Sitting of 3 October 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time; Pluralities. Read a second time; the Sale of Beer Act Amendment. Read a third time and passed; Churches Building Act Amendment.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Colonel EVANS, an account of the quantity of Spirits in Imperial Gallons, in bond, January, 1826, and bonded since up to the 5th January, 1851, with the quantity that had paid duty, &c.
Petitions presented. By Colonel EVANS, from Tunbridge, praying for inquiry in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle. By Mr. TYNTE, from the Landowners and Parishioners of the Borough of Bridgewater, against the General Register Bill. By Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON, from Robert Hunter, of Lunna, one of the Shetland Islands, for a Member to be granted to Shetland. By Mr. RAMSEY, against that part of the Reform Bill for Scotland, which unites Ulloa to Clackmannan, from an Inhabitant of Ulloa.

IRISH YEOMANRY.
Mr. Lambert Mr. Lambert rose to present Petitions from Gorey, Temple-shambe, Adamstown, and other places in Ireland, praying the House to adopt measures to disband the Yeomanry Corps in that country. These petitions were respectfully worded, and he fully concurred in the prayer of them. He would take that opportunity to say a few words on the deplorable transactions at Newtownbarry, as his former remarks had been contradicted. He now therefore repeated, that all his former statements, and he had taken great pains to verify them, with the exception of one fact, were perfectly true; that one was, he had stated that two of his constituents had been killed in that affray; the case was, the son of one was shot dead, and the son of another bodily wounded. He would move, that the petitions be brought up.
On the question that they be printed,—
Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, he regretted the hon. Member had again brought the subject forward, after his former statements had been so completely met by affidavits and evidence, which, in the opinion of every hon. Member who heard them, were quite conclusive.
An Hon. Memberremarked, that the aspersions on the Yeomanry Force as a

1027
body, were totally unfounded, and he trusted the Government would not listen to the remarks of persons whose only object was, to get rid of a loyal, and respectable force.
Mr. Blackney: Sir, with many of the signatures to this petition I am well acquainted; some of them are those of my constituents, and highly respectable men. I mingle with them in their afflictions, I sincerely join in the prayer of their petition. What remedy can be had for this unnatural state of things? Reform will be the antidote. Thanks to the wisdom of the Legislature, and the benignity of a just and a patriotic King, honest Representatives will hereafter portray the sufferings of his Irish subjects. From this House he will learn the true character of a people, loyal, though oppressed; easily governed in justice, but ever unmanageable under a system of coercion. Sir, my constituents complain of the slow progress of the Bill; they feel indignant at reports attributed to hon. Members in this House, as to the present state of public opinion, quite at variance with facts. Sir, I am fully sensible of the intense anxiety and impatience which prevail in Ireland on this great question. We have arrived at a crisis of the deepest interest; we are presently to choose between liberty and despotism. Shall we, the Reformers in this House, favoured as we have been by a generous and a confiding people, look on with apathy, whilst powerful enemies to their liberties are abroad, active, and insidiously at work? Sir, 'tis time that we bestir ourselves, and keep in view the powerful bearing of public opinion; and whilst we here display an earnestness worthy of freemen, and inseparable from our duty, in a cause of such vital importance to the State, we may engage the grave attention of high personages in another place, remind them of expectations out of doors, and a general apprehension of calamities, which would probably result from the discomfiture of the Bill. Sir, I will not give way to gloomy anticipations; every honest man may be in himself a host; if, then, we are faithful to our trust, the righteous cause must be triumphant. I ask pardon for having diverged from the subject immediately before the House—I feel grateful for your indulgence.
Colonel Evansdeclared it to be his opinion, that 2,000 regular troops, which might have been conveyed from this country
1028
in less time than it took to embody the Yeomanry, would have been a more efficient force than ten times that number of irregular troops.
Mr. Huntsaid, he believed the Yeomanry were more frequently employed in collecting tithes, than in any other service.
Mr. O'Connellwished that some motion might be made upon the subject of the Newtownbarry affair, so that the transaction might be discussed at once, and not brought forward so incessantly upon petitions.
Mr. John Browneknew, that in Mayo the Yeomanry was not so exclusively a Protestant force as some Gentlemen described it. Both Protestants and Catholics were admitted.
Sir Robert Batesondefended the Yeomanry. If they were not preserved, and the people came to blows, which seemed very likely, as agitators were continually going through the country, the Government must maintain 20,000 men in Ulster alone. If Catholics were sometimes ill-treated by the Yeomanry, as hon. Gentlemen said, though he did not believe it, Protestants, he could assure the House, did not escape. Frequently were they way-laid, beaten, and murdered. It would be the destruction of the Protestants in Ireland to disarm the Yeomanry.
Mr. Sheilmaintained, that the Yeomanry was exclusively a Protestant force; and unless the Government wished to provoke civil war, they ought to be disarmed.
Mr. Wysehoped that some early day would be selected for the discussion of this question, when some resolution might be adopted, which would induce the Government to take a decided course.
Mr. Henry Grattanwas of opinion, that the agitation to which hon. Members alluded, arose principally from poverty and oppression. It was not caused by the hon. and learned member for Kerry, great as were his talents. He was persuaded, that the Yeomanry only exasperated the great body of the people; and he hoped, that his Majesty's Government would take a course which shewed that it felt for them.
Petitions laid on the Table, and to be printed.

SUPPLY—CATHOLIC WITNESSES.
Lord Althorp Lord Althorp moved the Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Committee of Supply granted to his Majesty.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he wished to ask

1029
the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General), whether there was any particular law relating to Roman Catholic witnesses being sworn in a peculiar manner. The cause of his asking this question was, that he considered a witness of that persuasion had been treated with indignity by an Election Committee. He had been under examination some time, until it was thought proper to inquire into his religion, and, on his declaring himself a Catholic, the Committee decided he must be re-sworn upon a Testament having a cross upon it.
The Attorney Generalsaid, he never heard of but one law on the subject, and that was, the person to be sworn should take the oath in the way he considered binding on his conscience; and if a Catholic, therefore, on being asked, declared the form proposed to be binding upon him, it was all that could be required.
Report brought up.
Mr. Huntcomplained of the levity with which money was voted away by the House, and remonstrated against that, portion of the grant which was on account of salaries.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the whole subject had been discussed and determined on Friday last.
Report agreed to.

FINANCES OF THE COUNTRY.
House in a Committee of Ways and Means.
Lord Althorpsaid, that it was his intention to state to the House his view of the Expenditure and Revenue for the present year. He proposed to do so—first, by stating what the revenues of the year would be, then the expenditure, and lastly, what would be the balance of the account. The mode in which he would arrive at this result would be, by saying what the produce of last year was; what was the difference between last year and the current year, up to the present time; and what would be probably received for the last quarter of this year. The produce of the Customs for 1830 amounted to 17,640,000 l. A decrease had taken place on the receipts of the year, that was up to the 24th of September, from the 1st of January, 1831, to the amount of 644,000 l. This reduced the Customs for 1831 to 16,896,000 l. I calculate (continued the noble Lord) that, there will be a further loss of 210,000 l. upon coals, duties which will reduce the Customs to the
1030
amount of 16,686,000 l. I expect, however, that the duties on cotton and on coals exported will yield an increase of 100,000 l. making the whole estimated produce of the present year for the Customs 16,786,000 l.; but, to keep entirely within bounds, I will take it at only 16,750,000 l. That would allow for any falling off which might take place in the quarter yet to run. The produce of the Excise for 1830 was 18,644,000 l. The decrease, up to the 24th of September is upwards of 1,000,000 l. And I calculate that the further reduction on the quarter yet to run will amount to 400,000 l., making the falling off in the whole year 1,901,000 l. The estimated produce, then, of the Excise for this year will be 16,743,000 l. To this, however, is to be added, 157,000 already received on account of the wine duties, making the probable receipts of the whole Excise for the year upwards of 16,900,000 l.; but I will, in order to allow for accidents, take them at 16,800,000 l. With respect to the falling off in the Customs, it will be necessary to bring under the notice of the House what is the amount of taxes that have been reduced, and what effect they have had on the revenues. The amount of taxes reduced in the two years 1830 and 1831, in the Customs is 1,120,000 l., and in the Excise is 3,357,000 l., making the whole amount 4,477,000 l. But the revenue accruing from the Customs and Excise, which amounted in 1830 to 36,184,707 l. will now amount to 33,550,000 l. Thus the decrease, by a fair computation, instead of being 4,000,000 l., has only been 2,634,000 l. It would now be understood, that the Customs amount to 16,750,000 l. The Excise amounts to 16,800,000 l. The Stamps and Post-office duties, and the Miscellaneous branches of the revenue yielded nearly 14,000,000 l., making the amount of the whole revenue 47,250,000 l. He now came to the Expenditure. At this period Government knew better what was likely to be the expenditure than at an early period of the year. In the early part of the year, Government were obliged to make up the amount from estimates, but at the present time a very small proportion was made up from them. He could, in consequence, make a statement of the expenditure which might be perfectly relied on. It amounted, up to the 24th of September, to 35,222,641 l. The expenditure from that time to the end of the, year would amount to 11,533,880 l.,

1031
thus making the whole expenditure for 1831, 46,7.56,521 l. The surplus which would remain, after deducting the expenditure from the revenue would be just 493,479 l. The expenditure, he found, for 1830, was 47,812,000 l. He had examined the statements in every way that he could, and he was sure that he was not chargeable with any exaggeration. He had consulted those in the Treasury whom he believed to have had the most experience, and they told him, that he could with confidence rely on the general accuracy of the statements made. The whole effect of these would cause him, however, to make a few remarks, because it appeared, that comparing these with the statements of last February, the amount was rather larger than he stated at that time, notwithstanding the number of taxes he had been enabled to repeal. He would only state, that in February he made no allowance for the general increase in the revenues of the country, and the consequences of that increase. There were, however, two other circumstances relative to the mode in which he had disposed of the balance, to which he would wish to advert; the first was the state of the currency, in consequence of a question that was asked a few nights since by the hon. member for Oakhampton, respecting the circulating medium; and his present statement would be considered an answer to that statement. He wished most particularly, and it was desired by others as well as himself, to state the course which had been pursued by the Bank during the last year, in order to do away the suspicions and imputations thrown out that it had again been tampering with the currency. It was perfectly well known to the House that the exchange had for a long time been against this country. In consequence of this there must be a considerable draft upon the Bank, which was the pivot on which the circulating medium turned. The effect of this draft on the Bank produced a pressure on commerce, and persons engaged in commerce required bills to be discounted. If the Bank refused to discount them, the effect would be, to produce a great and unnecessary pressure upon commerce. The course which the Bank had pursued, had been, not to withhold the usual accommodation of discounting. It was essentially necessary that the Bank should not allow its securities to increase, because, if they did, while the drain remained upon
1032
them, they would be obliged to contract the circulating medium of the country, which, he need hardly add, would prove of the greatest injury. The Bank, very properly, had taken care that the securities had not increased in its hands; but as private securities had increased, it had brought, in proportion, to the market a certain proportion of Bank securities. The effect of this caused the drain to act on the circulating medium of this country gradually and fairly. The country had indeed felt the effects of the drain, but it had not been of that sudden character which in former times had produced great panics, and led to such disastrous consequences. He would then state his own course with respect to the employment of the surplus funds. At the commencement of each quarter, an average of the surplus four preceding quarters, was taken according to Act of Parliament, and that sum was to be applied to the reduction of the Debt in the succeeding quarter, if the revenue, at least, was not manifestly falling. The Act allowed the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt to apply the average surplus revenue to the purchase of Exchequer bills, or deficiency bills, as well as stock; and since the revenue had been diminished so much by the reduction of taxes, the surplus had been applied in the purchase of deficiency bills of the Bank. He had acted in this manner in order to diminish the number of securities in the hands of the Bank; and, although the plan was somewhat operose, the effect was, that the Debt was not reduced unless there was a real surplus of revenue. He did not feel it necessary to detain the House any longer, and he would only add, that there had been a falling off in the Customs in the present quarter, but from the reports he had received from the out-ports and the Treasury, he had every reason to hope that the diminution would not continue. He should move, that the sum of 1,800,000 l. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, in aid of the Ways and Means.
Mr. Goulburnhad looked forward with some anxiety to this statement of the noble Lord. If he had not been inclined before to make any remarks, he thought that the statement of the noble Lord fully justified him in making one or two observations. The noble Lord was satisfied to find himself at the close of the year with a surplus no larger than 493,000 l.; a sum

1033
in no way sufficient to meet even the contingencies and expenses to which the Government was liable—a sum infinitely less than any former Parliament had required Ministers to retain—a sum, he must say, infinitely less than was required for the security and credit of the country. When they considered the many changes that had taken place—when they considered what the noble Lord himself had stated, he hardly knew what the House could think of the smallness of such a surplus. He wished that the noble Lord had explained to the Committee the sum total of the supplies voted for the year, so that a comparison might have been drawn between the amount actually voted, and the estimate of probable expenditure, as calculated by the noble Lord. A great hazard, he was of opinion, had been run with respect to the revenue, as Ministers had not taken into account what claims might be made upon them in a short time for the debts of the year, and whether they might not be made at an earlier period than usual. Such a hazard had been run, that the attention of the House should be called to it. Was it not essential that they should not be left, in times of peace, without resources to reduce the Debt, which, if not reduced, would come upon the country with greater weight, particularly if events should compel them to place the empire in a warlike attitude? It was the part of a prudent Government to look at events that might happen. He knew no more effectual way of crippling the power and resources of the country than that of avowing they were determined to make no efforts to reduce either the interest or the capital of that great debt, which was now accumulating, but which must some way or other be paid. During the time that he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he induced the House of Commons to give their assent to the application of the surplus revenue to the reduction of the debt, and by that means relieved the country from a part of the burthen. He begged to draw the attention of the Committee to the state of the debt at the early part of 1828, and compare it with that of 1831. In 1828 the amount of the funded debt was 777,000,000 l., and the annual interest 25,700,000 l. In 1831 the funded was reduced to 757,000,000 l., and the annual charge to 24,377,000 l, making in three years a reduction in the principal of 20,000,000 l., and of the charge 1,400,000 l.
1034
He did not mean to state this was all clear advantage to the country, for during the time there had been an increase of the terminable annuities, but that in itself was a relief to the public, for it carried with it the annual application of a part of the interest paid to the extinction of that debt on which it was paid. This increase in the terminable annuities amounted to 686,000 l., leaving a balance of about 700,000 l. as an absolute relief to the country. There was another item in which great relief had followed from pursuing a principle different from that of the noble Lord; the interest on Exchequer bills was reduced to the extent of 270,000 l., and between January 1828 and January 1831 there was a reduction of a million in the amount of Exchequer Bills. He had brought this subject before the House, because he was aware that the public attached much importance to the immediate reduction of taxation, without considering the ultimate benefits that might be derived from pursuing a course which involved some present sacrifice. He did not mean to undervalue reduction of taxation, provided it could be effected without crippling the national credit and prosperity. They must deal first with their debt, and apply the surplus revenue to reduce taxes; it was by pursuing that method last year he had recommended the reduction of taxes to the amount of 4,000,000 l.; this reduction arose naturally from the funds already in hand, from the decrease of the public expenditure by about 3,500,000 l., and allowed him the pleasure of saying to the House "You have funds in hand, and can reduce taxation in a mode most likely to benefit the community, and at the same time forward their permanent interest by reducing the debt." He would not enter into the argument whether the taxes reduced this session were those best calculated to relieve the various suffering interests of the country. He must be permitted to observe, however, that the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had given up a revenue to the amount of 900,000 l.; but as he had no command over that complicated machinery by which the coal tax was regulated—the people had not benefitted by the remission to a greater amount than 250,000 l. With respect to the application of the surplus revenue, the noble Lord had not fairly and explicitly stated the nature of the Bill which he (Mr. Goulburn) had introduced. The object

1035
was, that you should apply to the reduction of the Debt the exact surplus over the expenditure. If that was to be carried on in the ordinary way, the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt must have waited till the 31st of December, and then applied the whole of the amount to the reduction of the Debt. To apply a large sum at one time, for that purpose, was, in his opinion, likely to produce great fluctuation. Parliament had, therefore, made a regulation that the surplus of each quarter should be employed. He did not think that it was proper to anticipate the revenue for the quarter, and employ it for a distinct purpose, as, although no augmentation of the expense had unexpectedly taken place, still such a circumstance was not unlikely to occur. It appeared to him that the only effect of the noble Lord's conduct in purchasing the deficiency bills, would be, to put into the pocket of the Bank the interest of so much of the coming in revenue as, by the purchase of the bills, lay in the hands of the Bank. A deficiency bill, which anticipated the quarter's revenue, was obliged to be taken up each succeeding quarter. By the purchase of Exchequer bills, the public obtained the interest which the Bank now had, and the coming in of the money relieved the public of the charge for the interest. The only object he had in view on the present occasion was, to call the serious attention of the House to the abandonment of the most important principle of attempting to discharge a part of the debt which had been incurred during the late war; and to enter his decided protest against a system of finance, which he feared would be found the parent of extravagance and ruin. This was his present object: but he must conclude by saying, that the revenue of the country presented certainly a pleasing aspect, as it showed them an additional example of the extent and power of the country, and gave them a hope, that if the circumstances of the State required assistance, they might look for it with confidence amongst the enterprising inhabitants of Great Britain.
Mr. Maberlysaid, he was surprised at the observation of the right hon. Gentleman, the Sinking Fund had been so notoriously fallacious, that the House, before the right hon. Gentleman resigned office, had determined that the Sinking Fund, for the future, should consist only
1036
of the surplus revenue and expenditure, In carrying this plan into execution, the right hon. Gentleman had, however, taken a retrospective instead of a prospective view. Had he at the beginning of a year estimated what the probable amount of the surplus would be, and at the end, when he found his anticipations realized, appropriated the money accordingly, he would have acted on sound principles, but he had acted otherwise, and when he quitted office, left an Act of Parliament behind him, which bound his successors to act as they had done. Therefore, if there was any error or mismanagement with respect to the deficiency bills, it was owing to the bad arrangements of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. This difficulty he had foreseen and mentioned, and it admitted of no other remedy than an Act to repeal the former one. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose the country would receive injury from the smallness of the surplus over the expenditure. He (Mr. Maberly) had always maintained, that it was better to relieve the country, heavily burthened with taxes as it was, by a reduction of these, than keep up a large Sinking Fund. The reduction of taxes, of which the right hon. Gentleman seemed so proud, as effected by the late Administration was the great cause of the smallness of the present Sinking Fund: he ought not to complain of the consequences of his own acts. He was ready to admit these acts were proper on the principle of relieving a country heavily taxed; but nothing could be more absurd, than to increase the funded debt, for the sake of having a larger Sinking Fund. He was decidedly of opinion the noble Lord had pursued the best course that had been left open to him.
Lord Althorpsaid, he had no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman would remember that he had stated, that although the surplus was very small at the beginning of the year, yet, that he did expect it would increase towards the end. He was ready to admit, that the amount of the surplus was not so large as was desirable. With respect to the Sinking Fund, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had acted perfectly right in taking a retrospective instead of a prospective view, as had been contended for by his hon. friend (Mr. Maberly). An estimate at the beginning of the year would be more likely to lead to error and difficulty than the

1037
mode of calculating the surplus at the end. The right hon. Gentleman defended the operation of the Sinking Fund, upon the ground that it enabled Ministers to reduce the amount of interest upon the different funds. He did not believe, that experience justified them in forming that opinion of it. However, without going into that question, he was ready to contend, that the best course to relieve the country was by a reduction of taxation. With respect to the alleged profit of the Bank, upon the purchase of deficiency bills, he would only say, that it might have been so if he had carried the purchase to an extreme. It was said, that he would have done better if he had purchased Exchequer bills. He would show the fallacy of this suggestion. Deficiency bills were sold at a par, but Exchequer bills must be purchased at a premium, unless the Bank were prepared to sell them to Government at a less price than they did to the public.
Mr. Humesaid, that the Sinking Fund was a mere delusion, and that it deceived the public. The statements of the Revenue which had appeared in The Gazette were delusive. They were all retrospective; but the public, from the manner in which they were put, conceived that they were prospective. He hoped that this practice would be abolished, and that all estimates in future would be prospective. This would lead the accounts to be made up in such a manner as any man might understand them. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, that the surplus which he maintained during the time he acted as Chancellor of the Exchequer, enabled him to reduce the amount of interest on the Public Funds. He believed, however, that was not the fact, and if a calculation was gone into, it would fully appear, that the maintenance of a Sinking Fund of 500.000 l. or 3,000,000 l. would not have the smallest effect in that respect. Reduction of taxation was infinitely more desirable than a large surplus. He was for keeping the Government as short as possible, and he considered a surplus of half a million amply sufficient. The only complaint he had to make upon the statement which the noble Lord had submitted to the House was, the great amount of expenditure. He had hoped the charge for this year would have been less than the last. He regretted, therefore, to find it greater; but with respect to the mode of
1038
applying the surplus, he, was decidedly of opinion that the noble Lord had adopted the wisest and most prudent course. The system of deficiency bills was not a new one, it was left as a legacy by preceding Governments, and it was beneficial to apply any surplus to taking up bills of that description.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, for Gentlemen who were acquainted with accounts as the hon. Members who had addressed the House on this subject were, he was surprised at their doctrines. They contended, that only the surplus of revenue over expenditure should be applied to the reduction of the Debt. Flow was that amount to be ascertained, otherwise than by taking the income and expenditure of the past year? but the hon. member for Abingdon, instead of pursuing this natural method, says, calculate your revenue and estimates for the coming year, deduct the probable amount of the one from the other, and you have—what? a chance surplus. He asked any man conversant with accounts which was the proper method? How could it be possible to calculate by anticipation what was to be the income and expense of a year to come? Did the House recollect the time when Lord Goderich, by pursuing such a course in the year 1827, calculated 2,000,000 l. beyond his real resources? All experience showed that such a system, so far from producing accuracy, increased, in an incalculable degree, the probability of running into debt. He would leave his plans to speak for themselves by their result. During the few years he had been in office, he had managed to reduce very considerably the amount of the expenditure, and had decreased the amount of taxation by 4,000,000 l. per annum.
Mr. Muberlysaid, he still maintained, that the system which he and his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, advocated was the correct one. The right hon. Gentleman contended, that the only accurate mode of calculating a surplus was to take a retrospective view. By that account you certainly know the amount of the former year's surplus, but what had that to do with a prospective revenue? The only accurate and proper mode was, to make an estimate at the commencement of the year. As to the mode in which the surplus was to be aplied, he very much approved of the plan

1039
of the noble Lord. It was the deficiency bills anticipated the revenue. Supposing there should be a run upon the Bank, what would be done when the revenue had been anticipated?
Lord Althorpsupposed it was suspected that at the end of the year Government would be in a dilemma, and would call for money in Exchequer bills. Such would not be the case. In purchasing the deficiency bills he had only taken money out of one pocket to put into another.
Mr. Humewas not favourable to this shuffling of cards without the attainment of any good.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, as the point at issue was one on which a difference of opinion existed among persons most acquainted with financial matters, he would pursue the subject no further at present. He, however, wished to ask at whose expense had a quantity of silver bullion been lately melted down at the Bank by order of the Government?
Lord Althorpreplied, that the balance of the actual melting would be borne by the Mint. The account of the transaction was, that it had been ascertained the amount of shillings was too great for circulation. A pound of silver contained sixty-two shillings; but the shillings he had alluded to did not possess their full weight, there being sixty-eight to the pound. Government learning that this bullion was to be disposed of, entered into a treaty for its purchase with the Bank, who had it in their possession, and the object was, to have it re-melted and circulated at its proper value: of course some expense would arise to the public, but also some benefit by carrying it into effect. The negotiations were not, however, all concluded.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, the propriety of the transaction hinged upon the question, whether the quantity of silver coin in circulation was too large for the demand.
Resolution agreed to. House resumed.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR SCOTLAND—COMMITTEE.
On the Motion of Lord Althorp, "That the Chairman do leave the Chair, and the House go into a Committee on the Scotch Reform Bill,"
Sir William Raethought it would be right in the absence of the learned Lord, (the Lord Advocate) to refrain from discussing the details of the Bill in Committee, and he would make use of
1040
that opportunity to call the attention of the House to the nature and character of the measure now before it. Assuredly, many material improvements had been made in the Bill since it was last under consideration, and, unquestionably, there never was a measure submitted to Parliament which more required amendment; for a more undigested and objectionable bill never was laid upon the Table of the House. In this third edition, however, some of the most obvious objections had been removed, and the Bill before the House was different in many important particulars from the Bill introduced at the commencement of the present Session, and still more different even than this from the Bill originally proposed by the learned Lord in March last. Acknowledging the alterations and improvements, he contended that the hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House were entitled to the credit of having caused them. None of importance had been voluntarily introduced by the Government in either edition of this Bill, but only now, at the last hour, had been adopted, in consequence of the notices in the Order Book, which his friends around him had given. If the question before the House had been a general resolution, touching the propriety of introducing a change into the Representation of Scotland, the learned Lord's speech, on moving the second reading, would have been properly applied, and might be considered as conclusive. But at the second reading of the special measure of Scotch Reform proposed by his Majesty's Ministers, it appeared to him that the learned Lord Advocate, and those who supported that measure, were not entitled to stop short after having merely shewn that the Representation of Scotland was bad—they ought to have gone on to shew that the Bill laid on the Table of the House was the best measure of improvement that could be proposed—the fittest that human ingenuity could invent, to remedy the evils of the existing system. The learned Lord told the House, that that system was so bad that he would not leave a rag of it behind. That being the case, he being unfettered by any thing which had hitherto existed—putting out of the question everything that prescription had sanctioned—he was at full liberty to submit to the House, indeed was bound to submit, as good a system as human ingenuity could invent. Instead, however, of being

1041
the best system that could be imagined, the measure under consideration was liable to obvious objections. He would not enter into the details of the Bill; but offer a few observations upon its leading principles. One most important of these was, the qualification for giving the right of voting. The franchise of the counties was to be placed in the proprietors of heritable property producing 10 l. a-year; and that of the boroughs in the occupiers of houses rated at the like value. In any system of Representation, one of the first objects ought to be, to give to every interest in a country its due share of influence in the Legislature. While the landed or county interests were protected on the one hand, the commercial and manufacturing interests must not be neglected on the other. In the English Bill, great attention was paid to this principle; and while the elective franchise was extended to the manufacturing and commercial interests, care was taken to give an equivalent advantage to the landed interest. Although the franchise was conferred on many large and populous towns, the number of English boroughs was, on the whole, much diminished, and the borough Representation of the country curtailed. This circumstance alone would add to the influence of the landed interest: but the English Bill did not stop there. In the first place, it constituted the Isle of Wight, which was a peculiarly agricultural district, a separate county, and gave it the right of returning a Member to Parliament. The English Bill then gave two additional Members to each of the large, and one additional Member to each of the middling counties, leaving the small counties, as at present, with the right of returning two Members to Parliament. In the English Bill, therefore, the utmost care was taken to preserve the interests of the land, by adding to the number of its Representatives, and further by confining its constituency to those who really possessed an interest in the soil. Why should not Scotland be treated in like manner? She was treated, however, very differently. In the first place, her boroughs, instead of being diminished, were to be increased by eight, to be added to those which exist at present. He did not object to an increase of the borough Representation of Scotland; on the contrary, the addition which this Bill made to it was, in his opinion, too small; but he objected to its being
1042
increased disproportionately to the Representation of the land. In a former edition of the Bill, it was even proposed to diminish the number of county Members, but that was so extravagant that the Ministers were ashamed of it, and in the present Bill they proposed that Scotland should continue to return the same number of county Representatives. But when the articles of the Union were to be entirely set aside, was Scotland not to receive one additional county Member? Was she still to adhere to her thirty county Members, when the Representation of the towns was increased; and was the influence of towns even to be allowed to interfere with the franchise in county Representation? The Representation of the counties of Peebles and Selkirk, two of the most important agricultural counties in Scotland, was indeed to be allowed to remain, after many remonstrances. Instead of the franchise being confined to the landholders of those shires, the constituency of the royal burghs of Peebles and Selkirk was to be thrown into them, which would materially encroach upon the agricultural interests. Upon what principle was it that the Scotch counties—many of them having upwards of 100,000, some of them upwards of 300,000, inhabitants, and paying a large amount of taxation—should not be admitted to the right of returning sonic additional Representatives? The amount of taxation contributed by Scotland at the time of the Union was—Customs, 30,000 l. a year—Excise 33,300 l. a year, a total of 63,000 l. That was the whole amount of taxation paid by Scotland at the time of the Union. What was the amount of her contribution to taxation at the present time? By the last return it appeared, that the whole amount of her taxation, including customs, excise, assessed-taxes, stamps, &c., was no less than 5,155,422 l. a-year! How was it then that a country so charged was not to be allowed some additional Representation. He would next call the attention of the House to the qualification which, under the Bill, was to give the right of voting in the Scotch counties. If this Bill were passed in its present shape, there would be an end for ever to the influence of the land-owners of Scotland. The franchise was to be vested in persons possessing heritable property of the value of 10 l. a-year; including house property as well as land. Now an individual of the lower orders in Scotland,

1043
particularly in the manufacturing districts, always shews a strong desire to be the owner of the house in which he lives. Hence, as soon as he possesses the means of building a house, he proceeds to feu a piece of ground from a neighbouring proprietor, which was a permanent acquisition of land on payment to the superior or owner of an annual sum in the name of feu duty. On this piece of land he builds a substantial stone house of one story, which he personally occupies. Under the proposed Representative system, this individual would assert that his house and bit of land were jointly worth 10 l. a-year to him; consequently, every one of these feuars would have a vote for his county, under this Bill. But was the interest of such persons in unison with that of the landed interest? Quite the reverse. Did they attach themselves to the proprietor of the land? On the contrary—they had no kind of respect or regard for him—they rather looked to the manufacturer who gave them work—and all their views and interests were bound up with those of the inhabitants of the towns. What then would be the working of this Bill if these feuars were to be admitted into the county constituency? They would, without doubt, out-number all the proprietors of the land, and thus, in reality, the county Members would be chosen by a town constituency. The admission of leaseholders would form no counterbalance to those feuars. In Scotland the farms were invariably large, consisting of many hundred acres, and generally let for a long course of years. The number of tenants was, therefore, comparatively few; and the proprietor had little command over them. Few landlords would be willing to break down their farms to suit political purposes, and in many cases it was not in their power, much of the land in Scotland being under strict entail, and short leases being almost uniformly prohibited. The admission of leaseholders to vote was, however, a very questionable benefit. At present the most friendly intercourse existed between landlord and tenant, but when this new scheme should be brought into operation, he was confident that politics would become a constant source of bickering. He was sure the tenantry were not anxious for a measure which would be prejudicial to the whole country, being calculated to break up that general good understanding which
1044
now universally subsisted. The provisions of the Bill tended to annihilate the landed interest of Scotland. The right of voting ought to be connected with the possession of land; and provided that the valued rent of land only were included, and not the value of houses, he should not stickle as to the lowness of the amount of qualification; but as the provisions of the Bill took political influence from the land instead of giving to it, he must object to and oppose them. The qualification for the electors of towns was less objectionable than that for the electors of counties; and might, therefore, be considered in the Committee. He would, therefore, not advert to that point. He should wish, however, to hear from some Member opposite, in the event of the Bill becoming the law, what would the Lord Advocate of Scotland do, if he, through some possible want of popularity, lost his seat? He would no longer be able to obtain access to the House by means of an English nomination borough, for they were all to be abolished. On every account, it was more convenient that the Lord Advocate should be Member for an English borough, than for a place in Scotland, for then he escaped from those local attachments which, even without his knowledge, were sometimes liable to influence him. It was quite clear, that circumstances might arise to render the Lord Advocate's election by a popular constituency, a matter of great improbability; indeed, that circumstance might apply to all members of the Government, and he was quite at a loss to imagine how they were to find their way into the House. Looking, generally, to the principle of the measure, he could not consider it a good one; and he was inclined to abide by the present system, under which the country had prospered to an unexampled degree, until a less objectionable plan should be proposed. The question was not whether the present system was the best that could be devised, but whether this measure was the most proper remedy for its evils. Before the introduction of this Bill it was never said that the Representatives of Scottish counties did not represent the property of those counties. Every one acquainted with Scotland knew that the fact was the reverse. It was said, too, that Scotland had no Representatives: he indignantly denied the assertion. If, however, it were meant that there were no popular Representatives—no

1045
Members chosen by several thousands of constituents—he admitted the fact. But would any Member for a Scotch county Consider that he had no constituents, and was not a Representative of the people of Scotland? He admitted that the expense of being elected for a Scotch county was less than that of being elected for an English county; but the duties of the Representatives were as great and the electors as independent. It had been said that the Members for Scotland had not done their duty, and had neglected the interests of their country. He denied the assertion. For the last thirteen years he had marked their conduct in Parliament; and he said without hesitation, that no Members could possibly be more anxious to promote the interests of the country, than those returned for that portion of the empire. He would refer to their opposition to extending the Small-note bill to Scotland. It was the Scotch Members who succeeded in getting that subject referred to a Committee, of which the late Secretary of State was Chairman, and who brought up such evidence as led to a report favourable to the continuance of these notes in circulation in Scotland. There was one of the details which he felt called upon to notice; the important changes proposed in the office of Sheriff in Scotland. In England, the Churchwardens were to make out the lists of the persons entitled to vote, and to conduct everything until a disputed point arose; but, in Scotland, the Judge of an important Court was named to this office. Now, why was not the same course adopted in Scotland as in England? Why not appoint the schoolmaster or session-clerk of every parish to make out the lists, instead of throwing that duty upon the Sheriff? His duty ought to commence at the next stage, and he should decide upon disputed matters, after hearing the statements of contending parties. In England the decisions of Barristers virtually named by the Chancellor, was to be final; but in Scotland the sentence of the King's Judge was not to be conclusive. Other Judges were to be appointed to investigate his proceedings in each county. He always thought that the anxious desire of the House and the Government was, to make the Judges entirely independent of political matters, and to keep them aloof from all party politics. This
1046
Bill, however, would involve every Sheriff in political squabbles. It would be quite impossible for him to make out the lists without being supposed to be partially inclined towards one party or another, and of such suspicion he ought to be entirely relieved. Could it be fitting that the individual who had to try all the civil actions in the county should be thus mixed up with the party politics of the district, and be thereby deprived of the character for impartiality which to a Judge and Magistrate was of such inestimable value? The appeal, too, from the decision of the Sheriff, must be attended with trouble, delay, and expense. If the decision of the English Barrister was to be final, ought not that of the Scotch Judge to be equally so? There was a blank in the Bill to be filled up, it was said, by the insertion of the words "Advocates or Barristers." He trusted that it was not meant to introduce English lawyers into this new Court. But what Scotch Advocates could be found capable of reversing the judgments of the Sheriffs, many of whom were men of great experience and practice at the Scotch Bar? It was difficult to see how this appeal could avail, when no record was to be kept of the first proceeding. The case, on appeal, might be made to rest on different facts and different evidence from what were laid before the Sheriff. But be this as it might, the degrading position in which the Bill would place the Sheriff, by sending political Judges round the counties to overturn his decision and reverse his proceedings, could not be too strongly reprobated. If there must be an appeal, it would be better to make the appeal lie to the Sheriff from the decisions of these temporary functionaries. But why have an appeal at all? If the Legislature would not trust the Sheriff alone, why should be not have a Jury? The value of the property on which a vote was to be given under this Bill was a question more fit for a Jury than a Judge, there being no county or other rates by which that value could be determined. Firmly resolved to resist this absurd provision of the Bill to the very uttermost, he wished to be spared the necessity of doing so, by the Government rejecting it. He hoped the Government would take this matter into its serious consideration, and not, for a trifling saving, break in upon a judicial system, perhaps the most valuable that any country was ever blessed with,

1047
The part of the Lord Advocate's address which he most disapproved of was that where he held out something like a threat of disturbance if the Reform Bill should not pass. He did not believe that there would be any such disturbance, unless the people were encouraged to commit it, as they were at the last elections. The Lord Advocate said, that the disturbances that recently occurred in Scotland were imputable to the great desire of the people for Reform. He doubted the truth of that assertion, for a twelvemonth ago there was no feeling of the sort prevalent, and the country was happy and contented. The expression of sentiments favourable to Reform had been occasioned by the conduct of Government. The learned Lord certainly had had better opportunities of forming a correct judgment on the subject, during the last year, than he had had; but he could speak with perfect confidence of what was the state of the country for the twelve preceding years. He was sure that, if the Government were true to the law, there was no danger to be apprehended. The people were generally well disposed, submissive, and obedient to the law; and it was only the erroneous impression which prevailed—that the King's Ministers desired this manifestation of public feeling—that had induced the people to express themselves strongly in favour of Reform. He was in office in 1820 and 1821, when the excitement, occasioned by distress, was extreme, and when Glasgow was organized for rebellion; but a determination on the part of the Government to maintain the laws, put a stop to all appearance of disturbance, without the shedding of blood or any severe proceeding of any kind. The conduct of Government at the present moment must, however, be decided and firm—it must not call upon the Sheriff to maintain the peace without giving him the means of upholding his authority. It must not, when he has succeeded in this arduous duty, withhold its approbation of his conduct, or take any step from which the disturbers of the public peace can suppose that their behaviour is not entirely discountenanced. He was persuaded that the people supposed that their conduct was in accordance with the wishes of Government. Let but the Government do its duty, let it but enforce the law and discountenance disturbance, and good order would be maintained. If it wished to have riot,
1048
it would not wish in vain, but he trusted that the Ministers would not fail honestly to exercise their power, and relieve themselves of the responsibility of neglecting to provide for the public tranquillity.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that he was not aware of any thing that could justify the insinuations in which the right hon. Baronet, (Sir William Rae) had indulged, at the conclusion of his speech, in respect to the conduct of his Majesty's Government on the occasion of the riots and disturbances which had occurred at some places, at the last general election, in Scotland; and which were certainly most disgraceful to those who were concerned in them. If he understood rightly the observations that had been made by his right hon. friend, they went to insinuate, at the least, that the King's Ministers had, by their conduct, given countenance and encouragement to those riots and disturbances. Any thing more destitute of foundation—more inconsistent with every rule of common sense, or common reason, by which the actions of men were usually guided, could scarcely be imagined, than that they, whose political existence depended on the preservation of the peace of the country, and on the success of that great measure of Reform, to which nothing but the deepest injury could be inflicted by such outrageous proceedings, should afford to them their countenance and support. He would, however, at once dismiss this topic, as wholly unworthy of consideration, and proceed to offer a few observations on the subject immediately before the House. From certain parts of the speech of his right hon. and learned friend, he was so far from dissenting, that they had his entire and perfect concurrence. He agreed with him, that by the Bill, even as it was now proposed, the counties of Scotland would not be sufficiently represented. He thought, also, that the proportion between the county and the burgh Representation would be too much deranged by the operation of this Bill. The proportion, as settled by the Treaty of Union, and which existed at the present day, was thirty to fifteen in favour of the Representation of the counties. By the Bill, as originally proposed, it was to be fixed for the future at the proportion of twenty-eight to twenty-two; a change so great, and so uncalled for, and, in his opinion, so unwarranted, by any change which had taken place in the relative situation and circumstances of

1049
those two great interests, that he was quite at a loss to conjecture on what ground or reason his Majesty's Ministers had been induced to propose it, or had been prepared to justify it to that House. He felt obliged to the noble Lord, and so would the House, for having spared him the trouble of hearing him on the motion of which he had given notice, that the number of the Representatives of the counties should not be reduced. They were now to remain at the number as settled at the Union—that is, thirty for the counties, whilst the number of the burgh Members was to be increased from fifteen to twenty-three; the proportion being thus thirty to twenty-three, instead of thirty to fifteen. Now, he considered that the number of county Members which Scotland had continued to send to that House, from the period of the Union to the present time, was quite inadequate to the actual wants and just pretensions of the landed interest of Scotland. If the burghs had increased in population and in wealth since that period, which he was willing and happy to admit, the counties had done the same; and probably in as great a degree. If the exact proportion of two to one was not to be kept up, and if a less proportion was to be given than the present to the counties in relation to the burghs, he was satisfied, that if a proportion of three to two, at least, was not given to the counties, there would be nothing like an approach to doing justice to the agricultural interest of Scotland. He begged not to be considered as objecting to the number of Members proposed to be given to the burghs. He did not ask that a smaller number should be given to them than that to which it was proposed to increase it by the present Bill; but what he expected was, that the number of the county Members should also be increased in a just and reasonable proportion to that of the Representatives of the burghs. He should think it, therefore, his duty to support any proposition, tending to that effect, which might be made to the House, in whatever quarter such proposition might originate. In respect to the general Question of Reform, as applied to Scotland, the advocates of that measure had never had the same difficulties to content with as the friends to a Reform in the Representation of England; for it seemed to have been admitted by all parties since the beginning of this discussion, and, indeed,
1050
before, that Reform, and a large measure of Reform, was required in the Representation of Scotland, whatever might be the case with respect to the Representation of England. The system of the burgh Representation of Scotland did not meet with a single defender, either in or out of Parliament. It was given up as wholly defenceless; even they who might be supposed to have been personally interested in he perpetuation of its abuses, were among the first to denounce them, and to petition for Reform. It would be tiresome to the House, and wholly superfluous, to enter into a detail of that monstrous system which passed by the name of burgh Representation in Scotland. It was a system so totally worthless, that the words of the Lord Advocate might, at least, be justly applied to that part of the Representation of Scotland—namely, that it was so incapable of improvement, that it should be utterly rooted out, and not a rag or shred of it be left together. With respect to the county Representation, there were certainly great abuses in it, which required a large and efficient measure of Reform. He could not, however, agree with his learned friend, the Lord Advocate, that that Representation was in the hands of an insignificant oligarchy, not connected with the aristocracy or the property of the country. His (Mr. Fergusson's) objection to the county Representation was, that it was too much in the hands of the aristocracy, and particularly of the high aristocracy of the country. The superiority, or paper votes as they are called, although in some instances they might be matter of corrupt speculation among political adventurers, were generally created by the great proprietors, and distributed among their family, their connections and dependents, for the purpose of promoting their interest in the counties. Every county Member in Scotland must be aware of the injurious and even ruinous effects of that system. It was in vain that a candidate might have for him the majority of the proprietors of a county, possessed both of the property and superiority of their lands. A paper battery was erected against him, which would command his position, unless he chose to erect one of the same material, and of equal or superior force. This was done at an immense and ruinous expense; but it was absolutely necessary to be done, unless the candidate chose to abandon the field to his opponent: out of this system had

1051
grown the most monstrous and crying abuses. The Bill provided for its final but gradual extinction—it saved the life interest of those who were upon the roll of freeholders, or entitled to come upon the roll under the present system. A superiority it was intended also should still confer the right of voting, if there be a substantial interest attached to it, equal to that which would confer the right of voting in respect of property as distinguished from superiority. Here he (Mr. Fergusson) could not, however, help observing, that there might be, and were, substantial and beneficial interests attached to some superiorities, such as untaxed casualties, which could not be reduced to any fixed standard of yearly value, and which ought, perhaps, still to be considered as substantial interests sufficient to confer the right of voting in the counties of Scotland. He saw no provision to that effect in the Bill; and he admitted, that there might be difficulties in framing them, although, if it could be done, he thought it would be desirable. The grievance of the Scotch Representation was not merely, that nominal and illusory rights were represented, but that real and substantial rights were excluded from Representation. A person might have an estate of several thousand pounds a-year, or indeed to any amount, without having a single vote upon it, if he had not also the superiority. And even if he had the superiority as well as the property, the qualification was so high, that the mass of property could not be represented under the present system. The right to vote depended upon having the superiority of what was called a 40 s. land of old extent, that is, a valuation made of the lands of Scotland, in the reign of Alexander 3rd, towards the close of the 13th century, which 40 s. land might now be of the yearly value of 100 l. sterling and upwards; or of lands valued in the time of Charles 2nd at 400 l. Scots, which might now be of the yearly value of from 400 l. to 800 l. sterling. The vast majority of the freeholders of Scotland voted upon the latter qualification; so that it was clear, that by this system, whilst the holders of nominal and illusory interests in land were admitted to the franchise, no proprietor of the substantial and beneficial interest was admitted at all merely in right of his property; and that, even if he should be possessed as well of the superiority as the property of his lands, the qualification was so high, that all the middle classes, and
1052
a very large portion of the gentry of the county, must necessarily be excluded. That this system required reform was admitted on all hands, and even the most strenuous opposers of the present Bill admitted, that the right of voting should no longer be confined to the superiority, but that it should be extended to the beneficial owner of the land. It was less a question of principle than of degree on which the friends and enemies of this Bill differed in opinion. His right hon. and learned friend who had last spoken, seemed to disapprove, however, of extending the franchise to the owners of house property in the counties. He (Mr. Fergusson) would candidly confess, that he himself should have been a little startled by the proposition, if it, had come by itself, and unaccompanied by another most important one for extending the right of voting to the tenantry of Scotland. The latter proposition had met, he believed, with pretty general approbation, and the principle of it had been specifically sanctioned by a resolution of the county which he (Mr. Fergusson) had the honour to represent. He believed that there did not exist in any country a more intelligent or a more deserving class of persons than the tenantry of Scotland; and he was one of the last who would oppose the extension to them of those political rights which were to be conceded to other classes of society. That the admission, however, of the tenantry to the elective franchise, would increase much the influence of the great landed proprietors of Scotland could not be disguised for a moment. He did not object to this influence, but he confessed he was not sorry to see a sort of counterpoise to it, in the admission of another class of the rural population, which he considered to be equally independent, and, if liable to any influence, more liable, as it appeared to him (he could speak for the counties with which he was connected) to the influence of the resident gentry, than of the high, and, generally speaking, non-resident aristocracy of the country—he meant that industrious and respectable class of persons, who were the proprietors of houses and lands in the small towns and villages in Scotland, not included in the burgh Representation. If any thing in the shape of a popular Representation, or even of a Representation of the middle classes, was at length to be given to Scotland, he did not see how it was possible to exclude from

1053
the right of voting, under proper regulations, either of the descriptions of persons to whom he had just referred. If there was any country in the world, in which, from their education and intelligence, their composed and steady and industrious habits, confidence could be placed in that class of the population, it was in Scotland. But it had been said, that the Representation of Scotland, as it stood, had answered all the purposes of a good Representation; and it had been asked by his right hon. and learned friend, what occasion could be pointed out in which the Representatives for Scotland had not done their duty. He (Mr. Fergusson) would admit, that it would be difficult to select, and to return Members to that House, more attentive to local interests, and more zealous and effective in the discharge of those particular duties, which they owed to the places for which they were returned, than the Members for Scotland. This was no small praise, for without such qualifications in a Member of Parliament, all others would be of no avail. He would go further, and say, that he believed that the business before the Committees of that House connected with the local interests of Scotland, was at least as well, if not better, attended to and conducted than the business connected with any other part of the empire. This was a tribute of justice, which was denied by no one to the Members for Scotland. But in answering the question which had been proposed by his right hon. and learned friend, he was forced to put another, and to ask, whether the duties he had enumerated, important as they were, beyond all question, were the sole duties that were required of a Representative of the people in that House, and whether there were not other duties, which the Members for Scotland could not be said to deserve the merit of having so well or so meritoriously discharged? Now he must say, and it was with regret and pain he said it, that, generally speaking, in great questions of public policy, in which the general interests of the empire were involved, and, above all, in questions where measures of necessary reform and amelioration of our institutions were proposed, the majority of the Members for Scotland have almost invariably been found in the lists of those who opposed all such measures of amelioration and reform. The same observation, he feared, must be applied to them in respect to questions of
1054
economy and retrenchment of the public expenditure. A statement had been published of thirty-six important questions of the nature of those he had referred to, in which divisions had taken place in that House in the years 1821 and 1822, and which statement shewed the proportions in which the Members for counties, and for open and close boroughs in England, as well as the Irish and Scotch Members voted, whether for or against the Ministers, on these occasions. The English Members for counties and open cities and boroughs voted against Ministers in a very large, and the Scotch Members for Ministers in a still larger majority, approaching, but not equalling, the votes of the Members for the close English boroughs on the same side. The statement was referred to in the speech of one of the hon. members for Westminster, in the debate on the motion for Parliamentary Reform, of the noble Lord, then member for Tavistock, in April, 1826.* In respect to the Scotch Members, if we turned further back, we should find their names swelling on all occasions the Ministerial majorities, and helping to perpetuate malversation and abuse. He would give a few instances. Mr. Dunning's celebrated motion respecting the influence of the Crown, in 1780, was founded on a consideration of the abuses of the public expenditure during the American war—that wasteful, disastrous, and cruel war, which, long after the public opinion had declared itself decidedly against it, was still persisted in by the Government, and sanctioned by the votes of that House, swayed by the corrupt influence of the Crown. The carrying of the motion "that the influence of the Crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished," was the first decisive blow that was struck against the Administration of Lord North. It was carried by a majority of eighteen—233 having voted for, and 215 against it. † In this division, thirty-three Members for Scotland voted. The House might be anxious to know how they did vote. He would satisfy that curiosity; twenty-seven voted against the motion, and five for it; making a majority against Mr. Dunning's motion of twenty-two of the twenty-seven Scotch Members who voted—a larger
* Hansard's Parl. Debates, New Series, vol. xv, p. 697.
† Hansard's Parl. Hist. vol. xxi, p. 347.

1055
majority by four against, than the majority of the whole House by which the motion was carried. He would give another instance, a little later, in the year 1782. On the 15th of March of that year, Sir John Rous moved in substance, that in consideration that upwards of 100,000,000 l. had been spent, and thirteen ancient colonies had been lost, and that the nation was still involved in war with three powerful nations, without a single ally, the House should declare that "they could have no further confidence in the Ministers who have the direction of public affairs."* No man could doubt that long before this the Ministers had lost the confidence of the people; but upon the division in that House, the numbers were—227 for the Motion, and 236 against it—being a majority of nine against the Motion. How, again, did the Scotch Members vote on that occasion? six for the Motion and twenty-nine against it—being a majority of Scotch Members of twenty-three against the Motion, whereas the majority of the whole House against it, including the Scotch Members, was only nine! The motion was therefore negatived by the majority of the Scotch Members, against the majority of the English Members, and against the universal voice of the nation beyond the walls of Parliament. This motion was made with a view to put an end to the American war, that cruel and unnatural war, which had been so long waged against the liberties of our fellow-subjects in America, and which, with all its wasteful and ruinous expenditure, had it depended on the votes of the Scotch Members, would probably have been continued, against the general opinion and declared voice of the nation, long beyond the period, late and tardy as it was, of its conclusion. During the whole of the American war, the names of very few of the Scotch Members were to be found in the Lists of Minorities—on a motion of Lord John Cavendish respecting the arrears of the Civil List, the minority against Ministers was 114, and in that number one Scotch Member only was to be found—George Dempster was that Member. † This was in 1777. In 1785, however, there was a minority in which the Scotch Members voted in greater numbers. It was on Mr. Pitt's
* Hansard's Parl. Hist. vol. xxii. P 1172.
† Ibid, vol. xix, p. 139.
1056
motion for Parliamentary Reform—which was lost—the majority being 248, and the minority 174; of this minority nineteen were Scotch Members. This was a Ministerial minority, and Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas were Ministers.* He (Mr. Fergus-son) was far from finding fault with the conduct of the Scotch Members on that occasion. He had only to regret, that similar instances were not more numerous, whether on the Opposition or the Ministerial side of the question. He was sorry to be obliged to refer to one remarkable occasion, and that was in very modern times, to shew how far the Representation of Scotland answered the ends of a good Representation, even of the interests of Scotland and of Scotchmen, in a question involving the just principles of civil and religious liberty. It was, he owned, with grief and shame that he referred to the votes of the Members for Scotland on the motion for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. At that period a law existed in the Statute-book, whereby every person holding office, civil or military, was bound to take the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, according to the usage of the Church of England, under the penalty of being disabled from suing in any Court, being the guardian of any child, or the executor of any person; from ever holding any office, civil or military, and was moreover subject to a pecuniary penalty of 500 l. to whomsoever should sue for the same. The members of the Church of Scotland—a Church declared by law to be a national Church as well as the Church of England, and who could not, according to the doctrine and discipline of their Church, comply with the provisions of this law, were involved in the common proscription, from which they were only saved by the degradation of an annual parliamentary pardon—a pardon for what? For the offence of serving the State, and shedding their blood in its defence, without violating their conscience, and acting contrary to the doctrine and discipline of their national Church. Well, how did the Scotch Members divide on that memorable night, when he (Mr. Fergusson) had the glory, as he considered it, to fight under the banners of the noble Lord. The motion was carried by a majority of forty-four—the Scotch Members voting thirteen to five against it! He willingly turned
* Hansard's Parl. Hist. vol.xxv, p. 475.

1057
away from this subject, on which it was painful to him to dwell. After what he had said, it would be unnecessary for him to declare his opinion, that the system of the Representation of Scotland did not answer all the ends of a good Representation; and that the Members returned under that system did not, upon all occasions, do their duty, as had been contended by his right hon. and learned friend. Notwithstanding what he had stated, and much as he expected from the Reform of the Scotch Representation, he agreed with those who thought, that in general Scotland would continue, after the Reform, as before, to be represented by the same description of persons; but he contended, that the same Representatives would be better Representatives under a better system, and acting under another and a more constitutional responsibility. He should abstain from going into the details of the Bill on the present occasion; but he could not help expressing his concurrence with the right hon. Baronet, in all that he had said respecting the Sheriffs of Scotland, a most respectable, learned and meritorious body of men, to whom he was of opinion, that functions too much of a political character were to be given by this Bill, and to whom a subordinate, and, therefore, an unfit and unseemly part was, in his opinion, allotted for them to discharge. If there was to be an appeal on the subject of Registration, it should be from the Barrister to the Sheriff, not from the Sheriff to the Barrister. He would not longer detain the House from going into a Committee on this Bill, which, after undergoing such modification as might be consistent with its principles, and by which it might in some of its provisions be improved, he earnestly hoped might meet with the sanction of the other House of Parliament, and pass into a law.
Mr. James E. Gordonadmitted, that the Representation of Scotland was not of a popular character, but he indignantly denied that Scotland was not represented at all under the present system. He opposed the Bill. It had been said, that the Members for Scotland who were adverse to the measure were silent during the discussion. He would not hesitate to give his opinion respecting the measure. The original Representation of Scotland had been founded on property—it had been guaranteed by the Union, and could not be altered without a violation of that
1058
solemn compact. He should like to know how they could alter all the proportions of Scotch Members in the proportion of them to English Members, and the proportion of the Representatives of the landed interest, to the Representatives of the commercial and manufacturing interest, without violating the Union. The present Bill, if carried, went to deprive the heritors of their rights, and, he repeated, was a gross violation of the Act of Union. He was also of opinion, that the household voters would overwhelm the landed and superior interest—would infringe upon the vested rights of the most respectable portion of the community, and produce consequences that could not be anticipated without the utmost alarm. He must express the deepest regret that his Majesty's Ministers should have thought it advisable to introduce such a measure, which could not do otherwise than produce endless confusion. Already a feeling of discontent which threatened the most serious consequences, was generally prevalent. He wished that could be allayed, even by the rejection of the Bill, but it was now impossible to restore the former state of peace and obedience. He thought the Bill committed injustice, and made wantonchanges, and he was determined to oppose it to the utmost.
Mr. Cumming Brucehad listened with great satisfaction to that part of the speech of the hon. member for Kirkcudbright in which he expressed an opinion, that more was yet due to the county Representation of Scotland than even in its improved and altered state this Bill proposed to do for it. Knowing the weight which must be attached by the House and by his Majesty's Government to the opinions of that hon. Member, he was induced to hope that his recommendation in this respect would be favourably considered, and, in particular, that the county of Elgin would not be left a solitary instance of injustice and disfranchisement among the arrangements of this Bill. His Majesty's Ministers had agreed to do justice to the counties of Peebles and Selkirk, which it was originally proposed to unite, and to leave them in possession of their separate Members. With what justice could it be pretended that half of its present share in the Representation should be taken from the county of Elgin, containing a population of 34,000 souls, being more than was contained by several counties to which a Member was

1059
granted, and more than double the amount contained in the restored counties of Peebles and Selkirk taken together. His Majesty's Government would feel themselves compelled to withdraw the county of Elgin from the schedule in which it had been placed, and to restore it to that right to which it was fully entitled. He did not agree with the hon. Member when he thought fit to taunt the Members for Scotland with a constant subserviency to the Government of the day. The hon. Member had cited the numbers on several important divisions to prove his assertion. He (Mr. Cumming Bruce) need but refer to one of them for the refutation of that charge; the division on Mr. Dunning's celebrated motion with regard to the power of the Crown. Was there a single person in or out of that House, who was not now fully convinced that the absurd clamour then raised about the danger to be apprehended from the increasing power of the Crown was a mere delusion, just such a one as was now prevalent about the power of the aristocracy, and that the Members for Scotland in voting against that motion, showed that they were actuated by sound and sensible views, and were above the influence of popular clamour. The hon. Member had mistaken for political subserviency the firm and consistent purpose of a great majority of the landholders of Scotland to endeavour to exclude from the exercise of power a small, ambitious, and tyrannical minority; the general line of whose politics they considered detrimental to the best interests of the country; and the time at which the hon. Member had thought fit to make this charge, was rather unhappily chosen, when, in point of fact, notwithstanding the great and universal efforts of the Government to influence the late elections, a majority of the Members for Scotland was found arrayed against it. If the gentry of Scotland were subject to the degrading influence attributed to them by the hon. Member, now was the time to show it; when political tergiversation was actually at a premium in that country, and when even the second-rate supporters of the Government were sure to be consulted, employed, aye and paid too, for their services, on some one roving useless, and unauthorized commission or other. A man had only to declare himself friendly to the measures of the Ministry, to be sure of the gratification of participating in the Government, and by some means or other
1060
of having a finger in the pie. The burghs of Scotland had been literally frightened from their propriety by the arrival in them of certain tall, mysterious and angry looking strangers, prying into the gardens of all the old women, and carefully avoiding the slightest communication with the local Magistrates; who, alter all, might have been supposed to know something of the burghs over which they presided. He had received the other day, a letter from the Provost of one of the burghs, which he had the honour to represent, in which he informed him of the arrival of these important personages in his town. He stated that they held no communication with the magistrates; and concluded by asking three significant questions. "Tell me by whom they are appointed—for what purpose—and, last, not least, who pays the piper?" The answer must be by guess. The mysterious personages were self-appointed, no one could find out for what purpose, but they were paid by the easily-gulled Whig ridden people. Like the person who gave orders for a concert, and desired all the performers to be kept playing, the Whig Government were anxious to keep all these players in action whether they produced harmony or discord, and certainly they had produced an admirable Dutch concert. He would not follow the hon. Member further through his speech, in many of the views of which he entirely agreed, but should proceed to make some observations on what fell from other hon. Members in the course of the previous debate on this subject. He had wished on that occasion to state the reasons which would induce him to oppose the second reading of this Bill, because some of the chief grounds of his objection to it had either not been noticed at all, or were slightly alluded to by those who preceded him in the debate. He had been unable to procure a hearing till the House was evidently wearied with the debate, and hon. Gentlemen opposite who were accustomed to look more to the side of the House on which Gentlemen rose, than to the arguments which indicated the course they were advocating, must have, thought that the opponents, of this Bill had monopolized a very undue share of the time of the House on that occasion. Much of that time was occupied by three of his hon. friends, who, having opposed the English Bill in all its stages, thought it necessary to explain to the House the

1061
reasons which induced them to follow a different course with regard to the Bill for Scotland, and as their arguments were generally opposed to the details of this Bill, while their votes were given in its favour, the impression to which he had alluded, was not altogether unnatural. He would not for one moment question the purity of the motives, or the sincerity of the convictions of his hon. friends. One of them, the right hon. Baronet, the member for Honiton, had expressed his belief, that by the course he was following, he would attract to himself the animadversions of both sides of the House. He should certainly not be the individual to verify those anticipations. As the speeches of his hon. friends were for the most part favourable to his views on this question, he would not detain the House by any observations on the few points on which they differed, but make a very few observations on what fell from hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. He required the indulgence of the House, when presuming to address it after it had listened to a very eloquent speech of so great a master in the art of making the worse appear the better question, as the learned Lord who opened that debate. The great literary and forensic attainments of the learned Lord were well known, not only to the House, but. to the country at large. No one could render a more willing homage to them than the humble individual then speaking, who deeply felt that a charge of presumption might be made against him, but a sense of duty impelled him to prove, that on a subject of vast importance, involving the question how far it was advisable to alter the constitution of Scotland, how far it was safe to enter the regions of theory in opposition to long tried and successful practice, the learned Lord had made misstatements, though most, ingenious ones, had been fairly caught in the trap of his own ingenuity, and had floated out of his depth on the torrent of his own eloquence. But they had not merely to contend with the literary ability of the learned Lord, but to struggle also against his official importance. The House was aware that the opponents of this Bill had to do with the spirit and essence of the Privy Council of Scotland, and that this dread and mysterious, and some what tyrannical body had, by a species of official concentration, acquired a local habitation in the person of the learned Lord. He had not had
1062
the good fortune to be in the House when the learned Lord commenced his speech. When he had come in, he had found him declaiming with much energy, and vehemence, and passion; and approaching that celebrated revolutionary climax about rags and shreds, on which he was afterwards congratulated by the hon. member for Preston. The mere energy of his declamation, the mere violence of his action, satisfied him that the learned Lord was wrong-; that in a question which, above every other, required to be approached in a spirit of calmness and moderation, the learned Lord thought it necessary to rouse the feelings of the audience, and carry the fortress of reason by a sort of coup de main of the passions. He was not prepared for the full length of the rags and shreds; he did not certainly participate in the satisfaction experienced by the hon. member for Preston at that declaration, but partook of his surprise; and he wondered how the learned Lord should have had the hardihood, sitting, as he was, on the same bench with the right hon. Baronet, the member for Knaresborough, to have given utterance to that bold figure. Had the learned Lord forgotten, or did he imagine the House had forgotten, the beautiful and eloquent description of that right hon. Baronet, when, after declaring that no good or beneficial Constitution was of rapid growth, he compared its progress toward perfection to the growth of animals, or rather of plants, which though constant, was yet gradual and imperceptible? And could the very obvious reason of this have escaped his acuteness of perception? Did he not know, that to be useful, the institutions of a country must follow, rather than lead, the habits and wishes, and feelings of men; and that, where they overslept this rule of prudence and of wisdom, they would either be altogether inoperative, as was the case with the Constitution introduced by the English into Sicily; or they would give birth to a ruinous and fatal activity, as was the case at the beginning of the first Revolution in France. He would rather look for safety and for shelter to the broad shade of our native oak, though centuries might have rolled over the slowness of its gradual and majestic progress, than he would turn to that plant of a warmer clime, to whose rapid and wondrous shoot the learned Lord would direct his attention. This tree was alive in our climate only while the stove-heat of a strong excitement

1063
was applied to it; and, that exciting cause withdrawn, the flower and the foliage would wither, its leading shoot would droop and fade, its beautiful fruits, the glory of its Crown, would perish. Even if previously undecided, the speech of the learned Lord alone would have induced him to oppose this Bill—it went too far for safety. The learned Lord was followed by his right hon. friend, the member for Inverness-shire, the second in that triumvirate of orators of which the other side of the House had just reason to boast on that occasion. Much as he had heard of the eloq ence of his right hon. friend, it never before was his good fortune to listen to him; and, deeply as he regretted the side to which he had lent the aid of his powerful talents, he might be permitted to say, that the eloquence of his right hon. friend, lighted up and glowing as it was with the warmth of a truly Scottish patriotism, exceeded even his high-raised expectations. But, though captivated by the eloquence, he could not go along with the argument. In common with the speeches of his eloquent associates, it left altogether untouched the real question before the House. It spoke of the defects of the present system of our Representation, in which all were agreed, and of the expediency of correcting them, which all would acknowledge; but he had listened in vain, to all those speeches, for the demonstration which it was incumbent on the Ministers to give, that the change proposed by this Bill was either just, or expedient, or practicable. His right hon. friend, in his vituperation of the present system, went a great deal too far—he said it was no Representation at all. Though he admitted that it was not a popular Representation, still he maintained that it was a Representation of property to a very great extent. His right hon. friend was the only county member for Scotland who did not represent fairly, and fully, and freely, the great mass of the property of these counties. He could not quarrel much even with the defects of a system which had been instrumental in returning so distinguished an ornament of this House to represent a county in Scotland. His right hon. friend argued that the system was wholly inoperative for good; because, before the period of the Union, the page of Scottish history was stained with violence and with blood. Did his right hon. friend refuse to see in it the hallowed record of
1064
national independence? Did he refuse to acknowledge that, if individual liberty be dear, the independent existence of a free and unconquered people was alike dear to it? If the annals of Scotland were the annals of violence and of blood, whom had they to thank for it?—that system of institutions under which they were enabled to bear up against the immensely preponderating power of England, or that ambitious, and grasping, and unscrupulous policy which, from the time of the Edwards and before, sought, by a constant aggression, and by keeping alive the seeds of internal discontent, to compass the unhallowed object of a nation's subjugation? He would not join in this sweeping condemnation of a system which had enabled them to treat with England at the Union on the footing of equal to equal. He would not join in the condemnation of that Parliament of the barons and freeholders of Scotland, whose last Act, as an independent Legislature, was the establishment of schools, at the expense of the landowners of Scotland, in every parish of that country; an Act which had been productive of more advantage to his country, than any Act of our united Parliament since the Union. His right hon. friend was followed by the right hon. Baronet, the member for Knaresborough, of whom he, as a Scotchman, was not only disposed, but bound, to speak in terms of unfeigned respect, because Scotland proudly pointed to him as an ornament and a boast. But when he saw the right hon. Baronet in his place, he did reckon confidently on his support. He knew, indeed, that he had been favourable to the English Reform Bill, but he knew also, that in the Bill before the House, he could point to clauses which involved injustice and disregard of the rights of individual property; and he thought that he might with confidence appeal from Philip Drunk to Philip Sober—that he might appeal from the senator to the historian—from the senator, intoxicated by seeing the party to which he had been long consistently and conscientiously attached, in the possession of power, and by the prospect of their being long secured in that possession by the operation of these Bills, to the historian, calmly reviewing the past in his closet, and detailing, with philosophical truth and precision, the testimony of history. Now he had told them, that the observance of justice was more important than the

1065
amelioration of any institution, especially where its practical results could not with much justice be complained of. He had told them, that many regulations might stand instead of one deed of rapine, and that a Legislature appointed to be the guardians of right, should try all means before they set the example of a great wrong. He had told them that Government never could render a greater service to the community than by setting, in times of excitement, the example, not merely of a just, but of an indulgent consideration of the rights of those who were obnoxious to popular indignation, and that, for the sake of such an example, much was to be borne—much even to be hazarded. He would endeavour to prove to the right hon. Baronet that such a case of sweeping injustice towards the proprietors of the superiorities of land in Scotland was involved in this Bill, and look with confidence for his powerful aid in the Committee to remedy that injustice. One word to the hon. member for the Linlithgow burghs. He should have left that hon. Member in the undisturbed enjoyment of the laurels which his eloquent abuses of all past Governments and all existing institutions must have won for him from both sides of the House, if he had not been pleased to make a direct allusion to him in the course of his speech when this subject was last before the House. The hon. Member's charge was, that, by a premature labour, he had given birth to a sort of abortion in the shape of a mistimed debate on this subject on alluding to what fell from him on the second reading of the English Reform Bill, which the hon. Member had characterized somewhat erroneously. His argument then was, that the unanimity said to prevail in favour of this measure had no real existence, and he instanced the class of the farmers in Scotland as opposed to it. This was denied from the opposite side of the House (at least so in the then imperfect state of his initiation he interpreted some of the sounds which proceeded from the opposite benches), and in support of his assertion, he, stated some of the many cases of disapproval which he had heard stated by farmers of every class. The hon. Member now asserted that they were favourable to it. To this unsupported assertion he would not yield his knowledge of facts. He would meet his assertion by counter-assertion; but would
1066
support his assertion by reason and by proof. The hon. Member proved himself a zealous partisan, but it was a zeal without discretion. He disobeyed orders. The learned Lord, with his usual skill, implored the House to avoid touching the details of the measure in this stage of the discussion, and to confine themselves to the general principle. He considered that request unreasonable, because the principle was involved in the details; but the hon. Member zealous and indiscreet not only entered into the details, but proved, by entering into some which were not in the Bill at all, that he had never read it—that he did not even know his text. The hon. Member entered into the question of the self-election of Magistrates and councils in the Scotch burghs, and the consequent alleged and very possible mismanagement of their corporation funds. His hon. friend put his finger on the real sore of the burghers; he exposed their real grievances, but he exposed a grievance for which this Bill provided no remedy; he put his finger on a sore which the doctors of the Constitution did not condescend to medicate. But this was the real grievance, this was a main cause of discontent in the burghs; and no measure would give permanent satisfaction in Scotland which did not remedy this abuse. The learned Lord knew this, and he was half tempted to think that, finding what a useful ally they had in the discontent of the burghs, his Majesty's Ministers had purposely left this as a nest-egg for some future occasion. The omission was one of his reasons for opposing this Bill; but the indiscretion of the hon. Member did not stop here; he called "spirits from the vasty deep," and, at the bidding of so mighty a magician, the spirits came. The hon. Member conjured up ghosts which he imagined had been for ever laid, and who must have been very unwelcome visitors to the learned Lord—the ghosts of the election riots of Scotland. He cited them to prove the intense anxiety of the people for the success of this Bill: of course, any blameable excesses on those occasions were owing to and got up by the Anti-reformers. This charge, if not distinctly made by his hon. friend, was certainly asserted on that side of the House on former occasions; and it reminded him of the defence set up by a celebrated Irish Dean, when arraigned on a charge which even the Reformers of Scotland, headed

1067
though they might be by his hon. friend, would allow to be one involving considerable violence—the crime charged was an attempt at rape. The defence ran thus—
"If virgins are ravished, it is their own choice;
Why are they so wilful to struggle with men?
If they would but be quiet, and submit without noise,
Nor devil nor dean could ravish them then."
In short, give the mob their own way and all would go right—resist them, and they would riot; therefore, you are the cause of the riots. This seemed to be the logic of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he thought himself lucky in having escaped from Scotland before the learned Lord laid hold of him as a particeps criminis with such ruffians as those who endeavoured to throw the Lord Provost of Edinburgh over the bridge; those very dear and gentle friends of the right hon. the Lord Advocate for Scotland. He perfectly concurred with the hon. Members opposite, that if in any part of the empire the Legislature should deem it expedient to sanction a change in the existing system of the Representation, and, leaving out of view the practical working of the system, should endeavour to remove the defects which floated so glaringly on the surface, no part of it offered them more prominently to the eye of the most superficial observer than Scotland. True it was that no other country had, in the same short space of time, made a progress in improvement so wonderfully rapid—a development so astonishingly great, of all the sources of national wealth. Having broken down every barrier of feudal oppression, she had attained to the most perfect security of persons and of property; to the fullest religious toleration; to the purest and most unsuspected administration of justice. She found herself exempt from the existence of every privileged class, except such as had been by her Legislature maintained or created for the public good; and that the entrance to that class—the path to the highest honours and proudest distinctions of the State, were, in her, open and unimpeded to all industry and all talent. Her establishment for her National Church, her establishment for the national education; her arrangement for her national poor; her provincial Courts for the cheap and speedy administration of justice; her registries of property and deeds, and many
1068
other circumstances in her domestic and social arrangements, which he would not detain the House by enumerating, had not only attracted the praise and admiration of her neighbours, but, what was infinitely more important, had secured the almost universal approval of her own population. All this was true—it was allowed on all sides—but there were defects in the system of her Representation. He was willing to approach them for the purposes of applying a remedy; but he was bound to take care lest, by a rash and ill-considered legislation, he put in jeopardy the solid advantages, the many blessings which they enjoyed. The plan now submitted to the House appeared calculated to endanger the security of them all; and, anxious as he was to remove those defects, approving of so much of the principle of this Bill as went to giving an increased Representation to great towns, he was compelled, as a whole, to oppose it. Before he would agree to the second reading of any Bill, he must be able to find in it some one clause to which he could agree. In this Bill he found none such; and the object of a safe and rational Reform would be more easily attained by bringing in an entirely new measure, than by entering on this labyrinth of error and confusion. When he looked to the circumstances in our social condition to which he had already alluded, and in which real liberty consisted, rather than in the noise and turmoil and corruption of a merely popular election, to which hon. Gentlemen opposite would seem to limit it, he could not but think that an undue importance was attached to the mere machinery by which a Representative body was brought together. He wished to amend the defects—reconcile the theory to the practice; but he turned at the same time in a spirit of deep and humble gratitude to that over-ruling and gracious Providence, which, from causes apparently so inadequate to produce them, had educed results so beneficial in favour of a moral, religious, a Protestant people. He opposed this Bill on account of its extent. The change proposed in England was sufficiently sweeping, but there was a traceable connexion between the old system and the new; the rights previously existing in England had at least prepared the people in some sort for the change. In Scotland it was a real revolution; every practice and every principle had been alike departed from, and it

1069
were vain for them to argue From the known results of the old, to the probable working of the new system. He would limit himself to the system in the counties, and would endeavour shortly to state what that system had been, by which the House would be better able to judge of the extent of the proposed change. It was the duty of every tenant in capite of the Crown to attend in Parliament. By the Declaratory Act of 1425 they were called freeholders of the Crown. By the Act of 1427, the small Barons and free tenants were relieved from personal attendance, provided they sent two or more wise men for each shire, except Clackmannan and Kinross, which were only required to send one each. This Act, which was not much observed, was followed in 1457 by another, which relieved freeholders under a penalty of 20 l. of the necessity of coming to Parliament, except Barons, or unless summoned specially by the King's officer. In 1503 all the Barons and freeholders whose estates were below a certain extent, 100 marks, were relieved if they sent procurators; and this enactment, was renewed and confirmed in 1587. When the right of choosing Commissioners was confined to freeholders possessed of a 40 s. land resident within the shire, they were to meet yearly and choose their Commissioners, who were to be ready to attend Parliament when assembled; there was a slight change in 1661, which was further and finally altered in 1681, when the right was given to those who stood publicly, i. e. of the King infued in property or superiority, and were in actual possession of a 40 s. land of old extent, or of lands liable in public burthens for 400 l. of valued rent. Non-residence was no disqualification. In this long deduction, though alterations were occasionally made in the qualifications, they were all for the advantage of the freeholders; for it was reckoned a burthen for these small proprietors either to attend Parliament in person, or even to attend the Head Court to elect; and all the Acts were meant to dispense with this duty, and relieve from the fines for non-attendance, instead of being forfeitures of, or infringements on, the right of the freeholders to elect; and, since the Union, no change had been made in the qualification; and repeated transfers, and its supposed security as a substantive property, had, in fact, given a real and recognized value to that species of property which
1070
carried a right to vote in the counties. The change now proposed was a most thorough one; it not only disfranchised the freeholders by withdrawing from them, under reservation of those now on the roll, the right to elect, but, it ruined counties by communicating it to the proprietors of a house and land valued at 10 l., and to tenants, according to the theory that property in land should be represented by county Members, while the commercial and manufacturing interests were represented by the Members for the towns. Besides this, superiorities were valuable estates. Their security as an investment was never questioned, and he would confidently ask the learned Lord, were, he in his place, who had doubtless been consulted in many cases where the transfer or security of such property was concerned, whether, where the transaction was a bonâ fide transaction, he ever insinuated a doubt of the legality of such sales. He at least, had never heard an answer to the objection that it was robbery to deprive the freeholders of a valuable inheritance without full and fair compensation—without compensation—because nothing was more simple and more easy than to fix, in this case, both the manner and amount of the compensation. The right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, observed, and justly, that the question of compensation, where the disfranchised burghs were concerned, was one of extreme difficulty. In that observation he, fully concurred, and it was a consideration which should have induced no small hesitation in touching rights with which it was confessedly difficult fairly to deal. But he would undertake to satisfy the House that no such difficulty stood in the way of giving to the elective franchise in the Scotch counties the fullest extension, if it was to be confined to the real interest and real proprietors of land; and at the same time affording to the holders of superiorities a full and fair compensation for that property which, to effect a national object, it might be thought fit to resume. Slavery abolitionists, who were for emancipation without compensation, pleaded that, slavery was contrary to Christianity, and never could be legalized by any human law. But this could never be said of the advantages which had given a value to freehold qualifications; and he trusted that, in these boasted days of knowledge and regard for the rights of the people, the Legislature

1071
would not despise the example set them by their predecessors, at a time and on an occasion when strict justice was less to be expected than at present. In 1748 it was thought desirable to limit and infringe, for the public good, the powers and privileges of superiors of land, and to abolish that monstrous excrescence on our system of jurisprudence—the heritable jurisdictions; under which the Barons in their own Courts took cognizance of crimes committed on their own lands. But as time had legalized the exacting fees in these Courts, it never was contemplated to do them away without compensating the owners, and accordingly large sums were paid to many of them. It was wished, also, to abolish the tenures of wardholding, and to convert them into a feuholding, abolishing thereby certain species of vassalage, as hunting, casualties of marriage, and others which were held to be dangerous to the public peace. But though the country was still agitated by the recollection of the civil wars, and the Government had scarcely recovered from the alarm of the march to Derby, compensation was here also provided by the vassals to their superiors, not by the Government, but by the person benefitted, to him from whom the benefit was taken, for the abolition of these feudal rights. Why should the much more valuable privilege attached to a superiority be taken away, by its being communicated to others, without compensation? He could not but consider this as one of the most reckless parts of this ill-considered and ill-digested plan, and he was quite sure, that the natural sense of justice of the Reformers in Scotland would induce them even yet to prefer any method by which the property-rights of parties were respected. They knew that nothing was more common than for a man buying an estate there, to save his money, and exclude himself from the right of voting, by refusing to take and pay for the superiority; and they did not wish to see him get, by a side-wind of legislation, what he declined to pay for in the open market. He would mention one or two instances where great injustice would be done. It had happened that, where a purchaser declined to take the superiority, he had acquired the lands for 1,000 l. less than was originally demanded, and the former proprietor, going again to the market, had sold the separate superiority for more than
1072
he was willing to take for it when attached to the land. Was the purchaser to be punished because he acted in conformity to the existing law? If the law was wrong, alter it, but in the spirit of justice. Again, it had happened—his right hon. friend opposite was aware of the fact—that, at a contested county election, a voter, finding himself obliged to choose between two friends, of whom one came recommended by supposed official patronage, and the other by the influence of the East-India Direction, and unwilling to offend either—both would have been offended had he voted for neither—had sold the superiority of his patrimonial estate, saved his friends, and put 1,000 l. in his pocket. It was proposed to leave it there, and restore the right of voting to this prudent and calculating freeholder. This was less than justice to the more decided purchaser on that occasion. This should not be; and it would be quite easy to devise a method by which all this might be remedied. Let the Sheriff in each county be authorized to fix, by the verdict of a Jury, the average rate at which superiorities had sold, exclusive of feu-duties and fines for renewal, and that, before voting on a landed qualification—in such a case, it was of no consequence how low that qualification was fixed—every holder of the real property of land should be required and allowed to purchase, at the rate so fixed, the superiority of the land on which he claimed to vote. He would not, at present, pursue this subject further; but in the present measure a great injustice was involved, which, by a little consideration, it would be easy to avoid. Before going further, he would state to the House the objects he had in view in pressing this matter of compensation on its attention. In the first place, its recognition was essential to the maintenance of the security of property, the first principles of which, would be fatally shaken should these superiorities be rendered valueless by an act of legislation proceeding on mere expediency; and, in the next place, by adhering to that ancient and tried principle, that none but the vassals of the Crown should elect or be elected in the counties, which principle would be maintained by the system of compensation. He would propose to preserve the landed interest of Scotland from being laid prostrate beneath the favoured interests of the lowest class of the inhabitants. While he thus advocated the principle of compensation, he had, no personal

1073
interest in superiorities, either to protect or to save. The possessor of estates under strict entail, he could only exercise one vote in the counties with which he was connected; and, in one of these counties, the proposed Bill would invest him with rights from which he was at present excluded. He was not, therefore, liable to any charge of selfishness in urging this matter. He wished also to get rid of that mischievous counteraction to the power of the 10 l. householder, which the Bill proposed to create, by attaching votes to leases of 50 l.; if efficient at all against the 10 l. voters, this provision would altogether annihilate the interests of the middling proprietors in favour of the great aristocracy. He did not overstate the fact when he said, that the vast majority of that most respectable and intelligent class, the great farmers of Scotland, were opposed to the boon which it was proposed to confer on them; and this aversion was fully shared by the smaller tenants, who occupied lands of lower value than those to which it was proposed to attach this franchise. He had, on a former occasion, stated to the House the reason of their objections. The larger tenants considered it as subversive of their personal independence, destructive of the good understanding subsisting between them and their landlords, and ruinous to the best interests of agriculture, from its tendency to induce landlords to cut down the larger and more beneficial farms to the required standard. No country in a similar period had ever made the same advances in agricultural improvement as Scotland, and she was mainly indebted for them to the enterprising public spirit of her great farmers, whose capital had enabled them to hazard experiments rarely at first beneficial in a pecuniary point of view to those who ventured on them. He could not, therefore, but view with great alarm the introduction of a system calculated to annihilate them as a class. And let no one tell him that the individual interest of the proprietors would prevent such results. The system of forming these electoral squares had already commenced, and, if the mere scent of the carcass had given rise to such eagerness, what might not be expected from the real taste of the blood? It was also very possible that a proprietor who had once been disappointed in being able to command the votes of his tenants, might decline in future granting leases at all; and thus a very efficient
1074
counteraction for many of the alleged evils of the entail-laws would at once be put to hazard. The smaller farmers, again, were averse to a system which they not unnaturally considered likely to lead to their ejection as principal tenants, and to the introduction of that curse of Ireland, the system of middle-men, holding with a power of sub-let as many of these small farms as might club up to the proposed amount. Every English gentleman who had been attracted by the love of scenery, or the love of sport, to visit the mountainous districts of Scotland, knew that many of the small farms were so separated from each other, that, to be advantageously occupied, they must each be held by a separate family. The independent state of these smaller farms this Bill proposed to annihilate. They must either be degraded into the class of subtenants—and if any Gentleman had looked as closely to the operation of that system as he himself had done, he must know that they were a class subject to great hardship and oppression—or turned adrift to swell the number of labourers on the roads; and the little patches of cultivation from which they would be ejected would be allowed to run into the waste of sheep-walks. The sportsmen of the House would join him in endeavouring to avert this last consummation, when he told them that the grouse covies were always strongest and most numerous in the neighbourhood of what, in the Highlands, was called par excellence, "the land:" and when they considered that the happiness and independence of a numerous class was concerned, whose willing and generous hospitality they must often have experienced. He appealed to them, therefore, as philanthropists desirous of producing and perpetuating the greatest amount of happiness; and he appealed to them as Englishmen, who were not accustomed to prove themselves ungrateful for obligations received from any quarter, however humble; he entreated them to pause before they sanctioned a measure which was to annihilate this class. There was yet another serious evil which would follow this system of attaching votes to leases in Scotland. The practice of stipulating in leases for certain services of men and horses, and certain payments in kind, was yet very usual in that country. To secure the vote of the freeman he was creating, the landlord would stipulate for an excess of those services

1075
and train pageants, and the tenant would be given to understand that, as long as all went right at the elections, they would be only partially exacted. But then came the moment of excitement; a demagogue schoolmaster, or a son settled as a Writer at the nearest market-town, told them what a glorious thing it would be to shew themselves men—that a patriotic Sovereign and a united Ministry were determined to carry a great measure which would banish the exciseman, and all but put an extinguisher on rents; and that the laird, forsooth, pretended to think for himself, and oppose the Minister. The vote was given against him; the services were exacted; the Writer appealed to to find, according to promise, a flaw in the missive, failed to satisfy the Sheriff that a mutual contract was binding only on one of the parties, and for the remainder of the nineteen years, seeds of discord and distrust were sown, springing up into acts of oppression and resistance, and ripening into the bitter fruits of future discontent, and the demand for further innovation. And this state of things they would substitute for that general feeling of mutual kindliness and goodwill, which, without fear of contradiction, he would aver to be almost universal between the landlords and tenants of Scotland. And why was this mischievous enactment to be pressed on them? Who called for it? What solitary petition from what solitary tenant had been laid on the Table of that House, to claim for the signer the preeminence in folly of assenting to the proposals of his Majesty's Government in this respect? The tenants were to a man opposed to it; but had the landlords called for it? The petitions presented to the House from an overwhelming majority of them sufficiently answered in the negative; they thought not of it with tolerance till this tinkering legislation threatened to overpower them with the votes of the 10 l. householder—a class who had scarcely one single secondary and surface interest in common with the landlord and the farmer; secondary, because their real interests were and must be essentially the same; but the reason of the unity lay deeper than in seasons of excitement they either would or could stop to examine. Therefore this Bill would introduce a bad and vicious county qualification in the first instance, and then Ministers were obliged to counteract this evil of their own
1076
creation by another almost as objectionable. This was what he called a tinkering Legislature. He could have sworn it was the fancy of a lawyer, because it cut out intermediate work for them; but it must have been the invention of a Writer, and not of an advocate, for advocates were too nearly connected with the land, and too high-minded and too intelligent to have originated any such mischievous absurdity. It was the saying of a distinguished man, that he had seen various systems of government—monarchies, aristocracies, democracies, mixed forms—but that Scotland was the only instance of a writerocracy he had ever met with. He implored the House to save them from the strengthened and extended influence which by this Bill would be given to a class of persons already too powerful. The theory, as well as the practice of the Constitution, required that the county Members should represent the landed interest, while the commercial and manufacturing interests should find their Representatives in the burgh Members. If, then, it was thought right to invest every inhabitant of a 10 l. house in the numerous villages with the elective franchise, the theory and practice of the Constitution required that they should have voted with the towns. The House should know that the occupiers of these houses were in no respect, as in England, under the influence of the proprietors of the soil; because the houses were not, as here, built on leases terminable at short periods, but either on perpetual feus, or for a very long term, say ninety-nine years; and could this ex post facto injustice have been foreseen, the great majority of these feus never would have been granted, because proprietors rarely would have consented to raising up a power against themselves, without retaining some means of influencing its action, or specifying some period at which they might reasonably hope to resume their rights. Withdrawn as they thus were, by the use and practice of Scotland, from any influence of their landlords, they should, if included among the voters at all, have been included among those of the towns. Bat he denied that it was necessary or expedient that they should share in the direct Representation at all, because they did, in fact, consist of the same class of persons as the lower rate of voters in the burghs; and it was neither necessary for the protection of their interests, or the elevation of their characters, or the securing

1077
of their rights, or the efficient formation of this House, that all of any class should be called to contribute directly to its formation. That a greater number of them should be called to contribute to it than were at present called, he readily admitted. There were several important and thriving towns, such as Falkirk, and Alloa, and Peterhead, which he desired to see included in the districts of the burghs, to replace those larger cities which he should gladly see invested with the right of a direct and separate Representation; and there were many whose claims, to say the least of them, were preferable to those of Gateshead. Perth had been already considered; but there were other important towns well entitled to consideration,—of these he would mention Inverness, the capital of the Highlands, the only town in the largest county, save one, in Britain, the centre of a great district, rising into increasing importance as the great port of the Caledonian canal, and containing a population of from 12,000 to 14,000 souls; and the House should bear in mind, that this amount of population had a much greater relative value in an extensive and thinly-peopled district, than in the more densely-peopled manufacturing counties of England. He should wish to see a greater number of Scottish towns included in the districts, and a larger proportion of the lower classes of residents in towns admitted to the enjoyments of the elective franchise. Had he been called on to create a new system of Representation for Scotland, he should have included a much larger number of her thriving, though not very populous towns, in the districts of burghs, and he should have adopted that variety in the elective franchise which had worked with such advantage in England. Instead of that uniform 10 l. qualification, he would have given to some of the new burghs an almost universal suffrage; he would have made them, in short, potwallopers. The 10 l. qualification was a sort of two-edged sword; it presented all the disadvantages of universal suffrage against property, and all the injustice of a mere property qualification against the mass of the population below it. It proceeded on this great fallacy in the first instance—that legislation was conversant with the interests of property alone. Was it not conversant with other and as important interests? Were there not life, and liberty, and the interests of religion common to all, and
1078
dearer to the Christian than life itself? When at the poll, one vote was as good as another; and as the mass of votes called to protect the three last-named interests would, on a principle of universal suffrage, overpower the votes of those interested to preserve also the additional interests of property, so he would only admit such a just proportion of the first as might furnish a just protection to the rights of life, and liberty, and religion. The 10 l. qualification excluded them, at least in theory, altogether. By the admission of a much greater number of the less considerable towns to the districts of burghs, and on a variety of elective franchise, they might have tried a great experiment on a safe scale. But what he contended was, that by spreading that elective franchise over every village and hamlet of the country, they would merely spread a spirit of electioneering. They would substitute for the useful and advantageous pursuits of steady industry, the useless fascinations of political importance; and, for the quiet sentiments of a contented patriotism, the heart-burning and the irritation of the spirit of party. He would not trespass on the Committee by entering, at present, on the consideration of the Scottish burgh Representation. The present system was radically bad, and utterly indefensible; and it was the more easily ameliorated, because they had but to revert to their original constitution, and because no question of compensation for any abstracted or assumed rights had there to be considered. The change proposed, however, in the Bill before the House, while it did away with that must objectionable system of the self-election of the magistrates and council, involved the virtual disfranchisement of all the smaller burghs; and that he should certainly, as instructed by his constituents, oppose. But a more fitting time would offer itself for his doing so when the Bill went to a Committee. Neither would he detain the House by entering into the consideration of the proposed union of counties; it might be sufficient to state that, in every instance, they were themselves opposed to it. And again, he must, in particular, call the attention of the Government to the case of crying injustice, still, as it would seem, reserved for the county of Elgin. Whether his Majesty's Government might consider any of the suggestions he had taken the liberty of making as deserving of their

1079
consideration—whether they might not think it desirable to make some concessions to the almost universal declaration of the landed proprietors of Scotland against this Bill, he knew not; but an adherence to the Bill as it stood, in opposition to such declaration, would be poorly justified by telling the House that the urgent demands of the people for Reform left neither the time nor the power necessary for considering what that Reform should be; and the people of Scotland would not consider this a sufficient justification for their having consigned the Treaty of Union, both in its letter and its spirit, to that receptacle of old almanacs in Downing-street, to which, before introducing these Bills for Reform, they appeared to have, for a time, consigned all the lessons of experience and all the instructions of history. One, and only one, more reason he would state, which operated strongly in determining him to oppose this Bill. He could not but consider it as part and parcel of that greater measure, which, having received the sanction of a majority of that House, had been sent up to the other House with such loud and triumphant acclamation. He opposed that measure in every one of its stages. He would not call it revolutionary, but he would say that it erected a platform on which might be placed that engine which might batter to the ground the venerable fabric of the Constitution. He had heard that fabric compared to a stately and well-proportioned column, which, founded on the rock, resisted alike the force of tempest and of time; the rock on which it was founded being the affections of the people; its base, the people themselves; its well-proportioned shaft, a high-minded, an upright, and independent aristocracy; its capital, a kingly Crown. He feared lest, by the operation of this Bill, they might render the pillar of the desert a more meet comparison—its base, the unproductive and ever-moving sand; its shaft, the same worthless material raised into undue elevation; its capital, if indeed, it had one, that same barren sand, borne up by the struggle of contending atoms to a still more unnatural height, till, dissipated and scattered through the dark fields of the loaded air, it was again precipitated and cast down to all the lowness of its original insignificance. These Bills would never pass; with something of that second-sight which still lingered among his native
1080
hills, he predicted that it would never become a law. The Peers of England would do their duty. To their more impartial and less-excited tribunal he committed it; and, confident of the result, he would exclaim, "May God prosper the right."
Sir Michael Shaw Stewartsaid, although he very much dissented from the conclusion to which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had come, with respect to the operation of this Bill, still he should not presume to occupy the time of the House on this occasion, by attempting to follow the hon. Gentleman through his observations, which, by the way, almost entirely related to the details of the measure, because he trusted that the House would rest its opinion upon the great leading principle of this Bill, upon the observations of the learned Lord Advocate, and upon his own deliberate conclusion; and the inferior arguments which had been advanced, either by his hon. friend, or by other hon. Gentlemen, had been set at rest by his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the noble Lord, the Paymaster of his Majesty's Forces. A further opportunity, the House would recollect, would be afforded for the consideration of the details of this measure. He would say a very few words in reference to the great importance of this measure, not only as to that part of the kingdom of which he had the honour to be a Representative, but to the country at large. He should give his support to this measure, reserving to himself the full privilege of making any observations, or of supporting any amendments in its details in the course of its progress through the Committee, which might seem to him to be beneficial; and he supported this measure, not only in conformity with the almost unanimous feeling in its favour which existed throughout that part of Scotland with which he was most conversant, but also from feeling as he did that the present system of popular Representation in Scotland was utterly inadequate. He could not but feel, whatever the probable effects of this Bill might be in the eyes of his hon. friend, that it would be but an act of common justice to Scotland. It was almost ridiculous to compare the Scotland of 1706, to the Scotland of 1831, on account of the immense increase which had taken place in its population, and in its national prosperity: the population of Scotland at the time of the Union did not exceed

1081
1,200,000; it was now upwards of 2,000,000; her annual rent, which was then somewhat less than 60,000 l., was now 250,000 l.; and yet, with a population exceeding 2,000,000, and with a great variety of wealthy and important interests to be represented, the number of qualified electors did not exceed 145. It was needless to make one single remark on this state of things; these were defects in the Representation of Scotland which must at once strike any one who was acquainted with the facts. It was now quite obvious, whatever might be the opinion of hon. Members, that the system which existed in Scotland was one of great injustice, and that it was one which could be no longer upheld. He would state, whatever unpopularity the assertion might bring upon himself, that he supported this measure, not as a step to any ulterior proceedings, but as a final measure—final for the present day and generation. There were some who had given this measure a sort of sullen support, because they thought it opened the way to ulterior changes. If such were their intention, he should hereafter resist any such attempt, in the same manner as he would now support this important change. This measure he hoped his Majesty's Ministers would make a final one. Attempts might hereafter be made to urge them forward; but he trusted that here they would take their constitutional stand. They had adopted a just and liberal measure, and one which would be conducive to the interests of the country; and, having done so, they ought not to be induced to proceed further. He would simply add, that he should go into Committee on this Bill with a most sincere desire to do that which, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, he considered essential for the happiness, peace, and welfare of the country.
Mr. Huntsaid, as reference had been made to some observations of his the other night, relative to the Lord Advocate's speech, and as great misrepresentation had gone forth to the public, he was desirous of saying one word in explanation. On that occasion he congratulated the learned Lord Advocate on his becoming so sincere a Radical. He perfectly concurred in all that the noble Lord said or that occasion: the only thing he complained of was, that he had not dealt quite fairly with those advocates of his, during the election in Scotland. Now, how was this stated to the public by that oracle of
1082
the Whig Administration—The Times newspaper? Why it told one of the most naked—one of the most barefaced and premeditated falsehoods that ever even that false paper gave utterance to—"Mr. Hunt found fault with the Lord Advocate's speech as being too Radical." This was a most barefaced falsehood.
Mr. Walter Campbellsaid, he was most sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman who spoke last but two make an attack upon the learned Lord Advocate of Scotland in his absence; and as that learned Lord was not in his place, he should take the liberty, in the first place, of answering an observation of the hon. Gentleman's, with respect to the number of Members which were given to Scotland at the time of the Union. The circumstances of that country had undergone as complete a change since that period as could well be conceived. Scotland was then in a state of the greatest poverty: so much so, indeed, that her own Representatives did not pay their own expenses, but they were actually paid by those who sent them to the House. In those days an hon. Gentleman could not throw himself into a coach, and in eight and forty hours be in that House, or in Scotland, as the case might be. Gentlemen in those days either rode on horseback, or, if they used a coach at all, they thrust themselves into a huge, clumsy, leathern conveyance, which reached London in about six weeks. No wonder, then, that the boroughs or towns were not very anxious to sustain the expense of sending Members to Parliament: this, no doubt, was one of the reasons why the numbers were so small. They had now obtained for their large towns that which they desired; and so far from the increase being too great, it was too small when compared with the circumstances of the country. An observation fell from the hon. Member relative to the abolition of Scotch jurisdiction, which was a point of very great importance. If the hon. Member had recollected the enormous benefit which the country derived from putting down those jurisdictions, and the various circumstances attending that proceeding, he would not have considered the course which was now about to be pursued so very unjust. It would not be supposed that he would speak with disrespect of any individuals, but every authority on the subject to which he had referred coincided in his opinion of the necessity of abolishing those jurisdictions. It had been already observed,

1083
that no country had increased in prosperity with such amazing rapidity as Scotland; and if at the time of the Union the Government of that day had had the same inducement for increasing the Representation of Scotland as that which now presented itself, instead of Scotland treading fast on the heels of this country, she would have far surpassed it. This was not an exaggerated caricature, but a true picture. The hon. Member had talked about compensation. On the occasion to which he had adverted, many individuals did not receive any. In one instance, in particular, in which an individual in a very high station, a Judge, never would receive any compensation. He trusted that at this period no person, however humble, would consent to receive any. Having made these few remarks, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, he would only say, as far as his support went, this measure should receive it.
Mr. Cumming Brucehoped, that what had fallen from the hon. member for Ayrshire—whose paternal ancestor, by the bye, received 40,000 l. for the loss of his jurisdiction—would not be taken up in such a shape as to induce that highly-respectable and talented individual, the Lord Advocate, to suppose that he made any observations in the slightest degree disrespectful to him, in his absence.
Mr. Pringleregretted very much the absence of the Lord Advocate and the indisposition which was the cause of that absence; but, in taking part in this discussion, he should not be precluded from following the example of his hon. friend, in noticing the arguments of the learned Lord; and the more especially as his speech was calculated to make an impression upon the House—and, on that account, ought not to be passed by. In listening to that speech with the pleasure generally derived from his eloquence, he had heard, with considerable uneasiness, the description of the present state of the county constituency of Scotland, knowing that the picture which the learned Lord drew, was calculated to convey to those who heard it—an impression very dissimilar from the real state of that constituency. On a former evening, the right hon. member for Tamworth quoted the Trial by Jury, to illustrate the discrepancy often found in our institutions, betwixt theory and practice; and he asked, if a foreigner coming into this country, unacquainted with our
1084
customs and business, would not, on hearing a Jury trial described, conclude that it was a very absurd institution; and yet, the right hon. Gentleman proved that the foreigner would form a false and inadequate conception of the practical working of a valuable institution. So it was with the system of the elective franchise in Scotland: it might have its defects, and be liable to objections; but, in practice, it worked in a very different manner from that described by the Lord Advocate. The learned Lord represented to the House, that the constituency of Scotland was not connected with the landed property, and possessed the power of returning Members to Parliament, to the utter exclusion of the influence of landed property. Any one acquainted with the constituency of Scotland, must be aware that it does not consist, as the learned Lord stated, of persons unconnected with the landed property of the country. They might not, in all cases, represent the local interests of the place where they vote, but, as a body, they must be regarded as representing the interests of the country generally. In almost every county, the voters, if not actually possessed of estates, were generally the near connexions of proprietors. Nothing, therefore, could be more exaggerated than the case supposed by the learned Lord, of a body of strangers acquiring a majority of superiority votes in a county, and electing the Member to the exclusion of the real owners of the land. The fact was, that unless the holder of a mere vote, without any more substantial interest, be either resident in the county, or peculiarly interested in it, he never cares long to retain a property which is so unproductive, so troublesome, and so expensive; and the case figured by the learned Lord, not only never had occurred, but nothing at all approaching to it was ever likely to occur. In a few counties, from particular circumstances, the alienation of a portion of the constituency from the land was greater than in others, but that was not a general case. In the county which he represented there was not a single freeholder, on a roll of at least fifty, who was not either the proprietor of a considerable estate in the county, or the son or brother of a proprietor. But, in Scotland, the complaint against the votes on bare superiorities had never been, that they were the means of bringing in a set of strangers on the county, to the exclusion

1085
of the real landholders; but, on the contrary, that they were calculated to extend inordinately, the power of a few great proprietors. But this complaint, though well founded to a certain extent, was not entitled to so much weight as would, at first sight, appear. The evil had its limits; for these votes were all localized on certain properties, at a high qualification, and they were made at great expense and sacrifice. Besides, the system had an adjusting principle, which frequently corrected its deficiencies. Of this fact, several examples might be mentioned, and, particularly, some of the cases specially referred to by the learned Lord. He had brought forward, most prominently, the counties of Argyle and Lanark as examples of an unusual number of mere superiority voters, but had he stated the circumstances which had occasioned so great an increase of such votes in these counties as had recently taken place in them, he would have afforded a very material explanation to the House. The case of Lanarkshire was one of peculiar importance, as illustrative of the working of this system. In that county, owing to various causes, violent contests had frequently taken place. The principal cause, however, was this—a nobleman of great wealth, possessing extensive estates in that county, was ambitious of holding the chief influence in returning the Member to Parliament; but bringing forward a candidate who was not popular with the electors, he found it necessary, in order to carry his point, to create a vast number of these superiority voters. This, however, had the effect of rousing the independent spirit of the resident country gentlemen; and these, in order to resist what they considered an unconstitutional interference on the part of a Peer with their rights and privileges, combined to split the votes on their estates, and thus succeeded in returning his hon. friend, who now represented the county; and who, coming forward on the independent interest, was opposed to that of the noble Duke he had alluded to. But his election was brought about, not by the mere power of superiority votes, for he had among his supporters a majority of the real proprietors of the land. This, then, was the reason why the proportion of such votes was so unusually great in Lanarkshire. But, even in this instance, where the system complained of prevailed to the greatest extent, it was obvious that the influence of the principal landholders
1086
was not excluded. Quite the contrary: the effect of it really was, to give, in a limited degree, a greater influence to the larger proprietors than was possessed by the smaller—which influence, without it, they could not have. He had to complain of the unfair representations of the learned Lord, when he brought forward an election in the county of Bute, and gave it as an illustration of the county elections of Scotland. He had selected a remote county, the smallest in the kingdom, belonging, almost entirely, in property, to a single nobleman; and he had taken the occasion of an uncontested election. He might just as well have quoted an election at Gatton as a specimen of an election at Sonthwark or Guildford, or any other borough in the county of Surrey. Some of the observations made by the learned Lord on the national character of the Scottish people were certainly not very complimentary, and not altogether just or fair. Perhaps they might not be very close to the present argument, and it might appear to be digressing from it, were he to follow him through them. But if he ventured to do so, he hoped to meet with the indulgence of the House; for, as a Scotchman, he could not allow the national character of his countrymen to be unfairly dealt with, and not attempt to say something in reply. The learned Lord represented the general character of the Scotch as that of a people who were indifferent to civil rights, and, as a proof of his proposition, he adduced the fact, that England had achieved the establishment of many of her free institutions long before the union of the two kingdoms, prior to which period Scotland had none. When he stated this, he should have accompanied it with a qualification. He should have stated the circumstances of Scotland at the time; and when he asserted that its inhabitants were indifferent to civil rights, compared with the people of England, he should have assigned the reasons for the fact, he should have pointed out this—that the history of Scotland was not so far advanced. In every nation, there was, first, a struggle for independence; next, for the establishment of a strong and lasting form of government. It was not till these were obtained that any thing in the shape of civil rights could be settled. Till the time of the Union of the Crowns, Scotland was more or less engaged in a struggle to establish her independence; and the frequent

1087
minorities of her Sovereigns prevented her from ever enjoying a strong Government. After that Union, when she had no longer to struggle for national independence, she manifested no indifference towards civil rights, nor was she backward in maintaining them. It was well known, that, from the Union of the Crowns to the Union of the Kingdoms, Scotland was engaged in a fierce and sanguinary struggle; "but then," said the learned Lord, "that was not a struggle for civil liberty: it was of quite a different character—it was for religion; and he would admit, that for their religion, the Scottish people struggled to the death." When the learned Lord admitted this, he had admitted everything. He would ask, what was the great and primary object that stimulated resistance in England, and kept alive the spirit of it there? Was it not religious zeal. They did not hunt an abstract but unreal phantom of civil liberty, such as caused the spirit of disturbance in France, which had now lasted for forty years, and where, as yet, the object was unattained, and perhaps ever would be. It was religious zeal that gave life and energy to the struggles in England; it was this that inspired the English people with fortitude to meet danger in the field, and death upon the scaffold. Their zeal might frequently be blind and misdirected; their religion might be clouded by error and deformed by fanaticism; but yet, defective and fanatical as it was, it was still the main-spring of all their actions; and in this lay the prominent distinction betwixt the character of the struggles in England and those in France. The same spirit might be traced through every stage of the civil wars, but it shone forth with peculiar lustre at the Revolution. Had James 2nd endeavoured merely to subvert the free institutions of his country, he might possibly have succeeded; and, indeed, there were many of them dormant during the reign of his predecessor. But it was his zeal for the Roman Catholic religion which cost him his Crown. This was the weight that pulled him down. Had he not laboured to establish Popery within these realms, he might have sat upon the Throne of England to his dying day. Every one who was intimately acquainted with the real character of our national struggles, must be aware of this fact—that the chief and primary objects aimed at, was, first, the establishment of liberty of conscience, and
1088
then the predominance of the true Protestant religion. Civil rights were sought for, merely as the means of attaining and securing these; and it pleased God, when he blessed the efforts of the nation for the attainment of the one, to add to it the other also. In Scotland, then, the character of the national struggles was in every respect similar. During the dark and dismal period which there preceded the Revolution, the national energies did seem quite absorbed in the cause of religion. But when the nation attained their favourite object, did they make no advance in maturing their civil rights? Did the Convention of Estates, when they stipulated for the establishment of Presbytery, secure for their country nothing else? It was a libel upon them to suppose that they were negligent of these. To say nothing of other improvements, he might remind the House of the step gained by the Scottish Parliament in the removal of the institution of the Lords of the Articles—that incubus upon all their deliberations, which utterly precluded and shut them out from the privilege of discussion. The right hon. member for Knaresborough had stated, that immediately previous to the union of the kingdoms, the Parliament of Scotland was constituted very nearly as it was at present. He was surprised that this material difference should have escaped that right hon. Gentleman's accurate historical knowledge—that in the Scotch Parliament the Peers and Commons sat in the same Chamber. While that was the case, how was it possible for the people to maintain their rights, or for the deliberations of their Representatives to be free? If Scotland, therefore, in spite of her struggles for freedom, did not make the same progress that England did, it was not owing to any defect in the natural character of her inhabitants, or to their want of zeal for liberty, and still less to her Representatives in Parliament, who were scarcely distinguished, then, as a separate body. And again, from the time of the Union, down to 1745, the nation might still be said to have been engaged in a struggle for the succession to the Crown. The country was divided betwixt the adherents of the House of Hanover and those of the House of Stuart. Scotland was looked upon as the stronghold of Jacobitism; and as such the two first Monarchs of the Brunswick race treated it with neglect, if not with oppression. He

1089
was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. member for Argyle allude to some of the Courts of that period, in which persons of his name bore rather a conspicuous part; for he thought that the remembrance of these had better have been buried in oblivion. To such oppressions the Scottish nation did not submit with patience. But their resistance was exhibited in the manner which was, perhaps, the most natural, a series of attempts to bring back the exiled family, from whom they expected more grace and favour. The hopes of the Stuarts were extinguished in 1745, after which Scotland was tranquil, and her patriots were more free to use their exertions in behalf of their country. From that time the Scotch Members had done their duty in that House. Vague complaints in respect to their assiduity and effectiveness were common enough amongst those who knew little of the toil they underwent, and the sacrifices they frequently made. But they who knew best the extent of their exertions were ever ready to do them justice. The hon. member for Kirkcudbright admitted their assiduity, and their fitness for business, but quarrelled with their lack of independence. "I should like," he said, "to see them more independent:"—independent of whom?—of the King's Government? His hon. friend, the member for Inverness, had given the best answer to this complaint. "Look," he said, "to the present roll of Scotch Members, and you will find the full half of them habitually opposed to the present Ministry." Did this argue any deficiency of independence? So had it been, at all times, more or less. In fact, they followed the feelings of the mass of men of property in Scotland. If, during the late war, a majority of them supported the Administration of Mr. Pitt and his successors, they did nothing more than act in unison with the well-known sentiments of, at least, the landholders of Scotland. In England there was a corresponding feeling, and they would find, that the divisions amongst the English county Members were in pretty nearly the same proportion as in Scotland. The hon. member for Kirkcudbright, repeating the same complaint, had run over a number of divisions of that House, from a tolerably remote period, by which it appeared that the Scotch Members, with a few exceptions, supported the Minister of the day. But the cases he had quoted were all nearly of the same character.
1090
They were not the usual divisions betwixt the court and country parties, but questions in which the principles of government were more or less involved; and the Scotch Members were found strongest on the conservative side. This was just as might have been expected, without questioning their independence. They represented, as had always been admitted, property, rather than numbers; and therefore they were not readily induced to countenance speculation or change. The complaint, then, of their not being sufficiently independent of the Government of the day was not well founded. But there was another independence—independence of their constituents—which surely the honorable Member could not mean. But this reminded him of an observation of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon what fell from his right hon. friend, the member for Perthshire. When that, right hon. Gentleman talked of his being an independent Member, the noble Lord said, "Yes, he may be an independent Member, but I should like to see him more dependent; I should like to see him have constituents to depend upon." He would not suppose that the noble Lord could intend to misrepresent the meaning of his right hon. friend, but he seemed greatly to have misapprehended it. The right hon. Gentleman never could have used the term in the sense taken up by the noble Lord, seeing that he represented the largest and most important county of Scotland, with the largest roll of freeholders, and was, therefore, sent to that House by an independent, wealthy, a superior, and a formidable body of constituents. What he understood him to mean was this: that the freeholders of Perthshire, approving of his political opinions, but placing full confidence, as they well might, in his experience as a Statesman, and his wisdom in deliberation, had left him free and independent in his particular votes; and in this, their constitutional conduct, they presented an edifying contrast to the conduct of some more numerous constituencies, which ought never to be placed on a par with them in point of wisdom and intelligence. Almost all the Gentlemen on the opposite side seemed to have assumed, that popular elections were a positive blessing to those places by which they were already possessed, and one which should be urgently demanded by those which had them not. By popular elections, he meant elections

1091
among a numerous constituency, in great towns and populous places, consisting chiefly of the lower orders, or such classes as were to be introduced by the clause in this Bill conferring the franchise on the 10 l. householders. To doubt such a proposition in the present times might, perhaps, appear bold and unfashionable. None was more ready to admit than himself the advantage of a considerable infusion of popularity into the representative body. It was this which conferred on the British Parliament its varied character, and enabled it to act in unison and harmony with the various feelings of all classes of the people; but this might be the case, and yet the peace and prosperity of the places where such elections were carried on might not be promoted by such elections. Had the learned Lord ever paused to consider what would be the effect of this popular mode of election in a moral point of view? All the uproar, riot, dissipation, corruption, and confusion—perhaps, in some instances, the bloodshed—which might result from it, would not, in his opinion, be attended with any advantage equal to compensate for the mischiefs to which it would give rise. In Edinburgh or Glasgow, for example, where such scenes were as yet happily unknown, there was now to be a constituency of about 12,000 voters, most of whom belonged to a low grade of society; and that man undertook a very fearful responsibility in a moral and Christian point of view, who introduced a measure conferring political power on such a body, and introducing among them, for the first time, such scenes as he had alluded to. Very opprobrious epithets had been applied, both in the House and elsewhere, and by persons who ought to have been more guarded and circumspect in their language, to the constituency of Scotland and its representative body. In the slang of the day, and in not very good taste, its boroughs had been denominated "the rotten boroughs," and its counties "the still more rotten counties of Scotland." These were indefinite terms, and might amount to very effective declamation; but they were nothing more than mere general assertions and could only be met by general assertions. He asserted that they were neither rotten boroughs nor rotten counties, in the offensive sense in which the term "rotten" was used. When the right hon. member for Knaresborough, and the noble Lord the Chancellor of the
1092
Exchequer, told them that Scotland was not, nor ever had been, represented, that assertion was mere declamation. There were but three counties in Scotland, or four at most, where the property of individuals was so predominant as to render them nomination counties. One of these, the county of Nairne, was represented for a considerable time by the right hon. member for Knaresborough himself. If he, therefore, deduced his inference, regarding the character of the Scottish constituency from his personal experience, he might be excused from making the observation. But what could be said for another right hon. Gentleman, whom he heard repeat the obnoxious assertion, in terms still stronger—and that, too, in a speech in which he was recommending moderation in debate? When he heard the right hon. President of the Board of Control join in this kind of declamation, he felt that rising within him, which almost tempted him to exclaim "Et tu, Brute!" When he reflected how long he (the right hon. President of the Board of Control) had been returned to that House by the independent freeholders of the large county of Inverness—when he thought of the many votes which, as their Member, he had given in support of that conservative cause to which he was now opposed—when he remembered his intimate political connection with those Statesmen who taught them to value and appreciate as they deserved their national institutions as they were now constituted, he was astonished, and could hardly believe that he had heard him correctly. In directing their attention to the existing Representation of Scotland, they must distinguish betwixt the boroughs and the counties. The present system of royal boroughs he had never admired. The want of popular election was not its prominent defect, for in many of the boroughs the annual election of a portion of the Town Council rendered them no strangers to popular elections, and to all the riot and confusion attendant upon them. But, though perfectly alive to the defects of the system, he had always found it very difficult to devise a remedy. No plan of improvement that had ever yet been seriously proposed had altogether met with his approval; and he was not at all prepared to admit, that the provisions of this Bill afforded an adequate remedy. It retained many of the ancient evils of the system, and introduced some new ones peculiar to

1093
itself. But he would reserve his observations upon these details for another opportunity, if such should ever be afforded to them. As the Representation of the counties had been chiefly spoken of, it was to that he would now advert; and he must begin by remarking, that the present system was essentially a Representation of the landed interests of Scotland. The number of the voters might not be numerous, but they were in all cases highly respectable and intelligent. Indeed, there was not, in the whole British empire, a more independent and incorruptible body of electors than the county freeholders of Scotland. That the present system might be greatly extended; that its basis might be widened; that it might be brought down to include a less opulent, but still an independent class of proprietors; and that it might be made to embrace all the landed property in the kingdom, by whatever tenure it might be held; he was prepared to admit. The practical advantages of such an extension might be problematical, and had often been exaggerated; but he would not be the person to resist it. He agreed with the hon. and learned member for Kirkcudbright, that, so long as landed property was the basis, nearly the same Members would be returned as at present, at least, the result ought to be nearly the same; in any county in Scotland the Representative was rarely any other than the gentleman who, from rank, fortune, or character, ought to be the Member. There it would scarcely be possible for a stranger—unconnected with the landed property—to be brought in, as they had lately seen in some large English counties. The elections would be undoubtedly more expensive, and that would be an injury, seeing that, at present, they cost comparatively little; but, as the result would be nearly the same, he would not quarrel with the new scheme on that account. But his chief objection to the Bill was the same as had been so ably urged by hon. Members who had preceded him on that side—its effect on the influence of the country gentlemen of Scotland. To that influence it would prove ruinous, and it seemed as if it were prepared for the very express purpose of overwhelming them. At present, the returns of most counties were essentially in the hand of the country gentlemen—the resident proprietors of moderate fortune—the very men in whom the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in arguing some
1094
parts of the English Bill, declared he wished to see it invested. Hon. Members not intimately acquainted with the state of property in Scotland, and the distribution of capital throughout that country, could not easily estimate the operation of the Bill in this respect. It might seem paradoxical to say that the Bill was both aristrocratical and democratical in its operation in the Scotch counties, and the right hon. the President of the Board of Control had ridiculed this idea; yet every one well acquainted with the state of property in Scotland saw at once that this must be the case. It was occasioned by letting in as voters, on the one hand, the 10 l. house proprietors; and the tenantry on the other. Wherever the towns and villages prevailed, the elections would be highly democratic; and where there were few of these, and the estates of a single nobleman were extensive—as was usually the case in such situations—the direct power would be transferred to that nobleman. In all cases it would be a struggle betwixt the few great proprietors and the feuars of the towns; and these two classes would divide all the power, to the exclusion of the country gentlemen of moderate fortune. As the law stood at present, the undue influence of either of these was guarded against with extreme jealousy. The noblemen who had large estates, had hitherto been generally prevented by their entails from creating superiority votes; and even when they had the power to do so, that power was of limited extent. Besides this, the eldest sons of Peers were excluded from sitting in Parliament among the Scotch Representatives; so that the influence of Peers was the most legitimate of all influence—that of extensive property, in an indirect shape, among men of moderate but independent fortunes. Indeed, it was impossible to conceive a system where the power was more completely invested in the independent body of country gentlemen. Now it was to be transferred by this Bill, in some few cases, to a few affluent noblemen; but in by far the greatest number of cases, to the inhabitants of the country towns. But to what class of all her inhabitants was Scotland so deeply indebted as to her country gentlemen? Travel where you would through the length or breadth of the kingdom; survey on either side the fair face of the country, and every where the eye would be met with the evidences of the public spirit, the patriotism,

1095
and the liberality of the country gentlemen. These would be seen in the public works, the roads and bridges, the new churches, and other public buildings; in the advancing state of agriculture, the handsome and extensive farm-steadings, the inclosures, and the cultivated lands reclaimed from the waste; in the embellishments of the scenery, and the young woods rising around; in the comfortable and independent condition of the peasantry, where every able-bodied man could maintain and educate his family, scorning to depend upon public relief. In short, if Scotland had advanced in affluence and prosperity, it had been in a great measure owing to the exertions and spirit of her country gentlemen; and if the present measure was calculated to diminish the importance and crush the influence of that important class, he could hardly conceive a greater calamity to the nation. But was the existing system in Scotland so utterly defective, and so unsound in principle, that it could not be improved or amended? This was the course which a wise and prudent Statesman would adopt, if he possibly could. In retaining the foundation of ancient institutions, it might be possible, more or less clearly to calculate the effect of proposed alterations, and perhaps to provide against the risk of failure. But the learned Lord—and after him the noble Lord opposite—had utterly condemned the present system. "I will utterly subvert it," said the learned Lord, "will not a shred, not a rag of it I leave remaining." He had never heard a more reckless or revolutionary sentiment fall from the lips of a legislator. Had he (the learned Lord) ever paused to consider with how much violence this must be brought about—with what inroads upon private rights—with what a shock to credit and to all existing institutions? The various civil institutions of a country were all, more or less, dependent on each other. They grew up together, and became gradually fitted and adapted to each other, as the parts of one compact and united whole. If, therefore, one part were entirely subverted, the whole received a concussion which might dislocate all its parts. This was particularly the case with the election rights of Scotland, which were intimately connected with the whole system of its rights of real property; and he had never conversed with a well-informed person in that country, Reformer or Anti-reformer, who did not deprecate so entire a
1096
hange. In Scotland people were warmly attached to their national institutions. They might not always find favour in the eyes of Englishmen; but because they frequently differed from those of England it did not follow that they were defective. They might have been adapted to the peculiar circumstances of the country—to the climate—the national character prejudices, or tastes—to the accidental distribution of property—or to the character of its other institutions. Under them the country had prospered, and they were linked with the earliest associations of the people. To condemn them was to touch the national prejudices in a tender point; and jealousy was easily roused by any attempt to change or subvert them. More than once had such an attempt roused the ire of the Scottish nation. But this was the boldest attempt of the kind that had ever yet been made, and in it he foresaw only a commencement of many more such desperate innovations. But there was many a breast in Scotland that would respond to the sentiment of their poet Burns, when he left the thistle unweeded in his garden because it was the emblem of his native land:—
"The rough bur-thistle spreading wide
Amang the bearded bear,—
I turned the weeder-clips aside,
And spared the symbol dear."
Let not, then, their English fellow-countrymen, when they cultivated their roses in a richer soil, and under a more genial sun, or their countrymen of Ireland, when they boasted of the verdure of their shamrocks—despise the hardy plant of more northern regions. It was not destitute of beauty; with them it was no sickly exotic, but bloomed as luxuriantly on the mountain side as in the sheltered valley—a fit emblem of their nation—hardy and formidable. So was it with some of their national institutions. To an English eye they might appear barbarous or grotesque, but the people were attached to them for many reasons, and chiefly because they were their own. There they stood, testifying to all the world, that the Union of Scotland with the wealthier and more powerful realm of England, was brought about—not by the sword of conquest, but by the compact of a solemn treaty betwixt two independent nations. They preserved the national distinction, and why should not this be kept up? It had been the parent of many virtues, and the stimulus of much

1097
enterprise among Scotchmen. Betwixt the sister nations it excited only a generous rivalry, and in this respect it had not been without advantage to England. He hoped he had avoided the fault attributed to most of those who had preceded him on that side, he had abstained from touching the details of the Bill. His observations on these he would reserve for other opportunities. He had also carefully avoided the question, how far any modification of the present system, or any change at all, was likely to prove beneficial to Scotland; for all that he had to do with, was the Bill now before them, and, comparing that with their present system, he could never approve of it. The Gentlemen on the opposite side had endeavoured to evade a powerful argument, which they could not answer—that Scotland had thriven under the present system; but still this must be utterly changed, because, forsooth, it was not suited to the theories and altered tastes of the present day. They could not deny that Scotland had been tranquil and happy, and prosperous and contented; but all this was in no respect the fruits of the present system, but had been so in spite of it. Was this assertion to be received from them as a self-evident truth? Was it possible that, if so vital a part of the Constitution were so utterly vicious and defective, that "not a shred, not a rag of it," ought to be any longer endured, the country, oppressed and burthened with such a government, could have been the most prosperous and tranquil portion of the empire? This proposition, if it did not set forth its own absurdity, ought to be examined and probed to the bottom—but there was no time for that at present. They might inquire how a different system had operated elsewhere; they might look to other parts of the empire—to Ireland, for example, which had long enjoyed a system in most respects similar to that which it was now proposed to introduce into Scotland. Was the prospect of the proposed change, when viewed in that aspect, so inviting? He would not fatigue the House with a picture of the condition of Ireland, for that they had every night from Irish Members, who vied with each other, Reformer with Anti-reformer, in drawing that picture with the deepest shades. It was enough to remark, what was so universally admitted, that though a richer and more fertile country,
1098
the condition of Ireland was a complete contrast to that of Scotland. They might be told, that that condition, too, had no connexion with the constitution of her Representation, but was brought about in spite of it. He could not so readily admit this. Was there, of all the evils which afflicted Ireland, any one more prominent—so prominent, indeed, that, like Aaron's rod, it seemed to swallow up all the others,—than the state of perpetual political agitation with which that country was afflicted? From such a scourge Scotland lad been hitherto exempt, and long might she continue so. As he had never before intruded upon the House in the course of the debates upon the Reform Bills—though he had been present at every one of them, since they were first commenced on the 1st day of March—he would take this occasion to declare, that, after having carefully considered those Bills in all their character and bearings, he could not in conscience support them. When he looked back upon the past prosperity and happiness of his country—and forward into the vast vista of innovation which opened before them, he felt the most anxious forebodings for the future prospects of Great Britain. He was not blind to the anomalies and defects of our ancient system, but seeing how it had worked for the freedom and peace of the nation, and now seeing such vast changes about to be introduced, his fears preponderated over his hopes—his fears of ruin over his hopes of improvement. With such feelings and anxious forebodings, he could not, as an honest man, give his support to any of the measures of Reform that had been brought forward by his Majesty's Government.
Mr. Patrick M. Stewartsaid, that being one of those whom an hon. and gallant Member opposite designated as Scotchmen billeted on England, he hoped the House would indulge him for a short time. He would not attempt to follow the hon. members for Selkirk and Nairn through their vast and varied speeches. The crow's flight through such time-absorbing orations would imply a heavier tax on the patience of the House than he could venture to impose, or to attempt; besides, their length, their breadth, and their thickness, rendered that hopeless. But he must enter his protest against two assertions of his hon. friend, the member for Nairn; the first, that the tenantry of Scotland were

1099
adverse to their own enfranchisement; the other, that the people of Scotland were indifferent to the fate of this great measure. These assertions he most positively denied; and the hon. Member must have voluntarily closed all the ordinary avenue of conviction, if he left Scotland under any such impression on his mind. It was important that such opinions as those expressed by his hon. friend should no pass unnoticed and uncontradicted, especially at this momentous crisis. Notwithstanding the ardour with which the hon. Member had spoken against this measure, there was one cheering inference to be made from this debate, which was, that they were all, at last, Reformers; and whatever might be the fate of the letter of the Bill, its spirit—the spirit of actual and ample Reform in the Representation of the people and property of the country—might be declared as secure beyond al hazard. In confirmation of this, he would remind the House of the division on this Bill on Friday se'nnight, when the largest proportional majority that had yet supported it occurred; and when, moreover, this majority was strengthened by the accession of some hon. Members who, hitherto, had been active and strenuous opponents of the measure throughout. He alluded to the hon. member for Bossiney; his hon. friend, the member for Dumfries; and last, not least, to his hon. friend, the member for Honiton (Sir George Warrender), who, like another Georgium Sidus, had lately been discovered as belonging to their system—not a fixed star, but a planet—whose distance and eccentric movements had hitherto baffled calculation, but who now shed a direct influence upon the prosperity of their cause. He had hoped to have made other such flattering discoveries at this stage of the progress, for he considered the Representation of Scotland so flagrantly bad, that all who were interested in her welfare, and anxious for her enjoyment of the common rights of citizenship, would have united in approving of the principle of a Bill, which was destined to remedy defects that were too notorious to be denied. This Bill, differing from its companions, contained no clause of absolute disfranchisement, but went at once to extend Representation, and to establish the elective franchise in Scotland, for it scarcely now existed there. He understood
1100
elective franchise to mean—the privilege of exerting a free choice; and if he was correct in this definition, he was also correct in asserting, that it was of rare existence in Scotland. The consequence was, that they had not a single hon. Member in that House, from that country, who could be styled the Representative of any considerable portion of the people; nor could it be otherwise, if they considered for an instant the constituency by which they were returned to that House. It was clearly shewn by the learned Lord Advocate, in a speech equally distinguished by the power and closeness of its reasoning, as by the classic polish of its eloquence, that the constituency of Scotland was a mere mockery. The learned Lord overstated it when he said it exceeded 4,000, for the county voters, after deducting those who were enrolled in more than one place, did not exceed 2,500; for a population of nearly 2,000,000; whilst the borough voters amounted to about 1300, for a population of nearly 500,000—making up a constituency of something under 4,000 for the whole kingdom of Scotland. To prove that hon. Members could not consider themselves in the light of Representatives of the people or property of Scotland, he would take the cases of any contested places on the last occasion. His hon. friend, the member for Ayrshire, was returned by the votes of seventy individuals, but the county contained 128,000 people, and its valued rent (which was considerably below its actual rental) was 192,000 l. His hon. friend, the member for Lanarkshire, in the same way, was sent to that House by the voices of ninety-four individuals, from a county containing 300,000 people, and valued, in the Doomsday-book (which, of course, was infinitely below the real value) at 162,000 l.; and the hon. member for Edinburgh was returned by the support of seventeen individuals, who, by the mockery of the present system, stood invested with the power of choosing for a population of 140,000, living under an estimated rental of 500,000 l. How could the name of popular, or any word approaching to it, be applied to a system affording such illustrations as he had now given of it? The borough which he had the honour to represent, possessed constituency equal to that of Scotland, although the population of Lancaster was

1101
under 12,000; while the notorious Cornwall returned forty-two Members from a population of 257,000. These were the extreme anomalies with which the present system of Representation abounded, and they could no longer be defended. To say they had hitherto worked well (which some of them might be so bold as to deny), was no argument as regarded the present and the future. They had at last been hit, and, like blots, must be expunged. The counties of Scotland were, in fact, carried by out-voters, and its boroughs by self-elected Magistrates, and this was the monstrous consequence, as was forcibly said by the right hon. and learned member for Knaresborough, that its counties might be represented by those who had no interest whatever in the land; and its boroughs by those who had no connexion whatever with the people. The same sentiment was expressed by one whose memory must for ever be held in respect by all constitutional Reformers—the late Lord Archibald Hamilton—in one of the last efforts he made in that House, in this, then hopeless, cause. Had he lived till now he would have reaped a rich and well-merited reward for his unwearied exertions in behalf of the rights and liberties of his fellow-subjects, by the approaching triumph of the cause he so strenuously advocated; and the Scotch Reformer could not look upon his place, now to know him no more, without feeling the magnitude of the loss the cause had sustained. However near they might be to the end of this arduous voyage in which he once took the helm, their lamentation must be—"Jacturam gravissimam feci, si jactura dicenda est tanti viri amissio." Although, as the learned Lord said, there was no schedule A to this Bill, there was a clause—the ninth, which had much of schedule A's virtue in correcting the palpable rottenness of the Scottish boroughs, by destroying the political power of the Town Councils, and distributing it among the intelligent and industrious citizens. He had great respect for many members of the Town Councils, and believed them to be vastly respectable within the sphere of their own natural usefulness; but it roused feelings of strong indignation to contemplate the power with which they had stood invested with respect to sending up Representatives to that House. Self-elected, self-governed, self-applauded, how, in the nature of man, could they be
1102
judges of fit and proper characters to represent the people, and to fill a seat in his popular Assembly? Decent, respectable landmarks, receding, as it were, from the progress made, or which ought to be made, in all political affairs, it was requiring too much of them to exercise such a trust. If his hon. friend, the member for Nairn, saw them in the light he did—he would, with his passion for pillars, describe these Town Councils as composed of men who, in passing through his wilderness of life, were guided by day, by the pillar of their prejudices, whilst their guiding pillar by night, was Matty and her lanthern, and whose motto of immovability, amidst the ceaseless change around them, was—"As my father the Deacon did before me." He had hoped, that the whole body of Scotch Members would have united in denouncing and destroying so humbling a system as this was—that the hollow mockery of the system might have been the means of proving the sound sincerity of their professions as Reformers. But the Bill, like Ithuriel's spear, tested as it touched, and separated at once the pretending from the real Reformer. It had been plausibly argued by hon. Members opposite, that one effect of the present measure of Reform would be, to prevent altogether, or render it difficult, for Scotchmen to find seats in England, and thus virtually to deprive Scotland of several Representatives. Dr. Johnson said, that the happiest sight a Scotchman could behold was the high road leading to England, a sentiment, however, which came from the Doctor's stomach, rather than from his head, and which, besides, was uttered at a time when Scotland was in a very different state from what she now was; or, in the worthy Doctor's own words, when "his walking-stick was in danger of being stolen as a piece of valuable timber." Although he was far from agreeing with the Doctor in his opinion, he should be very sorry to think, that the effect of this measure was likely to prove as predicted by its opponents. In his own case, for instance, he did not know why he should despair of finding the same kind and generous welcome from the 1,000 constituents of which Lancaster would hereafter consist, as he had hitherto found from 4,000; and when he looked at the equally proud situation of his hon. friends, the members for Nottingham, Norwich, and Stafford, he could not imagine

1103
that they were all to be placed in jeopardy, by so just and constitutional an abridgment of their constituents as this measure might possibly effect. The same argument was used as regarded the colonies—but he could not at all enter into it; for, without asking how our colonial interests might hitherto have been represented in that House, they were not likely to suffer by the increased admission of property, and of gentlemen connected with the commercial communities of the country, which undoubtedly would be the effect of this great measure. Those who argued against it on account of the change which it would bring about, and who were imbued with a reverential feeling of respect for the ancient and immutable rights of boroughs, and grants coeval with the existence of Parliament, must forget that the History of Parliament was one of continued change, from its beginning until now. No less than 190 Members were added to that House from the time of Henry 8th to that of James 1st—a period of 115 years; and in the short reign of Edward 6th, who ascended the Throne at nine years of age, and, unfortunately for our nature as well as our nation, descended to the grave at fifteen, no fewer than seven or nine boroughs were called into existence in Cornwall. And, in Scotland, how incessant had been the changes—from the original Colloquium to their Parliament as it existed at the Union, with 226 Members, and, since then, with only sixty-one Peers and Commoners. In this respect, therefore, the fear of change need not perplex them. If it be a maxim in government, that some proportion ought to be observed between the share in the Legislature and the extent of the burthen borne, then considering the enormous amount of their taxation, it was full time that the people so taxed should be admitted to a more immediate control over those with whom rested the power of taxing them; and the extension of the franchise would effect this desirable and most constitutional end. He was not one of those who joined in heaping blame and complaints upon those who had manfully and conscientiously opposed this measure. It was one of vast importance, and fraught either with "choicest good or heaviest ill" to their country; and those who dreaded the ill, did well in opposing it both in principle and practice. But having none of these misgivings, nor compunctious visitings—but, on the contrary,
1104
being sincerely convinced of the great good it was calculated to effect, he would give it his humble but most strenuous support. It was, however, of less importance now to encumber it with help here, than to follow it with ardent wishes for success elsewhere; and this he did most earnestly. He hoped it would be remembered, that "a kingdom divided against itself must come to desolation"—and by a reverend and most important body, it ought to be also remembered, that many distinguished supporters of the Church had proved themselves to be the strenuous advocates of the rights and liberties of the people; and that the great Charter itself, and afterwards the Petition of Rights, were mainly secured by the enlightened zeal and ardent assistance of Archbishops Langton and Abbot. The Petition of Rights, when threatened to be abridged by the House of Lords, was retained in its original form by the agency of Bishop Abbot. It had been said in the course of these debates, and by an authority for which he felt unfeigned respect, that one effect of this measure, as brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers, was, to identify loyalty to the King with hostility to the Constitution. This was a startling declaration, especially when coming from so high a quarter; but there were no grounds whatever for it. For any one at all conscious of the inestimable value of our Constitution, it would be to be loyal at too dear a price; nor would our patriot King receive the tribute on such terms as these. He was aware of the envied and enviable character of that Constitution. From the British Massillon be had learnt that "I am a citizen of a country which has accomplished beyond what the annals of man have hitherto exhibited in the union of public power and private liberty; which has blended the might of political combination with the energy of individual exertion, and which has awakened all the powers that contribute to national prosperity, by the freedom which it gives to their exercise." But he had likewise been instructed respecting this Constitution, that it was founded upon the rights of the subject; that it had described with a firm hand the boundaries of legitimate power, and of just allegiance; and that, above all other qualities which it possessed, was that principle of amelioration by which it could accommodate itself to the widest exigencies

1105
of national progress. Fearlessly then, and fervently, he supported this Bill, and the great measure of which it formed a part, believing as he did, that it was calculated to effect much lasting good, by restoring, as it would do, the franchise to its best basis—which was property, and that House to its only true constituency—the people.
Mr. Kennedysaid, this debate had been characterized by a practice which was not a very usual one in that House, but which had, of late, increased considerably; he meant the practice of referring to past discussions; and he could not but think, that the pursuing this course towards the learned Lord Advocate for Scotland, arose from a feeling that the arguments he adduced in the course of that admirable speech were not capable of being answered. On the second reading of this Bill he had been anxious to address the House, not from any feeling that he could add any new information to that already afforded to the House by those who had preceded him, but because this was one of the most important subjects that ever was brought forward with reference to the country to which he belonged. If, however, he had thought it unnecessary to trouble the House at any great length on former occasions, still less could it be required of him now to do so—after the triumphant majority which had expressed its opinion upon this subject. The case of Scotland, from all that had been said to-night, had been abandoned, and abandoned by those whom he should have least expected to find adopting such a course. He could not forget the occasion upon which his right honorable friend, then the member for Calne, (Mr. Abercrombie) had, at various times, submitted several petitions to the House on the subject of Scotch Representation. What was the motion, too, of his right hon. friend upon that occasion? It was, that that House would, early in the next Session, take into consideration the state of the Representation of the Scotch counties. That motion was scouted by a large majority. What was the different position in which they now found themselves placed? Although that motion was scouted by a majority of twenty-four, they, now stood on the second reading of this Bill, with a majority of 115 in their favour. There really was no moderation in the inconsistency of the hon. Gentlemen
1106
opposite. A Bill was now introduced on a general principle which would satisfy the people of Scotland, and such was the feeling on the subject, that it could not with safety be delayed. Under the strong feeling that such was the case before, he presumed, when the late Government declared their hostility to all Reform, to give notice of a motion on this subject that excited the high displeasure of the right hon. Gentleman, who said, that there was no feeling in Scotland in favour of this measure. He would beg to observe, that as that right hon. Gentleman did not represent a large portion of the people of Scotland, it was not at all improbable that he might know very little of their wants and wishes upon this subject; and they who made a similar declaration, clearly shewed that they did not participate in the feelings of the people of that country. It undoubtedly was not his intention to go at any length even into the general principles of this measure, but he was desirous of making a few very short observations, in the course of which he would confine himself within proper limits. A great deal had been said about the agricultural interests, and the commercial interests, and the manufacturing interests, and of the relative proportion of Members which each of these should have, but it was not consistent to talk in this way, when the Representation of the people was in question. It was the people of the country that should be represented, without reference to their occupations. By this, however, he did not mean the mere mass of the population, but the wealth and intelligence of every class of the community. In what did the constituency of Scotland consist at present? Many of the large landowners possessed the franchise, but the great majority of the owners of the superiorities had no direct connexion with the counties for which they were entitled to vote. He was acquainted with several of the most extensive landowners in Scotland, who had no share whatever in the election of the Members, in consequence of their not being proprietors of these parchment votes. He might be told that, under the present system, the property of the country was represented, and that the elections were attended with little expense; but he denied that this was the case. He would appeal to any gentleman who had stood a contest for a Scotch county, as to the

1107
correctness of this assertion. Was it not notorious, that in many cases he had to purchase a number of superiority votes to secure his return? He did not mean to say anything disrespectful of the hon. and learned member for Kirkcudbright, but he contended that a Scotch gentleman had very little chance of representing a Scotch county, if he were not a supporter of the Government of the day. His hon. and learned friend was returned, when in opposition to the Government, it was true; but an uncommon combination of circumstances led to that event. Most of the Scotch Members, however, had to procure promotions in the army or navy for—or send to India—the younger sons of the owners of the superiorities. If a gentleman was not able to procure a tolerable share of patronage from the Minister of the day, he had very little chance of being returned for a Scotch county. It was said, that the landed interest of Scotland was now well and adequately represented. Instead of that, it was completely overwhelmed by the influence of the class of persons he had described, who had in their possession superiority votes. It was now proposed that no one should have a vote who had not a beneficial interest in the county, of the annual value of 10 l.; and this arrangement would give a much greater influence to the landowners. If hon. Gentlemen were desirous of trying the proposed constituency by the test of wealth and property, and also the present votes by the same mode, the new constituency would be found to possess ten times, or even fifty times the wealth possessed by the old. The extending the franchise to the 10 l. householder was one of the most beneficial parts of this measure. All classes were desirous of bettering their condition; and no human being, who knew anything of the subject, would assert that this desire would not be a powerful inducement, with every person of common education, to try to obtain the franchise. It would be an increased stimulus to exertion, and would be found to be a most beneficial feeling. Most of the people in Scotland were extremely desirous to exercise the franchise. When the observation was made, that the franchise was given to the 10 l. householder, it was to be observed that that class included all who occupied houses of a higher rental. The new system would comprehend the whole wealth of the country;
1108
and would give a greater degree of influence to property, combined with intelligence, than any hitherto devised. It was directly contrary to the feelings and interests of the people, that the system of superiority voting should continue; and he trusted that his Majesty's Ministers would not consent to any motion of the sort. He wished to see all systems of this sort removed, and only the public benefit regarded. There was not a nation on the face of the earth who were better adapted for the proper exercise of such an elective franchise. He could not conceive that it was possible to form a more enlightened constituency than that which would have the franchise conferred upon them under this Bill. A Reform such as had been proposed, would tend to strengthen the whole empire, and to promote the well-being of all classes:—it would lead to confidence in the Government, and give a fresh stimulus to the industry of the country. An inference directly contrary to that drawn by several hon. Members, should be deduced from the circumstance, that the country had increased in wealth and intelligence under the present system. If the country had gone on in spite of all these impediments, the probability was, that the advance would be most rapid under an improved system of Representation, in which the people would have a direct influence in the choice of their Representatives. It was the duty of the Legislature to satisfy the demands of the people on this subject; for the whole country desired that the measure now proposed should pass into a law: and he trusted that this would take place without any delay.
Mr. Robert A. Dundaswould make a few observations on the subject, in answer to some observations that fell from an hon. Member opposite in the previous part of the debate. The hon. Gentleman had referred to some remarks which were made by a right hon. friend of his in a former Session, on a motion that was brought forward relative to the Representation of the city of Edinburgh. The occasion was that on which Mr. Abercrom by submitted a motion to the House, with a view to increase the constituency of the city of Edinburgh, but which was negatived by a majority of between twenty and thirty. It was objected to that proposition that there was no great desire on the part of the people of Scotland for a

1109
change in the system of Representation in that country. This occurred in 1826; soon afterwards, a dissolution of Parliament took place, and in the ensuing election the people of Scotland did not, by their conduct, exhibit any symptoms of disapproving of the view taken of the matter by the majority of their then Representatives in this House. The people, doubtless, were aware that anomalies did exist, but no great desire for a change was exhibited until very recently, and until the last returns, all the elections had been quietly carried on. When, however, his Majesty's Ministers brought in a Bill for a complete change in the system of Representation, and when the name of the King was used—if not unconstitutionally, at least most improperly—in support of it, a degree of excitement certainly prevailed which had not been previously experienced for a considerable time. The people thought that they were called upon to support the Sovereign on this occasion; and it was rather this notion, than the question of Reform, that led to the great manifestation of popular feeling that took place. At no previous period had the name of the Monarch been made use of, as it was at the last election. He had referred to the general election of 1826, at which period the late Lord Liverpool was at the head of the Administration, and when the question of Catholic Emancipation had occupied a large share of the public attention; yet, at that election, the name of the King was not used with a view to influence the return of Members who took the same view of the subject as the noble Lord then at the head of affairs. He himself had always been favourable to Catholic Emancipation, but if an outcry nad been raised at that time, as had recently been done, it would have had a material effect upon the elections. He never could sanction this improper use of the name of the Sovereign; for, in point of fact, it was sacrificing the peace of the country to the promotion of certain political objects. The hon. member for Lanark had referred to the state of Scotland at the time of the Union, and the number of Members that were then to be returned. He, however, forgot that it was not without considerable opposition that the Scotch Parliament consented to such a small proportion of Members for that portion of the empire, and that on no account would that Parliament consent to a change in the
1110
constituency of the country. With respect to the present Bill, there were changes to be proposed, and systems to be adopted, different from anything which had ever hitherto existed in Scotland, and different also from anything that was to be carried into operation in England. He would not repeat what he had formerly urged; but the system that was now proposed should have, as it had already had, his uncompromising opposition. He should not be justified in assenting to the adoption of a system of Representation for Scotland, of which he had hitherto had no experience, and which was not adapted to the habits and feelings of the nation. No one would say, that he was opposed to all species of Reform; but he would oppose most strenuously a change, which would tend to subvert all existing institutions in that country. He knew that men of the greatest experience and wisdom had failed repeatedly in tracing the results of changes much less extensive than the present. It was, therefore, most dangerous to adopt a measure, the consequences of which it was imposible to foretell with any degree of certainty, and to which, when once adopted, it would, in case of failure, be found impossible to retrace their steps. He could give his support to that part of the Bill only which proposed to extend to the large towns of Scotland a share in the Representation; this had long been desirable, and had his cordial approbation. To the very extensive constituency which was proposed to be formed he had a great objection. He should oppose the other clauses of the Bill, being satisfied that they were not adapted to ensure a proper Representation of the wealth and respectability of the country.
Sir George Murray, having given notice of a motion on a subject which had not been touched upon by previous speakers, would make a few remarks. The separation of parts of counties and annexing them to others for the purposes of elections was most objectionable on many grounds. It was a most safe principle in legislation, and which they ought never to lose sight of, to depart as little as possible from existing arrangements. This principle was professed by the advocates of the Reform Bill for England; and, although it had not been so strictly attended to as could be wished, yet it had not been lost sight of. Unless strong grounds could be pointed out for a

1111
departure from this rule, there could be no justification for such departure. No strong arguments could be urged to justify the dismemberment of some of the Scotch counties; at any rate, none had been brought forward to satisfy his mind on the subject. It was true that some of the English counties had been divided for the purposes of election; but that case was essentially different from the case of the Scotch counties. For instance, the county of York was to be divided, and each of the ancient Ridings was to return two Members. This arrangement was not objectionable, as the separate Ridings might almost be regarded as distinct counties; and this arrangement would tend to preserve the independence of the whole county. It had repeatedly been found to be the case, that the freeholders of the other Ridings were completely swallowed up by the great number who resided in the West Riding; so that this division would secure the independence of each separate Riding. The counties that had received four Members had also been divided, for the purpose of facilitating the elections; and this was not very objectionable. Thus the counties of Durham and Northumberland were to be divided—which would be rather advantageous than otherwise; and the same might be said of the county of Lancaster; but no one had proposed to take a portion of one county and add it to another, for the purpose either of making up a sufficient constituency, or of facilitating the elections, as had been proposed with regard to some of the Scotch counties. Such an arrangement was most objectionable, and the feelings of the people would be decidedly against being detached from the counties to which they belonged and added to others. The noble Lord would agree with him, that it was extremely injudicious to set aside the feelings of the persons interested in a question of this nature. He did not belong to that sect of philosophers who asserted that individual feelings might be set aside when legislating for a nation. If the course now pursued were persisted in, it would excite ill feelings, as the people of Scotland entertained in a peculiar degree those local attachments which formerly were regarded as laudable. The arrangement, also, would interfere in a peculiar degree with the local institutions of the country, and would lead to the greatest inconvenience. When a sufficient Constituency could not be formed in one
1112
county, the union of two, for the purposes of Representation, was much less objectionable than the detaching a portion of one county and annexing it to another. He did not object to the union of Ross and Cromarty, as there were circumstances that might justify that union; for example, community of interest—the same Sheriff was always appointed for the two counties. In point of fact, Cromarty was formerly a portion of the county of Ross. The same observation could not apply to the union of part of Nairn to Elgin in the choice of a Member, and that proposition was most objectionable. If some arrangement of this kind must be made, it would be better to give two members to Ross, Cromarty, and the parish of Nairn, called Ferintosh, which lay near Dingwall, in Ross-shire, and was almost surrounded by that county. This would make up a population of about 80,000 persons, which was sufficient to justify the granting of two Members to it. He had given notice of a motion on this subject, which would come more properly under their attention at a future period, when the House would go into Committee on the Bill. Notwithstanding this separation of parts of counties for the purposes of election, all fiscal concerns, and the control of the Sheriff's Court, were left as heretofore; all the political influence of these detached portions were thrown into other counties, and yet, for the purposes of finance and the administration of justice, they were to remain connected as before. To this he most strongly objected. Either the separation ought to be entire, or not be made at all. But how had the principle adopted by his Majesty's Ministers been applied? It was proposed to commence with the important county of Argyle, from which the district of Cowal was to be separated, for the purpose of being annexed to the county of Bute. This district of Cowal was much nearer to the county town of Argyle than it was to the county of Bute, so that this arrangement could not have been made with a view of facilitating the electors of Cowal in getting access to the place of poll. Throughout the whole of those proceedings, Ministers had rather been governed by caprice than by sound judgment. The districts of Merth, Kinlyn, and Lorn, were all much more remote from the county town, and nearer Bute than the district of Cowal, so that, if it had been necessary to detach a portion of the county of Argyle

1113
for election purposes, it was reasonable to think that the more convenient portion would have been taken. With respect to the county of Perth, the district of Culross ought not to be separated from it with a view of being annexed to the counties of Clackmannan and Kinross. These two counties at present returned one Member, and it would be most unjust to add a large portion of Perth to them. This arrangement was in decided opposition to the wishes of the inhabitants of all that part of Scotland, and was calculated, if persisted in, to excite considerable discontent there. According to the population returns of 1821, the county of Clackmannan contained 13,500 inhabitants, and the county of Kinross 7,900, making together a population of 21,400. This was very nearly 3,000 more inhabitants than the English county of Rutland, which now sent and was to continue to send, two Members to that House. There was no ground or pretence for disuniting the county of Perth for the purpose of making an addition to the counties of Clackmannan and Kinross, which already contained an ample population; and the constituency would be a most respectable body. It was true that this was a remote, and almost a detached portion of the county, but then it must be recollected that considerably more than half the county was more remote than Culross. The very extensive districts of Athol, of Bredalbane, and of Rannock were all more remote from the county town than the district of Culross. He was quite at a loss to understand what principle had been acted upon in those arrangements. In the plan submitted to the House by the Government, relative to this country, it was proposed that all counties containing 150,000 inhabitants, should, for the future, return four Members, and all counties with upwards of 100,000 should have three Representatives. In addition to this, two Members had been conceded to each of the Welsh counties containing upwards of 70,000 inhabitants. It was only a measure of justice that those Scotch counties containing 70,000 should also have two Members each. If, however, detached portions were thus taken off—the population of some of the counties entitled, according to this rule, to two Members, would be reduced below 70,000. This would be the case as regarded the county of Argyle in particular, according to the census of 1821. It might
1114
be said that Wales was a conquered country, and Scotland was united to England by the Legislatures of the two counties, when an arrangement was made as to the Representation, and the inference was drawn, that the former country should be treated in a different manner from the latter. According to every principle of justice, the Scotch counties were entitled to an addition to their Representatives. Not only the large manufacturing counties were entitled to an increased number of representatives, but more particularly the agricultural counties. The county of Argyle, in 1826, contained a population of 90,000; but now, according to the census of 1831, it had considerably more than 100,000 inhabitants, It was, therefore, entitled to two Members. Again, with reference to Perth, although a separate Member had been given to the town, and although the district of Culross had been detached, he would call upon the House to grant her Representatives accordingly. He could see no possible advantage or benefit that could result from the disunion of counties, nor conjecture the reasons that induced his Majesty's Ministers to adopt this course. He did not mean to found a motion on the division of counties, but he hoped that the noble Lord would take the whole question into his consideration. If there were strong grounds which had led to this arrangement, the noble Lord ought to state them; but, in his opinion, no reason that could be given would justify the course adopted. It was his intention to offer every opposition in his power to this arrangement in the Committee.
Mr. Francis W. Granttrusted, that before going into Committee, his Majesty's Government would re-consider the proposal of uniting the counties of Elgin and Nairn, a measure which was extremely unjust. By it the county of Elgin, with a population of 34,000 souls, was to be deprived of one-half of its present rights. There were several other counties in Scotland with a less population, which were left by the proposed Bill in the full enjoyment of the share in the Representation which they had hitherto enjoyed; and why was the county of Elgin to receive a different measure of justice? He would also mention the cases of the counties of Peebles and Selkirk, whose united population did not amount to that of Elgin alone. The proposal of partially disfranchising these counties,

1115
had been very properly given up; but why should the county which he had the honour to represent be treated with less consideration than those small counties? No county in Scotland boasted a more respectable constituency—or would, if this measure should pass, afford one more independent. The feeling in the county was unanimous against this union and in proof of it he would refer to the county paper, which contained an article protesting strongly against it, and which although in general advocating the cause of Reform, had expressed the greatest dislike of the proposal. This paper expressed the unanimous opinion of the county, and he hoped that the Government would not persevere in forcing that clause through the House.
Admiral Adamhad the honour of representing the united counties of Clackmannan and Kinross, and felt called upon to make one or two observations, in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. The only object of his Majesty's Ministers in the proposed arrangement was, to procure a better system of Representation, and they would attain this object by the proposed arrangement. It should be recollected that the two parishes of Perth which it was proposed to annex to the counties of Clackmannan and Kinross, were separated from the rest of Perthshire by the county of Kinross; and therefore, for the purposes of election, it was infinitely better that the districts should be united to the two counties, than that the voters should have to go to a great distance to exercise their privilege of voting. The right hon. Gentleman said, that this arrangement was directly opposed to the feelings of the people; but this was not the case. He held in his hand a letter dated from that part of the country, in which it was stated, that the people gave their support to the Bill, and had expressed their approval of it; and the inhabitants of the parish he had alluded to, entertained not the least objection to be united with Clackmannan and Kinross in the choice of a Member. From the union of the two counties, with a more extensive constituency than at present, a feeling of rivalry might grow up; therefore, it would be a useful arrangement to unite these parishes, which did not properly belong to Perthshire, to the two counties. Indeed, a considerable portion of one of these parishes was in the county of Kinross. In short, the intention
1116
of Government was, to make a more united and compact constituency; and this might be done, without injuring any one, by the present plan. The right hon. Gentleman said, that Perthshire ought to send two Members to Parliament; and if this parish were detached from it, together with the city of Perth and the burghs, the population of the county would be diminished below the number of inhabitants which he suggested that a county should contain in order to entitle it to return two Members. The right hon. Gentleman must, however, be aware that there was not the least probability of his motion being assented to, as the object of it was opposed to the wishes of his Majesty's Government, and to the feelings of the majority of the English Members. The population of the county of Perth was large, and the inhabitants of that county were most respectable; but the right hon. Gentleman should recollect, that already a Member had been given to the city of Perth, which formerly only had a share with five other places in the choice of one Member, while a large portion had been detached from the county for the purpose of adding it to the counties which he (Admiral Adam) had the honour to represent, and thus the county constituency was greatly reduced. With respect to the union of the parish of Ferintosh, which belonged to the county of Nairn, to the counties of Ross and Cromarty, for the purposes of election, he would merely observe, that it was almost completely surrounded by the county of Ross. If the district of Cowal, in the county of Argyle, had not been annexed to Bute, that county must have been disfranchised; as it would have been impossible to form a constituency without adopting the course which had been pursued. It would have been an act of the grossest absurdity to continue a Member to Bute when the number of electors would have been so extremely small. Notice of a motion had been given by an hon. friend of his, relative to giving two Members to the county of Argyle, in consequence of its numerous constituency; but if the district of Cowal, which touched on Bute, was separated from Argyle, and annexed to the county of Bute, the number of the voters would be reduced, and that objection obviated. He was desirous that two Members should be granted to such Scotch counties as contained a population beyond a certain number; but as he saw no probability of

1117
carrying this proposition into effect, he was loth to hazard the safety of the Reform Bill by lending his aid in support of it. He would abstain from making any further observations on that topic until the right hon. Baronet should have brought forward the motion of which he had given notice. Government had his most cordial support in this measure, and he was satisfied that the noble Lord had been actuated by the purest motives in the arrangements he had proposed.
Sir George Murraymost distinctly disclaimed having cast, or intending to cast, any imputation on the motives of the noble Lord. He entertained the highest possible respect for his character, and should be extremely sorry to say anything of him that would bear the construction of harshness.
Sir William Cumming, being connected with the county of Elgin, must enter his protest against the partial disfranchisement of that county by the annexing the county of Nairn to it in the choice of a Representative. If his Majesty's Ministers took population as a test, he would remind them, that there were several counties with less numerous populations, each of which was to continue to return an independent Member. For instance, the county of Elgin, according to the population returns of 1821, contained 31,800 inhabitants; Caithness contained only 30,800, Kincardine, 29,700, Linlithgow, 23,100, Dumbarton, 27,900, Sutherland, 24,300, Bute, 14,000, Peebles, 10,000, and Selkirk rather less than that number. The excitement of the people of Elgin on this subject was very great, and the newspapers published in that county very properly designated the proposal of Ministers as being as gross a piece of injustice as ever was inflicted by a Government.
Mr. Cumming Bruceprotested against the language used by the hon. member for Ayr with respect to the owners of superiority votes. The hon. Gentleman had designated these votes as mere pieces of old parchment; he could tell that hon. Member, that had it not been for these parchment voters, the right hon. Gentleman, the member for Inverness, would not have been returned for that county, and his services would have been lost to the country. That right hon. Gentleman, at the last election, was returned by these voters, against the feeling of the landed interest of the county.
1118
He did not mention this circumstance out of any disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman, for any county might be proud of possessing a Representative of his high talents and distinguished abilities.
Lord Stormontwas sure that, the right hon. member for Inverness would not object to that species of votes to which he was indebted for his election. The influence of Government had been exerted to procure the return of certain candidates; the expenses of voters were almost paid out of the public purse; and yet, except in one instance, no change had taken place in the county Representatives of Scotland.
Mr. Robert Grant, in the absence of his right hon. relative, with all due deference to the hon. Gentleman opposite, gave a most unqualified contradiction to his assertion, that his right hon. relative was returned by that species of voters called paper voters, against the sense of the county. He was returned, indeed, against the wishes of some great landed proprietors, who endeavoured to introduce at the poll a number of paper voters.
The House resolved itself into Committee.
The Bill read a first time—on the question that it be read a second time.
Lord Althorp Lord Althorp moved that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
Motion agreed to—House resumed.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. In favour of the Reform Bill, by the Marquis of CLEVELAND, from Wellington, in Shropshire, from Seaford, and from the Inhabitants of St. Mary's in the Strand. By the Earl of RADNOR, from places in Wilts, Kent, Renfrewshire, Cornwall, Somersetshire, and Sussex; from Exeter, and seven other places in Devonsire, by Lord POLTIMORE. By the Earl of CARLISLE, from Inhabitants of Carlisle, Castle Donington, Maryport, and Bedlington. By the Duke of NORFOLK, from the Town and Parish of Sheffield, signed by 19,115 of the most respectable Inhabitants there; from the Inhabitants of Brighton; from Dartford; from a place in Leicestershire; from the Town of Leicester; from the Inhabitants of the County of Devon, and other places. By Lord ABERCROMBY, from Kirkcudbright, signed by 2,000 persons. By the Duke of SUSSEX, from the Borough of Southwark, signed by 3,270 of the 3,600 Voters resident in that Borough;

921
from the Inhabitants of Denbigh; from the Inhabitants of the Ward of Cheap, and of the Ward of Farringdon Within, in the City of London; from the Inhabitants of Penzance, in Cornwall; and from places in Lincolnshire. By the Duke of GRAFTON, from Bury St. Edmonds, signed by 1,844 persons. By the Earl of ELDON, against Reform, from the Inhabitants of Bridgewater, and from the Inhabitants of Weymouth. By Lord CLIFFORD, from the Protestant Freemen of Rahoon, and of Catholics of the Wardenship of Galway, to extend the Elective Franchise of Galway to Catholics.

REFORM—PETITIONS.
The Marquis of Clevelandpresented a Petition from the county of Durham, in favour of the Reform Bill, and praying their Lordships to pass it without delay. He was convinced that this petition spoke the general sentiments of the county at large.
The Marquis of Londonderrywas sure that the inhabitants of Durham at large by no means partook of the sentiments of the petitioners. He knew that a great portion of the people of property in the county were against the Bill.
The Marquis of Clevelandconsidered the fact, that no counter—petition had been presented from Durham, decisive as to the groundlessness of the noble Marquis's assertion.
Lord Cliffordpresented a similar Petition from the county of Devon, the result of a county meeting, convened by the High Sheriff for the occasion, and unanimously agreed to, with the sentiments of which he entirely concurred.
Lord Rolle, as one well acquainted with the county of Devon, would take it upon him to say, that a reaction had taken place in the sentiments of its inhabitants, against the Bill. He thought it the more incumbent upon him to state this fact, as menaces had been held out, threatening him with peril of life and property in the event of his opposing the Bill. He was, however, determined never to forsake the Constitution, but to do his duty, and endeavour to uphold it to the last. The meeting at which the petition was agreed to did not consist of more than 1,000 persons, and could not be considered as speaking the sense of the county. He should, therefore, best do his duty to his neighbours, as well as to the country at large, by opposing this Bill.
Lord Cliffordwas also acquainted with the county of Devon, and could, on the other hand, confidently state, that no such reaction had taken place.
Lord Rollerepeated, that to his knowledge a change unfavourable to the Bill had taken place in the sentiments of the
922
freeholders of Devonshire, and he only discharged his duty in stating it.
The Duke of Richmondbegged leave to ask the noble Baron, whether he had a petition to present from the county of Devon corroborative of his statement? Here was a petition from the county, formally convened for the purpose, in favour of the Bill, and praying their Lordships to pass it with the least possible delay. Surely, then, if the great change which the noble Baron stated to have taken place in the sentiments of the people of Devon, with respect to the Bill, had taken place, at least one counter-petition from the county had been intrusted to the noble Baron.
Lord Rolle: I have no such petition to present, and have not heard of any counter-meeting, and believe that none such has been held.
The Duke of Sussexpresented a Petition in favour of the Reform Bill, from the Merchants, Bankers, Traders, and other inhabitants of the city of Bristol, signed by 25,740 individuals. The noble Duke said, that this petition, in fact, had appended to it the signatures of almost all the respectable and influential persons in the city of Bristol, and he understood that the greatest care had been taken that no individuals under sixteen years of age should put their names to it, and that none but bona fide signatures should be affixed to it.
The Marquis of Londonderrywas sorry to rise on that occasion, but he, too, had a duty to perform. He had received a letter, stating that this petition was most improperly got up. The noble Marquis read a letter from an individual signing himself "William Davis," in which the writer stated, that he knew of his own knowledge that 1,733 signatures to this, petition were fictitious—that several persons under age had signed it, and, in short, that from what had been communicated to him on the subject, he could assure their Lordships, that 5,000 or 6,000 of the names to this petition were forgeries. The noble Marquis said, that he was entirely ignorant as to whether this statement was true or false, but that, as the writer who had made it had done him the honour of writing to him on the subject, and as he mentioned that he was ready to verify it upon oath, he felt it his duty to lay such a statement before their Lordships.
A Noble Lordsaid, that he had received a communication from a most respectable

923
quarter in Bristol, in reference to this petition, which left little doubt in his mind that this petition had been most respectably signed. Indeed, such was the respectability of the quarter from which he had received this communication, that he had no doubt at all as to the respectability of the names to this petition.
The Duke of Sussexsaid, that it could not be supposed that he should be answerable for all the petitions which he might present, any more than the noble Marquis. He had mentioned the respectability of the signatures to this petition on the authority of a letter from the Chairman of the meeting at which it had been adopted; and he had been informed by the two Members for the city of Bristol, that they were aware, from their own personal knowledge, of the respectability of the petitioners. The noble Duke then presented a petition to the same effect from the town of Birmingham, signed by the High Bailiff, as Chairman of the meeting, which had been most numerously and respectably attended by the merchants, traders, bankers, and other inhabitants of that great and opulent town.
The Duke of Cumberlandwished to know what date was affixed to this petition.
The Duke of Sussexsaid, it was dated the 31st of September.
The Duke of Cumberlandremarked that there was no such day in the year.
Lord Eldon, in presenting three petitions against the Bill, said, he had heard that a petition in favour of Reform was in progress from the city of Norwich, which it was said was signed by nearly 14,000 persons. This number of signatures so much exceeding the male population of the city, proved that the petition itself was entitled to very slight attention, and shewed that such petitions were got up in an unfair manner.
The Earl of Albemarlestated, that the petition from Norwich in favour of the Reform Bill had been adopted at a public meeting duly convened, and held in the Common-hall in that city.
The Lord Chancellorpresented a Petition in favour of Reform from the inhabitants of Halifax, in Yorkshire, signed by 12,500 persons. The noble and learned Lord said, that he had eighty similar petitions to present, but that he should merely state where each of them came from. He felt it his duty to present them to their Lordships, as the noble Earl (Eldon) felt it his duty
924
to present the petitions on the other side, in order that their Lordships might become fully acquainted with the state of the public mind on the great Question, the consideration of which was fixed for that evening. He could not avoid remarking, that the number of petitions against Reform was as yet very small, exceedingly minute, though perhaps it might hereafter increase. He should proceed to present to their Lordships eighty petitions with which he had been intrusted, all containing a prayer the very opposite of that of the three petitions which had been just presented by the noble Earl (Eldon). The noble Lord accordingly presented petitions in favour of the Reform Bill from the merchants, traders, and inhabitants of Belfast, signed by 5,500 individuals, from Preston, in Lancashire, signed by 3,600 persons, from a place in Leicestershire, from a place in the county of Dumbarton, from Stockport, in Cheshire, signed by 2,500 individuals, from Kendal, with 1,160 signatures, from St. Leonard's, from the city of Glasgow, from the town of Ilfracombe, from the town of Kelso, from Henley-on-Thames, from the town of Sligo, from the freeholders and inhabitants of the county of Devon, from the inhabitants of the town of Wakefield, signed by 2,800 persons, and from several other places in England and Scotland. After presenting forty such petitions, the noble Lord postponed the presentation of the remainder, with the exception of seventeen petitions from several incorporated trades in Paisley and its vicinity, until to-morrow.
Earl Greysaid, that the first petition which he should present to their Lordships in favour of the Reform Bill, out of the vast batch which he had beside him on the floor, was from the merchants, bankers, and traders of the city of London, voted at a meeting the most numerously and respectably attended, and which had been lately held in the Egyptian Hall. It was signed by 4,700 persons, the signatures having been obtained in the course of three or four days. Indeed, he believed that there would be found signed to this petition some of the most respectable names in the city of London. The petitioners stated, that they were at this moment as ardently anxious as ever they had been for the passing of the Reform Bill. He had, besides this petition, a vast number of other petitions, as their Lordships might perceive, to present, the prayer of which was precisely

925
to the same effect, namely, that their Lordships would pass the Reform Bill as speedily as possible. No particular pains had been taken to get up the numerous petitions which he had to present, and he, therefore, thought that he might fairly point to them as a pretty strong indication, that, so far from the public feeling having diminished, it had actually increased in favour of the Bill which their Lordships would have that night to discuss. The noble Earl opposite (Eldon) was greatly mistaken if he supposed that the object of those numerous petitions which would be presented on this subject was to deter noble Lords from doing their duty. God forbid that they should be so intended, or have any such effect. He trusted—indeed he was sure—that their Lordships would discharge their duty conscientiously with regard to this important Question. At the same time he was of opinion, that the petitions of the people were entitled to great consideration in the discussion of that Question. The noble Earl also presented a petition in favour of the Bill from the inhabitants of Manchester, signed by no less than 33,130 individuals, which amount of signatures had been obtained for it in the course of five days. The petition in favour of Reform from Manchester, which had been presented in March last, he said, was signed by only 24,100 persons, and it had been lying for signatures for the space of fourteen days. That fact proved, he thought, that at least as far as Manchester was concerned, there had been no diminution of the public feeling in favour of this Bill. The noble Earl presented similar petitions from Devonport, and from the Northern Political Union of Birmingham. The latter petition, the noble Earl stated, was signed by 30,000 persons. He presented similar petitions from the great commercial city of Glasgow, signed by 45,000 persons, and from the freeholders and inhabitants of the county of Cornwall, signed by 6,000 individuals. He also laid before their Lordships a petition from the county of Kent, agreed to at one of the most numerous meetings ever assembled in that important section of England. It was voted almost unanimously, there being only twelve dissentient voices out of the whole meeting. Although several thousands of persons were present, the proceedings were conducted with the greatest decorum: there was no interruption—no
926
violent language—even those who opposed the Bill obtained a patient hearing. The meeting would have been still more numerous but that many of the farmers were engaged in saving the hops, an important operation in that county. He could confidently state, that these petitions were a complete indication of the warm, hearty, and energetic sentiment that prevailed throughout the country in favour of Reform. The noble Earl presented, in conclusion, a mass of petitions, all in favour of Reform, amounting to between forty and fifty, including petitions from the county of Montgomery, signed by 1,700 persons, from the city of Durham, South Shields, Bread-street Ward, city of London, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Weymouth, Hereford, and other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Radnorbegged to make a few observations with respect to the petition from Bread-street Ward presented by the noble Earl. Since the time that petition had been voted, the desire for Reform had so much increased in the Ward, that another petition, signed by nine-tenths of the inhabitants of that opulent district, had been prepared, and would be presented by him to-morrow. The prayer of the latter petition not only called for the passing of the Bill, but that it might pass without delay, as great inconvenience had resulted to trade from the obstacles offered to its progress through the Commons. Some years ago there were only two Reformers in the Ward, and even the remaining tenth of the inhabitants would, he believed, have subscribed their names to the petition had time permitted.
The Earl of Falmouth The Earl of Falmouth rose to make some remarks on a petition from the inhabitants of a parish in Cornwall, presented in the course of the evening. [The noble Earl was interrupted by calls for the "Order of the Day." "It is past six o' clock."] He only rose to state some facts made known to him by a most upright and disinterested Magistrate. That individual, in specifying various objectionable signatures to the petition, had informed him, that it contained the names of but two freeholders out of all the parish.
The Marquis of Lansdownhoped that their Lordships would come to an understanding, ere the Order of the Day was read, that the rule adopted for that evening, a rule agreed to during his absence from the House, would not be applied to the proceedings

927
of to-morrow, but that ample opportunity would be afforded for presenting petitions. He should consider it most improper, should the House go into the merits of the momentous Question before them, without giving every part of his Majesty's subjects full permission to be heard.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he should feel grievously to blame if he did not do all in his power, not only to effect the chance, but to secure the absolute certainty of petitioners being heard. His noble friend must have been egregiously deceived if he was led to suppose that any arrangement had been made, or so much as thought of, for shutting the door of that House against the petitions of the people. He was one of those who had made the suggestion with respect to the reading of petitions, which he saw had been misunderstood. In offering the suggestion, he had added one very material point, a point expressly stated, that it was only to take effect for that one night, to which the House agreed by way of experiment; then, if there occurred any extraordinary pressure of business, they might make other arrangements. He entirely concurred in the propriety of not urging forward so great a question without securing the absolute certainty of hearing the petitions brought before the House, as it was right that they should exercise their legitimate influence on their decisions.
The Duke of Buckinghamproposed that the House should meet for the purpose of receiving petitions at two o'clock.
The Lord Chancellorwas hostile to any arrangement that would tend to show that the presentation of petitions was a mere matter of course, for the purpose of shoving them into a basket. He had no objection personally to the House meeting at two, provided there was an attendance of Peers at that time. But at such an unusual hour there would be no more than four or five Peers with a number of petitions, and the rest would come at the ordinary time. They had the whole week before them, and he was ready and resigned to sit there during the whole week, but he should not be content to see the petitions to that House unduly disposed of.
Lord Wharncliffeagreed with the noble and learned Lord, that petitions should be presented during a full sitting.
The Marquis of Clevelandthought that the convenience of his Majesty's Ministers
928
should also be consulted. He would propose that petitions be received from four o'clock to seven.
The Duke of Buckinghaminquired if it were there Lordships' wish to meet at three o'clock to morrow?
Lord Hollandwas of opinion, that the usage and practice of that House, on similar occasions, was the most convenient for saving time. The best and most usual way was, for the House to meet to-morrow, and go on presenting petitions till none was left. That was the natural proceeding of Parliament, and it was difficult to come to any positive resolution on the subject.
Lord Kenyanagreed with the noble Baron, and thought they had better determine the hour of meeting. He would propose that they should meet at three o'clock to-morrow, that they might occupy themselves in paying the attention due to the petitions of the subjects of the realm.
The Lord Chancellor: The question is, shall this House at its rising adjourn till three to-morrow?
Earl Greythought that four would be the most convenient hour. If, however, their Lordships were of a contrary opinion, he had no objection to accede to their wishes. On the whole, however, he thought that four would be the most eligible.
The Earl of Abingdonheld a petition which he should bring for presentation at three o'clock to-morrow.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—SECOND READING— FIRST DAY.
The Order of the Day for the second reading of the Reform Bill was then read, the utmost stillness pervading the House.
Earl Grey Earl Grey rose and spoke as follows.*
In the course of a long political life, which has now extended to near half a century, it has often been my lot to propose in this House, and in the other House of Parliament, many questions of the most vital importance to the political interests of this country and of Europe, as well as to our domestic concerns. If at such times, under such circumstances, and with such interests at stake, I felt that awe and trepidation, which the importance of those occasions must naturally have inspired, and which were no more than became me,
* From the corrected edition, published by Ridgway.

929
speaking, as I did, conscious of my own inferiority, in the presence of some of the greatest men this country has ever produced, and sensible of the important duty I had then to discharge; if, I say, on such occasions I felt awe, yet still were those feelings as nothing in comparison with those which I now experience, when I am about to propose to the consideration of your Lordships a question involving the dearest interests of the nation—a question, for the bringing forward of which I, more than any other man, am responsible—a question which has been designated as subversive of the Constitution, as revolutionary, as destructive of the existing institutions of the State, and as tending to produce general confusion throughout the empire. The question has been so characterised; but I have felt, solemnly and deliberately felt, that such changes are necessary. I believe the present measure to be a measure of justice, sound policy, peace, and conciliation. I believe, that on its acceptance or rejection depend, on the one hand, peace, tranquility and prosperity; on the other, that state of political dissatisfaction and discontent, the continuance of which threatens all those disastrous consequences, which must arise when ill feeling is engendered in the people towards the Government of the country. I have said, that I more than any other man am responsible for bringing forward this measure, and it is therefore necessary, in the first place, that upon this point I should set myself right with your Lordships.
My opinion on this question of Parliamentary Reform is well known to such of your Lordships as have done me the honour of observing the political conduct of so humble an individual as myself. I have uniformly supported the principle of Reform.
So far back as the year 1786, soon after my introduction into Parliament, I voted with Mr. Pitt for a motion which was then brought forward, for shortening the duration of Parliaments. I voted for a measure of Reform introduced by Mr. Flood, at the commencement of the French Revolution, before the breaking out of that unhappy war, carried on at such a fearful expenditure of blood and treasure. I myself, on two different occasions, brought forward motions on this subject, believing then, as I believe now, some change in the Representation of the people to be absolutely necessary, in order
930
to give new vigour to the Constitution, and to make the House of Commons, in fact, that which it professes to be in theory—a full, free, and efficient Representation of the people.
I stand, therefore, now before your Lordships the advocate of principles from which I have never swerved. But although I have reverted to these facts in my political career, I must also say, that it is not enough for a public man, pretending any claim to the character of a statesman, to show that he is sincere and consistent in his actions; it is not enough for him to show, that what he has proposed is in conformity with opinions long established in his mind; he is bound to entertain the conviction forced upon him through all the chances and changes of a long political career, that, in proposing a measure affecting the mighty interests of the State, the course he takes is called for by justice and necessity.—He has a further duty to perform—he has to prove that he has not forced into notice even right opinions rashly, precipitately, or at a dangerous season; but that he has done so from the sincere conviction, that the measures which he proposes are essential to the well-being of the country, that they could no longer be delayed with safety, and that, when passed into a law, they would bind together and unite in affection to the Government, a loyal and confiding people.
To show what my course of conduct has been, a short detail only will be necessary. Your Lordships cannot have forgotten the agitation that prevailed throughout this country in the commencement of last session, the general discontent that pervaded every part of the empire—society almost disorganized—the distress that reigned in the manufacturing districts—the influence of the numerous associations that grew out of that distress—the sufferings of the agricultural population, the nightly alarms, and burnings, and popular disturbances, approaching almost to the gates of the metropolis—the general feeling of doubt and apprehension observable in every countenance. Your Lordships cannot have forgotten the occurrences of that unprecedented period. It was sufficiently exemplified by the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers, who counselled their Sovereign, not to expose himself to the chance of danger—a danger which I most sincerely believe was groundless and unreal, by paying that visit to the Citizens

931
of London which it has been usual for the Monarchs of this country, shortly after their accession, to pay to that great, loyal and opulent body. These things must be fresh in the minds of your Lordships, and your Lordships must also recollect in how great a degree there prevailed at that same period a general and growing desire for the adoption of some measure of Parliamentary Reform, which tended still more to agitate the feelings of the country, and to increase the complaints of the abuses which affected the more popular branch of the Legislature.
That desire was only the revival of a question which had at times slumbered, but had never been extinct during a period of more than eighty years. If the anxiety to urge forward the question of Reform had, as some asserted, ever slept, it was only in appearance and partially; it had never slept really or completely. On the arrival of a season of difficulty, the question was stirred anew—a circumstance which of itself demonstrated the expediency of having it speedily settled. That measure then had begun to be felt as so necessary, that when I arrived in town, I found many persons who certainly never dissented from Reform, but who were never its zealous advocates, convinced that the period had at last arrived when the question should be entered into with the sincere desire of bringing it to a final and satisfactory adjustment. This was my conviction also. Your Lordships may remember, that, on the very first day of the last Session, I took an opportunity of discussing the state of the country; and in answer to a noble Earl, whom I do not now see in his place, and who urged the necessity of adopting strong coercive measures to meet the growing danger, I then stated, using the familiar illustration of putting one's house in order to meet the coming storm, that the best security that could be devised, the cheapest defence that could be adopted by Government, the most certain shield, the unyielding armour of proof against any perils, foreign or domestic, was a Reform in the Representation of the Commons House of Parliament, with which the people were no longer satisfied, and without which there could be no reasonable hopes of restoring their confidence in the Government.
Whether your Lordships have or have not forgotten the words that fell from me on that occasion, I am sure your Lordships
932
cannot have forgotten the answer which they received, any more than you can have forgotten the consternation produced by that answer, when the noble Duke, then at the head of his Majesty's Government, avowed himself an enemy in principle to all Reform whatever, and professed to consider the present construction of the House of Commons so perfect as to exceed the reach of modern wisdom to rival it—that it deserved to be held as unalterable, and that any change, however slight, must be productive of danger to the constitution. The effect of this declaration must still be fresh in the memories of your Lordships. It has been described by Mr. Drummond, in addressing the electors of Surrey, and Mr. Drummond is not unfriendly to the noble Duke and his colleagues, nor favourable to the plans of his successors; yet he said that it showed great ignorance of public feeling at the time, and that it had driven the people to despair. A noble Baron opposite has expressed himself in similar terms, and has stated that the dissolution of the noble Duke's government was owing to what he has been pleased to call, that imprudent declaration. It is under these circumstances that I stand forward to-night to propose to your Lordships the measure of Reform. Thus far then, my Lords, I must stand acquitted, that in proposing this measure I am doing nothing which is not consistent with the principles that I have always maintained, that I propose it in continuance of the strong conviction, which I expressed at a moment when I could not have had the most remote idea of filling the situation which I now so unworthily hold, that this measure could not be delayed much longer with safety to the country. What has followed is well known to your Lordships. I received the commands of a gracious Sovereign to form an administration. On what principles was I to form it? On that of my predecessors—hoping to carry on the same system, but with greater success? My Lords, I could have no such presumptuous hope or expectation. If that had been possible there would have been no reason or motive for their removal.
The question then simply came to this—whether we should attempt to maintain the system of our predecessors, which was the cause of their removal, or follow one more congenial to the general feelings of the community?
Under these circumstances I did certainly state to my Sovereign, as a condition of my accepting office, that I must be allowed to bring forward a measure of Reform as a measure of the Government. That condition was graciously assented to by an indulgent master, not much objected to in this House, sanctioned by the approval of the other House of Parliament, and received with unmixed satisfaction by the great body of the people. I lost no time, therefore, in conjunction with my colleagues, in preparing the Bill, which, in its more mature state, is to form the subject of this night's deliberations.
So far, then, I trust your Lordships will think that my conduct stands clear, and that I am not justly chargeable with having brought forward a measure that is at once unnecessary, and introduced at an inconvenient time, but that I had grounds for thinking—and that I have been justified in acting upon those grounds—that it was not only a measure which the public generally required, but that it was, in fact, one which could no longer be delayed with safety. Under these circumstances, therefore, if I have stated them correctly, I hope that it will not with reason be imputed to me as a crime, that I embrace the earliest opportunity of carrying into effect those principles of which I have always been the strenuous though the feeble advocate, and of acquitting myself of that pledge which my colleagues and myself gave upon our accession to office, by introducing a measure of Parliamentary Reform, which, as I have before said, will, I am convinced, if it should receive the sanction of this House, be found to be a measure of peace, of safety, and of conciliation. But then there is this further question, to which I am aware it will be expected I should give an answer. Granted that the public feeling runs strongly in favour of Reform in Parliament—granted that the admission of the principle of Parliamentary Reform was general, so general, indeed, that, with the exception of the noble Duke opposite, there was not one then to be found, even among the noble Duke's colleagues, as I believe to be the fact, who was prepared at the time to deny, that the period was at length arrived at which the long-agitated question of Parliamentary Reform must be looked at with a view to its adjustment—granting all this, still why was it necessary to introduce a measure of this extent, which, in
934
the language of the persons who put this question, is revolutionary in spirit, and subversive of the best principles of the constitution? My Lords, I hope to answer this question, also, satisfactorily, and to prove to your Lordships, that, however easy it be to declaim about dangers and revolutions, there is nothing in this measure which is not founded upon the acknowledged principles of the British constitution—nothing that is not perfectly consistent with the ancient practices of that constitution—and nothing which may not be adopted with perfect safety to the rights and privileges of all orders of the state, and particularly of that order to which your Lordships belong; although it has been asserted, with as much confidence as ignorance, that the rights and privileges of your Lordships are particularly endangered by the enactments of this measure. Admitting, then, that something must be done, the question is, what that something ought to be? For, as I before observed, and as I repeat now, there was, with the exception of the noble Duke, scarcely another individual to be found, from the most diminutive nibbler at a bit-by-bit reform down to the men who advocated the strongest and the most vigorous measures of Reform—who was not forward to admit that some adjustment of the question was absolutely necessary. Under these circumstances, then, the Government had but one question to determine. We had to decide whether, by doing as little as possible, such as bringing in something under the name of Reform, which really meant nothing, we should affect to redeem the pledge we had given, or whether we should adopt—I had almost said the plan of the noble Baron opposite,—I wish I knew what that plan was—whether, then, I say, we should adopt the principle of the noble Baron, of doing something vigorous and effectual. If so, I would observe, that I think we have done so; for our principle is, by doing all that can be justly required, and by honestly redeeming our pledge in the same spirit in which that pledge had been made by us, and understood by the people, to give to the nation contentment, and to all future governments the support of the respectability, the wealth, and the intelligence of the country; which is the surest ground of stability, and nothing short of which can enable a government to make a stand, upon the principles of the constitution,

935
against all wild and unreasonable attempts at innovation. These, then, are the two modes of which we had choice. As to the first mode—as to the introduction of a half measure of Reform, as a step to future improvement at a more distant period—a bit-by-bit amelioration—we might, indeed, by proceeding upon that mode, have kept "the word of promise to the ear, but mocked it to the sense." There was, however, besides the disingenuousness of it, this fundamental objection to such a proceeding, namely, that it would have satisfied no one, and would, therefore, have left the question in as unsettled a condition as before. The opponents of all Reform, finding that the principle of Reform was admitted, that their strong ground of opposing all innovation and all change was taken from under their feet, would have been discontented, whilst the people would have been disappointed in the great object which they had in view, in the earnest hope by which they were actuated of recovering those rights and privileges which I am prepared to contend have been taken away from them by growing usurpations. No measure, therefore, which the ingenuity of a bit-by-bit Reformer could devise, would have been received with satisfaction by the nation; but, on the contrary, would not even have allayed for a moment the just discontent of a vast majority of the people of this country, when they contemplate that incomplete and unfair system of representation, which is all that the encroachments of wealth and power have left to them. Such a mode of proceeding, therefore, was liable to this fundamental objection, that nothing satisfactory would be effected by it, and that the general discontent which now prevailed would be left, after such a measure, as deeply rooted as it was before. I felt, therefore, that the most prudent and the safest measure of Reform would be a bold one, because, when I looked at the condition of the country—when I considered how just the claims of the people were—and when, above all, I reflected upon the absolute necessity of satisfying the respectable and reasonable part of the community, in order that thereby the Government and Legislature might be furnished with a ground on which a firm and safe stand might be made in defence of the principles of the constitution, if ever they should be really assailed—from all these considerations, I say, I
936
was satisfied that nothing but a bold and decisive measure would give such general satisfaction and content as would set the question at rest.
This, then, is the course, and such the measure, upon which the Government has determined; and looking at the question in this view, and observing in what manner the discontent of the people has been directed against the present system of returning Members to Parliament, it is impossible for us not to see that those boroughs which are known by the name of nomination boroughs can no longer be suffered to exist.
Against them the public dissatisfaction has, and I think with great reason, been principally directed; and I am satisfied, therefore, that any thing which left this grievance unabated, would not only not be satisfactory, but that it would be much better to do nothing at all, than to allow such a flagrant abuse to remain uncorrected. And was it unnatural, I would ask your Lordships, that the people should contemplate this class of boroughs with such feelings? Your Lordships must, I am sure, answer this question in the negative, when you consider that under the form and name, but without anything of the reality, of an election, persons are returned to the House of Commons under the false and insulting title of Representatives of the people, while they are, in fact, the mere nominees of peers, or of wealthy persons, who pretend that they have now converted a public trust into their own private property, and that they have a right to use it for their own individual benefit, and without any reference to the interests of the people. Such is the feeling of the people, and how to get rid of that feeling without removing the cause of it, is a matter which I certainly do not understand. It has, I know, been said, that to remove this evil was not necessary; but how could anything short of this be satisfactory, when the people saw the scenes which disgraced every general election—when they witnessed the most gross and scandalous corruption practised without disguise—when the sale of seats in the House of Commons is a matter of equal notoriety with the open return of nominees of noble and wealthy persons to that House—when the people saw these things passing before their eyes as often as a general election took place—and when, turning from such sights, they recalled

937
the lessons of their youth, and consulted the writings of the expounders of the laws and the Constitution, where they would find such practices stated to be at once illegal and inconsistent with the people's rights, and where they would discover that the privileges which they saw a few individuals converting into the means of personal profit, were privileges which had been conferred only for the benefit of the nation? Well, then, it was with these views that the Government had considered that the boroughs which were called nomination boroughs ought to be abolished. In looking at these boroughs, they had found that some of them were incapable of correction, for it was impossible to extend their constituency. Some of them consisted only of the sites of ancient boroughs; in others, the constituency was insignificantly small, and they were, from their local situation, incapable of receiving any addition to it; these circumstances rendered a correction of their Representation impracticable; so that, upon the whole, it had been considered that this gangrene of our Representative system bade defiance to all remedies but that of excision. It was therefore determined to abolish all those boroughs which stood in schedule A of the Bill; and in selecting these, they had been chosen with reference to the number of their inhabitants, as those numbers stood in the population census of 1821. The Government had adopted this mode, not because they thought there was any particular virtue in the number fixed upon, nor because they considered the mode itself as the best that could by possibility be devised, and as altogether free from objection, but simply because it gave them a ready means of drawing what might be a fair and impartial line, and of discovering in what boroughs it was possible, and in what boroughs it was impossible, to infuse such a constituency as would render the enjoyment of the franchise by them consistent with the real principles of Representation under the Constitution. Those boroughs into which no such constituency could be infused, it was proposed by the Bill to abolish altogether. There was, however, another class of these boroughs, to which, having a higher population, and there being moreover an easy mode of increasing their constituency, it had been thought right to continue the elective franchise. This class
938
of boroughs, being placed by the Bill under certain regulations which would raise their constituency, would be deprived of one Member. The principle, therefore, upon which the Representation of this class of boroughs had been altered, was that of extending the constituency while their Representation was diminished. I know that this arrangement has been objected to as an anomaly, and that it has been said, that we ought in consistency to take away the franchise from those boroughs altogether, as well as from the boroughs in schedule A. Certainly this would be an objection were we forming a new system.
All I think it necessary to say in answer to this objection is, that it has been rather inconsistently urged by those who oppose his measure on the ground that it is too extensive, and that the reason of the anomaly is to be found in an anxiety to conciliate, as far as possible, the feelings of those who deprecate extensive changes. Besides, whatever inconsistencies and anomalies of this nature are to be found in the Bill, I know of no other mode of remedying them than the revision of the whole constituent body of the kingdom, and a division of the country into departments—a mode which is liable to the greatest possible objections, to objections of such a nature that I will not trouble myself or your Lordships by attempting to enumerate them. These, then, are the grounds upon which it has been proposed entirely to deprive of the elective franchise all the boroughs in schedule A, and to limit the exercise of the franchise in schedule B to the return of one Member for each. By this arrangement there will be taken from the number of Representatives, by schedule A, 111 Members, and by schedule B forty-one, which, added to two Members taken from Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, make altogether a diminution of 154 in the present numbers of the House of Commons. This being resolved upon, the next question that arises is, how the places of these Members are to be supplied. It is proposed—and the principle of the proposition has been sanctioned by the House of Commons, and now forms part of the provisions of the Bill on your Lordships' Table—that sixty—five Members shall be added to the Representation of the counties—that twelve large towns shall return two Members each, and that twenty-eight smaller towns

939
shall return one Member each. This will leave, with the addition of one Member for Wales, a diminution of thirty-six Members for England and Wales. The intention of these arrangements is, to infuse new health and vigour into the Constitution, to lop off decayed branches, and to engraft on the parent stock new am healthful shoots, which shall bring fort good fruits; thus acting upon the principle of the husbandman—
"Inutilesque falce ramos amputans,
Feliciores inserit."
Such is the object which my colleague and myself have in view; and this is the plan which I hope to show to your Lordships is not only unattended with dangers but is calculated to give new securities and additional strength to our institutions, if your Lordships will agree to a measure which I am sanguine in hoping will receive your Lordships' consent. In the future Representation of the counties, under this Bill, all the present rights of voters are preserved, and freeholders remain in the same situation, with regard to the exercise of their franchise, as under the existing law. Every one who has now a freehold in possession will retain the right of voting. There is, however, a provision in the Bill with regard to future voters; and this provision is, that no one who has the grant of a freehold for life of less value than 10 l. a-year shall be allowed to vote at elections for counties. This, it is expected, will, in a great measure, put a stop to that manufacture of votes, of the pernicious consequences of which your Lordships must be sufficiently sensible. The Bill also admits to the enjoyment of the elective franchise in counties all copyholders and customary tenants of estates of the value of 10 l. a-year; all leaseholders for terms of sixty years of tenements of the value of 10 l. a-year; and for terms of twenty years of tenements of the value of 50 l. a-year; and all persons who occupy lands or tenements liable to a clear yearly rent of not less than 50 l., provided they have been in possession for twelve months preceding. This last regulation is one which I should certainly not have myself proposed. It has been projected and carried by persons not connected with the Government, and the Government are not answerable for it. I hope that it will be found to act well, but then it is liable to this objection—namely, that if the same influence be exercised over tenants in counties that has been
940
exercised in other places, which it is not necessary for me now to name, it will be likely to generate a very strong feeling in favour of a regulation to which I am myself opposed, and in favour of which, as I believe, there is not a word in the petitions recently presented to this House, I mean the adoption of the Vote by Ballot. In this manner the Representation of counties has been settled by the Bill; and when we are told that the Bill will lessen the importance and diminish the weight of the landed aristocracy, I beg to ask the persons who hold this language, whether the addition of sixty-five Members to the county Representation, subject to the regulations which I have stated, can by possibility have the effect of diminishing the importance, or lessening the weight, of the landed aristocracy; or whether it may not be said, with much more plausibility, that the regulations with regard to county Representation under the Bill have rather a contrary tendency, and moreover to an objectionable extent in the eyes of many.
There are many other regulations, besides those which I have touched upon, with regard to elections in counties; but as these constitute the details of the Bill, and will therefore be much more conveniently considered in Committee, I will not trouble your Lordships with them now. The object of them all, however, is, to shorten the duration, and to diminish the expense of elections, and consequently, to render them more independent and more congenial to that free and full Representation, which, I shall contend to the latest hour of my life, is at once the unquestionable right of the people, and which, so far from being contrary to the principles of he Constitution, forms, in fact, one of the most prominent and most valuable principles of that Constitution. To the division of counties I know that many strong objections exist; but it ought to be recollected low necessary it is to diminish the expense and labour of the canvass of large counties; and also, what increased facilities and encouragement to contest the proposed addition to the county Representation, without this regulation, would give. Neither, I confess, can I see the force of the opposite objections which have been urged against this part of the measure, as I am confident that it will give no more power in particular districts than is at present attained by that combination among numbers of landed proprietors, which is constantly witnessed

941
at every county contest under the present system. At all events, however, if these objections are good, they certainly come with a very bad grace from those who proclaim themselves anxious to uphold the weight and influence of the landed aristocracy. There are other regulations, into the detail of which it is not necessary for me now to go—such as that no occupier of property in a town, which gives him a right of voting in that town, shall have a vote in right of the same properly for a county, and that thus no person shall have two votes for the same property; at the same time, that a freeholder in a town may retain his right of voting for the county in right of such freehold, if he does not himself acquire a right of voting for the town in respect of it. Intermediate tenants will no longer be allowed to vote; and other provisions of the Bill remove, for the future, all those difficulties which arise from the present system of land-tax assessment.
I now proceed to the right of voting in towns; but before I do so, I must again express my conviction, that the regulations with regard to county elections tend, one and all, to diminish the expense, and to increase the freedom of election. As to the right of voting in towns, the Bill provides, that the rights of all existing electors shall remain untouched, except only so far as they are interfered with by a provision which makes it necessary, that every elector for a town shall reside within seven miles from the place in which he exercises his franchise. By this provision, I hope it will be found that very beneficial results will be produced. It will obviously get rid of the enormous expense which candidates at present incur in the carriage of what are called out-voters; and then the great benefit of the provision is this—that it will obviate the inconvenience of throwing the election, as frequently happens now, entirely into the hands of the non-resident voters, who certainly ought not to be allowed to impose upon the electors resident in the town a Representative who is not acceptable to them. Thus then, with this exception only, the rights of the present electors in towns are preserved. But the constituency in towns is enlarged by the Bill, which gives the right of voting to all occupiers of houses which are assessed to the house duty, or poor-rates, at 10 l., or rented at 10 l., or are of the annual value of 10 l. a-year. The Bill, however,
942
provides that the owners or tenants of such houses shall have occupied them for twelve calendar months preceding, and that they shall have paid up the rates and taxes which have become due up to a certain period previous to the day of registration fixed by the Bill, in respect of the house, or tenement, for which they claim to vote; while, if a man claim to vote simply in respect of his being liable to a yearly rent of 10 l., it is provided, that in such case the payment of the rent due, up to a certain period previous to registration, must be proved, as well as the payment of the rates and taxes. Such, then, are the general outlines of the measure which the Government have proposed for the future regulation of the Representation of the people of England—a measure which, although it has received the sanction of a vast majority of the people, and has been sanctioned by the voices of their Representatives in Parliament, has nevertheless been exposed, on the part of some, to those very serious objections, the nature of which I stated to your Lordships at the commencement of the observations which it has become my duty this evening to offer to the House. It is necessary that I should attempt now to meet these objections. I have contended, and I must still contend, that the right of nomination, if I may miscall that usurpation a right, is not only no part of the Constitution, but is absolutely inconsistent with the most notorious and most universally acknowledged principles of the Constitution. Among the discoveries of modern times, however, the most remarkable undoubtedly is this—namely, that the practice of this flagrant and unconstitutional abuse is the only security on which we can confidently rely for the preservation of all those venerable and excellent institutions under which this country has risen to prosperity and power. It has been contended, with all the vehemence and earnestness of sincerity and truth, that albeit the theory of the Constitution is one way, yet that the practice of the Constitution is another and a different way. The theory of the Constitution is admitted to be a full, a fair, and a free Representation of the people; but then it is argued, that the practice of the Constitution is, that the Representation shall be neither full, nor fair, nor free, and that, by the continuance of this practice, and by the continuance of this practice alone, it is that the country can be securely

943
shielded from dangers of the most appalling character. Yes, men of learning and character have actually been found elsewhere, who have gravely told their auditory, that unless Members of the House of Commons are allowed to be, not the Representatives of the people, but the nominees of Peers, of loan contractors, and of speculating attornies, all security for the happiness, the prosperity, and the liberty we enjoy, will fall from under us.
I really should have supposed, that at this hour—in the nineteenth century—when the schoolmaster is abroad, and when the growing intelligence of all classes of the community is daily and hourly receiving new lights—I should have supposed, I say, that, at such a time, it would only have been necessary to have such a proposition mentioned in order to have it met with universal derision and contempt. I will not do the intelligent part of the community of this country the injustice to suppose, that they can seriously entertain such a monstrous proposition for a moment; but then it has been urged, with so much petulance and pertinacity by the persons with whom the discovery of it has originated, that it becomes necessary to examine it more closely, and particularly to see how far this corrupt system is calculated to preserve, as it is said it does preserve, in an eminent degree, this, the aristocratic branch of the Legislature. It is singular, that in all the writers upon our Constitution—that in all the Acts of Parliament, from the earliest time to the present moment—that in all the works of the able and intelligent expounders of, and commentators upon, those acts—that in all the records of Parliaments, as well recent as remote—and, above all, that in the votes and proceedings and resolutions of the House of Commons, there is not to be found the slightest trace of a mention of the beneficial effects of this system of Representation, which is said to be the constant, the ancient, the necessary, and the indisputable practice of the Constitution. But it is still more strange, that all our laws, that all the proceedings of Parliament, and that all the resolutions of the House of Commons have been directed—and most properly directed, in the opinion of every constitutional writer—to guard, by all possible means, against this practice, which, in times past, has been considered as pernicious as it is unquestionably corrupt, but which has now, by a rare and
944
unexpected discovery, been found to be the great bulwark of all those liberties and all those institutions which Englishmen hold most dear. Might we not naturally have expected, that if such men as Mr. Locke and Mr. Justice Blackstone, by some strange perversion of intellect, and by some extraordinary blindness with which they had no where else been visited in the course of their researches into the history of the Constitution of their country, should have failed to perceive and to appreciate the vast advantages of this ancient and laudable practice—is it not, I say, naturally to have been expected, that if Mr. Locke and Mr. Justice Blackstone committed this signal oversight, they would at least have abstained from denominating that practice a flagrant and disgraceful and pernicious abuse of our Constitution? Is it not strange too, that such men as Lord Chatham, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, Mr. Grattan, Mr. Flood, and Sir George Saville, while they were endeavouring, with all their abilities and all their eloquence, to eradicate this practice, as though it had been a festering and destructive gangrene, which endangered the very existence of our Constitution, never discovered that they were directing their best powers to the destruction of all that ought to have been held most sacred, and of all that was most essential to the security of our best institutions, and, above all, to the preservation of that Throne, which it was the duty, as he was convinced it would be the pride, of every good subject to uphold? Have your Lordships forgotten too, that at the commencement of every new Session of Parliament, the House of Commons vote, as one of their Standing Orders, that it is unconstitutional and illegal, and moreover a high breach of the privileges of the Commons House of Parliament, for any Peer to interfere in the election of Members to serve in that House? Will your Lordships, in the face of such a resolution, declare that it is right for Peers to buy and sell seats in the House of Commons—that it is right for Peers not only to interfere in elections, but actually to return, by their own mere nomination, Members to serve in Parliament? and that they should persevere in doing this, notwithstanding that recorded resolution of the other branch of the Legislature? No one again, I apprehend, will be found to dispute this principle of the Constitution—namely, that the people ought not to

945
be called upon to pay any other taxes than such as are imposed by the votes of their own Representatives in the House of Commons; and your Lordships are well aware, that so jealous is the House of Commons in the maintenance of this principle, that they will not suffer your Lordships to interfere with any money-bill—no, not even for the purpose of correcting the most trifling mistake, the most palpable oversight. Are your Lordships then prepared to say, that this principle of the Constitution is not violated when Peers are allowed to nominate and send into the House of Commons persons who, being there, are competent to propose, to amend, and to alter votes of supply, while Peers themselves are not allowed by the theory, and are positively restricted by the practice of the Constitution from meddling in the least degree with such measures?
That it was impossible to refute this reasoning so far as the theory of the Constitution was concerned, no one would be bold or senseless enough to deny. But then the opponents of the measure fix upon the practice of the Constitution, and ask, with an air of triumph, where is to be found, in the practice of the Constitution such a principle of Representation, as the supporters of the measure contended to be not only in conformity with the Constitution, but is moreover the only certain means of providing for the general security of the empire. I can only refer these inquirists to the practice of our ancestors, which will be found to be directed against that very system which now prevails, and to be in all respects calculated to guard against and secure us from those abuses which, from the abandonment of that old and wholesome practice, have grown to such a height, that the abatement of them is now so universally demanded, that your Lordships may be assured it cannot longer with safety be denied. In times past, did not the Crown issue summonses to towns, calling upon them to return Members to Parliament; and were not such summonses originally directed to such towns as were competent, by the number of their inhabitants and the extent of their resources, to obey such summonses? Is it not notorious, too, that such writs were withdrawn, as the places to which they had been formerly directed fell into decay, and sometimes upon the reduced inhabitants of such boroughs making application to be released from the burthen—for burthen it
946
then was, of sending Representatives to Parliament? Is it not equally notorious, that the principle of the Constitution and the practice of the Constitution, too, in early times, were to transfer the elective franchise from decayed to flourishing places, and to call upon the latter to return Members to Parliament, when the former had become too insignificant to be intrusted with, or too poor to be able to execute, the duties of electors? I do not mean to say, that this prerogative of the Crown has always been properly exercised, or that it has not been abused and influenced by the preponderance of interests of great men, who contrived to get new writs issued to, and to have old writs retained by, certain boroughs, after they had sunk below the point at which it had, by the acknowledged principles of the Constitution, been deemed right to give them Representatives. Still, however, these facts are clear—namely, that the principle of the institution was, that elections were to be free, and that Representation was originally given to and taken from boroughs by the Crown, as those boroughs flourished or decayed. That Representation was so taken from boroughs, is a fact which is too well known even to require mention, had it not been said that the measure now before your Lordships ought, in consequence of the disfranchising part of it, to be denominated a measure of spoliation and robbery [hear, hear]. I hear some noble Lord assenting to that position, and I trust that the noble Lord will be good enough to favour the House with some reasons in support of it. In the meantime I will, with the permission of your Lordships, waste a few words in demonstrating what no one ought to be called upon to demonstrate, because it is as clear as any truth can possibly be—that there cannot possibly be the slightest foundation for the charge of spoliation and robbery, any more than there can be the least ground to deny that, if to take away Representation from the decayed borough be spoliation and robbery, that spoliation and that robbery is in strict conformity with the ancient practice of the Constitution. In the first place, then, I deny that the power of returning Members to Parliament is to be considered in the nature of property. It is not property, but a trust; and there can be no greater mistake than to confound the obligation of a trust with the rights of property. Property may be

947
enjoyed—may be used—yes, and even abused, if not to the injury of others, without the interference of any one; but to trusts are attached ends to be attained and conditions to be fulfilled; and if those ends are defeated, or if those conditions are violated, the trust may be resumed without the slightest infringement of justice. In all cases of a private nature this is constantly done, and the trust becomes forfeited, and may be removed by process of law. Is it meant to contend, that there can be any difference between trusts like these and a sacred and solemn trust which is held for the benefit of the people at large? I apprehend that no one will be found to contend for such a proposition; and still less can I anticipate that any one will argue, that any prescription, any length of ill-gotten possession, can convert a trust, which has been conferred for the advantage of the people at large, into a property which can be the subject of barter and sale for the personal benefit and private advantage of an individual, whether Peer or Commoner.
Now, I should like to hear what answer can be given to this by the noble Peer, whoever he is, who seemed to assent to the assertion which I noticed as having been used by certain individuals, that the sweeping away of these boroughs is an act of robbery and spoliation? But if it be an act of robbery and spoliation, it is one which, we all know, has been committed over and over again—it is one that is consistent with the old practice of the Constitution. I have already shown to your Lordships, that several English Monarchs have refused to issue writs, when towns, which had been represented, had ceased to be populous. There are forty-four boroughs and one city, at the present moment, which formerly enjoyed the right of sending Members to Parliament, but which, in consequence of no Writ being now directed to them, are deprived of that privilege. Here they had a number of boroughs, almost as great as was contained in schedule A, deprived by the ordinary practice of the constitution of the right of sending Members to Parliament. But is there nothing done, in modern times, to show that that which is now called an act of robbery and spoliation, as attempted to be effected by the present Legislature, has been resorted to by precedent Parliaments? What, I ask, was the union with Scotland? The Legislature
948
by that measure reduced the borough Representation of Scotland from sixty—five to fifteen—an act of most extensive and flagitious robbery, if this position be admitted.
Again, let them look to the union with Ireland. What was done there? Why, 100 boroughs sending no less than 200 Members to Parliament, were shorn of the right. Was that considered an act of robbery and spoliation? But it will be said, "Oh! there was compensation in that case. There was a remuneration given for the loss of property." I deny, that it was given as compensation in the correct and proper meaning of the word. If I must use plain and direct terms, I will say, that it was gross and scandalous bribery and corruption. It was, in fact, a monstrous bribe, taken from the public purse, to insure the passing of the Union Bill through the Irish House of Commons, and certainly cannot be quoted as proof of any existing property in those boroughs. My noble and learned friend, Lord Plunkett, reminds me, that twenty-eight of these 100 boroughs, which were restricted to one-half off their former number of Members, received no compensation at all. Then, if taking the whole off was a robbery, surely the taking a half off must be robbery also.
This fact clearly shows upon what principle the robbery and spoliation, as it is now called, in that case proceeded. But the question is not to be argued in that manner. The object to attain which remuneration was given, is perfectly notorious; and I trust, that your Lordships, considering what has passed, will take care not to fall into disrepute and disrespect with the people, by showing any partiality to a similar course. If the Parliament of Ireland had not fallen into total disrespect with the people of that country, the Union would never have been carried. But for that circumstance, the Act of Union never would have passed. Have I no authority for stating what I have done with respect to the proceedings which occurred when the Union with Ireland took place? Certainly I have, and very powerful authority too. I was present in the House of Commons when the late Mr. Foster, who had been Speaker of the Irish House of Commons, said openly, when taking part in a debate on the subject of the Union, that bribes of money were offered and accepted, and that Peerages

949
were bartered for votes, in order to carry that measure [hear, hear]. I understand that cheer; and I have no hesitation in saying, that when the usual grace of the Crown, at the period of the coronation, was about to be exercised, I, holding a high situation in the Cabinet, would not recommend the honours of the Peerage to be bestowed on those whom I believed to be averse to this all-important measure; but, at the same time, I am perfectly certain, that individuals less likely to be improperly biassed in the expression of their feelings and opinions were never added to the Peerage than those who were called to it on that occasion. I will now return to the point on which I was speaking when this interruption occurred. When Mr. Foster had made the statement, to which I have referred, in the House of Commons, the late Lord Londonderry fired at it, and said, that Mr. Foster ought not to deal in insinuations. What followed? Mr. Foster immediately observed," Mr. Speaker, I make no insinuations. I state, that in carrying of the measure of union with Ireland, corruption was practised, and bribes were received. Money was offered and money was received on that occasion. Is that an insinuation? I state these things thus publicly, and I am ready to prove them." Mr. Foster then sat down, and no answer was given to him. But suppose the proposition for an indemnity to be made—suppose it to be acceded to—what then became of the argument, that the property, as it is called, in these boroughs is essential to the Constitution—that it cannot be touched without the sacrifice and destruction of all that is most dear to us as freemen? What are we to say to a system which would tax, which would squeeze money out of the pockets of the people—to do what? to remunerate individuals for giving up that which they declare to be essential to the welfare of the Constitution, and to the prosperity of the country. I argue that it is not so; but, on the contrary, that the disfranchisement of the boroughs in schedule A is necessary, that, the proceeding is recognized by the practice of the Constitution, as exemplified in the case of the forty-four boroughs and one city, to which I have before alluded, which were deprived of the right of sending Members to Parliament. The principle exercised in the formation of schedule A, is merely that
950
of resuming a trust, and otherwise applying it, which, in these particular cases, cannot be used for the objects for which it was originally granted; and thus depriving those boroughs of the right of returning Members to Parliament, when that right could no longer be used advantageously and beneficially—I say, then, that in accordance with the ancient practice of the Constitution—with what was done at the Irish and Scotch Unions—still more with what was done by the Catholic Relief Bill, when all the 40 s. freeholders were by one sweeping clause disfranchised—Parliament has a perfect right to make such alterations in the exercise of a public trust, as may be found necessary for the public welfare.
But it is said, "that the system works well, that hitherto it has worked well;" and then it is asked, "Will you, with the evidence you have before you of the high degree of prosperity, and power, and glory, which this country has attained, under what you are pleased to call a vicious system of Representation—will you, under these circumstances, venture to change that mode of Representation, and hazard the destruction of all your power and prosperity?" Now I must say, that this argument of "working well" goes a little too far. It would militate against the efforts of a people, who, without the slightest degree of liberty, endeavoured to attain that which was the dearest blessing in life, if it so happened that they lived under a prince who administered the government in a beneficial manner. It may be alleged with respect to them, that they ought to be contented with a bad form of government, seeing how humanely it was administered. That, however, was not a principle that would be acted on by the British Parliament. Their anxious feeling would be, to retain the blessing of freedom when they had it; and when deprived of it, to make every effort to regain it. One thing, however it may be praised, the present system unquestionably has not done—it has not conciliated the affections and feelings of the people. If it be necessary for every Government to possess the confidence and good opinion of the people, if that confidence and good opinion are necessary to inspire affection and create obedience to authority, then I must say, that so far from the present system working well, no system ever worked more unfortunately. I was not present a few evenings since,

951
but I read in the papers what then occurred in this House, on the presentation of some petitions on the subject of Reform from Scotland. A noble Lord admitted, "that the Representative system in Scotland was too bad—that its doom was sealed—that it was too corrupt to last any longer." I believe that such is the fact, and the statement made by an hon. and learned friend of mine, in another place, proved that the system was absurd, monstrous, and ridiculous. In thirty-three counties of Scotland, the total number of freeholders was 3,255. Of these, not less than 800 had votes for different counties, thus reducing the actual number of voters to about 2,500. But in addition to this, it should be observed, that many of these votes are in the right of mere superiorities, which belonged to persons who have no property whatever in the places for which they voted. Taking these away from the number of voters, the whole constituent body for the counties of Scotland would amount to only 1,250 persons—a number not so large as was possessed by many of the small boroughs of England. This was allowed to be too monstrous; and the facts which I have stated are admitted to afford sufficient reasons for remedying the system. Argyle-shire contained 97,000 inhabitants, and had only 113 voters. Of these, the number who possessed property was only thirty-one. Caithness had forty-eight voters, of whom only eleven possessed real property; Renfrewshire, with 115,000 inhabitants, had, including superiorities, 142 voters, of whom thirty-nine had property; Inverness-shire, which comprised 95,000 inhabitants, had ninety voters, of whom only twenty-eight had any real property in the county; for Bute, there were twenty-one voters, of whom the number of those who held property was exactly one. The boroughs in Scotland are sixty-six in number, in which the electors consist of Magistrates, who annually re-elect each other, without any control by the people; and the whole number of electors in these boroughs is 1,440, or, on an average about twenty in each borough. In Glasgow, the population of which is 200,000, the electors are thirty-three, three-fourths of whom are below the average condition of merchants and traders: and here I may be allowed to observe, that in general, instead of being of a better description, in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and other boroughs in Scotland, the voters are far below the general average,
952
in point of knowledge and intelligence, of those to whom the right of voting should be given. In Edinburgh, the population of which is 150,000, the number of voters is also thirty-three, not one of whom, or not more than one of whom, belongs to the upper class. Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, Perth, and other great, populous, and wealthy places, have only a fourth or fifth share in a Representative; Paisley, Greenock, Leith, Kilmarnock, and many other great towns, have no Representative at all. But why do I now allude to the state of the Representation in Scotland? I am not now about to introduce the Scotch Reform Bill; and I only refer to the state of the Representation of Scotland to illustrate the argument of the system working well in practice. If we look to its increasing prosperity, its power, and its wealth—if we consider the spirit of successful enterprise with which its people are endued—if we look to their industrious habits and their great intelligence—if those things are the criterion of a country's improvement, there is no country which can produce more witnesses of its improvement and prosperity than Scotland. In what country are the arts of civilization more highly prized and more extensively cultivated than in Scotland, under this very system of Representation which is now admitted to be so anomalous and absurd? But how has the system worked well in Scotland? It is under the English system of Representation. The whole of the present system of society in Scotland has grown up under the British system of Representation. The evils of the system were distributed over the whole; and yet the whole has been accompanied with a high degree of prosperity. From this state of prosperity it is stated—reasoning it cannot be called, but with a hardihood of assertion not often equalled—it is stated that the prosperity of the country is the result of the corrupt system of sending Members to Parliament, and that it would be dangerous to attempt to remove or interfere with this corrupt system. The forty-five Members for Scotland are only a part of the number of Representatives who are not sent by the people to the British House of Parliament; and if the principle of Representation in their case is bad, and offers no security for the rights and liberties of the people, how can I contend that the principle is not equally objectionable by which Members are sent by

953
boroughs in England, in which the right of voting is equally restricted? How can I distinguish the Representatives of the Scotch superiorities, or the system under which they have been chosen, from the Representatives of Gatton or Old Sarum, and the corrupt system under which they also have been chosen? Why are the burgage tenures of England to be considered more valuable, or to be more highly prized, than the superiorities of Scotland? Why are the mounds and walls of Gatton or Old Sarum to be allowed to continue to return Members, when you alter, and no doubt properly alter, that system which reduces the number of voters really possessing property in a considerable county to one. It is difficult to separate the one case from the other; it is impossible, if you admit the necessity of an alteration of the system of Representation in Scotland, not to perceive that a similar alteration is necessary in England. If you admit that the state of the Scotch Representation is strange, anomalous, monstrous, and absurd, how can you avoid the inference—I should say the undeniable inference—that the Representation of England, as far as it is composed of the Members representing the decayed and corrupted boroughs, is equally strange, equally anomalous, equally monstrous, and equally absurd?
When you find that the results are, that places which no longer contain any considerable number of inhabitants return a large proportion of the Members of the Commons, and that those who, according to the spirit and letter of the law and Constitution, ought to take no part, and exercise no influence in the election of Members to serve in Parliament, have the absolute nomination of the Members who represent those inconsiderable places—when you know that this is the system in England, and compare it with the Scotch system of Representation, how can you, I ask, retain the one and abandon the other? The system which prevails in the borough Representation of England is not upheld by any of the writers on our Constitution. On the contrary, it is reprobated by all authority, by all reason, by the statutes, and by the common law of the land. The removal of this vicious and corrupt system, so far from tending to endanger the Constitution, in my opinion, will tend materially to improve and strengthen it. And here, my Lords, this brings me to consider how much the continuance of the system of
954
nomination boroughs contributes to the real weight and influence of this House. In the first place it is to be considered, that the power of nominating Members to sit in Parliament is not enjoyed by this House in general—it is not enjoyed by your Lordships as a body in the State—but it is enjoyed by a few wealthy individuals amongst you, who exercise the power for the improvement of their own separate interests. The power, therefore, is exercised and enjoyed only by a few, whilst the odium falls upon the whole body. The system is odious to the people, and shocks their senses, and on your Lordships, as a body, the odium rests. By getting rid of the system, then, you remove the odium, and the Peerage, as a body, lose nothing. As I said before, only a few of your Lordships exercise this power of nomination; and the power is not exercised exclusively by Peers; other wealthy persons possess it, and share it sometimes with loan contractors or speculating attornies, who make use of this power with no other object but to promote their private advantage. Then the power of nomination is liable to continual transfer and change. It may leave your Lordships' hands altogether, or it may accumulate in the hands of an individual to such an extent, that this power would not only become odious to the country—for that it already is—but it might become inconvenient to the Government of the country, by rendering it, in a great degree, dependent upon the person who possessed this power, A Government so situated, instead of being able to acknowledge real claims and merits, and to reward them with the emolument of office, must necessarily be compelled to admit other claims, and might not be able to refuse the claims of those persons who had great parliamentary influence. I contend, that, by taking away this power, your Lordships will not lose any real advantage, but, on the contrary, that you will be put upon terms of equal advantage with those who now enjoy a monopoly of this unconstitutional power, and will get rid of a considerable degree of odium, a portion of which you are all at present obliged to bear. By agreeing to give up this power, you will be relieved from a weight of odium—you will secure your own independent influence, and that high estimation in the public mind which you ought always to possess. My Lords, I am far from being one of those who

955
maintain that it is useful or advantageous that any branch of the Legislature should stand rigidly upon the exercise of its own rights and privileges. I think that such a strict and rigid assertion of the peculiar and distinct rights of one body in a State might bring it into opposition with the others, and cause collisions which might possibly be productive of the most dangerous consequences to the country, We are now in that fortunate state of society, in which all orders are blended together by a feeling of common interest; and those interests are so closely identified, that, no matter to what class any individual belongs, if he possesses nothing but its legitimate influence, the great probability, and the natural inference is, that such influence will be used for the general advantage. Though I am the last man, then, to propose to retain the influence which enables any Member in this House to interfere in the elections of Members of the House of Commons—an interference that cannot be too strongly condemned,—yet do I propose that your Lordships should be deprived of any part of your legitimate power or influence? God forbid! The respect due to your rank, and the influence which, from property, you necessarily possess, will belong to you after the passing of the Bill, as fully and in as great a degree as they now do. The Peers of this country have not, and I thank God that they have not, any of those exclusive immunities or privileges which belonged to the old nobility of France. The nobility of this country are mixed and blended with the people. They share all their burthens—they partake of all their benefits—they unite in the discharge of all their duties—they are landed proprietors—they live on their estates—they perform their duty as Magistrates—they are known as neighbours; in all these ways, and many others, they acquire esteem and confidence, which are given not so much on account of their rank, as in consideration of their good conduct, and the kind offices they bestow on those around them.
The respect which the people of this country are always willing to pay to rank is doubled, as is its value in their sight, when accompanied by good conduct, and the disposition to do good. This is one species of influence which your Lordships possess, and so far from being contracted, it will be extended by the measure which I propose to you. The odious power which
956
is possessed by some of your Lordships does not help to increase that legitimate influence which I have endeavoured to describe; and I verily believe, that if you resolve to maintain the nomination boroughs, the whole voice of the United Kingdom will be raised against you. Then, indeed, will that security, which you now possess for the maintenance of your rights and your property, be shaken. It is not quite so great a sacrifice as some would represent that you are now called upon to make. You are asked only to give up that which is odious, unjust, and unconstitutional, and by retaining which the security of this House may be shaken. This is to be done securely by endeavouring to reform that which, in the present state of light and knowledge, and when its effects are felt by the people, cannot, I am satisfied, be maintained, whatever may be contended to the contrary, for any considerable length of time. You have the power now to reject this Bill; but your rejection does not set the question at rest. The influence which your Lordships possess, in the Representation of sixty-five old boroughs, may be taken from you by this Bill; but the Peers and the landed interest are not thereby deprived of their influence in the Representation; that influence is rather increased by this Bill, and nothing is taken away but the odious power possessed by the few, and from which the Members of this House, as a body, derive no benefit.
It is on these principles, undoubtedly, that I endeavour, however feebly, to call on your Lordships to concur in the measure which has received the sanction of the other House, and which has been hailed with a more unanimous expression of satisfaction, throughout the country, than, I believe, any measure of any description has ever before elicited. I have trespassed too long, perhaps, on your Lordships, in endeavouring to press the former part of the subject on your attention; I shall now endeavour to bring before your Lordships convincing proof that this measure has received the almost unanimous approbation of the country. Your Lordships have already had some discussion on this subject in the early part of the evening, and on former occasions similar discussions have taken place on the presentation of petitions. I know that, taking advantage of those desultory discussions, some noble Lords have declared,

957
that the people are acting under a delusion, and that all the excitement which now prevails would soon pass away, like other matters which excite surprise for the moment. Such a feeling, I am aware, prevailed at the close of the last Parliament. So strongly was that idea implanted in the minds of many, that, on the dissolution of the last Parliament, it was asserted (no doubt by very wise persons) that the result of the new elections would be decidedly hostile to the principle of Reform. Your Lordships all know how perfectly fallacious that prediction turned out to be. To show the feelings of the people on this question, I need not recur to the petitions which have been presented to your Lordships—presented to an extent which, I believe, was never equalled on any other occasion—and signed by greater numbers than have ever before approached your Lordships' House. I will not advert to these petitions, because I shall be told, that the Peers, uninfluenced by any extrinsic circumstances, must rigidly and determinedly perform their duty; and, besides, it would be doubted whether these petitions represented accurately the state of the public feeling. But when I see that these petitions are not the result of previous application—when I see that they arise from the spontaneous feeling of the people—when I perceive them moving forward in crowds and eagerly pressing to your Lordships' Bar—when I reflect on the petitions that have already been presented, and consider those that are about to follow, I cannot, for a moment, doubt what the sentiments of the great body of the people are. Then, however, the friends of the Bill were met with another statement—and they were told that this was a system of intimidation, and that the Peers were too spirited, too courageous, too independent a body to concede any thing to intimidation. Now my Lords, I am the last man, or one of the last men in this House, who would counsel your Lordships to yield any thing to menace—I speak not the language of menace, nor of one who would ask your Lordships to submit to menace—I say, resist popular violence, do not give way to popular clamour—but listen to the fair and reasonable, and to the universal wishes of the people. No Government can safely disregard public opinion; and least of all a Government, founded like this, on free principles.
I conjure your Lordships, then, as you value your rights and dignities, and as you wish to transmit them unimpaired to your posterity, to lend a willing ear to the Representations of the people.
I entreat your Lordships to pause, and consider well before you come to a decision on this question—a question with reference to which nine-tenths, I believe I am below the mark in stating it at this, but certainly nine-tenths of the people have expressed their opinion—respectfully it is true, but in a tone too loud not to be heard, and too decisive to be misunderstood.
If you still doubt the sentiments of the people, if you think their anxiety for Reform will pass away I would conjure you not to lay the flattering unction to your souls! Do not believe that the desire for Reform will abate. Do not believe that if this measure be rejected, a more mitigated and less comprehensive one can be substituted in its place with safety; entertain and cherish no such hope; the time is past when a smaller measure of Reform would satisfy the people; you must either take this Bill, you must, I repeat either adopt this Bill—or you will have instead of it, a call for something infinitely stronger and more extensive!
Disregard clamour then, I say again to your Lordships, but consider the importance of public opinion, honestly expressed; and, if it be necessary, yield to it! Am I then urging your Lordships to do anything contradicted by former examples? What was it that induced the Ministry of a former day to grant concession to the Roman Catholics? Did the noble Duke state that his opinions were altered? Did he retract the sentiments he had previously entertained on the subject? Did another leading member of the government, a Member of the other House of Parliament, one who was only second to the noble Duke himself in influence, state that his opinions were changed?—or did he not rather found his introduction of the measure of Catholic Emancipation upon the necessity of the case, and the expediency of yielding to popular opinion, when it could no longer be resisted without endangering the peace of the country?
When the noble Duke was attacked, bitterly attacked in this House, on the ground that he had abandoned his principles,

959
and was accused as a traitor to the cause in which he was formerly engaged, I endeavoured to vindicate the noble Duke. I defended the conduct of that noble Duke on this ground—that a statesman was obliged to shape his course with reference to the feelings of the people and to the situation of the country. In bringing forward this measure, I have no such process to go through, I have no explanation to give, I have no apology to make; what I now propose is consistent with the opinion which I have held during the whole course of my political life. But if it were otherwise, following the example of the noble Duke, I would say, "The time is now come; things can no longer remain as they are; we must do something for the removal of a system which has long been odious in the eyes of the country; we must endeavour to restore to its original purity that Constitution which has been the admiration of mankind, and which, for ages, has been the object of imitation in every part of the world where any attempt has been made to establish free institutions; we must labour to render it consistent with its original objects; we must toil to restore it to its original character; and this can only be done by removing the blemishes which have caused those objects to be lost sight of, and by taking away the defects by which that character has been obscured and defiled." Again I call on your Lordships not to yield to intimidation or menance; but in the same voice I entreat you not to refuse that which is just, and reasonable, and proper. With respect to the general feeling of the people, I am fully borne out in my statement by the fact. I wish your Lordships maturely to consider, from the evidence before you, whether I am or am not correct in what I assert. I think that, upon due reflection, you will find that one opinion, and one opinion only, is generally maintained upon this question out of doors. Your Lordships may dispute the authority of petitions; but can you dispute the appeal which was made to the people at the close of the late Parliament? On the occasion to which I have already alluded—that of the Catholic Question—Sir Robert Peel, in opening the debate in the House of Commons, stated the great change which had taken place in the opinion of the public, and the impossibility, under that change of sentiment, of any longer continuing the exclusion
960
of the Roman Catholics from a full participation in the benefits of the British Constitution. I have, in a former debate, quoted the sentiments of the right hon. Baronet; but as they are so much more striking with reference to the present question, I shall again cite them. The right hon. Baronet held, that the great criterion of public opinion—that the most practical and constitutional mode of ascertaining the sense of the people, upon any given question—was to be found by taking a number of the great counties and towns in England, and seeing how their Representatives voted upon the question. In pursuance of this principle, the right hon. Baronet referred to the votes given on a preceding debate on the Catholic claims by the members for seventeen principal counties—those of York, Middlesex, Lancaster, Devon, Kent, Surrey, Somerset, Norfolk, Stafford, Dorset, Essex, Hants, Lincoln, Gloucester, Wilts, Warwick and Suffolk; and what was the result? Why, of these counties, both the members for Middlesex, Norfolk and Stafford voted in favour of those claims; both the members for Somerset voted against them; those for all the remaining counties, including York, were equally divided; the result being that nineteen Members had voted for, and seventeen Members against Catholic Emancipation. And the right hon. Baronet considered that a bare majority of two was sufficient to satisfy him, that the public feeling was greatly altered, and that the system of exclusion could no longer be persevered in. The right hon. Baronet next considered the way in which the Members for twenty-two towns had given their votes on the same occasion. The towns were London, Westminster, Southwark, Liverpool, Bristol, Norwich, Nottingham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Leicester, Hull, Preston, Exeter, Coventry, Chester, Yarmouth, Derby, Ipswich, Worcester, Aylesbury, Carlisle, and Colchester. Of these towns, both the members for Westminster, Southwark, Nottingham, Newcastle, Preston, Chester, Yarmouth, and Derby, voted in favour of the Catholic claims; both the members for Bristol and Exeter voted against them; both the members for Ipswich were absent; of the members for Worcester, one was absent, and one against; the same of Colchester; and the rest were equally divided: the result being that twenty-six members voted for concession,

961
and sixteen against it. Thus, in the counties selected by Sir Robert Peel, it appeared that nineteen Members were in favour of Emancipation, and seventeen against it—and that in the twenty-two towns which he had selected, there were twenty-six members for, and sixteen against Emancipation; so that a majority of two Members upon the Representation of seventeen counties, and of ten upon that of twenty-two towns, was sufficient to satisfy the right hon. Baronet; and he argued that a great change having been thus practically proved to have taken place in the sentiments of the people on this question, it became necessary to yield to the popular feeling. Now, how stood the question, in the last Parliament, when a division was taken on the Reform question? Taking the same seventeen counties selected by Sir Robert Peel, it would be found, that both the members for Middlesex, Lancaster, Devon, Surrey, Norfolk, Stafford, Wilts, Warwick, and Suffolk, voted for Reform; both the members for Hampshire against it; of the members for Yorkshire, three voted for, and one against it; and the rest were equally divided; the result being, that twenty-seven Members voted for the Bill, and nine against it; leaving a majority of county Members sufficient, I should have thought, to satisfy any man who was before satisfied with a majority of two. How was it with respect to the towns? Of the twenty-two cities and towns, the members for Liverpool, Bristol, Leicester, Chester, and Carlisle, were divided; both the members for Ipswich voted against the Bill; of the members for Colchester, one voted for, and the other was absent; of those for London, three voted for, and one against: all the rest voted for the second reading of the Bill; and the result was, that thirty-seven Members were for, and eight against the measure, there being one absent. This was the majority in the last Parliament in favour of Reform; and this, I should have supposed, might have been considered decisive of the necessity of the measure by any one who took the majority of those who represent large counties and towns as a fair criterion of public opinion. But how stands the case now? Of the seventeen counties and the twenty-two towns, every Member voted for the measure. So that, instead of proportions of twenty-seven to nine, and thirty-seven to eight, here, in
962
those counties and towns which were selected as the cream of England you have not a majority, but an unanimous vote in favour of the Bill. If this were not evidence of the public opinion being in favour of the Bill, I do not know what public opinion is.
But perhaps the counties and towns selected by Sir Robert Peel were not fairly selected. Let us see what the general results are, as shown by the division on the second reading in the present Parliament; of eighty-two Representatives of counties in England, seventy-six voted for the Bill, and six against it, being a proportion of about thirteen to one on the county Representation. This session, only six county Members voted against the Reform Bill. In the large towns, not included in either schedule, out of 206 Members, 150 voted for the Bill, forty-six against it, and ten were absent. We come now to the Members representing boroughs in schedules A and B. There we find that the account is very much changed—seventy-six Members for boroughs in schedule A voted against the Bill, and twenty-two in favour of it—of Members representing boroughs in schedule B fifty-six voted against the Bill, and twenty-six for it. The Members for boroughs in schedules A and B therefore formed the largest proportion of those who voted against the second reading. They amounted, including two members for Weymouth, which loses half its Representatives by the Bill, to 134; the whole number of English Members who voted against the Bill was 186, from which deduct 134 sitting for boroughs wholly or partially disfranchised, and who have therefore a direct interest in opposing the Bill, and the number is reduced to fifty-two. But the deduction to be made does not even stop here. There are certain places in which close Corporations have the power of returning Members; the right of voting in these places is limited to a few persons, and the Bill proposes that all those corporations should be opened. All those representing close corporations, therefore, had a direct interest in the voting against this measure; and how would it stand if these were deducted from those who voted against the Bill? Forty-six Members for boroughs not in the schedule, including those for the two Universities, voted against the Bill; twenty-four of whom sit for places in the hands

963
of a small number of voters. After deducting these twenty-four then, the result is, that not more than twenty-eight Members representing counties and populous places, and deserving the name of Representatives of the people, voted against the Bill. Now, I would ask, whether any man who is not blinded by prejudice, can for a moment doubt, that the public opinion has been fully and decisively expressed on this question? I would ask your Lord ships, whether you are prepared to reject a measure which has been agreed to by the Representatives of the Commons of England, with the dissent of only twenty-eight who can be fairly called Representatives of the people. Even this number of twenty-eight might be reduced by a more strict analysis; but I will admit that number, as speaking the voice of a portion, though a small portion of the people.
Again I would say to your Lordships, that I ask you not to assent to clamour, but I beg of you to consider whether you can with safety reject a measure sanctioned thus by the united voice of the people of England, as expressed by their Representatives in Parliament; founded so decidedly, not on any new theory, but on the original and undoubted principles of the Constitution.
But we are told, if there is danger in resistance, there is danger also in concession. It is said, if you once concede, where will you stop? This is the old doctrine, which has led to so much ruin. But is it true that this ruin has been produced by concession? I think not. Was it concession that lost the kingdom of the Netherlands to Philip 2nd? Was it concession that overturned the government of Charles 1st, and led him to the scaffold? No, my Lords, it was the faithless attempt he made to resume those rights which he had reluctantly granted. Was it concession that created those discontents which disturbed the end of Charles 2nd's reign, and which obliged his successor to abdicate the throne? Was it concession that lost us America? Was it concession that destroyed the old monarchy of France? I know it has been said that it was concession that overturned the monarchy of France; but I derive a different lesson from that event. I am fully persuaded, that if the old nobility of France had done what I counsel your Lordships now to do—not to disappoint,
964
but to meet the wishes of the people—if the French nobility had done this—if they had stood by their monarch, and he had conscientiously adopted those measures which would have satisfied them, I believe that he and his family would now have been on the throne of France, and that most of the evils which have since come upon the world would have been avoided. To come down to the more recent periods. Was it concession which produced the last Revolution in France, or was it not an attempt to wrest from the people those rights and privileges which their monarch had guaranteed to them in the charter? I implore your Lordships to consider all these and many other examples with which history furnishes us, and to concede before it is too late, and while concession may yet be useful—to make concession while it may possess the grace of being voluntarily yielded to the public opinion, and before it shall lose that grace, and be utterly ineffectual. You see, from what has occurred in other times and other countries, how advantageous it is to concede in time. What the people are satisfied with at first, will not satisfy them afterwards. This was the case with America. I know, my Lords, that some persons make a different application of those facts of history, and say, "see what are the effects of concession; when you offered to the Americans all they required, they would not accept it." But their refusal is easily explained. All the people of America desired in the first instance, was the exercise of their just rights and privileges. These were pertinaciously and obstinately refused, and what was the result? These rights you had refused in the insolence of your strength; an ineffectual offer of them was forced from you in the hour of defeat and humiliation. But it was too late, and you were compelled to sign a treaty of separation and independence. You had taught them their own power—they had thrown themselves into the arms of France, and you were forced to consent to a separation, because you refused a timely concession to their reasonable demand. I could adduce other instances of the unfortunate results of the refusal or delay of concession, but what I have mentioned are sufficient, I should hope, if duly considered, to impress on your Lordships the strong conviction which I feel of the dangers which must attend the rejection of a measure supported by the nearly unanimous

965
wish of the nation. One more instance I may mention of the disadvantage of the refusal of concession in time. I lament, as much as any man can, the unsettled state of Ireland. I regret that after the Catholics have obtained those concessions they so long applied for, and to which, as it appeared to me, they were always entitled, both in policy and justice, after those concessions, for which the country is so much indebted to the noble Duke, were made to them, I regret, I say, to see that peace and calmness, and returning prosperity and commerce have not immediately followed the grant of their claims. But what is the inference I draw from this unfortunate result? Not that concession to the Catholics was bad policy, as some, incapable of understanding and of feeling, might suppose, but that it was too long delayed. If, fortunately, the Catholic claims had been conceded twenty or thirty years ago, when all those men most distinguished in the nation for wisdom and talent, but who have since gone to their account, were its advocates, my firm belief is, that as there is no country which possesses greater natural advantages, and more capability of improvement, no part of his Majesty's dominions would have now been in a more prosperous and flourishing condition, and we should have avoided those internal dissensions by which it has been since distracted.
You refused to concede, however, and delayed until concession was extorted from you by necessity. You taught the people the consciousness of their power, and, having attained that power, they were unwilling to lay it aside; but, whether unwilling or not, you, by a course of proceeding which I lament—against which I did not venture to vote, although I could not vote for it—you, I say, by pernicious adjuncts, took from the measure that grace and favour which would have recommended it in the sight of those to whom it was applied. I say, therefore, my Lords, concede in time—concede freely, generously, and not reluctantly; not as if what you granted were an extorted capitulation, rather than an act of mercy and benevolence. I say, therefore, concede in time—meet the wishes of the people. Look at the Representation of the people; see whether it is liable to those imperfections and defects which I have stated, and, if it be so, take a bold, decisive and effectual step to remove the complaints of the
966
country, and place the Constitution upon a rock where it shall be unassailable, and safe from all danger. Again, my Lords, I beg to disclaim the use of menace or intimidation; but you have a measure recommended from the Throne, sent to you by an overwhelming majority of all those who can be called the real Representatives of the people in the other House of Parliament—urged by petitions of thousands and tens of thousands of the people, from every part of the country—petitions, too, respectfully worded, and from which have disappeared all those topics that have formerly given offence—all those claims for extravagant changes, to which no man is more opposed than I am. Consider, my Lords, whether, after that recommendation from the Crown—[cries of "order" from the Opposition, and cheers]. I allude to the King's Speech [cheers, and cries of "read it"—have it read]. I cannot imagine that I am not at liberty to refer to it. Every one remembers the Speech from the Throne. We did in that Speech recommend the measure to the consideration of Parliament; and it is absurd to imagine, although his Majesty's Ministers are responsible for the contents of the Speech, that such a recommendation could come into it against the wishes of the Monarch. I consider, therefore, that I am perfectly within the rules of the Constitution and of Parliament in referring to it; but if the topic gives offence I will abandon it. Will your Lordships reject a measure sanctioned by an overwhelming and irresistible majority of the Representatives of the people in the other House—the people themselves, at the same time, roused and agitated from one end of the country to the other, crowding earnestly to the bar of your House, and claiming a restitution of their rights? Will the House of Lords place itself in opposition to the people, and negative, by rejecting the second reading of this Bill, the expectations so ardently entertained, and the wishes so reasonably formed?—
If your Lordships could, by possibility, place yourselves in unanimous opposition to the people, and to the wishes expressed by the general voice of the country—although, from what I have stated, I believe it to be almost impossible that such should be the case; but if the measure could possibly be rejected by a decided majority, or with anything like unanimity, I take upon myself to state, that your position,

967
opposed to the general wishes of the people, would be most critical, and far from safe. If the Bill is to be rejected by a narrow majority, I beg of you, my Lords to consider the consequence. Do not flatter yourselves that it will be possible by a less effective measure than this to quiet the storm which will rage, and to govern the agitation which will have been produced. I certainly do, my Lords, as I said before, deprecate popular violence As a citizen of a free State, and feeling that freedom is essentially connected with order, I resist violence: as a member of the Government it is my duty to maintain tranquillity; but, as a citizen, as a member of the Government, and as a Statesman, I am bound to look at the consequences which may flow from rejecting this measure. And although I do not state, as the noble Duke did on another occasion, that the rejection of the measure will lead to a civil war—I trust it will not produce any such effect—but still I cannot conceal from your Lordships my apprehension, that the result of its rejection will be most dangerous to the best interests of the country. Upon your Lordships then, as you value the tranquillity and prosperity of the country, I earnestly call to consider well before you reject the measure.
I will now, my Lords, venture for a moment to address myself to one part of your Lordships' House—the right rev. Prelates on the benches near me; and while I assure that most reverend and right reverend body, that no man is more sincerely attached than I am to the maintenance of all the rights and privileges of the Church—no man holds in higher veneration the purity of her doctrines and the soundness of her discipline; though I acknowledge the high estimation in which the Prelates at the head of her establishment are deservedly held by the country, the excellent example which they present in the discharge of their spiritual functions; yet let me at the same time respectfully entreat those right rev. Prelates to consider, that if this Bill should be rejected by a narrow majority of the lay peers, which I have reason to hope will not be the case; but if it should, and that its fate should thus, within a few votes, be decided by the votes of the heads of the Church, what will then be their situation with the country. Those right rev. Prelates have shown that they were riot indifferent or inattentive to the signs of the
968
times. They have introduced, in the way in which I think all such measures ought to be introduced—namely, by the leading members of the Church itself—measures of amelioration. In this they have acted with a prudent forethought. They appear to have felt that the eyes of the country are upon them; that it is necessary for them to set their house in order, and prepare to meet the coming storm. I implore them to follow, on the present occasion, the same prudent course. They must be conscious that there are at present many questions which may take a fatal direction, if, upon a measure on which the nation has fixed its hopes, and which is necessary for its welfare, the decision of this House should, by means of their votes, be in opposition to the feelings and wishes of the people. They are the ministers of peace; earnestly do I hope that the result of their votes will be such as may tend to the tranquillity, to the peace and happiness of the country. I will not press this matter further; but as regards the whole of your Lordships, spiritual and temporal, I trust that the possible consequences of the rejection of the Bill will be most seriously considered by your Lordships before the decision of the present question.
As to the effect which the rejection or adoption of the measure by your Lordships may produce to me, or the Administration of which I form a part, it is not necessary for me to say much, for that is perhaps a matter of insignificance. I have declared before, and I now declare again, and I am not a man apt to recede from what I have said, that by this measure I am prepared to stand or fall. If it should be rejected, the question of my continuance in office, even for another hour, must depend upon my seeing any reasonable prospect of being able to effect a measure to which I am pledged, as I think, by every tie of private honour, by every obligation of public duty to my sovereign and to my country. I wish it to be distinctly understood, my Lords, as I have stated, that I certainly do not think that the danger which might be attendant on the rejection of this measure can be obviated by the introduction of one of less efficiency. If any such measure is introduced, it will not be by me. I distinctly stated before, and now repeat, that I never will be a party to holding out any delusive measure of Reform to the people—when I am convinced that they have a right to expect a constitutional

969
Reform to the full extent of what I have now proposed. I am convinced that the people will not cease to urge their rights, and will not rest satisfied till they have obtained them, and that disappointment at present will not have the effect of reducing their demands. If your Lordships shall reject this, you will, it is more than probable, have to consider hereafter, not a less efficient measure of Reform, for I am sure that no such measure will ever succeed, but one in which much greater concessions will be demanded. Once more, before I sit down, I earnestly implore your Lordships to consider what will be the consequences of the rejection of this measure; and whether, if even rejected now, it can be finally put aside. May you therefore, my Lords, be wise in time—may your Lordships profit by the example set before you, and avoid those dangers which will inevitably arise from your rejection of this measure, and secure, by its adoption, peace and conciliation in the country—may you, under the guardianship of that Power who presides over our destinies, pronounce such a decision as shall conduce to the advancement of his glory, the good of his Church, the safety, welfare, and honour of the King and his people.
My Lords, I have now done; and, with my humble and sincere tribute for the patience with which you have borne, I fear, too great an intrusion upon your attention. I put the measure into your hands with an anxious hope as to the result——I wish I could say with perfect confidence—but still with a hope that your Lordships will find it such a measure as you may sanction, as being a measure calculated by its acceptance to produce immeasurable good, as its rejection would create incalculable mischief. My Lords, I move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Lord Wharncliffenext addressed the House. Their Lordships, he observed would readily believe, that he felt fully sensible of all the difficulties under which he laboured in rising to address them on this occasion. Those difficulties, which under any circumstances, would be great considering the importance of the subject and the consciousness of his own inability, were increased by the speech which the noble Earl had delivered. The noble Ear had told their Lordships, that his Administration would stand or fall by this measure; and he also broadly intimated, that if they
970
did not pass this they would have to pass something worse; that the demands of the people would not be satisfied even with the concessions which this Bill gave; but in looking at a change in the Constitution of this magnitude, he was bound to consider how far he could consent to it, before he took into his consideration whether or not any other measure might be proposed on its rejection. If the House did not think that it was a measure to which they could consent, they were bound to refuse it. Why, he asked, were they to accept this particular measure and no other, and to declare that acceptance, too, of the whole measure on the second reading? The whole tone and tenor of the noble Earl's speech was—that if their Lordships did not accept this Bill, they would, in the first instance, break up the whole Government; and then, that no other measure would be sufficient to satisfy the people.
Earl Greyhere observed, that what he said was, that no less efficient measure would be sufficient to satisfy the people.
Lord Wharncliffe: He so understood the noble Earl, but he repeated, that they were bound to consider this without any reference to the nature of any future measure. He would, before he went further, beg to guard himself against any admission, because every admission that he made was turned against him, and he was called upon to make further admissions; he would therefore guard himself, at the present stage, against any admission with respect to the nomination boroughs. Supposing that the Members at his side of the House could be brought to say, that such boroughs ought to be done away with entirely, that the whole of the House of Commons should be popularly elected, and that the noble Earl's Bill should be adopted in all its parts, he said that the present Constitution of King, Lords, and Commons could not go on under such a system, but that we must make up our minds to a republic as well as we can. He had listened with great attention to the noble Earl's speech—to all he had urged on the subject of this Bill—but he owned, with no slight disappointment; for while the noble Earl dwelt at great length on the anomalies and disadvantages of the Constitution as it now stood—or of the old Constitution, as he might call it—he had not said one word of any advantages which they might expect from the new one. In what he was about to say, he was anxious

971
to guard himself against being misunderstood. Supposing that he were ready to admit, that the system of Representation in Scotland required improvement—supposing he was disposed to admit, that no Member should be allowed to sit in the House of Commons who was not a bona fide representative of the people,—supposing that he were willing to accede to the principle of the Bill to this extent—still there would be enough of the Bill left to change the Constitution, as far as affected the relative position of the three estates of the realm with respect to each other, and to make it impossible that the Government consisting of three independent estates of King, Lords, and Commons, could be carried on. There was enough left in the Bill to absorb into the power of the House of Commons the whole power and privileges of that House, and, perhaps, of the Crown itself. The Constitution could not in his opinion, go on with such a system as this Bill would establish, even conceding those parts of it only to which he referred. But the noble Earl had not told them how the measure was likely to work. The noble Earl had only pointed out what he considered the objectionable parts of the present system. Now he must contend, that it was not enough for the noble Earl to tell their Lordships of the defects in the Representation in Scotland or England: he was bound to go further, and show that those defects would be effectually remedied by the plan which he proposed, and that, too, without introducing still greater and more inconvenient anomalies than those which he pointed out. He was not disposed to deny that the system of Representation in Scotland was in a state in which it might be desirable to make some improvement; but he denied that that improvement was required by any corruption in that system. He would admit that it might be desirable to render the Representation in that country more popular in its character; but then the fact that it was not so much so as other parts of the United Kingdom should not be taken as any proof of the corruption of the whole, for the Scotch Representation should be taken as a part of a whole which worked together and worked well. They should look at the effect of the representative system of England, Ireland, and Scotland as one whole. That of Scotland might have its defects, but those were corrected by the whole system of Representation
972
taken together. One of the alleged anomalies which the noble Earl would wish to get rid of was that of nomination boroughs. With respect to the nomination boroughs, he would just say, as he had observed in what he had addressed to their Lordships before, that he did not defend the nomination boroughs because they were nominated by peers or persons of great wealth. He was far from defending them on that ground; but he said, that their use was this—that in the House of Commons they acted as a check upon those Members who were more popularly elected, and diminished popular commotions, from which danger was always to be apprehended. He could not deny that there was in the principle of nomination boroughs something which it was difficult to defend. But the question to be put to the people of England was this: was there not some good in these boroughs, however anomalous or improper they might be in principle? Was there not in the working something which might induce us to admit them into the Constitution? He would not go so far—and here he spoke merely his own judgment—he would not go so far as to say it might not be possible to devise other modes of checking the popular voice in the House of Commons. But, as the boroughs now stood, they were the only check upon popular violence; and as they were going to send up so large a proportion of that species of Representation— as this Bill constituted so large an additional number of popular Members—he said that some check was the more necessary. By the regulations of this Bill, the whole strength of the Legislature would be in the House of Commons. The House of Lords would be nothing, and it would be well if the Crown itself could stand before it. Did he make these statements merely from his own authority? Would the noble Earl and his colleagues use their eyes and ears? Would they see, and hear, and read, what the people who were most clamorous for this measure said? They felt that this Reform, as it applied to their wants and wishes, was nothing; but they knew that, all checks upon popular power being removed in the House of Commons, every thing would be at their mercy, nothing could stop in front of the people. They laughed at those supporters of the Bill who imagined that it was the ultimate object of their desires. The noble Lord who introduced this measure into the other

973
House had applied to the Tories, or Anti-Reformers as they were called, the words of Cromwell at the battle of Dunbar—"The Lord hath delivered them into our hands." But it should be recollected that there was another party besides the Tories. There was, undoubtedly, a party in the country who wished to establish a republican government; and they said of the supporters of this Bill, "The Lord hath delivered you into our hands." If you pass this Bill, you will at once part with all your power, of which we shall immediately avail ourselves." He, for one, could never consent to part with that power with which their Lordships were invested, and which served as a salutary control upon the too violent expression of popular feeling in the other House of Parliament. One objection made to their Lordships on this occasion was, that they were connected with those boroughs which it was proposed to disfranchise, and that, in opposing the Bill, they were swayed by their own interests. For his own part, he would say, that he was connected with one borough, and he denied that his vote on this occasion would be in any degree affected by that connexion. Their Lordships knew him, and he would appeal to the whole of his public life, and ask, whether it was such in any part of it as could induce any man to suppose that he would allow himself to be influenced in this discussion by any feelings of that kind. He was as ready as any man to sacrifice his personal interests for the sake of his country, but it should first be proved to him that the sacrifice he was ready to make would be productive of good; that the Constitution would be safe in the change which was about to be made. He would not follow the noble Earl into the details as to the various anomalies of the present system, but he would beg the indulgence of their Lordships while he pointed out what he believed to be the fact, that this measure was one of the greatest delusions ever practised on the public—a measure more full of anomalies than any that had ever before been introduced into Parliament. The first alteration in the present Constitution of Parliament to which he should allude was, the future mode of voting in boroughs. The Bill, in order to captivate certain classes of persons who constitute the great body of the inhabitants of the large towns, gives the elective franchise to 10 l. householders.
974
He thought that this qualification was much too low. It was so low, that in all populous towns, especially where it was made up of rents of 3s. l0 d. a-week paid during the year, and not of a rent of 10 l. paid at once for the whole year, the step between it and Universal Suffrage would be very small indeed. He was sure that the noble Lords opposite, and the hon. Gentlemen in another place, who had first introduced this plan of Reform, had got frightened at this monster of their own creation. Everybody recollected the manner in which the qualification was changed from a rent of 10 l. merely, to a rent of 10 l. reserved on leases pay able half-yearly. A powerful Press was looking on every operation connected with this Bill; and as soon as this alteration was perceived by it, a loud demand was raised that it should be withdrawn. The authors of it immediately perceived the dilemma in which they had involved themselves, and became most anxious to be extricated from it. It was, therefore, said, that the alteration was an inadvertence. Was he to be told that a Government which was making the most important changes that were ever proposed in any Constitution, was acting on inadvertencies? He said, that it was the duty of Government to consider minutely, not only every clause, but every word and every letter of every clause in the Bill. When he heard this plea of inadvertence brought forward as a defence of the Government, he felt himself compelled to tell the Government, that they were bound to know what was their own meaning, and also to employ such agents as would put their legislative measures into an intelligible shape. The vacillation which the Administration had displayed upon this point, convinced him that they had become afraid of this very measure of Reform which they had themselves concocted. He had only to look at this Bill as it stood on its introduction before Easter, and as it stood at the present moment, to be convinced that Ministers had become afraid of this creature of their own hands. They had so surrounded it with clauses about registration, and periods of occupation, and so on, that he was convinced that, so far from every householder of 10 l. enjoying a franchise under it, not more than one-tenth part of such householders would be enabled by it to give their suffrages at any election. He knew that it would be said, that if there were anything

975
in this argument, it was an argument which he, of all men, ought not to use; for the more guarded and limited the elective franchise was, the more likely would it be to meet his views, and to obtain his approbation. He would, however, never consent to legislate in any manner which, whilst it kept the promise to the ear, broke it to the hopes of the people. If he intended to give them a 10 l. franchise, he would give it them fairly, and without equivocation; he would not give it them in such a manner as tied them down with an incapacity to receive it. If he had conceived that a 10 l. franchise was a proper franchise, he would have placed the law on such a footing that all persons should have found no difficulty in enjoying the franchise which the law gave them. No man, under the regulations of this Bill, could enjoy the elective franchise who had not been fifteen months in the house which he occupied. That was the very earliest period at which any householder could obtain a right to vote; the general period would be, after an occupation for a period of from eighteen to twenty months; and if, by any accident, the landlord should then give the occupying tenant notice to quit, or if the occupying tenant should quit of his own accord, the occupying tenant would lose his franchise, and might be, for all that number of months, without a vote. What he would have done, had he had to alter the elective franchise on a democratic principle, would have been, to establish it on a scot-and-lot principle. He had now done with the 10 l. qualification clause; he should proceed, in the next instance, to object to the number of great towns to which this Bill gave the privilege of Representation. That number showed him—and it was one of his main reasons for voting against the Bill—that the principle of the Bill was not property, but population. Such a principle was a rule-of-three principle, which, when once established, could never stop—which must, of necessity, be variable, and liable to a vast multiplicity of future changes—and which, if it ever did produce the rest of which the noble Earl had spoken, must produce it at a period yet very far distant. He contended, that too large a proportion of the great towns was introduced by this Bill into the Representation. He thought, that it was impossible for any man who saw the great wealth embarked in the manufactures of the
976
country, and the great interest which the manufacturing towns had in the proper expenditure of the State, to deny that those towns were entitled to have some share in the Representation of the State. Admitting, as he did, the justice of that proposition, he still thought that proposition a very different thing from a proposition entitling every town with a population of 15,000 inhabitants, to return Members to Parliament. There was no such right inherent in towns with that population, neither was it expedient that such a right should be conceded to their inhabitants. In the county of Lancaster, and in the West Riding of the county of York—districts, with both of which he was himself personally acquainted—there were certain trades and manufactures confined to certain towns only. Now, he did not conceive it to be necessary that each of those towns should have the privilege of returning Members to Parliament in order to have their respective interests properly represented. For instance, in the West Riding of the county of York, he thought that six Representatives would, along with the Representatives of the county, be quite sufficient to represent its trading interests; and with that number of Representatives, the voice of the county Members would not be exposed to the danger of being overwhelmed by the voice of the Members of those towns, who, from the mode of their election, must, on all occasions flatter the popular feeling. In complaining of the number of places which were thus brought within the constituency, he did not mean to require that there should be an exact balance struck for the landed interest. Admitting, however, that the noble Earl was acting on a fair principle, and that he was bound to give to the landed interest something to balance the pressure of the towns, still he must contend that this Bill was likely to prove a delusion on the landed proprietors, as the provision which affected their interests, was framed in the same spirit as that which he had already described as affecting the 10 l. householders. First of all, Ministers commenced by giving two Members to each of the three Ridings of that county with which he was more particularly connected; then they gave two additional Members to certain other portions of counties; and, lastly, they concluded by adding one Member to a certain number of counties. Now, if Ministers had

977
really wished to balance the Representation of towns, they ought not to have sought the means of obtaining that balance in those counties where the manufacturing interest preponderated, but in those counties where the agricultural interest predominated. If they had done that, they might have talked about their desire to find a balance for the agricultural against the manufacturing interest. In going, however, to the counties which Ministers had selected for their operations, they had put up what they called a balance, which was no balance at all. No one could as yet tell what would be the effect of giving additional Members to the different counties. For, in the first instance, the Bill did not give these additional Members to the counties directly. It enacted that the counties were to be divided, and Ministers had sent down Commissioners to divide them. The Commissioners had already begun their labours, although, in point of fact, the Bill which called them into existence, had not yet been read a second time in their Lordships' House. He (Lord Wharncliffe) must know something of the proceedings of these Commissioners before he could pretend to speak decisively of the influence which the new county Representatives would exercise in the other House of Parliament. He must know how the counties were to be divided before he could know anything of the influence which would predominate in the different districts. He would take one county with which he was acquainted, the county of Stafford. If in that county the line were drawn, where it most naturally would be drawn, the four Members for that county would be returned by one class of the population alone. Again, in Warwickshire the division might be so made, as to place the Representation entirely in the hands of the manufacturing interest. Their Lordships, therefore, ought to be acquainted with the different divisions of counties, before they proceeded to give their approbation to this new fangled system of Reform. Another point about counties to which he would refer was, the clause which prevented persons having votes in towns, from voting for the same property in counties. On that clause he must remark in the first place, that the intention of the Bill was, that persons who voted in towns, should not, for the same property have the right of voting in counties also That clause appeared as if it withdrew
978
from the freeholders in towns the right of voting for their freeholds in the county. But he apprehended that no such thing would take place under the Bill. When his clause should first come into operation, it might, to a certain degree, diminish the votes for county elections, which depended on freeholds in towns; but he was satisfied that when the provisions of this Bill should be fully known to the public, it would turn out that the number of voters in counties who were inhabitants of towns would be but very little diminished, in consequence of the facility which the qualification would establish for the creation of 10 l. voters. The Bill would only exclude those persons from voting in counties who had no other freeholds than the premises from which they derived their right of voting in towns. If they happened to have other freeholds, then, beyond all question, they would retain their right of voting in counties. There were some towns in which nearly all the tenements were held under one person upon long leases. Let their Lordships consider what the natural consequence of such a state of things would be. Let them look, for instance, to the county of York. In the West Riding a canvass had already commenced, in anticipation of the dissolution threatened under this Bill, and all the question of success in that case turned upon the votes of a town in which it was expected that the county constituency would be most materially diminished. Two hon. Gentlemen, who were friends of his, and at that moment members for Yorkshire, had already canvassed that town; and in that town, where it was generally believed that the greatest number of county votes would be destroyed, it turned out that the majority of votes still remaining unimpaired were sufficient to decide the election. He therefore denounced this Bill as a delusion on the landed interest. That interest would gain little from the Bill in agricultural districts, and in the manufacturing districts would be completely overpowered by the opposite interest. Then came the other provisions as to the increase of voters for the Representatives of counties. First the copyholders were taken in; then the leaseholders of twenty years and upwards; and then, last of all, the tenants at will to a defined amount. He was ready to admit, that the increase to the county constituency on this last head did not proceed from his Majesty's

979
Ministers; but that it was imposed upon them by a noble Lord, a friend of his, in another place. In his opinion, the addition to the county constituency from this source was any thing but an improvement. Prima facie, it gave an appearance of weight to the landed proprietary; but the working of this clause would be this—that if any landlord ever exercised the power given to him by it, he would be placed in the same disagreeable and obnoxious situation in which many high-minded individuals who wished to get rid of refractory tenants were placed under the present system. This clause, connected with the 10 l. qualification clause, would place a great number of the new-made voters entirely at the mercy of their landlords; but their Lordships would deceive themselves egregiously, if they imagined that the exercise of such a power on the part of the landlords would not lead almost instantly to the Vote by Ballot. If you make every election throughout the country a popular election, the only way in which a quiet man, unused to public speaking and to the crowding and jostling and sarcasm of the hustings, can be protected, will be by means of the ballot; and that mode of election would certainly end in the introduction of the Vote by Ballot. Then came another ground put forth by the Government; he meant that this Bill would be a final settlement of the Reform Question. It was impossible that it should be so. He had already warned their Lordships on this subject. He had warned them that the persons who were now most clamorous for Reform had plainly declared to the country that they would not stop here. All of their Lordships who had read the public journals lately would want no other proof to convince them of the correctness of that assertion. In the other House of Parliament the matter had been clearly given up—for there the noble Lord who had introduced the Bill had fairly admitted that the Bill could not be final. That noble Lord had said that the question now was, "Will the people be satisfied with the Bill?" for, if they were not, Parliament must needs go further. He (Lord Wharncliffe) fully agreed in that opinion. Ministers had already opened a door to the demands of the people—they had told the people that they were entitled to a full, fair, and free Representation in Parliament; and the people would insist on having that Representation
980
in perfect conformity with the ideas which they entertained of a full, fair and free Representation. These were some of his principle objections to the Bill. But, said the noble Earl, "in spite of all these your objections, do not mutilate the Bill." The noble Earl likewise said, "Do not negative this Bill on its second reading." Why not? Had he (Lord Wharncliffe) the slightest chance of obtaining any alteration in it by letting it go to a Committee? His noble friend opposite nodded his head, as if he thought that there was some chance. The country, however, had had sufficient experience upon that point. Many persons had voted for the second reading of the Bill in the House of Commons in hopes of amending it afterwards in Committee; but every person who had the slightest experience in Parliament was well aware, that when a Bill brought in by Government was read a second time, it was a matter of extreme difficulty to make any alterations in it in Committee. He thought that this Bill was dangerous in the extreme, and that, in spite of all the petitions which the people had sent up in favour of it, the people were deluded and not satisfied by it. The noble Earl had told their Lordships to look at the petitions which were now coming up to them every day from the country. He could assure their Lordships that he had looked at them, and that he had looked at them with respect. He had been obliged to the people for their kindness, as had many others of the noble Lords whom he then saw around him. He had been placed by their kindness in a high and proud situation; and his view of their petitions on the present occasion was, that their object was not so much this Bill of Reform, as Reform of some description or other. Their cry was, "We must have Parliament reformed;" but it was not, "We must have Parliament reformed by this Bill." If he had entertained any doubts on this subject before, there were many circumstances connected with these petitions which would have tended to remove them. He would tell the noble Lord who had said that the feelings of the people were not changed with regard to this Bill, that they were changed, and that their meetings no longer retained the same character which they bore originally. There was a certain portion of the Press which still trumpeted forth those meetings as an expression of the feelings of the people; and yet he knew

981
that those who had got up those meetings, were perfectly ashamed of the manner in which they had turned out. Their Lordships knew that of their own knowledge, for they mixed with the people, and were not removed from the people, "Our estimation," said the noble Baron, "depends not on our titles here, but on our characters out of doors. We mix with the people, and it is impossible not to see that this Bill is despised by the people. I ask the noble Earl to walk down St. James's-street, or down Bond-street, and then, if he goes into the shops of those streets, and asks the opinion, not of any person whom he may meet there, but of the shopkeepers themselves, I will undertake to say, that he will find them ashamed of the measure; indeed, so disgusted with it, as to declare that they will have none of it." The noble Baron then proceeded to notice the observation of the noble Earl on the other side of the House, that their Lordships had received petitions signed by great numbers of the people. He was not, as he had said before, inclined to undervalue such petitions; but these petitions, he contended, ought not to be taken as the signs of the sentiments of the people generally—they were rather the signs of the sentiments of that portion of the people which had long been accustomed to follow party views. Take, for instance, the requisition which had been presented to the High Sheriff of the county of York for a public meeting on this very Bill. It was a call upon the High Sheriff, coming from a great number of persons of the first respectability in that county. It was, in short, an exceedingly respectable requisition, and must meet with attention from any High Sheriff. But the individuals whose names were attached to it were the same men with whom he had been fighting in political hostility during all his public life. Sometimes that hostility placed him in situations which were not always agreeable; still that hostility, being solely of a political nature, never disturbed the sentiments of private friendship which he and his opponents mutually felt for each other. The gentlemen who had put their names to this requisition were old Parliamentary Reformers; still they were not in sufficient numbers to convince him that the great body of the freeholders of Yorkshire were in favour of this Bill. Their Lordships must take care that they were not deluded into the notion, that
982
because a vast number of petitions had been placed upon their Tables, those petitions spoke the universal feeling of the country. "But then," said the noble Earl, "if you will not be convinced by the number of these petitions, what do you say to what followed on the dissolution of Parliament?" He was ready to confess, that on the late dissolution of Parliament the Reforming candidates had been successful in a most astonishing degree, and that their opponents, the adversaries of Reform, had, in many instances, not dared to go to the poll. But even in the election which followed the late dissolution, he had not found a fair expression of the popular will. He should not have alluded to the late dissolution, and to the circumstances which arose out of it, but for the observations of the noble Earl opposite. There were, however, circumstances attending that dissolution of Parliament which rendered it very unlikely that that appeal to the people should obtain a declaration of the real feelings of the people of England. Matters were so conducted, the King's name was so used, that he was convinced that the people considered the late elections as a struggle between the King and the borough mongers, one of whom he admitted he was. The best feelings of the people—their loyalty and their attachment to their Sovereign—were naturally roused by such representations, and if the noble Lords opposite wished to gain a triumph by the appeal which they then made to the people, he would admit at once that they had gained it. The Whigs had certainly defeated the Tories by making use of the King's name. He had hitherto endeavoured to show that this Bill was a Bill pregnant with evil; he would now proceed to prove, that if a House of Commons were once elected on the principles of this Bill, it would, in the first place, inevitably cramp the Crown in the exercise of its prerogatives, and in the next create a body in the House of Commons so irresistible as to make the decisions of their Lordships on all public questions on which the two Houses differed null and nugatory. He had said, first of all, that this Bill would cripple the just prerogatives of the Crown. He thought that their Lordships would not deny, that one of the first prerogatives of the Crown was its power of choosing its Ministers. Hitherto, when any man had been chosen by the Sovereign as Minister, he must have

983
been, previous to that choice, a Member of Parliament. Now, if that Minister should happen not to be a rich man, and if, after vacating his seat by his acceptance of office, he should have to stand, in the borough or county which he represented, the expense of a contested election—for let not noble Lords imagine that after this Bill was passed election contests would be carried on without any expenditure in money—if that Minister should be unable to bear the expense of that contest, or if, by some fault or by no fault of his own, he should happen to be unpopular, he would then have no means of getting, as had been the case with all the Ministers of his day, at some time or other into Parliament by means of a nomination borough; and he, therefore, would have some difficulty in finding his way into Parliament at all. As Members of the House of Peers, their Lordships might not feel personally interested in such a matter; for they might think that in that case the Ministers of the Crown must in future be all Peers. He was, however, convinced, from long experience in public affairs, that the business of the country could not be well transacted unless the Ministers had seats in the House of Commons. He would further say, that this House of Commons, entirely depending for its formation on popular election, and affording no possibility for any man to arrive at a seat in it except by the favour of the people, would become too much the image of the people; and, being so, it would be impossible that 300 or 400 titled persons should have the power of arresting its movements. The danger which at this moment surrounded their Lordships proved the accuracy of his position. They had now a popular House of Commons—indeed he might say, a delegate House of Commons. That House of Commons had passed this measure, and their Lordships were now told in every possible manner, by pamphlets, by speeches, by public meetings, and by petitions, that nothing was left for them to do but to record and to register the decree of the House of Commons. This ought to be a warning to their Lordships as to their future fate, and a guide for their present conduct. By the late dissolution of Parliament their Lordships had seen a delegate House of Commons called into existence: close their eyes as they might to that spectacle, they could not avoid seeing that the present House of Commons was, as he
984
had predicted it would be, a mere House of delegates. Such of its Members as had voted for the second reading of the Bill, in the hope that its provisions might be altered in the Committee, had discovered their mistake when it was too late, and had in consequence, been laughed to scorn by their opponents. Such also would be the fate of their Lordships, if with the experience of the past before them, they should be weak enough to pursue a similar course. This, too, ought to be a lesson to their Lordships. A House of Commons elected on the present system had been found almost too powerful for the House of Lords. How, then, would their Lordships be able to resist a House of Commons elected according to the regulations of this Bill? He had nothing further to state upon this part of the measure. He did not object from any personal motives to the Bill, because it got rid of the nomination boroughs. He would give no opinion at present upon those boroughs; but on the rest of the Bill he would frankly avow, that he considered it as the subversion of the monarchy, and as the destruction of the House of Lords. Their Lordships were not in a situation to try the experiment of a new Constitution. They had already a Constitution which had produced them incalculable advantages. There might be anomalies in it—there might be corruption—if there were, let their Reform be directed at once to those points, and do not let them be made the groundwork of a system of Representation, better perhaps in theory, but worse, infinitely worse, in practice. Our Constitution had consisted of King, Lords and Commons; their Lordships should take care that it continued to consist of the same elements, [cheers.] He understood those cheers, and he promised the noble Lords who raised them that they should soon be met with an appropriate answer. Their Lordships had next been told to beware of what they were then doing. They had been told that this Bill must pass, or that something worse must happen. Their Lordships were told every day that their House was sinking in public estimation, and that, if it did not vote in favour of this Bill, it would soon be found that the people could do better without the House of Lords, than the House of Lords could do without the people. If the people thought that they could do without the House of Lords, they probably might be

985
mad enough to attempt it; but he would venture to tell them, that if ever the people took such a step, they would themselves be the first to repent it. If an hereditary Parliament were really of no use to the country, then the sooner it was got rid of the better. It might be an anomaly in the State, but it was an anomaly which, on more occasions than one, had been found of the greatest service. The people owed their liberties to the House of Lords; and on no occasion had the Peers of England ever been found hostile to those liberties. Their Lordships were now accustomed to hear daily the language of Revolution—they were told to be cautious lest they should be cashiered. In a periodical journal, which had been published that day—he meant the "Westminster Review"—there was inserted among the fly-leaves a slip which contained the following words:—"The question of Reform of Revolution is rapidly approaching its solution in Great Britain. The honest part of the Radicals have done their duty in endeavouring to promote the first, and are quite ready to take their parts in the other, whenever it shall please the powers that be, to turn over that leaf in the nation's history. It is loudly affirmed that the Lords intend to reject the Bill; and therefore every man has a week or ten days to consider what he will do next."* Such was the language held out to them by this popular publication; and similar language was addressed to them every morning when the public newspapers were placed on their tables. He begged leave to say, that their Lordships had but one line of conduct to pursue on this occasion. They had to satisfy themselves that the Bill was safe to pass into a law. If they did not satisfy themselves on that point, they would not do their duty to the country. It was said that they would still continue Peers—that they might act as a deliberative assembly, and pass Turnpike Bills and other measures of no consequence, but that, because the House of Commons had passed a Bill for changing the constituency by which they were returned, and which involved an entire and total alteration of the Constitution of the country, they, sitting there as Peers and hereditary Counsellors of the Crown, whose duty it was to act between the Crown and the people, giving weight to
* Westminster Review, No. xxx., p. 1.
986
the liberties of the latter on the one hand, and power to the prerogatives of the former on the other, were not to reject the measure if they should be of opinion that it was not a safe one. If the people were tired of the House of Lords—if they no longer considered them a necessary part of the Constitution—in God's name let them say so, and they were ready at once to walk out of the House. The country, however, expected the House of Peers to do their duty. Their duty was to consider the Bill which had been proposed, and to vote upon it according to their consciences and to the best of their judgments, and he entertained no fear that the sensible part of the country, when they saw their Lordships perform their duty would be discontented with them for it. The noble Earl had addressed a few words to the right reverend bench. He would follow that example. True they were the ministers of peace. It was their business to preach peace amongst all men. But what did those right reverend persons sit in that House for? Was it for their own sakes merely? No, it was to represent the interests of the Church. The interests of the Church were in their hands. Those reverend Prelates must be aware, that the feeling of the great body of the ministers of the Church was against the Bill, and that it had been manifested conspicuously on more than one occasion, and it was their duty not to flinch from voting against the measure. He had now nearly finished all he had to say. He had, by the favour of his Sovereign, been placed in that House, to give his opinion fairly on any subject which might be brought before him. No man saw more clearly than himself the evil consequences which would result even from the rejection of the measure; but the motives on the other side were so strong as completely to overpower all anxiety on that account. He besought the Peers of England, as they valued their character—as they valued the station which they held, either by the favour of their Sovereign or by inheritance—to show that the Peers of England, when called upon to do their duty, would not be intimidated by menaces, or guided by interest. He placed great reliance on the good sense of the people of England. He had never known them to act unjustly towards those who were influenced by a conscientious sense of duty. He fearlessly left it to the people of England to form an

987
impartial opinion of the conduct which the House of Peers would pursue upon this occasion. The noble Lord concluded with moving as an Amendment, that all the words after the word "that" in the original Motion be omitted, for the purpose of substituting these words, "this Bill be rejected."
Earl Grey:—Then the noble Baron's Motion is to the effect that the Bill be rejected altogether.
Lord Wharncliffe:—Such certainly was the object he had in view.
The Lord Chancellor put the question.
The Earl of Mulgravesaid, that the greater part of the speech of his noble friend who had just addressed their Lordships was directed exclusively to details which could only be properly considered in the Committee; yet he had concluded with a Motion, which, if carried, would preclude the possibility of the Bill ever reaching a Committee. His noble friend began by stating, that the noble Earl at the head of the Government had, by his explanation, very much increased the difficulties in which the House was placed. He agreed that if the House should come to the conclusion which his noble friend wished them, their difficulties would be increased by that speech. Why?—Not because the noble Earl held out any threat, for he had not done so, but because he had, in a philosophical and Statesmanlike manner, stated the reasons why the Bill should be read a second time. One reason why the House should not proceed to reject the Bill was to be found in the large majority by which it had been sent up from the other House of Parliament. It was evident that in spite of the conclusion to which his noble friend had come, he made many admissions in the course of his speech which were not very acceptable to some of those to whom he addressed them. He was rather disposed to think that his noble friend had entered into a compromise with those about him to this effect—namely, that they were to listen to his arguments provided he gave them the benefit of his vote. After his noble friend's admission, that nomination boroughs were an anomaly which ought to be got rid of, he was surprised that he proposed the positive rejection of the Bill. His noble friend had likewise stated, that large towns had a strong claim to have Representatives. These admissions were totally at variance with the positive denials of all Reform
988
which the House had been accustomed to hear from those with whom his noble friend acted on this occasion. The tables were turned upon the opponents of Reform. Formerly it was an accusation against the Reformers that no two of them agreed; but now it was difficult to find any two Anti-reformers agreeing. Many of the details of the Bill, particularly that with respect to the franchise, could only be properly considered in the Committee, and therefore he hoped that his noble friend would withdraw his Amendment, and allow the Bill to go to a Committee. His noble friend had given some extraordinary instances of the change of public opinion with respect to the Bill. His noble friend had walked up Bond-street and heard the shopkeepers declaim against the Bill. No doubt he had a very pleasant walk, but he might have turned his steps to some of the populous towns in his own neighbourhood. He thought that his opinion would have been more deliberately formed and entitled to more weight, if it had been founded upon the state of public opinion in the large manufacturing towns, rather than on the notions of a few shopkeepers in Bond-street. The good sense of his noble friend prevented him from denying the existence of blemishes in the present system, which he called anomalies. He was willing to remove those anomalies, but at the same time he wished all power to remain in the hands which at present possessed it. Upon that point he was at issue with his noble friend. He trusted that the Bill would not be rejected, for it had met with an extraordinary degree of approbation and concurrence in all parts of the country. But whether the Bill should be rejected or not, an efficient Reform must take place—such a Reform as would no longer leave in the hands of Peers the power of nominating Members. That only would satisfy the people. In arguing against the disfranchising part of the Bill, his noble friend had assigned a reason which had often been urged before. He said, that if boroughs should be disfranchised to the extent proposed by the Bill, there would be a difficulty in finding seats in the House of Commons for Ministers. Now nobody would contend, that if the Ministry were popular, there would be any difficulty in finding seats for its Members; but it was said, that if the Ministry should be unpopular, they could only get into the House of Commons

989
through some rotten boroughs. This argument was thought very clever before the dissolution of Parliament took place. When that event occurred, the feeling of the electors in favour of Reform was expressed in the most decided manner. Not a speech was heard from the Anti-reformers, until at length the first attack on the Bill and the Government proceeded from Harwich, a borough which had been used for the purpose of returning Ministers to the House of Commons. Nothing could more clearly show that the thing to which the boroughs clung was not the persons of Ministers or the Government of the country, but corrupt patronage. As long as that system of corrupt patronage continued, the boroughs were of use to return to Parliament Members of the Government, but they were of no use to an honest Government, which determined to discard patronage. There could not be a better proof of the sincerity of Ministers with respect to patronage than the introduction of the Bill. It was said, that the Bill would throw all the power into the hands of the people. What better control could there be over Ministerial patronage, than a House of Commons elected under a Bill which was said to have this effect? His noble friend also objected to the enfranchising part of the Bill, and, amongst other things, complained that there were to be only six Representatives for the West Riding of Yorkshire. That was a point which his noble friend might properly consider in the Committee. He was surprised to hear his noble friend contend, that additional Representatives should be given to the counties which were thinly peopled, rather than to those which were extremely populous.
Lord Wharncliffe, in explanation, stated, his observation was, that, considering the injury which would be done to the agricultural districts by certain provisions of the Bill, it would be better if additional Members were to be given to counties; that the Members should be conferred upon the smaller and agricultural counties than upon the larger and manufacturing counties.
The Earl of Mulgravewas sorry that he had misunderstood the noble Lord, and proceeded to say, that with respect to the dissolution, upon which the noble Baron had spoken with such earnestness, there never yet was an occasion upon which the Sovereign was more fully justified in
990
making an appeal to the people. Never was there a period in the history of the country, when a much greater change had taken place in the views, and feelings, and political objects of the Government, and never yet was there a change which in the least approached this in magnitude and importance, which was not followed by a dissolution. It was necessary that a new Parliament should be called to relieve the Ministry from the manifold difficulties under which they laboured, in assuming power after so long an exclusion and, under so many circumstances of exceeding disadvantage. For a time, however, the Government were anxious to avoid a dissolution, but difficulties were industriously multiplied around them, and they were at length forced into a measure which they would have, if possible, declined. And now it was asserted, that an alteration had taken place in the public feeling respecting this Reform Bill: the same assertion had been made immediately after the dissolution; and how was it sustained? Never was there a more decided manifestation of popular feeling than upon that occasion. What was the result of the election? Of the twelve county Members who stood forward as the most violent opponents of the Bill, only one was returned for his own county as a Representative of the present Parliament. Though all had expressed, in the delivery of what proved to be their last dying words, high hope and confidence, only one was successful in the contest. The noble Baron said, that if it pleased the country that the House of Lords should no longer exist, they were ready to walk out; but for himself he declared he had a very different idea of the stability of their station, and it was, that they might without envy or reproach, maintain that station, that he now supported this measure. For one, he conceived it was a slight sacrifice on their part to secure all their just rights and privileges, by simply resigning the unconstitutional power of exercising influence upon the other branch of the Legislature. The noble Baron said, that if this Bill passed, their Lordships would not thenceforth have the power of resisting any measure which was sent up to them from the House of Commons; but this he contested, and he appealed to history in support of his view of the question. The two Houses of Parlament had differed before, and measures sent up by the other House had been successfully

991
resisted by their Lordships. But it might be asked, although their Lordships had resisted successfully before, were they likely to do so hereafter against a reformed House of Commons? He contended they were, and maintained that the change in the Representation could not injuriously affect the relative position of the two Houses. He begged to remind their Lordships, that the House of Commons had once consented to the expediency of a measure for altering and reforming the Criminal Law, contrary to the opinion held by the Administration of that day, and yet their Lordships had rejected it. He regretted that they did. He believed it was an inexpedient step upon their part, and he trusted they would take an opportunity of retracing it hereafter. But here, he contended, was a manifest proof of their Lordships' power and independence. There was, however, one great distinction between the exercise of their Lordships prerogative in this case and in the case of the Reform Bill. In the one it was impossible to accuse them of any sinister motive; was it thus in the other? Considering the influence many of their Lordships were known to possess in the other House, was it possible, should they reject the Bill, to give them credit for entire disinterestedness in their decision? Would not the country know and feel that if all persons interested were excluded from the right of voting, the people would have a majority in their favour? He had a great respect for the House of Lords in its proper position; he considered that it would be always necessary to preserve the balance of the Constitution, and to act as umpire between the Sovereign and the power of the people; but he, at the same time, must observe, that he knew no assembly less calculated to resist the other branches of the State—to overbear the wishes of the King and the Commons. At no period of history did it appear that an aristocracy had been able, at an advanced stage of civilization, to preserve privileges which were generally disputed. At the early stages of society, an aristocracy was all powerful to assume and acquire; but when these acquisitions assumed the shape of usurpations, they could not long maintain them. He was the last man who would question the right of their Lordships to stop the Bill if they thought proper to do so; but he could not help looking to what would be the end of their opposition.
992
The Lords, it was true, might reject the Bill; but what would be the issue? They might reject it; but if they did so, they would be in a minority, and in a minority of two to one—and he again asked what would be the issue? Like all minorities, their Lordships must yield; and they even would be compelled to yield to opinions so sustained and so expressed, and so well founded, as those against which it was contemplated they might array themselves. The fact was, that in the Constitution there were provisions for the obstinate opposition of any one branch of the Legislature to the other two. If the King opposed the views and representations of the Lords and Commons, he was compelled to change his advisers, and create a new Administration; if the House of Commons pertinaciously opposed the Sovereign and the Lords, there was a dissolution, and thus a fresh appeal to the people; and if the Lords, in their turn, opposed the Sovereign and the Commons, and the people, there was also an ultimate resource. There were means of averting this opposition, which might constitutionally, and would probably be resorted to. He denied that the vote of their Lordships on the present occasion could be considered as fairly settling the question of Reform; he denied even it could be so regarded, that, under the existing state of excited feeling, it would be received as a final decision of the question, when their Lordships, as one of the branches of the Legislature, stood in a minority, and opposed, moreover, the views and wishes of an entire people. What end, then, could noble Lords propose by rejecting the Bill? Was it supposed that the people would place confidence in those whom they had driven from power on account of their opposition to Reform? Let no man conceal from himself the fact, that if he voted against the second reading of the Bill, he voted against the principle of Reform. He now clearly saw, that what he stated in the beginning of his speech he suspected, was the fact—there was a division in the enemy's camp. In conclusion, he declared, that from the state of the country, he looked with great anxiety and agitation to the vote of that night. If their Lordships rejected the Bill, he feared it would prove to the noble Lords opposite a melancholy triumph. When such a body as the House of Commons declared that the Bill only conceded the people's just rights, he could

993
not conceive a course more reckless or more hopeless than that of offering opposition to it. The effect of this decision was likely to affect their Lordships' influence in the State, for as long as their Lordships had possessed those titles and privileges and rights, which they derived from their ancestors. He did not apprehend immediate tumult from the rejection of the Bill; but he could not conceive it possible that the House of Lords could embark in a more hopeless contest. The effect of their Lordships' decision on this momentous question would be felt through future ages.
The Earl of Mansfieldspoke to the following effect:*—My Lords—I hardly know what excuse to offer, for obtruding myself upon your Lordships' attention; no particular duty is imposed on me, I have no peculiar interest in this question, so interesting to us all; and the embarrassment which I always feel, in addressing so critical an audience is increased by the importance of the question which we have to discuss, and which agitates me so much as even to drive from my recollection the arguments which I wish to adduce on a subject that has engrossed my thoughts for many months. But whatever my reluctance might have been, an expression of a noble Earl (Earl Mulgrave) has decided me to overcome it. The noble Earl says, "there is dissension in the camp;" he is mistaken—though there be diversity of opinion, we are all united in a determination to do our duty, and oppose this Bill.
My Lords—although my noble friend, the noble Baron and I, take a different view of parts of the subject, I shall heartily support his amendment. In my humble opinion, Parliamentary Reform is not necessary—but if it were, this Bill is one which your Lordships could not approve; and I rejoice to know, that if your Lordships come to this conclusion, whatever may be said by noble Lords in their speeches, your rejection will be pure and simple, unaccompanied by any declaration as to the necessity of Reform, or as to any other plan which you could have been disposed to have adopted; such a declaration (as I think) would cause disappointment, and tend to the continuance of a dangerous delusion.
I readily admit, that it is our duty to
* From the corrected copy, published by Roake and Varty.
994
take into consideration all plans which may be proposed for the improvement of any of our institutions. I contend, however, that the existence of an evil should be proved, that the remedy should be limited to the object; and even if the evil were proved, and admitted, when the measure is of great importance, we should hesitate to adopt it, unless we had good grounds for believing that the change must be an improvement; and we should take care, that in applying a remedy for one evil, we do not cause a greater. If, for instance, an apparent advantage could not be obtained, but at the expense of justice, by trampling on the sacred rights of property, upon which the lowest and the highest individuals in the land have hitherto rested their security, there would be a repugnance in my mind to accept of even a great advantage on those terms. I do not pretend to say, that there are not anomalies, or theoretical defects in the constitution of the House of Commons, but even at the risk of being assimilated to those lovers, in whose eyes the very deformities of their mistress are beauties,
"Veluti Balbinum Polypus Agnæ,"
I must say, that some of these apparent defects are attended with real advantage.
My first inquiry is, What is the evil? Is it that, constituted as the House of Commons is, it has not performed its duty, and has not been in unison with the people? I know it has been said—and to support the assertion, the history of the last forty years has been brought under review; not that it could be said that formerly the conduct of Parliament was blameless, but that, during almost the whole of that time, a course of policy has been taken, which is particularly reprobated by the Reformers. It is said, the House of Commons, of whose Members a great proportion are the nominees of Peers, or great landed proprietors (but just now, it is better to say Peers), for their own advantage, supported the Ministers who plunged the country into an unjust and unnecessary war. British blood was shed, treasure lavished with profusion in ill-concerted expeditions, heavy taxes were imposed, and our Debt considerably increased. At last the war of long continuance was brought to a close, a peace was signed which gave to Britain no useful addition to her territorial possessions—merely the solitary advantage of having imposed upon France a ruler whom she detested, and

995
having become the ally of all the despots in Europe, leagued together for the oppression of their subjects, and the destruction of civil liberty, while her own subjects were oppressed with a debt so onerous, that our commerce, our agriculture, and all our resources were crippled for ever—this could not have taken place with a reformed Parliament.
This, my Lords, is an appalling picture: if I cannot efface it, let me, at least, attempt to soften some of its lineaments, which is the more necessary, because, according to my observation of four or five points to which the majority of the people direct their attention, nothing has struck them more, nothing has deluded them more, than the assertion that, with a reformed Parliament, wars would be less frequent, and consequently, the national Debt would not be increased; and, my Lords, whatever may be said as to Representation, as to restoration of rights, depend upon it the great majority think of nothing but reduction of taxation. That the war was just and inevitable I believe, but of course leave that open to contradiction; that much mismanagement may be imputed to Ministers, in the early part of the war, must be admitted, but, I think, candour would oblige us to confess, that latterly, when zeal and experience had combined, there was a considerable improvement. Heavy taxes were imposed, debt was accumulated, and peace did not give us as great additions to our possessions as some might have expected; but Great Britain obtained the only object she ever had in view—security for herself, the liberation of Europe from the ambition of France (invariable under every change of her Government), and the establishment of peace on solid foundations. It was a satisfaction to reflect, that to the valour of her fleets and armies, the firmness and wisdom of her Ministers, and of her Parliament, the successful termination of the war was mainly to be attributed; and when the Speaker of the House of Commons conferred upon the noble Duke that reward for his unparalleled services which he perhaps appreciates as highly as any he ever received—the thanks of that honourable House; when a less formal, almost involuntary compliment, was paid to a noble Lord, unhappily now no more, who had conducted the negotiations, having peace for their object, how few were there then who would have asserted, that Parliament
996
neglected its duty, or that the sentiments of the people were not expressed in the House of Commons! After a short interval, war ensued; what voice was heard to condemn it? And when the noble Duke closed the list of his splendid victories, by one more brilliant, more important in its consequences, and terminated negotiations, in which he had borne a distinguished part, if there was not unanimity, at least the satisfaction was very general; not only as expressed by the Representatives in Parliament, but also by the great majority of the people, if the opinions of individuals had been collected; they were satisfied with the result, contented with the acquisitions they had gained, the compensations they had received, and, above all, determined to fulfil the obligations which they had contracted.
Now, had the Parliament been purified as theorists recommend, I will not pretend to say what would have been the march of events, but I remember that the contagion of French principles had spread to this country—that a great part of our population (always called by their partisans the whole people) were disposed to cultivate friendship, or fraternity, with France, and to follow her example; and I really believe, that to the firmness of the Minister, and of the Parliament, acting in opposition to what was said to be the wish of the people, we owe our existence as a nation. In a short time, the atrocities of the French Revolution, the encroaching spirit of the French Government, opened the eyes of the people, and dissipated the delusion which had prevailed; but, let me ask, is a popular assembly of delegates, and not Representatives (and if the Reformed House of Commons be not of that description, it will not satisfy those who so loudly clamour for Reform), is a popular assembly, I ask, always pacific? and even if it had been inclined to avert war, by concessions, would they have been successful? Does the experience of Prussia, of some of the States in Germany, and of Spain, teach us this? War, then, was possible, it must have been attended with expense; the valour of our fleets and armies would have been the same; but I know no reason for supposing that our expeditions would have been better conducted. From what we have heard of other popular assemblies, we may believe that the difficulties under which our commanders laboured, would have been much

997
increased; an assembly acting under the immediate impulsion of the people, would have urged our commanders at one time with childish impatience to an imprudent advance, at other times would have recommended, if not an ignominious, an unsafe retreat. I doubt, for instance, whether a reformed House of Commons would have allowed the noble Duke to remain with Fabian policy in his position, behind the lines of Torres Vedras, while popular orators were addressing it, predicting that in a short time, not a British soldier would be left in Portugal, but as a prisoner; when that prediction found an echo in the camp itself, where perhaps there was but one heart that did not quail with apprehension.
But peace, which must have followed, would have given us no adequate compensation for our losses; it never does; happily we have this additional reason for avoiding war; and after a short time, when peace had not been accompanied by those advantages, by that diminution of taxes, which the people expected, would they not have been clamorous for relief, and might not the Members of that House, acting under the immediate influence of the people, have acceded to their wishes? might they not have retained the advantages which the fortune of war had thrown into our hands, and have refused to pay the price at which they were acquired; might they not have cancelled the obligation to the public creditor, and have withdrawn the pensions (scanty as they are) from our soldiers, and our sailors, leaving them to drag about their frames, debilitated by exposure to pestilential climates, or mutilated by their wounds, at once the monument of their services and of national ingratitude?
This is not calumny—such has often been the gratitude of a popular assembly—such is the language of the Reformers! I speak of two considerable burthens, much augmented by the war; they have been selected as the first objects of reduction—though such injustice will be revolting to your Lordships—the proposal has come from those who pretend that they represent the feelings of the people; a portion of that people approves it, but by a Parliament constituted as it is at present, it would be indignantly rejected.
But during this time, was the House of Commons the humble instrument of the Minister of the day, and negligent of its duty? It is true, that in the first years of
998
the war, from the confidence reposed in the Minister—from apprehension of the principles avowed by his opponents, there was a great expenditure; but was the House corrupt. Were the Members intent only on their personal advantage? Was the support given to the holder of office and the dispenser of favours, without regard to character? No!—they showed an independent spirit, that they could make a selection of the Minister in whom they could confide, and the measures they would approve. After the death of Mr. Pitt, when the noble Lord and his friends came into office, did they find the House too servile? And when, after a general election, they were dismissed by George 3rd, the House did not make an attempt to reinstate them. Again, in 1827, and to take one of the most remarkable, and a recent instance, the House withdrew its confidence from the noble Duke, and obliged him to resign his office.
In the investigation of the causes of failure of some expeditions, of the supposed misconduct on the part of public officers, the mismanagement or misapplication of public money, the House was not idle; but I must say, that the manner in which some of these inquiries were conducted, gave me reason to think that the House was quite enough under the influence of the people.
But since the peace, what has been done? Taxes to the amount of twenty-five millions have been taken off; at the head of them the most important, the most supported by Ministers (the property tax); the interest of the Debt has been reduced, while the national faith has been strictly preserved.
Great improvements have been made in our criminal law, for which, although the right hon. Gentleman who introduced them must have the highest honour, Parliament may take the credit of having attended to a subject of such general interest. Economy in the different branches of the public service, the reduction of sinecures, of salaries, of pensions, as far as was consistent with justice, have been carried into effect; and I may remind your Lordships, that when there was a suspicion of partiality in selecting the individuals who were to be affected by reduction, there was, on the part of the House of Commons, a proper jealousy, a prompt and successful interference.

999
Although for all these measures, the Ministers who introduced them are entitled to credit, the House of Commons at least has a right to quote them, as a proof that the Representatives have not neglected their duty to their constituents.
Is the evil—inadequate Representation?
Soon after the peace, a most important measure, affecting all the interests of the country, was, after much discussion, adopted. I mean the resumption of cash payments. Upon this subject there were the most discordant opinions; but I think it could not be said that any interest suffered from want of Representatives, in the measures which followed, for giving freedom to trade in general; and in the exception which was made with regard to corn, each interest was accused by the other of having obtained an undue advantage, and the inference that I at least am inclined to draw is, that they are pretty fairly balanced; but the opinion of the Ministers, sometimes public opinion too strong to be resisted, gives to one of them a momentary preponderance; and it should be remembered, that there is always a great portion of the Members who do not feel themselves bound to support the claims of any particular interest, but to vote for those measures which will conduce to the welfare of all.
One great measure was carried through the House of Commons, with the consent, of course, of a majority of the Representatives, but, as I am convinced, in opposition to the wishes of their constituents—I mean the Catholic Relief Bill. Indignation at this circumstance has made many, who were opposed to that Bill, Reformers: it has not had that effect upon me. I consider the Members of Parliament as Representatives, not as delegates: they were to act in the manner most conducive, in their opinion, to the advantage of the whole country, and at a general election, their conduct would either be censured or approved: let those who, with the notion of improving the Representation, exclude all places which have not a numerous constituency, and who were favourable to the Bill, consider how that measure would have been stopped had there been no boroughs or towns over which Government or individuals had an influence; though I'cannot adopt their opinions on that Bill, nay, am daily confirmed in my melancholy forebodings of the consequences of that measure, I feel that for
1000
constituents to have forced upon the Members a resistance to a measure which they thought would be most advantageous, to the country, would have been a great evil, would have been often repeated, and would have submitted the House arbitrio popularis aurœ.
No, my Lords—resentment for public conduct might make me withdraw my support and confidence from public men; but institutions are not to be lightly changed or abandoned because something has occurred which we disapprove, and which these institutions have not enabled us to avert. But I have admitted that it is our duty to take any plan into consideration; this has always been my opinion, and particularly expressed at the close of last year, at the risk of being considered by some of my political friends as too much of a Reformer. I thought that between a determination not to agree to any change, and the adoption of wild schemes of innovation, there was a middle course. Listen to all the suggestions, consider the subject; though you do not see the necessity of change, or anticipate any improvement; be guided solely by your opinion as to the advantage of the measure proposed. But though I thought the duty of Members of Parliament invariable, I must say, that there never could have been so unfortunate a moment, one in which calm discussion and a prudent decision could be so little expected, as when the events of France and Belgium, combined with the circumstances of a general election, afforded an opportunity to those who wished for change, to seduce a great portion of the assembled population by an extravagant picture of the advantages of Reform; while others, and probably those who possessed most property, were persuaded that Reform alone could save us from Revolution. The opposite declarations of the noble Duke, and of the noble Earl at the head of the present Administration, brought matters to a crisis. Ministers pledged themselves to Reform, and soon after redeemed that pledge, by bringing in Bills similar to that which is now before us; which, be it good or bad, the public was not prepared to expect from the declarations of the noble Earl (as they were understood), from the declared opinions of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and from the rumours of their intentions which had been circulated, and particularly as to Scotland.

1001
Of a Bill thus introduced, we have now, for the first time, had the benefit of receiving an explanation from the noble Lord from whom it emanated, given with his usual eloquence and ability; but as I have not the facility of adverting to what has been said by others in debate, and as the statement given elsewhere, which I have studied with attention, does not materially differ, it is to that that my remarks will be directed. The statement was, that the object of Ministers was, to place themselves between two hostile parties, upon sure and stedfast ground—between the abuses they wished to amend, and the convulsions they hoped to avert; that no one of common sense could say that the House of Commons represented the people and commonalty of England; that there was a time in which the right of being represented was recognized. If it were a question of right, therefore, right was in favour of Reform; and that we may not be lost in the labyrinths of early history, or referred to statutes on which there is any doubt, or to times too remote from our own, the Reformers go at once to Edward 1st, with a charity which reminds me of the lady in Prior's "Alma:"
"Then that I might not be wearied, madam,
To cut things short, came down to Adam."
But hither, I fear, we must follow them; the Statutes of the 25th and 34th of that King, and particularly the Statute "De Tallagio concedendo," and perhaps the words of the Writ, "Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbrtur," having been cited to prove that no tax could be imposed without the consent of the whole community, one might have expected a proposal to restore the franchise to all, even to repeal the Act of Henry 6th, which limits the qualification to the possessors of 40 s. in land, and that in freehold, and not to limit it to particular classes and districts, or the occupiers of houses rated at 10 l.
It is further stated, that nomination in close boroughs and close corporations are not the settled institutions of the country. It was admitted, that the Representation consisted of knights for counties, citizens and burgesses: could it be denied that at all times Members were returned by the influence of the Crown, of individuals, or by close corporations?
The Crown, by its power of creating boroughs, exercised an influence on the House of Commons, of which
1002
it probably became more sensible, after the precedent given by Edward 4th, who gave an express right to Wenlock to send Members by charter, as a reward for the services of the proprietor. Now I do not see that this influence was questioned, even when articles of accusation were brought against Richard 2nd, as an excuse for deposing him. I see it laid to his charge, that he interfered with the Sheriffs to return Knights who would vote for excessive subsidies, and particularly for a tax upon wool, which was to continue during the King's life; but not a word of the influence of returning citizens and burgesses. For many years the House of Commons, though containing the elements of liberty in its constitution, was subservient to the Crown; but submissive as it had shown itself to Queen Elizabeth, in the apology (as it was called) which it presented to King James, while it admitted that deference had been shown to the Queen, on account of her sex and her extraordinary qualities, denied that this was to be interpreted as an abandonment of rights and liberties, which, on the contrary, the House asserted, in the name of the whole Commons, as their just inheritance; and enumerating the things of which those rights and liberties consist, they claimed that the shires, cities, and boroughs of England, by Representation to be present here, have free choice of such persons as are to represent them: they do not complain of the influence of the Crown in the Duchy of Cornwall, in which no less than twenty-six Members had been added in the three last reigns; or of individuals in boroughs; and one has no reason to suppose, that the return of Lady Packington to the Writ of Aylesbury, 14th Queen Elizabeth, that she had chosen and approved two burgesses, was a solitary instance.
It has been observed by a noble Lord, in his work upon the Constitution, that these unhealthy excrescences did not prevent the Petition of Right, or guard the Throne from the Roundheads: but, my Lords, the dreadful tragedy which then took place, was, I must say, in opposition to what fell from a noble Earl, (Earl Grey) imputable to concessions, to unwise, imprudent concessions—and to the design of the House of Commons to engross the whole administration of the State; and historians have remarked, that the Monarchy and the Peerage did not

1003
fall, till the liberties of Parliament had been destroyed by that army, which it had made the instrument of aggression.
The attempt of Cromwell to form a Parliament, of which he had different schemes, cannot be considered as connected with our Constitution: the agreement, the scheme of the officers who supplanted Richard Cromwell, by which the electors were to vote according; to the payment of taxes, and vote by ballot, were theories which were not carried into practice, though perhaps they have afforded some hints to the framers of the present Bill. The sending Writs to the old boroughs by Richard Cromwell was a popular measure, though it had not the effect of establishing his government; and this leads me to remark, that the Long Parliament, which I think must be admitted to have had the spirit of Reform, did not imagine that boroughs in which the population was reduced, and which had not received a Writ for centuries, ought therefore to lose their rights, for when petitions had been presented, it sent Writs to seven boroughs, some of them certainly not populous—four of them are in schedule B, and three in schedule A: * amongst others, Milborne Port, which still has a right, and, as some conceive, should have a preferable right, to return Members. The attempts of Charles 2nd to resume the charters, and remodel them for his purposes, have been severely and justly reprobated, and King William, in his declaration made before his landing, promised that all the rights of boroughs should be maintained. To a Parliament so constituted we owe the Revolution, upon the advantages of which we are unanimous, whatever difference of opinion there may be as to some of the circumstances attending it—to a Parliament so constituted we owe the succession of the House of Hanover. If, to use the words of a celebrated orator, the Constitution is to be arraigned at this tribunal, if I cannot save it from condemnation, at least let these merits go in mitigation of its punishment.
If, shortly after the Revolution, direct bribery was carried to a shameful degree, and afterwards indirect influence was exercised by the creation of useless offices
* The boroughs are,

A Seaford, Malton, and Allerton.

B Ashburton.

B Honiton.

A Weobly.

B Cockermouth.

B Okehampton.

A Milborne Port.

1004
and granting pensions, still the prosperity of the country gradually advanced, though occasionally its progress was retarded; but even in these times, I do not see that it ever occurred to the Representatives, or to the people, that their condition was to be improved by an alteration in the constitution of Parliament, and now, when direct bribery cannot be suspected, when there are fewer placemen in the House, including officers in the army and navy, than there were in George 2nd's time, when the patronage of Ministers is so much reduced, such an alteration appears to me to be still less necessary, and especially because the Reformers cannot refer us to any time in our history, in which their plan was in operation, attended by those advantages which, as they say, must always attend it. And here again I must refer to a noble Lord (Lord John Russell) for whom I have a great respect; he has written and spoken with great ability on (his subject, and I do not quote him for the purpose of imputing to him any inconsistency, but without offence I may mention those observations which have made the greatest impression on my mind. In his book on the Constitution he says, "If a man were to object to change, and to say government is a matter of experience, not of speculation, we will therefore rest contented with things as they are, his objections would be sound."
Since, then, the plan now proposed is not a return to that which was once established, it is an innovation and an attempt to reconstitute the State. I do not on that account refuse to consider it, though, if the innovation had been from the first avowed, I believe it would have had fewer partisans; and though I may have the prejudice that those who rock the cradle of an infant constitution, may probably accompany it to its grave. But fortunately I come at once to an insuperable objection. The Bill consists of two parts, one the disfranchisement of boroughs complete or partial, the other the creation of a new constituency, and a new arrangement of boroughs and counties. I do not entertain the least doubt of the power of Parliament to disfranchise boroughs: there are no national limits to that power but possibility. Parliament, however, may impose fetters upon itself by which it will be ever restrained. I would have it our pride to say, Parliament cannot do what is unjust

1005
—I conceive this disfranchisement to be unjust and impolitic: unjust, because, whether the rights of boroughs be real property, or held in trust, as the noble Earl has contended, if it be a trust, unless misconduct has been proved, the trustees cannot be divested—(that any boroughs should be heard by counsel is what the wildest Reformer in this House would never oppose)—if it be an absolute property, it can with as little justice be taken from the owners. And even if we were proceeding on the admission, that the measure was absolutely necessary for the good of the country, taking the analogy of the heritable jurisdictions in Scotland, or of lands which have been taken for the erection of barracks or fortifications when the country was threatened with invasion, Parliament provided that the proprietors should receive compensation for a seizure, which nothing but necessity could have justified—impolitic, because it is unwise to show that charters from the Crown give no security. Are these the only charters which may be questioned, on the ground of speculative advantage to the public? Will the grants of land be more secure? The doctrine that all the property of the Church is, and always was, the property of the State; that Henry 8th, when on the suppression of monasteries he parcelled out the Church lands amongst his favourites, exceeded his powers; and that these grants should be resumed, is very unpalatable to individuals, and would not now be tolerated by your Lordships; but in a Reformed House of Commons it would be favourably received, and, what is worse, would rest its justification upon that measure which you had sanctioned.
Against this disfranchisement, then, I protest; and as most of the provisions depend upon the settlement of this point, it would be unnecessary for me to enter into an examination of the details, even if my noble friend (Lord Wharncliffe) had not so ably exposed their defects: a few words, however, may be permitted to me upon some of the most glaring inconsistencies.
Adopting the principle of population, and being obliged to draw the line somewhere, it is proposed (that all boroughs which have not 2,000 inhabitants, shall be disfranchised; those which have between 2,000 and 4,000, shall return one Member; above 4,000, two Members. Waving for a moment the objection to the principle, should we not have expected,
1006
that the returns of the actual population, and not the census of 1821, which is notoriously incorrect, would have been taken as a base? (Although it is possible that some false returns would have been made at the census of 1831, for the purpose of giving advantages to particular towns)—but this is very unfair, for it is well known, that there are towns which had not 2,000 inhabitants in 1821, but whose population is greatly increased; and as this is a final arrangement, they are for ever excluded: and this is a remedy for a system, of which one of the evils is stated to be, that towns, much as they increase in population, will not acquire the right of sending Members to Parliament. But even if the census of 1831 were taken, should we not be preparing ourselves for the adoption of what has been called the rule-of-three system? that if 2,000 return one, then 4,000 two, and 6,000 three Members, and so on—a system which, as I understand, is as much disapproved of by the supporters as by the opposers of this Bill; and yet, though this may not be the immediate, I think it must be the ultimate consequence.
It was for the purpose of neutralizing the principle of population, I presume, that the standard of properly was also taken, and applied indifferently; but it is often difficult to know by what test the arrangement is to be tried, and sometimes it is irreconcilable with either or with both: for instance, of two towns which are placed in similar circumstances, one is disfranchised, and the other returns two Members.
The great object was, to introduce a new constituency upon a qualification assumed to be uniform; and so it is in amount, but not in its effect. In some large towns, it will extend the franchise to nine-tenths of the householders, while in others the number of electors will be very small; it is, to be sure, a matter of opinion, but I own, that in making a new arrangement, it would not have occurred to me to give increased influence to this particular class.
The framers of the Bill propose to give additional Members to counties, and thus establish an aristocracy of land, to balance the aristocracy of towns; and yet in some counties the 10 l. householders of towns will have great influence—in some, I have reason to believe, that they would obtain a preponderance.

1007
Having taken population as a principle, and the payment of taxes applied to counties, they give to those which have a smaller population, and who pay a smaller amount of taxes, a greater number of Representatives.
In conformity to the orders of your Lordships' House, and consistently with the tone which has been taken hitherto, and which I hope will be observed in this debate, I would not impute to the authors of this Bill motives of partiality and injustice; but, deprived of this resource, if I may so call it, I cannot understand it. I will not say that it is inexplicable, but it does appear to me, that neither in the debates elsewhere, nor in this House, has this arrangement been satisfactorily explained.
Avowing the intention of taking the franchise from the lowest class, because it is subject to bribery, they confer the right of voting upon those who must be most under the influence of landlords, depriving freemen of their natural rights, when it can be done with safety, but conceding to the potwallopers, who would be too clamorous, the exercise of that right which it is said they never ought to have possessed. Professing to destroy influence, they make a division of counties which shall place them under the influence of Peers and great proprietors, such as were called, in a petition from Durham, presented by a noble Marquis (Cleveland) an overbearing oligarchy—thus substituting nominees of departments for nominees of boroughs—objecting to out-voters, and bringing them sixteen or seventeen miles to add to the constituency of some towns; in others, confining the votes to residents, but allowing them to non-residents in counties and in universities—and all this to cure anomalies!
And whereas the possession of property is desirable in an elector, the possessor of half a town is not to have a vote, unless he be resident; while his tenant for the shortest term, the most dependent, possessing the smallest interest in the property, shall vote not only in towns, but in counties, if he hold land of the yearly value of 50 l. This last provision was introduced for a reason easily understood—to correct the democratical parts of the Bill. Attempts were made in discussion to veil this from the eyes of the public, which is easily deceived. But others, more clear-sighted, were reconciled to the Bill by this aristocratical
1008
alteration. Now it is always said, that this will be a final settlement of the Representation. I must be allowed to doubt it.
As long as there is any individual, not a minor, not fatuous, who has not a vote, so long will there be some one who will assert, and many who will believe, that the people are deprived of their just and natural rights.
As long as towns increasing in population do not return an increased number of Members, so long will they consider that they are not adequately represented.
The influence of money will always exist, and bribery will always be suspected, unless the electors be so wealthy that money could not tempt them; the only security would be a high qualification, quite incompatible with an extended suffrage.
The conduct of Members of Parliament who support the Government, will always be imputed to interested motives, as long as there is a single place, honour, or distinction, at the disposal of the Minister; and yet we are told, this must be satisfactory to the people, because it secures adequate Representation, purity of election, and integrity of conduct in the Representatives. I should say, that it were better to abide by the old Constitution, which, if defective, has advantages in practice, than to adopt a theoretical system, to which the same objections may be made.
Thus then, my Lords, I am compelled to oppose this Bill upon its principle, and no alterations of the details could affect my objections. I rejoice that, as a Member of this House, it is no part of my duty to propose a substitute. That improvements in the regulation of elections, so as to diminish the expense and inconvenience, may be suggested, is possible; that bribery may be more effectually restrained; that a plan might be proposed for repairing what appears to me to have been an omission in 1800: and giving to the Crown the power of issuing writs to new boroughs, which it had lost by the Union with Scotland and Ireland, is also possible; upon these points I offer no opinion, but must express my belief, that the populous towns have never proved that they had actually suffered any real injury from not having had the right to send Representatives to Parliament. Some proposition, may also be made with respect to the Representation of Scotland, to which, notwithstanding

1009
the interest I must take in that country, I have not adverted, as it is not at present under discussion. Upon this point also I offer no opinion; but whether that state of Representation be good or bad, it is a consolation to me to know, that the injury arising from it must be of recent date, for it was only lately, that the Reformers complained of the apathy of the people, and particularly of the people of Scotland, on the subject of Reform.
Objecting to the Bill, then, I should naturally vote against it, but this I am told I must not do; and for these reasons: because the interference of the House of Lords with a Bill of this description, if it be legal, is objectionable, and that the people must and will have Reform. Now with respect to the first objection, that is very unfortunate, for in 1728, when the Commons sent up a Bill to prevent bribery at elections, the Lords made two amendments; the first raised the penalty from 50 l. to 500 l. to which the Commons, notwithstanding their objections to money clauses, agreed. The second was as important; it declared that such votes shall be deemed to be legal which have been so declared by the last determination of the House of Commons; this also was accepted, and a popular orator, Mr. Pulteney, in praising the patriotism of the Lords, went so far as to say, that the Lords as well as the Commons, are the guardians of the freedom of elections.
But the people will have Reform. Now, my Lords, I do not mean to deny that a very great proportion of the people are for Reform, not that they are unanimous; and to use an expression of Mr. Burke, we must not always judge of the generality of the opinion by the noise of the acclamation; and though I would admit a numerical superiority, yet I believe that if a scale of numbers and property were taken, the majority of property would be against the Bill. But for the sake of argument, I will admit that the people are unanimous; I must answer, that we are not here to obey the dictates of the people, or to register the edicts of the House of Commons. If we have a right to examine a bill, to modify, and alter its provisions, we must have a right to judge of its principle, and of the necessity for legislating on the subject. It is our duty to examine with patience all that is suggested for the
1010
benefit of the people, and thus to impress upon their minds that truth which is not at once apparent to them, probably from the distance at which we are placed, that our interests are inseparable, that it is not only the duty, but the interest of the Peers, that the people should have the full enjoyment of all their just rights and liberties, upon which individual and national happiness so much depend; that it is impossible that the prosperity of the people can be increased, and that it should not be reflected upon us; or that the people should suffer calamity, or a deprivation of their rights and liberties, without involving the Peers; who in themselves, it is true, have a part in legislation which is not given to all, but in their property, and in their families, are incorporated in the mass of the people. Attributing to us, therefore, very uncharitably, selfish motives, I say from those motives, from motives of self-interest, we could not resist any measure which we really thought would conduce to the advantage of the people; and it was well observed by my noble friend (the Earl of Mulgrave) as well as by a noble Earl on presenting a petition, that it was wrong to say that the Peers had no interest in this Bill, but one ought to say, that they had no separate interest. Let this truth, coming from the lips of the noble Earl, have the effect which it could not have had if it had merely come from mine.
If you approve of the Bill, give it your support. But if not—would you upon any other occasion have at once admitted that you were in the wrong? Would you not have put your own opinion, and that of the minority of the House of Commons in contrast with the opinions of the people? Why should you not do so now? For fear of the consequences? We have been told, in no measured language, by the Press, that our own persons or our property may be attacked, and I must say, that nothing can be so well calculated to produce the effect as these threats so circulated. I think it very probable that there will be disturbances; I have full confidence in the firmness of the Government, and that they will be put down. I shall be sorry, however, that such events should take place, as individuals perhaps more deluded than guilty will be the victims. I do not disregard consequences, but from what are they to proceed?—from disappointment? Now what is it that the people expect from

1011
the Bill? Looking to the great number of petitions which explain their expectations, but not one half of their delusions; such as, that those who have any thing to sell must always obtain a great price, and those who have to purchase, find every thing cheap. The prayers of the petition are for a reduction of taxes, quite incompatible with the payment of the debt, and which would recoil upon themselves; the abolition of tithes, the appropriation of Church property to the uses of the State, &c. Now the supporters of the Bill say, that there will be no such consequences, that it is absurd to believe it; but if the expectations of the people be not realized, will they not be dissatisfied? Will they not be equally clamorous in expressing their disappointment, and might not the same argument be urged to persuade you to consent to more dangerous but inevitable concessions?
In conclusion—I must say, fain would I see this effervescence subside. If I were to frame a wish and devise the means for restoring calm to the public mind, confidence to all who are engaged in commerce, trade, or agriculture, and to the possessors of property, it would be, that, we should renew the charter of our Constitution for two years, with all its defects, all its anomalies, exposing ourselves to the risk of suffering those calamities which may attend so defective a state of Representation. At the end of that time, you would come to the discussion in a calmer state of mind, with better hope of temperate discussion and of prudent decision. But this would not suit his Majesty's Ministers; they wish that the agitation may continue; it is like the fever which gives the patient artificial strength, though it will finally cause his destruction.
May the arguments against this Bill which have been so ably advanced by others, and the intreaties which community of interest, allows me to address to you, have some effect. Do not, in the hope of improvement, rashly endanger our venerable Constitution, which has been the admiration and the envy of the world; in which various interests are balanced, opposite elements brought together, not in conflict, but in beautiful harmony; which not the wisdom of man, assisted by experience; not time, or fortuitous circumstances, could ever have effected without the aid of that all-gracious Power, which I trust has not yet withdrawn its protection
1012
from this favoured land. Do not let us return to that chaos in which these elements would still exist, but not in union; do not adopt the theories of those innovators, whose motto seems to be, Nulli sua forma manebit.
For, my Lords, the evil will not rest here; the wish for change extends to all your institutions—the abolition of a Church in union with the State—the division of property amongst all the children, as in France—the consequent destruction of au hereditary Peerage, and an interference with the succession of the Crown, are theories which it is admitted cannot be realized till this Bill shall have laid the foundation. These are not the opinions, as they formerly were, of men of some talent, but of little influence; they proceed from, and are vindicated, to my knowledge, by men of talent, of education, and of family; and such as would present themselves as candidates, with a certainty of being chosen by that constituency which this Bill creates.
My Lords, you have this night, not only to decide upon the fate of Britain, the fate of Europe is involved in your decision; if England be convulsed, if she should suffer even bloodless revolution, the only barrier would be removed which opposes that spirit which attacks all ancient institutions, all established governments. War, which (whatever may be said) is equally deprecated by us all, will probably ensue; and its attendant calamities will not be lessened, if, under the guidance of the present Ministers, and adopting an inverted policy, we should find ourselves arrayed by the side of our former enemies, and opposed to our most ancient and faithful allies. This course of policy was never followed but in the last years of Queen Anne; a period which has of late been forcibly brought to my recollection, and of which an assertion of the noble Earl (Earl Grey) has again reminded me, that he would never abandon the Bill, while he retained any reasonable hope of success. Now there were two ways of carrying the Bill; the one was, by obtaining the majority of the existing Members of this House; and the other, by recommending to the Crown an undue exercise of its undoubted prerogative, the creation of Peers; and as in the times to which I have alluded, a whimsical question was put to the twelve new Peers, Whether they voted, like a Petty Jury, by their Foreman, we should have to

1013
ask, Whether these Peers would vote by their Centurion? So great would be the number required to overpower the strong feeling in this House, of want of confidence in Ministers, and of objection to this Bill.
But, my Lords, I have done; and return you many thanks for your indulgence, which has enabled me to prove (or attempt to prove) that my opinions are not the result of prejudice, but of long, I may say, painful, meditation.
Lord Kingsaid, that a great deal of matter had been touched upon which had no reference whatever to the subject immediately before their Lordships. Amongst others was that which might be designated the rump of the Holy Alliance. All he could say was, that he must be little less than a fool who would deny that advantages were not likely to arise to the country from the passing of the Reform Bill. He could not venture to place before his eyes the picture of what the state of the country would be when it was known that a proposal had been made to their Lordships to give a positive rejection to the Bill—a Bill sent up to their Lordships by a great majority of the House of Commons, might be, indeed, rejected by that House, but it would be for the House to consider of the prudence of rejecting it. That it had opponents he knew; the
Iræ leonum vincula recusantium."
He trusted, however, that although these lions might indulge their resentment, they would be at least chained and rendered harmless. He trusted that they would not long be allowed to exercise their undue power to the prejudice of the interests of their country. The noble Earl (the Earl of Mansfield) said, in the course of his speech, that he would advise the Government to leave the measure alone for two years. The noble Lord said, he wished he could suggest some method of pacifying the country, and of stopping the progress of the present excitement. And how did the noble Lord, who was so anxious to put an end to the excitement, propose to accomplish his object? Why, he would pacify the country by rejecting the Bill, and leaving the people to indulge in all those feelings of exasperation which the disappointment of their hopes must excite. The noble Lord and his friends had met the question with a pure and simple rejection. The Bill was, in their opinion, too dangerous even to be entertained. They would not even allow it to go to a Committee
1014
[no, no]. Why, if they met the question with a decided negative, how were they to go to a Committee? No, their Lordships would not even consider the merits of the measure sent to them by the House of Commons; and they rejected it in such a manner as to say, that the country was not to hope from them that any measure of Reform would be entertained. That was the gist of the Motion, and of all the speeches he had heard. If it was not, he knew not what they meant. He now came to another question. What were the evils the country complained of?—war, taxes, and debt. He did not deny that the people were too fond of war; but he contended, that the people changed their opinion of its necessity much sooner than the Parliament. Would the first war with America have continued so many years under the authority of a Reformed House of Commons? But that was not the only evil—the proprietors of Parliament were now also the proprietors of the taxes. He called them proprietors of Parliament, in the language of Grattan, because he did not wish to use the offensive phrase of boroughmongers. He would tell the noble Lord how this proprietorship worked. From a list of places and pensions above 1,000 l. a-year, laid before the House of Commons, and printed by its order, it appeared that the members of their Lordships' House received above 300,000 l. a-year out of the taxes and otherwise, under the name of pensions, places, and salaries. This was the result of the proprietorship system, and the nomination of Members of Parliament. The noble Lord and his friends laid great stress on the worst part of the system, and seemed to think the worst possessed the greatest merit. He (Lord King) remembered the time when no one would dare to mention such things, and when the Speaker of the other House would have called any man to order who ventured to talk of nomination boroughs. Now, however, the system was recognized and acknowledged, and Members seemed to glory in what Burke called the shameful parts of the Constitution. Corruption and all its attendant abuses were stripped naked to the view. There was no longer any disposition to conceal it. They were told that the Bill proposed a new Constitution. Whose fault was it that such a Bill was now before them? And he would say more, that if they did not now concede

1015
this timely Reform, they would, perhaps, be compelled to grant another Reform, which they would consider still more untimely than even a very moderate Reform was thought to be some years ago. He would not say what might be the consequence. They were implored to grant this Reform to preserve the peace of the country, and they should take heed lest they forced the people to that general understanding respecting the non-payment of the taxes, which they had threatened. The people, it was well known, had for sometime thought that the taxes voted by a condemned House of Commons might, under certain contingencies, be refused. He would not trouble their Lordships further than to implore them to consider well the consequences of what they were about to do. The noble Lord concluded by stating, that he never voted more heartily for any measure, than he should vote for the second reading of this Bill.
The Marquis of Butesaid, before he attempted to address himself to the general question, he should say a few words in reply to the noble Lord who had just sat down. That noble Lord had addressed himself, not to the question of Reform, but had indulged in a criticism upon the motion of his noble friend (Lord Wharncliffe). He complained that the motion was that of simply rejecting the Bill, but the fact was, that his noble friend had sat down without making any motion at all. Being then called upon to move, he said, certainly, that his motion was to reject the Bill—but he (the Marquis of Bute) understood him to mean no more by that, than if he had moved that it should be read a second time that day six months. He had not understood from the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Mansfield) that he objected to Reform altogether, but only that he objected to this Bill; and he perfectly well knew that his noble relative (Lord Wharncliffe) did not object to Reform altogether. On the contrary, he always understood him to say, that he was prepared not only to make concessions, but concessions to a very considerable degree. He had understood him to say this on more occasions than one; and he had even heard him point out what the concessions were which he was ready to grant to the people in the way of Reform. No man had ever asserted that everything connected with the present system of Representation was perfectly correct. It never had been asserted; but what
1016
noble Lords objected to in reality was, the Bill on the Table of the House; and they contended, that if we must have Reform, it ought, at least, to be a Reform strictly in conformity with the existing Constitution of the country, and with those principles upon which all history told us that that Constitution was founded. He freely admitted that he was himself one of those who were of opinion that no great benefit could accrue to the people from any scheme of Reform which he had ever seen broached. This was his honest opinion; but still he was prepared on this, as on all other great questions, to bow to the sense of those whom he considered from their talent, their education, their rank and property, to be well qualified to form a judgment upon such matters. He begged to assure the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) that if he had any hesitation in opposing this Bill, that hesitation, if it did not altogether arise from, was, at all events, greatly increased, by the respect which he entertained for him. What he conceived to be the principle upon which the authors of this Bill proceeded was, that of endeavouring to get rid of those evils in the Representation of the country which were most complained of—namely, nomination boroughs. Now, he was prepared to contend, that this Bill established the principle of nomination to an extent fully as objectionable as could be met with in the history of any of those boroughs which were thus to be disfranchised. It was said that the liberties of the subject were injured by these nomination boroughs, but how he could not tell. It was a matter of surprise to him how such an opinion could be entertained. He denied the proposition in toto. However popular this topic might be, and he admitted that it would do at the hustings, or at a tavern dinner, he would ask, if any noble Lord in that House, or if any man who thought that his opinion would be listened to, would assert that the liberties of the country, that the liberty of individuals, or that the security of property, was less now than it was in those times which had been referred to as the most glorious epochs of the country? The greater part of those nomination boroughs had been created in the times of the Tudors, and they were selected, not for their riches, or the number of their population, but because the Crown wished to make use of them to promote its own arbitrary views. And

1017
what was the result? He was rather inclined to think, that so far from this being injurious to liberty, in a few years after they were formed, the Members for those boroughs were the most violent opposers of the Crown in the reign of Charles 1st. It was not till the reign of Anne, and the first Princes of the House of Brunswick, that boroughs became the property of individuals, and that, as a consequence, they became the subject of sale and nomination. Then began that contest between the aristocracy and the Crown with respect to borough influence, the result of which was, that the influence of either was much less now than it was when the House of Hanover came to the Throne—the period so often triumphantly referred to as the most glorious of the Constitution. But how did the noble Lord propose to get rid of the nomination boroughs? Why, by sweeping away a great part of these boroughs, by destroying the Corporations, and substituting for them a uniform system of three-and-sixpenny voters. In the first place, it put an end altogether to the nomination boroughs in schedule A, and in their stead it would establish one uniform system of constituency—a constituency essentially democratic, and which, being composed chiefly of 10 l. householders, would be productive of ten times more bribery and corruption than prevailed at present. Every one knew the influence exercised in country towns by attornies, and a certain class of monied men, and the consequence would be, to place all the constituency under the dictation of one or two individuals. The new constituency would aggravate the evils of nomination tenfold, for the real voter would be the secret owner of the 10 l. tenement—the speculating builder—who would count the votes as so much interest in his outlay. At present the nomination boroughs were useful as channels through which the colonial interests obtained the means of Representation, and as a means of preserving the just influence of the Peers in the decisions of the Legislature; but the new nomination system would be, from its democratic character, fatal to both, particularly to that hereditary influence which it was the special care of their ancestors to preserve. The noble Lords wished, he had no doubt, to promote the liberty, and happiness, and morality, of the people; but this Bill was not calculated to promote their views. Nothing
1018
was more carefully attended to by our ancestors than to preserve the hereditary principle of our Constitution in all its parts. That principle was the soul of the monarchy. But by destroying the Corporations—by taking away those privileges which the present race of freemen enjoyed, and which they expected to transmit to their children, this Bill destroyed that, and, by destroying that, would injure the hereditary principle, and would certainly injure the monarchy. He was not a friend to abuses, and if such as existed could be corrected, he should not object; but he could not consent to the great changes proposed by this Bill. It would not get rid of nomination and corruption, and for these reasons he meant to vote against the Bill; though he repeated, that he should not object to any measure which would get rid of abuse. The Bill, however, went so far—the changes it introduced were so numerous and so violent—the principle was so new, that he could not by any possibility go the length of the Bill. He knew that many noble Lords who went further than he did, would not consent to this Bill. With reference to that country with which he was connected, he would offer one observation. He admitted that the system of Representation there established was incorrect in principle; but he denied that it had been injurious in practice. He wished to say for himself distinctly, and with respect to the county which bore his name, that what had appeared in the papers was not correct. He admitted that there was an influence exercised there; but it was nothing but the influence of property fairly exercised. As far as he was concerned, that property would not be injured, nor the influence lessened by the Bill. Individually he was satisfied that his interest would be the same as before. While thus pointing out the monstrous defects of the Bill, he begged it to be understood, that he was by no means averse to any moderate plan of removing the abuses and corruptions of the present system, but only to such a violent and sweeping remedy as that proposed by Ministers [cries of "Adjourn"].
Lord Wharncliffewished, before their Lordships adjourned for that evening, to set himself right with respect to the form of his Amendment. He had just been informed, that, as it then stood, it might be interpreted in the light of an affront to the House of Commons. Now nothing could

1019
be further from his intentions and wishes, and he therefore begged leave to withdraw it, and propose in its stead that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Lord Hollandvery willingly gave the noble Lord full credit for his declaration, that in moving that the Bill be forthwith, and without further preface, rejected, that he had no intention to thereby offer a direct affront to the House of Commons; but still felt it would be improper for their Lordships to assent to his proposition to withdraw it. When it was recollected, that in the course of the debate which had been held that evening on the noble Lord's Amendment, those who expressed their determination to support it did so on the explicit ground that "by its form it shut out all hope of Reform whatever," he was convinced that it was due to their own consistency to persist in an Amendment so supported. He, for one, therefore, would resist the withdrawal of the noble Lord's Motion.
Lord Wharncliffe: I know not what are the motives which may have influenced other noble Lords to support my Amendment, but for myself, I must repeat, that so far from wishing or intending to thereby offer an affront to, or mark of reprobation on, the House of Commons, that I will not divide the House upon it. Let other noble Lords act as they will, I will not press it, and therefore in courtesy I hope I shall be permitted to withdraw it in its present form.
Lord Hollandrepeated, that after the turn which the debate had taken on the noble Lord's Amendment, it was but right that the House should express its opinion formally on its merits. The Motion, besides, was not now in the hands of the noble Baron, but of the Lord Chancellor, as the Speaker of the House, into whose hands it had been put, so that it would be contrary to their own established rules if they consented to its being then withdrawn.
Lord Plunkettagreed with his noble friend. He was confident that the noble Baron had no intention to offer the Commons an affront by a Motion which was tantamount to a rejection of the Bill which they had sent up for their concurrence, but still felt that after the declaration of the noble Earl (Mansfield) who had just addressed them with so much zeal and ability, that he would support the Amendment, "because it put an end to every hope of Reform in any shape whatever for the present."
1020
It would be unfair to the supporters of the Amendment to consent to its withdrawal. The noble Baron, by withdrawing an Amendment supported on such grounds, must count on losing his present supporters.
The Earl of Mansfieldbegged leave to explain his own meaning. Whatever form the noble Lord might have put his Motion in, his arguments would have been the same. He considered that he was supporting the rejection of the Bill; he wished it to be rejected, and he should have used the same language had the Motion been to read the Bill that day six months.
The Lord Chancellorwished to direct their Lordships' attention to the particular situation in which he was placed with respect to the noble Lord's Amendment. A Motion was originally submitted to their notice, that the Bill be then read a second time, to which the noble Baron moved as an Amendment, that the Bill be forthwith rejected. That Amendment was put in his hands, and, in point of fact, was the Motion they were then discussing. Now there could be no doubt that the noble Lord had the right to ask for leave to withdraw his Motion, but there could be as little doubt that the House should be unanimous in their assenting to its being so withdrawn before he, as Speaker, could pronounce that it could be so withdrawn consistently with the rules of the House. If any single noble Lord objected to its being withdrawn, he (the Lord Chancellor) was bound to put it formally from the Woolsack, so that the noble Lord's declaration, that he would not divide the House on it, was practically nugatory, and would be so till every other noble Lord had waived his objection to its being withdrawn.
The Earl of Shaftesburythought that all difficulties would be got over by the noble and learned Lord's putting the question in the usual form of Amendment, namely, that "the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question."
Earl Greydiffered from the noble Earl, and agreed in the view taken by his noble friends of the true character of the Amendment. After the declaration of the noble supporters of that Amendment, that their approval of it was founded on the fact that it "went to put an end to the Reform altogether, and thus save the public from all delusion on the subject," it was right that it should be recorded on their Journals, that a Bill sent up by the House of Commons

1021
had been met by the most unusual and harsh, and most extraordinary motion of an unqualified rejection. It was the more incumbent upon them to thus enable the country to view the Motion in its true colours, because the noble Mover was bound to justify it by exposing the defectiveness of the principle of the Bill against which it was directed. Instead of doing this, however, the noble Lord's objections were directed wholly against the details (which more properly would come under discussion at a future stage), while the principle was left totally untouched. The noble Earl then expressed a hope that the discussion would terminate there for that evening, their Lordships consenting to an adjournment of the debate till to-morrow.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, that the simple facts of the case were these—that his noble friend having sat down without moving his Amendment, he then got up and inadvertently made the Motion in its present shape. He was surprised that, under such circumstances, his Majesty's Ministers should offer any obstacle to his noble friend's withdrawing his Motion, for the purpose of putting it into the usual and regular shape. His noble friend had appealed to the general feeling of the House, and, for his part, he (the Earl of Carnarvon) did not envy his Majesty's Ministers the dignified position which had been assumed by them on this occasion, even supposing that they were right in their view as to the line of order. He believed, however, that they were wrong, and he believed so for this reason, that the only motion which the noble Lord on the Woolsack would have to put would be, that "the words to be left out stand part of the question." Now his noble friend merely wished to substitute for the words which he had originally moved, the usual form of words employed in moving the rejection of a Bill; and he did not think that the House, if they had the right of preventing him from doing so, would exercise such a right, at least he (the Earl of Carnarvon) never remembered an instance of its exercise. He was quite certain that no noble Lord would be brought over to the side of the noble Lord opposite by so shallow, and indeed, were it not for the respect which he entertained for the noble Lord who had urged the objection, he would say so paltry an artifice as this. No matter what might be the form of words employed, it was well understood by
1022
all that the Motion meant the throwing out of the Bill, and nothing more or less. The fair course of proceeding would be, to allow his noble friend to withdraw his Amendment, for the purpose of rectifying it, and putting it in the usual and ordinary shape.
Lord Hollandwished to know what question was at present before the House for discussion?
Lord Wharncliffecould assure the noble Lords opposite, that his great object was, to have this Bill rejected, and as the usual mode of doing so in the case of a bill was, to move that it be read a second time that day six months, he did imagine that there would have been no objection to his altering his Motion to that form. It was quite absurd to try to puzzle people out of doors by proceeding in the kind of way that the noble Lords opposite insisted upon. Every one would know that the Motion "that this Bill be read a second time this day six months," in point of fact, was as complete a rejection of the Bill as if the Motion stood "that this Bill be rejected." Why, therefore, object to the altering his Motion? Was it an attempt to fix upon him (Lord Wharncliffe) an intention to give offence to the House of Commons and the people, by the use of the terms in which the Amendment, as it stood, was couched? Was that the object which the noble Lord had in view? If it was not, why not allow him to alter the Amendment, especially as he had disclaimed any intention of disrespect towards the House of Commons in moving the Amendment in its present shape?
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to order. There was, in fact, no regular question before the House at present. He was sorry to be obliged to interrupt the noble Lord, but in order to give him and other noble Lords an opportunity of addressing the House on some question, he would move that the further consideration of this question be adjourned till to-morrow.
Lord Wharncliffewould avail himself of the opportunity to speak on that question. Again he would appeal to the noble Lords opposite, and he would ask them, whether they meant to impute to him the intention, in using the words of the present Amendment, to put an affront on the House of Commons? Did they mean to impute that to him which he had not intended, and which he had disavowed? If that was the object which the noble Lords had in objecting

1023
to the alteration of his Amendment, he would give them joy of their triumph. It was at best but a paltry endeavour to cast an imputation upon him which he did not deserve, and to attach a meaning to words which they were never intended to convey. Again, he would wish them joy of a triumph under such circumstances.
Lord Hollandsaid, the noble Lord had inquired whether, in objecting to the withdrawal of his Amendment, he meant to impute to him any intention, in proposing that Amendment in its present shape, to put an affront on the House of Commons? He did not impute any such intention to the noble Lord, as the noble Lord had himself disavowed it. But then the noble Lord rejoined, "Why object to the withdrawing of my Amendment?" Why, in the first place, he (Lord Holland) had a right as an individual Peer, once that the Motion was made, to object to its being withdrawn, without at all meaning to cast any imputation on the noble Lord who moved it; and in the second place his reason, for doing so in this instance was, that he believed that the form in which the noble Lord had put his Motion was highly advantageous to the present Bill.
The Earl of Mulgraveremarked, that it was rather odd that the excuse made for the noble Baron for having put his Amendment in its present shape was, that he had done so "inadvertently." seeing that the whole of the noble Baron's speech in moving that Amendment was an attack upon his Majesty's Ministers for "inadvertencies" which he attributed to them in the framing of the details of the Bill. After dwelling so much upon what he termed "inadvertencies," the noble Lord himself, it would appear, had "inadvertently" moved an Amendment with regard to a Bill which had been six months before the public, and which had been sent up to that House by a large majority of the House of Commons.
Earl Greyobserved, that the noble Lord (Wharncliffe) had assumed a tone which little became him on this occasion. He spoke of a triumph on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, and he wished them joy of it, and he hoped that the country would understand it. Now, there was nothing in what had occurred that at all justified such observations on the part of the noble Lord. What was the fact? Why, that the noble Lord came down to the House, and, after making a long speech
1024
against the Bill, he ended with the unusual motion "that this Bill be rejected." The noble Lord had said, that he put his motion in that shape inadvertently, but who could have supposed that it was an "inadvertent" motion. It had all the appearance of having been well considered and maturely weighed. Indeed, the motion, when made, seemed as if it had been concocted by a number of the noble Lords opposite, in order to put a complete extinguisher on the question, and the noble Earl opposite (Mansfield) distinctly stated, that he cordially supported the Motion in the shape in which it was put, with a view to show the people of this country, that that House altogether "rejected" this question. Considering all the circumstances of the case, seeing that the noble Lord was put forward in the front of the battle—that he made a Motion which was supported in the way that it had been supported—that the motion itself was an unusual one, and taking into account the pains which the noble Earl (Mansfield) had taken to let the country know that this Motion meant a pure and complete rejection of the Reform Bill; calling all those circumstances to mind, he certainly did suppose that the motion which had been made by the noble Lord, was a deliberate and well-considered act. It was for these reasons, and not for the purpose of giving any triumph, not for the purpose of doing anything beyond retaining an advantage that arose in the course of debate, that, notwithstanding the acrimony which had been displayed by the noble Earl (Carnarvon) on this occasion, he (Earl Grey,) would say, that he thought that the objection which had been raised by his noble friend behind him, had been perfectly justified by the circumstances of the case. It was on these principles that he supported the objection urged by his noble friend, and in order that their proceedings might appear consistently upon their Lordships Journals.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he was surprised that his Majesty's Ministers should object to the withdrawing of this Motion for the purpose of having it altered, if they at all conceived that the effect of it would be to give offence to the House of Commons. For his part, he could not understand what objection there could be to his noble friend's being allowed to withdraw his Amendment, for the purpose of putting it in less objectionable terms. He

1025
did hope that the noble Lords opposite would yield that point before they adjourned this night, as it was most desirable that, if the Bill was to be rejected, it should be rejected in a manner the most palatable to the House of Commons.
The Duke of Richmond: The only palatable thing for the House of Commons, my Lords, will be, to read this Bill a second time.
Lord Kenyonsaid, that the intention of his noble friend had been, to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, for which he had inadvertently substituted the present Motion.
The Earl of Radnorwished to know whether the noble Lord had, in using the present words, intended to convey by them a greater degree of bitterness or hostility against the Bill, in rejecting it, than if he had moved, in the usual terms, that it be read a second time that day six months.
Lord Wharncliffe: Certainly not. I intended to convey nothing more than if I had moved that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, namely, a complete rejection of the Bill on the part of this House.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that under such circumstances, though he could not blame his noble friend (Lord Holland) for retaining any advantage which might arise in the course of the debate, still he thought that he ought not to persevere in his objection.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, that stating the objection should be persevered in, he would move, as it was competent for any noble Lord to do, as an amendment upon the amendment proposed by his noble friend, "that this Bill be read a second time this day six months."
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that he must do his noble friend (Lord Wharncliffe) the justice to declare, that he had some personal communication with him, after he had made the Motion, because he understood that to reject a Bill would be interpreted as treating it with peculiar disrespect. But his noble friend had not seen it in that light, until the practice of the House of Commons was brought under his view, when he at once declared he could have no intention to treat the House of Commons with disrespect, and was therefore anxious to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Hollandsaid, that after the assurance which they had received from the noble Lord, that in proposing this amendment
1026
he meant nothing more than if he had proposed the usual amendment, that he Bill be read a second time that day six months, he was most willing to waive his objection against the noble Lord's withdrawing his amendment.
The motion for allowing Lord Wharncliffe to withdraw his Amendment put and agreed to.
The debate was then adjourned.