He was not surprised that so much chivalry had been shown in the course of this Debate, for hon. Members were contending for their seats. It was said of Caesar, at the battle of Munda, that he fought, not for victory, but for life; and so far as their present seats were concerned, the opponents of the Bill were
1294
fighting for their parliamentary existence. He did not, therefore, mean to say, that they would be excluded from a Reformed Parliament—on the contrary, there was no reason whatsoever for such Members being excluded from a Parliament in its regenerated state. They had shown such resolute and able advocacy of a worthless and sinking cause,—they had evinced such ability in support of what was odious, and such courage in defence of what was weak and contemptible,—that he could not help thinking they would be found hereafter among those whom a free constituency would choose for the advocacy of their rights. He had said before, and he now repeated it, that he did not think that by this or any plan of Reform the complexion of the House, as to the Members returned to it, would be much changed. The motives, however, that sent men into it would be totally different. Let Parliament be Reformed,—let it be restored to its ancient constitutional principle, by the plan now proposed by the noble Lord, the Paymaster-general of his Majesty's Forces, they would still have the best men in that House that constituents could find, for the support of their interests and the defence of their rights. He would beg those who disputed this to tell him whether they really thought that there was any peculiar and egregious ignorance in the people of England, or in any people, to make them unable to judge of those who were best able to serve them. The people had wisdom enough to get the best abilities they could obtain for every purpose, and they would likewise get the best they could to serve them as Members of Parliament. He was not aware that the people of England, in contradistinction to the people of the boroughs, had shown any such peculiar marks of ignorance and folly; he was not aware of their possessing any peculiar quality which incapacitated them for the important trust which they would be called upon to exercise. He well knew, that wherever he could discover a popular constituency, he could discover something like adequacy to the great duties it called forth, and the first and most indispensable of all qualities in such cases was honesty,—a quality that appeared to have been entirely forgotten or lost sight of by those who talked so much of introducing clever men into that House. It was scarcely possible to believe that any Gentleman was sincere when he expressed an apprehension, that a system

1295
of public rectitude and intelligence in electors would give vice and ignorance an ascendancy in the choice of Representatives, and that a system of perjury, and bribery, and corruption, was essential to the success of virtue and knowledge. Why should such a feverish anxiety upon this subject be expressed? With respect to men of talents, doubtless capacity was one of the necessary qualifications of a Member of Parliament; but he had seen as many instances since he had been in Parliament of capacity being: used in a wrong as in a right direction. Who, in the name of wonder, would approve of any system or scheme that sent men of talent, into that House, if these gentlemen of talent were placed there under circumstances that rendered it probable that they would do more of harm to the country than good? If he ran over the list of the clever men who had been placed in the House by borough patrons, he could show the House that there was a necessity why such men could not possibly attend to the good of the nation. The great qualification for a Member sent to that House was, that he should speak the sentiments of his constituents honestly, according to his knowledge and interpretation of them; and he conceived further, that the moment he found himself unable to do that, consistently with his own private opinion, he was bound to relinquish his seat. At present there were two modes of obtaining seats in that House—one through the suffrages of the people, the other through the nomination of the patron of a borough. If a Member of Parliament, returned for a borough, differed from his patron, he thought it necessary to take off his hat, make his bow, and retire from his seat: He thought it necessary to consult his patron's views and opinions; and this, in his opinion, was the best of all answers to what was called virtual Representation. There was no such thing as virtual Representation with a patron. The patron must be listened to,—he must and would be obeyed; he would hear of no nonsense about virtual Representation; for he knew, as Sir W. Jones had remarked, that virtual Representation was actual folly. The hon. member fur Oxford had said, there was no necessity for a Member's consulting his constituents, and that he would go on in the stern path of what he deemed his duty, in spite of any constituents whatever. This ought not to be the principle upon which
1296
Members should be returned to that House; nor was it a principle upon which any patron of a borough ever put his member into the House. He saw no danger whatever in the plan proposed by the noble Lord, although an alarm had been sounded, as it always had been sounded whenever any great moral changes were attempted to be introduced. At the time of the religious Reformation, the historian Robertson said, that those who opposed the Reformation took care to spread an alarm, that certain evil dispositions were riding about the world to overthrow all that was established, and to undermine all religious systems. This, they said, was not owing to any thing above the earth or under the earth, but owing to the sinister influence of the stars. At present, alarms were also carefully spread; though he thought there was no danger, except from those who opposed Reform. The danger proceeded from that cold, blunted, selfish sect of politicians—if politicians they could be called—who, in spite of all past experience, when truth pressed her light upon the whole nation, were still left in ignorance and sunk in corruption. They would rather that the whole State should be lost for ever, than that they should resign one of their petty interests, or forego one of their much-cherished prejudices. If any cries of alarm were spread, they would be the organs of that alarm, but he trusted that there was in the country a good sense, as well as a temperate feeling, which would not permit any use being made of such fears. If those with whom he agreed in opinion had been accused of appealing to the passions of the people, he must accuse the Gentlemen opposite, not of appealing to the fears of the people, but of doing what was infinitely worse—they had appealed, by the worst of artifices, to the fears and selfish passions of those whom they called the Aristocracy of the country. The hon. member for Newport (Mr. Horace Twiss), in his speech, had advised Gentlemen to look after their rents; another Gentleman had sounded an alarm upon the security of tithes; and another had exclaimed, that if the Reform were carried, there would no longer be any security for property of any sort. When such Gentlemen talked to him of appealing to the fears of the people, he had a right to taunt them with appealing to the fears of that class which seemed to think that they possessed their property without any rela-

1297
tion to the rights and feelings of the people at large. He trusted, however, that the people were wiser than of yore, and he confidently hoped that they were no longer to be deluded by idle sophistry into the neglect of their best interests. He believed that even the great magician of political terror, even Burke himself, could he rise from the dead, would not now be able to conjure up those phantoms which at the period of the first French Revolution alarmed the people of the country, and made them madly plunge into a war against freedom which had been the seed of all our subsequent disasters. In reply to those who wished to terrify the rich he would refer to Mr. Burke himself who was so often quoted but so little understood; Mr. Burke had very justly said, that the people of England had no interest to benefit, and no purpose to serve, by disorder. They never had proved them-selves to have had any,—not the people of England,—not those for whom he was appealing,—not those who were robbed of their rights and despoiled of their property by the power of the great, and corruption of Parliament,—no, these people, though impressed with a sense of their wrongs, had never shown any inclination to obtain redress or seek relief by disorder. He did not, like the hon. member for Preston, pretend to speak the voice of millions, but he spoke the sentiments of his own heart; and having received the same education, being born on the same soil, and having the same recollections and the same wishes as the Gentlemen whom he addressed, he did believe that he spoke the voice of the people; and he did hope that a. great majority of that House, by voting for the present measure, would be the faithful interpreters of the wishes of the people of England. For his part he had such confidence in those people that he should not be disposed to object to any plan calculated to let in any class of his fellow-subjects to the enjoyment of the privileges which they could exercise with safety to the State and advantage to themselves. But he should be acting unjustly by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, unjustly towards the country and the great cause to which he had all his life devoted himself, and used his feeble but sincere exertions to promote, if he were not now to do his best in support of the noble Lord's proposition, a proposition which he trusted, and believed,
1298
would be supported by the great mass of the people of England. And here let him warn the people against being led away by certain insinuations that had been somewhat insidiously thrown out in the course of the Debate, and against the quarter in which they originated. The hon. member for Newport had said that the noble Lord's plan would not satisfy the people; but he begged to say he knew as much of the sentiments of the community on this subject as the hon. Member possibly could, and he boldly asserted, speaking upon that knowledge, and upon the communications which had already reached him from various quarters, (although it was true only forty-eight hours had elapsed since the plan was made known), that the people generally would be satisfied, and he might add, ought to be satisfied with the measure. Some taunts had been uttered against Ministers respecting their opinions and conduct upon other matters; but the people out of doors cared nothing for that —they only looked at the present measure as it now stood and by itself, and they would say, that the Administration which brought it forward was entitled to gratitude and confidence. Good jokes might be made upon the Budget; but the people out of doors would consider that no disparagement of the Reform Bill; and they would all raise their voices to aid the great work of obtaining that Reform. There was some talk about divisions in the Cabinet—what had that to do with the question? He made up his mind upon a simple and distinct ground, and he cared not for any personal appeals to the consistency or inconsistency, the agreement or disagreement of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Control. If any member of the Cabinet had any errors to recant, let him imitate the magnificent career of the right hon. Baronet below, on a great occasion, never to be forgotten, which, so far as the humble approbation of an individual could compensate him, or—why should he not say it—so far as the approbation of all mankind could re-ward him—he was compensated for the sacrifice he had made, he was rewarded for the vast good he accomplished. And what had happened to the right hon. Baronet at that time? He was reviled, not merely by his former political associ-

1299
ates, but had the pain of hearing one of his nearest and dearest relations, who rose up behind him, road an extract from one of his own speeches against himself. If the right hon. Gentleman had shrunk from doing his duty on that occasion, and abstained from avowing the change that had taken place in his sentiments, through a weak fear of the obloquy to which the avowal must expose him, instead of the station which he now held in the estimation of the country, and the proud and unsullied character which he had maintained—a character to which posterity would do justice as well as his contemporaries,—what would have been the right hon. Gentleman's position? He would not be considered the great and wise politician, which men now acknowledged him to be, but would have been looked on as a man unfit to play a distinguished part on the theatre of public affairs—unfit to take a share in governing empires, because unable to govern himself. He should always be ready to repel the cant of inconsistency, when the charge applied to a conscientious and wise change of opinion. But the very same diverting jokes had been cast upon the right hon. Baronet which were now again dealt forth against the present Ministry, and from the same quarter. It was not then as now, "Althorp and Co.," but "Peel and Co." He recollected the very words,—the refined and facetious expressions, learnt, no doubt, by the hon. and learned Member in the academic groves of Oxford, or the congenial bowers of Lincoln's Inn, and so pleasantly and unsparingly applied by him to the right hon. Gentleman. The phrases were too expressive and witty not to deserve being revived, and accordingly revived they were, in all their original splendor, by the facetious member for Boroughbridge, the great plagiarist of his own wit, who had again last night treated the House to the crambe recocta of "Peel and Co." Last night it was "the expiring member for Boroughbridge," formerly it was "the expiring Attorney-general." This was another of the waggish and facetious Gentleman's jokes, too good not to deserve and bear repetition, and it had been again inflicted on the House by the hon. Member, who originally rung the changes on his then also last dying note, so very long that one would have thought it might content him to utter it once in his life, But no; the hon. Member's jokes
1300
were not so easily worn out: it was formerly his turn to be waggish with the right hon. Baronet below, and try how far a good-humoured sarcasm and a joke might divert him from his great object of saving the nation, and securing the tranquillity of the country even at the expense of the friendship of "the expiring Attorney-General." Now the expiring representative for Boroughbridge applied his stores of humour to an attempted diversion of the present Cabinet from its important determination, and he trusted with precisely the same degree of success as before. All public men must make up their minds to things of this sort, and the present Ministry, like their predecessors, must bear as best they could the sarcasms and witticisms of the hon. and learned Member. He must here observe, that the House, in showing itself so delighted with the hon. Member's jokes, evinced either that it had very little memory, or that it reckoned the jokes so good that they might be repeated. However, as he had before observed, right hon. Gentlemen must make up their minds to listen to the facetiœ of the hon. Member. Supposing that right hon. Gentlemen opposite had not thought it necessary to bring forward this great and healing measure,—and in doing so to sacrifice some degree of private opinion,—let him ask where, how, or by whom, was a government to be formed? Could Gentlemen who now opposed Ministers so violently, make up a Government among themselves? When the right hon. Gentlemen failed to do so, could any one else succeed in the attempt if made upon the same principles? If the thing were to be done by mortal man, the right hon. Baronet could have accomplished it. But a Ministry could only be framed on one of two principles—anti-Reform or Reform. The late Government went out chiefly because it was found impossible to carry on the business of the country on principles of anti-Reform [cheers from the Treasury, mingled with cries of "No," from the Opposition benches.] He certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, it was not so much in consequence of the ill success of Ministers upon the question of the Civil List that the late Government had retired, but rather because it appeared that things had come to that point in the country, that it was necessary to try some new principles of government, and a new set of men,

1301
He again asked, where or how was a Government to be formed, unless from among the ranks of Reformers? and what Government but one thus constituted could carry on the business of the country? It was because he was satisfied that no Ministry but a reforming Ministry could act with safety, that he had felt so anxious to see the late Ministers (among whose humble supporters upon many points he had long reckoned himself) quit their places. He might here observe (as he had made up his mind to take the first opportunity of doing), that if on the night of the division upon the Civil List he had shown any appearance of indecorous haste or improper exultation in proposing a question to the right hon. Baronet, as to whether it was the intention of Ministers to go out, he now frankly begged the right hon. Member's pardon, and expressed himself sorry for it. He was not actuated by any hostile feeling against the right hon. Baronet or his Colleagues, he was merely convinced, and on that conviction he spoke, that so long as Ministers attempted to go on without a majority of the House in their favour, and with the people against them, it was hopeless to expect tranquillity or security. He expected yet to see the day when, this great question being adjusted there would be a combination of men of talent from various quarters and parties in the public service. Under such circumstances, it was possible, and he hoped not improbable, that the right hon. Baronet and some of his friends might be induced, in the great crisis of public affairs, to put their shoulders to the wheel and endeavour to drag the car of State to a place of security. He had seen great changes in his time,—he had seen great and long-rooted prejudices give way,—he had seen penal restrictions removed, commercial restrictions abolished, religions disabilities disappear, before the spirit of inquiry and truth which was abroad, and in all these great triumphs the right hon. Baronet had borne a distinguished part, achieving on one occasion a more than ordinary victory—a victory over himself. He trusted that the right hon. Baronet would yet be induced to add his name to those who, late, converts though they were, had at length become advocates of this great cause. In acting thus, the right hon. Baronet would not have to encounter the difficulties which beset him in the
1302
Catholic Question. He called upon the right hon. Baronet to take this course, and add another wreath to his laurels; and let him be assured, although a few, and now a very few, feeble voices might be lifted up against them, that they would be drowned by the acclamations of a grateful country. In recommending this course, he asked for no destruction or annihilation of ancient and established rights; but he asked the right hon. Baronet and the House, in the words of the poet Waller, in his famous speech on Episcopacy, "to Reform, that is, not to abolish, the Parliament."
Mr. Hart Davissaid, his Majesty's Ministers had involved themselves in a fearful responsibility by bringing such a measure forward at a moment when, as the hon. member for Westminster had stated, "Kings could with difficulty keep their crowns on their heads;" when revolutions were breaking out in every part of Europe, and when our own country was in a very disturbed state. The noble Lord, the member for Devon, had observed, that it was peculiarly the duty of every Member returned by a large population, to deliver his sentiments on this important question; and that this was more peculiarly his duty, because he owed his return, in a great degree, to the sentiments he had professed against Parliamentary Reform. His return to that House had not been occasioned by any promises to support plans of Reform which might, prove in their result, dangerous or revolutionary, but by a consistent line of conduct throughout his political life, and a conscientious endeavour to do his duty to all his constituents. He rose to defend the corporate body of Bristol, and all its constituents, against one of the most unjust and arbitrary measures which had ever been introduced into that House, and by which the chartered rights of ages were to be swept away in a moment. The rich and the poor had an equal right to complain:—every apprentice whose time of service had not expired, every freeman's son not yet of age, every freeman's daughter not yet married, were deprived of their legal and just rights. The grounds assigned for this revolutionary measure were, first, necessity,—and secondly, that it would put an end to our differences upon this agitating question. He denied this necessity. We had flourished and become the greatest nation in Europe, under

1303
the present system. As to the other point, the noble Lord, the member for Devon, after having predicted a sort of Millennium when this healing measure should have passed into a law, candidly acknowledged, that, although he had relinquished his own previous opinion on the subject of the ballot, yet that the opinion of his constituents in favour of the ballot had become stronger. What reason had the noble Lord, therefore, to suppose that this sweeping and revolutionary measure would give satisfaction to his constituents? Or, indeed, what security had the House that the noble Lord, who with so much facility had relinquished his own opinion in favour of the ballot, would not, hereafter, with, equal facility, return to it again? Another noble Lord (the member for East Retford) said, that he approved of the Bill; yet he talked of its destructive effects and the sweeping character of its enactments. The members for Middlesex and Preston approved of this measure, because it would lead directly to other measures of a much more dangerous character; and, last of all, the noble Lord who introduced it to the House, stated that there were other points of great importance, such as the duration of Parliament, not provided for by this Bill, which would be grave subjects for further consideration. So much for this healing measure, which was to unite and put the country at rest. The hon. Member for Calne, in a very eloquent speech, said, the Bill would unite and knit together in one bond of union the three great estates of the realm, he, on the contrary, was convinced, that if it passed into a law, King, Lords, and Commons, would all be melted down in the crucible of Parliamentary Reform, and become one fearful power, under the denomination of the United Commons House of Parliament, in which democracy would reign triumphant. The hon. Gentleman brought forward the name of Mr. Burke to aid his arguments, although the whole tenor of Mr. Burke's later sentiments on Parliamentary Reform was opposed to such a reform as was contemplated by his Majesty's Ministers in the Bill now about to be read a first time. Mr. Burke always described ours to be a practical Constitution, in which every great interest in the State—landed, commercial, and professional—was fairly represented in Parliament, in a more beneficial manner than any theory could secure. He did
1304
not ask how Members came into this House, but finding that they did the business of the State well, he deprecated all change, except such as was called for by the necessity of remedying any abuse as it arose. Another point, which appeared to him of great consequence, was, the increased influence given to Ireland. It was well known to his Majesty's Ministers, that the influence of Irish Members, on any question affecting Irish interests, was so predominant, that measures of the highest importance to the State had been relinquished, because they had not the power to carry them against that influence. Now the plan of the noble Lord subtracted seventy Members from the English Representation, and added three to the number of Irish Members, increasing that influence which was already overwhelming, and required to be diminished. The same observation, but perhaps, in a somewhat less degree, would apply to the Members for Scotland. If this part of the measure should be carried into effect, he would venture to assert most confidently, that no tax or regulation affecting Ireland could be imposed should the Members from that country unite against it. In proportion as the Bill weakened the Representation of England, it gave power to that of Ireland and Scotland. When he heard hon. Members affirming that the whole people of England were crying out for Reform, at least they must admit that it was not for such reform as was proposed by this Bill. He had very lately presented a petition from the city which he had the honour to represent, on this important subject, which expressed the opinion of a great majority of the wealth and intelligence of Bristol and its vicinity, and prayed only for a reform of defects as they arose, which could be effected without danger to the Constitution. He preferred the present constitution of Parliament to risking fearful and dangerous innovations. He would cleanse every blot as it appeared in the election of Members of that House, he would do every thing in his power to put an end to such abuses; but he conjured them, not with sacrilegious hands to destroy, in the attempt to amend the sacred ark of the Constitution. Whilst they were attempting a change, in order to improve, they might be effecting the destruction of our whole frame of Government. He would not oppose the bringing in of the Bill; but

1305
in its further progress, it should have his unqualified opposition.
Mr. Baringsaid, he approached the question, then under discussion with the greatest anxiety and hesitation, as every thinking man in the country must do, being sensible that the future destinies of his country would depend on the decision of that House. On other occasions of less importance, he should have felt much occupied and much annoyed by the painful necessity under which he was placed, of differing from his Majesty's Government, composed of Gentlemen with whom he had acted for many years, and with whom he hoped to continue to act during the short remains of his political life, and Gentlemen for whom he entertained the highest respect on account of their talents and consistency; but the paramount importance of that overwhelmed all personal considerations, and must form his apology, if one was necessary, for his stating his opinions without reserve or disguise. He thought every body would be sensible that the House had now before it no ordinary act of legislation, or even a mere alteration in the construction of the House of Commons, but a measure which, in point of fact, amounted to a new Constitution. His friends on the Treasury-bench might declare that our old Constitution was worn out—that it had lost the affections of the people—that it was found to work so ill, and cause misery among the people to such an extent, it behoved us to remodel it. Still they would at least admit, that the effect of the proposition of the noble Lord went in substance to produce a new Constitution. He repeated, that although on the face of it this was only a Bill to alter the Representation, it was essentially, and in point of fact, as much a new Constitution as if it had been drawn from the pigeon-holes of Abbé Sièves. The only Constitution that had ever been tried with success, for the purpose of mixing up a popular form of government with a monarchy and aristocracy, was that which had been adopted in this country, and which, he did not say by the wisdom of our ancestors, but through the fortuitous occurrence of events, or perhaps he might with greater propriety say, by the gift of Providence, had brought us to that state of prosperity and security which had hitherto been the envy of the world, and which till of late years he thought was also the pride and satisfaction of Englishmen. Hitherto it
1306
had been held, that the Constitution of the country consisted of three estates— King, Lords, and Commons; but he feared that if this measure were adopted, we should at least have to reverse the order of these estates (supposing that they all remained in existence), and that in future it would be no longer King, Lords, and Commons, but Commons, Lords and King. He repeated, that the Constitution of this country was that of King, Lords, and Commons; and living under that Constitution, the empire had enjoyed the highest prosperity. He was told, indeed, that the existing system was corrupt and rotten; but it appeared evident to him, that the state of things which had been long established in this country had secured to it a degree of prosperity and of freedom which was not to be found in any other part of the world. Here was a popular body slightly subjected to the influence of the Crown, connected also with the influence of the aristocracy, representing much of the property of the nation, and providing for all those various compound interests which entered into the composition of society. The question then was, whether a body so composed was calculated to forward the welfare of the country, and whether it had done so? In his opinion, both these questions must be answered in the affirmative. When he considered this, and heard the hon. member for Westminster tell them, that if the people were left to themselves they would not choose, as Members of the House of Commons, a class of men very different from those who already sat in that House, he could not help considering it as an argument against giving them an opportunity of effecting a change, which might be, and, in his opinion, would be, anything but beneficial. He thought, in some parts of his speech, his hon. friend seemed to lean to the opinion, that the House of Commons was not quite so unworthy of confidence as some individuals asserted. In his view of the case, the state of the Representation was not so corrupt, or so defective, as it had been described, although ignorant, and perhaps unthinking, people, endeavoured to find fault with it. He would contend, that if all the Constitution-mongers in the world exerted their abilities for that purpose, they would not be able to frame a form of government under which the same extent of population would be blessed with the

1307
same extent of rational liberty. What had been effected, under that Constitution, afforded some proof that the wit of man could not go beyond the skill which was manifested in its formation; and if they threw aside that jewel, for the purpose of adopting a theoretic plan, he thought they must be considered as the wildest visionaries that ever existed. Such was his opinion, and he boldly avowed it in the presence of his hon. friends below him. He had sat for many years in that House— he had approved of many acts of his hon. friends; but when a question of this sort was brought forward, he would state his opposition to it without apology. Those who supported this measure said, "Let the King stand by himself, let the Lords stand by themselves, and let the People stand by themselves,—let there be no mutual connexion between them. Such was their doctrine, but such was not the Constitution of this country. He should be glad to know what was the practical grievance, under the existing system, of which that House had to complain? Had the other powers which formed part of the Constitution interfered with the people in any way? Had they interfered with the fullest freedom of action and of speech in that House,—the fullest, he would say, that was allowed in any country in the world?" No such attempt had ever been made; and, if they extended the popular branch of the Constitution with a view to the diffusion of popular liberty, his fear was (being himself a friend of freedom) that the alteration would end in the destruction of those liberties which he was anxious to preserve. What grievance, he would ask, did any man in this Country suffer from the conduct of the other House of Parliament? Did they find those Peers pressing on them in any way? Did they find them making laws that were directed against the popular branch of the Legislature? Did they, in the courts of law, assume any superiority? Did the people not find their rights secured as well as those which appertained to the House of Lords? He knew of no such interference; he was not aware of any such interposition; and he was firmly of opinion, that the mixture of different powers and interests in that House had been the great means of protecting and promoting public liberty. That mixture tended to check and to resist those erroneous feelings which were occasionally visible in that House. There was sufficient
1308
popular feeling in that House. The feeling which was manifested out of doors was responded there, as evidently appeared from the lively expression of popular opinion on this occasion. There was much restlessness out of doors; but he felt no apprehension on that account. The cause of that he did not know, whether it was one of those epidemics with which society was periodically visited, and which at present seemed to overspread, with unaccountable universality, the whole world; or whether it proceeded from any local causes that reason could discover and remove. On that subject, and a very difficult one it was, he had not made up his mind; but whatever was its cause, it was shared by the House as well as by the whole community. The people, it appeared to him, did not much know what they wanted, neither did the House of Commons seem to know exactly what they desired. They had turned out one Administration and put in another, and they appeared to feel no great disposition to support either. Mr. Windham had observed, that one great benefit of the House of Commons was, that when measures were introduced there, time was given for the people to reflect on them. It would certainly be absurd for them to decide on what should be done, by proceeding from market-town to market-town, and inquiring of the people—"Is such your real opinion?" He had known instances (not to speak of Catholic Emancipation) where the House had wisely opposed that which appeared to be popular opinion; and the measures thus carried, though condemned at first, had afterwards proved highly beneficial. He could not agree with the hon. member for Westminster, that a popular call should be at once obeyed, without any intermediate consideration on the part of that House. Such a course of proceeding would lead to the greatest evils. With respect to the conduct of the House of Commons, it could not, he supposed, be denied, that they were ever ready to make the fullest inquiry into the distresses of the country. No branch of trade got out of joint—no body of the people was thrown out of employment—no general grievance was complained of, without causing the formation of Committees to investigate the facts. On all occasions the most parental care was manifested for the well-being of the country; and he thought that those who maintained a contrary position were either

1309
guilty of a gross misrepresentation of facts, or else were labouring under the illusion of most perverted judgments. Such was the course uniformly taken under the existing constitution of the country. But new lights had now broken in upon the world; and what consequence was to follow? Why, in obedience to these novel views, the whole aristocracy of the country was to be swept away. The principle which these reformers thought proper to set up was, that the influence of the aristocracy in that House was illegal,—that it was a great evil, and ought to be removed altogether. Their opinion was, that the influence of Peers in the nomination of Members,—that the influence of landed proprietors with respect to seats in Parliament —was productive of great mischief, and ought to be got rid of. He should be as sorry as any man to see the lower classes, even the lowest classes, of this country, without considerable influence in that House. They had considerable influence; and therefore it was right that there should be a countervailing influence; because it was the influence on the one side that enabled them to take the pressure of influence on the other. It was by that means that they were enabled to take (using a short and not an offensive phrase) low popularity into their system. Let them look at the example of France—there, with a population of thirty-two millions of people, the constituency of the country had been something short of 90,000, and the qualification of those voters was the payment of 12 i. in taxes, which might be calculated as answering to an income of about 60 i. a year, which, when it was considered what was the difference between the money and fortunes of the two countries, might be considered as about equal to 100 i. a year in this country. This was what the slate of representation in that country had been, and even since the change that had taken place there, the utmost extent of any alteration that had been proposed was, to change the qualification from 12 i. to 8i., which would make 60 i. a year40 i. and increase the number of the constituency to about 200,000. No one could rejoice more than he did at the victory that had been gained in that country, for he had looked upon it as being the means of preventing the nation from being trampled in the dust! but, with all the popular excitement that had followed upon that victory, no proposition
1310
to a greater extent, with respect to the Electoral Law, than that which he had already stated, had been made. Let none suppose that he proposed such a qualification as this for England; but he quoted it for the purpose of showing that those who were supposed to have the love of liberty most at heart, thought that property ought to be the standard of the right of election. What he wanted was, liberty for all. Let him take the liberty of alluding to the hon. member for Preston. Not only were the observations which he made in that House unobjectionable, but many of them were extremely useful; and it must be extremely satisfactory to the people to find that they had such a Representative in that House to state the grievances under which they supposed they laboured. Seeing this, it was impossible that they should shut their eyes to the importance of the English House of Commons. Any one who had seen the power that people of no property had over popular bodies ought to see, that, without counterbalancing that power, the whole system would be changed. To form that counterbalance had been the system of the Government as yet; that had been the Constitution of England, and it was but shallow policy to look at it in any other way. If the acts of that House were stated to the people, he believed that they would be satisfied with them. If appeal was made to their acts alone, without super adding the excitement of those who went among them for the purpose of agitation, he believed that such would be the result. He would not say that those who thus agitated did not believe it. to be their duty to do so; but it was, in fact, they who set in motion what it was now the fashion to call the voice of the people. He had been always what was called a moderate Re-former. He had never been able to bring his mind to vote for what was called a general measure on this subject, because he believed that such a general measure would be the means of altering the entire Constitution. That large manufacturing towns should be represented was not only necessary, to give satisfaction to the people, but would be useful in enabling the House the better to discharge its duty. With respect to Scotland, he had always thought that it ought to have a different mode of representation from the present; but, at the same time, that must be done without endangering what he called the prac-

1311
tical Constitution of England. But when he said that the representation of Scotland wanted alteration, he must say, that he confessed he believed that Scotland was virtually and really represented in that House, he had never seen any Scotch question which had not been most pugnaciously canvassed by the Members of that country. This was remarkably instanced in the case of the Scotch one-pound note system. The Scotch gentlemen had come spear in hand, ready for the attack, and, with the Irish, had been quite competent to beat all the English gentlemen out of the field. Something had been said about remunerating proprietors for the loss of their boroughs; he was, however, not disposed to enter into that question at all: the view that he took of it was entirely in reference to the safety, policy, and expediency of the measure. He wished to know what great advantage was to be derived from striking off those impure boroughs, as they were styled, and what advantage was to be got by leaving those sweet-scented places that were to be retained? He scarcely knew what was left to represent the people. He did not know how it was that the noble Lord, when he went on his reforming tour, did not stay at Tavistock, on his way to Callington. He was armed with an exterminating sword; but Tavistock was invulnerable. Since he was connected with Callington, he knew of no moral offences, at least he could not complain of any, which had been committed in respect to its elections. He could safely deny that there was in it any thing which could deserve the name of corruption. He had not spent one shilling in all his elections that he would not readily submit an account, of to the greatest purists on election matters who sat on the mountain part of that side of the House. [The hon. Member spoke from the Ministerial side of the House.] His whole election bill did not exceed 150 l. and that was wholly for things, every one of which he might have bought openly at Charing-Cross. He had been in his time returned for some populous places, and if he were to show the bills which he then paid, they would not place in a very high degree of respect those popular elections which were to be left by the noble Lord. It was in vain to deny that there were places under the influence of individual Peers, who returned whom they pleased, and the practice it was difficult to defend, When it
1312
was mentioned in the House, Members affected a great deal of indignation, because that was necessary, being a piece of indispensable hypocrisy; and yet, when stated to an unprejudiced man, something plausible might be said in its favour. It was not. his intention, however, to defend it, but only to say, that the places which were to be left, and were to be odorous like the perfumes of Arabia, were not much better than boroughs. The open boroughs, which had more than 4,000 inhabitants, were to be left with all their imperfections, except that of absent freemen. Why was the Reform not extended to such places? He wished to ask, too, how the merchant was to find access to the House? He could only come there by àpplying to some of those populous places which were so extravagant, and by which he would be very likely to get into The Gazette as a bankrupt. He contended that the present system worked well; and if it were wanted to introduce greater purity, why did the Ministers leave places to return Members with so few as 4,000 inhabitants? When boroughs were thrown open, would influence be diminished, or would the purity of boroughs be greater? When a gentleman now went to an open borough, what questions were asked? Were any inquiries made as to his political principles? No; but as to the length of his purse? If he had not been guilty of any great offence—if he were not branded with any unsightly mark, and would bleed freely, he was sure to succeed. It was a species of cant to talk of the liberality and virtue of populous places; and it would not purify the election to descend to a lower class of voters. He might, perhaps, complain of partiality; and it. might be said, it had indeed been said, that Callington was on one side of the line and Tavistock on the other. That was true; but who drew the line? It was true, that the one was a larger place than the other, but both were small towns; and, with respect to purity, he would only say, that the election for Callington, where there were 200 voters, cost him 150/., not one sixpence of which was improperly expended. It was said, that the influence which was now exercised with reference to those boroughs by men of rank and wealth enabled them to knock with confidence at the door of the Treasury. But would not those persons who got into that House by treating with beer and gin the

1313
electors in populous places, be as unfortunate as those who attained the same end merely by their money? It was set forward as an argument in favour of the plan, that, as boroughs were now constituted, several of them might be placed in the hands of a few individuals, who thereby acquired the power of awing and commanding Ministers. But the new plan would not remedy that evil. Would not the borough of Tavistock, for instance, belong to the Duke of Bedford as much after the alteration as before it? If the noble Lord who represented the borough doubted the fact, he would ensure him his election for half-a-crown. The noble Duke would still have his two members for Bedford. He would have the same influence that he now possessed. He would have that influence that would enable him to knock at the Treasury door, which hon. Members wished to get rid of by the proposed change. When he said this, he meant not to cast the slightest imputation on the noble Duke, or to imply that he had ever made such use of his influence; and here, for his own part, he would beg to state, that he had been twenty-five years in Parliament, and during that time he had never once knocked at the Treasury door, as the phrase was, or ever asked a favour from Ministers in his life. He begged pardon for thus introducing his own name with a discussion of this kind. To return: the real question was, whether the Bill did not destroy one important interest in order to create another: whether, —for it was a minor consideration whether the influence in the case alluded to was exercised by the Duke of Bedford or any other person,—whether they did not, for the purpose of making an alteration—cut off the interests of the lower classes of society. He was as much as any man opposed to Universal Suffrage, but for the people to have a certain portion of influence in the elections was essential to the Constitution. The people now had such an influence, and every reform of an extensive nature, which did not greatly enlarge the representation, would be likely to do that away. It was a beneficial arrangement at present, which made all classes suppose they had a concern in the elections. It was not the amount of wealth represented—it was not the number of people—it was the excitement of an election, the notice that they were represented much beyond the reality, which made the present arrangement so bene-
1314
ficial. It was indispensable to the working of the Bill, that the low class of voters should be got rid of. It was then the disfranchisement, to a certain extent, of the lower classes. He was waited upon a few days ago by some of the potwallopers, and he told them, that there could be no extensive plan of Reform which would not sweep away their boroughs. Hon. Members might be assured, that the intelligence of this kind of Reform would not give satisfaction amongst the humbler classes. The country shop-keeper might be pleased, but his poorer neighbour would be greatly dissatisfied, for it was certain that his interests would be greatly injured by it. To that part of the plan which cut off outlying voters, he had no objection; but he thought the proposition of continuing the votes in the burghs which remained during the lives of the present voters was inconsistent with the general principle advocated by the Bill. He admitted the general principle that, prima facie, every man in the kingdom, being a natural-born subject, had a right to a vote, unless it could be shown that its exercise would prove injurious to himself, or to the general interests of the community. If the person having this right could be convinced that he ought not to be permitted to exercise it, well and good; but by what sort of argument could you convince him that he might exercise it without injury to the general welfare for twenty years, but that after that time the exercise of it would be greatly detrimental to the State? He owned he could not understand this mode of reasoning. The 10 l. qualification named in the Bill was, he took it for granted, the lowest that could be mentioned consistently with safety, for Ministers were bound to go lower if they could do so with safety. Were they then for the next twenty years, during a period which it was probable would be one of no ordinary difficulty, to have the existing voters in boroughs with much lower qualifications—with qualifications which were declared by the Bill itself, to be too low for the safety of the State,— were they, he asked, to have this lower and more dangerous, because lower, qualification, of existing freemen to continue in full operation? He thought it would have been more consistent to say, the "political atmosphere looks cloudy at present, let us make the qualification as high as 15 l. for the next twenty years, and after that we shall see if we can go on with a lower

1315
qualification." He would now say a word as to the effect of the measure with respect to the class of persons who might be introduced into Parliament under it, and he must contend, that as independent members the class would not be improved; for, considering the class of men who now represented some of those close boroughs as they were called, the temptations to abuse their trust would be much less than in the case of those returned in a Parliament chosen under the new plan. The noble Lord, by his Bill, cashiered him (Mr. Baring), and if he had a seat in the House hereafter, he would bring in a Bill to cashier the noble Lord. The Bill of the noble Lord created an entire change in the Constitution—it was an entire change in the constitution of that House, and what were to be its consequences nobody could tell. The whole construction of the House was by this Bill changed, and its anomalous nature was now laid open for the first time. He did not mean to say that the House was perfect in its construction; but he must say of the alterations proposed, he could not seethe necessity. It was necessary to preserve the Government from falling altogether under the power of the people. It was said, that the House was not popular; but if the impression had got abroad that persons came to that House to study their own private interests, and to enrich themselves at the expense of the public, whose fault was it? It was the fault of those who created the impression, and who excited the opinion, If it were really the case that the House was unpopular; that it had lost the confidence of the people, it could not do that part of its duties which consisted in protecting the liberties of the people. It was necessary that the House should enjoy the confidence of the people, to enable it to do its duties. To restore it to that confidence was the great difficulty, and till that was got over, its operations would be materially affected; but he would not consent to try and remodel if, by committing suicide. It was necessary to state this difficulty, and necessary to state the danger he apprehended. If it were unfortunate that opinion demanded great changes, he could not see the great changes now proposed without alarm and concern. He believed, too, that the sound mind of the country did not see these great changes without apprehension. It was probable, if the plan were proposed at the market-place of a great town, it
1316
would have the approval of a large body of supporters; but the same parties would also support Universal Suffrage; and if that voice were to be listened to, they might as well sweep away all institutions at once. If they wished to consult the interests of those who were most likely to suffer by it, they should consult those who had most intelligence, and were best acquainted with the general interests. If they wanted an example of complete anarchy, let them look to Belgium; and see how the effects of a revolution for a legitimate purpose had fallen on the great body of the lower classes. Much was said, he knew, of the enjoyments of the rich in this country; but those who had visited Paris and Belgium must also know, that there the misery of the people was extreme; that their distress was great; and that the people were demanding work and bread. The lower classes, who demanded the changes here, would be the first to suffer by them; and they, therefore, must be weaned from these errors, by the more intelligent classes. In conversation out of doors on this subject, he had not met with a single person who was not apprehensive as to how the Bill would work. It was said it came from the King's Government, and that Government must be wise in bringing it forward; but each and every person seemed to be in doubt as to what should be done. They said, "What can be done? If it be not carried, the minds of the people are so much excited, that it may lead to a revolution." But he did not see why his hon. friends near him should not. take some means to quiet the minds of the people. Much of the excitement was caused by this measure being announced as coming from the Crown; and he felt satisfied that but for such announcement, the people would be satisfied with a much less sweeping, and much more moderate plan of Reform. For his own part, when he first heard of the plan, he expected that it would be one of moderate Reform, and he was greatly surprised when he heard the explanation given by the noble Paymaster of the Forces of the Ministers' intentions. He was much in the same situation as the hon. member for Preston, who, when he heard it, scarcely knew what to make of it, so much did it go beyond even his expectations. He now begged to thank the House for the attention with which it had listened to him. He must say, in conclusion, that with

1317
every respect for his hon. friends around him, in whose talents and integrity he placed the greatest reliance, with many of whom he had so long acted, he could not refrain from thus openly and plainly declaring his sentiments on the measure they had introduced.
The Marquis of Tavistocksaid, after what had fallen from the hon. Member who last addressed the House, he could not avoid taking the first opportunity that presented itself of saying a few words. The hon. Member seemed to cast a reflection on his Majesty's Ministers for not having included the borough of Tavistock, as well as Callington, amongst those boroughs which were to be disfranchised. He certainly so understood the hon. Member. Now, in reply, he would say, that if the hon. Member would bring forward a motion to have Tavistock included, it should have his cordial support. But if the hon. Member abstained from making such motion, greatly did he mistake the character of the Duke of Bedford, if that nobleman would ever influence his tenants in that place as to the manner in which they should give their votes. The hon. Member said, that if he would give the hon. Member a half-crown, he would ensure the return of two Members for Tavistock. Now, if the hon. Member would give him a half-crown, he would return him twenty half-crowns if ever the Duke of Bedford made the attempt. The hon. Member complained of the line being drawn which included Tavistock and excluded Callington. Now, without undervaluing the importance of the latter place, he must say, that it. contained a population of 1,320 persons, while Tavistock contained upwards of 6,000,—a population greater than that of Bedford; and he might also state, that that town would be also left to itself, as far as respected any influence to be used by the Duke of Bedford. As he was on his legs, he would say a word as to the question before the House, and his feelings with respect to it. It appeared to him that the Government of this country had for years been carried on on principles of most unjustifiable and wasteful extravagance,—that patronage had been kept up for the purpose of maintaining the influence of the Crown, and that which was known by parliamentary influence, for the purpose of carrying measures into execution against the sense of the country. The people felt now,
1318
more fully than at any former period, that they had not their just influence in the legislative councils of the nation, and they naturally sought for that change which would give it to them. He sincerely hoped and believed, that the measure now before the House would have that effect, that it would give them all they could reasonably desire. He hoped it would put an end to the monopoly so long maintained by the higher orders, and give a fair expression of the sense of the middling classes. In this view of the measure, it should have his cordial support.
Mr. Baring, in explanation, said, that from what fell from the noble Marquis, he feared that something had escaped him in the course of his remarks which was personally offensive. If he had said anything which could have been so construed, it must have escaped him in the heat of Debate, and he was sorry for it, but certainly he had not intended to do so. For the noble Duke whose name he had used he had the highest respect, and it was only justice to him to state, that there was nothing in his high mind which could warrant the imputation of obtaining undue influence by means of any measure of Government. He had never meant to impute anything of the kind, either to the noble Duke or to Government, connected with the measure before the House.
Viscount Palmerstonwas glad that the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of assuring the House that the noble Lord had misunderstood some of his observations. In the greater part of what the hon. Gentleman said in the early part of his speech, he cordially concurred. He concurred with him in thinking that this was one of the most important subjects that ever was agitated in Parliament. He agreed with him that it was distinguished from all other measures, because most of the consequences of them could be calculated; but this measure could be tried by no test borrowed from experience. It must influence the character of the Government and the Legislature in all future time, and impress its influence on the whole frame of society. He could not describe its importance; and if he should undervalue it, he would be incompetent to discharge the duties of his office. He must be a bold, or a very unshrinking man who did not contemplate the measure with the deepest solicitude and the greatest anxiety; who could calmly and carelessly look at a

1319
measure calculated to effect a great change in the character and constitution of the House of Commons—a House of Commons which, in spite of its defects, had for many years contributed so effectually to promote the happiness of the people. That Member of Parliament would be unfit for his duties, and unequal to the present crisis, who could look at a measure of that nature without being convinced that it demanded the most calm reflection. A love of change and a fondness for political experiment, were not characteristic of the people of England. They were, on the contrary, remarkable for a tenacious adherence to the institutions of their ancestors, and their aversion to innovations. They formed a striking contrast to their neighbours on the Continent, to whom allusion had been made, and who boasted of the newness of their institutions, while the English were proud of the antiquity of theirs. So hard, indeed, had it in general been found to effect the changes that were recommended by the greatest advantages, that those laws, which posterity would regard as the finest monuments of legislative wisdom, were only wrung from the reluctant people of England after many a hard-fought battle, and many years of protracted discussion. The laws which restored the Catholics to the Constitution, and the laws which put an end to the traffic in flesh and blood, were only carried after a contest of many years. The public voice now called for a change, —it demanded innovation—and this had not been brought about by any bow-window orators, or market-place politicians, as hon. Members supposed; it was the calm and steady determination of the intelligent and well-informed people of the empire. They saw that the change was reasonable—they saw that there were practical evils in the present constitution of the Parliament, and they sought a practical remedy. The hon. Gentleman said, that his right hon. friends might restore the country to quiet, and make the agitation cease. He said, that if the Government, and the Press, and the public would cease the agitation, we might retain our Constitution; but might not the hon. Gentleman suppose, when the Government, and the Press, and the public were all united, that his own opinion was fallacious? Public opinion called for a change. If he were asked for a proof of it, he would refer to the fact, that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were sitting
1320
there, while he and his friends were sitting on the scats they occupied. Hon. Gentlemen might say what they pleased, but it was not the difference about the Civil List,—it was not the reduction of the salaries of some half-dozen offices,—which caused the overthrow of the late Administration. The rock they split on was a rash neglect of public opinion. They had been buoyed up with confidence in their own powers. They spread abroad all the canvass of patronage. They thought to defy the gale of public opinion, but it wrecked and dismantled them. The besetting sin of the last Administration was a disregard of public opinion, both at home and abroad. That error had been fatal to themselves, and, not only to themselves, but to others. It had set all Europe in flames, and covered these islands with disorder. On the Continent the commotions were still raging, and he must be a bold man who would predict the issue of them. It was his belief, that they had imagined that a few men in authority would be able to overrule public opinion, and stifle the strongest feelings of mankind; and acting on such an opinion, had led to the most disastrous results, and produced that poverty and distress which had been adverted to, and that necessity for a change, which was universally acknowledged. It was only by the resolution of his Majesty's Ministers since the Government had been changed, that serious evils had been averted from this country, lie would only refer to the state of this country in the month of November last, and ask what it now was; and ask if Ireland would now have been tranquil, except from the measures of his noble friend at the head of the Home Department, and the noble Marquis who presided over the Government of Ireland? He would suppose, that the late Ministers had remained in office, and that they had adopted all the measures for tranquillising Ireland which had been adopted by the new Ministers; and he would then affirm, that they could not have succeeded, because they had not the confidence of the country, and now, had they not retired, we should have been apprehensive of the dissolution of the empire. Not having public opinion with them, their best resolutions would have been paralysed. It was this strong expression of public opinion that made a change necessary, and that forced the House to consider and devise

1321
measures to cure the defects in our representation, and win back the confidence of the people. It was asked, whence sprung this great desire for change? "What had caused this rapid growth of a wish for Reform? He would answer, that it was not from any intrigue of individuals, and not from any ordinary election manœuvres; but from the frequency, and, above all, the impunity of gross abuses. What was it, then, which for years had produced so much misgovernment—so much disregard to public opinion?—The gross bribery and corruption and undue influence, practised at elections, by means of which parties came into Parliament without constituents, or only with those whom they had purchased, and might sell again. When, then, by such practices the people were driven to tear aside the veil of sanctity with which hereditary respect had invested even the imperfections of the Constitution, it was impossible that they whose limited propositions of Reform had been rejected, should not be led to demand wider and more extensive changes. It was true, that there wore some in the country and in that House, who thought that things should remain as they arc, and who wished for no change; and there were many others who would now be willing to make some concessions, when an occasion offered for its being done in the way they desired it, or who would wait till they were driven to the necessity of Reform, by the impossibility of continuing to resist, the voice of those who demanded it. The time, however, was gone by when such views could be safely entertained. If, three years ago, the conviction on this subject, which was now so general, had been permitted to enter the minds of the Members of that House—if, three years ago, when the great unrepresented towns demanded the concession of their political right to return Members to the Commons House of Parliament—if, at that period, the Legislature had permitted itself to be influenced by those impressions, which were now acknowledged to be so general—if the Government, instead of drawing nice equations of parliamentary interest, balancing with dexterity between contending classes, and with a sort of algebraical accuracy, bringing out a result that was equal to nothing, had condescended to attend to the claims then put forth—if the cry for Reform, even on so limited a scale, had then received the attention which it deserved, he
1322
was confident that the House would not at that moment have been occupied with discussing that large and more comprehensive constitutional change, proposed to the House by the Paymaster of the Forces, under the sanction of the Ministers of the Crown. He (Lord Palmerston) had supported the proposition for giving Representatives to those towns, because he considered the principle which it involved was a wise, a just, and a salutary one; and because he felt, that if it were refused, they would speedily be compelled to give much more than the House was then called on to concede. His predictions were, at that time, condemned and disregarded, and the consequence was, that they were now placed in that very situation which he had warned them would be the consequence of the course they adopted. For reasons precisely similar to those which induced him to vote for the limited Reform then proposed, he was now prepared to support that larger and more ample change of the system of representation on which they were about to pronounce an opinion. Taunts had, in the course of the discussion, been unsparingly thrown out against some of those who supported the present measure, and who were, like him, admirers of the policy pursued by Mr. Pitt, and friends of the late Mr. Canning—that they had abandoned the principles those great men professed, and which they made the guide of their political career. Events might, he thought, have saved the admirers of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Canning, from a charge of this kind, and taught those who accused them to form a humbler and juster estimate of the value of political consistency. He should have thought, that they might have learnt by recent examples, the merit of which he would be the last man in the country to contemn, that a public man might change his opinions without being influenced by any grosser motive than the honourable and truly noble desire to promote the good and the welfare of his country. He should have thought, that they might have been taught by experience, on more points than one, that a public man should not carry the puerile vanity of consistency on one subject to an extent which would endanger the safety of the greater and more important interests that are mixed up with the matters committed to his care. Of Mr. Canning he entertained as high an opinion as any of those who professed

1323
to be guided by his sentiments, or to follow his dictation; but he would tell those who presumed to assert what would have been the particular opinions of Mr. Canning, had he lived to the present day. from quotations called out of speeches delivered at particular times, and under circumstances very different from the present, that they were ill able to fathom the mind of the man or the depths of the principles by which his whole conduct was guided. If ever there was a man who took a large and enlightened view of public events and public policy, that man was Mr. Canning. If ever there was a Statesman who polarised his public course by an extended and liberal principle of action, and whose gigantic views it was impossible to bow down to any of the ordinary Lilliputian comprehensions of his species, that man was Mr. Canning; and he was satisfied, that had he lived to mark the signs of the present times, and to bring his great and comprehensive intellect to an examination of the difficulties to be overcome, he would have been as ardent a supporter of the measures now proposed by the Government, as any of the friends he saw around him. If any man wanted a real key to the opinions and policy of Mr. Canning, he would find it in the memorable speech delivered in the month of February, 1826, on the question of the proposed alteration in the Silk-trade, and particularly in that concluding sentence, where he declares, in his own elegant and emphatic language, "That those who resist improvements because they consider them to be innovations, may be at last compelled to accept innovations when they have ceased to be improvements." ✶The course to be adopted in the year 1828, if they had yielded to the demands of the great manufacturing towns, was simple and easy. The course to be followed in the year 1831, from the change of circumstances and of times, was very different, and more difficult and complicated. At the former period a partial Reform might have been tolerated—now nothing but a general and comprehensive change in the system of Representation would be accepted. That which might have been given piece-meal and by degrees in 1828, ceased to be possible now, and there was no alternative left
✶ Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. xiv. New Series, p. 855.
1324
to them but to embrace the course which the Government had adopted. In framing their plan, Ministers had cast aside every consideration but that of an honest performance of their duty, with a view to the permanent good of the country; they had not laid nets to catch particular parties, nor set traps for some particular interests, but they had gone steadily forward to what they conceived the general good. There were some, he knew, who called the present Reform by the name of Revolution. There were others, he believed, who thought that it fell far short of what the people were entitled to demand; but he was convinced that all educated and intelligent men, who admitted the importance of preserving and consolidating the constitutional institutions, would be satisfied that the plan now proposed was well adapted to the end which all had in view. Any man who looked at the workings of the present system must see, that there were five great and peculiar blemishes, which it was necessary to remove, in order to fit it for the intelligence and feelings of the times in which we lived. The first of these was the system of nomination by the patrons of boroughs; the second, the gross and barefaced corruption which prevailed among the lower classes, when their votes become necessary to the higher; the third, the absence of all adequate balances of representation with respect to the great manufacturing and commercial towns; the fourth, the great expense of elections; and the fifth, the very unequal and unjust distribution of the power of voting among the middle and lower classes. The plan then before the House applied to all these defects, and he was convinced that, if calmly and dispassionately examined, there was not an evil they generated for which it did not provide a sure and effectual remedy. It was impossible to contend, that the principle of returning Members at the command of a nominee was consistent with that theory of the Constitution by which that House was declared to be the Representative of the people of England. He did not mean to deny that some advantages were occasionally derived from this most objectionable practice. Men of splendid talents and great capacity had, he admitted, entered that House through such means, when no others were open to them; and although elected under a system in which popular

1325
rights had no share, he did not mean to deny that the people had suffered from that circumstance, for many of those so nominated had become their warmest champions and their most distinguished supporters. He admitted, therefore, the force of the inference derived from this source; but when he found how impossible it was, to maintain in argument the practice of such nominations as consistent with the theory of a Representative Government, he was compelled to declare that no plan of Reform would be perfect or effective without the thorough and effective disfranchisement of all the boroughs which conferred this privilege on individuals. Without that disfranchisement, indeed, it would be impossible to carry the plan of Reform into effect, for how else were they to provide for the great commercial and manufacturing towns those Representatives, which all now admitted it was necessary to concede to them? That House was already sufficiently numerous, too numerous, indeed, for the convenient dispatch of public business, and unless they took from the close boroughs the Members which they were about to bestow on the counties, and the large unrepresented towns, they must add to the evil which was felt and acknowledged by all. The hon. member for Calling-ton said, that the principle of the plan was bad, because it took population for its basis. He denied that it did so. The Ministers took property as the basis of the measure, and population as the rule for disfranchisement. The member for Callington, in speaking of the rule adopted with respect to disfranchisement, and in observing on the line which the Government had drawn with respect to the population of the close boroughs, seemed to intimate, that what had been done was meant with a view to protect particular boroughs, and to maintain untouched the political influence of certain powerful families. If he thought the hon. member for Callington really intended to cast such an imputation on the conduct and motives of the members of the Government, he certainly should, for one, be henceforward less disposed than he had been to entertain deference for his opinions on subjects of less weight than that they were now considering. He had, however, a triumphant answer for all that had been said or insinuated on that subject, for the borough of Tavistock had a population by more than 1000 above the line they had
1326
drawn as the standard of disfranchisement; and, still further to relieve the mind of his hon. friend, the member for Callington, from the suspicion that the Government were guilty of sanctioning a proceeding (to which he would not attach the proper expression), he could inform him, that there were twenty-five boroughs inferior to Tavistock in point of population, but yet included in the number of those which retained the privilege of returning a Member to that House. The object the Government had in view in framing the Bill was, first, to give Representatives to the great manufacturing towns; next, to add to the respectability of the electors; and then to increase the number of those who claim to enjoy the right of choosing their Representatives. This had been done by conferring the right of voting generally on those who inhabited a house paying 10 l. a year rent. The independence, too, of the electors was secured by throwing open the close boroughs to the inhabitants of the surrounding parishes, increasing their numbers, and making it impossible for any individual to control them. In making these alterations, the Ministers disclaimed any intention to sever the ties which bind together the middle classes and the aristocracy. On the contrary, it was their earnest desire to increase, rather than to diminish, that influence— an influence arising from good conduct and propriety of demeanour on the one side, and respect and deference on the other; and which was as honourable to those who exercised it, as to those who acknowledged its authority. The measure before the House was not intended to affect this power, for it gave additional reasons for supporting and defending it; but it was intended to destroy that corrupt influence which destroys all public principle, and debases the state of every class of society wherever it has existence. When, however, the hon. member for Callington contended that the measure had in reality put an end to all the power of the aristocracy, he (Lord Palmerston) was not called on to answer him, for he had supplied an answer to himself. The hon. Member seemed to forget, that in the arguments he used to prove that the Duke of Bedford would enjoy the same political influence as he did before, he also asserted, as a proof of the inefficacy of the working of the new system, that he would enjoy just the same extent of nomination and

1327
authority in his borough of Callington as he at present possessed. Now that was the true view of the operations of the plan before the House. He contended that property, rank, and respectability would still maintain the same influence in the representation—an influence of which he should be the last man to deprive it, but which was now not to be maintained, in the present state of society, independent of good conduct, morality, and intelligence. It was the possession of those qualities, united with rank and station, which commanded admiration and respect; and if the measure excluded all influence not founded on this basis, so far from its being a ground of objection, he thought it one of the greatest benefits they could confer on that House and the country. The effect of the plan would be, by admitting householders paying a certain rent, to include a vast proportion of the more respectable of the middle classes of the country; and although an hon. and learned friend of his (Mr. Twiss) had been pleased to make himself exceedingly merry at the expense of these middle classes, of shopkeepers, and attornies, and members of clubs at public-houses [no! and hear!] He did not quote from memory—he took down the words, and he repeated them,—the hon. Member did not explain in what respect the potwallopers and voters of the rotten burghs, whose rights he was so anxious to preserve, were superior to the attornies and the shopkeepers. The hon. member for Callington had called the plan defective, because it admitted the pot-wallopers to exercise their rights at that moment, and took them away some ten or twenty years hence. His answer to that was, that the Ministers feared no danger which could make it inexpedient to leave with those persons the rights they at present enjoyed. They included among the voters the great majority of the respectable among the middle classes, and secure in the support which this will procure for the Government, they did not feel it necessary to make the disfranchisement more extensive than might be necessary to effect that object of binding closer the ties which ought to unite the middle classes to the State: and he would add, notwithstanding all the taunts with which that class might be assailed, that there never was a time when it contained so many men of intelligence and character—when its opinions were more entitled to confidence and respect—or its
1328
members more distinguished by morality and good conduct—by obedience to the laws—by the love of order—by attachment to the Throne and the Constitution: in case of need, he sincerely believed they would be equally distinguished by devotion to their country; and this was one great reason with him for conceding to them their political rights, of which they had been too long deprived. The next evil to which he would allude was, the great expenses attending elections, arising from gross and disgusting bribery, and this cause of expense it was proposed to remove by the introduction of a respectable and honest body of voters. The present mode of election was the most offensive and disgusting that could be imagined, and any one who had been engaged in a general election, cither in his own behalf or in behalf of a friend, would bear him out in this statement. They were told, on such occasions, that a third candidate was wanted, but that 10 l. a-head, or 12 l. must be paid—the half down, and the rest at the conclusion of the election; and some were even so generous as to give credit till the return was made. This species of abuse was chiefly practised by the nonresident voters, and by doing away with this class he trusted that the evil would at least be diminished. The hon. member for Preston had said, that the vice of selling one vote might be as great as that of selling a whole borough. In this he could not concur, because the sphere in which the influence of the one was confined was comparatively small, while the other was general, and the example might spread over and demoralize the whole country. The argument used for refusing Representatives to some of the great towns was, as he understood it, that they were at present virtually represented. He would oppose that argument by the converse of the proposition, and ask those who contended that the large towns were virtually represented by the Members of the small ones, why the small ones might not now content themselves with a similar advantage? If that point was put to the vote, he believed he should be sure of a majority. The doctrine of virtual representation was, however, not suited to the times, nor to the question before the House. The advantage of the present method of representation did not consist in the fact that there were 658 Members of intelligence and ability, but that they

1329
were elected by a number of constituents as the Representatives of a number of different interests. If it were possible by any miracle to collect together an equal number of even more able and more intelligent men, still it would not be a House of Commons, because its Members could not possess that sympathy of feelings, and that community of interests, which exist between the Representative and the represented. Under the Representative system, if a House of Commons should by any means happen to be in advance of the knowledge of the time, and of public opinion, the nation was the more disposed to submit to the decrees of those who had previously been intrusted with their confidence, in proportion as the people entertained a full conviction of their honour and integrity. This state of connection, indeed, infused greater confidence on the one side, and greater security of sway on the other than could be obtained by any other means; and the more so, because the time returned periodically when it became their duty to give an account of the manner in which they had fulfilled their trust. There were many and strong objections to virtual representation, and they applied with great force to the manufacturing towns which were unrepresented, and the interests of which were seriously affected by almost all the measures that were discussed in Parliament. In fact, if there were any classes who required more than others proper Representatives, they were the inhabitants of large manufacturing towns—Representatives who understood their interests, and who might be ready to watch over them. For this purpose, the Government proposed to give thirty-six Members to the manufacturing towns; and because this was done, a cry had been raised that the balance between the agricultural and manufacturing interests was destroyed. But the plan proposed went to restore to the landed interest that influence which he thought indispensable to the safety and prosperity of the country, by giving fifty-five Members to the counties, and still further, by conferring votes on copyholders, and not permitting those who had votes for towns to enjoy the same privilege in counties. He looked, indeed, on the increase of the Members for counties as the surest and most stable basis of representation; for, without meaning to disparage the manufacturing or commercial interests, he must say, that be considered the soil to
1330
be the country itself. The member for Callington had observed, that it was not morality, or good conduct, or public spirit, which governed these elections, but the length of a purse. This was the very evil the Bill was intended to cure. Many a man of integrity and intellect was compelled to retire in the middle of a county contest, because his fortune would not permit him to keep the poll open fourteen days, and pay the expense of post-horses; and that great practical grievance would now be removed. The great merit of the Bill, in his opinion, was, that it altered the distribution of political power, and restored the Constitution, by placing the middle classes in that situation to which they were entitled, and which was most likely to prove advantageous to themselves and to the community. There were men, he knew, who thought that public opinion should be cast out of consideration in the management of the machinery of the nation, and who were opposed to all change, because they believed that the House of Commons could carry on the affairs of the country with as much success in defiance of that public, as with its utmost concurrence and assistance. He trusted, however, that of those who did entertain that opinion, there would not on that occasion be found a majority in the House; for if there was, he believed the consequences of their determination would prove most unfortunate for their country. Those who thought that Sovereigns were secure, in proportion as they possessed the affections and the respect of those they were called on to rule, and that nations were powerful by the community of feeling, and community of interests which bound them together, would, he was satisfied, give their cordial and unqualified support to the proposition of his noble friend, and he had nothing further to say, than that he earnestly hoped, in the decision they were shortly about to come to, that the voices of such men would prevail.
Sir Robert Peel:—Sir, I must begin by assuring my noble friend, that the part of his speech in which he adverted to the delicacy and difficulty of his personal situation in this Debate appeared to me wholly unnecessary; for if my noble friend had not thought it right to explain the grounds which have induced him to adopt a different course from that which he pursued on a former occasion, still I, for one,

1331
should not have drawn any unfavourable conclusion from his silence, or joined in the taunts of which he has complained. I have been placed in the same situation with my noble friend. I, too, have found it necessary, from a regard to the interests of the country, to adopt a different course from that which I had long conscientiously followed; and I ought, therefore, to be the last man in this House who would refuse to put an indulgent construction on the language, or to join in harsh conclusions with respect to the motives of public men. I never can allow it to be supposed that public men have not higher and nobler motives for their public conduct than the paltry desire to retain place; and the character of my noble friend, therefore, even if he had been silent, would have proved to me a sufficient guarantee for the rectitude of his intentions. Having thus imitated that generous courtesy which prevails in more deadly combats than that in which I am about to engage; having, as it were, shaken hands with my noble friend, and disclaimed all personal hostility, I trust I shall now be excused if I descend into the arena, and with perfect freedom apply myself to the speech of my noble friend. At the moment when we were anxiously waiting for a vindication of the measure before the House—at the moment when we wanted to know, not what popular opinion demanded from us, but what we were practically to gain from the adoption of the measure of the noble Lord—at that moment the noble Lord had thought fit to enter into an invidious comparison of the merits of the late and the present Administrations, and the greater part of his speech was composed— not of the arguments which the House so greatly desiderated, but of sarcastic allusions to the conduct and opinions of the late Administration, connected with an attempt — not a very successful one I admit — to magnify the deeds of the present Government at the expense of that Government which was lately honoured with his Majesty's confidence. My noble friend says, that if there had not been a change in the Government, the same results, in respect to the restoration of the public peace, and especially in Ireland, would not have taken place. In that opinion I am much disposed to concur. No party hostility shall ever prevent me from doing justice whenever justice should be done, or bestowing praise wherever
1332
praise ought to be bestowed. I approve the course pursued by the present Home Department; I admire the conduct of the noble Marquis now at the head of the Irish Government; ever since he has re-assumed that office, I have seen nothing in his conduct but what entitles him to praise. I believe that there is some truth in what has been said by my noble friend, that had the late Administration been in office, they would not have been able to effect what has been effected by the present Administration. But should we have had the same assistance? Should we, if at a period of great excitement, if amid a loud and general demand for retrenchment, we had produced estimates of increased extent,-—should we have found all party considerations yield to a feeling for the public service; or had we resorted to measures of extreme coercion, should we have found a united and generous disposition in all parts of the House to support the executive Government and supply it with the moans of defeating whatever efforts might be made to disturb the public tranquillity? Sir, I will not enter into any comparison of the merits of the two Administrations. But let my noble, friend recollect that the instrument which the noble Marquis at the head of the Irish Government has wielded, with his characteristic vigour and success, was an instrument placed in his hands by his Majesty's late Government; fabricated by their foresight, contrary to the opinion, and contrary to the wishes of many members of the present Administration. If we found it difficult to preserve peace in some districts of England for want of a local and constitutional force, let it be remembered that it was not by the late Government that the reduction of the yeomanry was effected. I cannot say that my noble friend, in his anxiety to blame his Majesty's late Government for their measures, has shewn himself a very acute or a very discreet advocate for the plan of Reform proposed by the noble member for Tavistock. For my noble friend says, that if, in the year 1828, the late Government had not refused to transfer the elective franchise from the borough of East Retford to the town of Birmingham, we should not be now discussing the question of Parliamentary Reform; for that single measure would have quieted the people on this subject, and would have given general satisfaction. If, Sir, from

1333
so small an event such mighty consequences should have flowed,—if it really would have been possible, by so trifling a concession as the transfer of the elective franchise from East Retford to Birmingham, to have satisfied and conciliated all classes of the community, it is surely of great importance to inquire what is the paramount reason which should induce us at the present moment to make so extraordinary a change in the Constitution as that which is now proposed. My noble friend says, "Why did you not consent to the disfranchisement of East Retford?" Why, Sir, if I am not greatly mistaken, my noble friend and myself entered the House together on that fatal night which led to the dissolution of the late Government, and my noble friend and myself had intended to give our votes on the same side upon that occasion; but the effect of a taunt upon my late right hon. friend, Mr. Huskisson, compelled him, in obedience to his feelings, to deviate from the course which he had intended to adopt, and which, out of a delicate sense of honour, led him to tender his resignation. If, therefore, there was so much blame due for the rejection of that measure, my noble friend cannot entirely exclude himself from some participation in it. But, to pass from that topic, my noble friend says, that if in 1828 we had consented to transfer the elective franchise from the borough of East Retford to the town of Birmingham, there would not have been the least necessity for agitating at the present moment the question of Parliamentary Reform, for that that would have satisfied the whole country. What! would my noble friend himself have rested satisfied with the existing state of the representation, notwithstanding the five grand defects which he has just described as existing in it? Would my noble, friend have rested satisfied to let so gross a system of corruption as that which he now rinds it convenient to deplore, continue without any attempt on his part to rescue the country from its baleful influence? My noble friend says, that Mr. Canning, if he had lived, would have pursued a different course from that which we, who oppose this Bill, are pursuing. My noble friend undertakes to say, that if Mr. Canning were living, he would raise his voice in favour of the plan which his Majesty's Government have brought forward. Oh, would to God that he were here!—
1334
Tuque tuis armis, nos te poteremur Achille!
Would to God that he were here to confound the sophistry and fallacies of reformers, and to win back the people, by the charms of truth and eloquence, to a right appreciation of the form of government under which they live! If Mr. Canning had lived, and had changed his opinions on this or any other subject, none but high and generous motives would have influenced his course, and he would have come forward boldly and manfully to avow and vindicate his change of opinion. But in no expression that ever fell from the lips of Mr. Canning—in no one step in his brilliant and noble career, can I trace the slightest indication of the probability of any such change. My noble friend, however, says he has discovered some expressions, proceeding from Mr. Canning, which justify his supposition. And where does my noble friend find those expressions?—Why, in a speech made by Mr. Canning, in the year 1826, upon the Silk-trade! But does my noble friend forget that one whole year afterwards, in 1827, Mr. Canning being head of the Government, and the question being, not Silk, but Reform, Mr. Canning rigidly adhered to all his former opinions? The question was, what should be done with the franchise of the borough of Penryn,— whether it should be thrown open to the adjacent hundred, or transferred to the town of Manchester? Did Mr. Canning do violence to his own judgment, and make that concession to public opinion which my noble friend now demands, or did he not refuse the slightest concession, and submit to be in a small minority, rather than abate one jot of his resistance to Reform? When my noble friend, therefore, imputes to the conduct of public men, in the years 1827 and 1828, the necessity for Parliamentary Reform, which, he says, exists at present, tenderness for the fame of Mr. Canning ought to prevent so indiscriminate an accusation. I now come to the tremendous Question before the House; but before I approach the consideration of it, I must give vent to feelings of pain and humiliation, which I cannot adequately express. I am asked, I will not say to make a Revolution in the country, but, as was properly said by the hon. member for Callington, to substitute for the present a different Constitution; and I am not invited to do this after a calm and dispassionate inquiry, but to

1335
take this hasty step by an appeal to motives, which, if I permitted them to influence me, would brand me with disgrace. I am desired—expressly and repeatedly desired—not to subject my feats to my judgment, but my judgment to my fears; to defer to authority which I cannot recognise; and to consult my own personal interest, by averting the threatened penalty of a dissolution. I would ask, why the King's name is introduced in this discussion? Why has it been stated day after day to the country, that this plan has received the particular sanction of the King? As to the reference that has been made to the discussion on the Catholic Question, the cases have no similarity. On that occasion it had been publicly stated, that the measure had not the sanction of the King, and the Ministers had then no alternative but to declare that the measure was brought forward with the sanction of the King. But when a measure like this is introduced by the Administration—when the King's consent must be presumed—when it is not called in question, is it necessary, day after day, in both Houses of Parliament, and in the public press, to state that this measure has received the approbation of his Majesty, and not only the approbation, but the written sanction of the King? I assume that such is the fact. But granting the fact, it is no imputation on my profound respect and loyalty towards his Majesty, if I disregard that circumstance; and if, admitting that the noble Lord's plan has the sanction of the King, I nevertheless, as a Member of Parliament, exercise my judgment as unreservedly upon the Question, as if that sanction had not been so indefatigably proclaimed. But, Sir, I regret on other grounds that it has been thought necessary by the friends of the measure, to introduce the name of the King in connexion with it. I will not now discuss the right or the expediency of the sweeping disfranchisement that is proposed. But I am sure it will be granted to me, that the measure is at least one of great harshness towards a number of corporate bodies of proved loyalty to the Crown, which arc suddenly called upon to sacrifice privileges of which they have been long and justly proud. Why hold out to those bodies his Majesty as the approver, almost as the especial author of the plan by which these privileges are to be invaded? I had thought the King was
1336
the fountain of grace and favour; but it now seems as if his Ministers shrunk from their proper share of their own acts, and transferred to their Sovereign the odium of this plan of disfranchisement. I do not think that it is right or decent to aggravate the injury which the corporate bodies of this country are to sustain, by telling them that it is inflicted at the instigation and by the hand of their King. I have further to complain of the menace of dissolution which has been thrown out by some members of his Majesty's Government. I will not stop to inquire whether or not it is probable that that menace will have any effect. For myself, I care not for it; for I should be unworthy of a seat in this House if I were to permit myself to be influenced by it. Dissolve Parliament if you will; I care not much whether I am returned again or retire altogether into the obscurity of private life; but if I did feel any extreme anxiety on this head, I would go to my constituents with your Bill in my hand, and i would put forward, as my especial claim for a renewal of their confidence, my determined opposition to its enactments. I will go to a community which consisted, in 1811, of between 7,000 and 8,000 persons; I will go to a borough which, whatever may have been the case in 1821—in 1831, contains above 4,000 souls; and I will tell my constituents, 400 or 500 in number; many of them not paying a rent of 10 1., but entitled to vote as resident householders paying Church and poor-rates; I will tell them, that to this Bill, brought in without proof, or even argument, of its necessity, so far as it concerns them, I opposed myself to the utmost extent of my power. I will tell them that I did my utmost to preserve to them the privilege they at present enjoy, and which the humblest of them never abused—by the solicitation or acceptance of a bribe. Those constituents received me with kindness at the time when I was subjected to the indignity of expulsion elsewhere, for doing what I conceived to be an act of duty—an act beneficial to the country, but especially beneficial to that Church of whose interests I was bound to be the guardian. Shortly after I lost that proud distinction to which I have just adverted, my present constituents received me; and I will not, till some better reasons are brought forward, repay their kindness by being a party to their disfranchisement.

1337
Sir, another, and a still more alarming menace has been thrown out by the advocates of the Bill. I am told by them that the alternative before me is the adoption of that Bill, or civil commotion. I am to be deterred from forming a deliberate judgment on a most important public question by the prophetic visions of massacre and confiscation. Such were the words used last night by the hon. member for Calne. Let me ask the friends of the Bill why I am to allow myself to be seared by this intimation? Why may I not form the same deliberate judgment on this Bill, which you, who have introduced it, formed on the bill which was introduced last year by a noble Lord (Lord Blandford)? By your opposition to that bill you did not imply that you were opposed to ail Reform you merely implied that you objected to that bill. It is the same with me in this case. Again, on the same principle on which you, who support the Bill, reject the application of the people for Vote by Ballot, why am not I at liberty to reject your Bill? Why am I to yield to popular clamour and violence, when the noble Lord opposite has not yielded to them when they demanded the Repeal of the Union? We were told last night, that if we rejected this proposition, we, the individual Members who so rejected it, would be held responsible for the consequences. "We will shift from our own shoulders," say his Majesty's Ministers, even at this early period of the agitation they foresee, "the responsibility of having provoked it. We have proved our incapacity to govern, but we will shew you our capacity to destroy, and hold you responsible if you obstruct us." Oh no, Sir On their heads shall be the responsibility of this mad proceeding. I, for one, utterly disclaim it. For what am I responsible? Was it I who raised the stormy waves of the multitude? Was it I who manifested my patriotism by exerting all my powers to excite the people to discontent with the existing Constitution? Did I taunt the people with their indifference to Reform, with having closed their ears to the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely? with having lived in the lazy enjoyment of practical good, and disregarded the promises of visionary improvement? Was it I who called for the Pension List of the Privy Council, for the express purpose of holding up the members of that Council to public indignation? Did I draw in-
1338
vidious comparisons between a great naval Commander and the Civilians who presided over the department of the Admiralty? Did I ever doom to public obloquy that hapless First Lord who should be so grasping of emolument as to include in his own Estimates 5,000 l. per annum for his own salary? Did I, at a moment when the events of Paris and Brussels had caused great public excitement, when various causes were conspiring to agitate the public mind, did I express my misplaced admiration of the conduct of assembled thousands who were supposed to have flaunted in the face of their King the emblem of a foreign Revolution? Sir, if there be men who, having thus ex- cited the passions of the people, and spurred their lazy indifference, bring forward the Question of Reform at a time when all prudential considerations, whether with reference to foreign or to domestic topics, ought to have forbidden such a step,—if, I say, disappointment should follow their rash undertaking, I will never, while I have a voice in this House, allow them to hold me or any other individual Member of the House responsible for the consequences of their infatuation. I am told that an appeal will be made to the people. I beg not to be included among those who are charged with making any one observation disparaging to the middle classes of society in this country. I repudiate such sentiment—sprung as I am, from those classes, and proud of my connexion with them. So far am I from underrating their intelligence or influence, that I tell you this,—you who talk of appealing to the people,—that unless these middle classes shall shew more prudence, more judgment, and more moderation than their rulers, I shall despair of the destinies of my country. There are happy indications, however, which induce me to think that the confidence which I repose in the prudence, the moderation, and the judgment of the middle classes of society has not been misplaced. You have ail heard what the noble Lord opposite, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, with respect to the supposed exhibition of a tricoloured flag at the Palace of St. James's; but have you also heard the indignant refutation of that charge which was laid on your Table by a portion of the middle classes of society? So far from thinking that it was becoming in them to wave under the windows of their Sovereign the

1339
memento of a fallen dynasty,—so far from thinking that it was decent, that it was consistent with the patriotic feelings of Englishmen to prefer any foreign standard to the flag which
—has braved for a thousand years
The battle and the breeze;
these people, these middle classes of society, presented an Address to this House, in which, so far from accepting the vindication which had been offered for their conduct in the supposed use of the tricoloured flag, they stated, "that they felt themselves much aggrieved by certain observations and misrepresentations made on the 9th instant, which conveyed a charge of a most foul and disgraceful nature, and an approach even to the foul crime of treason." Sir, so far were they from intending to express any approbation "of the beautiful days of Paris," that they assured the House, that the flag they so unfortunately displayed "was nothing more than four specimens of silk, of different colours, of exquisite workmanship, curiously sewed together, and manufactured expressly for the occasion by Messrs. Lee and Boushfield, of Cheapside." It is, Sir, from this expression of just indignation, and this natural explanation of the quadricolour flag, that I feel redoubled confidence, that the middle classes of this country, notwithstanding the bribe of power by which it is attempted to cajole them, have too much of self-denial and too much of good sense to wish to invade that admirable Constitution under which they, of ail Classes, have especially flourished. If I must appeal, not to the reason and calm judgment of this House, but to some extrinsic and higher authority, —the feelings and wishes of the people,— why, then, I have nothing to hope for but that, before the people of England approve of this Bill, they will listen to a calm and temperate appeal in behalf of what the noble Lord calls, with somewhat of cruel mockery, the old English Constitution. I hope they will consider that the Constitution of a Government is a matter of extreme delicacy and importance; that it is a most complex machine, not to be judged of by the examination of any isolated part which may be put forward for the purpose of exciting abhorrence; but demanding a comprehensive view, not only of the structure as a whole, but of its practical effects. It was well said by Mr. Canning, whose language,
1340
however, I will not attempt to quote, that, in judging of any form of government, we should bring to the consideration of it the same caution, the same distrust in our own knowledge, with which we should pronounce upon some mighty and complex, piece of mechanism. There may be detached movements that we do not comprehend—movements which, to the superficial and ignorant, may seem not only useless but pernicious; but, surely, we must not condemn them if there be harmony in the working of the whole machine, and if its object be completely effected. "Look (said Mr. Canning) at the frame of man—it is fearfully and wonderfully made! yet this frame of a created being— so noble in reason—so infinite in faculties—in apprehension so like a God,'—has parts, and performs functions which, if they are to be separately regarded, provoke feelings of abhorrence and disgust." Sir, let the people recollect that the writers of ancient times, who existed upwards of a thousand years ago, and could have no partiality for the British Constitution — that mere speculative writers, discussing, à priori, the various forms of government, either despaired altogether of the formation of such a Constitution as ours, or described it as the most perfect of all. Can there, by possibility, be a better description of the British Constitution than that contained in the words of Cicero, "Statuo earn esse optimè constitutam rempublicam"—I do not know whether I quote the words correctly—" quæ ex tribus generibus illis regali, optimo, et populari, modice confusa." Another eminent writer of antiquity (Tacitus), speaking of forms of government says, that all forms of government must consist either of king, nobles, or the people, or a combination of all these elements the practicability of which he doubts "Cunctas nationes et urbes populus aut priores, aut singuli regunt." "Delecta ex his et constituta reipublicæ forma, landari facilius quam evenire; vel, si evenit, baud diuturna esse potest." Such, Sir, are the dicta of great writers on the abstract question of the modes of government. The British Constitution has been made a subject of praise by every writer who has touched upon the question. I have heard quotations from Mr. Canning, from Mr. Burke, and from other great men now no more, in assertion of the excellence of the British Constitution, but

1341
to these I will not refer, for I have a higher and a living; authority on the same subject. I will venture to say, that if the House will permit me to substitute it for my own imperfect praise, I will read to it one of the most, beautiful panegyrics on the English Constitution, and more especially on the constitution of this House, that wisdom and truth have overproduced. The author of this panegyric is the noble member for Tavistock, alas! too, the author of a proposal fatal to the object of his praise. Sir, in quoting this speech, I beg that the noble Lord who now proposes to lay violent hands on what was once the theme of his warmest, admiration, will not imagine that I am about to upbraid him with inconsistency on account of his having altered his opinion. If he has changed his opinion, I am sure it is from a sense of duly; but, change that opinion as he may, he cannot gainsay the eternal truths which he himself has put upon record in language worthy to convey them. Sir, it was in the year 1819, on a motion which was brought forward for Reform in Parliament, that the noble Lord made the speech which I am about to quote. The question put to him was this—"Why not disfranchise also the unconvicted boroughs?"—"What was the answer of the noble Lord?—"To this" says he" I answer, that I do not, by any means, maintain that the resolutions I now propose comprise all the amendments that can be made in the frame of this House. Whenever a specific proposition is made, I shall be ready to give it all my attention, and, if I can approve of it, to adopt it. But I do not, at present, I confess, see any rule by which any unconvicted borough can be disfranchised without disfranchising the whole." He goes on to say, "we then arrive at what is called a reform upon principle, or the re-construc-tion of the entire House of Commons." Therefore, Sir, I have the authority of the noble Lord himself for this explanation of the character and effect of his present proposal, that it is neither more nor less than an entire re-construction of the House of Commons.— Says the noble Lord—"We then arrive at what is called a reform upon principle, or the reconstruction of the entire House of Commons. Now, Sir, I will not dwell upon the arguments which are generally used to repel such a proposition; arguments resting chiefly upon the advantage of admitting
1342
men of talent into this House, by means of the close boroughs; and on the danger that an assembly of popular delegates would overthrow the two other branches of the Legislature. But I cannot forget that these arguments have been urged, not, as some out of doors endeavour to persuade the people, by borough mongers anxious to defend their own vile interests, but by some of the greatest, the brightest and the most virtuous men whom this country ever produced. I cannot say, however, that. I give entire credit to these arguments, because I think that, in political speculation, the hazard of error is immense, and the result of the best formed scheme often different from that which has been anticipated. But for this very reason I cannot agree to the wholesome plans of Reform that are laid before us. We have no experience to guide us in the alterations which are proposed, at least none that is encouraging. There is, indeed, the example of Spain. Spain was formerly in the enjoyment of a free Constitution; but in the course of the fifteenth century many of the towns fell into the hands of the nobility, who, instead of influencing the election of Members to Cortes (the practice so much reprobated in this House), prevented their sending Members fit all. The consequence was, that when a struggle took place between the King and Cortes, the aristocracy feeling no common interest with the representative body, joined the Crown, and destroyed for ever the liberties of their country. The Constitution of this country is not written down like that of some of our neighbours. I know not where to look for it, except in the division into King, Lords, and Commons, and in the composition of this House, which has long been the supreme body in the State. The composition of this House by representatives of counties, cities and boroughs, I take to be an intimate part of our Constitution. The House was so formed when they passed the Habeas Corpus Act—a law which, together with other wise laws, Mr. Cobbett himself desires to preserve, although, with strange inconsistency, whilst he cherishes the fruit, he would cut down the tree. This House was constituted on the same principle of counties, cities, and boroughs, when Montesquieu pronounced it to be the most perfect in the world. Old Sarum existed when Somers and the great men of the Revolu-

1343
tion established our Government. Rut- land sent as many Members as Yorkshire when Hampden lost his life in defence of the Constitution. Are we then to conclude that Montesquieu praised a corrupt oligarchy?—That Somers and the great men of that day expelled a king in order to setup a many-headed tyranny?—that Hampden sacrificed his life for the interests of a borough mongering faction? No! the principles of the construction of this House arc pure and worthy. If we should endeavour to change them altogether, we should commit the folly of the servant in the story of Aladdin, who was deceived by the cry of ' New lamps for old. Our lamp is covered with dirt and rubbish, but it has a magical power. It has raised up a smiling land, not bestrode with overgrown palaces, but covered with thick-set dwellings, every one of which holds a free man, enjoying equal privileges and equal protection with the proudest subject in the land. It has called into life all the busy creations of commercial prosperity. Nor, when men were wanting to illustrate and defend their country, have such men been deficient. When the fate of the nation depended upon the line of policy she should adopt, there were orators of the highest degree placing in the strongest light the argument for peace and war. When we were engaged in war, we had warriors ready to gain us laurels in the field, or to wield our thunders on the sea. When, again, we returned to peace, the questions of internal policy, of education of the poor, and of criminal law, found men ready to devote the most splendid abilities to the welfare of the most indigent class of the community! "And then exclaims the noble Lord, with just and eloquent indignation at the thought:—"And, Sir, shall we change an instrument which has produced effects so wonderful, for a burnished and tinsel article of modern manufacture? No! small as the remaining treasure of the Constitution is, I cannot consent to throw it into the wheel for the chance of obtaining a prize in the lottery of Constitutions." Now, Sir I think I have fulfilled my promise, that I would present the House with as just and beautiful a panegyric on the British Constitution emphatic a warning against the danger of tampering with it, as practical wisdom ever uttered. Let it not be forgotten, that this speech was delivered in the year 1819,—a period when the internal state
1344
of the country was such, that almost every page of your Debates teems with the proofs of internal disorder. There was a Seizure of Arms Bill, a Blasphemous Libel Bill, a Seditious Meetings Prevention Bill, a Newspaper Stamp Duty Bill, and a Bill to prevent Training and Exercise, each following the other in sad succession. Why, Sir, there might be in 1819, when these Six Acts of coercion were necessarily introduced,—there might be in the circumstances of the time some justification for the measure of reform. The member for Calne might then have said with some plausibility, "You have exhausted every measure of restraint,—try now the measure of Reform:" but it is strange to hear that argument used in 1831, when every one of the coercive measures of 1819 has been blotted from the Statute-book.— Now, Sir, allow me to ask the noble Lord, in his own emphatic language, "What cause should now induce me to exchange the old lamp for a burnished and tinselled article of modern manufacture?" And if some deputy from the trading company of which we heard last night—if some agent of Althorp and Co.—some dealer in the new lights—should offer me his tinsel lamp in lieu of the old one, am I not at liberty to spurn his offer, and would it not be just to inflict on him the penalty of reading, in a sonorous voice, his own speech in condemnation of his own article? It has been insinuated that among those who oppose this measure, are some who wish to convert it into the instrument of recovering power for themselves. Disclaimers of the wish for power are apt to find no favour, and I say little on that head; but to a certain extent I must explain myself. When last in Office, I could not have proposed Reform as a Minister of the Crown. I deprecated the agitation of such a question at the instance of the Crown. But having left Office, and being, reduced to the station of a private individual, I was then at liberty to take other views of this subject. I had to balance the danger of moderate Reform against the monstrous evil of perpetual change in the executive Government of this country; and I do not hesitate to avow, that there might have been proposed certain alterations in our representative system, founded on safe principles, abjuring all confiscation, and limited in their degree, to which I would have assented. I see a smile on the faces of some hon. Gentlemen

1345
opposite. I am speaking with the utmost unreserve and sincerity. I never conferred upon this point, upon my honour, with any individual whatever. I am not stating this as an indication of any other plan which I have to propose. I am stating the course which I should have taken as a private individual, having a deeper interest in the prosperity of this country than any that I could possibly have in a return to office. But in this plan, which proceeds upon so extensive a principle, amounting, in fact, to a reconstruction—to use the words of the noble Lord himself—of this House, I cannot concur; and I so wholly despair of modifying its provisions in any way, that when the time shall come, I shall have no alternative but to give my positive dissent to the proposed measure. I do this because I am wholly dissatisfied with it. Having listened attentively to the plan, I am wholly unconvinced by the arguments of the noble Lord. Really, Sir, I fear I am wearying the House; but the subject is of such immense importance that it constitutes an apology even for unseasonable length. Let me then address myself to the arguments of the noble Lord. They are arguments which, if good for anything, will preclude this from being the final change. We shall be bound to proceed further. The noble Lord said, with some inconsiderate frankness, that he found the Constitution of this country in the 25th of Edward 1st, and the Statute "De tallagio non concedendo." The Constitution of England in the reign of Edward 1st!— And what did he find there?—that no taxes could be imposed without the consent of they whole commonalty of the realm; and therefore, says the noble Lord, "if this be a question of right, as I contend it is, the right is on the side of the reformer." These are the noble Lord's own words. But if it be a question of right, and if the right be on the side of the reformer, why, I would ask, does the noble Lord limit the franchise to particular districts and particular classes? Win-confine the privilege of voting to those who rent a House rated at 10 l. a-year. The law knows no distinction in this respect between the contributors to the support of the State. Yet the noble Lord not only refuses the right of voting to persons rated at less than 10 l., but he also disfranchises many who contribute to the public taxes, and who now possess
1346
the privilege of suffrage. I conceive the noble Lord's plan to be founded altogether upon an erroneous principle. Its great defect, in my opinion, is that to which an objection has been urged with great force and ability by the hon. member for Callington. The objection is this—that it severs all connexion between the lower classes of the community and the direct representation in this House; I think it a fatal objection, that every Sink between the representative and the constituent body should be separated, so far as regards the lower classes. It is an immense advantage that there is at present no class of people, however humble, which is not entitled to a voice in the election of representatives. I think this system would be defective if it were extended further; but at the same time I consider it an inestimable advantage, that no class of the community should be able to say they are not entitled, in some way or other, to a share in the privilege of choosing the representatives of the people in this House. Undoubtedly, if I had to choose between two modes of representation, and two, only, and if it were put to me whether I would prefer that system which would send the hon. member for Windsor, or that which would return the hon. member for Preston. I should, undoubtedly, prefer that by which the hon. member for Windsor would be returned; but I am not in this dilemma, and am at perfect liberty to protest against a principle which excludes altogether the member for Preston. I think it an immense advantage that the class which includes the weavers of Coventry and the pot-wallopers of Preston has a share in the privileges of the present system. The individual right is limited, and properly limited, within narrow bounds; but the class is represented. It has its champion within your walls, the organ of its feeling, and the guardian of its interests. But what will be the effect of cutting off altogether the communication between this House and all that class of society which is above pauperism, and below the arbitrary and impassable line of 10 l. rental which you have selected? If you were establishing a perfectly new system of representation, and were unfettered by the recollections of the past, and by existing modes of society, would it be wise to exclude altogether the sympathies of this class? How much more unwise, when you find it possessed from time immemorial

1347
of the privilege!—to take the privilege away, and to subject a great, powerful, jealous, and intelligent, mass of your population to the injury—aye, and to the stigma, of entire uncompensated exclusion! Well, but, says my noble friend (Viscount Palmerston) "Our plan at least does this —it cures that anomaly, that absurdity of the present system, which gives to voters the right of voting for places where they do not reside." My noble friend is shocked, that men who have, or who may acquire the right of voting for places in which they do reside, should enjoy the right of voting for other places from which they are habitually absent. Well, Sir, this at least must be admitted, that my noble friend is liberal in thus consenting to the disfranchisement of a great majority of his own constituents, the non-resident Masters of Arts of Cambridge.
Lord Palmerston.—They will still continue to vote; the rule of non-residence will not apply to Universities.
Sir Robert Peel.—Not apply to the Universities! Every non-resident voter in England to be disfranchised, except non- resident Masters of Arts! And do you think that the disfranchised class will acquiesce in the reason and justice of this exception? Why may not the nonresident voter of Norwich, who cannot find employment in the place of his nativity—who is earning an honest subsistence in London—why may not he plead just as good a reason for his absence from the town, where he is now entitled to vote, as the non-resident clergyman of Cambridge or Oxford? And mark the difference; the latter will almost certainly acquire, under this very Bill, the right of voting for a district in which he does reside—the former may, probably, never be able to acquire it. To the one you give a new right of voting, and also continue to him the possession of the old one; while, to the latter, you give no new right, and yet you deprive him, for a reason which equally applies to both—namely, non-residence— of the privilege of which he is now possessed. And this is your notion of justice and conciliation! A word more as to the disfranchisement of non-resident voters. One of the loudest complaints we now hear is directed against the influence exercised over voters by their landlords. We have petition after petition pointing to what has occurred at Newark and Stamford, as one of the strongest proofs of
1348
the defective state of our representative system. What is the effect of your Bill? It is to confine the right of voting to a class, the great majority of which must be tenanls subject to the influence of their landlords; and to deprive of the right of voting that class whose right accrues from their being freemen of a Corporation on account of birth or servitude—who are all liable, as others are, to the temptation of bribery—but who possess an inalienable right of voting, not acquired by, and in no way dependant on, the will of the aristocracy. These considerations, Sir, however important, are but subordinate, when compared with the changes which must take place in the practical working of the Constitution. In defence of it, we have frequently referred with exultation to the names of those men who were indebted for their first return to Parliament to some borough of comparative insignificance, and who, had that avenue not been open, might, probably, have never had the opportunity of distinguishing themselves in the public service. This argument has been met, in the course of this Debate, by two observations. The first fell from the member for Westminster, the second from the Member for Calne. Says the member for Westminster—and the remark comes with a bad grace from a man of his ability—" I admit that the small boroughs return frequently very able men, but I think we have had too much ability; we have suffered much from the talents of able men; and I want a system of representation which will give us honest rather than able men." I reply, first, that it is absurd to suppose that the man of ability will be less honest than the man of no ability; and, secondly, that any system which tended to exclude from this House men of the first ability of their day, would be a great practical evil. If the average of the talent and general acquirements of this House should ever be below the general average of society, this House would sink in public estimation, and the distrust in our opinions and judgments would very rapidly spread downwards, from the class of persons more enlightened than ourselves, to the great mass of society. The second observation to which I have referred fell from the member for Calne. He, too, admits that men of first-rate ability have occasionally owed their entrance into Parliament to small boroughs. "But then," says he,—and says very

1349
justly,—" we must judge of every human contrivance, not by its accidents, but by its tendencies." "No plan of selection (says he) could be hit upon which would not give you occasionally able men;—take the hundred tallest men that you meet in the streets, you will, probably, have some able men among the number." The cheers with which this remark was followed were so encouraging, that the hon. gentleman proceeded to illustrate his arguments by various other instances. "Take (says he) the first hundred names in the Court Guide,—adopt any other principle of selection that you will,—occasionally and accidentally able men will be ensured by it." Now, Sir, I am content to try the merits of our present representative system by the hon. Member's own test. I repeat with him, that it is by tendencies, and not by accidents, that we are to judge of its merits. For the purpose of submitting those merits to that test, I wrote down this morning the names of those distinguished men who have appeared in this House, during the last forty or fifty years, as brilliant lights above the horizon, and whose memory, to quote the expression of Lord Plunkett, has had buoyancy enough to float down to posterity on the stream of time. I made this selection of these men, in the first instance, without a thought of the places they severally represented. I looked to their ability and their fame alone. If I have omitted any, their names may be added, but I believe the list I shall read will contain all the names that are of the highest eminence. It includes the names of Dunning, Lord North, Charles Townsend, Burke, Fox, Pitt, Lord Grenville, Sheridan, Windham, Perceval, Lord Wellesley, Lord Plunkett, Canning, Huskisson, Brougham, Horner, Romilly, Tierney, Sir William Grant, Lord Liverpool, Lord Castlereagh, Lord Grey. I will now read the names of the places for which they were respectively returned, on their first entrance into public life:—Dunning was returned for Calne— Lord North for Banbury—Burke for Wen-dover—Charles Townsend for Saltash —Pitt for Appleby—Fox for Midhurst— Lord Grenville for Buckingham—Sheridan for Stafford—Windham for Norwich—Lord Wellesley for Beeralston—Perceval for Northampton—Plunkett for Midhurst— Canning for Newton—Huskisson for Mor-peth—Brougham for Camelford—Romilly for Queenborough—Homer for Wendover
1350
—Lord Castlereagh for the county of Down—Ticrncy for Southwark—Sir William Grant for Shaftesbury—Lord Grey for Northumberland—Lord Liverpool for Rye. These arc the names of, I believe, the most, distinguished men of the times in which they lived. They are twenty-two in number. Sixteen, on first entering public life, were returned for boroughs every one of which, without an exception, the noble Lord proposes to extinguish. Some few of these distinguished men owed, it is true, their first return to a more numerous body of constituents. Mr. Sheridan was first returned for Stafford—Mr. Windham for Norwich—Lord Castlereagh for the county of Down—Mr. Tierney for Southwark—Lord Grey for Northumberland—but it is equally true that, for some cause or other, either the caprice of popular bodies, or the inconvenience of Ministers of the Crown sitting for populous places, in every one of these cases the honour of the populous place is relinquished for the repose of the small borough. Mr. Sheridan quits Stafford for Hehcster—Mr. Windham takes refuge in Higham Ferrers—Mr. Tierney prefers Knares borough to Southwark—Lord Castlereagh rejects Down for Orford—and Lord Grey consoles himself for the loss of Northumberland by appealing, with success, to the electors of Tavistock. Now, then, I have applied your own test, I have looked not to accidents but to tendencies, and I ask you, whether the tendency of the present system of representation is not to secure to distinguished ability a seat in the public councils'? But, after all, this question must be determined by a reference to still higher considerations. The noble Lord has pointed out the theoretical defects in our present system of representation; he has appealed to the people; he has desired them to accompany him to the green mounds of Old Sarum, and the ruined niches of Midhurst. I, too, make my appeal to that same people. I ask them, when they have finished poring over the imputed blots in their form of Government, when they have completed their inspection of the impurities of Old Sarum, and Gatton, and Midhurst, I ask them to elevate their vision, Os homini sublime dedit, to include within their view a wider range than that to which the noble Lord would limit them. I ask them to look back upon a period of 150 years—to bear in mind that their Constitution, in its

1351
present form, has so long endured,—and I ask them where, among the communities of Europe, do you find institutions which have afforded the same means of happiness, and the same security for liberty? I conjure them to bear in mind the result of every attempt that has hitherto been made to imitate our own institutions. In France, in Spain, in Portugal, in Belgium, the utmost efforts have been exhausted to establish a form of government like ours, —to adjust the nice balance between the conflicting elements of royal, aristocratical, and popular power—to secure the inestimable blessings of limited monarchy and temperate freedom. Up to this hour those efforts have signally failed—I say not from what causes, or through whose fault—but the fact of their failure cannot be denied. Look beyond the limits of Europe, and judge of the difficulties of framing new institutions for the government of man. If power can be so safely intrusted to the people—if they are so competent to govern themselves—such enlightened judges of their own interests, why has it happened that, up to this hour, every experiment to establish and regulate popular control over executive government has, with one single exception, failed? Where are the happy republics of South America? What has obstructed their formation? What has prevented the people from exercising the new power conferred upon them to the advancement of their own interest, and the confirmation of their own liberties? Let us beware how we are deluded by the example of a single successful experiment—how we conclude, that because the form of government in the United States is more popular than our own—that it would be safe, therefore, to make ours more popular than it is. The present form of the American government has not endured more than forty years. It dates its institution, not from the establishment of American independence, but from the year 1789. Even within that period, the spirit of that government has undergone a change, it is not the same as it was at its original formation; its constant tendency has been towards the establishment of a more pure and unmixed democracy. If I were to grant, that it is a form of Government constantly tending towards improvement, that it is calculated permanently to guarantee vigour in war and internal repose, and to meet all the growing wants of a great
1352
nation, still the circumstances of the two countries are so totally different, that no inference could be drawn from the success of such a form of government in the United States, in favour of the application of its principles to this country. The boundless extent of unoccupied land in the United States—the absence of all remote historical recollections—of an ancient monarchy—a powerful aristocracy— an Established Church—the different distribution of property in the two countries, are all circumstances essentially varying the character of the institutions suitable to each country. We should do well to consider, before we consent to the condemnation of our own institutions, what are the dangers which menace States with ruin or decay. Compare our fate with that of other countries of Europe during the period of the last century and a half. Not one has been exempt from the miseries of foreign invasion,— scarcely one has preserved its independence inviolate. In how many have there been changes of the dynasty, or the severest conflicts between the several orders of the State? In this country we have had to encounter severe trials, and have encountered them with uniform success. Amid foreign wars, the shock of disputed successions, rebellion at home, extreme distress, the bitter contention of parties, the institutions of this country have stood uninjured. The ambition of military conquerors—of men endeared by success, to disciplined armies, never have endangered, and never could endanger the supremacy of the law, or master the control of public opinion. These were the powerful instruments that shattered with impunity the staff of Marl-borough, and crumbled into dust the power of Wellington. Other States have fallen from the too great influence of a military spirit, and the absorption of power by standing armies. What is the character of the armies which our commanders led to victory? The most formidable engines that skill and valour could direct against a foreign enemy; but in peace, the pliant, submissive instruments of civil power. "Give us," says the member for Waterford, "give us for the repression of outrage and insurrection the regular army, for the people respect it for its courage, and love it for its courteous forbearance, and patience, and ready subjection to the law." And what, Sir, are the practical advantages which we are now promised, as

1353
the consequence of the change we are invited to make,—as the compensation for the risk we must incur. Positively not one. Up to this hour, no one has pretended that we shall gain anything by the change, excepting, indeed, that we shall conciliate the public favour. Why, no doubt, you cannot propose to share your power with half a million of men without gaining some popularity—without purchasing by such a bribe some portion of good-will. But these are vulgar arts of government; others will outbid you, not now, but at no remote period—they will offer votes and power to a million of men, will quote your precedent for the concession, and will carry your principles to their legitimate and natural consequences. On all former occasions, some inducements were held out to us to embark on this perilous voyage. We used to be told that we should acquire new securities against ruinous wars; as if every war, according to the express admission of Mr. Fox, up to the time at which he was speaking, and every subsequent war, had not been the war of the people. We used to be told that great retrenchment, great reduction of taxes, must inevitably follow Reform; but we are told this no longer, since a reforming Government has found it necessary to increase the public expenditure in the very year in which they propose Reform. But Reform is necessary for the purpose of curtailing the influence of the Crown in this House. Some say, that through the influence of the Crown, others that through the influence of the aristocracy, bad Ministers are kept in office against the wishes and interests of the people; and that this is effected through the means of enormous patronage, and for the purpose of sharing in its spoils. The influence of the Crown, indeed! The power of the Peerage to maintain unpopular Ministers against the public opinion! And this is gravely said at the time when you have had five different Administrations in four years; five Prime Ministers in rapid succession, from Lord Liverpool to Lord Grey. I lament—deeply lament, the time which has been chosen for the introduction of this measure. It is brought forward at a period of great excitement; when men are scarcely sober judges of the course which it is fitting to pursue. This has been always the case with Reform; it has been uniformly brought forward, either at the times of domestic calamity, or
1354
when the agitations of other States had infected us with extravagant and temporary enthusiasm for what was considered the cause of liberty. Look at the great periods of commercial or agricultural distress. You will almost invariably find Reform in Parliament proposed as the panacea for distress, and finding favour just so long as the distress has endured. If you find a debate on Parliamentary Reform, be assured that "some dire disaster follows close behind." Look again at the political struggles in other States. They never have occurred without suggesting to us the necessity of Parliamentary Reform. In 1782, shortly after the great contest in North America, and the establishment of an independent and popular Government in the United States, Mr. Pitt brought forward the question of Parliamentary Reform. It remained dormant altogether from 1785 to 1790. The revolution in France had then commenced, and Mr. Flood, who brought forward the question in 1790, appealed to the example of France as a powerful reason for adopting Reform at home. He dwelt on the shame of England in being behind any other country in the race for liberty, and prophesied that France was about to establish a popular, and therefore a pacific government—abjuring all wars and all aggressions, because they were contrary to the interests of the people. We, fortunately, waited a short period, and found that his prophecies were not very accurately fulfilled. In 1820, Revolutions took place in Italy, in Spain, and in other parts of the Continent. In 1821, we had a motion for Reform; and the author of that motion, the present Lord Durham, then Mr. Lambton, hailed the events that had occurred on the Continent as the auspicious dawn of liberty abroad, and improvement here. He said, speaking of the force of public opinion—"Where its power and justice are acknowledged, as in Spain, the prospect is most cheering. We see disaffection instantaneously quelled, venerable and rotten abuses reformed —superstition eradicated—and the monarch and the people united under a Constitution which alike secures the privileges of the one, and the liberties of the other. May I not, then, consistently hail the rising of the star, in what was once the most gloomy portion of the European horizon, as a light to shew us the way through all our dangers and difficulties,

1355
as a splendid memorial of the all-conquering power of public opinion?" Again we waited, and now I ask, was the star that appeared in Spain that steady light by which it was fitting that our steps should be guided? or was it the return of an eccentric comet, shedding "disastrous twilight, "and "with fear of change perplexing monarchs?" We are arrived at 1831, and Reform is again proposed, whilst the events of the last year in Paris and Brussels are bewildering the judgment of many, and provoking a restless, unquiet disposition, unfit for the calm consideration of such a question. I, too, refer to the condition of France, and I hold up the late revolution in France, not as an example, but as a warning to this country. Granted that the resistance to authority was just; but look at the effects,—on the national prosperity, on industry, on individual happiness,—even of just resistance. Let us never be tempted to resign the well-tempered freedom which we enjoy, in the ridiculous pursuit of the wild liberty which France has established. What avails that liberty which has neither justice nor wisdom for its companions—which neither brings peace nor prosperity in its train? It was the duty of the King's Government to abstain from agitating this ques-
1356
tion at such a period as the present—to abstain from the excitement throughout this land of that conflict-(God grant it may be only a moral conflict!—which must arise between the possessors of existing privileges, and those to whom they are to be transferred. It was the duty of the Government to calm, not to stimulate, the fever of popular excitement. They have adopted a different course—they have sent through the land the firebrand of agitation, and no one can now recall it. Let us hope that there are limits to their powers of mischief. They have, like the giant enemy of the Philistines, lighted three hundred brands, and scattered through the country discord and dismay; but God forbid that they should, like him, have the power to concentrate in death all the energies that belong to life, and to signalize their own destruction by bowing to the earth the pillars of that sacred edifice, which contains within its walls, according even to their own admission, "the noblest society of freemen in the world."
When the right hon. Baronet resumed his seat, Mr. Gisborne moved the adjournment of the Debate, which was agreed to, and the adjournment ordered till the following day.

MINUTES.
Bills. The Twelve Millions Exchequer Bills Bill, and the Bankruptcy Court Bill, were read a third time and passed. The Appropriation Bill, Consolidated Fund Bill, and the Pensions Bill, were read a second time.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Lord CARBERY, an account of the several Sums advanced for the purpose of making Roads, and other public works in Ireland in the
1254
year 1822, and the subsequent years, up to the present time; specifying the counties in which such works were carried on; the names of the Engineers, under whose direction they were conducted; the amount of money paid to each; the number of miles laid down in the several plans and specifications, distinguishing each, and how far those works have been carried into execution.
Petitions presented. Against the Tithe System, by Lord DURHAM, from Cambridge: — By Lord KING, from owners and Occupiers of Land, in the Isle of Ely, in the Comity of Norfolk; from certain places in Lincolnshire: from Dunmore, and the Parish of Kells, in the County of Kilkenny; and from several places in the Counties of Mayo, Limerick, Surrey, Somerset, Devon, and Cornwall. For the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes, by the same noble Lord, from the Ward of Bread-street:— By Lord DURHAM, from St. Paul's, Covent Garden. By the same noble Lord, from Durham, for the Repeal of the Coal Duties. For the Extension of the Calway Franchise, from the Commonalty of Tuam, by the Marquis of LANSDOWN:—From Clare, by the Marquis of CLEVELAND:— From the Protestants of St. Nicholas, Galway, by the Duke of BUCKINGHAM. For Reform, by the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Chesham: — By Lord KING, from Out-well. For the Repeal of the Union, by the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Kilfeenaghty. By Lord TEYNHAM, from Mr. Fitzpatrick, against the Corporation of Dublin.

NEW CHURCHES.
Lord Dacrepresented a Petition from the Rev. Mr. Bliss, Rector of a populous Parish near Chichester, praying that the New Church Building Bill might be so amended, as not to affect his right to the presentation of a new Chapel, built in his parish by a Mr. Baker. The Commissioners under the former Church Building Acts, had given the right of presentation to Mr. Baker, but Mr. Bliss contended that it belonged to him, and had instituted, or was about to institute, proceedings to establish that right; and he was apprehensive that the provisions of the Church Building Bill, now before their Lordships, would interfere with his proceedings.
The Bishop of Chichesterobserved, that Mr. Baker had complied with the requisites of the Act, and the Commissioners thought they had a right to give him the presentation, and he had acted upon their authority. If he had fallen into an error, it was owing to the Commissioners.
The Bishop of Londonobserved, that the Bill would not in the least affect Mr. Bliss's right, nor interfere with any proceeding of his to establish it.
Petition laid on the Table.

PRIVILEGE.
Lord Farnhamcalled the attention of their Lordships to a subject which affected their privileges. He was unwilling to obtrude upon them anything which concerned himself alone; but as this matter was connected with the subject of their Lordships' privileges, he thought himself bound to lay the matter

1255
before their Lordships. In consequence of the part which he had lately taken in defence of the Archbishop of Dublin, he had received a threatening letter.
Earl Greymoved, that strangers be excluded, and strangers being ordered to withdraw, complaint was made to the House by Lord Farnham, of a letter received by him from Lieutenant Thomas Woodcock, animadverting upon a speech made by his Lordship in the House, on the 21st of February last. A witness being examined to prove the handwriting of the said Lieutenant Woodcock, he was ordered to attend the House on Thursday, the 17th instant, to answer the said complaint.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.—MISAPPLICATION OF PUBLIC MONEY.
On the admission of strangers again into the House,
The Earl of Carnarvonwas speaking about a Petition which he had presented from certain Copyholders, praying for Reform in Parliament, and for the extension to them of a share in the Elective Franchise. He had no objection to the presentation of the petition; and their Lordships were aware, that if the measure on the subject of Reform, which had been brought into the other House, should pass, the petitioners would have their wishes fully gratified. They were to have the privilege which they prayed for, under the new Constitution. The plan went to establish a new Constitution; and, if the old Constitution was worn out, and could not stand any longer, and this new Constitution was to be substituted for it, he need say nothing in support of the prayer of the petition, since the case was amply-provided for by the new Constitution. He was anxious to make a few observations on the measure in question; but understanding that the noble Baron (Wharncliffe) near him, intended to submit a motion on the subject to their Lordships on Monday, he would reserve what he had to say till that motion should be made, when he could enter upon the discussion in a proper and regular manner. Any observations of his on the subject at present, might be objected to as premature, and, therefore, he would abstain from saying anything, till he could regularly discuss the question.
Earl Greyapproved of the course which the noble Earl had taken, in refraining
1256
from an irregular and premature discussion of the subject of Reform, and he would follow the noble Earl's example, and refrain from making any observations on the subject except one, which a remark of the noble Earl, on the plan under the consideration of the other House, justified him in making now. The noble Earl had said, that the plan was a measure, not for the reform of the old Constitution, but for the substitution for the old of an entirely new Constitution. That was the way in which the noble Earl had designated and represented the measure, and against that mode of designating and representing it, he most decidedly protested. That was not the true character of the plan, and when the proper time for the discussion came, he would prove that it was not a measure introducing anew Constitution, but a plan, reverting back to the principle of the old Constitution, from which very material deviations had occurred, from lapse of time, and the introduction of abuses. The object was, to establish the elective franchise on the true ancient principles of the Constitution, and thus to restore to Parliament the confidence of the nation in general. He, in this plan, for which, in conjunction with his colleagues he was responsible, had, in all the changes which he had suggested, kept the principles of the old Constitution steadily in view, and had carefully conformed to these principles, avoiding the formation of anything like a new Constitution. His object had been, to found the alterations made in this plan on the basis of the old Constitution, and restore its principles to their original efficacy, which had been lost or rendered ineffective, by those injurious practices and innovations, which had crept in through lapse of time, and the gradual increase of abuses. Such had been his object, and that of his colleagues in office, and such he maintained was the true character of the measure, us he should be prepared to prove when it came properly under discussion. At present he would refrain from any further observations on the subject.
Lord Wharncliffewas of opinion, that the measure did introduce a new Constitution, and was not calculated to reform the old Constitution, but to establish a. new one. He gave notice, that he would move for Returns relative to the population of certain boroughs, with reference to the measure in question.
Lord Wynfordagreed, that the more proper course was, to abstain from any discussion of the subject at present, nor was it his intention to enter upon it. But he denied that the measure was properly characterised, when it was said, that it was one which reverted to the principles of the ancient Constitution. The principle of the Bill was, to make the right of voting depend on the amount of population. Now, that was not the principle of the old Constitution. By that Constitution, the right of voting was given to the tenants in capite, or those who held immediately from the Crown; and it was given to the boroughs, because they paid more than their due proportion of taxes, without reference to their population; and another reason was, that the Members returned for the boroughs might support the Crown against the great Barons. That was the old principle, although now the effect was often the reverse of what was originally intended.
Lord Kingsaid, that the noble and learned Lord, it appeared, considered the principle of the old Constitution to be, to give the right of voting to the great Lords, who were tenants in capite of the Crown. If so, then, in the estimation of the noble and learned Lord, the perfection of the system was to be found in Scotland, where the superiors or tenants, in capite, had the monopoly of the right of voting, and where there was no representation that deserved the name; and yet this was what the noble and learned Lord considered to be the principle of the old Constitution of England; and such was the principle which he would wish to establish here. He could not hear these attacks on his Majesty's Ministers, without expressing his most cordial approbation of their measure of Reform, and his respect for and gratitude to them,—a feeling which, he was persuaded, he shared, with the immense majority of the most respectable and substantial part of the community. It was a real constitutional and effective Reform, which restored the right of sending Members of the House of Commons to the people; a right of which they had now for a long time been unjustly deprived. It was a measure of the greatest importance that had been recorded in the history of this country, since the expulsion of James 2nd; and its adoption was essential to the preservation of the liberties of the country; for attempting to trample
1258
on which, the infatuated race of the Stuarts were driven from the throne, and expelled the country. It was a plan which would insure to the country liberty, peace, and safety, and one for which the Ministers deserved the deepest gratitude of the nation. In the quarter of a year in which they had been in office, they had brought forward this great measure of Parliamentary Reform, and they had also brought forward a great measure of Reform in the Law, which no one could have brought forward, except his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. Nor did their merits stop here; for they had exposed the malversations with respect to the public money which had for some time prevailed in the Admiralty; and there was reason to believe, that they would expose malversations and abuses in the Colonial Department. If these things were not sufficient to entitle them to the gratitude of the country, he did not know how any Ministers had ever been entitled or could be entitled to it.
Lord Wynfordexplained, that he had not said what the noble Baron imputed to him. He had said nothing as to what ought to be done. All that he had said was, that this measure—be it good or bad —was not founded on reverting to the ancient principles of the Constitution.
The Duke of Wellingtondid not mean at present to enter on the discussion of the plan of Reform which had been introduced in another place, but would reserve himself until the subject came regularly before their Lordships, on the motion of the noble Lord near him for the production of papers relative to the population of the boroughs. At present he wished only to say a few words on the charges made against his noble friend, who had been at the head of the Admiralty, in his absence, and when he had no opportunity of justifying himself. There was no man more unlikely to have been guilty of malversation than his noble friend, and it would have been but fair and candid in the noble Baron to have given notice of a motion for the production of documents to support the charge before he made it. If the noble Lord had done that, then there would have been an opportunity of ascertaining precisely how the matter stood, and of explaining that which might appear at first view to be wrong. Unless the noble Baron chose to take that course, these charges, made in the absence

1259
of his noble friend, would better have been avoided. Then the noble Baron said, that there would be an exposure of malversation in the Colonies; but he had better have waited till the present noble Secretary for the Colonies should bring-forward that exposure. The fact was, that attempts had been continually made to fasten charges of malversation on the Colonial Department for the last ton years, and they had all utterly failed. The noble Baron ought to bring before the House documentary or other evidence to prove that the charges were well founded, or he ought to abstain from making them at all. As to the measure of Reform now under consideration in another place, he would postpone the observations which he had to make on it till it came regularly under discussion. But. he might now call on the Ministers, who had brought forward such a measure on their own responsibility, to explain in what manner they proposed to carry on the monarchical government of this country under the state of things which must be the result of the adoption by Parliament of such a measure as this.
The Duke of Buckinghamwished to know, whether it was the intention of the noble Secretary for the Colonies to bring forward anything in the shape of charges of malversation against his predecessor in office?
Lord Kingdenied, that he had made any charge of malversation against the late Secretary for the Colonial Department. What he had said, or meant to say, was, that abuses existed in the administration of the colonies which would now, as he hoped, be exposed and remedied.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, that the noble Baron had made use of the word malversation in the affairs of the colonies.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, the noble Boron had explained what he meant, and it was always the rule to take a noble Lord's explanation of his meaning as his real meaning; and the noble Duke's persisting in imputing to the noble Baron an accusation which he said he never meant to make, was unparliamentary.
The Duke of Buckinghamhad only meant to say, that the noble Baron had used the word "malversation;" but it often happened, that in the hurry of debate, expressions were used which conveyed a meaning other than what was intended, and of course the noble Baron's explanation of his meaning was to be
1260
taken as the true one. But then the noble Baron had certainly brought a charge of malversation against the Admiralty, which had better been avoided, in the absence of the late First Lord of the Admiralty, unless the noble Baron was prepared to support it by documentary or oilier evidence.
Lord King: What he meant by malversation was this—that the Admiralty had applied money which had been appropriated by Parliament to one branch of the naval service, to another branch of that service; and that, without giving notice, or rendering an account to Parliament; money which had been put in the estimates for naval stores, and voted by Parliament for that branch of the service, had been applied by the Admiralty to the payment of a greater number of seamen than had been voted by Parliament, and of this no notice was given, nor was any account rendered to Parliament. This he called a misapplication, and malversation in the management of the public money, and the fact had already been sufficiently proved. The noble Duke (Wellington) had said, that he ought to have called for documents, and proved his charge by evidence before he made it. But from that he had refrained, since the subject might, perhaps, come before their Lordships in a much more grave and serious manner, by an impeachment. Had it not been for this, he would have had the highest satisfaction in calling for accounts and documents in support of his charge.
The Duke of Wellington The Duke of Wellington, thought, that if the noble Baron was so scrupulous about calling for accounts and documents, he might as well have refrained from making the charge.
Lord Goderich Lord Goderich, in answer to the noble Duke's (Buckingham) question, stated, that he had no intention to bring forward, any charge for malversation in the colonies, otherwise he would have given notice of a motion, and brought forward the charge in the regular way.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, that was such an answer as might have been expected from the noble Secretary for the Colonies.
Earl Greyregretted these topics had been alluded to, and though he had no wish to prolong the discussion, he must say a few words. He could assure their Lordships that there was no intention what-

1261
ever to make any charge against the noble Lord who had been lately at the head of the Admiralty, on account of any malversation in the office. There was no imputation on the character of that noble Lord, who was well known to be a person of the highest integrity and respectability. Nor was there any intention whatever to impute anything improper to the late Secretary for the Colonies. But with regard to the Admiralty, he regretted that there had existed, for a considerable time, a great, irregularity in the application of the money voted for the naval service. Occasions might no doubt arise, in which it might be highly expedient to take money from one branch to be applied to another branch, and in which a Minister would be justified in doing so on his own responsibility. But the first opportunity ought to be taken to give notice to Parliament, and to render the accounts to Parliament. For the noble Lord who had been lately at the head of the Admiralty he had the highest respect, and there was no intention whatever to impute to him that he had done anything contrary to what he thought to be his duty. But it was necessary that the irregularity should be put an end to, and for that purpose it was necessary that it should be brought under the notice of Parliament. As to the question put by the noble Duke, about the manner in which the government of this country could be carried on under a state of things which would follow from the adoption of the measure of Reform, he should be prepared to show, when that measure should come regularly under discussion, that the Government could be carried on with a reformed Parliament much more safely and more perfectly than at present; and in order to show this, he should have little more to do than to prove that it was not necessary to the safety, nor to the prosperity, of the monarchy that the Government should be conducted on a system of corruption and patronage.
The Earl of Haddingtonobserved, that no man could be more incapable of malversation than the noble Lord who had been lately at the head of the Admiralty. Of this, every one who knew that noble Lord must feel well assured.
Lord Bexleyhad, from the official situations which he had long held, the means of knowing, that when money was voted by Parliament for the naval service, the officer at the head of the department
1262
had been allowed a considerable latitude as to its application to the different branches of that service: whether or not it would be adviseable to alter that plan, he was not prepared to say, but he knew that what had been recently complained of in the other House of Parliament was a very old and well-known practice.
Lord Kingwished the sense to be distinctly understood in which he used the word malversation. Certain sums were stated in estimates as required for each branch of the service, and for each branch these sums were voted and appropriated. It had been the practice of the Admiralty to take money from, one branch and to apply it to another, in the teeth of the parliamentary appropriation; and that, too, without any notice given or account rendered to Parliament. This was clearly a malversation, and the assumption of a power which it was never the intention of Parliament to intrust to any Minister. It was to express that fact, and no other, that he had used the word.
Earl Greycould not concur with the noble Baron (Dexley) in the latitude which he seemed inclined to give to the Lords of the Admiralty in the application of the public money. He was aware, as he before stated, that occasions might occur in which it would be necessary or expedient for the Ministers to have recourse to this mode of applying public money. But then they certainly ought to give notice to Parliament, and show that it was proper, under the circumstances, to adopt that course.
Petition laid on the Table.
The Marquis of Clevelandhad a Petition to present on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, and hoped that their Lordships would indulge him with the liberty of making a few observations on the subject, as they had done to others. He had heard the declaration made by the Ministers, a few days previous to the recess, respecting the course which they meant to pursue on the subject of Reform. The noble Earl at the head of the Ministry had, very soon after his appointment to the situation, explicitly declared his intention to introduce a measure of Reform, and that declaration had been most gratifying to him. The Ministers had made other declarations with which he had been highly gratified, but for the present he confined himself to the declaration as to Reform, which was the subject of this Petition,

1263
Whatever might have been said in another place as to his opinions on the subject, he had all his life been a friend to Reform, and, as his years increased, his sense of the necessity for Reform had increased also. It would be improper and irregular at present to enter upon the discussion of a measure which was under consideration in the other Mouse of Parliament: it was sufficient at present to know that there was such a measure in progress; and he spoke of the question in general, and, so speaking, he gave it as his opinion, that Reform was absolutely necessary, and he would support it with all his power. He was aware, from what had been said in another place, that he might be liable to the suspicion of saying one thing when he meant another. But that was not his way. He had never changed his opinion on this subject. He had always been a friend to Reform, and was so still; and his opinion of the necessity of Reform had only been strengthened by time. He did not mean to say, that he would go the length of approving of the whole of any measure of Reform that might be introduced into Parliament. But the principle of the measure was good, and he would support it as far as the principle was concerned, although he might not approve of it in toto. He felt himself in rather a delicate situation from what had passed in the other House; but he repeated, that his opinion in favour of Reform had never changed; and he was anxious to support a measure of Reform brought forward as a Government measure by a responsible Ministry, and the present Ministry had brought forward their measure in the most proper manner, and at the most proper time. The petition which he had to present in favour of Reform was from a very important place, with a population of from 16,000 to 17,000 souls, which ought to have a Representative. It was from the inhabitants of South Shields, in the county of Durham; and while they prayed for Reform, they left it to the Legislature to settle the most proper plan for effecting the object. As for himself, in his notions of Reform, he was neither a Radical Reformer nor an ultra Tory.—The Petition was laid on the Table.
Earl Stanhopepresented a Petition from certain Holders of Land at Marden, Kent, praying for a Repeal of the Malt. Duties. Alluding to the measure of Reform under consideration in the other House, he ob-
1264
served, that there were some objectionable things in it, but there was also much that deserved approbation, and so far he would support it. He was satisfied that Reform was essentially necessary for the safety of the country and for good Government. He did not agree that it was irregular to allude to what was passing in the other House. On the contrary, he thought that it was regular and proper, and sometimes even necessary. However, as the subject was to be brought regularly before their Lordships on Thursday, he would reserve any observations that he had to make on the measure till that opportunity. The principle, he thought, was incontrovertible; and, in the measure itself, there was much that deserved admiration and applause; but he was of opinion, that it ought in some respects to be altered.
Petition to lie on the Table.